<sigh>

I stand by my suggestion that the post I commented on was not appropriate for this section, but the burn button feature idea post .. now that was funny.   

@wraith808:

Quote from: wraith808 on February 27, 2017, 11:25 PM

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 @mouserI 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.

It is neither helpful nor inoffensive, in all truth.  As mouser said, he stands by his earlier statement on said post.  And personally, if you didn't know my earlier post was for you, even though I quoted your entire post, I give up.

Re the offensive post in question:
I think @IainB thinks he has to test us on occasion -- not often, yet regularly. Who knows what might happen to us otherwise?
We may turn into naive innocents in our cocooned family-friendly donationcoder world, protected from religion and politics and related.

@tomos: On your use of the word "offensive" - I'm not sure whether you meant to say it, but I don't see where the post I made was called or even shown to be "offensive" by @mouser. You might perhaps have been intending to call it "offending", but even that would be incorrect as all @mouser seems to think he did was suggest that "...the post ... was not appropriate for this section" - to which I rejoined that it was a true report (it was clipped verbatim out of the Daily Mailonline website) and that it was one of those "truth is stranger than fiction" things that I found LOL funny and very ironic - though I am unsure whether all the people reading it will necessarily be able to see the irony.

I say that about the irony because I showed the article to my 15 y/o daughter, who is studying comedic analysis of Shakespeare's plays, for Eng.Lit. at the moment, and she of course thought it was disgusting (what the guy had apparently documented as his intentions), but then saw the humour in someone actually being that dim-witted and having so little purpose in life as to have those objectives in the first place. However, I had to explain to her the inherent irony of it, and then the penny dropped and she thought it was quite a good joke out of real life.

/rant on...
Joking aside though - and it's easy to poke fun - on the other side of the coin I actually pity him, because he's most surely "not 100%" right in the head and would thus be just a gullible idiot recently converted to the Islamic religion and which he very likely can't properly comprehend, and he probably would have been too incompetent to stay alive for more than 10 hours after joining ISIS or somesuch anyway - assuming they would have wanted him in the first place (but probably only as a dopey suicide bomber).

What he was apparently being charged with seemed to be intention to commit a terrorist act, or something, though he hadn't actually committed any terrorist act, yet. Quite literally, the guy seems to be "a sad joke", yet he's likely to do time for it and will in any event have a record of this hanging over him for the rest of his life, regardless. His life will probably now become just another minor, but avoidable pathetic tragedy of human failure.

The police need to be focused on pursuing and ferreting out real terrorists, not imbeciles like him. He probably - almost certainly, I would suggest - needs welfare help, and especially protection from being "used" - wound up or further indoctrinated/radicalised by the "religious leaders" who probably took advantage of him and put these bonkers ideas into his apparently unimaginative and thick head in the first place. The guy may even be an innocent victim without a bad bone in his body, but much good it may do him, because it's likely he's about to be eviscerated and made an example of by the British legal system. I think it stinks. He's likely no more than a puppet who has been set up by others - the real criminals in this - and they may well escape scrutiny/punishment and cynically repeat it with countless other suckers before they are stopped.
This would be an elephant in the room.
There's nothing funny I can see about any of that.
/rant off

@IainB
well, me, I found the post more sad than funny. Unfortunately there's a lot more intelligent pedophiles travelling successfully for the more or less the same reasons. But yeah, I get the irony of it too -- but that's all beside the point.

You didn't address the main point made:
the idea is dc be family-friendly, and free of religion and politics, directly or indirectly. Which doesn't seem very complicated to me, and you choose to ignore it in what seems like a pointed manner at times. Which brought me to the thesis in my previous post. Which you also chose to ignore.
_______________________________

@tomos: Oh, my apologies, there seems to be some misunderstanding here: I only addressed the use of the word "offensive", because apparently it was not "offensive" or even "offending", as far as @mouser had indicated (QED), and I presumed that that was what you were referring to. I did write: "I'm not sure whether you meant to say it, but...", because I wondered whether you had used the wrong word, by mistake.

And I didn't address "the main point made", as you put it, simply because:
(a) I didn't read it as your making a point (as in "stating an argument" or making a proposition) - let alone a main point - but perceived that you were merely expressing an opinion ("I Think..."):

I think @IainB thinks he has to test us on occasion -- not often, yet regularly. Who knows what might happen to us otherwise?
We may turn into naive innocents in our cocooned family-friendly donationcoder world, protected from religion and politics and related.

Nor did I perceive that this was a "thesis" as you put it, nor did I see that you were asking for or expecting a reply. I just saw an amusing opinion.

- and,

(b) On the basis that people are entitled to whatever opinions they want to hold and I do not usually find any constructive purpose is met in debating or commenting on opinions (except for amusement/humour), I would generally avoid doing that and thus would not have responded. Nor would I normally debate or comment on a person's thesis unless I saw that I might be able to add something of value that might help or be useful in developing said thesis.

So, it was not the case that I simply ignored you on either or both counts. Quite the contrary.

And I of course perceived no implicit request for a response, in what you wrote, but if I had, or if you had gone so far as to ask explicitly "What do you think IainB?", or something, then I would have probably responded with something like, "Well, it's an interesting thought." and left it at that, because I won't allow myself to be forced into making a comment on an opinion which does not really require a comment from me. That would usually seem to me to be pointless, as I mentioned above.

And so I shall not pass comment on your opinion/thesis as described.   

(b) On the basis that people are entitled to whatever opinions they want to hold and I do not usually find any constructive purpose is met in debating or commenting on opinions (except for amusement/humour), I would generally avoid doing that and thus would not have responded.

and yet...

'Dark humor and worse'

+1

Give peace a chance, please.

Regards,

Anand

Isn't all of the above easily and quickly solved by making a new thread 'Dark humor and worse' in the basement section of the DonationCoder forum? It would be out of sight (and mind) for members who don't go there and/or filter threads in this forum. And others with a peculiar sense of humor can still make their jokes.

Me personally, I would appreciate such a thread for what it is. And would make me visit that part of the forum more often. Now I wouldn't have mixed dark humor with silly humor in the same way as IainB did, or go on as long he did. But now the tone in this thread seems to go to the other extreme: getting rid of it completely. And that isn't right either.

Separate threads appear to me the quickest/easiest way to let both exist.

As a bid to be part of the solution and not the problem: http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=43565.msg406807#msg406807

alternative facts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts

Hmm, I think I prefer Ron Zeigler's "That statement is no longer operative." 

Optimistic Waiter

enjoyed that one :D

   

   

Now that is funny!  Thanks!

Brilliant.
Flight attendant nails Britney's 'Toxic' video with onboard dance number