What’s to understand. She’s sleepy and she’s speculating about the reason. Really, she’s insulting her date (husband?).
I see what might be bothering a critic.
Good, stimulating conversation would keep her awake.
Caffeine would keep her awake.
So to drift into sleepiness, she would need to be lacking both sources of stimulation. Missing just one would not suffice.
But what does her Either statement envision?
I see what might be bothering a critic.
Good, stimulating conversation would keep her awake.
Caffeine would keep her awake also.
So to drift into sleepiness, she would need to be lacking both sources of stimulation. Missing just one would not suffice.
But what does her Either statement envision?
The implication is his conversation is SO boring as to counteract the caffeine.
Interesting, Karl. I expected the ripostes to that position I was describing to turn on whether her ‘Either’ statement must be an “exclusive or” or could be “inclusive”. (And I could suggest answers for that.)
But Karl has not taken that path, and instead vastly opens up the underlying context for the argument by suggesting it may not simply be a case of stimulation or its lack, but the possibility of an actual soporific factor or its absence!
Well then, he would you explicate her ‘Either’ statement in terms of those factors? Do they combine in an arithmetic way, or is it fancier? Is time of day itself a factor? Do we need to ask about her threshold?
Oh, it leaves my head spinning! I may need to go sleep it off.
Good point. Maybe as cruel as she is, she still tried to soften it a bit and allow that he may not be THAT bad, it might be decaf.
Carl Fink: “What’s to understand.”
Well, why this is supposed to be funny.
But many of the jokes of the Fusco Brothers are often the bluntness of their dates in insulting them. I guess the joke is supposed to be the way they use the flimsiest of segues just to levee the insult. Or the fact that women really don’t like them.
It makes no less sense than the famous Groucho line (while taking a man’s pulse), “Either my watch has stopped, or this man is dead.”
Somehow I took this in as Pardon My Planet, and then of course there would be no expectation that the logic would hold up. So I was surprised to see you all going into it on the basis of expecting it to make sense. But then! Did a double-take and noticed it is Fusco Brothers. But even so, aren’t we being a little too exacting?
“It makes no less sense than the famous Groucho line (while taking a man’s pulse), “Either my watch has stopped, or this man is dead.””
Maybe. But it’s all in the juxtaposition; the watch (mundane) and the death (severe) are hard things to mistake and the idea anyone would do so is extreme and comical. Here its just… mean.
Is GoDaddy still the Evil Empire?
Why, yes. Yes they are.
They sent all their employees an email offering $650 bonuses that turned out to be a phishing test.
After firing 814 people last summer.
Merry Christmas!
“Either” seems OK to me. She needs stimulating conversation AND stimulating coffee to keep her awake. Given that’ she’s falling asleep, she knows that at least one of them must be missing, and saying that it could be either. (It’s also possible that they’re both missing, it’s not necessarily an exclusive “or”)
Whether or not you find it funny, someone insulting someone else is comprehensible as a joke. (e.g. see every Lockhorn.)
From the same Marx Brothers movie:
Groucho (to Harpo): Take her pulse!
[Harpo grabs her purse and runs.]
Groucho (to the onlookers): He can’t spell very well.
That doesn’t make much sense either.
Mark, of course it doesn’t make sense! It’s absurd. That’s Marx Brothers humor. Duffy’s not in the same league. Heck, he’s in a completely different sport.
Comics I Don't Understand 
What’s to understand. She’s sleepy and she’s speculating about the reason. Really, she’s insulting her date (husband?).
I see what might be bothering a critic.
Good, stimulating conversation would keep her awake.
Caffeine would keep her awake.
So to drift into sleepiness, she would need to be lacking both sources of stimulation. Missing just one would not suffice.
But what does her Either statement envision?
I see what might be bothering a critic.
Good, stimulating conversation would keep her awake.
Caffeine would keep her awake also.
So to drift into sleepiness, she would need to be lacking both sources of stimulation. Missing just one would not suffice.
But what does her Either statement envision?
The implication is his conversation is SO boring as to counteract the caffeine.
Interesting, Karl. I expected the ripostes to that position I was describing to turn on whether her ‘Either’ statement must be an “exclusive or” or could be “inclusive”. (And I could suggest answers for that.)
But Karl has not taken that path, and instead vastly opens up the underlying context for the argument by suggesting it may not simply be a case of stimulation or its lack, but the possibility of an actual soporific factor or its absence!
Well then, he would you explicate her ‘Either’ statement in terms of those factors? Do they combine in an arithmetic way, or is it fancier? Is time of day itself a factor? Do we need to ask about her threshold?
Oh, it leaves my head spinning! I may need to go sleep it off.
Good point. Maybe as cruel as she is, she still tried to soften it a bit and allow that he may not be THAT bad, it might be decaf.
Carl Fink: “What’s to understand.”
Well, why this is supposed to be funny.
But many of the jokes of the Fusco Brothers are often the bluntness of their dates in insulting them. I guess the joke is supposed to be the way they use the flimsiest of segues just to levee the insult. Or the fact that women really don’t like them.
It makes no less sense than the famous Groucho line (while taking a man’s pulse), “Either my watch has stopped, or this man is dead.”
Somehow I took this in as Pardon My Planet, and then of course there would be no expectation that the logic would hold up. So I was surprised to see you all going into it on the basis of expecting it to make sense. But then! Did a double-take and noticed it is Fusco Brothers. But even so, aren’t we being a little too exacting?
“It makes no less sense than the famous Groucho line (while taking a man’s pulse), “Either my watch has stopped, or this man is dead.””
Maybe. But it’s all in the juxtaposition; the watch (mundane) and the death (severe) are hard things to mistake and the idea anyone would do so is extreme and comical. Here its just… mean.
Is GoDaddy still the Evil Empire?
Why, yes. Yes they are.
They sent all their employees an email offering $650 bonuses that turned out to be a phishing test.
After firing 814 people last summer.
Merry Christmas!
“Either” seems OK to me. She needs stimulating conversation AND stimulating coffee to keep her awake. Given that’ she’s falling asleep, she knows that at least one of them must be missing, and saying that it could be either. (It’s also possible that they’re both missing, it’s not necessarily an exclusive “or”)
Whether or not you find it funny, someone insulting someone else is comprehensible as a joke. (e.g. see every Lockhorn.)
From the same Marx Brothers movie:
Groucho (to Harpo): Take her pulse!
[Harpo grabs her purse and runs.]
Groucho (to the onlookers): He can’t spell very well.
That doesn’t make much sense either.
Mark, of course it doesn’t make sense! It’s absurd. That’s Marx Brothers humor. Duffy’s not in the same league. Heck, he’s in a completely different sport.