Saturday, September 5, 2009

Comic 632: Positive Reinforcement

Suspiciously NOT CRAPPY
I'm going to be really nice today. Sure, this comic isn't brilliant and didn't make me laugh, but the more I think about it, the more I think, God, Randy could have made this so much worse. I mean, yeah, he's had plenty of comics about robots acting like people, and hell, even captcha humor, but look: He had a guy in a relationship with a computer, and yet, didn't make them talk explicitly and awkwardly about having sex!

Wait, why did they have to get tested together? Why couldn't he just send her a captcha image and ask her what it said? Oh right, so it would make you think they were talking about STDs. Well. Whatever. You know what's important though, really, about this comic?

NO CARTOON VAGINAS. so i think we are all winners in that sense.


other notes:

--He changed the description of the new tie on his store site! Good news: He spelled "characters" correctly this time. Bad news: He encourages people to wear his tie and his tie alone to work. Oh randy. you want everyone to just be naked, don't you?

--Raddest Dude Ever, ch00f, sends me a site that is basically some well known xkcd comics with the women erased. It works.

--Lastly, did we all see the new SMBC Theater? I see that (spoiler alert!) mr. Zach Weiner is wearing an xkcd shirt in it. That is to say, his character, who wants to show up in random places and have sex with anyone he can find, is wearing an xkcd shirt. Ahhhh.......


241 comments:

  1. If Randall had just left the text as 'charactures', people might reasonably think he was using a portmanteau. Now, everyone knows he sucks at spelling, or is just really lazy. Or both.

    I thought the shirt choice for SMBC Theater was pretty funny (and quite fitting, too). It is definitely NOT a coincidence

    ReplyDelete
  2. Since I'm already here, commenting on the other blog post, might as well give my thoughts on 632. (Rather the blog post on it)

    One thing that's always annoyed me about your posts is that I don't like seeing you judge comics based on how the style of the joke is similar to an older style.

    Yes, there is old captcha humour in this one, but it's new and innovative from the last one. It started differently, had a different punchline, and in general followed almost no trends of the previous.

    I found this one to be an almost perfect set-up for a joke. It starts off misleading us the this is someone in a relationship who wants to go get tested with his girlfriend, (presumably for STDs). CURVEBALL, he tells us that it's really about whether or not his girlfriend's a robot.

    The one thing that I disliked about the comic was the inclusion of the words "You mention products that you like..."

    Omit those words, and put in some that imply STD's (but in no way denote it), and I think it'd be pretty funny. Maybe I'll visit XKCDcouldbebetter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think anything Randall does will be better than the last comic....and maybe he planned it that way just get people to like a comic.

    And it works.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just wanted to point out the real punchline of this comic:
    VK Couples testing.
    Voight-Kampf couples testing.
    The absurdity of that idea got a bit of a chuckle out of me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://vkcouplestesting.com/

    ReplyDelete
  6. 7:05 Cuddlefish:
    That is not a punchline. That is a REFERENCE. See the difference explained here:
    http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44698&start=40#p1766718

    ReplyDelete
  7. I liked this xkcd too. Can Randall sustain making one kinda-funny comic per week to balance his one lame reference and one outright-creepy comic per week?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why is it that crappy comics always seem to be vastly improvable by simply removing a key element from each strip?

    Garfield minus Garfield
    CAD rule
    And now xkcd minus women

    ReplyDelete
  9. this comic didn't make me projectile vomit or fork kittens in the eyeballs

    he's improving!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think it's only fair if you test yourselves together, if you suspect someone else to be a spam bot. Just common courtesy.

    Cuddlefish Prime:
    xkcd sans women is even sadder than garfield minus garfield. really depressing stuff. I think they're both sad because they show a lonely sad character talking to itself.

    That SMBC video has xkcd-like My Hobby aroma to it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So, the best Carl can do today is to make references to previous comics he thought sucked, and pretend it's unoriginal because hey, it fits in a category. And that's him being nice. xkcdsucks is supposed to be about criticizing what is legitimately awful, but what good is that without also recognizing what is legitimately good? Today's joke was fairly well-executed, with only a slight foul-up in the delivery (the awkward mention of products). No thigh-slapper, but definitely chuckle-worthy, and you could take some time off from reminding us of every recent sucky moment to acknowledge that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If fluffy grue reads this tell him/her to rerelease Hypnagogia

    ReplyDelete
  13. "xkcdsucks is supposed to be about criticizing what is legitimately awful, but what good is that without also recognizing what is legitimately good?"

    Really? I'm going to let you think about that one for awhile, and then you can answer it yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  14. disproportionate analogy:

    HEY GUYS I KNOW ABOUT THE WHOLE HOLOCAUST THING BUT HITLER ALSO BUILT EXPRESSWAYS, I FEEL PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT THIS SOMETIMES

    ReplyDelete
  15. Show's how low xkcd's standards have come if now, instead of chuckling at a witty maths joke or a play on words, we're just thanking the heavens there are no cartoon vaginas in the comic strip.

    Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hello. I've not commented before but I've been reading for a while. Lethargy has silenced me heretofore.

    Anyway, this comic fails because the putative double entendre does not work. 'Products you like' does not obviously suggest STIs (nor, for that matter, anything particularly sexual). In fact, I'm sure many readers initially would have had vague thoughts about advertising. Consequently, the third panel does not make much sense. By the fourth panel, it becomes apparent what the joke should have been. Where the comic ought to have subverted our expectations, it instead simply confuses. It works only retroactively. It is only after reading that we realise what the joke could have, should have been, and the potential for humour therein. The unrealised potential, that is. The reference to Blade Runner/PK Dick, though, is refreshingly subtle and 'classic' compared to the 'pop culture' references with which we've been bludgeoned lately.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Daniel*2, you described EXACTLY how I read this strip. Still, I *do* think there's a fair amount of humour in the comic aside from the failed double entendre -- it was worthy of a chuckle, at least.

    Also, I got quite a shock to see a female character called "Lisa" in an xkcd strip, but then again, it's obvious why she wasn't called Megan: it's because Megan is like TOTALLY 4 REAL, not a spambot. Bah.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear Jay, (let me move with the answer to this post)

    %[Dude, think. Think what blog this is. Would most of us have bothered to type "xkcd sucks" into Google if we didn't dislike most of the strips?]

    OK, what I think about this kind of blog is that it is pointless. And not funny, but I can believe that it is funny for some of you. But there's one thing that I cannot understand: if you think xkcd sucks so hugely, why do you expect it to be better? Why don't you expect another comic, better than xkcd, to be even better? That's too much for my small brain, I'm afraid.

    The word 'bullying' comes to my mind, I don't know why. It is connected to what I said about calling RM by the first name, and what you have not understood. It is OK to call him when you simply refer to his person, but the sentence "OH. HOLY. CRAP. OH WHAT THE FUCK. WHAT THE FUCK, RANDALL?" and lots of other are not OK. Similarly, calling him 'Randy' as if he was a friend of yours. But it's also possible that I'm not right, English is not my primary language, I might not perceive this correctly. But still you seem to take a position high above him, and laughing your heads off at how poor his comic is. But well, it's your right to do it. I just don't get it and find it disgusting. And it's not because I love xkcd.

