Joking on the Square
Nehmo
Means making comment about something that sounds like, either by
inflection or content, a joke (that is, false), but in reality the
comment maker means to make a serious comment (and it is true).
Examples?
--
|||||||||||||||| Nehmo Sergheyev ||||||||||||||||
mark
Nehmo (neh...@hotmail.com) was heard to remark...
> "Joking on the Square" Gsearch: http://snipurl.com/gev6
>
> Means making comment about something that sounds like, either by
> inflection or content, a joke (that is, false), but in reality the
> comment maker means to make a serious comment (and it is true).
>
> Examples?
Well, there was Bill Maher's appearance at /Just For Laughs/, where he
started off promising to tell jokes but ended up going for a full-bore
whinge about how much he hated Bush and Cheney.
Oh, and Dennis Miller's "The Raw Feed" or whateveritwas, recently
broadcast in Australia, with such memorable comedic lines as "we should
turn Iraq into glass, then look at North Korea and say 'you want some
of this?'", which garnered a huge laugh from the audience but were
about as far from funny as anything since the latest Tom Greene
outrage.
Hmm. Somehow I doubt that's exactly what you mean, though.
--
"The [New York] Times is not a bad little newspaper in some ways. But
when it comes to things like egg balancing, it is out of its depth."
- Cecil Adams, /More of the Straight Dope/
Nehmo
> Dennis Miller's "The Raw Feed" or whateveritwas, recently
> broadcast in Australia, with such memorable comedic lines as "we
should
> turn Iraq into glass, then look at North Korea and say 'you want some
> of this?'", which garnered a huge laugh from the audience but were
> about as far from funny as anything since the latest Tom Greene
> outrage.
>
> Hmm. Somehow I doubt that's exactly what you mean, though.
- Nehmo -
The Dennis Miller example is a good illustration of the concept. But I
can’t help it, every time I think of him, I see someone arrogantly
promoting dialup as though it were not only logical, but super.
Actually, unless you have no other available, it’s an obsolete
connection method.
--
|||||||||||||||| Nehmo Sergheyev ||||||||||||||||
mark
Nehmo (neh...@hotmail.com) was heard to remark...
> > Dennis Miller's "The Raw Feed" or whateveritwas, recently
> > broadcast in Australia, with such memorable comedic lines as "we
> should
> > turn Iraq into glass, then look at North Korea and say 'you want some
> > of this?'", which garnered a huge laugh from the audience but were
> > about as far from funny as anything since the latest Tom Greene
> > outrage.
> >
> > Hmm. Somehow I doubt that's exactly what you mean, though.
>
> promoting dialup as though it were not only logical, but super.
> connection method.
Ah. From "politics" to "dialup vs broadband". Dennis Miller *must* be
a typical Conservative ...
ray o'hara
"Nehmo" <neh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ArSDe.108$8g...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
John Stewart of the Daily Show, fake news that tell a truth the real news
would never dare to.
Maria Conlon
>
> John Stewart of the Daily Show, fake news that tell a truth
Or not.
>... the real news would never dare to.
Only if you limit your "real news" to the broadcast channels.
IMO, of course.
Maria Conlon
ray o'hara
"Maria Conlon" <mari...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:LDWDe.1012$bX2...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
Stewart is way better than anything CNN,MSNBC or that propaganda arm of the
Republican party Faux News shows.
Aaron Davies
> "Nehmo" <neh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ArSDe.108$8g...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> > "Joking on the Square" Gsearch: http://snipurl.com/gev6
> >
> > Means making comment about something that sounds like, either by
> > inflection or content, a joke (that is, false), but in reality the
> > comment maker means to make a serious comment (and it is true).
> >
> > Examples?
>
> John Stewart of the Daily Show, fake news that tell a truth the real news
> would never dare to.
Some of the Onion's stories do that too. (Most of them are just surreal
nonsense.)
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
Magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri.
Ho! Ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Thrust!
Peter T. Daniels
> Some of the Onion's stories do that too. (Most of them are just surreal
> nonsense.)
"Surreal nonsense" seems like an oxymoron.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Matti Lamprhey
> Aaron Davies wrote:
>
> > Some of the Onion's stories do that too. (Most of them are just
> > surreal nonsense.)
>
> "Surreal nonsense" seems like an oxymoron.
""Surreal nonsense" seems like an oxymoron" seems like a contradiction
in terms.
Did you mean a tautology?
Matti
Peter T. Daniels
I embrace the spirit of the surrealists.
(Having just revisited some old friends at the Art Institute of
Chicago.)
Robert Lieblich
>
> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> >
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
> > > Aaron Davies wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some of the Onion's stories do that too. (Most of them are just
> > > > surreal nonsense.)
> > >
> > > "Surreal nonsense" seems like an oxymoron.
