In a vacuum, I like this comic. In reality, I don't. Here's why -
Taken on its own, it's not bad. It's a problem we all identify with (perhaps a bit overused for comedic purposes, but still) and we see Mr. Hat's usual brand of unneeded violence and hatred applied to it in a rather creative way. I like the visual at the end, it's ironic and destructive.
But here is my problem. Randall's already used this idea. And I mean really used this exact idea. It's right there in panel 2 of comic 496 (part 3 of the Secretary series):
But it doesn't work like that. Had today's comic come out before Secretary Part III, it would be ok - the Senate hearing that Mr. Hat has would be a callback to the earlier comic, which I think is funny enough and in character enough and relevant enough to deserve it. But it came in the other order, which leads me to suspect that Randy is either looking through old strips for ideas or has a list of Mr. Hat ideas and forgot to cross that one off. Or he really can't think of anything else. In any case, most people no doubt forgot that this idea was old (including me, thanks again Kurt for pointing it out...) so he'll probably get away with it this time, but man, he really shouldn't.
Cue cuddlefish telling me why the two jokes are totally different...
Taken on its own, it's not bad. It's a problem we all identify with (perhaps a bit overused for comedic purposes, but still) and we see Mr. Hat's usual brand of unneeded violence and hatred applied to it in a rather creative way. I like the visual at the end, it's ironic and destructive.
But here is my problem. Randall's already used this idea. And I mean really used this exact idea. It's right there in panel 2 of comic 496 (part 3 of the Secretary series):
Q: Is it true you completely disassembled someone's car outside a Starbucks?At the time, I wrote that the comic was just "a list of Patented Wacky Mr. Hat Hi-Jinks and Shenanigans! Yep, no less than SIX such shenanigans! Of course, we don't get to see any of these, meaning that Mr. Munroe has done basically no more work than just....coming up with a list of Wacky Antics." Now, of course, we get to see this particular antic acted out, so I should just shut up and be happy.
A: It was parked across two spaces.
But it doesn't work like that. Had today's comic come out before Secretary Part III, it would be ok - the Senate hearing that Mr. Hat has would be a callback to the earlier comic, which I think is funny enough and in character enough and relevant enough to deserve it. But it came in the other order, which leads me to suspect that Randy is either looking through old strips for ideas or has a list of Mr. Hat ideas and forgot to cross that one off. Or he really can't think of anything else. In any case, most people no doubt forgot that this idea was old (including me, thanks again Kurt for pointing it out...) so he'll probably get away with it this time, but man, he really shouldn't.
Cue cuddlefish telling me why the two jokes are totally different...
I think you forgot to point the obvious here, which is that this is just A DAMN CAR PARK JOKE!!! I'd place it on the same level of originality as any airplanefood joke, except maybe for the flame-thrower, which (arguably) adds a significant cool factor to this (otherwise bland) comic.
ReplyDelete"FOOSH" was completely unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah. Not using sound effects would have made this comic the Holy Grail of all comics. That, by the way, was a stupid comment, sarcastic or not
ReplyDeleteThat said, this comic stands up well on its own and I think thats all it needs to do. If you check the secretary series, Hat Guy actually -totally- dissembled a car, not cut it in half.
Because it needs repeating:
ReplyDeleteOh yeah. Not using sound effects would have made this comic the Holy Grail of all comics. That, by the way, was a stupid comment, sarcastic or not.
I completely agree that joke and the subsequent secretary references would have been million times better if they happened in the right order. Now, not so much.
ReplyDeleteAnd keep in mind this is a cuddlefish speaking.
"That said, this comic stands up well on its own and I think thats all it needs to do. If you check the secretary series, Hat Guy actually -totally- dissembled a car, not cut it in half."
ReplyDeleteThat's like Vanilla Ice claiming that the bassline for "Ice, Ice, Baby" is completely different from the bassline for "Under Pressure" because there's a single note different.
A tiny technical change does not make it a new idea. It's still the recycling of an old concept. And you're still an idiot.
I read this comic and thought to myself, "My, this comic is quite amusing!"
ReplyDeleteI think that way a lot. I don't know why. It seems like the way some high society hoity-toity should think. I am not a high society hoity-toity. I could never wear a monocle, as both my eyes are impaired--the solution, you might argue, is to wear two monocles, but if that's your solution I might as well wear glasses instead.
So I do.
However, I'd forgotten, entirely, that this joke had been used before, in the manner in which it was used before. This isn't unusual. I'm very familiar with that sort of thing. One wonders (and by "one" I mean me) if Mr. Munroe honestly forgot he made this joke before, then re-came-up-with-it.
Don't roll your eyes at me, young man! That sort of ineptitude is something I'm familiar with as well. Still, I must admit, it sounds more like the sort of farcical episode I would carry out, as opposed to Mr. Munroe. That's "I", stressed.
What I'm saying, basically, is that it's his error, which is also what you were saying, and you, and you, I think.
"I completely agree that joke and the subsequent secretary references would have been million times better if they happened in the right order. Now, not so much.
ReplyDeleteAnd keep in mind this is a cuddlefish speaking."
Just parroting because I don't feel like formulating my own sentences.
I just don't understand why it makes the joke less funny if the reference to it came before the actual comic.
ReplyDelete"Foosh" is the sound a blowtorch makes when you turn it on. I fail to see how this is a problem.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it is a blowtorch, not a flamethrower. The pack on BHM's back is completely useless, which bugs the hell out of me.
Otherwise, good comic, aside from it being a recycled idea.
"I just don't understand why it makes the joke less funny if the reference to it came before the actual comic."
ReplyDeleteThere are those among us who like jokes to be "new" and "original", not "rehashing old ideas because it's easier than coming up with new ones". If I feel that the writer is being lazy, it negatively affects my opinion of the humor of the comic.
It's not just a reference - it's laziness. And that's no good.
I don't disagree with the idea of this site in general, to poke fun at the poorest of the XKCD comics (and it has been pretty funny sometimes), but recently, and with this one in particular, it has started to feel like petty nitpicking.
ReplyDeleteSo Mr. Munroe has used this joke before? OK, but we haven't seen it in any detail, and it was -by your statement- funny enough if it had been seen before the other reference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your complaint in this comic comes down to "I don't like the order these two jokes were presented in". OK, since it's one joke "I don't like that we're seeing the same joke twice with different presentation, but I would if it had happened in a different order", which is even more nitpicky.
