Strange. I actually thought at the beginning of your reply that you were the only one who understood I meant to be satirical, until I got to this line. Oh well, I guess that there are too many people on FR with an Agenda anymore to attempt humor without explicitly "/sarcasming". So, since you believed I was serious, can you explain to me what a fundamentalist secular humanist would be relative to someone who is just a regular secular humanist? And what did my ending statement "What is satire an Anglicization of" cause you to think?
Also, if my post had been posted by someone else, I would have laughed at it, since if the other person was being serious, I would have still thought it was funny, because I do have a sense of humor. I would not have told him to get a life, since that is not real funny, and had he been serious, it would have just made him mad, which is not a way to win someone over to your side of an issue. I am not trying to lecture you, but I am curious, since the first part of your post seemed to be replying in kind with humor, and then the last line seemed to indicate you didn't get it at all.
Huh???
Perhaps people would "get" your satire better if you wrote more clearly.
And considering the points you made in your first (satirical) post are ones that are regularly made by the bible-thumping wing of FR, it is easy to understand why people would think you were serious.
Huh???
Perhaps people would "get" your satire better if you wrote more clearly.
And considering the points you made in your first (satirical) post are ones that are regularly made by the bible-thumping wing of FR, it is easy to understand why people would think you were serious.
Lesson : there are no voice inflections on computer screens.