Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!kre
From: kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Kelvin Thompson's June reviews
Message-ID: <9003@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 09:19:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.9003
Posted: Fri Jul 12 09:19:39 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 12:42:59 EDT
References: <8827@ucbvax.ARPA> <3200003@ccvaxa>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 84

In article <3200003@ccvaxa>, preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes:
> 
> > For the amusement of many of you, and I hope the gross embarassment of
> > others, here is a list of the reviews posted by Kelvin Thompson in the
> > past month or so, and the followups they generated.
> ----------
> What wit is there in posting something that makes you appear to be
> an idiot?

I suspect none.  I'm also not sure who is supposed to have done
this.  I guess that you meant Kelvin Thompson, but maybe you
meant me??

I wasn't trying to be witty (I've always failed when I have
tried) - whether my posting made me appear to be an idiot
I will leave for others to judge (if it did, then it
would probably just be an accurate reflection).

K.T.'s reviews would have only made him appear to be an
idiot to other idiots.

> There are enough seriously idiotic things posted on the
> net that we cannot be expected to recognize a posting as satirical
> when all it appears to be is stupid.

Perhaps not.  But nor does everyone have to post followups
claiming "What kind of fool are you, have you never heard
of the book 1984", or "It was a fantasy, idiot", or similar.

The best thing to do with stupidity is ignore it.  If it
was real stupidity, it will just go away.  If it turns out
to be satire (good, bad or indifferent) then you haven't
made a public fool of yourself.

If you just have to make it clear that you know better then
the poster of an article, then tell him by mail.

> Viewed as humor, the reviews
> were reasonably amusing -- if they had been posted in a fashion that
> made their humorous intent obvious (as, for example, if they had
> been posted as a group or marked with the traditional :-)) a lot of
> us would have been amused and appreciative.  Posting them in the
> guise of serious reviews just made the author appear stupid.

Satire doesn't work if it is obvious that you are trying to be
funny.  To be really good it has to be VERY subtle.  And it
has to appear to be entirely serious.

> We
> all knew the reviews COULD be parodies, but I don't think anyone
> should be embarassed at not recognizing them as such.  [Well, actually,
> everybody should have recognized the Star Wars review as parody, but
> I'm willing to believe there are people who haven;t read 1984].

I find it a little hard to believe that anyone who thought
that K.T's reviews might be parodies, or satirical, would
have posted one of those absurd followups.  (Of course,
there was the claim that the followups were satire too ...
Anyone is free to believe that if they want)

I am sure that there are people who haven't read 1984, but
do you really believe that there is anyone who has never
even heard of it??

> I've always thought that playing on gullibility was a pretty juvenile
> and cruel form of humor: laughing at someone for trusting you
> doesn't say much for your sensitivity.

This might be a valid criticism of my article.  But I wasn't trying
to laugh at people.  I was just trying to get people to keep their
fingers off the 'f' key.

I didn't gain the impression that K.T was laughing at anyone
in his articles.  Had he posted an article of the form
"Ha Ha - I was just joking, you idiots" (perhaps just like
mine) then perhaps you would be right.  His articles were
just good satire (though they deteriorated a little
as time went on, my guess is that K.T was frustrated
that people weren't recognising his "reviews" for what
they were, and was trying to make it more obvious),
it was only the followups that would caused anyone to
laugh at anyone else (readers laughing at the posters).

Robert Elz