Saturday, December 26, 2009

You're Just Jealous, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Shut the Fuck Up

Rob again! I am going to continue bitching about cuddlefish until Carl personally comes to my house and murders me, on weekends so I am not in the way of comic posts.

So! How about xkcd sucks, huh? Are we just jealous of Randy's talent and success? How disingenuous is our disdain for Randy, who is definitely not just a talentless hack who churns out shit comic after shit comic to the adulation of deranged fanboys who insist on telling everyone about it all the time every time it is even remotely "relevant" to the conversation and who believe that everything Randy says is immediately codified forever into geek law? IT IS SO DISINGENUOUS, YOU GUYS. The only reason we dislike Randy is because he is just so much more talented and successful than we are!

Listen. Cuddlefish. I am a nice guy really, so I am going to put this as delicately and politely as I can here. I just want you to know that that is the stupidest fucking thing in the entire goddamn world. I try to be optimistic. I try to think that people are usually reasonable and intelligent. You prove me wrong every fucking day. Here is a partial list of people I like who are more successful than me, and who I think are more talented:
  • Terry Pratchett
  • Neil Gaiman
  • Joey Comeau
  • Ryan North
  • John Allison
I could continue; this is by no means exhaustive. I include Gaiman and Pratchett because they are not only more successful than me, but they are unarguably more successful than Randy, and I esteem their talents far above his (which is on par with that of a lichen, if not slightly below). If I hated Randy because I am jealous of his, ah-ha, "talent," I would hate them even more!

(I can hear the gears turning in your brain as you work ahead of what I am about to say. I know it's difficult but I have every faith that you will be able to guess the gist of what my next non-parenthetical sentence will be, and that you will do so successfully. Consider this lengthy aside a pause while I wait for your third brain cell to finally kick in; consider the moment over.)

Turns out, I don't--I actually like them a great deal! It turns out that, when people are more talented than me, I like them a lot, because not only do they provide me with superb entertainment, I can also learn a lot from them.

Based on this, I am left with only two possible conclusions: one, you believe that I am at least as talented as, if not more talented than, the authors I like (and, apparently, more successful), and that you esteem Randy as some super-talented god-writer whose massive talent and success bring me to shame that these other, lesser writers simply cannot hope to compare; two, you are a fucking idiot.

GUESS WHICH ONE I THINK IS THE CASE.

115 comments:

  1. Also, if the "you're just jealous because he's more talented and successful than you" thing is true then Randall is jealous of Michael Bay. And vista's creators. And non-mathematicians. And...

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's a third option, which is that Ryan North and Joey Comeau and Terry Pratchett, and in my case Roger Waters and John Maynard, are utterly talentless hacks whom we can relate to, and that we hate Randy and all such other brilliant beacons of actual talent, such as Dane Cook, out of jealousy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am stupid though you know? Plus, I prefer the version of option 1 where I'm as awesome at music as John Maynard and as awesome at comedy as Ryan North, even if it means Randy is a mega god-writer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That is fair; I definitely meant it that way, but option one basically means that either everyone but Randy sucks, or everyone is awesome and Randy is even more awesome, oh my god you guys.

    It's all a relative thing. (This is the part where my jealousy for Randy compels me to point out that he would make some lame and horribly inaccurate physics pun here. If only he were not more talented, successful, and attractive than me, I would not notice how fucking terrible he is.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're just jealous of Randall.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well I meant what I said like option 1A gEEZE.
    Although really anyone who says that is likely to think we just have (apparently intentional) awful taste anyway, so you could say they really do believe option 1.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'd be more jealous of famous people who suck than famous people with talent.

    But of course that's not an argument against this post

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Rob

    I am truly sorry my humble race has disgraced itself yet again

    I think we're secretly jealous

    ReplyDelete
  9. actually, you skipped the talented but not successful and vice versa options, no?
    or am I STUPID

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rob, that was a good argument.

    ReplyDelete
  11. XKCD really does suck though. It's a bad web-comic drawn by a humorless idiot who can't draw and can't write. Nobody could be jealous of that.

    Besides, what's there to be jelous of? It's a guy who does a comic on the internet... it's not like he's ACTUALLY famous or anything. Anybody who thinks he is actually somebody important needs to get a reality check.

    ReplyDelete
  12. NinjaRygar, that was not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am not a fan of XKCD, but I think you overlook the notion that you could be jealous of Randall because he is in fact not talented, yet popular. The list contains people you consider superior to yourself, talentwise, and as such you consider their popularity justified. Randall isn't talented, his popularity is therefore not justified, and this annoys you because you feel you should be popular as well, perhaps because you have a certain something you consider your talent.

