Thread Killer Champions: Franzbear & Moonbear

  • Thread starter tribdog
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Thread
In summary, Franzbear is the most prolific thread killer in the forum. He has killed at least 12 threads and is likely responsible for 21 more. His ability to kill threads is not a direct outcome of the evidence (number of last posts). You have to at least factor in the total number of posts by each person (posts in GD) to get a more accurate representation of the killer instinct. Franz and Moonie have so many posts here, they are more likely to be the winning killers. You have to divide the number of kills by the total number of posts during the same period to get a corrected distribution.
  • #1,751
franz, I'm calling up Douglas Adams because his opinion carries weight. Of course the only opinion I ever rely on is my own (though I can be convinced). Shakespeare, as much as I've read it, contains nothing really funny.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #1,752
BicycleTree said:
Congratulations moonbear, you got post # 3000.

And congrats to you for getting reply #3000. :biggrin: Do we share the prize? I think that's just easier than renewing the whole post vs reply argument for the next 50 posts. :smile:
 
  • #1,753
It's the actual number in the top right that matters.
 
  • #1,754
Moonbear said:
:rofl: I got the 3000th post, but Bicycle Tree got the 3000th reply. Darn, someone was supposed to post in between my two! I think the official ruling is the 3000th reply is what counts, right? :grumpy:

Anyway, I'm still celebrating that the thread has now passed 3000! :biggrin:
No thread has ever gotten this high, but we decided last time that both win.
 
  • #1,755
BicycleTree said:
Shakespeare, as much as I've read it, contains nothing really funny.

Oh, Shakespeare is REALLY funny...though, admittedly, I didn't "get" the humor when I was younger. There are a lot of very adult-oriented jokes in Shakespeare's work. Of course, some of it will depend on which plays you're reading. The tragedies aren't going to have you rolling in the aisles every few lines or anything.
 
  • #1,756
Evo said:
No thread has ever gotten this high, but we decided last time that both win.

So, where's Don Pardo (sp?) to tell us what we've won? :biggrin:
 
  • #1,757
franznietzsche said:
How are old jokes not funny?
My father had a book called '1001 Jokes, Toasts and Quotes for All Occassions'. I haven't seen it in years, but I'll never rest until I find it again. It was published in 1901 (the same year he was born), and a lot of the jokes in it were at least 50 or 100 years old then. A lot of them were hilarious, some were just plain sick, and others mildly amusing. For instance tombstone inscriptions from the 1700's and 1800's. (example: Below lies Miles, who's Miles below--or Here he lies and no wonder he's dead, for the wheel of the wagon ran over his head) In the next one, I'm going to substitute a modern brand name for the original which you would never have heard of, but the rest is original: Ruth rode on my Harley, on the seat in back of me; I took a bump at 95 and rode on Ruthlessly.
I don't care how old you are, that's funny. There are also more Little Willie jokes in there than I ever dreamed existed.
 
  • #1,758
Evo said:
We have our winners, the phone lines are now closed.

Franzy is official winner with the 2000th reply, Dex is the 2000th post.

Perhaps we can make both categories winners?
You never said anything farther than "perhaps."
 
  • #1,759
Moonbear said:
you all are just making me feel old tonight. :grumpy:
Gee... thanks!
 
  • #1,760
Danger..you message quota is full..deleat some of them.
I've actually sold several copies of that joke book..it was revised several times..up until the 60's i think.
 
  • #1,761
Danger said:
My father had a book called '1001 Jokes, Toasts and Quotes for All Occassions'. I haven't seen it in years, but I'll never rest until I find it again. It was published in 1901 (the same year he was born), and a lot of the jokes in it were at least 50 or 100 years old then. A lot of them were hilarious, some were just plain sick, and others mildly amusing. For instance tombstone inscriptions from the 1700's and 1800's. (example: Below lies Miles, who's Miles below--or Here he lies and no wonder he's dead, for the wheel of the wagon ran over his head) In the next one, I'm going to substitute a modern brand name for the original which you would never have heard of, but the rest is original: Ruth rode on my Harley, on the seat in back of me; I took a bump at 95 and rode on Ruthlessly.
I don't care how old you are, that's funny. There are also more Little Willie jokes in there than I ever dreamed existed.

