Pay attention only to the real issue

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not here to pass a law exam, nor am I required to do what you wish me to. If I want to find my own moral in the story I may. I suspect that your belief that the point you wished to make is the only point in the story has blinded you to all the other interesting aspects to it. But thats your loss not mine. The title of the thread shows your narrow mindedness.

just can't stand missing the point? fine.

console yourself with the "interesting" aspects that are, actually, rather banal

Originally posted by Scriabin
just can't stand missing the point? fine.

console yourself with the "interesting" aspects that are, actually, rather banal

Calling it "the" point is a presumption of a naive mind. The story is less unidimensional than that.

Originally posted by Scriabin
no

what is so hard here?

I don't know. Nor do I care anymore to be honest.

Originally posted by Palynka
Calling it "the" point is a presumption of a naive mind. The story is less unidimensional than that.

how naive is it to ignore the central joke altogether?

I stand amazed and astounded at the ignorance, lack of sagacity and then pure weaseling out of being held accountable for failing to get a simple verbal puzzle.

In my world, when one misses the obvious and is called on it, one says: "oh, yeah, that's a good one." And we move on.

Here, I find most, not all, but most people incapable of admitting either error to anything close to it.

I find that very funny. Less unidimensional? ROFLMAO --

Originally posted by Scriabin
how naive is it to ignore the central joke altogether?

I stand amazed and astounded at the ignorance, lack of sagacity and then pure weaseling out of being held accountable for failing to get a simple verbal puzzle.

In my world, when one misses the obvious and is called on it, one says: "oh, yeah, that's a good one." And we move on.

Here, I find m ...[text shortened]... error to anything close to it.

I find that very funny. Less unidimensional? ROFLMAO --

If you were actually able to read, neither twhitehead or me have missed any joke. Why should I admit error? That you project others opinions unto us is your problem.

As is your inability to deal with accusations of (obvious) narrow-mindedness.

Originally posted by Palynka
If you were actually able to read, neither twhitehead or me have missed any joke. Why should I admit error? That you project others opinions unto us is your problem.

As is your inability to deal with accusations of (obvious) narrow-mindedness.

wow, you have an awfully low hanging chain -- just how insecure are you?

you really can't give an inch, can you?

That's funny.

Originally posted by Scriabin
wow, you have an awfully low hanging chain -- just how insecure are you?

you really can't give an inch, can you?

That's funny.

I can, but not when, like in this post, all you have is posturing. 😀

You sound like Fabian calling you rude...

let's try this again:

Nasrudin is with his cronies drinking coffee:

They are discussing death, "When you are in your casket and friends and family are mourning upon you, what would you like to hear them say about you?"

The first crony says, "I would like to hear them say that I was a great doctor of my time, and a great family man."

The second says, " I would like to hear that I was a wonderful husband and school teacher which made a huge difference in our children of tomorrow."
Nasrudin says, " I would like to hear them say... LOOK!! HE'S MOVING!!!"


pls list the questions presented -- what is the purpose of this story, why is it funny?

Originally posted by Scriabin
pls list the questions presented -- what is the purpose of this story, why is it funny?

I think everyone gets the joke that Nasrudin apparently thought one step further than the other two, but your comments on the matter make it look as if you believe that Nasrudin by giving a witty answer has actually cheated death. But in truth, your story quite clearly states that they are discussing death (and not some vampire like practice of sleeping in coffins) and although Nasruding was being witty, he was deliberately misunderstanding the question - which was "what do you want people to think of you after you die." It is even possible that he was being witty to avoid answering the question.

You guys seem to be turning this story into a massive debate

Last time i checked, this 'story' was filed under a different term, otherwise known as a 'joke'.

From what I understand of this 'joke', it's that whilst the other two men already accept that they are dead, (the assumption), the third and original man, (Nasrudin in this version, a random guy in the joke version), twists the original setting as to keep himself alive (and for some reason he is in a casket and his family and friends are mourning).

I don't believe that this 'story' is made to be a deep philosophiscal arguement about the original man laying a trap about the dead being able to, I assumed that this is simply a joke.

A joke made for a simple laugh.

Easy enough?

Originally posted by banx99
Easy enough?

No. A story usually has many interpretations even those not intended by the writer. A reader is not required to restrict himself to the writers interpretation. I find it interesting to look at more than one aspect of a story. Scriabin on the other hand seems to think that his interpretation is the only correct one and anyone with alternative views will fail a law exam.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. A story usually has many interpretations even those not intended by the writer. A reader is not required to restrict himself to the writers interpretation. I find it interesting to look at more than one aspect of a story. Scriabin on the other hand seems to think that his interpretation is the only correct one and anyone with alternative views will fail a law exam.

Wow.
Could you be any more pedantic? The joke couldn't be any more obviously "unidimensional." Clearly, in this baseball-themed anecdote, the first two batters couldn't resist the bait of high-outside pitches.

The third batter was more patient and saw his patience rewarded with a home-run shot--- right over centerfield, above the cheap seats and into the parking lot. Why? Because he refused to accept the previously-accepted idea that one pitch = one strike = one out.

That you and Paly are keen on being contrarians doesn't alter the main--- and emphatic--- thrust of the joke.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That you and Paly are keen on being contrarians doesn't alter the main--- and emphatic--- thrust of the joke.

I don't think anyone missed the joke. But it seems that you and scrabin are incapable of seeing that there can be more to be enjoyed in a story than the 'thrust of the joke'. Scrabin interprets that as a sign that everyone else is not up to his intellectual standard, and you interpret it as being contrarian.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Wow.
Could you be any more pedantic? The joke couldn't be any more obviously "unidimensional." Clearly, in this baseball-themed anecdote, the first two batters couldn't resist the bait of high-outside pitches.

The third batter was more patient and saw his patience rewarded with a home-run shot--- right over centerfield, above the cheap seats and into ...[text shortened]... are keen on being contrarians doesn't alter the main--- and emphatic--- thrust of the joke.

love baseball analogies.

have you heard the one that was told about German reunification?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think anyone missed the joke. But it seems that you and scrabin are incapable of seeing that there can be more to be enjoyed in a story than the 'thrust of the joke'. Scrabin interprets that as a sign that everyone else is not up to his intellectual standard, and you interpret it as being contrarian.

I interpret it as evidence some folks are pig headed, obstinate, and insecure.

picking out the main issue in a situation is what I do for a living, so I'm not expecting everyone to be able to do that unless they also were trained for that.

I don't need to make others feel badly in order to make myself feel good; that isn't the point at all.

what sets me off on a tear is when, as here, some folks simply miss the point and won't say so out of a rabid sense of insecurity.

if there are other aspects to be appreciated, well and good. But the OP asked for # 1, not those others.

the response therefore could have been: the thrust of the joke is X, but besides that rather obvious point, here are some other things to be enjoyed in this story: Y, Z, etc.

A response that ignores or misses #1 and insists some other point is the main one -- well, sorry, Charlie, but gotta call it like it is.