# Two pink hippopatimi...



## The Merg

Two pink hippopotami are taking a bath.

The first says to the second, "Pass the soap."

The second replies, "No soap, radio."

- Merg


----------



## coldsteel

Huh?


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

huh?


----------



## Mavrick

Huh?


----------



## Scott Kocourek

:scratchin :shrug:


----------



## P Smith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_soap_radio


----------



## Scott Kocourek

Thank you P Smith.


----------



## Nick

Huh? :scratch:


P Smith said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_soap_radio


TMI :shrug:


----------



## spartanstew

LOL, good one.


----------



## jerry downing

Thank goodness! I thought it was me.


----------



## Carl Spock

Too deep for me.

Sort of like the old joke: 

How many ADD kids does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Wanna go ride our bikes?


----------



## fluffybear




----------



## Nick

Scott Kocourek said:


> Thank you P Smith.


Call him "P" for short.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Shouldn't this be in the Social Studies Forum?


----------



## Nick

Remedial Psychology


----------



## TBlazer07

Geez, the least you could do was spell hippopotami correctly! :lol:


----------



## Nick

Isn't a "hippopatimi" a female hippopotamus? :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

If you have to explain a punch line...the joke is a fail.


----------



## yosoyellobo

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If you have to explain a punch line...the joke is a fail.


This is worse. I did not come close to laughing.


----------



## tcusta00

Key parts of the "experiment" were missing... the co-conspirator(s) being the main part: 

"the co-conspirators immediately laugh uproariously, treating the story and the nonsensical punchline as though it were, in fact, a proper joke. In reality however, there is intentionally no humor in the content and punchline.

The purpose of the prank is to make the victim of the punchline have one of two responses:

False understanding - when the victim acts as if the joke is humorous, when in fact the victim does not understand the joke at all.
Negative understanding - when the victim expresses confusion about what the joke means and feels left out (e.g., "I don't get it.") The conspirators are now prepared to mock the victim for the victim's "inability to get it." Because of pressure to conform, the victim may switch to false understanding (pretending comprehension of the incomprehensible) after receiving facetious derision from the conspirators. Normally after some time of negative understanding, the prank is revealed in full to the victim.
"


----------



## AttiTech

tcusta00 said:


> Key parts of the "experiment" were missing... the co-conspirator(s) being the main part:
> 
> "the co-conspirators immediately laugh uproariously, treating the story and the nonsensical punchline as though it were, in fact, a proper joke. In reality however, there is intentionally no humor in the content and punchline.
> 
> The purpose of the prank is to make the victim of the punchline have one of two responses:
> 
> False understanding - when the victim acts as if the joke is humorous, when in fact the victim does not understand the joke at all.
> Negative understanding - when the victim expresses confusion about what the joke means and feels left out (e.g., "I don't get it.") The conspirators are now prepared to mock the victim for the victim's "inability to get it." Because of pressure to conform, the victim may switch to false understanding (pretending comprehension of the incomprehensible) after receiving facetious derision from the conspirators. Normally after some time of negative understanding, the prank is revealed in full to the victim.
> "


Wikipedia


----------



## billsharpe

This "inside joke" approach reminds me of the Comedians convention when all the funny guys got together to swap jokes. However, since they all knew all the jokes, to save time they would substitute a coded number for the joke.

The first comedian said "34" and everyone laughed.
The second comedian said "88" and everyone laughed again.

A newcomer to the group, who still knew the codes, said "65" and no one laughed.

He tried again with "93" and still no one laughed.

The new guy was pretty unhappy and asked what was wrong, wasn't the joke funny.

The first comedian explained "No, the joke is funny. We just didn't like the way you told it."

<ducking>


----------



## Carl Spock

So this Native American chief has three daughters. His first daughter, who lived in a tepee covered in buffalo hide, had a baby, and the chief announced that the squaw had a son. The Second Squaw, who had a tepee covered in elk hide, also had baby, and afterward the chief announced that she, too, had given birth to a son. When his third daughter, who lived in a tepee covered in rare, imported hippopotamus hide, became pregnant and gave birth, the Indian chief told his warriors that whomever could tell him what his third squaw had given birth to, that warrior would succeed him as the next chief when he went to The Great Hunting Grounds In The Sky.

The finest young warrior approached the chief and announced that his daughter had given birth to twin sons. The chief smiled and said, "Powerful Warrior, you are correct. How did you know?"

The warrior answered, "It is obvious. The squaw of the hippopotamus is equal to the sons of the squaws of the other two hides."


----------



## The Merg

TBlazer07 said:


> Geez, the least you could do was spell hippopotami correctly! :lol:


Yeah, I knew it didn't look right, but was too lazy to check the correct spelling. It's fixed now...

- Merg


----------



## The Merg

tcusta00 said:


> Key parts of the "experiment" were missing... the co-conspirator(s) being the main part:
> 
> "the co-conspirators immediately laugh uproariously, treating the story and the nonsensical punchline as though it were, in fact, a proper joke. In reality however, there is intentionally no humor in the content and punchline.
> 
> The purpose of the prank is to make the victim of the punchline have one of two responses:
> 
> False understanding - when the victim acts as if the joke is humorous, when in fact the victim does not understand the joke at all.
> Negative understanding - when the victim expresses confusion about what the joke means and feels left out (e.g., "I don't get it.") The conspirators are now prepared to mock the victim for the victim's "inability to get it." Because of pressure to conform, the victim may switch to false understanding (pretending comprehension of the incomprehensible) after receiving facetious derision from the conspirators. Normally after some time of negative understanding, the prank is revealed in full to the victim.
> "


I figured at least some people here would have heard it before and would have posted. I was actually very surprised to see that there is a Wiki page on it, although I guess I shouldn't be.

- Merg


----------



## drpjr

After being told she was crazy, Sybil replied--We are not.


----------



## Carl Spock

When you learn that a hippopotamus eats 300 pounds of water lilies a day, then you know that more than one hippopotamus is not hippopotami, but hippopotamesses.


----------



## The Merg

Carl Spock said:


> When you learn that a hippopotamus eats 300 pounds of water lilies a day, then you know that more than one hippopotamus is not hippopotami, but hippopotamesses.


That's bad... :lol:

- Merg


----------



## billsharpe

The Merg said:


> That's bad... :lol:
> 
> - Merg


Maybe so, but it's much better than the initial joke


----------



## The Merg

billsharpe said:


> Maybe so, but it's much better than the initial joke


Ouch!

- Merg


----------

