Sunday, January 16, 2011

Comic 847: Wish Upon A Dying Star

what the fuck is wrong with his HEAD
[Comic title: "Stingray Nebula"; alt text: Earendil will patrol the walls of night only until the sun reaches the red giant stage, engulfing the Morning Star on his brow. Light and high beauty are passing things as well.]

Say what you will about Randall Munroe, he knows woe. Not only does he have a relative who has a debilitating illness (which apparently makes his head turn into a freakish polygonal abomination as seen in panel 1), today marks the one millionth time he has been rejected by Megan. But there is always hope, burning bright in the distant galaxies.

Until it explodes, anyway. (oh man i am so hilarious)

The comic in question is derived from that greatest of life experiences, Knowing Someone Who Is Kind Of Sick But Will Be All Better Eventually. Randall has found this to be a veritable font of comics both hilarious and poignant. And he has apparently read Tolkien's The Chronicles of Narnia, which honestly surprises me, given his obvious predilections towards religion. I should not doubt him in the future.

He starts, as many of his comics do, with a completely unironically serious comic. The idea, of course, is to make you think that this is going to be an uplifting story about having a star that will give you comfort or whatever. But then he pulls an entirely unexpected twist and is like "YEAH TOO BAD IT WENT SUPERNOVA, MOTHERFUCKERZZZZZZZZ" and kind of grabs his crotch and makes painful thrusting motions with his face all scrunched up like he's in pain.

This is, of course, the very peak of brilliance. You see, Randall Munroe has finally captured the formula. The way to make the greatest possible joke is to set up something which could be completely unironically serious, and then lay out a tired and predictable punchline that demonstrates an impressive lack of imagination and doesn't really add humor to the joke by any possible stretch of the imagination. Add some post-punchline dialog, and you are fucking set. As is traditional in these cases, the joke is neither funny, and the attempt at a serious comic is ruined irredeemably. SCORE.

The impressive part, of course, is how he ignores the obviously badass opportunity to say "do you have any idea how awesome it is that I picked a star that went supernova? THAT IS THE MOST BADASS THING EVER." That would have been obvious, so Randall "I Would Never Do Anything Obvious" Munroe rejected it outright.

And that is how the latest masterpiece is made. Namárië, bitches.

170 comments:

  1. WAAH MEGAN JOKE! WAAH NOT A REAL REVIEW! WAAH TOLKIEN FACTUAL ERROR!

    I'm just using my amazingly awesome psychic ability to predict what this thread will be like.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First, though: Rob, it's spelled "religion", you fat inattentive fuck. You have ruined all credibility you ever had forever. (This is assuming you had any to begin with.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just fucking know you did it on porpoise, but narnia was C.S. Lewis, man.

    oh god saying that is like scratching the biggest itch

    ReplyDelete
  4. C.S Lewis and Tolkien are the two authors whose books Jack Chick so frequently directs everyone to burn, so clearly they are interchangeable

    ReplyDelete
  5. haha i know what string theory is!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nono, Rob, Randall obviously was referencing Tolkien's The Great Divorce (1945), which American publishers forced him to retitle "The Return of the King" until Nov. 22nd, 1963 so as to avoid his anti-allegorical nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Femalethoth
    LOLOLOLOL me too!!!11!!1!1one!1!1SHIFT11!!1!1

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ha ha string theory! Ha ha Black Hat Guy! Ha ha nerd references in alt-text!

    Ugh. Which of course means the people on the forums will love it and talk about how it's the best one in ages and Randall's still got it!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Everyone knows that the Chronicles of Narnia are by Vin Diesel. newfaggots.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you for not being a boring fat fuck rob. Just fat.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Your best review in ages, Rob.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The overly long gag. I get it. At first, when the Megan jokes started becoming a frequent edition to the reviews they were funny. Then they became a regular part of the review making the reviews feel more formulaic and Megan references seemed lazy and were annoying. But you kept up with it so long that the Megan jokes became even more hilarious then they were initially.

    Overdoing the Megan theme was almost self-referential and part of a consisten story. And it has been good for some laughs. But you are now dangerously close to the 'lazy' line where I can count on the Randall/Megan thing being part of the review even if it could be far funnier if the focus and primary Munroe bash was totally unrelated. Megan is beginning to detract from the substance of the reviews.

    It, (the stalker joke,) has not fully lost it's humour to me. I am, however, on the brink where one more time may push me over into the realm of 'this does not make me so much as smirk.' I realize Rob does not write based on my specific comedy senses. But I am now critiquing his critiques so screw you guys. If I were you, (speaking to Rob here, doods,) I would start re-directing my focus before I lose the benefits of the long running gag. As it stands I am considering punching myself in the balls if I hear one more Megan reference.

    So that's out of the way.

    At any rate I really did enjoy this installment of the blog. It was entertaining and had what was probably at least some accurate insight.

    ReplyDelete
  13. oh christ randy's job is so easy
    worst comic in ages

    ReplyDelete
  14. Don't you mean Rob's job?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Cuttlefish" here. Good job Rob. Some of this is actually about the comic!

    ReplyDelete
  16. black hat guy has really gone downhill hasnt he

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://xkcd.com/171/
    http://xkcd.com/397/

    Even knowing how much Randall doesn't care about and doesn't understand string theory, this strip was disingenuous and boring. I guess I didn't dislike it as much as the last comic, but only because this one was much shorter making it less painful by comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  18. and I agree about Mr Black Hat. Tricking people out of $15 to see a 3D movie? I already experienced that with Avatar (the film was certainly 3D, but it was also rubbish)

    ReplyDelete
  19. I once got overexcited while reading one of my favourite passages in The Silmarillion and accidentally dropped my hardcover complete Tolkien omnibus directly on my erect penis. That motherfucker snapped right in half on impact, and I'm not talking about my penis.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ Anon 1:47 I literally fell asleep during Avatar. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who hated it. The guy I went with loved it and went to see it like 3 or 4 more times in theaters. I guess one thing about xkcd is that it honestly isn't as boring and annoying as Avatar.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I disliked Avatar too and I'm a different Anonymous!!! It was a shame because I hardly ever leave off posting anonymously in places to get out of my mother's basement for a while, and you really want these brief forays into reality to be memorable experiences, you know? Something to tell your brother's grandchildren about as they huddle uncomfortably in the corner when their parents have run out of babysitter options.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Was it really necessary to try and make the second panel look all 3D and shadowed and what-not? Especially since the "joke" is that the movie WASN'T 3D AT ALL. And where exactly are they in the last panel? Black Hat Guy's office? The movie theatre?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Who cares? It's pretty.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just from seeing the title and second panel I thought it was going to be 'the glasses made everything in xkcdland 3D OMG' but randy made it even less interesting than that

