It’s hard to decide which is funnier

Simcha Fisher, who is hilarious because she means to be, or her commenters, a great many of whom are hilarious without meaning to be.

"For those who do not know, it was originally called The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research ..."

I used to work at Fred ..."
"Thanks. Yeah, it's interesting and fun, even if it isn't an exact science yet. I ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"When we did our DNA tests last year, she came in as over 50% British ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"Very cool! I did a short (month or two) stint at the Hutch under Harold ..."

I used to work at Fred ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Blog did us proud in there though! 😉

    It’s the no pants thing that gets me every time. Skirts I understand. But no pants conjures images of, well, women without their pants on. In the name of modesty.

    And that’s just hilarious right there! As opposed to lewd. Which means my twisted sense of humor is God protecting my virtue/

  • Andy, Bad Person

    Oh goodness, is the Pants Debate back? Have I been missing it?

    I’ve been waiting for this day. Let me go make some popcorn.

  • The thought of the return of this debate makes some people pant, and makes some people skirt the issue.

    • Nonymous

      The reason no one comments on this is that “Ouch” is too short for the Patheos combox police.

  • Dr. Eric

    This is what happens when I have to treat a patient before I can make a pants comment, everyone beats me to it.

  • beccolina

    The people in her comboxes take themselves and life WAY too seriously. They aren’t as bad as Marc Barnes’ comboxes, but whoa, people are quick to tell Simcha how awful they think she is.

  • Blog Goliard

    I don’t think even the pants debate can ever top the epic insanity of the WWJD thread. (I got called an Obama supporter, secret gay marriage enthusiast, and much more in that one.)

  • Wait ! Are Patheos bloggers allowed to drive traffic to the Register (and visa versa)???


  • Simcha had me at the “sola skirtura” comment, many moons ago.

    • I missed that one but that’s really funny.

  • JDH

    One question and one comment:
    1) If I had the opinion of Simcha that many of her commenters do (I don’t; I love Simcha), I would have stopped reading her after, like, her third blog post. Why do all these people stick around and make such an effort?
    2) In a discussion about this post over at “…and sometimes tea,” someone actually made the argument in the comments that the Catechism condmemns, always and everywhere, the use of sarcasm and irony in writing. So, basically, GK Chesterton was the worst Catholic ever. It’s comments like that that make me wonder whether it might not be such a good thing to encourage everyone to read the Catechism on their own during the Year of Faith.

    • It actually sort of gives me a warm feeling inside to find humorless fundie-types in the Catholic Church, too, just like we used to have ’em in my evangelical days.

  • Many moons! Still with the no pants…

    There everywhere, I tells ya…

    • Nonymous

      Cut us some slacks, will you?

      • Its these breeches of decorum which are ruining our society!

        (Seriously, if I am cutting your slacks, chances are, you’re bleeding to death and I am trying to figure out precisely where. Not to bring you down…)

        • ah, don’t sell yourself shorts