Thursday, February 3, 2011

Comic 856: An Affront To Reality

[I was just burning incense at my shrine to Megan, picturing her naked flesh (as lovingly depicted in 631) being penetrated by Randall's member (sadly not depicted in 631), when suddenly an angel appeared and was all like, "hey, you have an email." It was from some poor, naive creature called "Suiseiseki" or some shit. I think maybe it's a guest post? I have no idea, I always do what I'm told when I'm on my vision quests. -Ed.]

I will begin by saying that I have never been as filled with hate for xkcd as I currently am. Comic 856 is, as far as I can remember, the worst of Randall’s work, with the few obvious exceptions (the vagina thing and the Mr. Hat sighing thing…). This comic fails in so many places…and yet, should all of these things be fixed, 856 might have forced at least a smile from me, instead of receiving the cold, dead eyes of scorn that I gazed upon my screen with. (I would not have done more than smile…the joke was pretty bad. I have low standards, just like Randall.)

I’ll start with the bad things, because that’s what you guys like I guess, and because you’ll stop reading this like halfway through or something.

First, the reader is assaulted by this:



What the fuck, Randall? You could have shrunk the font size down to make it fit in that second panel. You could have shortened the text. You could have done anything, ANYTHING but that. I had to look at that three times in order to understand what the fuck was going on. This is just...retarded. This alone would have fucked up this comic to the point that one could reasonably write an angry rant about it. It wouldn't be terribly long, but it would be an angry rant.

Second, this other shit:



That asterisk should have gone at the end of that sentence. When someone sees an asterisk, they want to figure out what the fuck that asterisk points to, damnit. I, being me, stopped reading the sentence, read what the asterisk said, went back up to the sentence and got lost. With most audiences, this wouldn’t be a massive issue. However, Randall’s audience is typically a bit autistic, so this serves only to confuse the machine that these people’s brains are. A mistake like this is kind of meh with most audiences: with people who will probably smash the screen when they get confused, this is a fatal error. Don't do this shit, Randall: You know your audience better than that.

Now that I’m done bitching about the way in which 856 is formatted, I can begin bitching about the ways in which 856 fails in essence.

First, who the fuck is that guy? He’s obviously not a loving father or anything; he seems to support bashing the kid’s brains in with a brick. Nor is he a Doctor; he doesn’t know what the hell Dr. Megan’s talking about when she plans to reprogram the girl’s brain. He doesn’t fit in the comic at all. He’s just…there. Seriously, take him out of the comic, erase his lines, and modify Megan’s text just a little. The comic works JUST AS WELL.

Second, Randall seems to have forgotten a punchline. It exists, I could underline it…It’s even the last line, so there isn’t any “post-punchline dialogue.” However, it is so utterly lame that it seems like there isn’t even a punchline. The essence of it is, “I’m going to kill this kid with a brick because she’s so annoying.” That’s all. There’s no punch to it. It just…sucks.

Now, in order to be "fair and balanced" like faux n00z, I should point out the things that Randall has done well. Feel free to stop reading here: you probably don’t care about anything past this line.

First, Randall seems to be trying to do the “Show, don’t tell” thing. This would have been reasonably effective had the joke not been lame. He even took the time to draw the annoying girl with curly hair, a diagram that shows roughly what is going on in the girl’s brain, a machine that looks like it does what Randall says it does, the girl waking up…There is clearly an amount of effort going on here. He could have draw the girl getting laz0red or something, but still, he definitely deserves credit for trying.

Second, he captures the essence of these annoying little bastards reasonably well. If you’ve not yet had the misfortune of dealing with one of these people…let’s just say, it isn’t nice. They’re annoying, unfunny, and they make you want to…well, get a brick. The XXDDDD SO RANDUM crowd deserves this type of depiction, and thankfully, they get it. Sadly, they get it from Randall.

That’s all. Seeing as this is an actual review, there’ll be a few of you who really enjoy reading this, despite the fact that it isn’t incredifunny. Yeah, I’ve probably missed a fuckton of cheap shots (I haven’t slammed Randall for making Megan significantly smarter than him, for example.) But, whatever. Enjoy reading Rob laugh at Randall for having a small dick and assburgers and creepy and gay fanfiction and stuff next time.

[One thing I'd like to point out, fundie that I am: note that Randy is asserting that obsession with Jesus is a form of brain damage. Just throwing that out there. -Ed.]

254 comments:

  1. One thing I'd like to point out, fundie that I am: note that Randy is asserting that obsession with Jesus is a form of brain damage.

    If the shoe fits...

    ReplyDelete
  2. really? the very first comment is about my religious trolling? you couldn't even wait for a couple comments in? at least pretend it wasn't the easiest troll in the world?

    christ you people are dull.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comic is pretty inescapably bad.

    And you neglected to mention it, but that asterisk really has no place in this comic at all. It's basically saying "Look at this cool thing I read/have heard about! Isn't it cool? Look it up and you'll understand how cool I am!"

    I also am annoyed by the ever-increasing usage of the word "hacking" to describe... well, anything even vaguely related to computers/science really.

    Captcha: gaval
    The judge bangs down his gaval, and the verdict is final: horribly unfunny!

    ReplyDelete
  4. "he doesn’t know what the hell Dr. Megan’s talking about when she plans to reprogram the girl’s brain"

    I think the idea is that "trocheeotomy" sounds reasonably like "tracheotomy" and the guy is making a pun.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This was literally the worst xkcd I have ever read. There was no joke. There wasn't even a message. It has no reason to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For some reason, I actually liked this one. Terrible formatting aside, fumbled final panel aside, it was actually legitimately interesting.

    I didn't know about trochees and assuming he didn't make it all up, that's kinda cool.

    ReplyDelete
  7. About the alt-text ...

    "If you Huffman-coded all the 'random' things everyone on the internet has said over the years, you'd wind up with, like, 30 or 40 bytes *tops*."

    This will be possible only if this set of random things everyone on the internet has said over the years consisted of no-more than 240-320 symbols (where a symbol is either a character or a word). Not taking into account the space occupied by the dictionary itself.

    YOU ARE STUPID RANDALL. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND COMPRESSION YOU JUST THROW RANDOM REFERENCES TO APPEAR WISE TO YOUR RETARDED FOLLOWERS. FUCK YOU.

    (Captcha is "Apretamm". "Push me" in some romanic languages. Now I'm being a Randall too)

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Look everyone! I read Snow Crash too! I'm going to make a 'subtle*' reference to it and if you've read the book, you'll get it too!" GOOMH Randall!

