This is different to the thread where you actually make up defensive retorts - this is about people trying to defend themselves so badly that you either have to laugh hysterically into their unyielding faces, or sigh and contemplate suicide.
I'll start us off with the catalyst to the creation of this thread.
Now, I'd assume many of you do not approve of the Disney Channel. It consists of watery jokes and predictable slapstick, with laugh tracks being aurally forced upon us, giving us lowest common denominators cues to know when the funny has arrived.
The only programme on it I find redeeming has to be Phineas and Ferb. Some of you may also disapprove of this programme. However, I find it to be the only amusing programme on the whole damn channel.
My younger brother (14) was watching the channel, and I had laughed sarcastically at one of the hundreds of puns and fallings over, whereupon my brother had engaged me in conversation, and asked me why I even liked Phineas and Ferb. I told him I actually find it funny, unlike all the other programmes, like those Zack and Cody ones (incidentally they took it in turns to play Ross' son Ben in Friends I believe).
He, obviously on the defensive here (his face was contorted with concentration), responded with the retort that he didn't watch Zack and Cody for the amusement, because that was not its purpose. This bemused me considerably, and I proceeded to explain why its purpose was for what it deemed to be "amusement", with those violently-imposed laugh tracks to force laughter from us. He still refuses to accept that shows with fucking laugh tracks are meant to be funny. I mean, what else could they be?
So, have you ever come across someone defending themselves in such a way as to transcend comprehension?
I'll start us off with the catalyst to the creation of this thread.
Now, I'd assume many of you do not approve of the Disney Channel. It consists of watery jokes and predictable slapstick, with laugh tracks being aurally forced upon us, giving us lowest common denominators cues to know when the funny has arrived.
The only programme on it I find redeeming has to be Phineas and Ferb. Some of you may also disapprove of this programme. However, I find it to be the only amusing programme on the whole damn channel.
My younger brother (14) was watching the channel, and I had laughed sarcastically at one of the hundreds of puns and fallings over, whereupon my brother had engaged me in conversation, and asked me why I even liked Phineas and Ferb. I told him I actually find it funny, unlike all the other programmes, like those Zack and Cody ones (incidentally they took it in turns to play Ross' son Ben in Friends I believe).
He, obviously on the defensive here (his face was contorted with concentration), responded with the retort that he didn't watch Zack and Cody for the amusement, because that was not its purpose. This bemused me considerably, and I proceeded to explain why its purpose was for what it deemed to be "amusement", with those violently-imposed laugh tracks to force laughter from us. He still refuses to accept that shows with fucking laugh tracks are meant to be funny. I mean, what else could they be?
So, have you ever come across someone defending themselves in such a way as to transcend comprehension?