    Now, I'm not saying that's actually how it is, but you missed the point of the jealousy mechanism. The reason people often whine, and say stuff like "I am more talented than so and so" is because of jealousy, not because they hate popular people. That's probably what such accusations are based on. If they are justified in this, I can't say, but I just felt you adressed your complaint wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 7:42 Anon: I considered mentioning that, but decided against because it's kind of tangential to the point.

    There is a difference between being jealous and hating someone because you are jealous. Do I resent that Randy is successful? Certainly. Is it why I think his comic is terrible? No. Indeed, the only reason I resent him is that he creates a comic that is terrible. Would I care about it if it were obscure? Likely not, but neither would I know about it. And let's not forget the post I linked in which I discuss how XKCD is everywhere, like the bubonic plague.

    Jealousy is just not the best word, nor is it the best explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I like Rob's posts, because then I don't have to read an XKCD.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon 7:42, if people who criticized Rob thought he thought that way, they would be using utterly circular logic. Let's try to follow it.

    CLAIM: Rob hates XKCD because he is jealous of Randall.

    But why is Rob jealous of Randall? Because, apparently, he thinks XKCD is so low quality.

    This is nonsense and bullshit. If Rob is jealous at all, it is because he hates XKCD so much, not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rob is Randall.

    PROVE ME WRONG!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I liked this blog a lot more when it was made of valid criticism and commentary. As opposed to a bitter troll trying to shadow-fight with other trolls.

    Seriously, can we get the original writer guy back? This one is boooooooooooooooooorrrring.

    Yea wow dude, you can fight with trolls. Yip-a-dee-dee for YOU little bucko. Now go away please -_-

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nope, sorry dude. But you can count on me posting again next week!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yeah cool, pose as the unflappable cool guy who is affected by nothing. Whatever floats the boat (even if it's e-posing).

    Just lemme know when "Carl" gets back. Or don't, I'll be watching for it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Cover the whole "Where's YOUR webcomic?!!1" thing next.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I like Rob; Rob has style -- pizazz, even. Basically, he makes me laugh and I'm always "down" with that. Besides Carl has been doing a rather piss-poor job of covering xkcd lately. I'm ready for a new person, for while.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Unflappable cool guy? Maybe he genuinely wasn't affected by that bit of criticism he's most likely heard before. I mean, you didn't make a great point or anything, so I don't see why our minds should be blown.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rupert: "Cover the whole "Where's YOUR webcomic?!!1" thing next."

    I was originally going to do that in this one but jealousy turned into too big of a topic. It will be next weekend though.

    "Unflappable cool guy? Maybe he genuinely wasn't affected by that bit of criticism he's most likely heard before. I mean, you didn't make a great point or anything, so I don't see why our minds should be blown."

    No, he has a point. Complaining about the fact that I am not Carl is an incredibly deep and insightful comment, and even the most thick-skinned of individuals would be brought to tears by it. It cut me to my very core, and it was only thanks to the magic of the internet that I was able to maintain the fragile illusion of my composure. I am so wounded that Harry doesn't like my meta-commentary and thinks that I am bitter, and wants Carl to come back. It pains me like nothing I have ever known pains me. I know that in time the pain will go away, but the memory of my anguish will haunt me for the rest of my days.

    ReplyDelete
  25. (seriously though I am flattered he thinks I am unflappably cool.)

    ReplyDelete
  26. these blog posts kind of contradict you being the unflappable cool guy

    ReplyDelete
  27. While I think your points are valid I am reminded of when I ran against Bill Clinton for the presidency.

    Here was a guy who had done nothing but make deals with terrorists and stick his thumb up and bite his lip in an effort to ingratiate himself with the fuckwit masses. And it WORKED. I lost in 1996 despite my superior platform, can do attitude, and constant erections.

    Then came the Lewinsky scandal and people, while shocked, STILL loved the asshole. He stayed in office and would probably be elected again were he able to run. While I am just a mere footnote in history who is only noted for gripping a pen and having a sagging dong.

    Basically what I'm getting at is:
    Randy is Bill Clinton.
    His fans are Monica Lewinsky/the American public.
    They suck his dick and like it even though he put us in a pile of shit.

    At least, that's what I thought til I actually sat down and talked to the guy. Basically all his faults were swept underneath the historical carpet, he is infallible.

    I didn't like Bill Clinton because I just didn't "get" Bill Clinton.

