Others understood that it was a joke, but seem to think that humor is meant only to entertain, never to make a point. (This is the 'lighten up' category of responses.) A third group of respondents know that satire is humor with a point to make, but then they miss the point! Julie Downs, for instance, begins by saying that 'in every joke is a grain of truth.' But then she 'assume[s] that the point of this article is that people we may think are just quirky could actually use some psychiatric medications to make them normal' -- thus reverting to the same kind of simpleminded literalism she seemed to be trying to avoid. Then there's Cathy Saeger -- tellingly a psychotherapist herself -- who thought that the analysis really exposed the disfunctionality of Milne's characters. It doesn't seemed to have occured to Saeger that the article might in fact be exposing the disfunctionality of psychiatrists! Sue Weaver perhaps fits in this category as well, since although she understands the piece as satire she assumes that the offensive stereotypes about single mothers represent the real views of the authors and not of the psychiatrists they are lampooning.