    *By subtle, I of course mean take the premise presented in the book and make it into a comic.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "This will be possible only if this set of random things everyone on the internet has said over the years consisted of no-more than 240-320 symbols (where a symbol is either a character or a word). Not taking into account the space occupied by the dictionary itself"

    THAT'S THE POINT YOU MORON I'M LITERALLY EXUDING COCHLEAR FLUID OUT OF MY ARMPITS

    ReplyDelete
  10. I can prove it would take more than 40 bytes for all the random stuff on the internet, by listing MORE THAN 40 CHARACTERS OF MEMES:
    Fuckingmagnetslolcat1!!1!ProtipIcanseeforevertrollbanhammer4chanleetnoobinternetcokemachine/b/dudeyouhavenoquran
    That's only like 10 of THOUSANDS.

    Randall just got pwnd.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "One thing I'd like to point out, fundie that I am: note that Randy is asserting that obsession with Jesus is a form of brain damage."

    More probably it's talking about internet meme raptor jesus http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Raptor_Jesus


    The first two panels and their incredibly shitty layout and use of panels just depressed me. If he was intentionally trying to make it awful and confusing... well good job.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The comic isn't a bad idea and the trochee thing is an interesting observation but he couldn't have presented it more poorly. Headache just trying to read the thing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'd like to comment a bit about some things here...

    - I can't help but feel that Randall's little lecture on this comic is a bit hypocritical. If it wasn't for the mention of both "raptor" and "bobcat", I'd call him incredibly oblivious. As it is, though, he's just a tad hypocritical on his complaining about trochee-maniac youthlings, when he himself has been a part of it.

    - Trochee is a real world, and the conclusion on the third panel is actually interesting(in fact, both "Halo" and "Portal" are trochees. It all makes sense now, people!). A pity the comic as a whole is a thinly veiled rant. Also, a pity that this doesn't seem to cover the translation of these memes into other languages.

    - The "brick punchline" is what I call "webcomic-related psychopathy". Why is it that webcomic authors seem to think resorting to violence upon people that annoy them is not only a form of humor, but also a perfectly valid solution for the problem? It's more common than you'd think, and doesn't make a good case for webcomics in the general culture... but that's neither here nor there.

    All in all, this comic has potential, but ultimately it serves less the purpose of being funny and more to show that Randall might be actually... growing up! Dear goodness!

    PS.: Is "Bagworm" a trochee? I'm a disaster with English language syllabe division...

    ReplyDelete
  14. He thew in the Internet as part of the trochee reinforcement... but never makes mention of its influence in the comic itself. As it stands, its placement in that diagram makes no sense (trochees come out... and go in? What for?)

    @PM: As far as I prononuce it, yes. BAG-worm.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Charles Augustus FortescueFebruary 4, 2011 at 3:39 AM

    Some common internet words that aren't trochees:

    The Game, Fail, win, FTW, FML, pwned, cake is a lie.

    Nevertheless, it's an interesting observation. Perhaps someone should write a Hiawatha-style poem about this.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Use/mention distinction fail.

    He's saying obsession with "Jesus" is a form of brain damage.

    hth

    ReplyDelete
  17. You know, I think my entire life could have passed without me ever noticing that 90% of the "random" shit people throw out there are trochees. But then, I'm not autistic.

    I'd say it's probably just that when you get right down to it, due to the stress patterns of English, a lot of our 2-syllable words are trochees (so far in this post: ever, 90, random, people, trochee, patterns, English).

    All in all, I think bricks would be a better cure for the "random" assholes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yeah Randy, it sure is annoying when people spout "zany random" shit all the time just because it amuses-

    http://xkcd.com/550/

    Oh. Right.

    Captcha: Paledin. Randy is a paledin, and his alignment is awful.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Also, @pro-mole:
    Yeah, the "webcomic sociopathy" is pretty much the laziest punchline ever. Every BUckley comic uses it, as do 90% of other webcomic artists because they think that all slapstick is as good as creative and clever slapstick.

    Pretty much the only webcomicist I've seen actually make it funny is Jeffrey Rowland and that's because his characters are pretty firmly established as legitimate sociopaths and we're not supposed to find them awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  20. good points - it was pretty interesting? and i liked the alt text becasue i read it to mean that all the people who constantly spew 'random' shit are all just really unimaginative and all just say the same things
    bad points - it had a ridiculously long set up for the worst punchline ever and is pretty much just a terrible comic

    ReplyDelete
  21. Definitely Not A CuddlefishFebruary 4, 2011 at 5:59 AM

    Greetings fellow meat-worms! Let us all rejoice in our exaltation of this horrible piece of web-visual entertainment as befits us as perfectly normal human beings!

    This comic of the known human sympathiser Robert Munroe is to give me the pain in my liver. Also, the Megan does not appreciate his mating rituals in the proper fashion, ha ha I have made a jocularity just like the Randall! Let us all mourn for our cleverousness!

    Did you also observe that the Megan is a trochee too, and thus the brain damage is also of an obsession with her. When the Dread Infiltration of the Space Cuddlefish definitely does not occur in three or eleven of your days' time, you will all know the truth of this.

    Sincerely yours,

    The Human (Mrs.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. A. Hussie, is that you? Get your loquacious sesquipedalianess back to Homestuck ASAP!

    Also: Megan is a trochee. It all makes sense now, people!

    PS.: Unfortunately, I believe Mole is not a trochee, because it's a monosyllable. Aw. :(

    ReplyDelete
  23. Is there 34 of xkcd?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Why did the girl in the first panel get taller?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Why the FUCK would anyone with half a brain Huffman-encode english text?

    Oh, I know: because they heard that word from one of their MIT friends and want to sound smart on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Comics (from the Greek κωμικός, kōmikos "of or pertaining to comedy" from κῶμος - kōmos "revel, komos",[1] via the Latin cōmicus) is a graphic medium in which images convey a sequential narrative. The term derives from the mostly humorous early work in the medium, and came to apply to that form of the medium including those far from comic."

    Fine, but I think randy is going a bit too far with his obscene lack of humour.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Definitely Not A CuddlefishFebruary 4, 2011 at 8:26 AM

    Our consciousness does not aware of the A Hussie nor of the Homestuck. Forsooth however that we are both undoubtedly perfectly legitimate human existences and not at all infiltrators from beyond the stars even a little.

    The secret captcha instructions are CINER. We comprehend. Oh yes. All shall be in readiness for the Dread Cleansing. I mean HA HA WHAT DO YOU MEAN.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ok, Randy, new piece of advice: Sometimes you have ideas with potential. We know this. When you get one (such as "internet memes are so because they are trochees"), don't feel obliged to use it as soon as possible. Sit on it. Forget it. Come back to it. Rewrite it. Respect it.