Please don't discontinue your site, I find it hilarious from time to time, and usually it evokes a "huh, I hadn't thought of that" reaction, but it would really help your credibility and my (and probably others') enjoyment of this site if you'd try to enjoy XKCD when it puts forth a genuinely good offering but for a minor detail.
Oh, and posting about the times when Mr. Munroe IS doing a good job might work towards steering his jokes into territory that you enjoy.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is credible because it unabridgedly and honestly criticizes xkcd. This comic is not a bad comic, hence so little vitriol and only one minor point of criticism. I don't care that it would have been funnier in another order, it actually doesn't change my opinion of the comic, but nevertheless I'm glad it was pointed out. I was wondering what could be said against this comic. I think I look forward to this blog's criticisms more these days than the comics themselves (the infrequent updates probably contribute to that).
ReplyDelete@Joel: I think the argument presented as to why the comic is bad is plenty valid.
ReplyDeleteThe comic on its own is okay. Mr. Hat really sticks it to the guy who can't park. I'm sure we've all wanted to do something similar. But, as mentioned before, this idea was already referenced in a previous comic. At first there may not seem to be anything wrong with that... but really think for a moment. This idea was mentioned in the Senate hearing. Okay. Then the idea was put into comic form today, but there is no mention of the Senate hearing. This is presented as a totally new idea.
In essence, the series of events is: Mr. Hat destroys a parked car -> Senate makes note of this incident -> Mr. Hat destroys a parked car. So really, this parking nonsense happened two times, but the second ordeal was shown instead of told. If you're familiar with Calvin & Hobbes at all, this would be comparable to a comic that shows an actual "Noodle Incident", but treats it as a totally new thing that hasn't been mentioned before.
It's true that most everyone probably forgot the car incident was mentioned in a prior XKCD, but it's a valid argument nonetheless. You can't just pull ideas from previous comics and give NO MENTION as to their origin. This isn't a new idea, but it's being treated as one. It's also pretty bland.
>I'm sure we've all wanted to do something similar.
ReplyDelete*cue "Get out of my head!" pun*
Anyway, yeah. I'm glad to present the official Baby Murder Index for this comic, and it's a zero! No-one on this thread has attributed the death of a beloved child to Randall Munroe's drawings today. That's a pretty good job.
I may be uncommonly stupid, but I had a surprising amount of trouble getting this one.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is panel 2. It looked to me like the red car was driving through the open parking spaces (having take an untight right turn), rather than actually being parked. When I see people taking up two parking spaces, they're usually fairly close to parallel to the other cars in the row (just not centered in the space(s)), not at some crazy angle like Randall has it drawn.
@Anonymous: I'm not saying that the argument is invalid, just that it doesn't have the kick that most of the other arguments I've seen here have. It seems like it's trying to find something wrong rather than being genuinely annoyed by something. That is my objection.
ReplyDeleteI may not be seeing the problem because of the way I find things funny, though. I love unexpectedly repeated jokes. An example would be Whose Line is it Anyway, wherein they often reference something that happened earlier in the show in slightly modified situations. I find my laughs in that I didn't expect to see that again, and yet here it is. Maybe that's why I like this one.
I doubt we'll end up agreeing, but I thought I'd explain myself anyway, just in case. I hope we can still be friends?
I'll admit, I liked this one... but only because I hadn't remembered the senate comics (or skipped them because they were lame.)
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that xkcd that irks me is that most of the time it tends to be the same tired haphazard meme references + quirky relationships + befuddling non-nerds.
I'm not in anyway saying that it isn't ok for a comic to have a theme/ It's when the artists starts running out of fresh ideas and runs that theme into the ground that the comic starts to stink. Just look at Dilbert and Garfield-- funny at first, but now cliches of themselves.
Even if the joke itself is recycled, it's a minor victory to see Mr Hat behaving in proper character.
ReplyDelete"Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your complaint in this comic comes down to "I don't like the order these two jokes were presented in". OK, since it's one joke "I don't like that we're seeing the same joke twice with different presentation, but I would if it had happened in a different order", which is even more nitpicky."
ReplyDeleteComedy is all about timing, and the order in which jokes are presented often has a profound impact on how funny they are. This is why I don't find this to be a terribly "nitpicky" criticism.
But even if the comic were perfect (and nothing is ever perfect), you could still present valid criticisms that would allow it to be improved.
TLDR; A good comic =/= no criticism
@Joel:
I agree that repetition humor can be funny, but only in certain contexts. This comic does not seem to present such a context, and thus it does not amuse me. It seems like lazy reuse rather than a deliberate reference to past material. I see it as filler, and I will treat it as such.
*grumpy old man face*
Also, Randall actually had to draw something other than a stick figure, so that's something.
ReplyDeleteI agree the criticism of repeating jokes on this one is a bit of a reach.
ReplyDeleteAnd while not a good strip, this is at least better than some of the absolutely abysmal strips Randall's been churning out lately.
Here's my thing: The Senate strip (with alt-text) described Hat Guy dealing with the problem in an entirely different way: he disassembled the car, installed each piece in a different car, and assembled a new car from the displaced pieces. In my mind, that's a distinctly different joke than cutting a poorly-parked car in half and shoving the halves into one spot.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the sound effects, though...some strips are best left "silent."
Also, why are all of the cars (including Hat Guy's) out past the lines, when there's plenty of room to pull forward?
ReplyDeleteBecause Randall can't actually draw. But it's nice that he shows an effort now and then.
ReplyDeleteTak - no reason it couldn't be a flamethrower. Most homemade flamethrowers work by shooting pressurized fuel through a blowtorch. I'm not entirely sure what's going on in that panel, but I'm guessing Randall just thought it was funnier to show him powering up than spraying fire all over the place.
ReplyDeleteActually, could a flamethrower do that to a car? I don't even know.
Probably not. Mythbusters did a thing where they tried cutting a car in half with heat (granted, using a semi-controlled thermite reaction, not a blowtorch) and the rest of the car ended up melting first.
ReplyDeleteThen of course there's the issue of the fluids and other combustible materials inside. So it might be doable, but it won't be fast, and probably won't be safe.
Hey, missing an entire, very significant part of the joke here.
ReplyDeleteThe car fits in one space... the jackass decided to put it into two spaces. "No," says Mr. Hat Guy, "I'm going to put it back into one space, as it should be."
The image of the car perfectly parked in the space after being cut in two with a blowtorch carried enough weight for me to enjoy it, and frankly I didn't remember the vague reference to dissembling a car that was made in panel 2 of a comic that's over 6 months old.
