I don’t often read Les Palmer’s column in your Friday edition, but today (Feb. 1) I made the mistake of doing so; the title was “Wildlife Vs. Man.”
I can’t decide whether he’s trying to be funny, or if he’s serious. If the former, he needs to go back to comedy school; I think I have a reasonably well developed sense of humor, but I don’t find anything in it even mildly amusing.
If the latter, he needs to be provided a one-way ticket to somewhere outside, the farther the better. I’ll be happy to contribute to the ticket fund.
Comments (9)
Add commentFaulty Thinking
Jerry has made the common error of "either-or" thinking. For myself, I found the story by Les Palmer both funny and serious.
Les Moved Already
2/5/13 fyi: Les is now a "Snow Bird" & no longer resides in Alaska SPW
Letter on Les Palmer column
Perhaps drmctchr can fill me in on what the third possibility here is. I guess I just don't have enough imagination. But then I choose to live here all year so that's entirely possible.
-- Jerry Brookman (not afraid to sign my name)
Answer to Jerry (second try)
Tuesday night I wrote an answer to Jerry's question - but it has not appeared so now (Wed morning) I will write again.
Even using polarized (yes/no) answers you can easily see four possible outcomes:
Funny ......... YES
Serious ....... NO
Funny ......... NO
Serious ....... YES
Funny ........ YES
Serious ...... YES
Funny ........ NO
Serious ...... NO
However, even that oversimplied format giving 4 possibilities is easily seen as inadequate. What if you added a "middle" answer (between YES and NO) - which might be "Don't know" - or "Don't care" - or "Can't decide". Then you get 9 possible answers.
But even those 9 are not realistic - because (in reality) there are an infinite number of positions along a continuum between the extremes of YES and NO ... and, therefore, there is no end to the possibilities to answer the question: "Is this funny or serious?" And that would be true just for one person. Then consider ALL of the people who are answering the question and you will find that the possibilities are overwhelming. To simplify daily life, humans commonly overlook most of the complicating factors (even though they really exist) - and often give simple YES and NO answers.
But wouldn't it be helpful to at least acknowledge that there are at least 4 basic answers ... (not just two)? Doing so helps to give a truer view of the reality of the situation. I believe that broadening a person's view might help in better understandings among people ... and (who knows) perhaps better decisions ... maybe even more peaceful solutions. Polarized thinking more easily leads toward more emotional reactions ... thus compounding a situation into even greater polarization (and even less real understanding).
Go Les!!
seems he never get's this much blog unless he hurt some commercial guides pride, too bad, go back home from hence you came from Jerry, you already admitted to not reading his column why this time I wonder chump??
Keep them coming!
I find the column's od Les and Grannie Annie to be my favorite features in the Clarion! Please publish them more often!
In answer to drmctchr's second comment
OK, there are four possibilities. But in this particular case I would put it in the fourth: not funny and not serious.
In answer to potomac's comments
I am very very definitely NOT a commercial guide. Potomac tells me to "go back from whence I come". I've lived in Kenai since 1978, in Alaska since 1957. I wasn't born here, but I got here as quick as I could. He(?) also asks why I read Les' column this time; I guess the headline grabbed my eyeballs. I would amend my previous statement that I never read his column to say that I seldom read it.
Get a life!
Just try and find a little joy without stepping on someone elses rights.