Oh, I've heard of that book, but never got my hands on it. I should check Amazon.

Those tombstones remind me of this little tombstone-shaped knick knack my grandfather has behind his bar that reads:
"Ma loved Pa
Pa loved women
Ma caught Pa with two in swimmin'
Here lies Pa"

:rofl: I still love that one!
 
  • #1,762
Danger said:
Gee... thanks!

:redface: Sorry. You're not making me feel old. You're keeping me feeling young. :wink: :devil:
 
  • #1,763
1900s in USA is still pretty much our current culture of humor. 1700s isn't. Find me a funny joke from the 1700s or before and you'll knock my socks off. If you could find me a bunch of funny jokes from the 1700s then you'd win the point.
 
  • #1,764
BicycleTree said:
franz, I'm calling up Douglas Adams because his opinion carries weight. Of course the only opinion I ever rely on is my own (though I can be convinced). Shakespeare, as much as I've read it, contains nothing really funny.

His opinions carry weight why?

If his opinions carry weight, then the pope's opinions certianly carry the wieght of god(irony intended, since you obviously wouldn't get it).

The fact that you don't get the jokes in shakespeare (especially the vast number of sex jokes, we used to call him 'the dirty old man' in my english class) just throws your lot in with the rest of the uncouth masses that i disdain so much.
 
  • #1,765
BicycleTree said:
1900s in USA is still pretty much our current culture of humor. 1700s isn't. Find me a funny joke from the 1700s or before and you'll knock my socks off. If you could find me a bunch of funny jokes from the 1700s then you'd win the point.


*Sigh*

Burden of proof is on you Bob (that's called an allusion).

You're the one making claims.
 
  • #1,766
BicycleTree said:
You never said anything farther than "perhaps."

and she said the official winner was me with post #2001 in the topright corner. Ok Bob?
 
  • #1,767
BicycleTree said:
franz, I'm calling up Douglas Adams
Don't waste your long-distance minutes on that... he's dead.
 
  • #1,768
Danger said:
Don't waste your long-distance minutes on that... he's dead.


:rofl: :rofl:

Funny.
 
  • #1,769
Franz, my class also covered the sex allusions in Shakespeare, Othello in particular. They aren't funny in themselves--and weren't even intended as funny in the original play, as they are spoken with anger by serious characters--they're just amusing phrases from a modern standpoint.
 
  • #1,770
Yes, franz, that was the point about #2001. Evo was just now claiming that she had been in favor of both #3000 and #3001 being winners.
 
  • #1,771
BicycleTree said:
Franz, my class also covered the sex allusions in Shakespeare, Othello in particular. They aren't funny in themselves--and weren't even intended as funny in the original play, as they are spoken with anger by serious characters--they're just amusing phrases from a modern standpoint.


I love how you refer to one play, and a tragedy at that. Did you ever read midsummer night's dream? Much ado about nothing? Hamlet(also a tragedy, but hamlet's little discussion with ophelia about it costing her a groaning to take of his edge during the player's performance, also had the bumbling grave diggers that didn't spakums da well anglish gud.)
 
  • #1,772
hypatia said:
Danger..you message quota is full..deleat some of them.
On my way, honey. They're still all there because I treasure every word that we've shared. (You too, Evo.) :wink:
 
  • #1,773
I did read Hamlet, but how about you actually quote some of it, because a bumbling gravedigger (a scene I don't even remember) who speaks with an impediment doesn't sound like a laugh-riot to me.
 
  • #1,774
hypatia said:
Danger..you message quota is full..deleat some of them.
Okay, Hypatia. They're gone. (Well, not the really good ones...)
 