I've been visiting this site less as of late, and it's not really because Randall's getting better (though I must admit I've enjoyed quite a few of his recent comics)but more because the commentary on them is getting old. Usually it boils down to a few different things:
1) "This is just an observation." Yeah, so's about 60% of humor out there. That's why the term 'Observational Humor' exists. The comedians I love most are the ones who make me go "huh, hadn't thought of it that way before," while also making me laugh hysterically. Randall often manages the "huh" response with a less hysterical laugh, but somehow I enjoy it anyway.
2) "This has been done before." A fair complaint, but I have a short memory due to a bump on my head as a child, so I still enjoy even old jokes sometimes anyway.
3) "This one doesn't even have a joke." This is a long-standing theme with xkcd, where he makes a comment on something instead of telling an actual joke. I'm okay with that, just like I don't always go to the movie theater to see a comedy.
4) "Fuck you Randall." Excellent, but this isn't really a criticism.
I think the main thing here is that you've decided you're going to hate the comic, you're going to analyze it looking for something that ruins it for you, and I'm content to go my merry way with "heh, lulz, next page." I'm fine with things that way, I just don't find the site to be a particularly useful gauge of how good or bad the comic was anymore.
@Sweetie_Pumpkin:
ReplyDeletePerhaps the problem lies with you not knowing what the actual purpose of this blog is:
"[a] vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness about a silly and harmless comic."
We criticize for fun here. If you don't find criticism fun, this isn't the place for you. We're not here for you - we're here for us. Harsh, but true. Now, if we were producing a comic, whose purpose is to entertain, then maybe I would give a fuck what you had to say, but as this is not the case, I must inform you that no one on the Internet cares what you think about this blog.
Also, Randall's "observational humor" almost never makes me laugh. It just makes me go, "that's sort of interesting," which is not, in my mind, any sort of humor at all. It is just interesting ideas presented with half-assed visuals in an attempt to create something that can loosely be called a "webcomic". And that sucks. It sucks a whole bag of dicks.
(Link is NSFW, but is a good example of REAL observational humor)
It may have already been said, but I think that perhaps the thing on BHG's back is a power supply for the circular saw he's holding, and not redundant fuel/oxidizer for the torch.
ReplyDeleteOkay. I found this comic incredibly funny. On its own. Then this.
ReplyDeleteI agree it would have been better in the other order. I note the difference between taking apart and sawing in half, and agree it isnt much.
*sigh*
@Sweetie_Pumpkin
ReplyDelete"3) "This one doesn't even have a joke." This is a long-standing theme with xkcd, where he makes a comment on something instead of telling an actual joke. I'm okay with that, just like I don't always go to the movie theater to see a comedy."
While this is certainly true, namely that not all strips need to be funny just as not all movies are comedies, the key difference is that Randall's non-joke observations tend to be inane and boring.
Like Lithium batteries. Or billion vs million. Or Dvorak keyboards. And those are just recent comics.
Sweetie_Pumpkin: You wrote that "The car fits in one space... the jackass decided to put it into two spaces. "No," says Mr. Hat Guy, "I'm going to put it back into one space, as it should be."
ReplyDeleteThe image of the car perfectly parked in the space after being cut in two with a blowtorch carried enough weight for me to enjoy it"
When I wrote "I like the visual at the end, it's ironic and destructive" that's what I meant - ironic because he's fitting it in one space, and had he parked correctly there would be no need for disassembling the car to do so. Obviously the car fits in one space; if it had to take up two spaces no one would be annoyed. It's because they choose to do that.
Honestly my favorite ironic punishment for this is to park parallel to the bad car, so you are also diagonal, and then open your door real hard to scratch theirs up.
As to your memory problem allowing you to enjoy old jokes: not all of us are so blessed.
To everyone else: As far as I am concerned, this is one of the nicest things I've said about a comic in all my time blogging.
Really, this is just like the Clone Wars. It gets mentioned, then we go back in time to see it. Why couldn't this be a flashback? I mean, when AOTC was released nobody said "Hey! You already mentioned the Clone Wars! You're just recycling old ideas!"
ReplyDeleteCarl, I think you're kind of stretching the definition of irony. Since this is a comic, you know at the second pane that some humorous solution will be employed to solve the problem. Irony implies an inversion of expectations. Though the particular mode of solving solving the problem was surprising, and therefore humorous, it did not contradict the expectation of a funny outcome. The entire comic was a simple setup: "oh, look, some idiot taking up two spaces, the solution could be funny. yup, it was". Though the strip telegraphed its mode of humor from the beginning, the conclusion was still solidly funny. But not ironic.
ReplyDelete@Henry:
ReplyDeleteIf by "no one" you mean Time magazine, then you're right.
Granted, this is not specifically about Attack of the Clones, but Lucas has received criticism for rehashing old ideas.
Thanks for playing.
Poore.
ReplyDeleteI was just making a nitpick, no need to get heated.
This comic does stand up well on its own
I've already come to terms with, and embraced, the fact that I can be stupid sometimes. Which does not make my argument any less valid.
I don't see what's wrong with having a short preliminary idea and going back and elaborating on it later. Without that we wouldn't have many works...the novel "Ender's Game" for example. Seems like grasping a straws find a reason to not like something.
ReplyDeleteThat's his shtick
ReplyDelete@ poore: Thank you for answering so civilly. Having seen your comments before as a lurker, I was a little bit scared when you quoted me. You're right, of course, that timing is important in humour, and I'll admit I'm being a little overprotective of Mr. Munroe here (although it HAS been a while since we heard the related joke, and I don't thing it would be MUCH better in the other order). I think it's still quite enjoyable, but that's clearly a matter of opinion, so I won't use it as an argument.
ReplyDeleteAnother good point: you said a good comic does not mean no criticism (and in another post, you reminded us of the title of this blog). In that light, the complaint Carl has seems more reasonable. I'd still like to see a little more carrot, if steering Randall towards funnier comics is the goal, but it fits the character of the blog, and so I retract my complaint about it.
And as for my credibility comment, I should explain: if the anger in this blog does not scale itself with the value of the comic, it ceases to be an indication of how much Randall should improve, and instead just becomes noise. That is what I mean by credibility.
