Talk:No soap radio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
No soap radio has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
So, what did the schoolteacher say to the unemployed hockey player? –Andre (talk) 17:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't know. What? Not Wikipedia Administrator 20:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No soap radio. Hahahahahaha! That cracks me up. –Andre (talk) 20:41, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No soap, radio? I don't get it.--Chao 22:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Har har, I laugh at your expense. Andre (talk) 02:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
That was better than the article itself... can we switch? 18:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)131.247.98.181
It's odd, I found the joke quite amusing because of the sheer nonsensical nature of it. The fact that the response is completely unrelated sound quite funny.
Someone in my Microbiology class told this joke, and then kept adding nonsensical information, and I caught on rather quickly that the joke was that there was no joke. However, the first time I said that, they didn't admit it. The people were kind of @$$es anyway.
Contents |
[edit] No soaps on the radio anymore
None of these jokes have anything to do with the end of dramatic radio serials as they were obsoleted by television soap operas, right? --Damian Yerrick 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Nope. On the other hand, podcasting has meant that dramatic radio serials are on their way back, under a new form... -- Metahacker 20:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
It's possible there was actually a radio station format referred to as "No-Soap Radio" at some point, referring to stations that didn't air soap operas as other stations commonly did at the time. *Dan T.* 20:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Descriptive Language Use
I won't make an edit, but just a comment for future reference: this joke is positted as a socialogical experiment, but the descriptive language used to explain the execution uses comments such as "This usually results in savage derision". As a sociological experiment this is highly unlikely behaviour - this is more a feature of 'pranking'. This language appears under the 'Pranking' heading, but is bookended by two descriptions of the prank as a sociological experiment. It also makes the prank out to be quite a cruel exercise in social ridicule, which, while possible, is not necessarily 'normally' how this prank would be conducted.
As I said, no edit, just a comment. CastorQuinn 11:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Examples-why animals in bathtubs?
I suspect the reason for the bathtub is to be found at [[1]] AlmostReadytoFly 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other than radio
I've heard this joke told (here in the Midwestern US) twice by unrelated people, using a typewriter instead. As in, "what do I look like, a typewriter?"
Hour back, get it?
[edit] This is the worst Wikipedia article I have ever seen
(among those I know anything about the subject of).
The joke whose punch line is "No soap, radio" is not mentioned, not even one single example. Without this, it is impossible for anyone not already familiar with this prank to have the remotest idea of what it is about.Daqu 19:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not a strong conclusion
This article suggests that a definite conclusion as to a persons response to peer-pressure can be made. The person being pranked may be new to an office, depressed or distracted or any number of temporary factors may also be at play, I would suggest making it a less strong conclusion. BananaFiend 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
