Subject:
|
Re: Lar's hoppers
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:23:32 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@USWESTspamcake.NET
|
Viewed:
|
440 times
|
| |
|
|
I think sequestering the puns off into their own group where they can't torture
anyone such as Mike is a mistake. Therein lies their beauty, interspersed
between the normal day-to-day blather, like a ray of light, shimmering down on
an otherwise humorless world.... Besides, waddya gonna do if one appears in an
NG other than .puns? <cue music> "When a bad pun lands, in your favorite
group, who ya gonna call? PUNBUSTERS! ... ;-)
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com (Mike Stanley) writes:
> > You know, as much as I like you guys, and as much respect I have for
> > the Great One, I really wish Todd would create
> > lugnet.off-topic.very-painfully-bad.and.sometimes.just.bad.puns so I
> > could go back to reading computer geek stuff in .fun.
>
> Hmm, a group like that could certainly be a lot of pun. Actually, I think
> people have secretly been lusting after this for months.
>
> Would you call it
>
> lugnet.off-topic.pun
> or
> lugnet.off-topic.puns
> or
> lugnet.off-topic.fun.pun
> or
> lugnet.off-topic.fun.puns
> ?
>
> The first one has a nice punch to it. But the second one isn't newsgroupish
> enough. The third one probably reeks too much of rhyme, and the fourth one
> is pretty good, but sounds a bit like a general pun-list group, and the
> purpose of this group wouldn't be for posting puns out of the blue but for
> punning on various articles strewn about the system here (just like the way
> alt.flame.spelling on Usenet works :). The fifth one went wee wee wee all
> the way home.
>
> If there *were* an .off-topic.pun group, then Laremy, Teremy, and Jeremy
> could have (cross?)posted these:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.build:998
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:1318
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.general:1290
>
> And of course, both the third and fourth ones, being subcategories of .off-
> topic.fun, suggest by their name that all puns are funny, which isn't true,
> even for compulsive punsters. And we do wanna support the every-once-in-a-
> while super-painful groaner, right? :)
>
> ----
>
> In the same spirit of a new puns group and alt.flame.spelling, one other
> thing I always thought would be fun here is a "quote of the day" group.
> Somebody unsuspectingly says something really wry or funny or profound or
> somewhere (somewhere here on this newsgroup system), and you post a follow-
> up to lugnet.off-topic.qotd highlighting it.
>
> At my last job, there was a giant whiteboard in the big room where the QOTD
> went... Not every day was a QOTD day, but there were some real gut
> splitters from time to time.
>
> Some examples for here -- not perfect matches with the idea behind the
> group, but close enough for government work:
>
> last 2 paragraphs (Jeff's quote and Jeremy's followup) of:
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.off-topic.fun:858
>
> last 2 paragraphs (Steve's quote and Larry's reply) of:
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.trains:144
>
> last 2 paragraphs (Jesse's quote and Larry's reply) of:
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.off-topic.debate:66
>
> entire message of:
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.market.auction:1406
>
> The paragraph beginning "I think what..."
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.starwars:1552
>
> entire message of -- it's just funny:
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.build:1322
>
> entire message of:
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.general:3795
>
> entire message (Tim & Todd's quotes and Mike's reply) of:
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.publish:434
>
> entire message (taken wonderfully out of context) of:
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:1624
>
> The best ones are the ones that are 50% inside-joke and 50% still good
> out-of-context... :)
>
> > Puns are not fun, they are evil.
>
> Hey there pally.
>
> You know: If a group does get created for this, you can bet your punless
> acre that a couple of people here will gang up on you and post gratuitous
> followups in the your honor for a whole week -- just to thwart you. :)
>
> > Seek help, please.
>
> May the <duck> thwarts be with you.
>
> --Todd
> {taking a breather tonight;
> back to real work tomorrow}
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
| (...) That's one wayya lookin' at it. Another way is the marvelous mischievousity (is that word?) that a dedicated .pun group affords. I imagine it as a prankish sort of group -- in the same spirit of marking up movie posters with moustaches or (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
| John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:372735FE.FAEDE9...est.net... (...) torture (...) down on (...) in an (...) But it would be nice not to have to download 70 messages to see that 50 of them are a pun-fest. I don't mind an (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lar's hoppers
|
| (...) Hmm, a group like that could certainly be a lot of pun. Actually, I think people have secretly been lusting after this for months. Would you call it lugnet.off-topic.pun or lugnet.off-topic.puns or lugnet.off-topic.fun.pun or (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