@ Carl: This IS a fairly nice post, relatively speaking, but it's not really a nice post, is it? I'll quote: "In a vacuum, I like this comic. In reality, I don't." You even explain why you could have liked it, but then you tear it down, without any positive reinforcement. If you'd said it was a step in the right direction, or something, then I'd say it was a nice post, but not as it is.
But it's a step in the right direction.
Henry - I will admit that this comic is as good as Attack of the Clones. But honestly, that's a terrible argument. That movie was 2 and a half hours of telling a story that we only new vague outlines of. We knew the Clone Wars happened, but not many other details. These two comics, on the other hand, tell the same story: Mr. Hat is mad at a lousy parking job, so he fucks up the car. Does the second comic really make anything funnier than it was the first time? Maybe, in that you see that the car was rearranged to fit in the space - but that's all I can think of. It's not a problem of reference, it's a problem of repetition.
ReplyDeleteKylos: Your comment made me realize the terribly low standard I now have for a "good" xkcd. You write that "Since this is a comic, you know at the second pane that some humorous solution will be employed to solve the problem." The problem is I don't expect it to be funny because it's xkcd and I write xkcdsucks. I suppose I really am just congratulating Randy for making a comic that is funny, which honestly should be the bate minimum for a comic.
Anon (not the 1.0 one) - see what I wrote to Henry. Perhaps it's ok to elaborate later, but this was hardly an elaboration. And in any case (and this may be the cynic in me who doesn't give Randy the benefit of the doubt), I don't see this as a deliberate reference to the first comic. I think if he wanted that he would have made the alt-text something like "I hope the US Senate never finds out about this" or some other clear indicator that he knows he's repeating himself. I'm not sure he knows it.
Joel: I have certainly called other comics steps in the right direction (for example, my favorite comic since the blog started, Lesbian Experimentation, was one such step). I'm not sure this is. I don't want to see him keep rehashing older jokes, even if they were good the first time (just like how when Secretary ended with a reference to the ball pit comic, I wasn't happy).
It's funny, that's all that really counts.
ReplyDeleteBullshit. It's a comic that updates regularly. If one comic is really funny, you can't just repeat it and expect people to still like it.
ReplyDeleteIf he repeated my favorite xkcd comic of all time - or repeated the same idea, as here - I would be damn angry and not find it acceptable.
That, I think, is fair. But I think that drawing a comic that is a callback to the -mention- of this comic is not a repeat of a comic, more a visualization of an idea. I agree that he is being lazy in doing this but I don't think that detracts from the comic
ReplyDelete"I agree that he is being lazy in doing this but I don't think that detracts from the comic"
ReplyDeleteAha! See ,this is where we differ. I cannot separate any piece of media from its creator; that is, my opinion of any particular work (book, movie, webcomic, etc.) will always affect my opinion of said work. If he's being lazy, which you acknowledge is true, then the comic as a whole feels lazy, and lazy is very rarely funny...unless you like Garfield. And then I have no hope of ever salvaging your sense of humor.
D'oh! My opinion of the AUTHOR of any particular work...
ReplyDeleteTerrible typo. My apologies.
(Waits for the inevitable backlash from slighted Anons of the past)
Actually, I agree with you. I still like xkcd, just I think you have a point.
ReplyDeleteHuh.
"Dave said...
ReplyDeleteHere's my thing: The Senate strip (with alt-text) described Hat Guy dealing with the problem in an entirely different way: he disassembled the car, installed each piece in a different car, and assembled a new car from the displaced pieces."
Isn't this kind of an important point? Why hasn't it been addressed?
because talking about every aspect for why someone might or might not like a stupid comic strip is SERIOUS BUSINESS
ReplyDeletemaybe we should have a senate hearing about the senate hearing comic
TANTAMOUNT IMPORTANCE
@fluffy: Ok, it seems like you're making fun of me. That's cool, I guess. It's just that the premise of the criticism is that this idea was used before, but it seems like it's actually a different idea after all. And this site is, after all, not only about the criticism of the comic, but the discussion of that criticism, so discussing this aspect does carry some importance in this comment thread, I should think. That's all I was saying.
ReplyDeleteYou are ascribing importance to a debate over the veracity of a comic.
ReplyDeleteHell yes I am making fun of you.
Ok, fine. But you may want to start with Carl. Wasn't he the one who created a whole website devoted to talking about this comic and its "veracity" (not sure what you meant by using that particular word)? Doesn't that ascribe a bit more importance?
ReplyDeleteApologies, "veracity" was not the right word choice. I meant "validity."
ReplyDeleteI don't see this blog as being a platform for debating the strengths and weaknesses of every single xkcd strip or to prove whether or not a strip is good or bad. It's just a way for Carl to rant about how retarded xkcd is. The fact that people keep on leaping to its defense and want to "prove" their opinions is a big part of how retarded xkcd is.
Jim - arguing that "cutting a car in half because it is double-parked" and "disassembling a car because it is double-parked" are different jokes is stupid. I'm sorry, but I know of no other word to accurately describe such an argument.
ReplyDeleteThe actual act of vandalism that occurs (being cut in half vs. taken apart ad reassembled) does not change the fact that the abstract concept of the joke is about getting revenge on people who double-park.
That's an interesting point. Has Carl explicitly said that his blog is not to be used for debating? If he has, then I shall certainly concede to you. If that is the case, however, I would wonder why he chooses to participate actively in such debate, rather than choose to ignore it as you seem to have suggested he should.
ReplyDelete@poore: So what you're saying is that there can't be two original jokes about dealing with people who double-park? I guess I can understand that. I do still think that talking about disassembling a car and showing a car being cut in half are two different things.
ReplyDeleteWell, poore, if you want to play it that way, even the Senate joke was not original, since the idea of revenge against guy who parks like a jackass has been used long before that.
ReplyDeleteI see two separate gags: one built around the idea of cutting poorly-parked car in half and shoving the halves into one space, and one about disassembling a car and assembling a new car from different parts. They just happen to share the "double-park" elements.
I agree with poore. The two jokes may be slightly different, but not in any meaningful way. (With the alt-text it becomes a bit more different, true, though that idea is also old. I first heard it in the johnny cash song one piece at a time)
ReplyDeleteQuick terminology note: We are not talking about "double parking." That is when you park on the side of the street, parallel to the cars that are legally parked. This is taking up two spaces, which does not have a name as far as I know.
I would agree with you jim, though, that this blog is about debating. I like to think about what makes things funny and what makes other things not funny, and these arguments are a good way to do that. I think the posts are different from the comments though, and there's more debate in the comments and the post is more of an opening statement, so to speak.
