Interesting. The guidelines say nothing about commenting about commenting about being downvoted. According to my current working theory of comedy, you have to

Interesting. The guidelines say nothing about commenting about commenting about being downvoted. According to my current working theory of comedy, you have to go all the way to commenting about commenting about commenting about commenting about being downvoted before the meta-introspection hyperbole counteracts the boredom and raises the humor potentials back to positive values. So please carefully read any response to this comment, and take detailed notes as to how humorous you found it to be, measured to the nearest milliguffaw. Please be honest; this is for science. And if you choose to respond to this, please avoid commenting about downvoting, commenting about commenting about downvoting, or commenting about commenting about commenting about downvoting. It is critically important that your comment be exactly three steps removed from the thing already declared to be boring. Also, try to preferentially use words with more 'p's and 'k's in them, whenever possible--using "pants" rather than "trousers", for instance. And lest you start to believe that this post is itself off-topic, only a deconstructed modern comedic calculus such as mine is even capable of explaining why those New Yorker single-panel cartoons are only funny to readers of the New Yorker, and only when published in the New Yorker! From there, the fully automated joke-writing machine is only just over the horizon.