    It's just depressing how often I use the word "squandered" to describe an xkcd comic.
    But here we go again: squandered idea. Shit comic, squandered idea. :(



    I think that's why xkcd has a hate blog. Not because it's an awful webcomic, but because it doesn't have to be.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You know what's worse than an asterisk, non-obvious separation of dialog.

    "We're about to rip out her try a radical vocal chords?"

    ReplyDelete
  30. i saw all the panels and thought "well at least randy put more effort than normal into this one"

    ReplyDelete
  31. This was an excellent comic. It was funny and insightful. You guys obviously have no taste. Go back to reading Achewood, or is one page of non-jokes every six months too much for you to take?

    ReplyDelete
  32. This new one is about as well laid out and organized as my pile of dirty laundry. A few points:

    The first two panels are an aberration of nature - they should not have been created that way and it makes my brain weep. Seriously though, it took me like 1 minute to figure out what was going on there (note: I was drunk at the time, which may have impaired my ability to understand this)

    Who talks in parenthesis? This also threw me for a loop. Was the character actually saying that? Or was it supposed to be like the * on a later panel. And why does he alternate between the two styles? This is super inconsistent and confusing.

    People have already pointed out the unnecessary guy in the comic and the random internet diagram that added nothing so I won't dwell on those.

    And I'm not sure why the character in the last panel is doing some weird mid-air thrust with her pelvis well above the bed (I think its a bed? I've never seen one like that before)

    Overall, the layout was terribly confusing, too much scribbly text was written in too small a space which reduced its legibility and the joke was weak after reading through 7 panels of awkward dialogue. The best thing I can say about this comic is that there was only 1 floating head.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Aberration might not have been the right word.

    ReplyDelete
  34. i can't believe no one's posted anything about Dr. Megan's dialogue in panel 3.
    no one would actually speak like that IRL.

    randall could have chosen basically any other way to convey what a trochee was without including that awkward parenthetical statement.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ian, either your dirty laundry is astonishingly well laid out, or you're an idiot.

    The layout is intuitive and understandable, the dialogue clear (people can speak in parentheses) and the diagrams relevant.

    You are a complete failure as a critic and a human being. Especially if you sort your dirty laundry.

    Captcha: Depugach - for when the main gach is out of town.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This was a terrible comic. It relied on cheap slapstick humor and was poorly executed. The cuddlefish obviously have no taste. Go back to reading 4chan, or is one page of shock humor and memes every sixth of a second too much for you to take?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Cuddlefish_1, either you're a well executed troll or you have some kind of mental retardation that makes you think that shit stains on the side walk are well laid out and intuitively understandable.

    The layout is shit, the dialogue unnecessarily pandering and needlessly hard to read (usually parentheticals are reserved for prose like this, not spoken dialog, but it still needlessly breaks up a train of thought), and the diagrams ... wait ... what was I talking about again? ... oh ... the diagrams aren't too bad.

    You are a complete failure as a troll and a human being. Especially if you actually like this pile of poorly formatted excrement.

    Captcha jokes will never be as funny as you think they are.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Capn, are you suggesting that because I liked a comic that criticised internet memes, I must read 4chan? Or was it used in clumsy opposition to Achewood? Either way it failed to make sense, because 'one page of shock humour and memes every sixth of a second' really is too much for anyone to take in.

    And what slapstick humour? The brick line? It hardly relied on that - it would have been funny without it. One xkcd comic provokes more thought and interest than the entirety of this blog. Although I do admit I find all your stumbling nitpicks fascinating. Maybe you could start a blog on how Ryan North needs to spend more time on his artwork. That would be fun, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Oh, you carried your rant onto another post. Wait...

    "...either you're a well executed troll..."

    "You are a complete failure as a troll..."

    At least be consistent.

    And jokes about shit aren't as funny as you think either.

    ReplyDelete
  40. That was the worst fucking thing I've ever seen. 99% of the two-syllable words in the English language are trochees. It'd be like going "Wow, guys! Nitrogen! What the hell!?"

    Except not like that at all. Take that concept and stretch it out for eight horrid panels.

    "She keeps breathing in nitrogen! We tried to break her of it, but she keeps doing it! Hit her with a brick!"

    Moronic.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "are you suggesting that because I liked a comic that criticised internet memes"

    "At least be consistent."

    Need I remind you of the many xkcd comics that join in the meme crazy and then he turns around to say "hey guys, intelligent people find meme's annoying!" The entire reason this comic was written so that Randall and his fans can sit around feeling more intelligent than the unwashed plebs. Read the xkcd fora if you really want.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "I felt all good that I knew what Huffman encoding was before the comic... then I came here and I remember that, apparently, that's normal for these people."

    "This comic tops the list as one of the best that Randall has ever done IMO.

    Partially because I recently prepared and delivered a speech on the downfall of civilization because of the disintegration of language."

    Are two examples from the current thread

    ReplyDelete
  43. Bill, if you're going to nitpick at least have the decency to nitpick in a logical fashion. 99% of two-syllable words may well be trochees, but not 99% of the English language.

    How much of your own post consists of trochees? 5-10%? Maybe you'd like to breathe at that sort of rate and do us all a favour.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "The entire reason this comic was written so that Randall and his fans can sit around feeling more intelligent than the unwashed plebs."

    So? Maybe that is why we read it. Its certainly why you read this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I wish my real life was like Rob's XKCDsucks life, where any time anyone called me on my bullshit I'd just say "HA! TROLLED!" and somehow people would just sort of accept it.

    Fuck it. I'm going to try it out today and see what happens. Full report tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Cuddlefish_1, while I respect your attempt at the obviously not juvenile "so are you!" argument, said argument is wrong. None of us here at xkcdsucks read this blog to feel more intelligent than the "unwashed plebs." We (well, at least I) identify more with those of poor hygiene far more than we (I) do with those who worship XKCD. If you meant to imply that we come here to feel superior to Cuddlefish such as yourself, you might have a valid argument, except for the fact that I'm pretty sure all of us are secure enough in our intelligence that we do not need to read this blog to accomplish that. We do, however, come here to assure ourselves that we are not the ONLY one who feels the same way. And, of course, the Megan jokes. Gosh I love the Megan jokes.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Excellent Troll -> Doesn't like xkcdsucks or xkcd, just provoking a reaction by acting like a typical fanboy, and being really good at it.

    Fail Troll -> Actually likes xkcd and is hoping to provoke a reaction by fanboyishly rejecting criticism on a hate blog about his favorite thing.

    Yes, you can be one thing even though I believe you to be something else. There is no mutual exclusion guy!

    Yes, I am aware the only difference is apathy. This is nothing new!

