Leaked video showing US helicopter shooting journalists and civilians

[grumbler]

  The Brain isn't a general, and we are referring to a "general idea."

Nope. I've really tried, but this sentence doesn't work in any of the ways it seems it can be read. The grammar just doesn't work.

Sorry.  It depends on the reader knowing that the English word "general" is both a military rank and an adjective.  Thus, it is a play on the concept of a "general idea" as both an idea  that applies generally (The Brain's meaning), and as the idea of a general (thus the mock rebuttal that "Brain is not a general").  It is akin to the "Don't call me Shirley" response to a post that contains the word "surely" (that one probably puzzled you as well).  Word play like this is probably more common in English than other languages, because it is a mess of words (many of them homophones) from so many different sources, but surely you have something similar in your native language?

You're worrying me Grumbler.

Nothing t worry about, you just have to ask, and I can explain the joke to you.  Understanding wordplay jokes can be hard for  non-native speakers, but they should not let that worry them.

[garbon]

Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?

[DGuller]

When grumbler was a kid, he never blew out candles on a birthday cake.  They didn't have fire yet.

[Siege]

Can you guys go back on topic in discuss the evidence that the video was edited in order to make the apache pilots, and the US military by extent, look bad?

[grumbler]

Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?

Not necessarily.  Wordplay jokes and puns are often designed (as in this case) to elicit a groan rather than a laugh.

[grumbler]

Can you guys go back on topic in discuss the evidence that the video was edited in order to make the apache pilots, and the US military by extent, look bad?

What do you have to say abut it?  What is the evidence?  There are two versions on wikileaks.  One is 17:47 long and the other ("Uneditied") version is 39:14.  Is the 39:14 one alleged to have been edited as well?

[Agelastus]

  The Brain isn't a general, and we are referring to a "general idea."

Nope. I've really tried, but this sentence doesn't work in any of the ways it seems it can be read. The grammar just doesn't work.

Sorry.  It depends on the reader knowing that the English word "general" is both a military rank and an adjective.  Thus, it is a play on the concept of a "general idea" as both an idea  that applies generally (The Brain's meaning), and as the idea of a general (thus the mock rebuttal that "Brain is not a general").  It is akin to the "Don't call me Shirley" response to a post that contains the word "surely" (that one probably puzzled you as well).  Word play like this is probably more common in English than other languages, because it is a mess of words (many of them homophones) from so many different sources, but surely you have something similar in your native language?

That's what I mean. Due to your lower than your usual standard of grammatical usage it failed as a play on words. I could see what you were trying to do, but it did not flow well enough to work, especially when reading all parts of the exchange in sequence.

It was, in fact, "lame". Most definitely not up to your usual standard of wordplay

I find it amusing that you attempt to hide your own relative failure on this occasion by lecturing me on my own language though...

[grumbler]

Siege, take a look at http://www.schmedlap.com/weblog/post.aspx?id=100406-1.  It may help answer some of your questions.

[grumbler]

That's what I mean. Due to your lower than your usual standard of grammatical usage it failed as a play on words. I could see what you were trying to do, but it did not flow well enough to work, especially when reading all parts of the exchange in sequence. 

Well, if you don't get it, you just don't get it.  Wordplay cannot conform to all the rules of grammar, but then I am not worried about it because, in an online forum, proper grammar isn't really expected.

It was, in fact, "lame". Most definitely not up to your usual standard of wordplay

Your opinion is noted.  I have no idea why you would waste the lifespan noting that a "groaner" is lame, but you can choose to spend lifespan as you wish.  This is the last i will have to say on the matter, as I also spend lifespan as I wish.

I find it amusing that you attempt to hide your own relative failure on this occasion by lecturing me on my own language though...

Your inability to recognize a standard concept in English writing (wordplay) made me assume it was not your native tongue.  Shakespeare loved wordplay, and didn't bother with trying to make the grammar come out right:

From Two Men of Verona, where Launce is supposed to be catching a boat:
"Speed: Away, ass! You'll lose the tide if you tarry any longer.

Launce: It is no matter if the tied were lost; for it is the unkindest tied that ever any man tied."

"It is no matter if the tied were lost" is, of course, nonsense in grammatical terms.

I think your command of the language would be enhanced if you (1) read more Shakespeare, and (2) worried less about grammar in wordplay.  So I guess I take back my earlier assertion: you should be worried.

[Agelastus]

I think your command of the language would be enhanced if you (1) read more Shakespeare, and (2) worried less about grammar in wordplay.  So I guess I take back my earlier assertion: you should be worried.

The two meanings of "general" are obvious to everyone on the forum, but there still needs to be some grammar in wordplay, Grumbler, or else it just reads as meaningless nonsense rather than wit. Your latest example failed at this, unlike the examples you quoted from Shakespeare, but I too will say no more on that subject.

I will, however, bookmark this thread to use as a reference the next time you post that you never indulge in personal attacks on posters.

[grumbler]

I will, however, bookmark this thread to use as a reference the next time you post that you never indulge in personal attacks on posters.

  Okay, whatever.  I will bookmark it in case anyone someday claims that I am the one obsessed with grammar.

[Agelastus]

I will, however, bookmark this thread to use as a reference the next time you post that you never indulge in personal attacks on posters.

  Okay, whatever.  I will bookmark it in case anyone someday claims that I am the one obsessed with grammar.

Fair enough. 

[DGuller]

Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?

Not necessarily.  Wordplay jokes and puns are often designed (as in this case) to elicit a groan rather than a laugh.

The problem is that it wasn't a good pun, and it wasn't a bad pun.  It was just a "Huh!?" pun.  Not getting it is not a sign of us being unable to comprehend a wordplay, it's just a sign that we have at least bare minimum standards when it comes to humor.

[DisturbedPervert]

Is the 39:14 one alleged to have been edited as well?

Yes, I posted the link a couple pages ago while you guys were fighting.  The 39 minute video supposedly has 30 minutes chopped off, where the Apache pilot does not engage two targets because of possible civilian casualties.

[Berkut]

Is the 39:14 one alleged to have been edited as well?

Yes, I posted the link a couple pages ago while you guys were fighting.  The 39 minute video supposedly has 30 minutes chopped off, where the Apache pilot does not engage two targets because of possible civilian casualties.

Anyone remember the argument me and Jake had a long time ago about the media distorting the story about an Apache pilot who killed some civilians who had congregated around a damaged Bradley?

I am simply STUNNED to find that the video would be doctored to put the US pilots in the worst light possible.