    ReplyDelete
  25. UndercoverCuddlefishJanuary 17, 2011 at 3:20 AM

    rob i look forward to the megan jokes and the small one you snuck in here was pretty weak

    as an act of apology to the loyal readership you betrayed with this post i request that the next review be entirely about megan

    ReplyDelete
  26. panel 2 is probably the worst thing that Randall has ever drawn, including the cartoon vagina

    ReplyDelete
  27. My humble opinion of 848:
    First of all, that second panel... It's funny how it has been made. Obviously, Big R drew 3 spheres in some 3D drawing program, added a lightsource, rendered it, and drew the rest on it himself. Quite a funny idea, really, and the result isn't all that bad, I think.
    And the joke - for the first time in ages I actually had to laugh a bit. It's an AFAIK original idea, and quite a good idea as well. Okay, I have to admit, right now I'd be completely unsurprised if someone posts a link showing this comic has already been done, that's standard practice whenever Big R makes a remotely funny comic.

    But again the dialog is dreadful. Unnatural. He always manages to screw it up somewhere. But it was only a minor screwup here.

    ReplyDelete
  28. a comic as shitty as this deserves a better review and a better reviewer

    ReplyDelete
  29. Wow, its so refreshing to have Carl's clear and well written reviews taken over by a drunk ape whose main skill is at typing out abuse at a comic writer.

    Gosh I wish someone else took over.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I see why people hate rob. I don't understand what people saw in Carl.

    ReplyDelete
  31. A lot of times Carl is like that guy you know that you generally agree with and is a nice person most of the time but can't make an argument to save his life and is really, really determined to get into arguments with people and really doesn't do anything other than make you look bad by association.

    ReplyDelete
  32. how the fuck is it possible for someone to think "gosh am i the only one who dislikes avatar?"

    you're on the internet

    there are hundreds of billions of people on the internet willing to tell you, at length, exactly what was wrong with avatar

    the movie's biggest problem: it wasn't james cameron's aliens 3: but now the aliens have boobs

    ReplyDelete
  33. Goatkcd 848 is amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. http://soundcloud.com/birdfeeder/jurassic-park-theme-1000-slower

    The best part is Randall's (alleged) comment: "I know this is pedantic, but..."

    ReplyDelete
  35. 843 is pretty awesome too

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Femalethoth: That's just because it was time for Earth to go and rape an alien race, as opposed to the other way around.

    @Ernesto: "FYI, I've already done this thing before." -- Randy. Clearly not our 3-years-late Randy.

    ReplyDelete
  37. From Randy's comment: "This is not a big deal at all, but percentages are tricky!" They sure are. Thank God you're here to help us out, Randy!

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Ernesto: So Randy doesn't understand basic maths then?

    Also, the brilliance of this new comic blows my mind - amazing! As always Randall Munroe, you are a white knight single handedly holding back the tide of webcomic darkness. I salute you sir.

    ReplyDelete
  39. In that SoundCloud comment, Randall isn't being pedantic; he's just being stupid. It's another example of, "Hey you guys, GUESS WHAT I'VE DISCOVERED!" Yes, percentages can often be ambiguous. This isn't a new insight at all, and if he's really confused about "1000%" in this context, is it that hard to check? Let's say the original track is five minutes long. The slowed track is fifty minutes long. HEY! That means it's 10x slower! Wow, that was hard!

    Idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Gamer, I don't think you understand that Randall was taking advantage of a TEACHING MOMENT here.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @gamer_2k4: It's 9x SLOWER and 10x AS SLOW, you filthy pleb.

    I can picture Randy making a comic along the lines of this, though.... see you on Wednesday?

    Captcha: Metrous. The real problem here is that Randall hasn't adopted the Metrous system of percentile measurement, yet.

    ReplyDelete
  42. xkcd comic #847 is both an artistic and humorous masterpiece. Randall Munroe delivers both meaningful inspiration and charming wit in this particular comic. Those with an artistic eye may see Randall's great use of inversion in the color scheme, while still keeping to his simplistic drawing still, resulting in elegant imagery.

    This particular comic deals with content relating to both astronomy, and the classic/timeless novel "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Vol II". You plebs may not know this (I highly doubt you read books, let alone ones of this size), but "The Lord of the Rings" is an epic fantasy novel written by the esteemed J.R.R. Tolkien, who would dismiss this petty "blog" if we were fortunate to still have him around today.
    Regardless, Randall takes the fantasy elements from the LotR, and mixes it with scientific astronomy (I don't think I need to mention how well he knows THAT topic, hahaha). By blending the two, what emerges is lighthearted and thought provoking message, with a little of Randall's famous humor thrown in.

    I give this comic an honest 94/100. I knocked off points for the lack of plausibility that the star gazing character in question would have chosen the star that later would become THE Stingray Galaxy. Until next time, continue to grovel in the pinnacle of humor and wit that is xkcd!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Guys, I can't do this anymore. Randall is clearly above our criticism, and his comics beyond our feeble understanding. Our critiques are all orthogonally attacking a piece that, viewed from every other dimension, is simply the paragon of hilarity, class, and scientific understanding.

    GG WP NR.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Ravenzomg 10:34

    YES! Thank you! Every time I hear someone say "twice longer" when they mean "twice as long" - or "500% larger" instead of "400% larger" - I die a little inside.

    A totally new Anon

    ReplyDelete
  45. @Anon 3:56
    You sure he used a 3D Model for the heads in panel 2? Looks like he just slapped a gradient tool on there like he does every time he needs a comic to look pseudo-artistic.

    ReplyDelete
  46. So I guess none of you rubes noticed, but 847 is scientifically incorrect. The Stingray nebula is a planetary nebula, and not a supernova remnant. SNRs happen when a star literally explodes, as Randy describes in the comic. PNe happen when a star sheds it outer layers, which are then heated up by radiation from the exposed stellar core (a white dwarf). So the star never exploded, and the light didn't reach earth in 1987. I think Randy is mixing up the Stingray with Supernova 1987A.

    Also, nobody uses the term "main sequences" to refer to stars on the main sequence. Instead you say "main sequence stars." Randy also doesn't specify what kind of dwarfs he is talking about: white dwarfs, brown dwarfs, dwarf stars... ?

    And yes, I'm an astronomer (aka the person Randy dreams of being).