    Just a final remark: xkcd seems to be the "take it or leave it" kind of art. Some criticise this attitude of the author, but this attitude simply works. There's a blogger (no link, it's not in English) who is very popular and because of that gets a lot of people telling him all the time "you should write more about this and less about this" and "your last post was really poor, you should have mentioned this and why didn't you even say this in another way". He has just one response to all such: "fuck off". He says that he writes what he wants to write, and either you read it as it is, or just fuck off. Many, many times people were saying "he's finished, the can't write anything original, he must change" at which he had just the response mentioned above. And guess what? He's the most popular blogger in the country (not Monaco nor Liechtenstein). Now he has two blogs, thousands (literally) of people reading and commenting every day. Everybody is welcome, if they like it. If they don't, they usually fuck off by themselves.

    Let me just say that I think this attitude works and is good. XKCD is what it is, and the author is probably just ignoring the criticism, and cannot be blamed for it. Have you checked xkcd on google trends? It's still growing, slowly, but definitely up. What more should he expect?

    To sum up, out of the two purposes of this blog that you mentioned, the second just doesn't work, maybe because of the atmosphere of this blog and maybe just because of Randall's attitude to criticism, so you are left with the first purpose - the entertainment. Well, let it be this way, if you really find it entertaining...

    ReplyDelete
  19. That XKCD sans women thing is amazing!

    Haiku Proof
    Threesome
    Android Boyfriend
    Mission to Culture
    Unsatisfied
    The Race



    Also, I'm not sure if I feel this works but I couldn't leave it out.

    There's something strangely therapeutic about mercilessly erasing all those awful characters.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Anon
    ... then we are having a great time?

    But you probably meant something like "... then you are sociopaths."

    I still don't get how it's not hypocritical to criticize a criticism. Doesn't everything you just said apply to your post?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anon 4:47 AM

    Are you by chance talking about Artemy Lebedev? Funny because he's like Randall Munroe of web-design. That is to say, he sucks at it. To become popular you don't have to be smart or talented. You need to be appealing to the lowest common denominator of your target market. You can see this everywhere: movies, music, comics, videogames, blogs. Just because Randy can ignore criticism and stay popular doesn't mean that some of his "works" aren't complete horseshit. If, following the downhill slope, xkcd ends up on the same level as CAD and Shredded Moose, will it still have a lot of fans? Most certainly! Through gradual Pavlovian condition, xkcd fans would still be in awe of the shitburgers that Randall produces. But, as impartial observers, we will see through the bullshit and will be able to call a spade a spade. This is why xkcdsucks is important.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I guess it is true that it is difficult to look impartial when you're wearing a badge saying "xkcdsucks".

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Doesn't everything you just said apply to your post?"

    Yes, you are right. You could also say something like "if you dislike xkcdsucks so badly, why are you posting here?" and so on. You will be right in a way. The difference is just that I'll be gone tomorrow or in a few days and forget about this place. I won't create a blog xkcdsuckssucks where I'd sneer at posts here and say they are shit, even though I think so.

    I'm not talking about Artemy Lebedev and I don't know him.

    The entry point of this blog is your opinion that xkcd sucks / is not good enough. Let me just tell you that I know quite a few people who discovered xkcd not a long time ago, and like it a lot. So I think that there might be even people who say xkcd is becoming better and better over time. Can you believe it?

    And tomorrow I'm wearing my "sudo make me a sandwich" T-shirt to work. Colleagues laughed hard when they saw it first. Some of them started reading xkcd regularly.

    ---
    It's easier to be an asshole to words than to people.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Justin:
    It's both.
    All humor is, in some waym referential, but the refereence here wasn't just a "SEE, I KNOW ABOUT !", it was funny, to me, having read the book, as it was an absurd idea, using Voight-Kampf as a relationship test.

    ReplyDelete
  25. PEOPLE LIKE XKCD? or did my mind just get blown?

    also: you're criticism is GOOD because you're RIGHT AND JUST and doing what needs to be done but ours is BAD because we are BAD and have an unhealthy obsession.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's easier to be an asshole to UR MOM than to people.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Obviously he's talking about MADDOX, the world's most pre-eminent blogger.

    No, seriously, without an example, I have no reason to believe that the "FUCK YOU I WRITE WHAT I WANT TO" attitude will ever lead to anything but temporarily fleeting success when people momentarily align themselves with your onanism, before rapidly leading to a nearly instantaneous and nearly always cataclysmic decline in quality.

    Consider John Solomon,whose radical anti-entitlement stance led to him writing meaner and meaner reviews less and less often until he was just like "fuck this." He didn't care about his audience, so he didn't care about his work.

    Ditto Maddox. Since he's viciously and consistently opposed to ever letting his fans or critics have any influence whatsoever on what he writes, the insulation from feedback and the disconnect between quality and approval led to Maddox eventually just sitting around, shitting out updates once every six months about three-month-old news items.

    Consider also Aaron Diaz, Dresden Codak, who took an adamant "Fuck criticism I write what I want to how I want to, my fans fucking LOVE this shit" and, despite promising that since he was working on the comic full-time as his sole source of income so he could provide weekly updates, dribbled out fucking Hob comics once every three weeks. (I think he actually put out new T-shirt designs more often than new comics for a while.)

    I'd say it happened with Tim Buckley, but the shit he does now is pretty much exactly as awful as the shit he did six years ago so who knows?

    Happens in music, too. The band that gets too big for it's fans and too big for the critics and just releases whatever the fuck they feel like--usually blowing because of it because their egos and sense of quality have been grossly distorted by their success.

    Obviously it's happened with Mr. Munroe, too.

    If we think of art as something solely produced for the inner satisfaction of the artist, then none of this is a problem. However, if we think that, we are fucking stupid, and at the very least there's no goddamn reason to display such art.

    After the decline of the sheltered egotist, while it's possible for people to still coincide (by chance) with the author's points of view and style, it becomes increasingly impossible for any but the most conditioned fans to actually appreciate the art, and their reasons for it become increasingly incoherent--based more on habitual appreciation than reasoned (or even reasonable) judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You clearly don't understand that you are wrong because some guy got mad props for wearing an xkcd shirt. As well, some guy knows other guys who like it. Therefore and heretowith, xkcd is good and criticism is rendered null and void.

    ReplyDelete
  29. An xkcd shirt with one of the older xkcds at that (sorry for ruining your sarcasm, Asher)

    ReplyDelete
  30. I still don't get why it's rude to call Randall by his given name. I think it's better to treat him as an equal than as some form of god whose name we can't utter, and have to refer to as "xkcd's author."

    ReplyDelete
  31. No, I think we're supposed to call him "Mr. Munroe."

    I'd appreciate it if everyone started referring to me as "Mr. Kazyanenko"; I find that "Femalethoth" is too disrespectful.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As I said, I'm not going to give the link to the blog, it's not in English so there's no point.

    The guy started blogging almost 4 years ago. Some people found it interesting what he wrote, after a year he had quite large community gathered, the blog was treated as sort of chat about everything, not only about his posts. Sometimes just for talking, with others and with author's blog too. After the first year he said "I'm gonna swear less and in general be less hard-core, less texts about sex, and so on". People were saying he's going to loose the whole community and nobody really wanted him to change, but he did anyway.

    Half of the community indeed gradually fucked off. But so many other people joined that his popularity grew even more. A year later he sort of changed again - and again some people left and others came. Now, after the almost 4 years I think when he posts a new text, he has like two thousands unique visitors within a few hours. It's because he's incredibly good, even though some (those who left) say otherwise.

