"Not a witness, but-"
Okay, here’s the original joke and then my attempt at a “Joke Poo” titled “Kernel Panic”:
Original Joke:
A Redditor was standing witness in a trial.
"Not a witness, but-"
Joke Poo Title: Kernel Panic
A Linux server was running surveillance footage in a bank robbery trial.
"Not a witness, but-"
Okay, let’s break down this joke and then build something new from it.
Analysis of the Original Joke:
- Setup: A Redditor is in a courtroom as a witness.
- Punchline: The Redditor interrupts, stating “Not a witness, but-“.
- Humor: The humor derives from the implied, unfinished statement. It suggests the Redditor is about to launch into a lengthy, unsolicited, and likely irrelevant explanation, much like one might find on Reddit. The “but-” is classic Redditor “well, actually…” behavior. It preys on the stereotype of Redditors as pedantic, eager to correct, and prone to tangential rants. The joke works because most people have encountered this type of comment online.
Key Elements:
- Redditor Stereotype: Knowledgeable (or believing themselves to be), pedantic, loves to correct, prone to tangents, often uses “well, actually…”
- Courtroom Setting: Formal, requires precision and brevity.
- The “But-” Interruption: Signals an impending, unwelcome correction or explanation.
New Humorous Piece (Joke):
A history professor was asked to be an expert witness at a trial involving a dispute over land ownership. He began, “Well, in 1785, there was, of course, the Land Ordinance, but actually,” he adjusted his glasses, “even before that, if we delve into pre-Columbian history, we see that indigenous interpretations of land tenure…” The judge banged his gavel. “Professor! This is about whether the fence is two feet over the property line, not the Magna Carta!” The professor sighed, “Fine, technically, but context is everything!”
Explanation of the New Joke:
- It uses a similar “interruptive pedant” setup, but substitutes a history professor for a Redditor.
- It escalates the absurdity. Instead of a simple interruption, the professor launches into a full-blown lecture on historical land ownership.
- The professor’s correction highlights a common trope of academics over-complicating simple matters by bringing in unnecessary information.
- The judge’s reaction emphasizes the inappropriateness of the professor’s tangential knowledge in the context of the trial.
- The use of italics on words like “actually” and “technically” further highlights the professor’s pedantic nature.
Amusing “Did You Know?” Enhancement:
Did you know that the phrase “Expert Witness” didn’t really become popular until the late 19th century? Before that, judges often relied on their own “common sense” or consulted with local artisans. Which explains why some historical court rulings regarding complex engineering disputes sound suspiciously like a blacksmith’s opinion after a few pints! Now that would be a fun Redditor thread to witness.