I have taken several days to reflect on this thread, and the prior thread
initiated by Tracy Wuster with the brief exchange between myself and Judith
Lee. I have only this one last thing to say on it all, so please bear with
me.

I am still marveling at John Bird's ability to see "attack" in my remarks to
Judith, or understand just what sort of sub-text John sees. If my remarks
had been an animal, I'm thinking John would have seen a coiled cobra rather
than a playful puppy. Americanus Humorous--that's the species of my
remarks--all of which were under the opinion that to explain a joke is
nearly always to rob it of it's humor; to study humor (and yes, I understand
there is an entire field for this) is to rob it of its punch.

This last was an OPINION. There was not a smidge of personal attack in it.
Ad Hominem or any. I'm not sure why John saw it that way. No word was put
forth by Judith on this.

And Hal Bush said a few things--most of which I'm in perfect agreement with.
Dempsey too, even though he characterizes himself as a "silly attorney," I
find his remarks cogent. Ben has posted as well, although I'm not as clear
on what he's saying besides, "Let's all be nice to each other," and of
course I have no problem with that.

I made one mistake here, at least in my view of things. I was a smart-aleck.
I posted what I saw as humor on a Mark Twain site. Additionally I perhaps
mistook this Forum dynamic for those I was more familiar with a few years
back.? I expected a lot more discussion on a lot more controversial or
interesting topics about MT--and God knows there are a bunch that could be
discussed. I accept that it's not my duty to try to stimulate discussion.

After stomping around in the archives, it's my rough estimate that from
50-75% of the posts have to do with book reviews, calls for papers, meeting
announcements and the like.? I suppose I should have reviewed these archives
before wading in here.

I can only conclude that John's reaction had more to do with prior posts
than the two I put up in response to studying humor. Yes, John, I do believe
such study may be worthwhile for some, which isn't to retract my opinion
(not personal, mind you) that humor studied is a pale reflection of humor
enjoyed. If Sam was correct, we won't study it in Heaven.

There was something else in John's corrective which I'd like to respond
to--I have never claimed any level of MT scholarship for myself. I will let
others judge that from my work. I know how much I do not know (or at least
have an inkling of), and am not usually thought of as a know-it-all by
anyone who knows me. But online folks are projected as we'd like to or fear
to, see them.

So, if the jokes made to Judith Lee were seen as something else, it's
regrettable. But that is the animal I put forth. If my remarks corssed what
John calls "those rules of decorum," then I'd sure like a copy of those
before posting further. I do know enough not to use the sort of language
here that came with John's personal email to me. But, hey, maybe that was
John's form of humor. I'll accept it as that.

Now, back to work.

David H Fears
PS..I'm currently in mid-1888 on volume II--an interesting time. I'd always
heard tales of the Great Blizzard of '88, from my first wife's grandfather,
a native of Conn., so it was enlightening to learn that the storm
interrupted Sam and Livy's joining in NY, and his being stranded there a
time before continuing on to Wash. DC for Int'l copyright hearings.