    Just like Randy and XKCD. You just don't "get" it despite showing an obvious understanding of it. Just like how I understood Clinton's policies and actions and all the minutiae that went into his presidency. But once I gave in and just decided to like him it made my life easier. As soon as you realize that your anguish will be over.

    I'm Bob Dole and I like XKCD. And so should you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Why XKCDsucks.blogspot.com sucks

    1. XKCD contains references to Ender's Game. If you refuse to read Ender's Game, you'll have to skip these ones. Your lack does not mean I should suffer.

    2. Yes, you'll need to know a bit about linux. Not much, but a bit. Autoconfig... will set things up for you. iwconfig... relates to wireless devices. Man pages are like help files. Again, you'll have to skip these strips if you won't research linux, but they're funny to geeks. Don't ask us to delete all jokes you don't get.

    3. Yes, he's deeply in love with the quirkiest geek girl in the world, and yes she's imaginary. This should evoke pity, not rage. Especially the bits that aren't imaginary.

    4. Not every break in pattern is a mistake, sometimes it's a gift to those who obsess over patterns. Such mistakes are humerus.

    5. Not every strip has to be LOL funny, to be funny. Many of them make me go, "oh man, I've said that before!" The raptor thing, the minimal distance thing, the floor patterns thing... These are thoughts that occur due to the circumstances of modern life upon the overly-analytical brain. I notice patterns based on coincidence, and extrapolate reasons for them, with bizarre results. Sometimes it's just nice to know other people do that too.

    6. Jealous? Yes. But not of Randy Randal. You're not a geek, you don't understand what it is that Randal's talking about because it's nothing to do with you. Apparently being excluded from the nerd herd by your lack enrages you, since you are better at everything else than we are.

    7. Your mom says "hi."

    ReplyDelete
  29. Stop feeding the trolls you stupid chucklefuck.

    Carl may be unfunny most of the time but at least he doesn't invite more moronic comments.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The trolls amuse me. Are you disputing my inalienable right to lulz?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hey Cuddlefish, welcome to our blog! Hope you enjoy your stay.

    1. "OMIGOSH OMIGOSH ENDERS GAEM IS LIKE SOOOO COOOL OMIGOD if u dont like it ur liek totally NOT. A. GEEK."

    2. "And thusly the sublime Linus spake: Ye shall know the sacred words, and ye shall utter them unto the heavenly line of commanding, and ye shall love it. And by it, ye shall love the page of the Man, for it is Man-love which is the founding of our faith. Such is the will of the Linus. Amen." (Reiser 154:78)

    Also, I think you mean GNU/Linux. As for the jokes, what jokes?

    3. Well I'm not sure about love or whether she's imaginary, but if anything he should evoke psychiatric attention. The man has issues.

    Stalking is not romantic, unlike what Twilight may have taught you.

    4. oic wat u did thar. It's not funny- and hence my point: Most breaks, ARE mistakes. Like, demonstrating your point by example was a mistake. You ruined the point.

    People who obsess over patterns need medication, not poor webcomics. By the way, I have OCD (not self diagnosed) and I don't find xkcd's breaks interesting or pleasant. They are irritating when I cannot ignore them.

    5. Imagine a conversation with your friends, going on for hours, which consists of lines like: "Oh man, one time, I'd skipped breakfast and I was SO hungry, I felt like I could eat two meals! But I knew I would be full after the first one." "Oh really? Man that happens to me too sometimes, but I also get that when I don't have time for lunch!" Fun.

    6. "Sir, I am sorry to say that your geek licence has been indefinitely revoked. Please hand in your badge and pocket protector." Oh no! What shall we do, the geeks have cast us out into bitter exile!

    Pfeh, gimme a break. What is this, middle school popular girls circle?

    7. Refer to my comment in the previous blog post for issues regarding Oedipal urges.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Also, last time I posted one of these it was actually a really good discussion thread, and I feel that the number of "no one is forcing you to read it" comments have gone down. So, yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Plus I learned a new word.

    Chucklefuck!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Rob you are tearing this blog apart and I hate you for it, of course I'm denying your did you really use that phrase? Jesus fucking christ Rob that better have been in jest or irony.

    "Pfeh, gimme a break. What is this, middle school popular girls circle?"
    You're hitting the mentality nail right on the head, stupid name.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Haha "I am tearing this blog apart." Cute!

    ReplyDelete
  36. (Next time I post I am going to try even harder to stir up trolls, just FYI. All for you!)

    ReplyDelete
  37. I, for one, am actually jealous of Randall. He puts out shit thrice weekly and sells shitloads of t-shirts to middle schoolers. He's putting in minimal (if any) effort and reaping the vast rewards of a semi-retarted fanbase.