    I know if one day he starts to write about embroidery, lots of people will leave. But he'll do it so fucking well that his popularity will not suffer. Just because he's good. He doesn't need to care to do what others want him to do.

    Got it? It is possible. I think xkcd's similar as for that. And I like it that it is.

    Now - why to publish if you don't care if people like it or not? For me it's clear - you publish because they do. You can publish whatever you want, but if it turns out that lots of people actually like it, it's even nicer, and it has nothing to do with the question if you write what they want, or is it rather that they want what you write.

    Once again, as for using the name Randall: I don't say it's bad in general. It's just bad in a sentence that's nothing more than sarcasm. And again - maybe I'm wrong and it's just the language / culture barrier.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes, xkcd sucks. But ccasionally I open the comic section of the paper and read the shit that passes for publishable these days and it's not hard to see how someone unexposed to the internet's finer offerings could justifiably appreciate xkcd, even the xkcd of the last 100 comics or so. The best is better today than ever, but it's also almost entirely unknown outside a very small subculture, and xkcd is still not quite as bland as the status quo.

    ReplyDelete
  34. So sometimes people make good things without criticism, and sometimes they make bad things? And sometimes people like it, and sometimes they don't?

    IMO, xkcd is losing steam. Looking at google trends, it's started to slow down growth. I don't think he has the talent to keep it going sans outside input. Authors have editors, traditional cartoonists have editors, musicians have input (from other musicians they work with). Randall has no such outside input, because there aren't webcomic "scenes" where he hangs out with other artists, and gets feedback/ideas. It's possible that he might do fine, but it's improbable

    But the bigger problem for randall is that he can only sell so many shirts. He can't always add more fans, no matter how good his comic is, and people can only own so much xkcd paraphanelia. In a couple years he'll go back to a 9 to 5'r, and the comic will probably improve once he has more real life inspiration.

    tl/dr RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

    ReplyDelete
  35. is it german? I can understand german. I'm sure there's someone here that understands whatever language it is in UNLESS YOU ARE MAKING THIS UP

    I find it amazing that you are acknowledging that xkcd is changing but refuse to acknowledge that it was once good and now is, at least, less good. Sure, it's not something you can be completely objective about because it's always a matter of personal opinion, but some things simply aren't. It's not that Randy (Sorry, Mr. Munroe) read the critique and said "No, I disagree.". He refused to read it. He is dismissing it without giving it a chance. He is generally very bad with handling critique. Deleting posts on the xkcd forums, and hell, he even said he wasn't reading the xkcd forums at all anymore. He refuses to listen to the negative people have to say. This is a very bad character trait, and IMO shows how immature he is in that aspect. He's like the kind of people (I'm sure everyone knows one like them) that completely lose their shit if you try to give them constructive criticism. I remember telling somebody that the jpg quality on his comics was really bad and he flamed the hell out of me "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T READ IT, NO USE IN LEAVING MEAN COMMENTS". And what's worse is that I think he's kind of smug about refusing to listen to anyone about this. He thinks he's right in completely dismissing those who don't like what he does ('cause hey, if you don't like it, don't read it, right?). If you look for Dr. Horribles conversation with Randy, it's really amazing. Dr. Horrible (despite his misleading name) posted a very fair and completely reasonable critique of a comic (more so than carl does at times) and he actually talked to randy and showed him the blog. Randy guilt tripped him about it, leaving him as empty shell of his former self. It's amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This reminds me, Carl post those Dr. Horrible chat logs.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "he even said he wasn't reading the xkcd forums at all anymore."

    To be fair, he did say that he doesn't even like listening to praise. So it's understandable that he'd stay the fuck away from the forums.

    See, this:
    http://blag.feureau.com/2009/08/randall-munroe-on-xkcd-sucks.html

    "I remember telling somebody that the jpg quality on his comics was really bad and he flamed the hell out of me "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T READ IT, NO USE IN LEAVING MEAN COMMENTS"."

    Randall said that? Or the person you were talking to?

    ReplyDelete
  38. god fucking DAMMIT PEOPLE that's TOO MUCH TEXT

    I read "Dear Jay" and started to scroll down and now I have like fifty fucking essays to read
    @J#%LK

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jay, here is the abbreviated text:
    -Blog sucks
    -Please be respectful to Mr. Munroe
    -xkcd rules, everyone knows this. squid pro ro.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yes, it's actually the fact - I see that xkcd is changing, and do not see it as becoming worse. Let me just enumerate strips that really made me laugh/think/interested, starting from the end. Just to show you I'm not fighting blindly, that it's not the Pavlov reaction somebody has mentioned.

    630 - pretty creative
    629 - disturbing, I like this kind
    627 - at work, everybody was laughing like hell and said they'll translate it, print and give to sb
    625 - moving. I have similar moments as she does here
    624 - brilliant idea, for me
    619 - nice one
    615 - needed a moment to understand, then smiled and thought about how much people will this inspire today
    613 - just brilliant
    612 - finally someone put it this simply
    611 - good one
    610 - not original, but made me think about it
    606 - good idea, I do the same and have similar observations
    605 - made me laugh, I'll draw a similar one for a girl I'm currently dating
    604 - so true, and nicely expressed
    602 - nice math, I was thinking about the idea for some time

    OK, enough. I just mentioned those that I really liked. Almost a half, I guess. That's definitely enough for me to say xkcd is great. Especially that just maybe two or three of those since 602 suck, in my opinion. And I think I just don't understand everything.

    I'd rather not discuss why I like the strip n and how stupid I am that I like it. XKCD is just my cup of tea, sometimes I think the guy is in my head and is reading what even I can barely see, and puts it on a web page. I feel strange then. So, the fact is: I don't think xkcd is getting any worse that it was.

    I don't know Randall, haven't spoken to him, the only thing I know about xkcd is the very xkcd strips. That's enough for me. For your information, I also like reading Garfield comic strip from time to time, one in ten is really nice. Even though garfield.com is one of the most ugly pages I've seen.

    As for the blog I mentioned before, it's in Polish. The address is http://kominek.in/. But I really don't want to discuss again the ways in which I am stupid to mention it. Also I guess not a lot of people here understand Polish. You might also have an impression that it is more of a chat than a blog, which is true in a way, but without spending there a day or two you won't be able to judge it correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Oh great, I just saw this strip printed out at various places around campus. Now I have to spend all day ripping that shit off the walls and replacing it with something that is actually humorous.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I don't speak Polish, BUT the full address is http://kominek.blox.pl/html

    and .pl is poland

    GUYS HIS STORY STANDS UP SO FAR

    ReplyDelete
  43. also this guy scares me: http://ainet.com.pl/~freyah/wurk/kominek/blog/img/kom_bannerekTV.png

    it's like... it's like he can see into my soul

    oh god

    GOOMHK

    ReplyDelete
  44. (Maybe this Anon isn't a native English speaker, and so he can't tell how obscenely stilted all the dialogue is?)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Some totally awesome guy thought it might be fun to build this comic. It's at vkcouplestseting.com.

    God I hate the Internet sometimes.

    Captcha was "stainkee." Haha.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "OK, what I think about this kind of blog is that it is pointless. (... stuff...) if you think xkcd sucks so hugely, why do you expect it to be better? Why don't you expect another comic, better than xkcd, to be even better?"