Dave: The jokes share more than that. They are both about getting revenge on the bad parker by taking apart his car, and they both feature Mr. Hat, the one recurring character xkcd has.
Carl: The details we knew of this comic were about the same as the details we knew of the Clone Wars. What we got from ANH was "There were these wars with these clones. Your dad was in it," and what we got from the comic was "There was this car parked across two spaces and you took it apart." Like, this could be a flashback, and yes, I know that disassembling a car and cutting it in half are two different things, but why couldn't the Senate have gotten misinformed? And I don't know what the guy who wrote that letter was thinking about...(The one that was linked involving Time Magazine). How was Tatooine filmed in north California? It was Tunisia! I'm thinking of being a pilgrim and going there one day.
ReplyDeleteOh wait, my bad! I just reread it, he said that Tatooine was INSPIRED by California, not filmed there. Oops.
ReplyDeleteYou certainly can debate your opinion, but that won't stop me from thinking you're ridiculous for it. Especially when you use SERIOUS BUSINESS phrases like "important point" or have to point out rules-lawyer things like Carl not saying not to debate things here.
ReplyDeleteI mean, keep on doing it. It's funny to see people care so much about defending a comic's honor.
Henry: But the details we saw in the new comic were far less than the details we saw in the actual movie about The Clone Wars (can i just say that as a nerd i totally love this analogy). We got much much more from Episode 2, relative to what we knew before, than we did from Comic 2, relative to what we knew before.
ReplyDelete@fluffy: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. But you claim that this debating over whether the comic is funny or not is "ridiculous." Yet Carl says that this blog is about such debating. So I am forced to believe one of two things: that you are posting here to participate in a discussion that you yourself believe to be "ridiculous" and to make fun of people, or that you are just posting here to make fun of people. So you're either a stupid jerk, or just a jerk. But again, perhaps I've misunderstood.
ReplyDeleteI'm a jerk who doesn't take things too seriously, and I think the world would be better if other people didn't take themselves or unimportant things too seriously either. If that makes me stupid, so be it.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I had missed Carl's comment about this actually being about debating. I was considering his FAQ, and his expressed attitude towards how seriously he takes things.
ReplyDeleteClearly several commenters here want it to be serious business and Carl respects that. I still think it's a silly thing to get worked up about.
Well, Carl, there isn't actually that much you can fit into a comic. Unless he like, did a week/two week long special of all the stuff they mentioned at the Senate.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think that the Internet could get so worked up over something so trivial and meaningless. Usually when I see intelligent people like yourselves posting back and forth on a message board like this, it's about trans-gendered WOW players incurring hatred or whether or not it's slapping your webcomic readers in the face to have a character have a miscarriage.
ReplyDeleteHow curious.
How interesting. (well, not really, but...)
Ooo! Ooo! I have an idea!
ReplyDeleteSomeone add the text 'Good Grief' to the end of every xkcd comic!
"Here's my thing: The Senate strip (with alt-text) described Hat Guy dealing with the problem in an entirely different way: he disassembled the car, installed each piece in a different car, and assembled a new car from the displaced pieces.""
ReplyDeleteI addressed this and was insulted for it. I decided that whether or not they had a point, I wasn't going to deal with such childishness
Thin-skinned cuddlefish:
ReplyDeleteIf you want to play the game, son, you've gotta learn to play it right.
You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run. You never count your money while you're sitting at the table. There'll be time enough for counting when the dealing's done.
This is a snarky blog on the internet. Learn to play the game and you'll stop crying about how mean we are.
just so everyone knows, if you are a little new here, most of our comment threads don't get this intense. if you are feeling turned off i would say to give us another chance...
ReplyDeleteBut Henry - I think there is all sorts of things you can fit into a comic. What is limiting him? He has no limits on space, length of time taken up, color, pacing, language, content...The problem, of course, is that for this idea in particular it would probably be boring, because it's just one simple idea, which is why I don't think he should have repeated it.
that logic is either brilliant or terrible
Personally, I find the Clone Wars comparison pretty weak, because I don't think this comic was intended to be a callback to the Senate strip. Randall's used a similar joke in the past, but that doesn't mean he intended for them to be related.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think the comics play the joke in a pretty different way. The Senate strip bascially has it as "look, another crazy thing Hat Guy's done!", where this latest strip shows it as more of an ironic (for lack of a better word) punishment (putting the improperly parked car back into one space.)
I guess you could say its the visual that sells me on this one...and to be honest, I forgot about the (lame) Senate strips long ago.
Meh, I don't care if Randall used this idea before, it's just a lackluster comic in general.
ReplyDeleteAny impact the comic would've had on me was totally negated by the incredibly confusing way it's been presented. I had to read and re-read for about a minute just to figure out what was going on.
More like, cue people telling you why the jokes being different is the worst part.
ReplyDeleteRandall (writing Secretary 3): Disassembling a car because it's parked across two spaces sounds Hatguyesque. It would most assuredly cause cheese to burn, as my deplorable cultus would say.
(bonus points if you get the reference)
Later...
Randall (writing alt-text for Secretary 3): Hey, wouldn't cheese burn even more if it were something really complex, like exchanging every part for one from another car and building a new car? And even BETTER if I could give it a name that contains an unrelated internet term, something like "the auto-troll shuffle"!
Later...
Randall (writing Parking): You know, Hat Guy is usually a lot more quick-reacting. I don't think he would disassemble a car, maybe he'd just cut part off and move it into one of the spaces. I'll make a comic of that, ignoring the previous instance of Hat Guy car-related antics.
If he hadn't already done Secretary 3, this would have been GREAT!! Classic Hat Guy, love it.
Also, just to make sure we're all on the same page:
ReplyDeleteAttack of the Clones SUCKED BALLS.
Newest xkcd (crossbows): Everything that is wrong with xkcd, compressed into a single comic.
ReplyDelete*sigh* anyone want to explain the newest comic. Randall went for "Intelligent high brow humor", missed the mark and went right into "This shit makes no sense" land.
ReplyDeleteComplete non-sequitur is hilarious. To hacks.
ReplyDeleteReplace "studying the consequences of Higgs excitation" with any other possible research activity and the joke is completely unchanged, and makes the same amount of sense.
I'd like to point out that many, perhaps most readers read webcomics--especially ones like xkcd and dinosaur comics that have no plotline or "story" arc to them--completely BACKWARDS. That is, someone says "Hey, check out this webcomic," and they do. Then, having chuckled a bit, they click "previous comic" to see another...and another...and another....