    It is a great scheme. I am jealous that he thought of it before I did, in addition to him actually pulling it off.

    Goddamn.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I hate circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Rob, you tremendous idiot, "tearing this blog apart" was in jest. I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A MELODRAMATIC FUNNY OKAY

    Christ, you're a hell of a prick.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Given that the only things you've posted have been utterly bereft of humor, I had no choice but to assume that you were a humorless fuckwit. Which, happily, I still think you are.

    ReplyDelete
  41. http://lol.i.trollyou.com/LOL-I-TROLL-YOU.png

    ReplyDelete
  42. Stopped by just to say how I love that Terry Pratchett is on your list.

    ReplyDelete
  43. xkcd is meaningful.
    xkcdsucks is not meaningful.
    Rob bitching about xkcdsucks is meaningful.
    Others bitching about Rob bitching - you get the idea.
    Wait, let me elaborate more about xkcdsucks.
    Vented anger and spite (in millions of units) > Constructive criticism (in single units)
    50% Purposeless and unsuccessful taming of the concept of subjective humor
    49% Unwashed mouth
    1% Self-Validation (or infinitely more, % is at 100 now.)
    At least you're dedicated, Carl and Co., and lucid in diction (just Carl, actually, thought the moderate vulgarity flows disturbingly well).

    Rob, Carl can't murder you when your blood burns him on contact.
    Happy New Year to you, bro

    ReplyDelete
  44. All cuttlefish are full of shit. Their basic lack of understanding for the subjective nature of reality, and the employment of mockery to increase one's enjoyment, demonstrates their utterly ignorant philosophical outlook on life, and their lack of logical basis for their personal worldviews. They are sacrosanct motherfuckers who need to reevaluate the placement of the dicks in their own asses before even beginning to comment on the dick placements of others.

    (P.S. - I am obscenely drunk)

    Captcha: liter- about how much alcohol is in my system right now

    ReplyDelete
  45. Drunk 'P' aside, its a true point. The insults from the cuddlefish reek of ironic hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Why can't we all just enjoy christmas? Please?

    ReplyDelete
  47. I enjoyed Christmas. Now it's over.

    Latest comic: appears interesting at first glance, but it soon reveals that nothing truly interesting is being demonstrated, and a nonsensical hamhanded your mom joke is added for no reason whatsoever. It's almost as bad as that time he put a bloody tampon in a chart for no apparent reason other than hur hur tampons.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I think the Randall's Impressive Charts™ thing has finally gotten over the edge. There's nothing interesting or clever going on in this chart. "Depth" and "Height" were at least visually interesting and, on occasion, insightful, and the film charts had an unusual, intriguing (though utterly pointless and geek-masturbatory) concept, but this? This will only seem interesting and insightful to the geek wannabes who want to show interest on ANYTHING that seems remotely scientific.

    Randall might have enjoyed himself a lot (ewww!) while doing it, but once it's finished, it's... pointless. Except, of course, for the fellatio happy fans.

    Captcha: plessit. What? I have alleady plessed it!

    ReplyDelete
  49. @The_P and Patricoo (also Rob)

    ;_;

    /wrists

    ReplyDelete
  50. cuddlefish seemed like an obvious troll trying to humor us

    ReplyDelete
  51. The new comic is great, I like the cheeky 'your mom' joke he threw in there. It funny... te he he... yes. Insightful and clever. bring on moar charts coz they give me moar to reed. te he he, xkcd roxx. YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS!

    ReplyDelete
  52. I am now no longer angry at you for your lack of appreciation of anything mathematical and funny because of this huge rant in which you swear a lot and insult my intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The chart on Monday is amazing and must have taken a ton of work and research, but...it's so dull. I wanted a laugh!

    I liked it though. I guess it was okay that there was no joke....

    ReplyDelete
  54. Robbie is, once again, so very wrong that, next to Robbie, wrongness itself acquires a clearly discernible aura of correctitude.

    Yawny yawny cunt cunt

    Innit?

    ReplyDelete
  55. The only possible critique one can make of Monday's comic is that he tried to make a joke when when he should of just left it as one of the "it's-not-supposed-to-be-funny" comics.

    Monday's comic is really kind of an embarrassment to this post. It's undeniably awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Randy should just stick to charts. Notice how he TRIED to throw a joke in the chart and it was just awful. A "your mom" joke. Even done ironically (which I doubt was the case in this chart) those fail so hard.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "The only possible critique one can make of Monday's comic is that he tried to make a joke when when he should of just left it as one of the "it's-not-supposed-to-be-funny" comics."