    You realize everyone here liked xkcd at some point, right? We except xkcd to be better because we know Randall can do better. Or at least he COULD.

    "It is OK to call him when you simply refer to his person, but the sentence "OH. HOLY. CRAP. OH WHAT THE FUCK. WHAT THE FUCK, RANDALL?" and lots of other are not OK. Similarly, calling him 'Randy' as if he was a friend of yours. But it's also possible that I'm not right, English is not my primary language, I might not perceive this correctly."

    That would explain it. I guarantee you that's what it is. I mean, obviously the sentence you quoted is disrespectful, but calling him Randall doesn't make it more so. I don't even know what else we'd call him - you realize how ridiculous "WHAT THE FUCK, MR. MUNROE" would sound?

    'Randy' - OK, it's a little insulting. Not hugely so. Personally I have never called him Randy.

    "Have you checked xkcd on google trends? It's still growing, slowly, but definitely up."

    Of course it's still growing - people get into xkcd by reading the archives, and the first half is still brilliant. And even the comics once it went into its decline, well, when you can read them all at once, the gems stand out from the coal. On a three-a-week schedule, the opposite is true.

    xkcd may be gaining new fans, but I bet it's RETAINING far fewer than it was a year ago.

    "Yes, it's actually the fact - I see that xkcd is changing, and do not see it as becoming worse."

    See, I think the opposite.

    I think if Randall changed his style, mixed it up a little, xkcd would improve. I don't think he's changing - I think he's trying to do the same kinds of strips he was 300 comics ago, but he's putting less effort into them and just doesn't have as much inspiration.

    Of course you can disagree. Shit, I'm almost jealous, I WISH I could enjoy xkcd too. But I can't, and I suspect before too long you'll be in the minority. You know, a year ago, aside from a few lame parody comics, there was NO criticism of xkcd online besides this blog. I know, because I searched for it. And even here, there was like, Carl and five irregular commentators. Now each post gets dozens or hundreds of comments and people are criticizing xkcd all over the internet, even on its own forums.

    xkcd is popular, sure. But in a few years? I don't think it will remain so.

    "You could also say something like "if you dislike xkcdsucks so badly, why are you posting here?" and so on. You will be right in a way. The difference is just that I'll be gone tomorrow or in a few days and forget about this place."

    OK. That's fine, no one can make you stay. But remember this?

    "(I'll never visit this site again, of course, so don't bother answering.)"

    I'm just saying, is all.

    ReplyDelete
  47. that should be "expect" xkcd to be better.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "everyone here liked xkcd at some point"

    Well... not EXACTLY. I never really liked it very much. I read it in its early days mostly because people whose opinions I respected somewhat said it was SO AMAZING and, like, this one strip was SO ROMANTIC (in retrospect, it was probably the sapping-rotational-energy-from-the-earth-one) etc. I mean, some of them were OK, but not enough to make me care. So I wanted to like it, or at least be able to say I liked it.

    Not that anyone cares, that was just me taking a flimsy excuse to dump my life story. Internet. Get used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I always hated it. I think 2/5 of the "classics" on the front page of xkcd are crap, one is a total abomination and the other two are just mediocre.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I liked it when I found it, and linked it to a bunch of my friends, now I can't stand it and hang out here. Randall Munroe has run out of ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I like xkcd and I find myself consistently disagreeing with the criticism here. Sometimes I do not however.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I guess most folks here who know me are aware that I was like a BIG, BIG fan of xkcd about half an year ago (or maybe less). But recently, the disillusionment has been so amazingly huge, that I don't even enjoy the older strips half as much. Perhaps that's why this bitter sentiment lingers: xkcd has lost its charm.

    And I actually think it did primarily because, in recent days, that feeling that xkcd could tap into those strange, bizarrely amusing thoughts we constantly have but try to push away, has gone. What once used to be quirky, amusing and often surprising has now been revealed to be stupid starry-eyed pseudo-unassuming and very annoying idealism. Particularly in terms of love: Randall has shown that he doesn't see love as a tricky, too-simple-to-be-understood force that moves our lives whether we want it or not, but that he sees it as a TOTALLY awesome and cool thing and, like, everybody should have sex with each other because it makes people turn cool and funny. I hate that attitude, and now that I see it in the older strips, there are many of them I can't stand.

    Do I think xkcd can improve? I honestly don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Re Randall's outright rejection of criticism: I pointed out a spelling error on his blog once. His response? Ninja-edit the original post and delete my comment and all others referencing the mistake.

    So, yeah, we're not talking about a guy who handles criticism well.

    ReplyDelete
  54. GUYS YOU ARE UNDERMINING MY POINT.

    Adam: uh, wow, I had no idea it was that bad. But that's pretty bad.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This XKCD was almost entertaining, but Penny Arcade's version is much better, and also much timelier. Note that these came out one and three days after the first Transformers movie, not six weeks after the second one.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Also, I didn't know this, but it turns out there was a Harriet the Spy movie made about thirteen years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I bet this would have been so funny if I'd known what Harriet the Spy was. :(

    ReplyDelete
  58. I honestly don't get today's xkcd at all. "What if Harriet the Spy were a Michael Bay blockbuster action flick"? Yeah, and what if chairs could talk? I mean, there doesn't seem to be any real reason to juxtapose these two ideas, other than Randall running up on a deadline and desperate for a joke.

    I remember enjoying the actual Harriet the Spy movie as a kid; this comic doesn't seem to reference that movie at all, or even acknowledge it. Seriously, I'm doing my absolute best to justify this comic's existence, and coming up short. Someone help me out.

    ReplyDelete
  59. At least Teddy Ruxpin made sense because Teddy Ruxpin, much like Transformers, was a popular children's toy from the 1980s.

    I suspect that the reason he juxtaposed the ideas is because it's almost like how PA did it.

    I believe my "Randall rips of Krahulik" theory.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I liked xkcd when I was in college and still thought being a girl hacker nerd person was so cool and unique and I was a special snowflake and all the boys liked me and blah blah blah.

    But now I am a bitter old hag who hates everyone and everything and JESUS CHRIST YES I SAW xkcd THIS MORNING why does everyone I know feel compelled to send it to me/link to it on slashdot/ post it on every god damned marginally related web forum thread jesus christ STOP CRAMMING IT DOWN MY THROAT god damn it where's my gin & tonic sonny.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Any bets on how long 'till he changes it to the correct spelling, "Terabithia"?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Uhh, didn't he do this "childrens book meets action movie" thing like a month ago with comic 618?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Yes, except it was much more ham-handed then. Possibly because he wrote the structure of 618 himself.

    Note that the relevant action movie was even a Michael Bay flick! (618 is about Armageddon, no matter how much he insists to himself that it's Deep Impact.)

    ReplyDelete
  64. That's a lot of wasted white space on row 1. I might even say "too much."

    ReplyDelete
  65. I never heard of Harriet the Spy, so I had to look it up on Wikipedia, and I don't really see any connection besides the fact that she has a notebook. And holy shit, how many times do we need to hear about Michael Bay and bad movies with lots of explosions, you'd think by now everyone who cares got the point.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Latest comic gives Michael Bay too much credit.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Ugh, really? Michael Bay turns fun 80's kids stuff into violent blockbuster with explosions? How many times have we heard this joke now?

    ReplyDelete
  68. "I never heard of Harriet the Spy, so I had to look it up on Wikipedia, and I don't really see any connection besides the fact that she has a notebook."