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Ravenzomg

    Well, balls. Looks like I need to take some classes from Randall. (Or maybe I'm already at his level! Zing!)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Carl was knowledgeable, witty and relevant. Rob is not.I'm starting to prefer the XKCD comics to this shit, and that should not be possible.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Carl was knowledgeable,"

    ffffffffffffahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  50. Rob please continue the Megan jokes; the whining in the comments is absolutely hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  51. It might be hilarious, but trolling should not be an acceptable substitute for an actual review.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Except xkcd hasn't been worth an actual review in a while now. It's just continued to get worse.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Except xkcd hasn't been worth an actual review in a while now. It's just continued to get worse."

    xkcd has never been worth reviewing-that's the whole point of the blog. It's "[a] vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness about a silly and harmless comic." Harshly and accurately reviewing the comic anyway is what used to make the reviews so great.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Chaos: You are not alone. Watch this:

    http://redlettermedia.blip.tv/file/3655125/

    ReplyDelete
  55. @Ray: That quote doesn't say anything about REVIEWING the comic. It just says nastiness. And Rob certainly IS nasty.

    CAPTCHA: reweetr. Reweetr? I hardly knew 'er!

    ReplyDelete
  56. I love the way we use the subtitle of the blog to evaluate whether or not Rob's posts are legitimate. It reminds me of the bible fights during the religion wars in Europe, or of the way our jurists analyse the constitution to say whether a law is enforceable, or of the marxists religiously interpreting The Capital in the 60s, when it was still fashionable.

    Carl was our true prophet and guide. He disappeared too soon, and the only thing he left us was this infinitely rich if mysterious line of conduct:

    "[a] vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness about a silly and harmless comic."

    (Rob is the evil false prophet trying to steer people away from Carl's true message.)

    ReplyDelete
  57. Jesus, these reviews are terrible. Maybe not quite as bad as the comics being reviewed, but that's not really setting the bar very high.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @anon1127: Just call yourself "Ravenfish" and you will get 400x as much respect {as opposed to 400x more respect, sorry, not that good}.

    +1 Astron1135, because instead of taking astronomy I took astrology. So he could totally be bullshitting me and I'd never know, but he sounds official and doesn't come off as a self-important dick. That's how the internet works, basically, right? Just assume everyone who doesn't swear needlessly is who they say they are??

    ReplyDelete
  59. So how about that new astrological sign they're coming up with huh? Oedipus or something like that? They do that every once in a while, I remember about 20 years ago they tried to make the Whale a new sign, I swear to god. Didn't fly with americans of course, who are all fat and would rather not be born into a joke.

    Anyway, apparently 50% of all people have been reading the wrong horoscope their whole lives and it's worked fine.

    IT MEANS ASTROLOGY IS RIGHT EVEN WHEN IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE WRONG!!

    ReplyDelete
  60. I don't know why I even bother going to goatkcd. It never changes. All you have to do is imagine the Goatse Man in the final panel and you've saved yourself some time.

    Still, I go anyway and today it sure gave me a hearty laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "It might be hilarious, but trolling should not be an acceptable substitute for an actual review. "

    guess it's a good thing I don't replace the reviews with megan jokes, eh?

    I wonder how long we've been getting commenters saying "these reviews are worse than XKCD" with the optional "AND THAT IS SAYING A LOT" added on. it's been going on at least since Carl's day. the song remains the same and so on

    ReplyDelete
  62. what I get from this whole website is "I WANT TO COMPLAIN BECAUSE I DON'T FIND HIS PARTICULAR SENSE OF HUMOR FUNNY."

    ReplyDelete
  63. ^+1.

    Captcha: Cheques. Apparently our captcha system is from the Commonwealth?

    ReplyDelete
  64. I'm sure Randall will be glad to tell us how stupid astrology is in Wednesday's comic.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Lol, just came back here, and nice job deleting my rather large post because you disagreed with it. I guess that's just how you work though; when you can't argue with something, delete it. Quite comical.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Suck it, oppressed anon, the only person capable of deleting posts has abandoned the blog and left behind a bunch of dumb cunts who only have the power to make new entries! What happens to your conspiracy theory now? It goes poof in a puff of smoke, like a ninja foiling his escape by finally succumbing to repressed urges.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I'm assuming you're right, in which case something must have just happened to it... somehow. It's a shame though, because I felt like saying something to the self-righteous asshole who runs this blog- Just because one can try to use big words to bullshit around a valid point doesn't mean that one is smart...

    ReplyDelete
  68. O NOES, ANONYMOUS ISN'T SCARED OF BIG WORDS AND WILL BRAVELY FELLATE, I MEAN DEFEND RANDALL

    ReplyDelete
  69. "If I were you, (speaking to Rob here, doods,) I would start re-directing my focus before I lose the benefits of the long running gag. As it stands I am considering punching myself in the balls if I hear one more Megan reference. "

    literally the only reason I write them is because people keep complaining about them. if it went unmentioned it would stop (unless circumstances called for it, eg another creepy comic which mentions her by name). alas.

    "Lol, just came back here, and nice job deleting my rather large post because you disagreed with it. I guess that's just how you work though; when you can't argue with something, delete it. Quite comical."

    sorry, conspiracy theorist. even if I could delete posts I wouldn't care enough about you to bother. you might notice that every comment thread is replete with comments criticizing me? believe me, you are not capable of writing something I can't argue with.

    some free advice for you: if you ever find yourself thinking "man, there is no way anyone could possibly argue with this brilliant piece of work," you have probably just composed an incredibly stupid and hackneyed argument that is remarkable only in the sheer number of people dumb enough to think it would be efficacious.

    ReplyDelete
  70. The blog randomly decides to activate its anti-spam program for no particular reason with no particular schedule. Rob does have an email address, if you really feel that worried that Rob will now never get the chance to repair his actions upon hearing your words of wisdom.

    Or, if you're looking for attention, just wait an hour or so and the anti-spam program usually goes to sleep.

    Ironically, long posts ---> "spam". Keep it short and linkless, or Blogger may think you're a bot. Or it might not -- both happen with no particular method or reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Of course you can argue with anything, Rob. No sense could possibly penetrate the nice, comforting atmosphere of one's own colon firmly wrapped around one's head.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I look forward to a lengthy, entirely abstract discussion between Rob and Anonymous, in which they try to establish whether Rob would have been able to successfully counter Anonymous's argument, without anyone ever seeing what that argument was.

    Now that's quality internet

    ReplyDelete
  73. Guys, I don't know if this has been pointed out before, but in this comic, T-Rex is Randall Munroe and Utahraptor is all of us.

    http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1043

    ReplyDelete
  74. I thought nigger turned invisible in the dark... Now I know they turn white in the dark!

    ReplyDelete
  75. This is awesome. EVERY FUCKING SINGLE TIME someone NEEDS to complain about the Megan jokes, even after Rob specifically says he will keep doing Megan jokes if people keep complaining about them. That's... hilarious! And also feeds my misanthropy, but that's neither here nor there...