ReplyDeleteThis is how I first read xkcd, and this is how I'm sure many other have. For these readers, this comic will have none of the placement issues about which you are so upset.
It's still not an ORIGINAL idea; Ryan North already did this in his alt-text years ago. But it's a nice nod to new readers, I think.
As to the more recent comic about which so many of you are already talking, well, that's a problem most authors face. How do you write about something beyond your understanding? I can't write dialogue for an upperclass character with erudite speech patterns because I'm not a very good speaker myself. All I can do is present a caricature of that speech, which may sound educated to my ignorant brethren but which any real scholar would scorn.
This is what Randall has had to do here. He couldn't present a REAL concept that he doesn't grasp, for obvious reasons. As such, the only topics his characters can use as "beyond his understanding" are either fictional ones or real ones that he does understand, but assumes the reader would not.
As the latter would be the height of arrogance, not to mention risk insulting those who didn't understand and alienating those who did, it's no surprise that he chose to make up a concept out of whole cloth.
Chris I only barely understand what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that because you are using a time machine Randy actually made this one first, and the backwards storyline Senate comic (which, hey, problematic!) is funny because it references the car thing? Which, okay, most of us are not time travelers and Carl definitely isn't (sorry Carl).
ReplyDeleteThe "concept out of whole cloth" thing. Like, I don't have a fucking idea what you are talking about. He didn't make anything up! He just pretended there's something about crossbows going on. I mean, he didn't even try. The idea is to get his loyal slavering fans to be like "OH MAN RANDY IS A GENIUS THAT IS SO HILARIOUS IT'S LIKE... WHY DO THEY NEED A CROSSBOW? HE DOESN'T KNOW LOL I DON'T EITHER." I'm afraid of stepping into the forums, because I'm afraid I'll find out that's actually a direct quote when I do.
You make it sound like he had no choice but to make a comic about something this fuck-off stupid, and he just took the moral high road, which, I don't have any idea where you're getting that.
And really most authors don't run into this problem--you know the saying write what you know? The inverse is also a good piece of advice: don't write what you don't know. If you need to write something you don't know, research it. That's what good writers do.
Also: can you PLEASE stop obliquely referencing things? It took me like five minutes to even figure out which comic you were talking about at the end there. You're being vastly confusing here. Like, terrifyingly so.
I'm sorry to have terrified you; I expected condescension, perhaps even pity, but certainly not fear. How could someone as inept as I be any threat to anyone? Nevertheless, I will attempt to clarify.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying I have a time machine. However, through the magic of the internet, it is possible for a new reader to access individual comics in reverse-chronological order. As the main page URL always points to the most recent comic, new readers generally begin there. Then, if they enjoy the comic and want to read more, they must click on the link for "previous comic," as there is no "next comic" to be had.
When there's no overarching story to speak of, there is no reason not to continue reading through the archive in reverse rather than skip back to the beginning and read the comics in proper order.
Relatively few people have been following this or any comic from the first installment; most people come into a comic once it has already been running a while, and thus engage in the time-honored tradition of working backward through the archives. Of these, a large number do so in reverse chronological order, and for these people who find XKCD at any point after this comic was posted, it will come "before" the secretary arc.
I mentioned that Ryan North has already commented on the existence of these readers in one of his mouse-over title texts. (something about "If you're reading the comic backwards, guess what! There's a _____ in the next comic!" though the exact wording and event escapes me.)
As to the "concept out of whole cloth" thing. I'm saying that he wants to make a joke about not understanding something. In order to portray this, he needs to come up with some "fact" that the viewpoint character can't quite grasp. He could just have the stick-man be unable to comprehend why the fact that 2*3=6 implies that 3*2=6 as well, but as we are supposed to identify with the viewpoint character, it should ideally be something we can't grasp either.
Thus the problem. He needs to come up with some "implication" that most of the characters understand, but the viewpoint character, along with the reader, will not. The trouble is, as you so frequently point out, Randall is no god among men. He does not operate on a higher level of consciousness, and is unlikely to come up with an implication that he alone realizes and his readers will not. To attempt to do so would be either insulting or alienating to the reader.
However, we cannot differentiate between things of which we cannot make sense. Until we gain additional insight into the matter, we can't tell whether something is simply nonsensical or will one day make sense, but we do not yet understand. That is, to the uninformed, the unknowable and the unknown have no practical difference.
Since Randall is human, he can't come up with a shocking truth that none of his readers will understand in order to represent the unknown. But he can string together nonsense and present it as fact, substituting the unknowable (We cannot know the connection between their research and crossbows because there is no such connection) for the unknown.
The other scientists are saying "Don't you get it? This implies we need crossbows!" But the idea is that we NOT get it, and the only way to achieve this is by making the implication "ungettable."
This is why the "research" you suggested wouldn't work. He doesn't need to know a specific fact, he needs to achieve the "I don't get it" effect in every possible reader. Unless he is doing totally original research into particle physics no one else will understand until they've read his paper on the subject, this is not a practical suggestion.
As to your comment about the senate arc being in reverse as well (which leads me to believe you understood full well what I was getting at, however poorly I presented it) the comics in such arcs are conveniently numbered! Thus, a backward reader can easily identify when she's stumbled across "part 8" of the extremely infrequent arcs, and make sure to read those 8 comics in the correct order before continuing on her backward march through the archives.
I'm also unsure what you mean by oblique references. I spoke first about the comic above, then about the (only) more recent one, which I described as such. Did you mean the reference to dinosaur comics, because if so, bravo! I'm not even sure where that particular comic is, and if it took you only 5 minutes to remember the alt-text of that exact strip, you've once again done far better than I.
Chris...
ReplyDeleteYour arguments, while eloquently presented and highly reasonable, fail to address the simplest, most valid concern about this comic:
It isn't funny, and none of what you said makes it any funnier. Your wall of text doesn't make a shitty joke any less shitty.
Someone on Digg presented this idea about the new strip:
ReplyDelete"On April 7, 2008, Higgs predicted that the Higgs Boson will be found within a year. Time's up on Tuesday, the day which the particle physicists will reveal the Higgs "bow zone"."
Though, if that's indeed what the comic is referencing, it's quite possibly the worst "joke" xkcd has ever attempted. I'd take a "where's the joke?" xkcd any day over this.