    >thats_the_joke.tiff

    ReplyDelete
  69. No, that's a reference!

    Anyway, wouldn't it be cooler if there were juiced up references to actual events from the book, so people who are familiar with the book can have a few extra laffs? Otherwise, you can substitute Harriet the Spy for, say, Dora the Explorer and it will be the same joke (though I suppose, Dora would be more like a Lara Croft-type adventurer).

    Captcha: chili (mmm, spicy)

    ReplyDelete
  70. I guess that's a pretty fair review. It was an okay comic. Although its concept is something that Basshunter came up with more than three years ago:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boten_Anna

    ReplyDelete
  71. Um, question about the store: has that hat guy polo shirt been there before and I've just not noticed it? Or is it new?

    Also, 48 fucking dollars?!

    ReplyDelete
  72. I think those buttons are even shittier than the polo or the tie. Sure, they're just buttons, but they're $10 for 7 buttons, and have the most godawful designs ever. The vast majority are just random characters with the URL next to them, wrapped across two lines.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Hey guys, I used to like xkcd too just like every single one of you that claims that, but now I jumped on the bandwagon of hating it too! :D :D :D

    Gee how about that Randy with his BAD STICK ART and *insert criticism about every little detail*.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Oh man, now you told us. My entire world is falling apart, now that your hit-and-run post has made me see the error of my ways. :(

    ReplyDelete
  75. Today's strip is a bland, old joke done by the numbers. Considering latest standards, I'd say it's an excellent xkcd strip.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Harriet the Spy isn't really 80s, though. The book was 60s, the film was 90s.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I guess. Let's rephrase that as "fun kid's stuff from your childhood", then. For 80% of the audience, that's the 80's anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  78. http://www.gocomics.com/poochcafe/2007/10/17/

    ReplyDelete
  79. "Hey guys, I used to like xkcd too just like every single one of you that claims that, but now I jumped on the bandwagon of hating it too! :D :D :D

    Gee how about that Randy with his BAD STICK ART and *insert criticism about every little detail*."

    This is hilarious. You can practically see the overweight, berserk basement-dwelling fanboy writing it. Sobbing to himself as he fills his face full of cheetoes.

    CAPTCHA: Angst. I kid you not.

    ReplyDelete
  80. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  81. OH SHIT a math mage

    please do not smite me with your +4 wand of combinatorics

    ReplyDelete
  82. wait, where did he go?

    He must have cast 'destructive interference.'

    ReplyDelete
  83. Adam: This is actually what I was talking about. I believe you have told this story before, or someone told a similar one, but I've also witnessed it myself.

    And I don't think he really doesn't read the forums, the same thing has happened there. I think he just likes saying he doesn't so he is basically immune to anything said there. And no, not liking positive critique (which I find to be bullshit) does not give you the right to disregard negative critique. It doesn't work that way.

    ReplyDelete
  84. The joke is old, but what is damning (in my book) is the fact that he doesn't really take the time to write the Seven Sins of Michael Bay -- sure, he got the explosions down, but where are the ball jokes, the drug jokes, the masturbation jokes, the 10 minute scenes of girls bending over objects or stretching luxuriously? And why was there only one explosion?

    What we have instead is a rather bland 'actionfied' Harriet the Spy.

    Catchpa : ganes, what Michael Bay would have included more of.

    ReplyDelete
  85. @Anon

    Yeah, this is just another mediocre joke, which makes it an exceptional xkcd. There's nothing really that connects it to harriet the spy either, except that it has the word "spy" in the title. the guy had an entire weekend to write one comic. how lazy is he?

    ReplyDelete
  86. It's a tired joke and the execution isn't even good. If it really doesn't have anythign to do with harriet the spy, that is.

    ReplyDelete
  87. i think the alt-text qualifies for Most Boring Tweet of the Year.

    ReplyDelete
  88. @Asher: no, cos it's 151 characters. God, what amateurs I have to deal with!

    ReplyDelete
  89. What bugs me the most is that the reference is so completely out of left field. I guess I could almost understand when he did Deep Impact meets The Little Prince, but... Harriet the Spy? Seriously? Where the hell did that come from? Does Randall just use the random article function on Wikipedia to come up with topics, or what?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Harriet the Spy doesn't even have a TVtropes article, so he didn't find it there.

    ReplyDelete
  91. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harriet_the_Spy&action=history

    *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
  92. I don't know proper wikipedia formatting, but someone should edit the xkcd page to include a blurb on recurring wiki vandalism.

    ReplyDelete
  93. XKCD fanboys will take that down if they get an excuse. What we need is a notable source to write about it; this isn't entirely difficult, but it will require some homework.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Hang on, let me put on my scheming glasses.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I don't know what I hate more, xkcd or its fans. I mean, good lord xkcd fans need to give this stuff a rest. But to be fair I wouldn't be aware of most of their, shall we say, "quirkiness" if it weren't for me coming to this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Harriet the Spy wiki article has been protected.

    ReplyDelete
  97. @aloria:

    If Randall's math humor was half as good as yours, this blog might never have existed.

    Also, I must come to the defense of my brother Michael Bay - mindless action films are awesome. Don't get all butthurt because your rose-tinted-glasses make the experiences of your childhood seem like anything more than the mindless, pedantic shit that all children's toys/books/movies/etc. are, were, and ever will be.

    ReplyDelete
  98. poore you lousy motherfucker where have you been

    ReplyDelete
  99. @Rob:

    Drunk, for the most part.

    This weekend I officiated an unsanctioned MMA match in my friends' apartment. Then I stole another friend's headset while he was playing TF2 and yelled insults at everyone in a fake New Jersey accent. Then I commisioned a painting of myself as a cuttlefish wearing a fez.

    I took in an mc chris concert as well.

    Other than that, not too much.

    ReplyDelete
  100. poore why don't you just say the equivalent: "i was off being awesome"

    ReplyDelete
  101. That would be kind of superfluous.

    ReplyDelete
  102. i mean instead of listing the ways he was off being awesome

    but then i guess we'd all clamor in "BUT HOWWWW WERE YOU SO AWESOME TELL US MORE"

    okay so nvm

    ReplyDelete
  103. @Amanda:

    Well, I just assumed everyone knew how awesome I was anyway, and that the specifics would be more enjoyable.

    @Jay:

    I have been called many things, but hot is not one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Hahahahahaha

    my contribution:

    http://img201.imageshack.us/i/nobodyyn.jpg/

    ReplyDelete
  105. http://img201.imageshack.us/i/nobodyn.jpg/

    there we go. fucking hate the lack of being able to c&p

    ReplyDelete
  106. Asher, you are awesome. If only there were a way to make it stay.
    I read the first page of the forum comments and I was happy to see that there were only 2-3 morons who offered to eat out randy's giraffe.
    But then I saw the wiki edit war.
    I tend to think of wiki editors as the most pompous assholes on the web, but as they say your enemy's enemy is your friend.

    ReplyDelete
  107. But a lot of pompous asshole wikipedia editors also happen to be pompous asshole xkcd fanatics.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Someone was really pulling hard for this blog on the xkcd article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Xkcd#XKCD_sucks_website

    For as much as I hate the xkcd related vandalism, I also don't think this blog belongs on the xkcd wiki.