    So, this new comic... yea, 3D spheres... right. I'd believe Randall even had that effort... if the heads were perfectly round, like spheres should be. Nope, Randall just slapped a gradient there, and called a shitty joke a witty reference. The "nerds" at xkcd forum must be having orgasms, despite this joke here not even needing to have any String Theroy reference. Imagine "Flatland 3D". It's the same thing, minus obvious nerd-pandering(then again, it's Flatland...)

    Useless and pretty middle panel is useless and an obvious praise-bait.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Besides, you could probably discharge your whole flamethrower tank on the xkcd forums and not incinerate a single person who knows actual string theory.

    If there were any to begin with, they migrated here after the fucking haiku about prime numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Hurhur, apparently my Megan jokes aren't funny lets just claim that I only make them because people keep complaining.

    Jesus Christ I wish Carl came back.

    ReplyDelete
  78. if you go back to the last, oh, infinite comment threads, you'll find me saying basically the same thing in most of them.

    so, let's start with the assumption that the very first Megan joke I ever made was done because I thought it was funny. and let's also start with the assumption that the complaining about the Megan jokes started as soon as I started making them. (the latter, at least, is definitely true, though at the time it wasn't complaining that they were tired, but complaining that I had Gone Too Far and crossed some imaginary hate-line, but I digress.)

    even ignoring the fact that I'm a well-known contrarian running a hate blog who delights in getting angry comments, the Megan jokes (and the complaining about them, and my telling you that I am only posting them because you keep complaining) have been going on for far too long for your claim to make any sense (we're talking months here). surely if I had realized they weren't funny, I would stop writing them, would I not? or at least, I would stop writing them with the assumption that they were funny. I would need another reason to continue them if, as you postulate, I have realized that they weren't funny and am now seeking a justification for continuing them.

    there are really only two possible justifications I can think of that I would be posting them. the first is that somehow I still believe them to be funny and popular. this is implausible at best, based on the comments and my responses to them.

    the other justification is the one that I have given: people continue to complain about it, so I will continue to post them. you'd probably be at your best, trolling-wise, to try to say something like I was doing it out of spite. that is, I loved my Megan jokes so much that when someone made fun of them I vowed to keep posting them until nobody complained anymore, because they had hurt my feelings so bad and I wanted to exact petty revenge by continuing to feed them jokes they don't like.

    this wouldn't be an accurate claim, of course, but it would be better than your current self-defeating one. the actual accurate reason is the one that I have already provided: the reactions amuse me, and have from the very beginning, when they started as people insisting that I had somehow gone Too Far on my hate blog by insulting Randy's stalkerish tendencies.

    you don't write a hate blog--especially a hate blog for a popular internet fixture--for the praise. you write a hate blog because you're a collector of angry comments on the internet. all that is dumbest in humanity comes out to attack you. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that I am deliberately encouraging some of those dumb people to say dumb things, but there you have it.

    ReplyDelete
  79. i thought you wrote a hate blog because you want to talk about killing jews

    ReplyDelete
  80. well, that's why I write notkillingjewssucks.blogspot.com, anyway

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Blog not found
    Sorry, the blog you were looking for does not exist. However, the name notkillingjewssucks is available to register! "

    :'(

    I was hoping against hope there was something there. I really was.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Ah Rob, an excellent dissertation on this blog is all just masturbatory, if not downright philistine, bullshit. Bravo!

    Of course, you could have just linked to that blog post a few months ago where you compared Randall Munroe to William Shakespeare (what?) and then used that as a reason why you DIDN'T like him.

    Why I keep finding myself at this fucking website is probably akin to the reason I keep finding myself at XKCD, and why I enjoy fucking with my developmentally disabled little cousin: it's nice to feel smarter than someone, even if that person is retarded.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Whoa, Sarge, you shouldn't mess with your little cousin like that. I think you've gone too far.

    I fully expect you to respond to this complaint by messing with your cousin MORE, and until I stop complaining.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Sarge are you sure the Shakespeare thing wasn't Carl

    Because that sounds like the kind of dumb shit Carl would say

    ReplyDelete
  85. Ah shit. Having read through a few comment threads now, I realise Rob is just trolling. Should've known better.

    I would read webcomics.me more often, but Carl updates about once every 17 years, and the rest of the writers there are fucking terrible.

    Captcha: Momantis. Momantis, mo' problems.

    ReplyDelete
  86. So, the latest Abstruse Goose is awful. But you probably guessed that from the fact it's the latest Abstruse Goose.

    ReplyDelete
  87. @Sarge

    and why I enjoy fucking with my developmentally disabled little cousin

    Holy balls did I ever miss the "with" there. Wow.

    Captcha: Craters. Looks like they gave me a real word this time.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Who wouldn't rather be on a hill fantasizing about a strong, manly ancient Greek hunter than conversing with other human beings?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Guys, if you don't like the Megan jokes, you're going to have to use reverse psychology on him.

    Allow me to demonstrate:

    We NEED more MEGAN jokes, PUH-LEEEEEASE!!!!!!ONE!!!OVER9000

    ReplyDelete
  90. q. what do you call a thousand thousand n
    a. a megan

    LAUGH BITCHES

    ReplyDelete
  91. his eye keeps its gaze on me and wont go away

    ReplyDelete
  92. Rob, instead of writing comments (that are longer than the post) about how your obviously not a shitty writer, you should just stop being a shitty writer. Then you won't have to try and convince anyone. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I don't think it's that Rob is really a shitty writer-it's just that the Megan jokes sometimes seem stale and forced, and the only reason he puts them in is to piss people off. Either that, or he actually can't think of anything better to put in. I'd prefer not to have as many Megan jokes, but as long as there's actually some criticism in the review, I don't mind them too much. But if there isn't, and it's just a shitty rant about Randy being a fat stalker, then I probably won't like it.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Side note: I really liked this review. It was funny and pretty spot on about the problems of the comic. Hell, I didn't even notice how badly drawn the heads were until I read the review xD

    ReplyDelete
  95. Rob you should start selling troll bait, like fish bait but for trolls, wait that's not funny, but I feel like typing my entire thought process and I'm too lazy to hit backspace, anyways I love the troll bait and I hope you continue to spew your particular brand of hate fertilizer all over this site. I also realize you are going to ignore this comment because it isn't a giant senseless complaint, so I'm just going to type:
    Rob you suck because...
    and let you imagine the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Can't be assed reading all the comments- Rob, I liked the review, because inevitably there's a million posts about BAW NOT AS GOOD AS CARL BAW MEGAN BAW BAW.

    so there.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Stars won't judge you or make fun of you.
    Nor will they steal your girlfriend from you.

