Dear Joel Warner, I hope you will forgive me for not responding to your two phone messages about humor theory a few weeks ago. Life got busy lately. A couple of comments on your article. First, Preston's theory as you present it in your article, is in direct, empirically testable conflict with Veatch 1998 in which temporal precedence of V before N is not required whereas according to Preston V must precede N in time. (Sorry, I think people should be using V and N to talk about Violation and Normal interpretations or as McGraw says Violation or beNigN(Ness). If that's okay by you. McGraw might want to use B and V, which would be conceptually okay but Spanish speakers will not be able to tell the difference since they pronounce them the same, so I prefer N and V.) Second, the third condition of the N+V theory of Veatch 1998, namely, simultaneity of N & V in the mind of the humor perceiver, is not present in Preston's theory which describes V as preceding N, not as simultaneous with N. So these are not the same theory at all. I would argue Preston's sequential V then N theory overgenerates because it would call humorous such situations as non-humorous relief. I.e., Preston's theory as you describe it is false. (A good theory neither overgenerates (says things are funny that aren't) nor undergenerates (calls things not funny that are). It should get things right, in short. And if it doesn't, it is wrong.) Hmm, let's see, what's next. Oh, I was not a "Stanford student" at the time I wrote Veatch 1998. I was a "Visiting Assistant Professor" in 1991-1993 during the time I submitted it to journals. Obviously Veatch 1998 took a while to finally get published. (Some have commented with resentment that not being peer-reviewed or not being written by a PhD doesn't keep a person's theories or contributions from being valid, timely, or even historically significant. I agree with them. Anything you can do without a PhD you can do with a PhD. So perhaps those with that resentment will be happy to know that I wrote N+V partly while working as a modem salesman in Fremont California, finished it off as a software salesman in East Palo Alto, and that now I'm a plumber but I still have the right to speak and the self-possession to take my own thoughts seriously.) What's important is, Was it right, and Did you influence people? Was it right? So far I'm still looking for counterexamples to N+V. If someone can find one for me, I'd love to hear about it. Did I influence people? Clearly people have used it, Professor McGraw being a clear case, and I'm grateful to him for the acknowledgement. As another example, a PhD came out from the University of Washington a couple years back on musical humor, which used N+V. And really there have been several follow-on efforts that have come from it, tested it, verified it, etc., so it is clear that I did somehow influence a few people. As far as contributing to academic knowledge is concerned, I can die happy. But I have one more hope for N+V, if a mere plumber may be permitted to hope, which is that people will learn how to use it to understand each other better. See http://www.tomveatch.com/else/humor/paper/node36.html for the details. Okay, that's what I've got. I get off work plumbing at 3:30pm if you want to call me, my cell is 206-947-2953. Humor theory is always fun to talk about. Best, Tom Copyright 2010, Thomas C Veatch. You may use this content in any publication so long as you acknowledge its source.