Thread Killer Champions: Franzbear & Moonbear

  • Thread starter Thread starter tribdog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Thread
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the humorous concept of "thread killers" on a forum, where participants analyze who tends to end conversations with their posts. The top offenders identified include franznietzsche, Moonbear, and tribdog, with a playful tone suggesting a competition for the title of "thread killer." Participants debate the validity of counting last posts as a measure of thread-killing ability, arguing that it should be adjusted based on the total number of posts each user has made. The conversation shifts into a light-hearted narrative, likening thread-killing to a horror movie scenario, with participants playfully accusing each other of sabotaging discussions and attempting to "steal" the thread. The banter includes references to fictional scenarios involving dramatic rescues and humorous characterizations, maintaining a light and comedic atmosphere throughout.
  • #1,751
franz, I'm calling up Douglas Adams because his opinion carries weight. Of course the only opinion I ever rely on is my own (though I can be convinced). Shakespeare, as much as I've read it, contains nothing really funny.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #1,752
BicycleTree said:
Congratulations moonbear, you got post # 3000.

And congrats to you for getting reply #3000. :biggrin: Do we share the prize? I think that's just easier than renewing the whole post vs reply argument for the next 50 posts. :smile:
 
  • #1,753
It's the actual number in the top right that matters.
 
  • #1,754
Moonbear said:
:smile: I got the 3000th post, but Bicycle Tree got the 3000th reply. Darn, someone was supposed to post in between my two! I think the official ruling is the 3000th reply is what counts, right?

Anyway, I'm still celebrating that the thread has now passed 3000! :biggrin:
No thread has ever gotten this high, but we decided last time that both win.
 
  • #1,755
BicycleTree said:
Shakespeare, as much as I've read it, contains nothing really funny.

Oh, Shakespeare is REALLY funny...though, admittedly, I didn't "get" the humor when I was younger. There are a lot of very adult-oriented jokes in Shakespeare's work. Of course, some of it will depend on which plays you're reading. The tragedies aren't going to have you rolling in the aisles every few lines or anything.
 
  • #1,756
Evo said:
No thread has ever gotten this high, but we decided last time that both win.

So, where's Don Pardo (sp?) to tell us what we've won? :biggrin:
 
  • #1,757
franznietzsche said:
How are old jokes not funny?
My father had a book called '1001 Jokes, Toasts and Quotes for All Occassions'. I haven't seen it in years, but I'll never rest until I find it again. It was published in 1901 (the same year he was born), and a lot of the jokes in it were at least 50 or 100 years old then. A lot of them were hilarious, some were just plain sick, and others mildly amusing. For instance tombstone inscriptions from the 1700's and 1800's. (example: Below lies Miles, who's Miles below--or Here he lies and no wonder he's dead, for the wheel of the wagon ran over his head) In the next one, I'm going to substitute a modern brand name for the original which you would never have heard of, but the rest is original: Ruth rode on my Harley, on the seat in back of me; I took a bump at 95 and rode on Ruthlessly.
I don't care how old you are, that's funny. There are also more Little Willie jokes in there than I ever dreamed existed.
 
  • #1,758
Evo said:
We have our winners, the phone lines are now closed.

Franzy is official winner with the 2000th reply, Dex is the 2000th post.

Perhaps we can make both categories winners?
You never said anything farther than "perhaps."
 
  • #1,759
Moonbear said:
you all are just making me feel old tonight.
Gee... thanks!
 
  • #1,760
Danger..you message quota is full..deleat some of them.
I've actually sold several copies of that joke book..it was revised several times..up until the 60's i think.
 
  • #1,761
Danger said:
My father had a book called '1001 Jokes, Toasts and Quotes for All Occassions'. I haven't seen it in years, but I'll never rest until I find it again. It was published in 1901 (the same year he was born), and a lot of the jokes in it were at least 50 or 100 years old then. A lot of them were hilarious, some were just plain sick, and others mildly amusing. For instance tombstone inscriptions from the 1700's and 1800's. (example: Below lies Miles, who's Miles below--or Here he lies and no wonder he's dead, for the wheel of the wagon ran over his head) In the next one, I'm going to substitute a modern brand name for the original which you would never have heard of, but the rest is original: Ruth rode on my Harley, on the seat in back of me; I took a bump at 95 and rode on Ruthlessly.
I don't care how old you are, that's funny. There are also more Little Willie jokes in there than I ever dreamed existed.

Oh, I've heard of that book, but never got my hands on it. I should check Amazon.

Those tombstones remind me of this little tombstone-shaped knick knack my grandfather has behind his bar that reads:
"Ma loved Pa
Pa loved women
Ma caught Pa with two in swimmin'
Here lies Pa"

:smile: I still love that one!
 
