I don't think the point is that the RSPB are claiming this can't possibly be a joke. They're saying it's not terribly funny. And it's not.

Andy Myles, spokesman for RSPB Scotland, said: "...Passing this sad attempt at humour around the internet..."

"It's just not funny when someone condones committing a criminal offence"

Both these quotes seem to indicate that yes, they accept that the email was intended to be a joke, but that it wasn't very funny.

I know what you mean about terribly po-faced people who absolutely cannot take a joke about their beloved cause (and animal rights campaigners are frequently in this category) but I don't see how this is an example of that.

Bollocks, Andy. Here's what Andy Myles said in full:

"Passing this sad attempt at humour around the internet has all the appearances of condoning a serious criminal act and has a strong whiff of hypocrisy.

"Birds of prey face terrible threats from persecution and the Scottish Parliament have just recently tightened all of the law in this area."

He added that everyone in Scotland should have the right to see sparrowhawks and other birds of prey as an important part of wildlife.

"There has been a vast amount of coverage of wildlife crime in recent years and the public have been horrified that their wildlife is being slaughtered by self-appointed guarantors of balance in the countryside."

So the phrase "sad attempt at humour" was a sad attempt to make it look like he understands the concept of jokes, which he followed up with a frankly insane diatribe about condoning criminal acts (just like telling a joke about three blokes walking into a bar condones alcoholism), hypocrisy (just like the hypocrisy of laughing at Green Wing while believing that doctors should behave responsibly in hospitals), persecution ('cause birds of prey feel threatened by discriminatory emails), the law, rights (and don't get me started on that — the right to see birds of prey? What the fuck?), wildlife crime, and slaughter. Don't get me wrong: the diatribe isn't inherently insane; it would be reasonable in response to a genuine call to kill sparrowhawks. That he said it in response to an obvious joke shows that, despite his opening disclaimer, he doesn't appreciate that this is a joke at all. Because he doesn't find it funny, he spews righteous indignation to the press and turns it into a controversy. Where does he find the time? I see stuff I find unfunny all the time, and I respond by saying "Tsk."

As an aside, I'll note that people who care about wild birds in Britain don't give their money to the RSPB expecting it to be spent on contacting the media to complain about joke emails. Think of the opportunity cost here: every second Andy Myles spends whinging about a joke he doesn't get, he could be saving eagles.

You should put a link to your wondrous new blog in your Haloscan signatures, by the way.

Oh aye, I don't disagree that this is unlikely to increase bird-killing or anything, that wasn't my point. His diatribe is indeed full of mince, but d'you really think he doesn't know it's intended as a joke? I'm pretty sure he knows it is, but that he feels (wrongly, IMO) it has the potential to incite people to do dangerous things.

You and I agree that the latter part of his reasoning there is nonsense, but it doesn't preclude him from understanding that it was intended as a joke. It simply means he's overly neurotic about the way it'll be interpreted by the people who receive it.

Admittedly, then, his complaint should be more with people who misinterpret it, but as no-one's publicly done that yet, he might look a bit (more) foolish.

I'm not defending his public condemnation of the email, just being pedantic about why he did it. As you've probably guessed by my recent messageboard and blogging activity, I have exams soon....

> d'you really think he doesn't know it's intended as a joke?

Of course not. And that's not really what I said. He knows it's intended as a joke, but doesn't know how to react to a joke he doesn't find funny. So he reacts exactly as if it were all deadly serious. He knows it's intended as a joke, but doesn't grasp that it has succeeded in its intention of being a joke even if he doesn't find it funny — even if, in fact, no-one finds it funny. Like I said: no concept of humour.

And Bloom County was the best comic strip in all of forever.

Since "all of forever" includes the time that Calvin & Hobbes was running, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there...

I can't make out that odd blog; at first I thought it might be computer-generated; the repetitive use of the same phrases has that random Perl script quality. Then I started looking at the links in the comments, thinking it might be one of those search engine spam things. Whatever, it's certainly odd. And shouty.

Thanks for getting me hooked on Achewood...

It's not as if I don't have thousands of other diversions to get me through the day...

Calvin & Hobbes? Feh.

Actually, no, they were very good. Just not as good as, that's all.

>>Actually, no, they were very good. Just not as good as, that's all.

Was it Bloom County that you mentioned previously in your blogness? I remember looking at a link to a cartoon that you mentioned and the entire thing was almost identical to a Calvin and Hobbes strip. Almost verbatim but the characters were foxes or something instead of a kid and a tiger. For some reason, thinking about it, it wasn't bloom but something else.

I have to admit to being a calvin and hobbes fan meself. ;-)

That description rings no bells with me, I'm afraid. It's definitely not Bloom County.

My desktop is Calvin & Hobbes at the mo.

I liked the odd blog. Smacks of those youngsters smoking the funny cigarrettes, and then letting loose their hallujinashions on the world wide webby.

Lack of parental supervision, I'll wager.

Bring back caning.

On reflection, it strikes me that you know something's up with your sense of humour when something that you find hilarious doesn't even pass a Turing test.