Re: It's NOT that funny.
Posted by Dale on Jan 29, 2002 at 09:15
159.arc1.il-decatur1.fgi.net (204.212.222.67)Re: It's NOT that funny. (DA Morgan)
What are the chances that people in a wide range of countries and cultures would even have a passing acquaintance wiht Arthur Conan Doyle?Well considering that the respondents have to have Internet access and speak English also, I would expect far higher than that of the total world population. Also the joke doesn't depend on that knowledge. It would have been similarly amusing assuming any two semi-intelligent people. For example:
Carl Sagan and Little Danny are going camping. They pitch their tent under the stars and go to sleep. Sometime in the middle of the night Carl wakes Little Danny up. "Danny, look up at the stars, and tell me what you deduce." Little Danny says, "I see millions of stars and even if a few of those have planets, it's quite likely there are some planets like Earth, and if there are a few planets like Earth out there, there might also be life." Carl replied: "Danny, you idiot, somebody stole our tent!"
Now even though most people in the world (even those who speak English on the internet) don't have a clue who you are, I think they would still find that funny.
Follow Ups:
- That's Enough Amaranth Rose 29/1 10:14 (32)
- Re: That was science Dale 30/1 09:35 (31)
- Re: That was science Sparrow 30/1 12:28 (30)
- Re: That was science Dale 31/1 10:50 (25)
- Re: That was science Shasta 14/2 18:03 (0)
- If my comments "got" to you.... Sparrow 01/2 07:41 (1)
- Re: If my comments "got" to you.... Dale 01/2 08:50 (0)
- Re: That was science mara 31/1 12:59 (21)
- Re: That was science Shasta 14/2 18:05 (0)
- Re: That was science Dale 01/2 09:18 (11)
- Re: That was science Shasta 14/2 18:58 (0)
- Re: That was science mara 08/2 11:28 (9)
- Re: That was science Dale 09/2 10:32 (8)
- Re: That was science mara 12/2 12:45 (2)
- Re: That was science Dale 12/2 18:16 (1)
- Re: That was science Shasta 14/2 19:12 (0)
- Re: That was science Amaranth Rose 10/2 03:21 (4)
- Re: That was science Dale 10/2 11:54 (3)
- Re: That was science Amaranth Rose 10/2 16:10 (2)
- GOT'CHA'!!! :) (nt) Dale 11/2 07:59 (1)
- Re: GOT'CHA'!!! :) (nt) Shasta 14/2 19:09 (0)
- Re: That was[n't] science bobbapink 31/1 13:22 (7)
- Re: That was[n't] science Shasta 14/2 19:14 (0)
- Re: That was[n't] science mara 08/2 11:39 (5)
- Re: That was[n't] science Dale 09/2 10:50 (4)
- Re: That was[n't] science shasta 14/2 19:19 (0)
- Re: That was[n't] science mara 12/2 12:50 (2)
- Re: That was[n't] science Dale 12/2 18:25 (1)
- Re: That was[n't] science Shasta 14/2 19:20 (0)
- Re: That was science DA Morgan 30/1 15:19 (2)
- Re: That was meaningless but it made him feel good Dale 31/1 11:07 (1)
- Re: That was meaningless but it made him feel good Shasta 14/2 19:24 (0)
- Re: Yeap John W 30/1 14:51 (0)