Oy. When the comic first went up, "higgs excitation" had no direct Google hits. Now just a few hours later, Google is full of them.
ReplyDeleteHow does one stupid shitty webcomic have so much sway over Internet people?
As the latter would be the height of arrogance, not to mention risk insulting those who didn't understand and alienating those who did, it's no surprise that he chose to make up a concept out of whole cloth.
ReplyDeleteHiggs excitation is a real concept, sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#Higgs_boson
I guess this means he's reached the height of arrogance? (No surprise there amirite har har)
xkcd and wikipedia, sitting in a tree
ReplyDelete@fluffy
ReplyDeleteThe worst (best?) part is how poorly that entry about xkcd is written.
Chris, WHO THE FUCK READS A COMIC BACKWARDS?!
ReplyDeleteWHY ARE YOU EVEN READING DINOSAUR COMICS?! GRRAAAAAHHHH!!
Capslock is cruise control for cool.
Poore I object to your saying Chris is eloquent, he is like 'bad high school English paper' eloquent. He's using like twelve times as many words as necessary.
ReplyDeleteI agree with whoever said that this comic woulda been pretty funny if it hadn't been for the Secretary series. Actually like a few of you I had forgotten about that whole series cuz I hated it, so I did like this comic until I read this post. Curse you, Carl, you suck so much that you just suck Carl left and right.
ReplyDeleteRob: The inverse is also a good piece of advice: don't write what you don't know. That is actually the contrapositive. But as usual I pretty much agree with everything you say so...
Okay so Chris are you saying that new readers reading this comic would then eventually stumble across the Secretary series and then laugh? Wouldn't they eventually realize (one would hope) that actually their order of reading was backwards and not really what Randy intended? Otherwise I am not really understanding you because I have no idea what reading backwards would have to do with crossbows.
Rob: Exactly. Let me translate Chris's latest long screed into its salient points:
ReplyDelete"I don't understand why you didn't like my post. Let me say it again longer so it sounds better.
"Readers might read the comic in reverse order.
"Most people haven't been reading the comic since it first came online. They might see a newer comic before they see an older comic.
"Ryan North sometimes makes meta-jokes about his comics and one of them was about this point. Since he could sum it up in a tiny amount of popup text clearly it needs me writing another 10 paragraphs about it.
"I don't know what 'making up a concept from whole cloth' means so here's an alternate definition which has nothing to do with what everyone else understands it to mean.
"I like the word 'thus' and flowery expressions that add nothing.
"You don't know exactly what's going on in Randall's head. I have just learned about solipsism and moral relativism.
"I have poor reading comprehension."
Did I miss anything?
more like, "poore" reading comprehension!
ReplyDeleteZING
To Adam: Higgs excitation is real, but whatever concept that implies Higgs excitation requires crossbows is not.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to point out that crossbows are also a real concept; why you did you not feel the need to link to their wikipedia article? It is thier link to the Higgs particle that is nonsensical, not either them or crossbows.
To Rob: I too object to any compliments to my posts. It would, as you say, have been a terrible essay--but this isn't an essay, it's a blog comment thread. I typed everything I had on my mind, and I hit "submit." Unless you're planning on starting a "Chris's comments on xkcdsucks suck" website, I don't see what my lack of eloquence has to do with anything. Yes, I'm a clumsy and long-winded writer. Now that we're agreed, can we also agree that, while possibly frustrating, that doesn't have any bearing on the quality--or lack thereof--of my ideas?
I'm not defending xkcd; I'm attacking xkcdsucks for criticizing the wrong things. I agree this comic was essentially worthless, I simply disagree as to why.
To fluffy: I think your condensation of my post is a little unfair. Which is too bad, as the first few points are basically correct. Obviously, my goal was to explain myself better so that I would not terrify Rob again, not simply to "sound better," but I understand that your way is funnier.
Then for some reason your "abbreviations" become personal attacks. My comment on Ryan North's treatment of the issue of backwards-readers did not take 10 paragraphs to say, and I certainly didn't say anything about what "it needs" me doing. I was simply pointing out that the comic was unoriginal in another way not mentioned in the blog. I thought that was a good thing here.
As for "making something up out of whole cloth," I think the phrase is appropriate. Unless you are claiming that there is some evidence that suggests experiments with the Higgs boson would require crossbows, I think it is safe to say that the idea that they would is entirely fabricated. Yes, crossbows are real and Higgs particles are (presumably) real, but this connection between the two is absurd by design. Hence the "whole cloth" likeness. Making something out of whole cloth doesn't mean conjuring a garment out of thin air; one could be said to have imagined a "city in the trees" out of whole cloth even though both cities and trees are real concepts. The fact that the entities referenced by the imaginary theory in xkcd are real doesn't make the theory any less a unique (and absurd) creation. Unless you're suggesting that there have already been a host of imaginary particle-physics-requires-crossbows theories and Randall is merely building on the type.
As to my writing style; did no one notice my first post? Wherin I freely admitted that I could not actually speak well? That the best I could present was a caricature of educated speech, something that may sound intelligent to people of my own level and below but would be laughable to those with a real education? For god's sake, I used the phrase "Erudite speech patterns!" If that isn't pretentious, I don't know what is.
Oh, and Amanda: Yeah, basically. The author of this blog says he would have liked this comic had it come before secretary. I was simply pointing out that, for many, it will. As to whether that would actually fix the joke, I have my doubts.
All I see is a lot of "thus" and "wherein."
ReplyDeleteIf you keep your posts concise there's less for people to "personally attack" (I am not sure how the later part of my "translation" was a "personal attack" in a way that it wasn't at the beginning).
Really? In the above post? That's impressive, as the above post includes one instance of the word "wherein" and no instances at all of the word "thus."
ReplyDeleteAs for your advice; sure. Taking things a step further, if I don't post at all, then I'm totally safe from attack! I wish I could be more concise. As evidenced here, though, I'm barely capable of getting my point across as it is!
Also, if you think "readers might read the comic in reverse order" is as harsh a paraphrase as "You don't know exactly what's going on in Randall's head. I have just learned about solipsism and moral relativism" (I'm not even sure what in my post that's supposed to represent, but I guess that's just evidence for your final point.)
I didn't do a word count on every single word you used. I'm just saying what stood out to me.
ReplyDeleteIf you think the relativism/solipsism was in reference to the backwards-reading part of your post, maybe you should think more about the very last translated "point." You were talking at great length about Randall's motivations and blah blah blah farrrrt.