    ReplyDelete
  109. So like Rob said, get someone semi-notable to write about it, and we're in, even by their own rules.

    I don't think it would be inappropriate, it has an "Awards and Recognition" section, why not a "Reception" section? We just needs someone who knows a guy who knows a guy.

    ReplyDelete
  110. You know, XKCD is a geek culture comic, it pretty much outright says it...if you get so freaked out by a reproductive organs...if you dont like AI jokes...if you dont like internet memes...if you get irritated when characters are unique individuals that you cant attatch labels to...

    THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULDNT BE READING XKCD!

    ReplyDelete
  111. Yes, Anon. But the ones who aren't eating randy's dick tend to win.
    Isn't randy a semi-notable person? He has acknowledged xkcdsucks and said that it "makes him feel bad y'alls" or something like that, didn't he?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Anon 10:24, (1024 is 2^10 by the way) you're absolutely right! How could we have been so stupid! All we have to do is stop reading "Xkcd"! Your insight is amazing. Why didn't we ever think of that before?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Anon: Please read #1 and #4

    I don't know who got freaked out over "unique individuals that you can't attach labels to". You mean like people who like ball pits and are OMG SO ZANY? Much like yourself, I assume? You and Randy are not such precious snowflakes that we reflexively vomit out of jealously.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I know your being sarcastic, but you really should...I don't even know how so many of you found out about XKCD, it's pretty clear your not it's target audience...

    ReplyDelete
  115. Asher: #1 and #4 what? that link just takes me to the top of the page...
    I'm talking about the "repeat offenders" column, where you guys hate on people who have "quirky" relationships...

    ReplyDelete
  116. That argument has been done before, many times. We don't mind jokes about math, or about romance, or about language, or whatever. We mind crappy jokes. The criticisms aren't "Man, this comic is about some equation. WhatEVER, nerd." In fact, many people on this blog (Carl most notably), used to be xkcd fans.

    But I think you really mean that the target audience is "whoever enjoys the comics," which is just about as stupid as it sounds.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Damnit, the link didn't work. Fucking blogger. Go to the "sucks hugely" FAQ on the sidebar. It explains what you're asking.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Anon 1024/1037, We WERE the target audience until it started sucking and idiots like you became the target audience.

    ReplyDelete
  119. "You know, XKCD is a geek culture comic, it pretty much outright says it...if you get so freaked out by a reproductive organs...if you dont like AI jokes...if you dont like internet memes...if you get irritated when characters are unique individuals that you cant attatch labels to...

    THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULDNT BE READING XKCD!"

    You are a fucking idiot. It's not that we don't like internet culture/technology/math jokes, it's that we don't like unfunny jokes.

    Here, I just drew a comic in MS paint in ten seconds, it's about internet memes so you must like it and it must also be immune to criticism of all kinds.
    http://imgur.com/tjOAz.png

    Captcha: Sesypit. Sounds like Cesspit, which is what the xkcd forums are.

    ReplyDelete
  120. I'm a fucking Computer Scientist working as a penetration tester (ie, white hat hacker.) I minored in mathematics with a focus in fucking GRAPH THEORY, for Christ's sake. I have first-run X-men comics. I own an Atari 2600, a Sega Master System, a PS2, a Wii, and an Xbox 360, as well as a few PC gaming rigs. I've lost pingable machines in my condo. I was a level 70 Blood Elf Priest before Blizzard erroneously decided I was a gold farmer. I program robots to chase my dogs around with a webcam, I build rocket launchers and potato guns with my friends to take out in the woods, I have an extensive LEGO collection, and I herd you like lolcats so I put a lolcat in your lolcat so you can lol while you lol.

    If I'm not in xkcd's target audience, WHO THE FUCK IS?

    ReplyDelete
  121. Asher: that didn't really answer my question, he just said "I didn't hate this part of the comic, I hate this part"...of course, not that I expected it to...but now then I read the part where he said XKCD is as bad as genocide, and I understood...this blog is just to spread hate, no matter how nonsensical it has to be...
    Justin: I really doubt that...but if that's true, and you stopped liking something just because other people started liking it, your more pathetic then I thought...

    ReplyDelete
  122. Oh, and I will gladly stop reading xkcd IF YOU FANBOYS WILL STOP LINKING IT EVERY GODDAMN CHANCE YOU GET.

    kbye :3

    ReplyDelete
  123. Also, the blog is based on the premise that we used to like xkcd, but now don't. I'm not sure how you missed that when informing yourself before trying to argue about something. (You did that, right?)

    I can with relative certainty say that most of us are indeed just as much in the target audience as you are. We are on a blog about a webcomic sucking, I think it's pretty obvious we are not all jocks who kick nerd ass and fuck bitches all day (that's what jocks do, right guys?)

    CAPTCHA: guiessed

    ReplyDelete
  124. Thank you, would you like an otter hat? I also make otter hats.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Anonymous: so you're saying you don't like "unfunny" jokes...OK then, did it ever occur to you that "unfunny" isn't an absolute truth and that people can think different things are funny?
    Aloria: please, I'm not an idiot...just because you can say things that are stereotypically geeky doesn't mean you really are those things...also, see what I said to Justin about not liking things just because other people do

    ReplyDelete
  126. @aloria

    Of course you're not in the target audience. You're a woman.

    :p

    ReplyDelete
  127. Person #1: Ever heard "I have plenty of black friends"? Making yourself look like you don't hate something so you can keep saying hateful things is a common tactic, don't expect me to fall for it.

    ReplyDelete
  128. @Anon

    The point is that the jokes frequently aren't just from the same general area, they are the same joke. Once you've read one about blurring the lines between computers and humans, you have basically read all of them. Like if you read one Beetle Bailey, you have essentially read them all. Does that make sense? The reason Carl catalogues them is because the criticisms have already been made after like the 43rd one that repeats the joke, so it's simpler just to use the shorthand.

    I also like how you apparently do not pick up on hyperbole.

    Also, please to be stopping with ellipses.

    ReplyDelete
  129. "I'm not an idiot..."

    Well, you certainly fooled me.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Lint of Death: ah yes, mysoginy...why am I not surprised?
    Asher: Really? show me two XKCD's where the same joke is used...go on, I'm waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Hey anon

    at least most of us know the difference between your and you're

    on this blog that criticizes a webcomic of [...] language

    also what aloria said.

    ReplyDelete
  132. "just because you can say things that are stereotypically geeky doesn't mean you really are those things"

    Yeah, okay. I'm just lying about my education and hobbies to prove a point. /sarcasm

    Or, you know, you could just admit to yourself that not every geek in the world is required to have a boner for xkcd.

    ReplyDelete
  133. @Anon, again
    So since humor is in the eye of the beholder, there can never be any criticism of any humorous thing ever? I'm sure you can tell why that's wrong.

    Please explain how you would tell "the target audience" from us. The burden of proof is on you. Unless, of course, it just means "whoever likes the latest strip."

    ReplyDelete
  134. @Anon

    Very well. The two ones about time travel. EXACT. SAME. JOKE.

    And jesus, you don't get sarcasm at all, do you? Lint of Death was mocking YOU.

    ReplyDelete
  135. I'm not a woman. I am an OTTER.

    And 618 and 633 are the same "children's book + action movie" mashup. We've been OVER this.

    ReplyDelete
  136. As well, I don't think you understand that it doesn't have to be word for word for it to be the same joke. Each Garfield strip is distinct, but 90% of them are more or less "Garfield is fat and lazy."