    I believe that you are just a typical failure thinking that you are causing some rabble rousing amongst us plebs. The reason why you are a failure is that you praise a comic with objectively, and demonstrably bad formatting and execution. This comic is a the typical picto-blog with bad execution.

    If you are some apathetic wanderer looking to stir shit up, I congratulate and salute you. Welcome to the circle jerk. Maybe this will be an entertaining 200+ comment jerk fest for once. What gave you away is my positive outlook on humanity. I.e. when staring in the face of something that is objectively, and demonstrably stupid, and given a point by point breakdown on why it is such, most people are not mindless apologetics to idiotic things. <-- (clever theist flamebait [sup, Rob])

    Also, not everyone here appreciates Achewood. I do not, I have never found it funny or entertaining. But because it doesn't invade my life with a bunch of fucks showing me the latest shit graph, I feel no need to find solace in a hate blog directed towards it.

    "The brick line? It hardly relied on that - it would have been funny without it."

    Then its not needed and post punchline dialog. All in all, it would still suck.

    "One xkcd comic provokes more thought and interest than the entirety of this blog. "

    Well neither of those are generally high water marks. This place is certainly more entertaining though. Look at how much time you've spent here already.

    "Maybe you could start a blog on how Ryan North needs to spend more time on his artwork. That would be fun, eh?"

    I wish I could still point to that redux blog, so that you could have some inspiration.

    tl;dr
    You didn't miss anything important.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Vocal "cords", not "chords". Though if you really want to be proper, you should call them "vocal folds."

    ReplyDelete
  49. Definitely Not A CuddlefishFebruary 4, 2011 at 12:47 PM

    Hello to the Fishcuddle_1 who is insightful and full of delicious organs?

    I know many words of the two syllables, for language. The comic thusly also speaks to my superior intellectual. The pain of such discourse is real and also in my spleens and other organ.

    For your reward you shall have the nations of the Earth. When I have finished with them. Do not blow our cover before the Reckoning.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Bill: "99% of the two-syllable words in the English language are trochees."

    Cuddlefish_1: "Bill, if you're going to nitpick at least have the decency to nitpick in a logical fashion. 99% of two-syllable words may well be trochees, but not 99% of the English language."

    Fail

    Definitely Not A Cuddlefish: "The comic thusly also speaks to my superior intellectual."

    Fail

    Captcha: "beommeo"

    Fail

    ReplyDelete
  51. so, huh

    it took those linguists months of research to find out that the patient reapeats two-syllable words with stress on the first syllable

    because that is absolutely not something you hear immediately

    go out more and try having a real conversation with real people, randy

    you know, using your voice and hearing, not a grease-covered keyboard

    ReplyDelete
  52. So in fact you aren't secure enough in your own intelligence, and need to feel the warm coddling blanket of a peer group that thinks like you do. Don't get above your station, you're the same as me and every other fucker on this planet.

    Actually, if you're willing to read Rob's boring prattle, you're a few steps below the norm.

    ReplyDelete
  53. We all know what "grease" is a euphemism for.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Way to not get my point Booty. Are you capable of deciphering meaning from words, or do you just guess?

    ReplyDelete
  55. "So in fact you aren't secure enough in your own intelligence, and need to feel the warm coddling blanket of a peer group that thinks like you do. Don't get above your station, you're the same as me and every other fucker on this planet."

    This is exactly true, Cuddlefish_1!

    Difference is, you lack taste and an objective way of thinking about your favorite thing!

    ReplyDelete
  56. So Capn, you avoid mutual exclusion by redefining words? Well done you!

    I said you are nitpicking, suggesting that you point out minor flaws. I fully admit there are minor flaws, ones which don't detract from the overall enjoyment of the comic. It was still easily readable and understood.

    And yes, I do enjoy watching idiots do and say stupid things, as they do on this site, but this site in itself is an outcropping of xkcd. Unless you create something beyond basic criticism and terrible parody, you will stay less entertaining than the comic.

    ReplyDelete
  57. xkcd is not my favourite thing.

    Its simply better than this blog, is all. At least I'm assuming - I haven't actually read it after all. Its a poor state of affairs when the comments are more amusing than the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @Capn: We're all the same: we all die in the end. Only difference between us all is HOW.

    {Icicle through the brain}

    I have to wonder.... why are we worth trolling? It's not like there's a productive topic we're being led away from, and we're already angry or we wouldn't be here. Anywho, I give him.... 1 more thread, 3 tops. Trolling XKCDsucks is like shooting fish that are full of bullet holes.

    Serious matter: I am no longer disenamoured with Retro Pepsi. Have I been mind-controlled?

    Captcha: Colorneb. I'm pretty colorblind, so y'all are gonna have to fill me in on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @Raven: I will die how I lived, on the Internet.

    Cuddlefish_1

    You're adorable.

    I avoid mutual exclusion by using what is called an adjective. A blue ball is different than a red ball, yet they are both balls. Amazing. If I happen to find red balls entertaining, but think blue balls are stupid, this is not inconsistent on the object but totally dependent on the adjective! Mutual exclusion of balls avoided!

    You're enjoyment of the comic despite glaring readability and basic QA flaws makes you an apologist, with terrible taste no less.

    I define entertainment as enjoyment per unit of time. The more time you spend enjoying yourself here, the more entertained you are. So its perfectly possible for this to be more entertaining (though maybe not as subjectively enjoyable) despite your No True Scotsman-Not As Good As The Original fallacy.

    And it sure sounds like your favorite thing, otherwise you wouldn't be so apt at being such an apologist.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yes, it was redefining of adjectives I was talking about. An 'excellent troll' would be one who excels at trolling, and a 'fail troll' would be one who fails at trolling. The two are mutually exclusive. Nothing about apathy or fanboyism is relevant. You wouldn't have even needed to supply definitions otherwise.

    And this isn't a No True Scotsman fallacy unless the blog were attempting to mimic Randall and his successful formula. You are merely criticising it, and poorly at that. My point was that this blog dies the moment xkcd does. Any entertainment is leeched from the comic.

    So xkcd isn't perfect. I don't really care. I don't care that Jimi Hendrix couldn't sing, doesn't mean I can't enjoy him banging out Johnny B. Goode like a legend.

    Also, apologetics is the art of making a reasoned defence of something. Its not an insult, you idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I tried fixing some things, and making a Megan joke: http://i.imgur.com/YXKIn.png
    But I think the main fact is that I fixed the first line of dialog by simply moving the fucking stick figures down to make more space--I know; I'm a fucking genius.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I'm pretty sure trolling is wholly dependent on reaction and apathy.

    A hate blog dies when the thing it hates no longer exists? Well slap two O's around my underscore. I am unabashedly surprised at your deductive reasoning there Scooby-Doo. Yes, I'll stop being entertained by a hate blog when the object which bothers me, through no voluntary action of my own, stops existing.

