Proceedings on Inside Joke Overuse

Matter: The Continued Deployment of a Joke Whose Original Context Has Lapsed Parties: Two Friends, Both Present Status: Ongoing Proceedings

CHAIR: Let the record note that both parties are present and that neither has formally objected to being here.

PARTY A: Correct.

PARTY B: [the noise that both parties make, which is the joke]

CHAIR: We will return to that. First: can either party describe the original context of the joke?

PARTY A: There was a situation. Involving a train station and a misread sign.

PARTY B: And the specific phrase that came out of it.

PARTY A: Which was very funny at the time.

CHAIR: That was 2023.

PARTY A: Yes.

PARTY B: The phrase still works.

CHAIR: The phrase appears, per documentation, to have been used as a greeting, a farewell, a signal of agreement, a signal of disagreement, a response to unrelated news, and once, in response to a question about a restaurant.

PARTY A: It's versatile.

PARTY B: It's us.

CHAIR: The proceedings note that the joke has become a password rather than a joke. A password does not need to be funny. It needs to be recognized.

PARTY A: Is there a ruling?

CHAIR: There is no ruling. The behavior is policy. Policy requires a replacement. Neither party has provided a replacement.

PARTY A: We're working on it.

PARTY B: [the noise again]

PARTY A: [involuntary response to the noise]

CHAIR: The proceedings note that the involuntary response is now also part of the ritual. Both parties follow the rule. Neither party discussed the rule.

The joke is documented here as having survived one formal objection. It is now standard practice. The proceedings are adjourned until further notice.