> >
> > ""Surreal nonsense" seems like an oxymoron" seems like a contradiction
> > in terms.
> >
> > Did you mean a tautology?
>
> I embrace the spirit of the surrealists.
Arp, arp. It is to laff.
> (Having just revisited some old friends at the Art Institute of
> Chicago.)
A great museum. I used to squeeze in at least one annual visit, but
it's been a few years now. I particularly love the six Monet
haystacks in a row on one wall, Caillebot's rainy Paris street, the
Grand Jatte ... But enough.
--
Bob Lieblich
Paul Wolff
<robert....@verizon.net> writes
but he wasn't above having another go at a subject that interested him.
There was an exhibition in London a few years back (in the Royal
Academy, Piccadilly) and if I could lay my hands on the catalogue I
could tell just how many of his haystacks lined one room - no doubt
thanks to the Art Institute aforesaid, in part. I'm no waterlily man,
but I did like his visions of Reims Cathedral. Regrettably there's no
point in my buying one, as they all need to be seen from at least forty
feet away before the colourstorm merges into a misty (say it for me)
west front, and my house doesn't work like that.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
Tony Cooper
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>(Having just revisited some old friends at the Art Institute of
>Chicago.)
The lions, the paintings, or the staff?
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL
Laura F. Spira
> In message <42E3E0A4...@verizon.net>, Robert Lieblich
> <robert....@verizon.net> writes
>
>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>>> >
>>> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
>>> > > Aaron Davies wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Some of the Onion's stories do that too. (Most of them are just
>>> > > > surreal nonsense.)
>>> > >
>>> > > "Surreal nonsense" seems like an oxymoron.
>>> >
>>> > ""Surreal nonsense" seems like an oxymoron" seems like a contradiction
>>> > in terms.
>>> >
>>> > Did you mean a tautology?
>>>
>>> I embrace the spirit of the surrealists.
>>
>>
>> Arp, arp. It is to laff.
>>
>>> (Having just revisited some old friends at the Art Institute of
>>> Chicago.)
>>
>>
>> A great museum. I used to squeeze in at least one annual visit, but
>> it's been a few years now. I particularly love the six Monet
>> haystacks in a row on one wall, Caillebot's rainy Paris street, the
>> Grand Jatte ... But enough.
It's a great place. Round every corner I found something familiar that I
had never expected to see for real. An afternoon at the Met last week
wasn't quite as good but my companions were more interested in the
Egyptian stuff than the paintings.
>>
> Say what you like about Monet (rather a weak intro phrase, isn't it?),
> but he wasn't above having another go at a subject that interested him.
> There was an exhibition in London a few years back (in the Royal
> Academy, Piccadilly) and if I could lay my hands on the catalogue I
> could tell just how many of his haystacks lined one room - no doubt
> thanks to the Art Institute aforesaid, in part.
I think we counted five at the time - or were there seven haystacks and
five water lilies? We were advised by a friend who had visited before us
to experience the exhibition from the end backwards to avoid waterlily
fatigue. This worked quite well. What impressed me most was the change
in colour in the pantings done during the time he suffered from
cataracts. They weren't recognisably Monet at all. After surgery he went
back to his previous palette.
The current Impressionist exhibition at the RA, which I hope to see on
Tuesday, apparently has 12 Monets, 3 of which have never been seen in
London before.
I'm no waterlily man,
> but I did like his visions of Reims Cathedral. Regrettably there's no
> point in my buying one, as they all need to be seen from at least forty
> feet away before the colourstorm merges into a misty (say it for me)
> west front, and my house doesn't work like that.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Peter T. Daniels
It's all been rearranged. The giant Caillebot is now at the top of the
stairs where the Grande Jatte used to be, and the Grande Jatte is
squeezed into a room with lots of other classics (I think they rehung
the Impressionists according to donor, to reveal something about
fin-de-siècle collecting, or something, when only the dumb rich cow-town
Americans would buy that degenerate stuff), but there are lots of Water
Lilies and Haystacks (except since the big Monet show 10 years ago
they're not called "haytacks" any more), and Nighthawks and American
Gothic aren't even in the same room any more, let alone side by side.
East Asia now occupies the galleries to the right of the main entrance
(just past the shop) -- and are surveyed by Warhol's giant Mao at the
beginning of one of the 20th Century areas. (They've just broken ground
for a new wing, to the north, by Renzo Piano for Contemporary.) The
Korean section culminates in a gorgeous calligraphic screen (with
calligraphic Korean trending toward Chinese grass style) written just a
few years ago, of which they don't have any sort of reproduction in the
shop.
(I also looked in the first room in the other direction to greet El
Greco and Caravaggio, but I don't know what else might be hanging around
from before 1850.)
ray o'hara
"Paul Wolff" <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VHD2LkBA...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
Monet was painting light and not objects As the time of day changed and the
lighting changed the object changed in apperance.