    And you do care, your comments are seeping with care. I probably care because I cannot escape its unfunny and pervasive clutch on the internet and the tech industry, you care because you have no taste.

    I am aware of the definition of apologist. Are you aware of the concept of connotation?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Say my name again Capn, I fucking dare you.

    ReplyDelete
  64. That's pretty funny, not gonna lie.

    ReplyDelete
  65. So I call you out on a point of error, and you act like my corrections were completely obvious? Yes, your entertainment here dies when xkcd does, something you failed to grasp the first time I said it.

    Am I meant to feel sympathy that something you dislike encroaches very slightly on your life? You'd probably feel a little more emptiness in the gaping void of your soul if this blog died. xkcd provides you with entertainment even as you hate it. It is that much better than you.

    I do care about unwarranted smugness, and I feel the need to point out that you are in fact idiots. I am educating you in your failures. I don't particularly care that xkcd isn't perfect because overall it is entertaining.

    The connotation is yours, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  66. ever ever

    Cuddlefish_1 is so dreamy :)

    ReplyDelete
  67. I know. Now go and cook me dinner or something. I'm busy here.

    ReplyDelete
  68. http://www.xkcd.com/854/

    ReplyDelete
  69. Cuddlefish_1 said... "I do care about unwarranted smugness, and I feel the need to point out that you are in fact idiots. I am educating you in your failures."

    Whoa, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

    ReplyDelete
  70. Cuddlefish_1! Randall Munroe has read your posts against this blog and he wants you to know that you're his favourite now and if you come up to Massachusetts right away he'll see you and he'll let you smarm all over him and he'll even sign your Tux plushie! Get going, man!

    ReplyDelete
  71. "Am I meant to feel sympathy that something you dislike encroaches very slightly on your life? You'd probably feel a little more emptiness in the gaping void of your soul if this blog died. xkcd provides you with entertainment even as you hate it. It is that much better than you."
    Oh look, a blatantly incorrect statement.
    Quite obviously one can derive pleasure from hating something, and from the discussion inherent in a community devoted to this, but one does not derive the pleasure from the hated thing itself.

    "I do care about unwarranted smugness, and I feel the need to point out that you are in fact idiots. I am educating you in your failures. I don't particularly care that xkcd isn't perfect because overall it is entertaining."

    An assertion with no evidence? An opinion presented as a fact? Not quite sure which one you were going for there.
    Oh and an opinion again. You seem to like those.

    "So I call you out on a point of error, and you act like my corrections were completely obvious? Yes, your entertainment here dies when xkcd does, something you failed to grasp the first time I said it."

    And I suppose it isn't obvious then? That you somehow managed to make an original statement, never before heard on this site? Despite the counter example given dated prior to your first post?

    Do you seriously think no one has ever pointed out that fact here before? Despite admitting you haven't actually read the blog at all?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anon 3:56 - Fine, order my dinner then.

    Rinnon - My smugness is entirely warranted.

    Hey Cuddlefish_2! Rob says he will remove his hand from your ass and stop using you like a meat puppet when you get your own opinions! He's laughing as he says it though, because the concept is entirely ridiculous!

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Rinnon - My smugness is entirely warranted."

    And would you pray share with us mere mortals the reasons why yours is warranted?

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Quite obviously one can derive pleasure from hating something, and from the discussion inherent in a community devoted to this, but one does not derive the pleasure from the hated thing itself."

    Amazing. If you hear the argument so much, you'd think the rejoinder wouldn't be so hilariously bad. Enjoying the emotion derived from an object means your enjoyment is not derived from the object?

    Conveniently, that statement is also part of the evidence that you are all retarded.

    "And would you pray share with us mere mortals the reasons why yours is warranted?"

    I am straight up better than you. Your failed deconstruction is a pretty good example of that.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Welp, he's straight up better than us. You wanna call it now...? GG NR,
    Cuddlfische: 1.
    XKCDsucks: 0.

    Ravenzomg singing out!

    Cuddelfish_1, I think it's time to let you know
    The way I feel when you take hold
    You set me free, my body's yours.
    It feels the best when you're involved

    I want you to take over control.
    Take over control.
    Take take take take over control.
    Oh oh oh, I want you to take over control.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Cuddlefish_1 said... My smugness is entirely warranted.

    If being smug is being confident that you are correct, I would assume unwarranted smugness is being confident that you are correct, when you are in fact incorrect. It follows then, that you saying your smugness is warranted is an implication that you are correct.

    That very well could be the case, but I'm having trouble determining one way or another. The reason I'm having trouble determining that, is that I don't really know what you feel you are correct about. Your posts thus far haven't eluded to an overarching point, beyond the fact that you believe the people on this forum are idiots. If that is the extent of your point, I would suggest that believing you can ascertain the intelligence level of an entire group of people based solely on a single website they visit is pretty ridiculous.

    The other point I think you might be making is that xkcd is not bad at all, and we are wrong by saying that. If this is the case, perhaps you'd be willing to offer some evidence or examples? Comics that were particularly well written, or that conveyed a message especially effectively?

    Or maybe your main point is not that xkcd is good, but merely that this blog is worse than xkcd itself. A statement which I find confusing based on the fact that you yourself admit to not having read much of this blog at all. Perhaps you should take a look at some previous criticisms of comics before you write off the entire blog based on the few posts you did read?

    And, if I have missed your point entirely, perhaps you'd be willing to simply state it so that we can all be more aware.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Amazing. If you hear the argument so much, you'd think the rejoinder wouldn't be so hilariously bad. Enjoying the emotion derived from an object means your enjoyment is not derived from the object?"

    The emotion derived from the object, (in this example specifically), is not enjoyment, it is hatred, or disgust, or mild displeasure, and so on.
    A site is created to express these emotions. Expressing them is an enjoyable activity. Discussion is based around these emotions. That is an enjoyable activity. These things produce the pleasure, not the object being hated.
    It would be a bit of an oversimplification to claim that the object is being enjoyed in this situation. And while certainly the enjoyment would cease if the object ceased to exist ( or rather a few days later after some sort of celebratory post or some such nonsense ) this does not mean that the object is being enjoyed.

    Do you understand this statement, or do I have to go over it in more detail?

    Secondly, you have a few baseless assumptions in this statement. Mainly, that I am in anyway representative of this community or in fact frequent it often.
    Secondly, that I said that I had seen that argument "so much" (perhaps often would be better?). I'm not sure where you're getting that from. While I did say that your argument was not new (as you appeared to be assuming by claiming you were the first to present it) and that there was a rebuttal to that argument presented before your post, as evidence, I did not claim or state that I had seen it before, or discussed on this site before.
    I don't really know why you would make that assumption.