I'm not saying those two points have anything to do with one another. See, you said that your points did not become any nastier in the second half, so I took an example from the first half and one from the second half to contrast.
ReplyDeleteThe subjects of the two summaries are not meant to be related.
OH WOW YOU REALLY GOT ME HUH
ReplyDelete100!
ReplyDeleteCan I start a Dinosaur Comics Sucks blog? Anyone willing to read it?
Chris: Here is what you said:
ReplyDeleteThis is what Randall has had to do here. He couldn't present a REAL concept that he doesn't grasp, for obvious reasons. As such, the only topics his characters can use as "beyond his understanding" are either fictional ones or real ones that he does understand, but assumes the reader would not.
As the latter would be the height of arrogance, not to mention risk insulting those who didn't understand and alienating those who did, it's no surprise that he chose to make up a concept out of whole cloth.
Randall presented a REAL concept that he may or may not grasp (probably not), but that he assumes the reader doesn't. I'm sure you weren't aware of the Higgs boson when you wrote that, which means that Randall was right, at least in your case. (The alternative is that you don't know what the saying "out of whole cloth" means, but I find it hard to believe you'd be familiar with the Higgs boson and not the saying.)
Why didn't I link to crossbows? Are you joking or merely ignoring the argument? I don't think you were referring to crossbows when you mentioned "a REAL concept that he doesn't grasp."
Nothing about your rhetoric says "well-formed argument" to me.
Sorry, can you please explain your most recent post? I'm not sure what you're saying. You seem quite upset, and I don't know why.
ReplyDeleteAlso, how could a word that I didn't occur at all have stood out to you? You're basing the statement that my post was nothing but a lot of "thus" and "wherein" on the existence of ONE instance of ONE of the words?
Again, this strikes me as a little unfair.
I'm not upset, I'm being dismissive because I don't feel like writing 30 pages of text to counter your 30 pages of text in excruciating detail. Do you want a goddamn sentence diagram or something? It seems like nothing less will satisfy you.
ReplyDeleteSorry, by above post was intended for fluffy.
ReplyDeleteTo Adam: I don't know why you'd assume I wouldn't know the correct meaning of a literary turn of phrase over a phenomenon that's been all over the news, but fine.
I did know (at least on a basic level) what the Higgs boson was. But that doesn't matter. Randall isn't TALKING about the Higgs boson. he's talking about some unspecified connection between the higgs particle and crossbow use, and this connection is invented.
YES, the Higgs boson is a real concept. YES, crossbows are a real concept. But he doesn't talk about those. You could substitute ANY area of research for Higgs excitation and the joke would be entirely unchanged, and you could do the same with crossbows. Seriously, read the comic with "ant pheromones" in place of "Higgs excitation" and "Little red wagons" in place of crossbows. The comic is EXACTLY the same.
The concept with the the protagonist struggles is the link between Higgs excitation and crossbows. This connection is INVENTED, and it is the concept of which I speak.
"YES, the Higgs boson is a real concept. YES, crossbows are a real concept. But he doesn't talk about those. You could substitute ANY area of research for Higgs excitation and the joke would be entirely unchanged, and you could do the same with crossbows. Seriously, read the comic with "ant pheromones" in place of "Higgs excitation" and "Little red wagons" in place of crossbows. The comic is EXACTLY the same."
ReplyDeleteThat was exactly my goddamn point for why it's NOT a good comic, you fruit.
It wouldn't have been the same...
ReplyDeleteBecause of Higgs bosom being found by Tuesday, the reader is left to assume that it would cause a rip in space-time or some equally disastrous result, causing inter dimensional raptor attacks. Or at least that was what was implied by the crossbow. If I replaced the comic with ant pheromones, I would not have even chuckled, I would just be wondering what the heck a crossbow has to do with ants.
So you're admitting the comic makes no sense?
ReplyDeleteRe Kevin:
First of all, Higgs boson, not bosom; there is a difference.
Second:
If I replaced the comic with ant pheromones, I would not have even chuckled, I would just be wondering what the heck a crossbow has to do with ants.
That's, uh, the point of the comic as it stands. And if you don't believe that, I have a few links for you.
aaaaahhhhhh everyone stop yelllllllinggggg
ReplyDeleteAmanda: Actually the contrapositive of write what you know would be 'don't know what you don't write.' The inverse is negation of both statements, so 'if X then P' becomes 'if not X then not P.' The contrapositive is 'if not P then not X,' and shares the same truth value as the original statement. The converse is a reversal of statements, so it would be 'if P then X.' (I specially looked up 'inverse' for that post.)
ReplyDeleteChris: Brevity is the soul of wit. I mean, I sympathize with what you're trying to do but you just need to cut back a little.
The problem we're having with this comic is mostly that it's patently nonsense, not... whatever you're saying about him making it up out of whole cloth (I am not entirely sure why you are making that point still; full disclosure: I have not been at my peak mental state when reading these comments in the past few days).
He's just pulling something out of his ass. It's not that it makes no sense, it's that he's going for nonsense in a stupid, lazy way.
Adam: Higgs bosom would make an awesome quantum porn site.
OK, I agree that on it's own, it would have been pretty damn funny. Cuz we've all been there before, and for once Randall had the right idea to relate to his audience. But the simple fact is, that's (more than likely) NOT why he drew this comic. He drew it to link the joke back to one he did a LONG time ago. What a surprise. Although we may be getting some pure originality, but it's very unlikely.
ReplyDeleteOh shit haha Rob sorry I was not even paying attention. Now I look like a moron! Woooo
ReplyDeleteIt is okay Amanda at least you are not the scum of the earth like me :(
ReplyDeleteat least you are not the cum of the earth.
ReplyDeleteRandal got it wrong, no surprise. There are two tanks, one of oxygen and one of acetylene, with relatively long hoses going from them to the cutting head.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_welding_and_cutting
It's wrong that they're the same. In this one, he cut it into two pieces to fit.
ReplyDeleteIn the other, he completely disassembled it. :D I win game set match.
This isn't in defense of this comic, but in defense of the secretary series. Mr. Hat did actually take apart a car out front of a starbucks earlier on. This joke wasn't chronologically out of order, it was just a complete repeat and belonged more in a blog because I figured it was just something that bothered him that day. I think the alt text on the old comic was that Mr. Hat actually took apart the car parked across two spaces, and put each of those parts in a car already in the parking lot, and constructed a new car out of the one he replaced.
ReplyDelete