People are always asking me, "Chritter, why the incessant references to Powder Room foks being Cookie-Swiping Monkey-People?" "What's the deal with posting that same octopus gif that says 'nope nope nope nope' over and over again?" "Why do you end every complaint about store-bought mayonnaise with 'DENNNNTONNNN!!!'?"
Happily, there is a method behind my madness. Many of you, like me, do not have advanced degrees in mathematics. Yet there is a time when mathematics can be ultimately relied upon to predict the causal relationship that the average reader has to insipid in-jokes. Since no one that I'm aware of has sought to quantify this before and since I like naming things after myself, I've felt free to dub it The Chritter Comedy Curve™, and it manifests itself thusly, in terms of the frequency of repetition of puzzling, arcane references on internet fora:
- Times 1-8: Hilarious
- Times 9-32: Tiresome
- Times 33-64: Really Annoying
- Times 65-128: Murder-Worthy
- Times 129-256: Kinda Funny Again, Damnit
- Times 257-512: Stop, You're Killing Me
- Times 513-1024: BAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
- Times 1025-up: DEAD. I AM DEAD OF THE FUNNY.
Now of course, as with all things bound to scientific discipline, this theory is open to challenges and rises and falls on its own merits. But I find the body of evidence to be compelling, and so far anecdotal results seem to support my conclusions. Clearly, the time and dedication required to build up over a thousand repetitions of a banal posting of an octopus or the casual accusation of monkey-personism is not something that even the most rigorous theorist can dismiss out of hand. The data are everything; we live and die and laugh by the numbers.
It's science, my friends.