Subject: RE: Vogts for Women
From: John Anderson <panic-AT-semiosix.com>
Date: 03 May 2003 18:25:49 +0200


On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 14:01, Dave Coull wrote:
> In other words, I was saying that John Anderson didn't
> "get" Andy's (high quality) joke, and, although I "got"
> John Anderson's feeble attempt, it was best ignored.
> I ignored his "joke", but dealt with the real (not 
> pretend) misunderstanding on which it was based.

Sheesh dude. It's generally considered really boring to explain a joke,
but the whole point of what I was saying was exactly that it *was* a
deliberate misunderstanding. Du-uh.

Or if you prefer, think of it as wordplay. You could call it malapropism
too, but I'm sure that's far too English for your taste ;-). Hmm,
lessee, an exercise in  morpho-phonetics, if you want to get academic
and neologistic. Frivolous phonetic frippery if you're feeling severe,
Calvinist and alliteralist, or joie des mots if you're full of wine and
feeling happy. If you're not feeling much at all, you could just deal
with the misunderstanding. If you're feeling brave, you could even
<gasp> expose your underbelly and ask what was meant. But it's far safer
to just assume you know and argue with your own assumption. That way you
don't need to deal with real people. Neh?

adios amoebas
John