Kan_i, if I may be permitted to elucidate.
First and foremost, the writer proposes that the thread starter was
meant to be humourous. Judging from the responses, I'm probably not
the only one who failed to see the humour.
To be sure, at the heart of every comedy lies a tragedy (as any
first-year writing-class hack would learn), but this was a rant,
plain and simple, and lacking Learyesque humour at that. In
defence, thinkdifferent presented the excuse of it being a parody,
but there was no presentation of any analogy to make it so.
I did offer the back door of describing the post as a Kaufman-style
attempt at comedy, thereby justifying the revulsion that the piece
could possibly raised, but that offer was obviously taken up with a
response of:
Hang me, drown me, quarter me, I deserve it for thinking
differently.
which is perfectly in line with Kaufman's style. As such, the
rest of the event played out perfectly according to Kaufman's
design, with the initiator being heckled and attempting to return
fire, the essence of the humour being the revulsion brought up in
the audience by the actor. That said, the return of fire did need
to be more effective.
Lest I be misunderstood, "making that person down" is a phrase I am
unfamiliar with - the closest phrase I could recall to it was
"putting the person down" which I presented for the purposes of
clarification. How am I going to hold discourse if I cannot clearly
understand what the other person is saying?