    Stars are, man
    Stars are pretty awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  98. oh my god, every time I read an abstruse goose I want to punch that blue-hat author insert IN THE TEETH.

    the prick who writes that comic manages to be more self-satisfied with his own autism than even Randy ever was. GOD how I want to kick his nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Rob, just a thought:
    How could you be so sure who is trolling whom here? Bob made a comment that could have been penned in about 10 seconds and your reply filled my poor netbook's screen twice over. Additionally, you're now duty-bound to add a Megan joke to the next review. All this for someone who may have just been aiming to troll you.

    Not to mention anyone else who complains might just be doing so to future-troll anyone who does have a genuine distaste for the Megan jokes

    ReplyDelete
  100. ah but Rob was doing it all ironically so he wins

    (fucking hipster)

    ReplyDelete
  101. how do you countertroll a countertroll?

    ReplyDelete
  102. "How could you be so sure who is trolling whom here? Bob made a comment that could have been penned in about 10 seconds and your reply filled my poor netbook's screen twice over. Additionally, you're now duty-bound to add a Megan joke to the next review. All this for someone who may have just been aiming to troll you."

    you make it sound like I dislike writing lengthy comments explaining why people are stupid.

    I write a popular hate blog on the internet. every post for the past week has breached something like 70 comments, and most have gone past 100. I'm not sure why people still play this "who is trolling whom" game. apart from missing the point entirely, it completely ignores the context in which these conversations take place.

    but let's play, shall we? let's say that trolling is behavior designed to annoy, anger, offend, or inconvenience people (eg, a hate blog). let's say that about 75% of the negative comments on this blog are just trolls. I seem to be doing a pretty good job, even with the generous figure of 25% genuine comments I'm offering here. (and I am being generous--these are people who think that large amounts of text require effort to produce. and let's not forget the important question: why are they trolling in the first place, given the context in which it happens?)

    contrast with those 75% trolls. apart from enjoyment, I gain nothing from writing this blog. the ad revenue still goes to Carl. I lose nothing by ceasing to update. I gain nothing by paying attention to the comment threads. the point you can hopefully see me making is I would not be doing this if I did not enjoy it. if they had any degree of success with their trolling, they would effect some sort of change in my behavior.

    of course, every one of these trolls is super convinced that there are tears streaming down my face as I write this, and there's nothing to be said to convince them otherwise--they read what they want to, and they want to live in a world where they are capable of accomplishing something. (poor souls.) but let's be reasonable. I have been arguing on the internet for, oh, over ten years now. I'm what you might call an old hand at this.

    if there is one thing you learn when you've spent as long on the internet as I have, it's this: they have not invented an argument that will persuade someone on the internet. they have not invented an insult that will actually offend someone on the internet (the stupid, the very new, and the easily offended excepted). and the average troll is lucky if he's got average intelligence--he's certainly not clever enough to come up with one.

    "Not to mention anyone else who complains might just be doing so to future-troll anyone who does have a genuine distaste for the Megan jokes"

    and this bothers me how? it's not like I dislike trolling people with Megan jokes. if I did I wouldn't include them. it's this little game that I play, which is rigged so that I always win.

    ReplyDelete
  103. This one time I pissed my pants in public and everybody laughed and laughed but I meant to do it and I'll keep doing it as long as they keep laughing at me I tell you what.

    ReplyDelete
  104. If we like Rob's reviews, he's happy because he realizes that people are stupid for liking his bad reviews.

    If we dislike Rob's reviews, he's happy because the "reviews" took next to no effort to make and Rob feeds off peoples' hilarious reactions.

    Oh...
    Oh god...

    The only winning move is not to play, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  105. UndercoverCuddlefishJanuary 18, 2011 at 7:58 PM

    @davo you are using a fucking netbook so i guess the joke is on you

    ReplyDelete
  106. Pretty sure this comic started as a drawing of a scantily clad chick with a bloody axe, and spiraled out from there along the Randallian thought process of, "how can I give my geek fans a GOOMH moment?"

    ReplyDelete
  107. Away from the topic that Rob is obviously hating on everyone to make up for his own self-loathing, does anyone else notice how bleak and whiny SMBC has been as of late? It's almost like Randall's family member's illness is affecting us too on a more personal level, by ruining an actually good comic.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I usually like SMBC. But he has this theme about how relationships are terrible, and women want feelings while men want boobies, hur hur, which he has done to exhaustion and honestly was already used up in the 80s.

    On a positive note I've just discovered Wonderella and it's a blast.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Okay, I give up. What's the joke in 849?

    ReplyDelete
  110. A wave function is a complex valued function. If you multiply a complex number by its conjugate, you get a real number. The first panel is retarded.

    The joke is also vastly improved by focusing on totally real linear transformations, but I suppose those are rare enough to give him a pass

    ReplyDelete
  111. The joke is handily explained for us plebians in the alt-text. It raises an interesting question: avoiding unnecessary obfuscation or dumbing down for the masses?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Obfuscation? Dumbing down? What? Presumably even "the masses" attended high school??

    ReplyDelete
  113. omg

    I'm the previous aonymous, and I've been reading the thread at the xkcd forums. I quote:

    "by Mazuku » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:13 am UTC
    The maths involved here is way beyond me abd if the strip is anything to go by, is way beyond even many maths geeks, am I right?"

    "by s0merand0mdude » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:22 am UTC
    A math/science joke I actually get! I just learned this stuff last week! Whoo for the education system!!"

    No one has chimed in with the required "SHUT UP YOU BASTARDS THIS IS 8TH GRADE MATERIAL, FUCKING GO AWAY AND DON'T COME BACK"

    This comic made official what few still bothered to deny: xkcd's readership is composed of middle schoolers... or dumb high schoolers.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I never learnt anything about imaginary numbers in high school. I mean, I could have if I did the more advanced mathematics course, but like many people I didn't. Maybe you're not the only person in the world after all!

    ReplyDelete
  115. Anonymous 12:08 That's true... I'm actually a little ashamed. Maybe next I'll be visiting a blog devoted to criticising Sesame Street.

    No, that does it. I'm out. Seeya everyone, it was nice knowing you.

    ReplyDelete
  116. For honesty's and good faith's sakes, internet fora are quasi exclusively populated by middle schoolers (and/or angry frustrated, too good for xkcd's nerdiness nerds.)

    So we clearly have a sampling bias here.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Randall knows his audience. Although if "The maths involved here is way beyond me abd if the strip is anything to go by, is way beyond even many maths geeks, am I right?" is anything to go by, it looks like he actually still overestimated.

    ReplyDelete
  118. @anon 10:59 "The first panel is retarded."

    It's necessary to build up for the line "shit just got real", I think. Without it the meaning equivalent to "things just got serious" (or similar) has no context.