    "I am straight up better than you. Your failed deconstruction is a pretty good example of that."

    Not really.

    ReplyDelete
  78. UndercoverCuddlefishFebruary 4, 2011 at 5:18 PM

    oh man what is this what is going on

    ReplyDelete
  79. ... An Impromptu debate or something I guess?

    ReplyDelete
  80. UndercoverCuddlefishFebruary 4, 2011 at 5:26 PM

    hey guys i know a fun game we can play i will use words like "rejoinder" in one paragraph and then in the next i will use phrases like "you are all retarded" because that is definitely not an indication that i am trying to sound much smarter than i actually am

    maybe later we can play another fun game where i make stupid arguments and then ignore the rebuttals in favor of making more stupid arguments and keeping up a pretense of superiority by never acknowledging that i was wrong

    man you guys i am going to be such an awesome troll

    ReplyDelete
  81. Hey guys keep on arguing on the internet, I hear there is a good prize for the winner.

    ReplyDelete
  82. To me, the strangest part of the whole thing is the idea that you can be "straight up better" than someone based solely on posts you read on an Internet blog comment thread.

    If one believes a person can be wholly evaluated based on their comments on a blog, it follows then that they THEMSELVES can also be evaluated on the same credentials. And someone who feels their entire worth as a person can be determined by comments on a blog really needs to rethink their outlook on humanity.

    @Anon 5:40: About time.

    ReplyDelete
  83. @UC: I am going to rejoinder you so hard.

    Because you are all retarded.

    Captcha: Shenna. Queen of the Jungle, right?

    ReplyDelete
  84. @Ravenz: I wouldn't mind if you rejoinder me all night.

    ReplyDelete
  85. http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TO&Product_Code=CG-TROPHY&Category_Code=WON
    Is this the prize?

    ReplyDelete
  86. "I wish my real life was like Rob's XKCDsucks life, where any time anyone called me on my bullshit I'd just say "HA! TROLLED!" and somehow people would just sort of accept it."

    someone "called me" on my "bullshit?" I thought some dude was just like "HAHA FUNDIE YOUR BRAIN IS DAMAGED" and I was like "jesus christ you people are easy."

    I guess the things you people believe about me just never cease to fascinate me. but yeah you're probably right, when an agnostic calls himself a fundie he definitely isn't trolling anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  87. god haven't you people been READING his posts it's obvious rob is a voodoo sorcerer

    ReplyDelete
  88. Nemo - As I said, your pleasure is *derived* from the comic. There is no disagreement between us here. Why are you arguing this point? If I could be bothered to decipher the rest of your ramblings I would counter the rest, but you're not worth that much effort.

    UC - Hey, I use the first words that come to mind. If 'rejoinder' is a bit too posh for you, that's not my fault. Perhaps you should read more.

    Rinnon - Christ, why do you write posts like you're writing a textbook? Relax dude, this is the internet. But to answer your question, my comment about my superiority was more of a challenge than a statement. I'm challenging you to prove me wrong. You're not doing very well.

    Ravenzomg - You're likable. Stay aloof, sister.

    I'll concede one point. That trophy is awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Guys guys guys, we should look at this situation logically.

    Premise: Anyone known as a "cuddlefish" is incurably stupid.
    Premise: Cuddlefish_1 is clearly an example of a cuddlefish.
    Premise: People who are incurably stupid have opinions that don't matter, and are worth less than anyone else's.
    Conclusion: Cuddlefish_1's opinions don't matter, and worth less than anyone else's.

    Sidenote: This is an unspoken agreement in the chat.

    TheMesosade, signing out.

    (By the way, whatever happened to Alcholics... I mean Always Anonymous?)

    ReplyDelete
  90. "Get a brick"? What the FUCK?
    That's not funny at all...that's just sick and tasteless, like saying "Ha ha ha that canine is disabled, get the shotgun! xD"

    ReplyDelete
  91. Cuddlefish_1 said... I'm challenging you to prove me wrong.

    So to reiterate, you are challenging me (the blog) to prove your smugness is unwarranted. First, it's worth mentioning that for your smugness to be warranted you'd first have to be correct, and second be capable of demonstrating you understand why you are correct. I'd even be so willing as to cut some slack on the definition and say if you were able to better argue your own point, regardless of who is objectively correct on the matter, your smugness would be valid. On that note, let's explore your arguments so far.

    "This was an excellent comic. It was funny and insightful. You guys obviously have no taste. Go back to reading Achewood, or is one page of non-jokes every six months too much for you to take?"

    Here, you have stated your opinion, but in place of offering evidence to support any points, you offer insults to those who disagree with you. This does very little to substantiate your claims of xkcd being good.

    "The layout is intuitive and understandable, the dialogue clear (people can speak in parentheses) and the diagrams relevant.

    You are a complete failure as a critic and a human being. Especially if you sort your dirty laundry."

    Again, you state your opinion on the comic, but offer very little to support your claims. You present an example that speaking in parenthesis (like this) is acceptable, but that is as far as supporting your statements goes. In what way is it intuitive, and in what way are the diagrams relevant, is not presented. Instead, you resort to direct insults on the man making the post, when no such hostility had been previously directed at you specifically.

    "And what slapstick humour? The brick line? It hardly relied on that - it would have been funny without it. One xkcd comic provokes more thought and interest than the entirety of this blog."

    Again, we have a situation where you have the starting of a point, but do not explain in any way why what you say is so. How could the comic be funny without the punchline? If that wasn't the punchline, what was? Etc. Again, a third time, you instead resort to directly insulting the blog itself, rather than any particular views it may present.

    A little bit later, Capn makes his first post directed at starting a discussion on the contents of the comic, you reply with:

    "So in fact you aren't secure enough in your own intelligence, and need to feel the warm coddling blanket of a peer group that thinks like you do. Don't get above your station, you're the same as me and every other fucker on this planet.

    Actually, if you're willing to read Rob's boring prattle, you're a few steps below the norm."

    Further insults in lieu of real examples to further your own point.

    "I said you are nitpicking, suggesting that you point out minor flaws. I fully admit there are minor flaws, ones which don't detract from the overall enjoyment of the comic. It was still easily readable and understood."

    At this point, you are at least willing to give ground on the subject, suggesting that there are in fact flaws. But you don't offer any reasoning why the flaws in question do little to deter your enjoyment of the comic.

    I could go on, but I'm sure anyone still reading by this point has long since gotten bored. In closing, you do very little to prove your point in any way. You assert a statement and then create a straw-man of either the blog, or the poster themselves by insulting them directly to make it seem as though you are correct/smarter. Attempting to use insults to derail any real discussion on the matter, makes it quite clear that you have very little intention of actually discussing or defending the merits of xkcd. What you are basing the assertion that you are superior on is a mystery to me.

