No, it's not what I meant.

The meaning was, that even though one would laugh on something, it would be, in fact, not laughable but pitiful.
That is, for what the phrase laughter through tears stands.

In this case, one can laugh on stupidity of someone else, but stupidity itself is not funny but dangerous...

I'm glad, that you like the kitten-signature.

Possibly the phrase you seek is "It is too true to be funny".

This means that the situation, at first, seems comical but, if you examine it more closely, you see that there is potential for harm.

Thank you.

You could say that they are "Not laughing WITH you, but AT you." Though I think you mean something more along the lines of "tragically funny". I'm not sure we have an exact phrase for the idea in the English language.

115 Pages of funny Yahoo! Answers:

http://theyahooanswers.tumblr.com/

Tragically funny, yes.

For the phrase Laugh at someone, it could be used, too. Depends on context.

Thank you for the ideas.

I've seen it mentioned as a joke a few times but I reckon a universally recognised sarcasm font would save people from many a frustrastion headache.

Wow, I'm surprised you guys don't know. They have a sarcasm mark, very cleverly named the SarcMark

They tossed around the idea of an upside down exclamation point, but ended up with the curly Q.

I'm also surprised Magister Ventrue hasn't created his own version of this, and added it to his sites.

Since I posted, I'll add...
To Reverend Bill_M,
This post is very funny.
I love the red Devil Ducky, on your Y!A profile.
I'd say more, but when it comes to you Bill_M, it's hard to improve on perfection.


Have fun writing with Sarcasm, the Internet can understand.
Hail Satin (Sheets and rubber Devil Ducks)

Excellent! I like how you set them straight.

Yahoo! Answers... yeah, I´ve seen it around, however briefly. It´s that thing where folks try to use as many spelling errors as posible, right? Must be a contest of sorts.

It's even more pathetic when you consider that once you start to compose a post, an embedded built-in spelling checker appears. I swear, there have been more angry questions directed at "athiest" than "atheists".

I've had plenty of fun with the misspellings though. Or as some have actually called them "miss spelling". I didn't realize Tori was single.

Then there are the misspellings that a spelling checker wouldn't pick up. I somebody who asked "Should paganism be band?" I replied with "Lead guitar paint poisoning should be band. Actually, I think a band formed from all of the world's pagans would have WAY too many percussion players."

Wow, HERE'S a busy little fellow:
http://answers.yahoo.com/activity/qa?show=UW8hd9tjaa&link=question

He's asked at least 20 questions in a row (most of them the same) about Satanism's view of magic. And that's not even counting the questions that have been reported for being duplicates or rants.

Slave2Christ, eh?

That brings up some very interesting images for me indeed...

("Hurt me, Daddy! Hurt me!")

Has anyone asked him what his REAL question and/or opinion is? He clearly seems fixated on the subject, but I can't tell if he's grinding an axe, or getting all excited about ritual, or oscillating between the two.

Funny thing is some of the questions I have read so far are many of the same kind that I get quite often over the years from people new to Satanism.