  • #1,762
Danger said:
Gee... thanks!

:redface: Sorry. You're not making me feel old. You're keeping me feeling young. :wink: :devil:
 
  • #1,763
1900s in USA is still pretty much our current culture of humor. 1700s isn't. Find me a funny joke from the 1700s or before and you'll knock my socks off. If you could find me a bunch of funny jokes from the 1700s then you'd win the point.
 
  • #1,764
BicycleTree said:
franz, I'm calling up Douglas Adams because his opinion carries weight. Of course the only opinion I ever rely on is my own (though I can be convinced). Shakespeare, as much as I've read it, contains nothing really funny.

His opinions carry weight why?

If his opinions carry weight, then the pope's opinions certianly carry the wieght of god(irony intended, since you obviously wouldn't get it).

The fact that you don't get the jokes in shakespeare (especially the vast number of sex jokes, we used to call him 'the dirty old man' in my english class) just throws your lot in with the rest of the uncouth masses that i disdain so much.
 
  • #1,765
BicycleTree said:
1900s in USA is still pretty much our current culture of humor. 1700s isn't. Find me a funny joke from the 1700s or before and you'll knock my socks off. If you could find me a bunch of funny jokes from the 1700s then you'd win the point.


*Sigh*

Burden of proof is on you Bob (that's called an allusion).

You're the one making claims.
 
  • #1,766
BicycleTree said:
You never said anything farther than "perhaps."

and she said the official winner was me with post #2001 in the topright corner. Ok Bob?
 
  • #1,767
BicycleTree said:
franz, I'm calling up Douglas Adams
Don't waste your long-distance minutes on that... he's dead.
 
  • #1,768
Danger said:
Don't waste your long-distance minutes on that... he's dead.


:smile: :smile:

Funny.
 
  • #1,769
Franz, my class also covered the sex allusions in Shakespeare, Othello in particular. They aren't funny in themselves--and weren't even intended as funny in the original play, as they are spoken with anger by serious characters--they're just amusing phrases from a modern standpoint.
 
  • #1,770
Yes, franz, that was the point about #2001. Evo was just now claiming that she had been in favor of both #3000 and #3001 being winners.
 
  • #1,771
BicycleTree said:
Franz, my class also covered the sex allusions in Shakespeare, Othello in particular. They aren't funny in themselves--and weren't even intended as funny in the original play, as they are spoken with anger by serious characters--they're just amusing phrases from a modern standpoint.


I love how you refer to one play, and a tragedy at that. Did you ever read midsummer night's dream? Much ado about nothing? Hamlet(also a tragedy, but hamlet's little discussion with ophelia about it costing her a groaning to take of his edge during the player's performance, also had the bumbling grave diggers that didn't spakums da well anglish gud.)
 
  • #1,772
hypatia said:
Danger..you message quota is full..deleat some of them.
On my way, honey. They're still all there because I treasure every word that we've shared. (You too, Evo.) :wink:
 
  • #1,773
I did read Hamlet, but how about you actually quote some of it, because a bumbling gravedigger (a scene I don't even remember) who speaks with an impediment doesn't sound like a laugh-riot to me.
 
  • #1,774
hypatia said:
Danger..you message quota is full..deleat some of them.
Okay, Hypatia. They're gone. (Well, not the really good ones...)
 
  • #1,775
I read, by the way, Douglas Adam's review of Shakespeare's comic wit in his posthumous book, _The Salmon of Doubt_. The point is alluded to in this review: http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=413 (I couldn't find the actual essay online).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,776
As I remember, (in praise of Wodehouse) Douglas said something about how Shakespeare, the best writer in the English language, couldn't tell a joke to save his life, so now people think humor isn't important in literature.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,777
I'm not denying that Shakespeare does at times _try_ to make jokes. They just aren't funny from a modern perspective.
 
  • #1,778
Moonbear said:
You're keeping me feeling young. :wink: :devil:
Thanks again! I'm not used to hearing that from a vertical woman. :smile:
 
  • #1,779
So, why is the burden of proof now on you? Because I have provided a number of sources--myself, my fellow students, my english teacher, and Douglas Adams--who couldn't find anything very funny in Shakespeare's jokes. Proving the absence of funny stuff exhaustively would require that I go through every passage in Shakespeare and explain how it isn't funny. If life and death hinged on the outcome, I might do that, but since it doesn't, the opinions of a bunch of people who have read some Shakespeare counts. If you disagree then it's most reasonable that you need to provide a counterexample. Quote Shakespeare rather than just saying it's funny.
 
  • #1,780
BicycleTree said:
I did read Hamlet, but how about you actually quote some of it, because a bumbling gravedigger (a scene I don't even remember) who speaks with an impediment doesn't sound like a laugh-riot to me.

