Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Drop Refurbished
Like-new products you can trustDrop Rewards
Get $5 for every 500 points you earn! Learn more
Drop Keyboard Club
Become a member and expand your keycap collectionCollaborate With Us
For Brands & DesignersFollow Drop
Personally, I'm tired of rejecting the poor things.
You've probably noticed that more than one level of tone can be expressed in a single paragraph or reply. In a film by Kubrick, for example, conversation that seems to be about one thing can imply another. That kind of conversation is said to have subtext.
Surrealists like Max Jacob take the dissonance between levels further, which can be fun.
Then by your definition, some humorists must be humorless, since all attempt to be witty and "most" who make the attempt are not. By your logic, those who never attempt to be witty are the only reliable judges of wit, since "most" who make the attempt are incapable of judging the effect. Therefore those who never make the attempt are usually the best judges of the attempts of others.
Here’s one problem with that idea: Your example. The majority of your posts have shown you couldn’t follow what I’ve said, let alone assess the merits. Your subsequent posts have been riddled with contradictions (though your last post is better grammatically).
Based on the merits of your replies, how could you possibly be wit’s arbiter? Yet according to you, those failures are the reason you might be infallible.
In other words, you’re saying that those who attempt mastery of a given skill are less able to judge whether they’ve succeeded than those who have never even tried. Ergo a person who practices classical piano for eight hours a day is more likely to be worse judge of their own technique than a person who has no interest in classical music.
If you want to troubleshoot your pronouncements before posting them, I suggest you study The Reader over Your Shoulder, by Robert Graves and Alan Hodge. Once you read that book, you’ll be better able to bulletproof your prose. A few more questions and responses: 1. You've asserted repeatedly that my comments are "useless." But if they served no purpose, then your replies would be a waste of time, too, and could only prolong the effect you claim to find tiresome.
2. Since you appear to be more irked than bored, your involvement seems more personal than editorial.
3. Apparently, you want to have the last word on a thread you’ve said has no value. This suggests you're engaged in a battle rather than a dismissal of irrelevant content. The most effective way to make irrelevance fade is to ignore it, yet you've done the opposite. 4. Moderators at Massdrop have been unconcerned about members staying on topic since the site’s inception. They also don’t mind information-free jokes. So why is it important to you to enforce the rules in your head as if they had anything to do with the policies of this site?