    Then how is it possible that I can criticize it for not making any interesting observation at all for those who have a higher than grade school understanding of the universe?

    ReplyDelete
  58. I was pretty underwhelmed by Monday's "comic." It looked more like Randy was running short on cash again so he decided to make another obvious poster comic.

    And it would make a really dumb poster. It was only mildly interesting to look at the first time. It might be appropriate in an elementary school classroom; when it adorns geeks' walls everywhere it will be nothing but pure fanboyism.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It clearly worked though, Rob.

    One chart and all of a sudden your post is an "embarrassment." Totally null and void. Everything you said discredited.

    Because of one chart.

    Randy could suck for a whole year then put out one thing that took at least some effort and be totally vindicated in the eyes of his fans.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yes, I have been BRUNG LOW.

    This chart definitively proves that Randy thinks his fans are first graders, though.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I liked this new one, although it was not funny.
    Just a nice picture. Obvious research was done. I liked.
    SO FUCK YOU.
    Sorry, bad day.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The reason people dont like this blog is because its boring. Most of your posts, especially the recent ones are along the lines of "I didnt like this comic. Some other people did, but I didnt."

    Even the angry rants are just "What the fuck? I did not fucking like this comic. It sucked. Xkcd sucks. Fuck"

    Boring.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I just read the rest of the comments. Holy shit, Bob Dole likes XKCD. I need to stop reading this sinful blog! Oh no!
    I will never post here again, Rob, because Bob Dole doesn't like it when I do. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    And know this: Whenever you post, Bob Dole sends tax reduction ninjas to your house. I've gotta run. The ninjas stole my pie.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I still think it's kind of a neat chart. It's sadder when I think of what a blatant cash-in it is.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Just a nice picture. Obvious research was done. I liked.

    Are you shitting me? The only research that he had to do was finding the radius and mass of some dozen celestial bodies. Holy shit it's like a PhD thesis right thur.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I think it's funny that this is almost definitely the comic with the most effort put into it since 657, yet it probably took at max four hours (or should have), including doing the math. But he will be praised for working so hard.
    Less than a work/school/college/whatever day, and he could have been working on it on-and-off for a long time... Oh right, it was late. Wait, did he have updating problems or is it because the comic wasn't finished/uploaded in time? He had three days...

    Could someone tell me how accurately the scales of the wells are?

    ReplyDelete
  67. I'm kind of glad he didn't make a Uranus joke.
    Did he not realize or did he choose not to?

    ReplyDelete
  68. It is like he forgot to put most of the stupid jokes he usually does in. The only real joke is the your mom joke, the inaccurate Carl Sagan reference (it's "a still more glorious dawn," Randy), and the . . . I'm going to say Asteroids UFOs on Titan.

    The latter two are pretty subtle, and the Sagan reference isn't really even a joke so much as just a reference that is designed to give nerds nerdgasms. The your mom joke is neither subtle nor is it that funny. It would be appropriate if he used the usual enormous cluster of half-assed jokes that he does on these things (note: I actually like the enormous cluster of half-assed jokes because they make the chart more interesting).

    So we have the lone your mom joke standing there, awkward, alone, inadequate. Either get rid of it or add more, Randy.

    ReplyDelete
  69. ...and a nonsensical hamhanded your mom joke is added for no reason whatsoever. It's almost as bad as that time he put a bloody tampon in a chart for no apparent reason other than hur hur tampons.

    The electromagnetic spectrum comic was composed almost entirely of joke entries, so at least the tampon wasn't out of place. This one has two references and a your mom joke on an otherwise serious chart, so they're all really out of place.

    The color scheme is also really freaking ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Could someone tell me how accurately the scales of the wells are?"

    They're pretty good, considering the drawing style. I only checked Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and Jupiter (but I didn't double check them so there may be some mistakes). Most of the uncertainty I'm getting is because of the lines aren't straight which causes problem for the smaller planets.

    I used values from Wikipedia for those not given in the graph. It looks like he used the same values, using either the mean radius or the equitorial radius (whichever was available). Turns out that the depth for Earth given in the main plot is actually the value for Venus.

    To get the depths, I used the crest to the left of the well. From this, I get:

    Mercury - 369 km/pixel (307-461 km/pixel)
    Venus - 267 km/pixel (261-274 km/pixel)
    Earth - 311 km/pixel (304-319 km/pixel)
    Mars - 290 km/pixel (257-324 km/pixel)
    Jupiter - 322 km/pixel (304-339 km/pixel)

    Ignoring Venus, it look like the intersection of the ranges is 307-319 km/pixel with 313 km/pixel being the center of that range. The average of the center of the ranges is 312 km/pixel if Venus is included. So it seems accurate but imprecise. You could say it's the best you could do without changing the drawing style to use straighter lines.

