Do you think we should see "Saw III"
And later "Saw" and "Saw II" see?
Or should we see "Saw" and "Saw II"
And then go to see "Saw III" too?
I think that we, to see "Saw III",
Should see "Saw II" and "Saw" après.
But mind you, we should sit down through
The first "Saw" before "Saw II", too.
I do not want to say I saw
"Saw III" first, then "Saw II", then "Saw".
'Twould be far easier for me
To see "Saw" to "Saw II" to "III".
Would you like to see "Saw III" too?
Did you see "Saw"? or see "Saw II"?
See "Saw" and "Saw II", too, with me
And then we'll go to, too, "Saw III".
(Completely original by me, although I've been making these sorry puns
for at least a year now.)
--
Selected by Jim Griffith. MAIL your joke to fu...@netfunny.com.
The RHF general intro is http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/rhfgen.html
This joke's link: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/06/Nov/saw.html