Edu forum lacks irony?

[Glenn Viklund]

During the five months I've been a member on this site, I've often noticed an almost complete lack of humor. Now, I know subjects discussed are serious matters, no question about that. And serious it is, no doubt, the way the arguments flow.

Even in discussions where the debate has reached boiling levels, I've seen a few attempts to lite things up little, without much response - or any at all. It is hard to imagine that the format of written language is all to blame, I doubt that if most of these discussions took place in a round table environment, things would be comparable. There's always room for some irony or humor. I've myself been in such moments many times in my professional career. Often times, a bit of distance and irony can solve the most stubborn positions when people are in strong disagreements. No, not in the sense that positions have to be given up, but in the sense that the climate for discussions improves dramatically. Which sometimes can be the path to a hugely improved environment for debate, if nothing else.

As many participants on Edu certainly gives the impression of being serious about their stances in various issues, is this part time occupation excluding us from being a bit less serious about this, about ourselves and about our opponents?

Where is the irony, folks?

Edited August 1, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Dean Hagerman]

I laugh like crazy on this forum

I even laugh at Craig posts, he always makes up names that make me laugh, like today he used Cliff "I have no clue how the sun works" Varnell that made me chuckle

Michael Hogan has amazing sarcasm that has me rolling

Greg Burnham has posted stuff thats had me in stiches

The old fights between Bill Miller and David Healy are a howl

I also look for humor in everything because im super laid back and love to joke around

Edited August 1, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Dean Hagerman]

I laugh like crazy on this forum

I even laugh at Craig posts, he always makes up names that make me laugh, like today he used Cliff "I have no clue how the sun works" Varnell that made me chuckle

Michael Hogan has amazing sarcasm that has me rolling

Greg Burnham has posted stuff thats had me in stiches

The old fights between Bill Miller and David Healy are a howl

I also look for humor in everything because im super laid back and love to joke around

The day you posted the photos of you bench-pressing "homeless bums" in Seattle was also very amusing...

[John Dolva]

During the five months I've been a member on this site, I've often noticed an almost complete lack of humor. Now, I know subjects discussed are serious matters, no question about that. And serious it is, no doubt, the way the arguments flow.

Even in discussions where the debate has reached boiling levels, I've seen a few attempts to lite things up little, without much response - or any at all. It is hard to imagine that the format of written language is all to blame, I doubt that if most of these discussions took place in a round table environment, things would be comparable. There's always room for some irony or humor. I've myself been in such moments many times in my professional career. Often times, a bit of distance and irony can solve the most stubborn positions when people are in strong disagreements. No, not in the sense that positions have to be given up, but in the sense that the climate for discussions improves dramatically. Which sometimes can be the path to a hugely improved environment for debate, if nothing else.

As many participants on Edu certainly gives the impression of being serious about their stances in various issues, is this part time occupation excluding us from being a bit less serious about this, about ourselves and about our opponents?

Where is the irony, folks?

What's irony?

[Glenn Viklund]

During the five months I've been a member on this site, I've often noticed an almost complete lack of humor. Now, I know subjects discussed are serious matters, no question about that. And serious it is, no doubt, the way the arguments flow.

Even in discussions where the debate has reached boiling levels, I've seen a few attempts to lite things up little, without much response - or any at all. It is hard to imagine that the format of written language is all to blame, I doubt that if most of these discussions took place in a round table environment, things would be comparable. There's always room for some irony or humor. I've myself been in such moments many times in my professional career. Often times, a bit of distance and irony can solve the most stubborn positions when people are in strong disagreements. No, not in the sense that positions have to be given up, but in the sense that the climate for discussions improves dramatically. Which sometimes can be the path to a hugely improved environment for debate, if nothing else.

As many participants on Edu certainly gives the impression of being serious about their stances in various issues, is this part time occupation excluding us from being a bit less serious about this, about ourselves and about our opponents?

Where is the irony, folks?

What's irony?

Att inte ta sig själv på så förbannat stort allvar som de flesta här tycks göra...

[Len Colby]

I hate irony, fortunately my wife doesn't mind it so I do the cooking and she does the irony.

[Glenn Viklund]

I hate irony, fortunately my wife doesn't mind it so I do the cooking and she does the irony.

Now we're talking.

That's Irony!

[Peter McGuire]

I noticed the same thing to, that why I posted this.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16197&st=0&p=197225&fromsearch=1entry197225

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCQ0vDAbF7s&feature=player_embedded

If many here are not posting blurry pictures, they are arguing moot points - with an attitude.

The forum got some life when Dr. Fetzer joined for a timing being and now there are various "guests" and a few other knowledgeable additions including authors and long time researchers that have just joined.

Relax, as Mr. Lane has pointed out - and proven long ago ( 1964) the world is round ( otherwise known as there was a conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy) and anything now is just clarification.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Dean Hagerman]

I hate irony, fortunately my wife doesn't mind it so I do the cooking and she does the irony.

[David Andrews]

Aw, Glenn - you joined too late to catch this old thread-killer of mine...LHO as Bobby Darin. Surely, as Sinatra said, this deserves a Reprise:

"What about Jenny Diver! - Hup! Hup!

Hey-ey, Suki Tawdry! - Ho!

Look out for Miss Lotte Lenya!

And ol' Lucy Brown! - Hee!

Oh, the line forms - on the right, babe..."

Edited August 2, 2010 by David Andrews

[Glenn Viklund]

Aw, Glenn - you joined too late to catch this old thread-killer of mine...LHO as Bobby Darin. Surely, as Sinatra said, this deserves a Reprise:

"What about Jenny Diver! - Hup! Hup!

Hey-ey, Suki Tawdry! - Ho!

