Again nice try, but no
The parody itself was mildly amusing, but the thread is the really funny thing.
When the clueless 5thstreet who obviously is seriously lacking in a sense of humor decides to make a witless attack on the poster for providing a bit of innocent fun into the forum.
At first I thought maybe 5thstreet was writing his own parody of the parody, but after looking it over I believe he is really that witless.
If the post was meant to provide "a bit of innocent fun" it would not have been titled "Congressman from NH admits affair" and the line "Another democrat bites the dust......." in the post.
Assuming foodcritic knew it was a parody, including those items was designed to deceive the people that didn't take the time to view the video or who are reading the forums from a computer where they can't see the video into thinking this was real.
I get parody, I like it. I thought the video was funny. I get that it can be funny when people don't realize that the parody is in fact parody.
What I object to is referring to it in a way that will deceive people into thinking there is something real about it, when they may or may not see the original parody itself. I am certain that the vast majority of people who saw the title of the post did not open the post and watch the video and that there were a number of people who opened the post, saw the comment and did not view the video. Except for those who noticed it was from The Onion and know what The Onion is, they had no way to know that this was a parody and thought a Congressman had in fact admitted to an affair.
It is theoretically possible this was completely unintentional, but I just don't buy that he titled it the way he did and commented on the video the way he did unless he was trying to trick people into thinking there was something real about the subject of the video.
...
