I don't get what you want from posting this. Do you want someone to say "no, it was ok?" Several people have already chimed in. So no matter what pedantic definitions are brought forth, it would seem that precedence and preference - especially endorsed/started by mouser, would say that the appropriate response might be "Hey didn't know. Will keep that in mind." Or silence, and just taking the hit and continuing forward. Food for thought.
If that was addressed to me, in answer to your first question I would have to ask: Why do you assume that I "want" anything from it?
I apologise if you somehow took it amiss - it was not even directed at you - but I was genuinely and politely correcting the shortened form of the thread title, as it had been misquoted by @Curt
in using it as an umbrella term, and then providing examples of black humour including reference to death, thus politely implying that in neither case would it be correct to call them "morbid" - which is why I gave the definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th Ed.).
I could be wrong, of course, but I think English may not be @Curt's
first language, and, if that is the case, then he seems to do very well indeed with it, and I would not be so rude as to criticise his use of English.
I think he almost certainly knew what it was he objected to, but it wouldn't be "morbid" humour (if there is such a thing), by definition (QED). I can only guess at what he was objecting to. Maybe there is not an English word that fits what he might mean in his own language? I'm sure he could tell us if you asked him nicely.
As to your second question and the curious statement(s) that follow it, I am at a loss to understand why you imagine I would be interested in attempting to clarify my earlier posting in response to @mouser
, regarding the would-be-slave-owner.
As far as I am concerned, I had said all that I needed to say to him on the subject, and even said that I couldn't help him any more on that.
I mean, he's quite entitled as the site Admin. to say what he did, just as I am entitled to post about something harmless and stupid that I found LOL and hugely ironic. In fact, it is so ironic that I wonder whether people can actually see it. I did say it was priceless. It's a beaut, it really is. Typical Daily Mail. I presume the journos at the Daily Mail who posted it would have seen the irony, and it would have destroyed the joke to have explained it.
So, having finished the subject with the response to @mouser
I certainly didn't intend to add to it with @Curt
or anyone else, but you seem to want to pursue it. I can't think why - it's all over and donewith. Forget about it. Let it go.
Do please remember that this is the silly humour
thread, and that it would be a needless waste of energy to get all twisted up and antagonistic about things where all is otherwise potentially good humour and friendliness. Also, I would recommend that you take anything I say in this thread as having been said tongue-in-cheek and with a heavy dollop of amiable humour and sarcasm.
In closing, I'd be obliged if you could avoid any further harassment of me in future, upon my making helpful and inoffensive posts to other people, in this or other discussion threads.