Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!hogg From: hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: Kelvin Thompson's June reviews Message-ID: <1251@utcsri.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 13:14:31 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsri.1251 Posted: Fri Jul 12 13:14:31 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 13:27:06 EDT References: <8827@ucbvax.ARPA> <3200003@ccvaxa> Reply-To: hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Lines: 29 Summary: >What wit is there in posting something that makes you appear to be >an idiot? 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. 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. [Mutter mutter curse...] The art of satire has been around for slightly longer than Usenet; perhaps you have read some Leacock or Twain. While I have certainly not read all of either of these gentlemen's works, I cannot recall ever having seen a smiley-face symbol in anything they wrote. Perhaps in the days when people could spell, the written version of a laugh-track was not considered to be necessary. Perhaps it still isn't. In my own arrogant way, I feel that a reader who cannot recognize humour is not worth communicating with. You may fire when your terminals bear... -- John Hogg Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!hogg