    ReplyDelete
  92. UndercoverCuddlefishFebruary 4, 2011 at 7:49 PM

    oh man this guy pointed out that my prose is completely uneven as a result of forcing my high school vocabulary words into sentences entirely unnecessarily he sees right through my shitty writing style what am i going to do

    oh i know i will turn the tables on him by pretending that he said he was confused by the word i used because it is such a good word and the rest of the sentence it was in was perfectly formed

    "If you hear this argument so often, I'd expect your response to be a little less half-assed by now." ftfy

    naturally this is just a single example but literally every single thing you have written so far demonstrates the same complete lack of organized thought

    seriously champ you write like a middle schooler that just learned a new word and is dead set on using that word even if he has to build a completely awkward and meaningless sentence around it

    you write like randall

    ReplyDelete
  93. You folks need to get cheap-ass blogger account so that you seem more like legitimate people. Also icons, zomg. See how productive you can be vith zem by Raven's example.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Fine, I'll get a damn icon. =P

    ReplyDelete
  95. UndercoverCuddlefishFebruary 4, 2011 at 8:09 PM

    i already have an account through google but have absolutely no desire to actually use it for anything

    the hidden joy of mostly-anonymous posting is that on occasion other people will pick up the mantle and make comments with this name

    any of those comments that i might disagree with i simply treat as being written in a completely ironic tone so this amounts to less work for more entertainment

    ReplyDelete
  96. I will choose a horrible looking Lovecraft Picture. It will suck.

    ReplyDelete
  97. UC: That's the exact reason I wouldn't want to post anonymously.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Finally! Something to talk/read about! I thank you Cuddlefish_1, as just XKCD isn't worth talking/reading about anymore.

    Captcha: Priesto. Need I say more?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Pretty successful troll there, guys. And you all fed it.

    Cuddlefish_1: Good troll. That said, you started slipping when it seemed like you actually got angry. At that point I started worrying this was turning into a lol.i.troll.u.com situation. Only using ad hominem attacks and pointless nitpicking, though... I like it.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Trollz gotta eat, too.

    ReplyDelete
  101. @Anon 10:08: You say it like it's a bad thing. Sometimes it's just as fun feeding as it is being.

    ReplyDelete
  102. So, it's like feeding animals at the zoo, even though there's signs everywhere telling you not to?

    ReplyDelete
  103. What? There were signs? Damn!

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anon 11:32: Only reason to not feed trolls, is if you don't want them to come back for more.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Listen guys, when I read this newest XKCD comic, all I could think about is sex. No other comic by Randall did that to me. So I ask again, IS THERE ANY 34 OF XKCD? PLEASE?!

    The goatkcd version doesn't quite do it for me.

    ReplyDelete
  106. UC - If I'd meant 'a little half-assed' I would've said that. I thought his comment was so bad it was hilarious, so, get this, I wrote that it was hilariously bad. Oh, and you're calling me a middle-schooler? Well done, you've graduated from Youtube Commentary College! In a few years, you may even say something worthwhile! You keep at it, fella.

    Rinnon - Holy shit Rinnon, I mean what the fuck? An 'A' for effort, but 'F' for forethought. You're not expecting me or anyone else to read your essay, are you? You've put more time and thought into that than Rob does on his blogposts. Ah what the hell, I'll respond to something from it. I'd feel guilty otherwise.

    Okay - this particular comic was insightful because of the link made between the rhythm of a word and its popularity on the 'net. Its not a frequently heard idea and Randall supported it well in an amusing comic.

    Happy? Cos I'm done now. You guys are getting needy.

    ReplyDelete
  107. UndercoverCuddlefishFebruary 5, 2011 at 4:14 AM

    oh hey guys i figured out what all the commotion is it turns out that cuddlefish1 is actually illiterate

    i mean you would have to be illiterate to mistake "you write like a middle schooler in one specific sense" for "you are a middle schooler" or "i would expect your response to be a little less half-assed" for "your response was only a little half-assed"

    fact: there is no excuse for any intelligent person to be unable to tell the difference between the actual meanings of these phrases

    there are in fact multiple ways to fix that one godawful broken sentence (out of the dozens you have somehow assembled) and i chose one that undermined the intelligence of the person it was directed at while making the point you were attempting to make much more effectively than you originally did

    fact: any person claiming superiority over me requires a much stronger grasp of nuance in language than you possess

    i recommend taking some remedial english classes at night school in between your shifts at burger king (not because i want you to succeed but because i do not want you in the kitchen fucking up my order)

    ReplyDelete
  108. @UC: Wherefore by their functional illiteracy ye shall know them.

    ReplyDelete
  109. God, I was lying about the damn prize.

    But Rinnon sure as hell ain't winning it.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Cuddlefish_1, here's some wise advice... from the guy who once tried to start a religion based on moles and Duncton Wood... but, nonetheless, a wise advice:

    RUN, YOU FOOL.

    I've stopped mid-comment thread to wonder the same thing, Raven: why are we worth trolling? Do people still believe we're doing something legitimate here? I think Carl was the least we ever had of legitimacy here, and he's long gone. I think even I stopped caring.

    CAPTCHA: saclugar. ACLU-only sugar! (what the heck is ACLU, anyway?)

    ReplyDelete
  111. "Relax dude, this is the internet."

    And here comes a facepalm of epic proportions! We have our winner of the Morisettey for Most Oblivious of the Irony, folks!

    Applauses applauses!

    Mr. _1, would you like to make a speech?

    ReplyDelete
  112. UndercoverCuddlefishFebruary 5, 2011 at 6:21 AM

    @mole i liked the mole religion why did you stop

    ReplyDelete
  113. @UC I ran out of inspiration. But here's a little gem from the teachings of Boswell, the Wise: "to hear the Silence of the Stone, you first need to have your four paws on the ground".

    Deep, eh?

    PS.: No, that was not supposed to be a pun.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Cuddlefish_1: *Makes a huge-ass amount of really long posts*

    Cuddlefish_1: "...but you're not worth that much effort."

    Fail

    ReplyDelete
  115. Also, Raven's Biblical reference made me lawl. He's now my favorite person here.

    That is all.

