G'day Carl,
On 9/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:09:54 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Since we also have five members of the Board, was this intended
to be an
allegory?
No, it's *ape*, not alligator.
Allegory: a story with a deeper level of meaning, where elements of the stories generally represent something else in real life. The question was if the apes were supposed to stand for the Board, not if "alligators" wereintended instead of apes.
That joke is either a wonderful example of deadpan humour so subtle and profound that a poor pleb like me can't hope to understand it, or you missed Guy's point completely. Apparently AGF compels me[0] to believe the best of the situation, so one must assume you're just taking Guy's joke to another, more beautiful, level.
In which case: well played, sir. Well played.
[0] One day I'm going to post a long list of the CW-like misunderstandings of policy I've seen put forth by CVU types[1]. I suspect there isn't a single policy that hasn't seen someone bitten by an officious Enforcer who doesn't actually know what the policy really means.
[1] Actually, "AGF means you can't say someone is wrong" is quite common, and even one or two admins have been known to spout it. I've tried to bring this silliness to the admins' attention, but they just think I'm assuming bad faith on their behalf.[2]
[2] But this post isn't about AGF. I'm actually being humorous and not at all political. So you can stop looking at me like that and start assuming GF.
On 9/20/06, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Carl,
On 9/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:09:54 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Since we also have five members of the Board, was this intended
to be an
allegory?
No, it's *ape*, not alligator.
Allegory: a story with a deeper level of meaning, where elements of the stories generally represent something else in real life. The question was if the apes were supposed to stand for the Board, not if "alligators" wereintended instead of apes.
That joke is either a wonderful example of deadpan humour so subtle and profound that a poor pleb like me can't hope to understand it, or you missed Guy's point completely. Apparently AGF compels me[0] to believe the best of the situation, so one must assume you're just taking Guy's joke to another, more beautiful, level.
In which case: well played, sir. Well played.
[0] One day I'm going to post a long list of the CW-like misunderstandings of policy I've seen put forth by CVU types[1]. I suspect there isn't a single policy that hasn't seen someone bitten by an officious Enforcer who doesn't actually know what the policy really means.
[1] Actually, "AGF means you can't say someone is wrong" is quite common, and even one or two admins have been known to spout it. I've tried to bring this silliness to the admins' attention, but they just think I'm assuming bad faith on their behalf.[2]
[2] But this post isn't about AGF. I'm actually being humorous and not at all political. So you can stop looking at me like that and start assuming GF.
Full disclosure: though I would very much like to tell you that I was just
continuing the joke, I did miss the point of the joke until I saw someone else's response. I assumed that he assumed it was a typo. Shame on me. I will now go and castigate myself.
Carl
On 9/21/06, Carl Peterson carlopeterson@gmail.com wrote:
Full disclosure: though I would very much like to tell you that I was just continuing the joke, I did miss the point of the joke until I saw someone else's response. I assumed that he assumed it was a typo. Shame on me. I will now go and castigate myself.
Carl
Wait, wait....is this still part of the joke? Wow, you guys are blowing my mind!
--Oskar
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 9/21/06, Carl Peterson carlopeterson@gmail.com wrote:
Full disclosure: though I would very much like to tell you that I was just continuing the joke, I did miss the point of the joke until I saw someone else's response. I assumed that he assumed it was a typo. Shame on me. I will now go and castigate myself.
Wait, wait....is this still part of the joke? Wow, you guys are blowing my mind!
I, for one, will not insist that the misunderstanding was so severe as to require Carl to proceed with his plan to castrate himself. We can do without humour that is tuned to such a high pitch.
Ec
On 9/21/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 9/21/06, Carl Peterson carlopeterson@gmail.com wrote:
Full disclosure: though I would very much like to tell you that I was
just
continuing the joke, I did miss the point of the joke until I saw
someone
else's response. I assumed that he assumed it was a typo. Shame on me. I will now go and castigate myself.
Wait, wait....is this still part of the joke? Wow, you guys are blowing
my mind!
I, for one, will not insist that the misunderstanding was so severe as to require Carl to proceed with his plan to castrate himself. We can do without humour that is tuned to such a high pitch.
Just so long as I get to keep my castinets.
Carl
On 9/21/06, Carl Peterson carlopeterson@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/21/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 9/21/06, Carl Peterson carlopeterson@gmail.com wrote:
Full disclosure: though I would very much like to tell you that I was
just
continuing the joke, I did miss the point of the joke until I saw
someone
else's response. I assumed that he assumed it was a typo. Shame on me.
I
will now go and castigate myself.
Wait, wait....is this still part of the joke? Wow, you guys are blowing
my mind!
I, for one, will not insist that the misunderstanding was so severe as to require Carl to proceed with his plan to castrate himself. We can do without humour that is tuned to such a high pitch.
Just so long as I get to keep my castinets.
Carl
It takes castinets to admit you were wrong...
-Rich
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]