Look out for Miss Lotte Lenya!

And ol' Lucy Brown! - Hee!

Oh, the line forms - on the right, babe..."

Thanks David, it certainly does!

[John Dolva]

''Att inte ta sig själv på så förbannat stort allvar som de flesta här tycks göra...''

Ok, jag förstår, tack så mycket.

[Peter McGuire]

Aw, Glenn - you joined too late to catch this old thread-killer of mine...LHO as Bobby Darin. Surely, as Sinatra said, this deserves a Reprise:

"What about Jenny Diver! - Hup! Hup!

Hey-ey, Suki Tawdry! - Ho!

Look out for Miss Lotte Lenya!

And ol' Lucy Brown! - Hee!

Oh, the line forms - on the right, babe..."

Thank you Dallas, for killing our Pres!

[William Kelly]

Here's a lame attempt by the Washington Post's staff comic to mock COPA. And Irony is something that evolves from a situation and considered ironic, and not something strived for. - BK

By Joel Achenbach

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, March 28, 2001; 12:53 PM

Here at the Conspiracy and Assassination Research Project (CARP), we've had some difficult times of late. The mainstream media showed absolutely no interest in our groundbreaking revelation that Lee Harvey Oswald was the youngest of identical triplets. Our so-called "three Oswalds" theory rocked the assassination community, but the major newspapers and TV networks ignored us as though we were a bunch of nuts.

So, too, did we get zero publicity for unearthing compelling evidence that the real target in Dallas in November 1963 was the driver of the limousine. Total news blackout on that one. And did anyone give us any pub when we demonstrated that at least one of the shots came from high overhead? Didn't our theory of the "stealth blimp" deserve SOME attention?

Even our non-controversial work -- such as our three-volume analysis of the Zapruder film's influence on the early work of Martin Scorcese -- was dismissed as (to quote Assassination Conspiracy Daily) "bizarre."

Why has CARP been shunned? Because we don't just challenge the Status Quo, we dynamite it and then ground the fragments into powder. No one wants to know the truth: That the tragedy in Dallas was a conspiracy involving the FBI, the CIA, the Mob, Lyndon Johnson, Ho Chi-Minh, anti-Castro Cubans, pro-Castro Cubans, the John Birch Society, the Audubon Society and the Friends of the National Zoo.

I'm not saying we've got the whole story figured out. That'll never happen. If that happened, I'd cry. There will always be an incremental new development to report, another blurry photograph to analyze, another bullet flight-path to triangulate. I have 32 overflowing filing cabinets and there's something under the pile of papers on my desk that smells.

Much of what you hear in this business is, I'll be the first to admit, truly outlandish. I think the UFO-invasion connection to the Kennedy assassination remains unconfirmed, if highly suggestive. The notion that the aliens were hoping to obtain Kennedy's DNA for use in a hybridization experiment strikes me as a bit of a leap.

In any case, this week the whole field of assassinology got a tremendous boost. You probably read about it: The grassy knoll theory has been proved.

D.B. Thomas, an assassination researcher, has re-analyzed the controversial dictabelt recording that captures the sound of gunfire in Dealey Plaza. He has concluded that there were four gunshots that day, and that one, the killshot, came from the grassy knoll. Read it. This refutes a previous analysis by the National Academy of Sciences, which itself refuted a previous analysis by the famous House Select Committee on Assassinations back in the late 1970s.

There are sounds on the dictabelt recording that could be gunshots. Thomas says there is a 96.3 percent chance that one of the sounds is a gunshot from the grassy knoll -- and that this was the shot that killed Kennedy. Thomas's report states, "One of the sounds matches the echo pattern of a test shot fired from the Grassy Knoll. The shock wave precedence associated with this pattern is consistent with the muzzle velocity of a .30 calibre rifle." G. Robert Blakey, the general counsel for the House committee, said this week, "We thought there was a 95 percent chance it was a shot. He puts it at 96.3 percent. Either way, that's 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'"

I know what you're thinking: "How could someone possibly listen to an old tape recording full of ambient noises and say that there is precisely a 96.3 percent chance that one sound is a lethal gunshot from a specific place?" The answer, my friends, is "Science." There are scientific methods that we researchers employ. Indeed, I have a special bit of explosive information I would like to impart at this time:

If you listen closely, you can tell the shooter was LEFT-HANDED.

The confidence level of this conclusion is, I should note, 93.25 percent.

There is also a 71.9887 percent chance that the shooter was wearing a hat.

I'll admit that I'm a bit jealous that Mr. Thomas got so much publicity with this latest scoop. Times have been so lean here at CARP that we've had to move our headquarters four times in the last six months, to ever more humble surroundings. I'm incredibly grateful to Vern and Bob, the owners of Vern & Bob's Body Shop in Arlington, for allowing me to use the shed back by the scrap heap. It's a modest location, but a lovely fringe benefit is that, whenever I get stressed out, I can purge my anxiety by pounding on metal with a sledgehammer.

Whatever you do, I urge you to be on guard against disinformation. Ask yourself: How solid is this evidence? Are there other explanations? What is this person's agenda? I have put my own credibility under scrutiny and can tell you that I am not entirely persuaded that I can trust my own judgment.

These thoughts that I have -- are they mine, or are they somehow planted in my brain?

Who do I really work for?????

(Rough Draft appears every so often at washingtonpost.com and is a little knoll, a mound, a knob of rationality in a limitless plain of illogic. Please join Joel today at 2 p.m., right HERE, for a Live Online discussion.)

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

[Glenn Viklund]

''Att inte ta sig själv på så förbannat stort allvar som de flesta här tycks göra...''

Ok, jag förstår, tack så mycket.

Varsågod, John!

(din svenska är perfekt!)