XKCD: It's more than a comic

If they were arguing in good faith, they wouldn't need to say that, because they'd be more tolerable and a good deal nicer.

So, Lostar, are you going to have a Battle in the Center of the Mind now? 'cause that would be pretty cool.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

I see you're outright trolling now.

'''Or ... he ripped you off after you ripped off http://xkcd.com/209. Actually, the joke wasn't even original then, either.

Why did he do the same joke again, worse? '''

This is my post. Do you see something hateful in it? NO? Then kindly shut the fuck up.

edited 31st Aug '09 6:09:03 PM by Mr Lostman

The promises of children are worth less than the children themselves.

You cannot make such accusations because you are not wearing the hat, Mr. Lostman!!!

/+\\ <—

Sakamoto demands an explanation for this shit.

See, phrases like "kindly shut the fuck up" aren't going to get you anywhere.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

That doesn't stop you from being a troll.

Is the fact I posted something that showed Randall's lack of imagination bothering you? Is it a Single-Issue Wonk? Can't let something bad against Randall go I guess. I think I was being rather civil until you opened your fat mouth. Or typed with your fat fingers. Or whatever.

EDIT: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. You'll find none of that in my post. You will, however, find it in posts that accuse me of being a troll. Very strange. Is calling out on rehashing controversial or any of those or what? No? Very strange.

edited 31st Aug '09 6:20:13 PM by Mr Lostman

The promises of children are worth less than the children themselves.

You are a very silly man.

Silly.

Sakamoto demands an explanation for this shit.

I may be "silly", but I am right.

The promises of children are worth less than the children themselves.

Right is a direction.

Sakamoto demands an explanation for this shit.

Okay, Mr Lostman, in an effort to understand your sense of humor I read your webcomic. I don't get the joke, can you explain it?

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

My crap has nothing to do with Randall's crap. This is a form of ad hominem. Stay on topic. If you can.

The promises of children are worth less than the children themselves.

I'm not criticizing your comic here. It's just that I want to understand what you think is funny, and I thought that that might help.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

...says the guy who called Tzetze of all people a troll.

Edit: Ninja'd.

edited 31st Aug '09 6:25:26 PM by Nyktos

I guess it is.

Lack of understanding does not inherently mean that something is wrong in the not-understanding-one's eyes. Do not make such assumptions.

Hmm, I think I'm momentarily lucid.

edited 31st Aug '09 6:26:06 PM by GoggleFox

Sakamoto demands an explanation for this shit.

Actually, now that I think about it, you liked Space Coyote, right? So you read Saturnalia?

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Repeating a punchline while varying the setup is not repeating a joke; the joke is the whole system. Now, a punchline can be overused, sure, but I wouldn't call 2 times out of ~600 strips overused. Especially as the contexts were different- life's-an-adventure vs. technically-correct-but-annoying-behavior.

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?

The punchline isn't even the same.

Guh, really explaining in-depth what the difference, or rather the sole similarity is between those strips would require me to come up with some deep analysis of the layers of comedy on the spot.

What you're pointing out is... more of a premise, really. Something obvious that would have to be pointed out, but is still obvious. It's the truth behind the comics that makes them work.

Beyond that, both jokes are character-based in an entirely different way, one shows a conversation between two people with one of them being happy-go-lucky and pointing out the premise as something really cool and whatnot, in a four-panel format, while the other one is a one-panel comic that first on a strange juxtaposition and a sort of pop-culture humor first, and odd character humor second.

Anyway, saying that this joke is the same would be like saying that every joke about Windows, or every joke about the fallacies of social interaction are the same.

... The first page of that webcomic was actually kinda amusing, though the presentation could use some work (and you misspelled "utmost").

edited 1st Sep '09 12:02:11 AM by Fawriel

Could you say that Jane Austen in Pride and Prejudice was copying herself in Sence and Sensibility? I mean you have: * Young women marrying men above their station.

• The issue about women not being able to inherit

• The untrustworthyness of some flirtatous romantic men

• The appropriete way for women to behave under difficult social circumstances.

• Have head-strong interllectually based women priviledged over the swoony silly ones.

• Men who prove their affection through action.

• Women being disgraced by young men's advances.

They're almost identical! What a scandal! What a hack Jane Austen is!

And that Shakespeare! How many times does he think he can pull that whole Crazy Monarch routine on us, let alone all those girls dressing up as men!

And another thing, how many times do we have to put up with Hemingway talk about Isolation and Loniness. Dude! Get an new shtick already!

Everyone copies themself. It's known as Reoccuring Themes, mate. Randall's obviosly interested in the definition of future and how we percieve it. So what? It's just like his "My Hobby" comics or the ones where he does flow charts. What's wrong with looking at the same thing from different angles?

edited 1st Sep '09 1:47:50 AM by wellinever

Which Lostman has said earlier in this same thread.

See? Silly.

Sakamoto demands an explanation for this shit.

I would have suggested that the people on both sides of this argument just stop talking to each other, but then I remembered that this is the internet.

It doesn't work that way. Lostman will continue to insist on enlightening us about XKCD's horrible flaws, and those of us who'd rather discuss the comic without dealing with constant irrational bitching — or even those, like me, who're just reading the thread out of boredom — will continue to find it obtrusive.

It's not that I'm a huge fan of XKCD. I'm not — it's frequently immature, too self-righteous for my taste, or simply unfunny. But the title of this thread isn't "XKCD Blows Goats", is it?

I will keep my soul in a place out of sight, Far off, where the pulse of it is not heard.

There's an idea. We can have a thread called "Mr Lostman Hates XKCD", and he can go post in that and feel morally superior. The rest of us who wish to politely discuss the comic can stay here.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

New one

The Alt Text reminds me of what I said about Wikipedia becoming NSFW...

edited 1st Sep '09 9:59:10 PM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

...wow

SHIKI is dead.

I'm not sure I get it entirely, but, yeah.

Hah, some of the pictures on Wikimedia don't even have that level of professionalism.