Re: Sarcasm

[Rick Nylander <rnylander@DTSI.COM>]

Lee Daniel Crocker writes:
>First, I'd like to point out that what we are discussing here
>is not "irony" but "sarcasm".  Irony is a semantic thing, and
>can be expressed honestly, or with no attitudinals at all.

Ah, so the debate takes a new direction, eh? :-)

I was going to use the word sarcasm earlier, but _just in case_, I
looked "sarcasm" and "irony" up in my little dictionary.  It defined
sarcasm as: "1. A cutting or contemptuous remark. 2. Ironical criticism
or reproach."  Irony was defined as "1. the use of words to express the
opposite of what one really means." (other definition not applicable.)

"Irony" seems to be the more inclusive of the two words, and seems more
appropriate considering that we are discussing using attitudinals to say
the opposite of what is meant.

_I_ would have started the discussion using the word sarcasm but, after
looking up the two definitions, it seemed that Ashley was smarter to use
"irony."

Unless you want to say Mr. Webster is wrong. %^O

Rik.