    This is the best/only decent xkcd in a while in my opinion. Alt-text does it's best to destroy the comic, but apart from that the joke is amusing, requires at least some math knowledge (I don't see how the level is relevant anyway) and is pretty well presented- no post punchline dialog, nothing taken away by the stick art. This is what a good xkcd should be.

    ReplyDelete
  119. UndercoverCuddlefishJanuary 19, 2011 at 2:04 AM

    i will shit on your grave

    ReplyDelete
  120. Well done Randy: you, like me, and several hundreds of thousands of people have completed a basic undergraduate class on quantum mechanics.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Dear Randall

    Suck a bowl of soggy dicks.

    love,
    Bret

    ReplyDelete
  122. I think Randy started reading his own forums from a year ago

    http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5683&start=600#p1371465

    ReplyDelete
  123. To say "wavefunction" and make the complex conjugation joke you really only have to have a high school diploma and subscription to Scientific American.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Oooooh Ryan North is a genious he has made over 10000 comics based on the same artwork however does he do it. He does it BY IGNORING THE ARTWORK, dummy. He just writes down whatever he happens to be thinking about next to those dinosaur pictures and calls it a comic. Blast him.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I think people here have a pretty high opinion of people in general if they assume the average reader would encounter "Complex conjugate" and immediately understand what it meant in relation to elimination of imaginary components.

    And you learned this in 8th grade? Holy shit, where do you live? I want to know so I can move there when I have kids. I didn't learn this material until at least 10th.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Once again, Randy seems to have fucked up the math. Multiplying a complex number by its conjugate gives a real, sure, but it doesn't "make the imaginary part disappear". To do that you need to add a number to its conjugate and divide by two.

    ReplyDelete
  127. I guess the order of stuff in high school can vary from place to place, as for most of the material there aren't really any prerequisites besides what you bring in from middle school. I learned this in 8th grade or so; maybe I learned other stuff later which you learned sooner. But I've moved around a bit and I've never lived anywhere that didn't cover complex numbers at some point in high school.

    I can't remember or spell those big-ass words in biology anymore, much less in English, but if it was staring me in the face in some context (as in a joke) I think it would come back to me.

    Maybe not quick enough to make the joke funny, but certainly in the time it would take to post WHOA THIS BIOLOGY IS OVER THE HEADS OF EVEN PROFESSIONAL BIOLOGISTS, ALL PRAISE RANDALL.

    ReplyDelete
  128. "I write a popular hate blog on the internet."

    This'd be hilarious if it didn't seem like you were so proud of it. Jesus Christ Rob, you just took over from something Carl did in his spare time. You know, Carl? The talented one?

    ReplyDelete
  129. i will never understand why people assume i'm proud of this instead of, you know, just doing something to kill time in the evenings

    ReplyDelete
  130. UndercoverCuddlefishJanuary 19, 2011 at 4:21 AM

    because they would be proud if they wrote a popular hate blog

    its projection

    ReplyDelete
  131. I will never understand why people assume Carl had talent

    ReplyDelete
  132. I did, that's why I responded to your assertion that I was proud of it. maybe you should try to remember what you wrote better?

    ReplyDelete
  133. Oh shit, people hate what I do. Let's just say that I intended to suck because 'I'm a collector of angry comments'.

    Grow some fucking balls, Rob.

    ReplyDelete
  134. um

    again

    I write a popular hate blog dedicated to one of the most popular webcomics on the internet. if I couldn't stand criticism I would /not be writing said hate blog./

    and why the fuck else do you write hate blogs? I certainly do not have a compelling urge to write it (as evidenced by the fact that I am two comics behind). the one thing I get about it is angry comments. kind of like yours!

    it's remarkable how an anonymous poster on a hate blog will call someone who is very easy to track down and harass cowardly for posting things on the internet. the world's full of its little ironies.

    ReplyDelete
  135. sorry, the one thing I get /from it/.

    one of my favorite parts about internet arguing is how all these anonymous people will tell you what you think, and provide their own analysis of the various neuroses that lead you to say what you're saying. it's very entertaining!

    especially when they are disagreeing with some very basic statements of your motivations. "I write this blog mostly because the angry comments amuse me." "NO YOU DON'T YOU ARE JUST SAYING THAT BECAUSE THEY HURT YOUR FEELINGS." "I'm only writing Megan jokes because you guys keep complaining, and the complaints amuse me." "NO YOU LOVE THE MEGAN JOKES AND CAN'T STAND TO ADMIT THAT THEY SUCK."

    according to the cuddlefish, I am apparently a talentless, cowardly hack with incredibly thin skin and a short temper. and apparently I've deluded myself into thinking that these shitty throwaway posts I make are the paragon of brilliance. but despite my belief that everything I write is pure gold, I also apparently, for some reason, respond to criticism of it by saying "it's shitty because I put absolutely no effort into it, and intentionally do terrible things because it annoys people." despite my thin skin and the fact that it could never possibly work this way, I apparently think that "telling people I know my work is shit" is the way to make negative comments stop, or perhaps the way to get people to actually like my work. and again, despite my thin skin and inability to handle criticism, I repeatedly do the one thing that is most often criticized (namely, post Megan jokes despite the fact that they are so hated people even complain about them when a post is utterly bereft of them).

    and somehow, despite the fact that just about everything I do on this blog (especially actually responding to negative comments) is only going to provoke more negative comments, I am cowardly for doing it. (this part puzzles me, because if I was actually a coward I would presumably not be interacting with commenters on a regular basis. I'm not sure what sort of coward I'm supposed to be, since I am basically putting myself in the direct line of criticism.)

    the persona you people have constructed for me is utterly fascinating. the cuddlefish have constructed this pathetic, neurotic character who is utterly deluded and possibly insane--all because I write a shitty hate blog a couple times a week!

    I'm excited to see what you say about this comment. I'm guessing it will contain at least one of "umad?", "butthurt", "wall of text", or "tldr". maybe even more! though maybe not, now that I've predicted it. it wouldn't do to have a sad, deluded creature such as me calling your predictable responses.

    ReplyDelete
  136. [DISCLAIMER: this comment was done coming right from the xkcd site, before reading the rest of the comment thread.]

    You know what makes an annoying joke less annoying? Acknowledge how annoying it is! Or that's what Randall seems to believe, given that's exactly what he did on his newest comic's alt-text.

    Oddly enough, that first panel is unintentionally funny because it pretty much summarizes the XKCD attitude.

    Also, this is the first instance of actually college-level knowledge in xkcd for weeks! Randall is finally getting his shit back?

    Finally, that's one oddly short board for such a complex calculation. Two equations and one graph already filled it all, I don't think there's room for things to get REAL, Randy!