    The crests are also accurate. Using the mass of the sun and the semi-major axes of the above planets' orbits as the position of the crests, I'm getting an average of 316 km/pixel ranging from 314-318 km/pixel.

    As a comic, I think it's an interesting visual representation (something I'd like to see in a text book) but it's not visually interesting (I wouldn't want it hanging on my wall). I agree with Rob that the countless half-assed jokes are what make a comic like this amusing. If you're going to be as sparse as this with the jokes, I'd maybe leave in the (corrected) Sagan reference but take out the other two. The one is too vulgar for most settings and the other is too silly. The Sagan line is classy enough, it doesn't look that out of place, and you don't need to get the reference to appreciate it (you just need to feel similar sentiments about space). I'd also take out the Jupiter becoming a star bit because it just seems off topic to me.

    I'd also remove the speaker from the Earth inset. Leave the observation, but it seems odd to introduce a character just for the observation. If you really want to have something like that, also place a few figures around the main explanation in poses that suggest he's speaking to a crowd or on TV. He should also either be speaking in the Deimos and Phobos insets or performing the given actions. This turns him into a narrator for the entire comic as opposed to just some giant telling you how to get to the moon and back.

    The numbers for the Sun and Jupiter should also be included. The space where the "your mom" joke was could be filled with a smaller plot showing perhaps the real depth of the Sun, Jupiter, and perhaps some other stars of interest. For example, the Sun is ten times as deep as Juptier, but Beetlegeuse, nearly twenty time as massive as the Sun, is only twice as deep as Jupiter due to its large radius.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Ha! Watched too much Beetlejuice as a kid. It's spelled Betelgeuse!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Can fusion be ignited?

    ReplyDelete
  73. 1st Grade Math /=/ 8th Grade Physics.

    Just an observation.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Apparently 8th grade physics = 1st grade science.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Actually, I didn't have a physics class that taught actual calcuations with gravity until 11th grade. Still dreadfully juvinile for Randall's supposed "target audience", though.

    Don't ask me what we did in "science class" in middle school; I'm still trying to figure that out myself.

    ps. WTF <SUP> TAGS AREN'T ALLOWED????

    ReplyDelete
  76. Learning what gravity does(1st grade science) is not the equivalent of quantifying it (8th grade at the earliest).

    This comic quantifies it.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Here is the "is it appropriate for first grade science class?" test:

    Imagine this as the focus of a lesson in a classroom. Is this a more helpful aid for (a) showing first graders how much harder it is to get away from Jupiter, or (b) doing the appropriate math?

    The answer is (a). The appropriate math would be better served in a spreadsheet; the visualization doesn't provide any assistance here--it may be to scale but all it's telling you is something you've known since first grade: Jupiter is big, the moon is tiny. The math could be entirely hidden and the graph would lose none of its effect.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Astrophysics professor disagrees, unless of course you feel his audience is first graders.

    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/12/the_perils_of_planet-hopping.php

    ReplyDelete
  79. I believe he's a dumb fuck. Is that the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Coming from a dumb fuck, I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Though actually that post reads like it was written for first graders. It's a fucking picture book. Come on now.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Some random XKCD fan posting an astronomy based XKCD comic in his astronomy based blog is confirmation that it's brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  83. while I don't think the person posting on that blog was a dumbfuck, he loses credibility with me for that picture of the woman wearing a football helmet with an airsoft pistol. Seriously, what the christ is the point of it?

    On topic of the comic (it isn't, what the christ is up with that I say), I felt that I would have found it interesting to read

    1) if it were not a WEBCOMIC but simply a BLOG where Randall can post whatever the fuck he wants, whenever. And this also leads to

    2) if he didn't feel the need to tack on the useless humour of the "your mom" joke and whatever dumb things he put in I refused to notice

    ReplyDelete
  84. Option 3: Your recent string of posts against your detractors is because you're jealous of the ability to enjoy xkcd.

    Well played, Robert, but I have seen through your deception.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Here's another hypothesis:

    It's entirely possible that you are not jealous of Pratchett and Gaiman because you don't put them into the same "bucket" as you put yourself. *You* think of *them* as, well, superhuman.

    On the other hand, Munroe is in your head a guy just like you, except that he has a collection of comics and a large fan following (relative to oh, say you). You'll do anything you can to cut him down, so that you'll look slightly bigger to yourself.

