I’m not debating whether my type of humor is funnier than your type.
I’m pointing out that OP’s humor is a specific category that others (including myself) appreciate, so I don’t think your own preferences should override how OP wants to share jokes.
You said that you disagreed with the assertion that most funny jokes are obvious after the punchline. It is the first sentence in your reply. And it is on that basis that I believed that is what you were talking about.
And like with OP’s joke, which doesn’t contain a traditional punchline, many would disagree with your point that explaining the joke to make it more obvious would make the joke better. I think it’s fine as it is.
I’m not asking you to like the original joke, but at least respect why OP chose to share it in the current format, and that some people in the audience may appreciate it better the way it is, compared to the way you’re implicitly proposing.
I’m confused because you seem to think I am arguing with you, but I am just trying to make sure that we all understand what was actually said. Because I think if you look at what I said, and look at what you and other people said, you’ll see that there’s not much to argue about.
Here is what OP said:
It wouldn’t be funny if it was obvious.
You seem to have interpreted that to mean “It wouldn’t be as funny if it was obvious.”
Since OP said that their joke “wouldn’t be funny if it was obvious,” I thought they meant that the joke doesn’t work if they make it obvious.
A lot of double-entendre jokes are like that. But as you can probably tell from my original reply, I didn’t think this was that kind of joke. I never intended to disrespect anybody or anybody’s joke. I thought this joke was a sort of “I lost my wife” one-liner joke that Rodney Dangerfield might tell, but with the punchline played down. If it was that sort of joke, I have heard funny versions that were obvious.
I’m not debating whether my type of humor is funnier than your type.
I’m pointing out that OP’s humor is a specific category that others (including myself) appreciate, so I don’t think your own preferences should override how OP wants to share jokes.
You said that you disagreed with the assertion that most funny jokes are obvious after the punchline. It is the first sentence in your reply. And it is on that basis that I believed that is what you were talking about.
And like with OP’s joke, which doesn’t contain a traditional punchline, many would disagree with your point that explaining the joke to make it more obvious would make the joke better. I think it’s fine as it is.
I’m not asking you to like the original joke, but at least respect why OP chose to share it in the current format, and that some people in the audience may appreciate it better the way it is, compared to the way you’re implicitly proposing.
I’m confused because you seem to think I am arguing with you, but I am just trying to make sure that we all understand what was actually said. Because I think if you look at what I said, and look at what you and other people said, you’ll see that there’s not much to argue about.
Here is what OP said:
You seem to have interpreted that to mean “It wouldn’t be as funny if it was obvious.”
Since OP said that their joke “wouldn’t be funny if it was obvious,” I thought they meant that the joke doesn’t work if they make it obvious.
A lot of double-entendre jokes are like that. But as you can probably tell from my original reply, I didn’t think this was that kind of joke. I never intended to disrespect anybody or anybody’s joke. I thought this joke was a sort of “I lost my wife” one-liner joke that Rodney Dangerfield might tell, but with the punchline played down. If it was that sort of joke, I have heard funny versions that were obvious.