Look, I understand that the point of the book was to be random and completely unlike the reference books that it satirizes. But, satire doesn’t have to be incoherent: there was little in the way of expositional flow (unless you count the occasional joke referencing a previous chapter).

This sort of thing needs a delivery that Hodgman was unsuccessful in transmitting this time around.

Hodgman declares the book a perversion of the Almanac Idiom, first and foremost in that NONE OF THE FACTS ARE REAL.

Therefore, whereas an almanac may seem ORDERLY, the areas of my expertise may appear DISORDERLY. This I believe, contributes to it’s humor.

Were you expecting an orderly book? Once which presented “random” and “ridiculous” humor in a manner exactly like that which you have come to know in “the thwacker”?
Perhaps this is the reason you found Hodgman’s book so unfunny.

It is funny precisely for the reasons you call it unfunny. I find it hard to believe that you could be so pigheaded.