    It's a hypothesis that seems to explain all the facts. Most notably, it explains your obsession, which is not really explained by your theory of "he's untalented and therefore I feel the need to pull him down". There are many untalented but famous people: do you post on all the sites devoted to pulling them down too?

    ReplyDelete
  86. "There are many untalented but famous people: do you post on all the sites devoted to pulling them down too?"

    No, because the people around me aren't constantly telling me how awesome Miley Cyrus or Dan Brown or Jessica Alba are; it's easy enough for me to avoid their work since I don't listen to top 40 radio or watch celebrity gossip TV shows; their fans aren't compelled to bring them up every time something tangentially related to their work is discussed.

    Now, back in '03 when Evanescence was really popular and I couldn't go a day without being asked if I liked them or hearing that god damned "Bring Me to Life" song or having someone tell me I looked like Amy Lee because I have black hair and wore skirts with boots, I bitched about them on the Internet, too.

    $42

    ReplyDelete
  87. That would make sense, if Gaiman and Pratchett were the only people on my list. See also: Joey Comeau, Ryan North, John Allison, several other people (basically any webcomic that I follow) who are more talented than me that I think of as guys just like me, except that they have a collection of comics and a large fan following (relative to oh, say me). Or in some cases write music or fiction or whatever. Yet I do not find myself jealous of any of them, nor do I hate any of them for it. I admire their work and seek to learn from it.

    If you're going to posit theories, you should learn that the scientist does not seek to find cases where he is correct but where he is incorrect. Your hypothesis has innumerable cases of this. You knew this, of course, or you would have mentioned Comeau, North, Allison, et al. Instead you merely mentioned Gaiman and Pratchett.

    I am merely explaining in this post my hatred of XKCD--more specifically, I am explaining what it is not: and that "what it is not" is jealousy. What it is is "I hate it because it sucks." This post does not attempt to explain why I post on the site--that's another post entirely, which will probably be called "Don't You Have Anything Better To Do?" It is summed up as basically (a) XKCD is unavoidable anyway and (b) making fun of things is enjoyable (hence the term "making fun").

    It doesn't need to be uniquely enjoyable. Why do humans discuss anything? I go where the conversation is interesting. I started posting here when I liked XKCD. As I started, I started thinking critically about it. I found that it was indefensible. I stopped liking it; I kept posting.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Actually, the reason I did not mention Comeau et al was that I had never heard of them: searching for them now I see that they put out webcomics I do not enjoy. Not that my lack of enjoyment has anything to do with anything; it is merely the reason I did not know their names.

    The scientific method consists of coming up with hypotheses and then testing them. I think I'm doing okay so far.

    I that Munroe is exceptional among webcomic artists in the degree to which his comic is about experiences likely to be shared by you (and me). So much of it is about college, or school, or things the average educated person of Munroe's age has thought and done that the identification is much stronger. At least, it is so with me, and I don't see any reason why it should not be the same way with you. Admittedly, all you have to do to counter that is to deny it, but I'd like you to answer this categorically: do you identify with the authors of the other webcomics you cite as much as you identify with Munroe?

    I'm not saying you hate him and/or his work for this reason alone. All I'm saying is that this probably makes it a little sweeter for you when you make what you think is a particularly telling point: the fact that you're putting one over on someone who should be no better than you are.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "The scientific method consists of coming up with hypotheses and then testing them. I think I'm doing okay so far."

    The way you test them is by trying to invalidate them. It's easy to construct tests which will support your theory, even if it's wrong. The way to prove yourself right is by trying to prove yourself wrong. See also confirmation bias.

    "At least, it is so with me, and I don't see any reason why it should not be the same way with you. Admittedly, all you have to do to counter that is to deny it, but I'd like you to answer this categorically: do you identify with the authors of the other webcomics you cite as much as you identify with Munroe?"

    Yes; in almost all cases, more so. Joey Comeau in particular; Ryan North to a slightly lesser degree; John Allison still considerably. It has been a very long time since Munroe has put out a comic I identified with. Mostly he puts out comics that alienate me. Even when I liked XKCD, I never found myself fantasizing that Randall was just like me. He wrote comics I enjoyed that were very occasionally about something I identified with. In contrast, most other webcomics I enjoy, I identify with the author strongly.

    As people, I identify with any of the artists I mentioned a great deal more than with Randall, especially having met all of them but John Allison.

    "I'm not saying you hate him and/or his work for this reason alone. All I'm saying is that this probably makes it a little sweeter for you when you make what you think is a particularly telling point: the fact that you're putting one over on someone who should be no better than you are."