    ReplyDelete
  137. http://xkcd.com/
    http://xkcd.com/618/

    ReplyDelete
  138. Ah yes, grammar nazis...why am I not surprised
    I somtimes make typo's here because unlike you I have other things to do then spread hate and don't put as much effort into writing a blog into, say, an essay for school...
    Also Aloria, insulting me isn't going to make me belive you...
    Asher: I'm not saying you can't critisize, I'm just saying you look dumb when you do...also, XKCD, is, as I said, a geek culture comic, which you're obviously not part of...

    ReplyDelete
  139. ANonymous: really? The same joke? just because they involve childrens' books? Well no wonder you think XKCD reuses jokes...

    ReplyDelete
  140. So you think all comedic movie reviews look dumb?

    WHAT PART OF ME HAVE YOU SEEN THAT SAYS I AM NOT A PART OF GEEK CULTURE?

    outside of the fact that I don't like xkcd of course. Please, just please answer me this:
    Is liking xkcd the test for being the target audience for xkcd? Because it sure has hell seems so.

    ReplyDelete
  141. nazis -> Nazis (proper noun)
    typo's -> typos (apostrophes do not show possession)
    don't put as much effort into writing a blog into, say, an essay - missing second "as"

    Are you sure you're part of xkcd's target audience, anon? Grammar Naziing is one thing, but most technical workers have excellent SPAG.

    Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  142. No, because they are both the same basic joke. Take a childrens book, apply big hollywood action crap to it. Instant fun!

    ReplyDelete
  143. Guys, he's either very young, very stupid or a troll. There's no point arguing with him.

    ReplyDelete
  144. OK, I admit I might be wrong. "Xkcd"'s target audience might actually include women *exclusively*, even if it doesn't work ;)

    http://chainsawsuit.com/20080509.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  145. a man walks into a bar and says "ow"
    a man walks into a bar and says "ouch"

    THESE JOKES ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT GUYS NOT EVEN SORTA SIMILAR

    ReplyDelete
  146. I call troll on this anon

    also, re 10:57

    626 and that "how I roll" one, that I can't bother to find.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Asher: I don't know, maybe it's the fact that you hate internet jokes, nudity, and quirkiness...
    Adam: sorry if I don't think it's worth my time to make sure all my posts are perfect if you people are going to hate me anyway...
    Asher: 618 is about how humans, especially one in positions of power, try to destroy all that threatens them without considering it might not be evil...sortof like a certain blog I could name...633 is about how film adaptations often rape the source material...you really expect me to think your a "geek", when you don't have the basic reading comprehention to tell the difference?
    Anonymous: So ironic that someone on this blog is calling me a troll...
    Lint of Death: Really cute comic. Did you never consider that girls really ARE treated like that on the internet?
    Anonymous: See my response to Asher

    ReplyDelete
  148. What did I say that makes you think i hate internet jokes, nudity or quirkiness? I just hate those things when xkcd shits them out.

    Also I am dumb, therefore I am not in the target audience. Touche.

    Also, please keep fighting for womens rights, here on the number one site for oppressive patriarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Asher: show me a comic with each of these things that you think is funny, and maybe I'll believe you...

    ReplyDelete
  150. Oh, but that comic's not as cute as YOU, Cuddlefish <3

    ReplyDelete
  151. Aloria, Marry me?
    I don't care if you're an otter.

    Anon, You're right. Just because we have physics and computer science degrees doesn't make us geeks. You're the only real geek and "Xkcd's" target audience. I concede to you. You may now spend the rest of the day installing Ubuntu and looking at cats on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  152. They say sarcasm is a defense mechanism...

    ReplyDelete
  153. "Asher: 618 is about how humans, especially one in positions of power, try to destroy all that threatens them without considering it might not be evil...sortof like a certain blog I could name..."

    Hahaha. You've just fucked yourself over with that comparison.
    The Little Prince is on an asteroid, heading to Earth. If it isn't stopped, it will impact and possibly cause ludicrous levels of damage to the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  154. "insulting me isn't going to make me belive you..."

    I'm sorry, I'm insulting you? I believe you're the one who pretty much flat-out called me a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Justin: We will have to find a place that is accepting of otter-human marriages. Perhaps Canada?

    ReplyDelete
  156. aloria, you are the sexiest thing to hit the internets

    also, jackass anon: you know if you met aloria somewhere else you'd be like OMG YOU HAVE ALL THESE GEEK CREDS YOU /MUST/ LOVE XKCD please read it

    ReplyDelete
  157. I love this new Anon. He is adorable and I love him.

    Anonymous: so you're saying you don't like "unfunny" jokes...OK then, did it ever occur to you that "unfunny" isn't an absolute truth and that people can think different things are funny?

    Did that ever occur to you? Because it seems pretty obvious to everyone involved in this blog; you're the one who seems to think that it's somehow sacrilegous for self-professed geeks to not like XKCD.

    =====

    Speaking of first-run X-Men comics, I don't have a huge collection, but I am super proud of the collection I do have:

    X-Force volume one issues one through six.
    Youngblood volume one issue one, from before Liefeld changed "Bedrock" to "Badrock".
    X-Men volume two issue one (the Jim Lee one)
    Some scattered Aliens comics from Dark Horse, including the first two issues of Aliens: Genocide and that black-and-white one where it's still Newt and Hicks because Alien3 hadn't come out yet.

    and then some bland crap like Watchmen, Batman: The Long Halloween, Superman: Red Son, and Kingdom Come in trade paperback (plus Kingcome Come issue four, Never-Ending Battle, which I got before I realized that it was part four of four and I didn't own the first three).

    TO GET:
    All-Star Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder because it is so awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Also I love how he thinks this blog is "try[ing] to destroy all that threatens [it] without considering [that XKCD] might not be evil" because it makes so little sense on so many levels.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Aloria, I'll book the flights right now.
    What size ring are you?

    ReplyDelete
  160. I know this was made a while ago but...

    "I know your being sarcastic, but you really should...I don't even know how so many of you found out about XKCD, it's pretty clear your not it's target audience..."

    It is one of the most popular webcomics of all time, definitely in the top 5. The target audience is 'geeks', that's it.
    It's not exactly obscure.
    Plus, you zealots always link to it as "OMGZ BEST COMIC EVAR" when it's clearly not. And spam thousands of comics whenever someone mentions anything even tangentially related to the topic of one.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Anon, I value your opinion and I don't think everything you say is worthless.

    Does this make you feel better?

    We may be spending our tuesday evenings (depending on the time zone) on an xkcd hate blog, but so are you.

    ReplyDelete
  162. I'M JUST WAITING FOR MY CODE TO COMPILE hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

    ReplyDelete
  163. "I don't know, maybe it's the fact that you hate internet jokes, nudity, and quirkiness..."

    Guys. Troll, guys. Troll. See? Troll. The guy is copying pretty much all of the most braindead "arguments" in the comic threads and pasting (hurr hurr, "pasting") them here.

    ... then again, he simply might be 14.

    ReplyDelete
  164. "I'M JUST WAITING FOR MY CODE TO COMPILE hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! ¡This cheese is burning me! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOUR SO AWESOME

    [/stereotypical noob xkcd fanboy]

    ReplyDelete
  165. Troll or not, my favorite part is how he thinks nudity is part of geek culture. That is either really brilliant trolling, or really stupid. "Dur, I'm a geek and I look at porn, so therefore..."

