LOL

today i wish to speak to you about the word LOL. thats LOL with one L, not two. actually it does have two Ls, so two not three. now i've said LOL too many times and it's gone weird on me, lol lol lol. snap out of it drew. today i wish to speak to you about the modern habit of indicating approval of a joke by writing the word LOL, short for Laugh Out Loud. here's a fun little game, guess if i'm for or against this alliteration. are you sure? have you adequately explored the possibility that i actually think it's charming and harmless and that i'm about to launch into a staunch defense of it? no? quite sure? ah! then you have walked right into my trap, mr. bond, because actually i do approve of it, and i am about to defend it.  i mean god knows i'd never use it myself, but i do think, unlike much of tech speak, it fulfills a useful purpose to which there was no previous word in the english language, thus earns its place. the meaning i take from the word LOL is "i acknowledge that you have made a joke, and wish to express my enjoyment of it." and that's an excellent and compact way to say that thing. because otherwise, what are the options? "very funny"? "haha"? "most amusing"? written down, they all look sarcastic. that's the beauty of LOL. unique amongst of approbation, it's never meant sarcastically. so what non-LOLers tend to do instead to illustrate they've noticed your joke, especially on the internet, is to make the same joke again using slightly different words. that's to say if the joke, and i say joke but is normally just a vaguely light hearted remark which really cant bear the weight it's about to have placed upon it, if the joke you've just read ends say ... "or a monkey butler.", the temptation is to signal your joke-getting status by replying "yes! or a pig butler." this is all very well, but is just a waste of joke energy. the first guy did the inapropriate butler thing with the monkey, maybe he considered pig and rejected it. but even if not, the pig isn't bringing anything new to the table (which is probably why he would make such a bad butler.) plus, it creates a new joke-ish, to which the original joker must now presumably respond "yes! or a ... goat butler." and there you are, locked into an unstoppable spiral of naming animals who would make bad butlers to one another. and since this category includes all animals with the possibly humerous exception but not actual exception of penguins, you'll be there awhile. much better, surely, is to respond with a brief, untiring LOL, and thus register "i realize that when you suggested that a monkey could be a butler, you had your tongue somewhat in your cheek." or IRTWYSTAMCBABYHYTSIYC, but i expect that may be too specific to fall into general use.

oh, but don't therefore assume that i'm fine with smilies too. i'm unfine with smilies. because people often make a similar defense for smilies that they do something for which there is not otherwise a clear written linguistic signal. they express the sentiment "don't take what i've just said seriously, it was only a joke." but i say, if you feel the need to make that clear, go back and rewrite the joke. it wasn't a good enough joke. try harder to write unambiguously. besides, if we allow smilies to do that job, it leaves the field wide open for people to willfully misuse them. and then where are we? i would ask you to be a bridesmaid, but of course you're far too fat :) <-- that's where we are.