I suppose I must like controversy as much as the next durn'd fool, and
so here are my two cents on at least part of what David Fears has posted
recently:

Humor is obviously not the study of humor and doesn't pretend to be, so
I have never understood the disparagement that studying humor gets
because it isn't funny, because it "robs" humor of its "punch" and is a
"pale imitation."  E.B. White said it best with his frog analogy, but
still, such comments, even as witty as his, are like expecting a
discussion of sexual positions to be as exciting as sex itself.20

It reminds me of students who sign up for my classes on comedy and
expect everyone to be rollicking in the aisles (laughter does happen,
sometimes, mind you, but it is the object of the course): it confuses
two different entities.

The more complicated issue is trying to be funny in an email post and
having someone misread it.20

Jokes and joking behavior (and much of comic laughter) is at bottom
aggressive: they are all forms of playful malice and it should not be
surprising that in a cold medium like cyberspace people will just hear
malice and not the play.  After all, people get annoyed and angry at
jokes told in their presence, even when they do get the playful part,
just because the serious thing being joked about is too serious for
their taste.

That all is maybe more than two cents worth of truth, but of course,
trying to tell the truth, as Huck Finn reminds us, is dangerous, most
like setting down on a keg of powder and touching it off just to see
where you'll go.

Jim Caron