On Saturday, August 23, 2014 12:08:17 AM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:54:15 PM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> > On Friday, August 22, 2014 3:39:23 PM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:18:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
> > > > He sounds vaguely Scottish with a strong American overlay to me. Even
> > > > having heard him, I wouldn't have a clue what "a John Houseman name"
> > > > might mean.
> > > "A John Houseman name" is NOT A THING. The joke concerned _pronouncing
> > > something the way John Houseman says "We make money the old-fashioned
> > > way. We earrrrn it."_
>
> > By NOT A THING, I take it you mean not a conventional expression, but rather
> > a description Jerry makes up on the spot.
>
> That's kinda how "observational comedy," as his particular style of stand-up
> is called, works.
>
> Persons from your take on civilization apparently think
> elderly men in women's clothing is the utmost of hilarity; there is no
> rational way to explain the popularity of "Dame Edna Everidge." This >fortnight we've been reminded of one of the only two highly successful >American attempts at the genre -- *Mrs. Doubtfire* -- where the title >character's passing as a woman is handled quite seriously and might even have >had a chance of success in the real world. (One can't say the same for >*Tootsie*.) The other, of course, was *Some Like It Hot*, where the drag was >basically a maguffin and nothing was to be taken seriously.
I guess I'm being "non-aueish" again, but I don't see the relevance of this
excursus on your likes and dislikes in drag humour (or dragma), and I particularly find your attempt to identify your dislikes with my "take on civilization" (whatever you think you mean by that) utterly bizarre.
> > >
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMRXqQXemU
>
> > > I can't believe none of you link-crazy posters looked it up.
>
> > Some of us did, but since someone had already described the ad in sufficient\ detail, there was no point in posting the link. Anybody could find it.
>
> But it was obvious from the discussion that no non-USan of the appropriate
> age had done so and they were all in a tizzy about something called "a
> John Houseman name."
But I'm telling you that I did. And I'm a non-USan, and until just now I
did not get the profoundly bathetic truth about what a "John Houseman name" was.
I had other theories: a name like the names of the sort of characters John
Houseman plays? a name that a caricature Englishman like John Houseman (or his
friends) might be called? That sort of thing.
> > So it seems that particular word in that particular ad was so famous
> > that Jerry, hearing an ordinary name that happened to have an "-er-" in it,
> > thought "Maybe it would be funny to pronounce that name the way JH pronounces 'earn' in that Smith Barney ad."
> Unless you teach particularly dense undergraduates who want to be anywhere
> but in your class, and this is the sort of approach you have to use with
> them, this is _exactly_ what I meant by "un-aueish."
I personally don't give a fuck what you meant by it, though I marvel at the speed with which you have risen to the rank of arbiter of what is "aueish" and what is un-. Actually we have no clear evidence that the RRs or aue-ites as a
group found this Seinfeld bit "classic" or even intelligible. Clearly the OP
did not.
Or do you just mean it's uncool to explain humour? I did it for my own satisfaction, because I really was baffled.
> > Huh. Guess you had to be there. Or maybe it was meta-. A show that's funny
> > about not being funny?
>
> If you are unaware of the ubiquity of the referent at the time the
> reference was made, why would it seem funny to you now, more than
> 30 years later?
Sometimes humour can survive explanation and the need to reconstruct its
context. But I'm afraid not here. If you laughed at it 30 years ago, that's fine -- I'm not telling you you shouldn't have.