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.