  • #1,775
I read, by the way, Douglas Adam's review of Shakespeare's comic wit in his posthumous book, _The Salmon of Doubt_. The point is alluded to in this review: http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=413 (I couldn't find the actual essay online).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,776
As I remember, (in praise of Wodehouse) Douglas said something about how Shakespeare, the best writer in the English language, couldn't tell a joke to save his life, so now people think humor isn't important in literature.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,777
I'm not denying that Shakespeare does at times _try_ to make jokes. They just aren't funny from a modern perspective.
 
  • #1,778
Moonbear said:
You're keeping me feeling young. :wink: :devil:
Thanks again! I'm not used to hearing that from a vertical woman. :smile:
 
  • #1,779
So, why is the burden of proof now on you? Because I have provided a number of sources--myself, my fellow students, my english teacher, and Douglas Adams--who couldn't find anything very funny in Shakespeare's jokes. Proving the absence of funny stuff exhaustively would require that I go through every passage in Shakespeare and explain how it isn't funny. If life and death hinged on the outcome, I might do that, but since it doesn't, the opinions of a bunch of people who have read some Shakespeare counts. If you disagree then it's most reasonable that you need to provide a counterexample. Quote Shakespeare rather than just saying it's funny.
 
  • #1,780
BicycleTree said:
I did read Hamlet, but how about you actually quote some of it, because a bumbling gravedigger (a scene I don't even remember) who speaks with an impediment doesn't sound like a laugh-riot to me.

I told you i don't have a copy.

BicycleTree said:
I'm not denying that Shakespeare does at times _try_ to make jokes. They just aren't funny from a modern perspective.

No Bob, they're just not funny when you lack the capacity to understand them.

There you go parading Douglas Adams' opinion around as if it mattered. You're like everyone else, you need your opinion spoon fed to you. You never even read Douglas's essay yourself, you don't even know what he wrote.

And for the umpteenth time, the burden of proof is on you, the one making the claim. Jeebus christo, is it that hard to understand?
 
  • #1,781
So Douglas Adams lacks that capacity? His fault?
 
  • #1,782
http://www.hamlet.org/hamlet/s305 [Broken] The full text of Hamlet can be found here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,783
BicycleTree said:
So Douglas Adams lacks that capacity? His fault?

How would i know? I don't know what he actually wrote in that essay, what his words were. Neither do you, as you admitted. You're arguing referring to something you've never even seen yourself. Its pathetic. Maybe he got the jokes, but he simply argued that they're relevance was lost on those who lacked the capacity as modern audiences do, because they want everything spoon fed to them without having to think, like you. If you catch the irony in this paragraph, i will eat my dinner.
 
  • #1,784
BicycleTree said:
So, why is the burden of proof now on you? Because I have provided a number of sources--myself, my fellow students, my english teacher, and Douglas Adams--who couldn't find anything very funny in Shakespeare's jokes. Proving the absence of funny stuff exhaustively would require that I go through every passage in Shakespeare and explain how it isn't funny. If life and death hinged on the outcome, I might do that, but since it doesn't, the opinions of a bunch of people who have read some Shakespeare counts. If you disagree then it's most reasonable that you need to provide a counterexample. Quote Shakespeare rather than just saying it's funny.

The thing with proof is that your hypothesis is that Shakespeare isn't funny in modern times. You can cite all the evidence you want in support of your hypothesis, but that doesn't prove it. All it takes is one example saying someone in modern times finds Shakespeare funny to disprove the hypothesis. If you're only going to provide sources in support of your argument that none of us can verify, then the TWO examples of Franz and me finding Shakespeare funny disproves your hypothesis. What does it matter if we post a quote? Even if you don't find it funny, as long as one of us does, it shows that Shakespeare is funny in modern times.
 
  • #1,785
No, I told you that I have read it. The review was just the only thing I could find online. Adams does use the phrase "couldn't make a joke to save his life" or something close to it in reference to Shakespeare, and he does use it as I said. If you're such a big fan of Adams then get _The Salmon of Doubt_ and find out for yourself.
 
Back
Top