I told you i don't have a copy.

BicycleTree said:
I'm not denying that Shakespeare does at times _try_ to make jokes. They just aren't funny from a modern perspective.

No Bob, they're just not funny when you lack the capacity to understand them.

There you go parading Douglas Adams' opinion around as if it mattered. You're like everyone else, you need your opinion spoon fed to you. You never even read Douglas's essay yourself, you don't even know what he wrote.

And for the umpteenth time, the burden of proof is on you, the one making the claim. Jeebus christo, is it that hard to understand?
 
  • #1,781
So Douglas Adams lacks that capacity? His fault?
 
  • #1,782
http://www.hamlet.org/hamlet/s305 The full text of Hamlet can be found here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,783
BicycleTree said:
So Douglas Adams lacks that capacity? His fault?

How would i know? I don't know what he actually wrote in that essay, what his words were. Neither do you, as you admitted. You're arguing referring to something you've never even seen yourself. Its pathetic. Maybe he got the jokes, but he simply argued that they're relevance was lost on those who lacked the capacity as modern audiences do, because they want everything spoon fed to them without having to think, like you. If you catch the irony in this paragraph, i will eat my dinner.
 
  • #1,784
BicycleTree said:
So, why is the burden of proof now on you? Because I have provided a number of sources--myself, my fellow students, my english teacher, and Douglas Adams--who couldn't find anything very funny in Shakespeare's jokes. Proving the absence of funny stuff exhaustively would require that I go through every passage in Shakespeare and explain how it isn't funny. If life and death hinged on the outcome, I might do that, but since it doesn't, the opinions of a bunch of people who have read some Shakespeare counts. If you disagree then it's most reasonable that you need to provide a counterexample. Quote Shakespeare rather than just saying it's funny.

The thing with proof is that your hypothesis is that Shakespeare isn't funny in modern times. You can cite all the evidence you want in support of your hypothesis, but that doesn't prove it. All it takes is one example saying someone in modern times finds Shakespeare funny to disprove the hypothesis. If you're only going to provide sources in support of your argument that none of us can verify, then the TWO examples of Franz and me finding Shakespeare funny disproves your hypothesis. What does it matter if we post a quote? Even if you don't find it funny, as long as one of us does, it shows that Shakespeare is funny in modern times.
 
  • #1,785
No, I told you that I have read it. The review was just the only thing I could find online. Adams does use the phrase "couldn't make a joke to save his life" or something close to it in reference to Shakespeare, and he does use it as I said. If you're such a big fan of Adams then get _The Salmon of Doubt_ and find out for yourself.
 
  • #1,786
franznietzsche said:
No Bob, they're just not funny when you lack the capacity to understand them.
'The Taming of the Shrew', for one, is flippin' hilarious. I submit that as a member of the Empire, I probably have a head start on a lot of you. English humour isn't quite the same as North American, but Canadians have enough exposure to it that it makes more sense to us. Old English humour is still based upon the monarchist society, with class structure. While ours isn't, we do understand it. For instance, several excellent English comedies couldn't be understood in the States, so they remade them for US audiences: All in the Family, Sanford and Son, The Golden Girls... You get stuff like Benny Hill and Mr. Bean because they're slapstick that doesn't require inside knowledge.
That doesn't apply to Douglas Adams, of course, because he was British, but it could just be a matter of his opinion. Most of the people that I know can't understand the humour in "Hitchhiker's Guide".
 
  • #1,787
Moonbear, 10 for 10! Go for the gold! Grass is Green! (waiting...)

I'm not saying it's impossible for someone in modern culture to find Shakespeare funny, I'm saying that in the modern meme of humor, Shakespeare generally isn't funny. You need to find a counterexample where anyone of sufficient intelligence in modern culture would be expected to find it funny. Since it's Shakespeare and his image is sacrosanct, a lot of the people (I suspect you and you, Moonbear and Franz, as being among them) are just going to say "yeah Shakespeare can tell jokes" without actually having any specific jokes in mind, just to avoid tarnishing his image.
 
  • #1,788
Danger said:
English humour isn't quite the same as North American, but Canadians have enough exposure to it that it makes more sense to us.
Finally, someone who agrees that humor is cultural. Or did you only do that accidentally?
 
  • #1,789
Danger said:
'The Taming of the Shrew', for one, is flippin' hilarious. I submit that as a member of the Empire, I probably have a head start on a lot of you. English humour isn't quite the same as North American, but Canadians have enough exposure to it that it makes more sense to us. Old English humour is still based upon the monarchist society, with class structure. While ours isn't, we do understand it. For instance, several excellent English comedies couldn't be understood in the States, so they remade them for US audiences: All in the Family, Sanford and Son, The Golden Girls... You get stuff like Benny Hill and Mr. Bean because they're slapstick that doesn't require inside knowledge.
That doesn't apply to Douglas Adams, of course, because he was British, but it could just be a matter of his opinion. Most of the people that I know can't understand the humour in "Hitchhiker's Guide".
So true--we've barely understood SCTV and The Red Green Show. :-p
 
  • #1,790
BicycleTree said:
Moonbear, 10 for 10! Go for the gold! Grass is Green! (waiting...)

