Good thing anti's never misrepresent themselves, unlike john lott!

I mean, how could someone pull that Mary Rosh hooey and expect to be taken seriously. It's a good thing anti's never lie about their identity unlike that fraud Lott.

http://www.askjohnlott.org

To be so lacking in sense of humour must be actually painful at times.

I suggest that you consult your dictionary for the meaning of "parody".

My reproduction of Samuel Johnson's 1756 Dictionary has this to say:

PARODY. n.s. A kind of writing in which the words of an author
or his thoughts are taken, and by a slight change adapted to some
new purpose.

My more modern Oxford Concise offers this:

parody n. & v. 1a. a humorous exaggerated imitation of an author, literary work,
style, etc.

Of course, you might like this one better:

2. a feeble imitation; a travesty.

You might want to read a few other examples of this art, to familiarize yourself with its practice. I suggest that you try http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ as a good introduction. (As I recall, if you consult the guestbook on that site, you will find numerous references to something called "*******" (standing in for a seven-letter word beginning with "p" and ending with "y", which is banned from the guestbook). This is because an occasional side benefit (unintended as it is) of the practice of parody is that one truly does fool the truly foolish, and letting them in on the joke does spoil it.

Expanding your horizons outside the USofA might also help. The Brits in particular are rather good at this sort of thing, and of course its cousin, "satire". On the latter subject, you may recall Jonathan Swift's 1728 "Modest Proposal" -- http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~benjamin/316kfall/316ktexts/swift.html
-- and perhaps you will want to join with all the people over the years who have denounced his "proposal" that the children of the poor be cooked and eaten.

Or you could just try explaining how a site that refers to its subject as associated with the "American Encherprise Institute", I believe it was, "misrepresents" anything or anyone at all.

So here's your choices: are you so dim and/or humourless that you thought that this site was "misrepresentation", or so disingenuous as to say that you thought it was misrepresenation when you didn't?

.

I didn't even read it close...the front page seemed so much like the sort of claptrap Lott generates!

...and this is hardly a paraody, Unless maybe you do use that nifty deffinition that that includes "feeble" and "travesty".

See, the thing about paraodies, is they're supposed to be funny. The problem isnt that I am dry and humorless. The problem is, the sight authors are. There are quite a few pro-gun control cartoons I have seen that i thought were funny. (The one where the NRA rep is quoted as saying "we're going to work on getting rid of the laws we already have, that Benchly posted is actually cute)
But this site can call itself a parody all it wants, hell, it can call itself the word of god for all i care, but that doesnt make it so.

Read the site, is there anything even remotely humorous? No? I didnt think so. It's not extreme enough to be a paraody. Hell, you could almost think it actually was written by Lott it's so unfunny.

Supposedly, if you actually email a question in, you get a response signed by john lott. (or so i've read) it didnt say if the response had a disclaimer on it (and i doubt it does), but if it doesnt, how much more disingenuous could it be?

If you're going to call something a paraody, at least make it a little more "out there" in an attempt to be funny.


(Edit to add:) hell, Look at Benchleys first response to the thread

------
"P.S. Just the simple fact that you're here, reading this website, proves that you're more informed than 87% of the citizens of the United States of America. "

Quick quiz: Is Mary Rosh

a) claiming that 13% of America has visited his idiotic web site?
b) claiming that he knows the educational attainments of every visitor of his website and how that compares to those who have not visited?
c) aware of how many sane people are going to visit his website for a good laugh?
d) full of crap as usual.
e) all of the above.
------


Looks like he missed the joke the first time around too ;)

Seems like somebody else didn't think it was funny, too...

"AskJohnLott.org was recently hacked by someone who values the Second Ammendment but not the First. Although we at AskJohnLott.org can understand why pro-gun extremists would be afraid of free speech, we believe that the entire Bill of Rights should be upheld.

Ask John Lott will be restored soon. In the meantime, the following sites provide information about the John Lott controversy:

Who Is Mary Rosh?

More Guns, More Crime

Tim Lambert's weblog

Thanks, and long live the Bill of Rights!"

Let's go over those definitions of "parody" one more time:

My reproduction of Samuel Johnson's 1756 Dictionary has this to say:

PARODY. n.s. A kind of writing in which the words of an author or his thoughts are taken, and by a slight change adapted to some new purpose.



My more modern Oxford Concise offers this:

parody n. & v. 1a. a humorous exaggerated imitation of an author, literary work, style, etc.

Sam Johnson (quite properly, in my opinion) inserts no "humour" element into the definition of "parody". Oxford does -- but do you see where it doesn't say "an exaggerated imitation ... THAT THE_ACID_ONE FINDS HUMOROUS"?

If a joke makes you groan rather than laugh, is it still a joke?

Is Jerry Lewis funny?

So many things are matters of the skill of the performer and the taste of the audience, no?

The site in question may not be GOOD parody (I haven't bothered to form an opinion), but to say that it is not parody is just silly.

But actually, MrBenchley's initial response would kinda go to show what reasonably decent parody it was, doncha think? A good IMITATION, apparently, that SOME PEOPLE find funny. There y'are.

and pegs the gun nuts' favorite crackpot to a "T".

and pegs the gun nuts' favorite crackpot to a "T".

and pegs the gun nuts' favorite crackpot to a "T".

"P.S. Just the simple fact that you're here, reading this website, proves that you're more informed than 87% of the citizens of the United States of America. "

Quick quiz: Is Mary Rosh

a) claiming that 13% of America has visited his idiotic web site?
b) claiming that he knows the educational attainments of every visitor of his website and how that compares to those who have not visited?
c) aware of how many sane people are going to visit his website for a good laugh?
d) full of crap as usual.
e) all of the above.