    ReplyDelete
  137. Rob, I hope you catch lycanthropy* and devour yourself out of hunger.

    *Spell-check suggests: Anthropometry. You can catch that too, that stuff is exciting.

    re:latest XKCD w/ conjugates: It's okay. If it weren't already on a shirt, I'd say it was pretty cute.

    ReplyDelete
  138. "I can't remember or spell those big ass-words in biology anymore, ..."
    FTFY

    Also:
    MEGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNN!!!!
    WE WANT MORE MEGAN!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  139. Oh, fuck it, this comment thread is interesting and relevant stuff interleaved with "Rob mows down yet another stupid cuddlefish with big huge-ass comments" moments. Bluh. As much as I'd like to tell Rob to stop replying small stupid comments with huge dissertations, I know that'd only make him do it. If I told him to do it, he'd act accordingly. When will the cuddlefish learn that troll logic does not work that way? Rob is an illogical Leviathan, and I wonder what am I doing in a hatesite when my grasp of troll logic is really primary.

    So... really, guys? Imaginary numbers in 8th grade? I don't remember much of my childhood/early teens, but I'm pretty sure we barely even knew about the existence of the Complex set in 8th grade. It was only in the last year of high school I really got to know the "i". Still, xkcd forumites are retards, yep.

    So, I wonder if this was Randall's objective all along. Lure in the high school/preschool kids with stupid jokes and then baffle them with slightly advance math. That way he retains his genius cred among his fandom, since the people who actually knew anything probably abandoned Randall after they realized what a damn phony he is.

    I wonder what that Ke$ha comic was for, though. In my opinion, when you're arguing logically with someone who has a dollar sign in her name, you already lost. The same is valid for people who wear clothes made out of meat or Rob. Oh, wait, everything makes sense now.

    Finally, a threat: the next cuddlefish that incites a huge comment from Rob will start a crazy spree in the molds of the Church of Talpos shit. You be warned, folks!

    PS.: Oh noes, Neal, that was a BURN! I think I'll never write anything again. Here, see how much I care: =|

    ReplyDelete
  140. I didn't assert that you were proud of it. Again, learn to read, Rob.

    ReplyDelete
  141. "In my opinion, when you're arguing logically with someone who has a dollar sign in her name, you already lost."

    I think you're forgetting about Mr $pock.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Hey you lazy bastard, get off your ass and do an update. I NEED TO KNOW WHETER XKCD CONTINUES TO SUCK THE GUY ALREADY PUT OUT TWO NEW COMICS WHY WOULD HE DO THAT IF HE SUCKS. FOR FUCKS SAKE ROB

    ReplyDelete
  143. Ohhh I get it - he said you SEEM proud of it. And then he seemed to be attempting to knock you down a peg. Probably just in case?

    ReplyDelete
  144. @Rob

    especially when they are disagreeing with some very basic statements of your motivations. "I write this blog mostly because the angry comments amuse me." "NO YOU DON'T YOU ARE JUST SAYING THAT BECAUSE THEY HURT YOUR FEELINGS." "I'm only writing Megan jokes because you guys keep complaining, and the complaints amuse me." "NO YOU LOVE THE MEGAN JOKES AND CAN'T STAND TO ADMIT THAT THEY SUCK."

    The reason people can say things like that is because they're human too. In my experience, there are three ways people deal with criticism:
    1) Accept it and learn from it.
    2) Ignore it completely.
    3) Get defensive and reject it.

    You've taken up the third position, and, worse still, your justification is, "I'm bored, so I'll annoy you." It really doesn't take a deep understanding of the human psyche to see how sad that is.

    Now, moving on to your claim that you write a popular hate blog: You're not the reason this blog is popular! You estimated 19-25 non-troll comments per post. In other words, your goading of the commenters is the only way you manage to remain at Carl's level in "popularity." And don't kid yourself; 25 comments per post isn't "popular."

    Next up is your suggestion that the point of a hate blog is to draw complaints. This is patently absurd, and it's that mindset that has caused the site to take a dive since you took over. Let's look at the original purpose for the blog, shall we?

    "It's been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans have been too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them."

    Wait, WHAT? Carl made this blog to criticize the COMICS? Can people DO that?

    The reason people keep saying the things they do is because of this:
    1. You claim to be a good writer, yet you show no evidence of it.
    2. You deny the need for evidence, because you're just trying to aggravate people.
    3. You go on to say that #2 was always the purpose of this blog.

    It's denial clear through! #1 has yet to be supported, #2 is the actual denial, and #3 was never true.

    All we're asking is that instead of writing little stories about each comic, you actually criticize them. Back when xkcdexplained was running, it did what you're doing now. I went here instead of there because, like many people, I didn't want that. I wanted reviews.

    ReplyDelete
  145. I dunno, I rather think Rob took option 1 here. Seems more like he treats the criticism as an Idiot Ant Farm he got for his birthday and is learning by watching and poking at it with a stick.

    ReplyDelete
  146. I don't know if Rob is the pathetic guy that the Anonymouses claim he is, or the bored, hate-loving guy he claims to be. If I had to guess, I'd say the latter. But this is the internet; there are no truths. But regardless of the reality, reading the diatribe from both parties in the comments is hilarious. And in the end, isn't that the point?

    ReplyDelete
  147. public static String getPluralOfAnonymous(){
    return "Anonymi";
    }

    ReplyDelete
  148. 849 bothers me. Randall is trying to make a fundamental math tool for basic quantum mechanics sound like impossible high-level physics. If he brought up something actually difficult and "out there" like Spherical WKB instead of picking out the first Difficult Sounding Science Technique he could find on Wikipedia, the comic might have something.

    ReplyDelete
  149. does anyone actually read what rob writes? and if so why? are they being paid?

    ReplyDelete
  150. cos i mean i want in on that, dammit

    ReplyDelete
  151. Let's see. Trying to pull off 9th grade math as something crazy. First panel should not exist (seriously, take that out and the "because" and this becomes much better). Alt-text is actually dumber than the strip this time. Completely fictional "fun facts" should be short and sweet, not long and drawn out for merely a little chuckle (if that).

    ReplyDelete
  152. Megan jokes seem to have evolved into an immortal edifice, a sort of never-ending bell curve, the sympathetic vibrations of which may yet stir some sleeping mole-god into nihilistic action!

    ReplyDelete
  153. Brother Croaker, mole-gods are of the past. The new wave welcomes the Revelation as seen in the eyes of the Mothmen.

    Lo and wait, for the Fat Beast shall confirm whether it is time for the Revelation to come out or not.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Man this shit was funny when you are in high school and learn about complex numbers. When you actually know quantum mechanics this is fucking retarded and so lacking of humour is it degrading to anyone who knows quantum mechanics.

