Preface: I had posted this (a couple minutes ago) in the Clay Aiken thread. Of course, I then realized that that was kind of dumb since it was being discussed here... in fact, I only posted it in the other thread because of the first post here...
Man, I'm not doing so good with the internets thing lately.
Anyway... here it is...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point people sometimes miss is the difference in medium.
In the everyday world, a person has clues they can use in order to identify a sarcastic comment: facial expressions, body language, vocal afflictions etc.
In text, there are none of those clues available. Hence, the advent of some sort of visual clue. In the past, I have actually spelled out the fact that I am being sarcastic (in parenthesis), so that everyone reading my comments would know I didn't really believe that a tomato was going to come to life and kill everyone.
I think it's important to remember that not everyone here has the same level of reading comprehension as everyone else. Some people might consider that to be a pain in their ass, but others might choose to remember that we're all here to talk (ultimately) about hockey. If this was a forum about reading books and analyzing literature, then I could understand that it might seem out of place to have to pre-identify a sarcastic response.
Remember that really good sarcasm is very difficult to detect even with all the clues you get in real life; it's almost impossible to detect on a message board without any kind of visual clue at all.
Mind you... I own a PHD in sarcasm, so everything's all groovy to me.