> Sarcasm on the internet is really not a good idea.
Then sarcasm in print must not be a good idea either, because if you can't convey tone and emotional nuance in text on the internet, certainly text in a dead-tree publication suffers from the same problem, right? What's fundamentally different between the two? The level of possible distribution? The ease at which one can be a publisher on the internet vs. in a print medium?
Or is there another reason why internet sarcasm is a bad idea that I'm not seeing?
> Don't feel bad, it's never the readers fault when sarcasm isn't obvious, that's always the fault of the writer
Preposterous. Some of the best sarcasm I've read isn't immediately obviously sarcastic. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Sometimes the writer sucks at being sarcastic, and sometimes the reader has a poorly-developed sense of humor. But that's ok! An ability to understand well-crafted sarcasm isn't a prerequisite for living in the world.