    Instead, how about making a nice joke about positive operator valued measures or unitary evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Haha on this other comments thread someone wrote

    "I know a guy that was diagnosed with psychopathy. His general hatred for humanity is expressed by living like a hermit, having no respect for anyone unless and until they prove unusual intelligence, and a general disinterest in their feelings except as it affects him personally."

    and I thought SHIT ROB IS A PSYCHOPATH

    but then I realised that "living like a hermit" means he would deny earthly pleasures like eating

    ReplyDelete
  156. Fun Fact:
    Rob's full name is "Rob A. Manure II."
    Rearrange those letters and you get

    Randall Munroe. (I think, I haven't bothered doing it yet but that's my assumption. Assume the "II" are L's.) Coincidence?

    ReplyDelete
  157. I never liked xkcdexplained, because it was mostly just blatant, unfunny Randall hate. Some people found this funny though, so I understood why it had an audience. However, I always came here for actual reviews, to see if Carl or Rob had similar thoughts as mine. The Randall hate wasn't the core, but the reviews were.

    That's changed recently, mostly because Rob apparently writes the way he does to piss people off. I see why that'd be enjoyable for him...but is it really worth it to downgrade the reviews just to troll some people, whose opinions apparently don't matter anyway? I'd think it would be better to try to write actual reviews again, instead of the stories. Now don't get me wrong, the stories can be fairly enjoyable. However, I've always liked seeing the comedy come from the problems of the comics, rather than Megan humor that's added to just piss people off.

    ReplyDelete
  158. "Now, moving on to your claim that you write a popular hate blog: You're not the reason this blog is popular!"

    never claimed I was.

    "You estimated 19-25 non-troll comments per post."

    that wasn't an estimate, actually. that was a hypothetical scenario for educational purposes. naturally, as god-king of the idiots, you didn't figure this out.

    "In other words, your goading of the commenters is the only way you manage to remain at Carl's level in "popularity." And don't kid yourself; 25 comments per post isn't "popular.""

    70-100 per post is. and the comments continue at this level whether or not I participate in the conversation, so that's not really accurate.

    "Wait, WHAT? Carl made this blog to criticize the COMICS? Can people DO that?"

    actually he made it to mock the comics. hence, the word mockery there. and you will note that I still do so.

    well, you won't, because you're a moron. but others will.

    "1. You claim to be a good writer, yet you show no evidence of it."

    never claimed to be a good writer.

    "2. You deny the need for evidence, because you're just trying to aggravate people."

    I deny the need for evidence because I've never claimed any of it was good.

    "3. You go on to say that #2 was always the purpose of this blog."

    it was.

    "It's denial clear through! #1 has yet to be supported, #2 is the actual denial, and #3 was never true."

    okay!

    "All we're asking is that instead of writing little stories about each comic, you actually criticize them."

    nah, I'm good.

    "Back when xkcdexplained was running, it did what you're doing now. I went here instead of there because, like many people, I didn't want that. I wanted reviews. "

    happily, I don't write this blog for you. since I get positive comments on most of the reviews--the negative comments only come out in force when I start responding to them, and then it's always just anonymous posters--and those comments come from people who don't suck, I think I'll keep doing what I'm doing. thanks for being useless though, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  159. "I dunno, I rather think Rob took option 1 here. Seems more like he treats the criticism as an Idiot Ant Farm he got for his birthday and is learning by watching and poking at it with a stick."

    you are my new favorite cuddlefish.

    "I'd think it would be better to try to write actual reviews again, instead of the stories. Now don't get me wrong, the stories can be fairly enjoyable. However, I've always liked seeing the comedy come from the problems of the comics, rather than Megan humor that's added to just piss people off. "

    I stopped writing actual reviews because the comics are mind-numbingly dull and not really worth reviewing. (that and, you know, trolling.) these are more fun, and, as many of the more astute commentariat have noted, people don't come here for the reviews. they come for the comment threads. they are more interesting, and always contain more/better analysis than the reviews, even when the reviews contain analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  160. "I stopped writing actual reviews because the comics are mind-numbingly dull and not really worth reviewing. (that and, you know, trolling.) these are more fun, and, as many of the more astute commentariat have noted, people don't come here for the reviews. they come for the comment threads. they are more interesting, and always contain more/better analysis than the reviews, even when the reviews contain analysis."

    Since when has xkcd ever been worth reviewing though? First it was because it was so harmless, but now it's also because of how horrible it is. That's part of why the blog is funny, isn't it?

    And I get what you're saying about the comment threads...but the fact of the matter is that a lot of the stories don't even hit on some of the key problems of the comics. I guess you don't intend for that to happen, but I think that at least somehow mentioning the main problems is would be good enough. Maybe use the problems more to advance the stories? And a serious, critical analyses would be horribly boring, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  161. "He starts, as many of his comics do, with a completely unironically serious comic. The idea, of course, is to make you think that this is going to be an uplifting story about having a star that will give you comfort or whatever. But then he pulls an entirely unexpected twist and is like "YEAH TOO BAD IT WENT SUPERNOVA, MOTHERFUCKERZZZZZZZZ" and kind of grabs his crotch and makes painful thrusting motions with his face all scrunched up like he's in pain."
    More paragraphs like the above please.

    I miss xkcdexplained :(
    I thought it was useful because it explained indecipherable comics (admittedly, usually with an acidic remark).
    E.g. http://xkcdexplained.com/post/935690398/scheduling
    I see no blatant randall hate.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Also (I'm the anon above), I liked 849.

    To the guys who are complaining they did complex numbers in maths in 8th(!)/10th grade and it's easy blah blah, I assume that's why the word 'wavefunction' was used instead of 'complex number'. To raise the bar of understanding every word of the comic while not impairing the joke for mere 10th graders.

    ReplyDelete
  163. why don't you suck a dick

    ReplyDelete
  164. HAHA Americans r so du--wait. That's not the joke.

    There is no joke. What is this.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Man... you know what's funny? Maps.

    Just... a map. On its own. It's hilarious.

    I cannot enter a room with a map in it without literally laughing so hard I die of asphyxiation. It happens literally every time.

    ReplyDelete
  166. First, why did you even include Megan in this one? There was no point. Mayhaps you couldn't find anything valid to criticize. Second, The Chronicles of Narnia were written by C.S. Lewis, you dumbass. Third, WTF??? You made fun of the guy because someone in his family has an illness. What kind of a fucking asshole are you?!? Rob, you have just made the world a far more pathetic place. Please leave it immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  167. if rob left the world the world would follow, that's how gravity works dumbass

    ReplyDelete