    ReplyDelete
  166. This has definitely been an extremely entertaining diversion from my usual time-wasting activities.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Duh, aloria. I meant sea otter or river otter?

    ReplyDelete
  168. But there are actual xkcd fans this dumb or even worse.

    ReplyDelete
  169. trollnonymous if that is you you have my praise for the brilliant "nudity is part of geek culture" turn. I SALUTE YOU.

    ReplyDelete
  170. "Anonymous: So ironic that someone on this blog is calling me a troll..."

    Hey, are you serious? I'm going to briefly assume that you are. Here's a quick reference guide:

    Trolling: Going to someone's blog to stir up crap
    Not trolling: Creating/commenting on a blog that stirs up crap
    Countertrolling: Mercilessly teasing the guy who goes to someone's blog to stir up crap
    Not trolling: Disagreeing with your opinions on a crappy comic

    ReplyDelete
  171. "Troll or not, my favorite part is how he thinks nudity is part of geek culture."

    But don't you know? Nerds are actually very cool and open-minded people who TOTALLY have no problem with nudity, and are way better and have way more sex than the whole rest of the humanity. And they're very modest, too.
    [/educated by xkcd]

    ReplyDelete
  172. *ahem*

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/7/4/

    ReplyDelete
  173. This is almost better than Dr. Horrible's total 180. I loved the mysoginy remark. It's brilliant trolling, or a really, REALLY idiotic fanboy. Both those options are hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  174. I posted that (and the next comic, which REALLY drives home the similarities) yesterthread, and also in an email to Carl.

    ReplyDelete
  175. @Fred
    "I loved the mysoginy[sic] remark."

    I bring out the best in people. For us to laugh at, of course :D

    ReplyDelete
  176. Canada does not condone cross-species marriage. DOES NOT CONDONE.

    Trolling anonymous, you can only harp on the same few strings for so long. Actually, it's really just one, and that's making assumptions.

    Here, I'll show you with logic and reason how you're a moron, XKCD is failing at reaching it's target audience, and your time is worth nothing, all from the material you gave me!

    First of all, don't consider your time valuable, Anon. You've came back to the same blog at least 4 times, wasting such precious time, and you're making the stupid proclamation that "Your time is worth something." You don't even like the blog. Unless you do, in which case you're being hypocritical (And you don't want to be that, now do you?). Anyway, I write like this without trying, with fluency and almost subconsciously. The only reason why your typing skills suck is because you are indeed an idiot who can't type.

    Maaayybbe you're the guy that needs a spellchecker, and wonders why there are so many red and green underlines. Orrrr the guy who actually uses a thesaurus to find words to make himself appear more intellectual. In any case, if you say that you actually need to put in REAL effort into typing well, you're just a moron who should stay off the internets for fear of blogs.

    I appreciate that some people aren't as erudite as I, or as well learned (Haha, I'm not REALLY either of those things, being only grade 12). For all I know, you could Out-Portuguese me in a second. However, you proclaim that you can write well in an essay, which means you CAN manipulate the language, you just don't have enough time. But that's a lie, isn't it? Cause of course, your time is worthless, explained above. So that leaves one of two options, you were lying about the whole thing (Why would you?) or you're an idiot (More likely, because a man of normal intelligence would not have the audacity to say that his time is worth something if he comes to a place he hates whilst gaining almost nothing. You have subnormal intelligence, is the point)

    The target audience to me is clear. People who enjoy language, math, romance, and science. In other words, intellectual people. Meaning NOT YOU. But since you are clearly interested in it, XKCD therefore fails for not meeting it's target audience. I gather this all from what you've said.

    Thanks to you, we can prove XKCD sucks, talk about a self-defeating argument, right? (I believe that a comic is a failure if it connects more with the wrong audience, or it can't hit its target audience. After all, that's what the writer intended to hit.)

    And I liked a lot of XKCD too. Maybe just the comics you didn't like. Phew.

    Now, if I may take a leaf out of almost every pompous, pretentious scientist, Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    ReplyDelete
  177. Oh yes, the comment above contained unnecessary and fake connotations of my own intelligence (Which is 225. I'm sorry. =/). To be fair, I'm average, and make mistakes. Such as the improper use of "it's" somewhere above (See if you can find it!).

    However, the Anon implies that he can avoid such grammar mistakes assuming this were an essay. So I want my intellectual highchair back.

    ReplyDelete
  178. hahahah

    one free internet for you, TheMesosade

    captcha: rapses

    ReplyDelete
  179. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon?action=diff

    ctrl + f xkcd

    WAAAA

    ReplyDelete
  180. Mesosade, *I* surely can out-Portuguese you!

    Se bem que, para um falante nativo da língua, isso não deveria ser tão surpreendente. Talvez.

    ReplyDelete
  181. "reason: lame example of author taste, not plot or character"

    Considering xkcd has no plot or character I would say that Randall's taste is absolutely everything.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Using my French and cognate recognizing skills, I can paraphrase that into something so literate it will even shock you!

    That said (Paraphrased rough translation):
    "This is because Portugese is my native language, and it has not changed Mr. Superintendent. QED-LOL."

    No need to tell me I'm right, I already know.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Oh my God why does this blog have so many responses after just a few hours? You guys must really have no lives...
    Aloria: my remark was meant as part of my argument, not a personal attack...
    Amanda: no, I'm pretty sure I could spot such a rude person like her a mile off...
    Femaletoth: I'm not the one attacking others' sense of humor as if mine is objectively right...
    Fernie Carto: Again, how am I the troll? You guys are the ones who are trying to spread hate for the sake of hate, that's pretty much the definition of trolling if you ask me...
    Rob: It's not so much that nudity is "part of geek culture" as it is that geeks tend to not have outdated beliefs that all nudity is EVIL PORN...
    Anonymous: see my response to Fernie...
    Other Anonymous: Vandalism? Why am I not surprised...

    ReplyDelete
  184. Ohhh, now I'm rude. OMG PERSONAL ATTACK PERSONAL ATTACK!

    meanie.

    ReplyDelete
  185. "Oh my God why does this blog have so many responses after just a few hours? You guys must really have no lives..."

    We are commenting on the blog.
    You are commenting on the blog.

    What applies to one must apply to the other.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Femaletoth: I'm not the one attacking others' sense of humor as if mine is objectively right...

    I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you're doing.

    Rob: It's not so much that nudity is "part of geek culture" as it is that geeks tend to not have outdated beliefs that all nudity is EVIL PORN...

    Randall's nudity isn't even "evil" porn so much as "shitty."

    Other Anonymous: Vandalism? Why am I not surprised...

    Well, I'm not. XKCD's fanbase seems to consist primarily of people who achieve intellectual validation by getting XKCD. That is, they read one, understand it, and go "Man, I'm so bright. I get XKCD." So, when that's the major reaction the fans have to the comic, is it any surprise that they want to further heighten their validation? "I'm so bright, I read XKCD. XKCD's so important and smart--look at its significance on Wikipedia, even!"

    ReplyDelete
  187. Also it's beem, what, 21 hours since the comic was posted? That's about a comment every six minutes. If someone could take the time to hash out which Anons are the same person with multiplicity >1, then we could find a "per-person" rate of posting.

    ReplyDelete