    Nicely backpedaled! But no, that is not it. Indeed, the fact that Randall is vaguely similar to me only makes me the sadder that he is so much of a talentless hack. I withhold a lot of acid because I legitimately pity him for the terrible comic he has produced. He didn't set out to be a talentless hack, but he managed to strike a chord with the drooling fanboys and he never received any criticism and his comic slowly devolved into a bunch of memes, references, and terrible setups for weak puns.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Aren't you just adorable? Please do continue using your delightfully insulting term 'cuddlefish,' it displays your astounding wit so perfectly! Oh, and you've mastered the decidedly difficult art of phrasing things in a condescendingly simple tone to demean those who disagree with you? That's wonderful! You're such a big boy troll, you lovable rapscallion you.

    Keep up the good work! And remember: everyone whose opinion differs from yours... is absolutely and verifiably wrong! :D

    ReplyDelete
  91. cuddlefish is not a pejorative.

    ReplyDelete
  92. (ps I am glad you think I am cute, are you cute too? please send pictures)

    ReplyDelete
  93. rob is not cute, he is gross.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I, too, like the hierarchy of quality this kind of argument implies: cuddlefish<xkcdsucks<xkcd<Mind of Mencia, for one.

    ReplyDelete
  95. On the "cute" thingy..*sarcasm

    ReplyDelete
  96. I am so late to this party! But I just wanted to point out--because no one else has, and possibly because no one else is a loser like me--this little bit of a comment by that idiot who listed a bunch of non-reasons as to why xkcdsucks sucks:

    4. Not every break in pattern is a mistake, sometimes it's a gift to those who obsess over patterns. Such mistakes are humerus.

    Humerus, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  97. personaly i enjor xkcd and was outraged when I saw this webstie but.. after look at his logic I have to agree with most of his claims... I still however am an avid xkcd reader!

    ReplyDelete
  98. I wonder what would happen if one of the people you admire say something good about xkcd xD

    ReplyDelete
  99. I think if Dinosaur Comics ever loved xkcd enough to let Randall Munroe do a guest comic, I would probably have a heart attack and die right on the spot from the OUTRAGE and SURPRISE.

    wait, do I count as someone I admire? Because I've said tons of nice things about xkcd. It's a good comic, it's just had a 400 comic or so dry spell. But at heart it's a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  100. This blog is somewhat amusing but mostly sad. You are using your dislike of someone's actual art/hobby/entertainment to try to make yourself more than a useless waste of blood and tissue. If you hate XKCD so much, why don't you simply apply all the energy that goes into maintaining this pointless blog into actually creating something yourself, i.e. something you believe is a better webcomic. Vitriol for the sake of vitriol doesn't serve anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  101. i create lots of things thanks

    ReplyDelete
  102. Dude you are a tool. So what if XKCD is a little hit and miss... you're the only one who cares so much that you needed to make a blog about how much you hate his comics. I agree, some of them aren't funny.... so what? chill out.... if you don't like XKCD then go make your own webcomic... no i didn't read your article about how or why you don't have your own cause i don't care. Theres no reason to bag on other peoples webcomics especially one the occasionally has a very funny one.

    Bottom line; Chill out dude and stop bagging on Randy or whatever because in the end hes a smart guy and really funny at that.

    PS: it sounds like you have some personal vendetta against him for some reason. Claiming that you like other webcomics doesn't make your point any more valid. So shut the fuck up and quit bitching about an insignificant webcomic and STOP READING IT YOU FUCKING TOOL.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "you're the only one who cares so much that you needed to make a blog" - not true! The good people at xkcdexplained have done so as well!

    other than that, i think I don't need to respond to someone who says "I know you wrote a logical, reasoned response to this argument elsewhere on your website, but I don't feel like reading it." maybe you should read it!

    ReplyDelete
  104. Technically, isn't it envious? Just putting it out there.

    ReplyDelete
  105. jealous works just fine. it also is a prettier word.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Y'know...

    Fuck.

    Shit.

    I cannot even put into words how happy this blog makes me.

    From now on, anytime I see an assburger knee-jerk "argument" like the ones you're tearing up, I'm just going to copy-and-paste your blog posts (linking back to the original, of course!), except erasing XKCD with whatever they're bitching about. They won't know the difference, and anyone with higher intelligence than a turnip will pump their fists to the heavens and shout in triumph and adulation of your... something.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Ray William Johnson's YouTube channel sucks as well, but he still gets 4 million views on every one of his videos at least.
    Conclusion: People are retards.

    ReplyDelete