I'm not saying it's impossible for someone in modern culture to find Shakespeare funny, I'm saying that in the modern meme of humor, Shakespeare generally isn't funny. You need to find a counterexample where anyone of sufficient intelligence in modern culture would be expected to find it funny. Since it's Shakespeare and his image is sacrosanct, a lot of the people (I suspect you and you, Moonbear and Franz, as being among them) are just going to say "yeah Shakespeare can tell jokes" without actually having any specific jokes in mind, just to avoid tarnishing his image.

I don't give a rats ass about the bastards image. NOw I'm insulted.

Ok, enough ****s and giggles for now.

In case you still haven't realized it Bob, i really don't care about convincing, I'm just bored and going through withdrawals from a week without talking to my favorite psych major :frown: .

I'm sad you never caught the irony in my statements. I was purposesly agreeing with you, in a subtle way albeit, in my last post, just to see if you would catch it. you didn't. Sadness. i think i'll eat my dinner anyway.
 
  • #1,792
BicycleTree said:
Finally, someone who agrees that humor is cultural. Or did you only do that accidentally?


I'm really disappointed that you couldn't understand my post.

I thought maybe i was just being an ass, but no, you really are the same color of cretin as everyone else. Sadness.
 
  • #1,793
franznietzsche said:
How would i know? I don't know what he actually wrote in that essay, what his words were. Neither do you, as you admitted. You're arguing referring to something you've never even seen yourself. Its pathetic. Maybe he got the jokes, but he simply argued that they're relevance was lost on those who lacked the capacity as modern audiences do, because they want everything spoon fed to them without having to think, like you. If you catch the irony in this paragraph, i will eat my dinner.
Franz, this is your most recent post before #3048... I don't see any irony here, it just comes across as bitter (not to mention misinformed).


The thing about agreement over cultural humor was actually in response to Danger, NOT you. Pay attention if you're going to be mean and bitter, because I was not even replying to you in that post about agreement over cultural humor, so it was not possible for me to have been misinterpreting you.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,794
BicycleTree said:
Franz, this is your most recent post before the one you were replying to... I don't see any irony here, it just comes across as bitter.

That's because you lack the intellect to realize that i did in fact agree with you that humour was culture related.

The thing about agreement was actually by Danger, NOT you. Pay attention if you're going to be mean and bitter.

You tard.

Why do you think i was sad? Because it was about Danger. Hence the sadness. Jesus christ. OK now I'm just getting annoyed. This was entertaining, now you're just being flat out dumb.
 
  • #1,795
You did at one point agree (in an ironic sense) that humor is culture-related? I missed it, but I caught Danger's. I'll reread...
 
  • #1,796
BicycleTree said:
You did at one point agree (in an ironic sense) that humor is culture-related? I missed it, but I caught Danger's. I'll reread...

God...

Not in an ironic sense. It was ironic that i did. It was ironic because in a post superficially disagreeing with you, i fundamentally agreed with you.

Jesus , you have the most uncultivated sense of irony and humour I've ever seen.
 
  • #1,797
The only thing that could be construed that way that you said was about modern audiences being too stupid and preferring things to be spoon-fed. I don't think that really counts as humor depending on culture--more like attention span depending on culture. I also get the distinct impression that you only tacked on the bit about "irony" after you read your own post.
 
  • #1,798
BicycleTree said:
The only thing that could be construed that way that you said was about modern audiences being too stupid and preferring things to be spoon-fed. I don't think that really counts as humor depending on culture--more like attention span depending on culture. I also get the distinct impression that you only tacked on the bit about "irony" after you read your own post.


I give up.

You've murdered enough of my brain cells for one night. And ****s and giggles are not worth this blood pressure. Now where's my phone...
 
  • #1,799
franznietzsche said:
God...

Not in an ironic sense. It was ironic that i did. It was ironic because in a post superficially disagreeing with you, i fundamentally agreed with you.

Jesus , you have the most uncultivated sense of irony and humour I've ever seen.

Boy, that get out of banning free card must expire tonight! :smile: (BTW, I did catch the irony...just a slightly different interpretation of cultural there...you can eat your dinner now.)
 
  • #1,800
franznietzche said:
You've murdered enough of my brain cells for one night.
I think the alcohol is what's doing that... :frown:
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top