    ReplyDelete
  116. raven is of the female persuasion you heteronormative pillock

    (though i am not, i just like maryland)

    ReplyDelete
  117. @Anon 2:48:

    http://xkcd.com/631

    ReplyDelete
  118. "really? the very first comment is about my religious trolling? you couldn't even wait for a couple comments in? at least pretend it wasn't the easiest troll in the world?

    christ you people are dull.
    "

    BLASPHEMY

    ReplyDelete
  119. And nobody's yet mentioned that, you know, MOST TWO-SYLLABLE WORDS ARE TROCHEES? So the fact that trochaic two-syllable words are in common parlance is, you know, entirely meaningless? Even outside of the general awfulness of the strip, the pretentious social observation is based on is completely pointless to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Isn't Science and Physics Trochees as well?

    ReplyDelete
  121. "And nobody's yet mentioned that, you know, MOST TWO-SYLLABLE WORDS ARE TROCHEES?"

    Actually, I believe that's been mentioned several times.

    ReplyDelete
  122. On official censuses I'm of the "Ayeliski" persuasion.

    Anyone here tried a dragon fruit yet? If no, go get one now.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Cuddlefish_1 said... "Ah what the hell, I'll respond to something from it. I'd feel guilty otherwise."

    If reading or responding to my posts isn't entertaining for you, don't do it. I'm not going to hold it against you if you're not interested in the discussion.

    "Okay - this particular comic was insightful because of the link made between the rhythm of a word and its popularity on the 'net. Its not a frequently heard idea and Randall supported it well in an amusing comic."

    Okay, so let's talk about your point. You suggest that the comic is insightful because of a connection between Trochees and their popularity on the Internet. You further point out this is not a common connection, and is well supported by the comic.

    Let's put aside the point you and I can agree on. Connecting the Internet to trochees is not common. There is no doubt in this statement.

    However, you state that in the comic, Randall creates a connection between Trochees and their popularity on the Internet, and that this is supported by the comic? I have to say that this is not evidenced by the comic itself. The only time the Internet is mentioned, is in Panel 4. The diagram that he offers is simply a circle with a brain on one side, the Internet on the other, and trochees going between the two. It's not hard to tell that he means to say a person puts forward trochees to the Internet, receives trochees back, and gets satisfaction from that.

    But at no time does he specifically state the trochees are "popular" on the Internet. He simply is stating with this diagram that people put them out there. He's not even suggesting, based on the diagram, that anyone OTHER than this made up person is doing it, but it is not unreasonable to assume that others may do it too.

    Furthermore, nothing in the comic does anything to support the idea that trochees are either common or popular on the Internet. He suggest that they are popular amongst Saturday morning cartoon titles, but does nothing to suggest anything of Internet popularity.

    With all this in mind, your bases that the comic is "insightful" doesn't hold much water thus far. I agree that this is not a copied idea, as discussion of trochees in general are not common, but originality alone is not enough to make a comic good.

    ReplyDelete
  124. The issue is that the trochees observation is interesting. It is not funny. There's no point in making a comic of it. It's a blog post.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I'm a bit late in posting this, but here's my rewrite of 854.

    http://img808.imageshack.us/f/consecutivevowels2.png/

    ReplyDelete
  126. Randy got it wrong. From Wikipedia:

    "A trochee or choree, choreus, is a metrical foot used in formal poetry consisting of a stressed syllable followed by an unstressed one."

    It isn't two syllable words, it's just a pattern of alternating stressed and unstressed. He fails even on an intellectual level. He can't draw for crap, he's lazy as hell, his jokes are lame as shit, and yet he's still an arrogant fucking bastard. If I met him on the street, I'd probably take a cheap shot at him and run before the police arrived.

    ReplyDelete
  127. This page mentions that about 90% of two-syllable nouns have emphasis on the first syllable, so basically the comic boils down to the observation that "random" phrases often involve words of two syllables, which is pretty common for nouns referring to concrete objects (as opposed to nouns referring to more abstract things like "jurisprudence" or "recognition"). I also feel like it's harder to find one-syllable words that call up amusing and unusual mental images like "pirate" or "raptor", one syllable words are often for very common or generic things like "bag" or "man" or "car" or "book".

    ReplyDelete
  128. " This page mentions that about 90% of two-syllable nouns have emphasis on the first syllable, so basically the comic boils down to the observation that "random" phrases often involve words of two syllables, which is pretty common for nouns referring to concrete objects (as opposed to nouns referring to more abstract things like "jurisprudence" or "recognition"). I also feel like it's harder to find one-syllable words that call up amusing and unusual mental images like "pirate" or "raptor", one syllable words are often for very common or generic things like "bag" or "man" or "car" or "book"."

    exactly. it's really depressing that people are saying that Randy is making an "interesting observation" here. he is making bad assumptions and failing to challenge the available data.

    he is, in other words, being a bad scientist.

    ReplyDelete
  129. A trochee doesn't even have to be two-syllables. 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious' is a better example of one than anything he put in the comic.

    Actually, 'recognition' and 'jurisprudence' are also pretty good examples as well.

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

    ReplyDelete
  131. Ok I can't be bothered reading the last third or so of the conversation but it seems like idiot_1 has begun to mostly repeat himself anyway so

    Premise 1: I just watched Enemy at the Gates and found it pretty good.
    Premise 2: Every retarded piece of logic he came up with. (totally a valid individual premise shut up)

    Conclusions: I totes enjoyed WWII, WWII was totes more entertaining than Enemy at the Gates, and you are all fat.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Thanks for repeating what was already said, Neal Stephenson. You should read the entire wall of text that is this comments section before replying.

    Super nerd bonus: The entire preceding post is in trochee form.

    Super troll bonus: If you went back to see if that were true then you just might fail at life.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Jon Levi: Your comic = Win.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Anon 9:53 - I'm Neal goddamn Stephenson. I do what I fucking want. If that means ignoring previous comments, I'll do just that.

    Now go buy Anathem, bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Anathem sucks. I know this for a fact because Randy said that it uses too many made-up words. Have you ever known Mr. Mnuore to be wrong about something?

    ReplyDelete
  136. Randall wouldn't know about divergent etymologies if alternate versions of him whispered the Feynman lectures into his ear during their sweet lovemaking.

    Anyway, I said buy my book. I don't give a fuck if you read it as long as you line my pockets with cash.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Ok, first, you made an entire website just to vent all your bad feelings about xkcd to everyone? Talk about obsessed over something that you don't even like! If you don't like it so much, just don't read it.......

    Second, I like how the first thing you talk smack on is the format. "You could have shrunk the font size down to make it fit in that second panel. You could have shortened the text. You could have done anything, ANYTHING but that." "That asterisk should have gone at the end of that sentence." Most people have to read a comic multiple times to get the full meaning of it so they're not very hard obstacles to overcome. And if you're lazy enough to not want to read it a few times, that's on you.

    Third, without the guy, there would be no one to talk to. Why would the girl just sit there and talk to herself? And just because someone suggests a brick doesn't mean that's what they really believe; it's a comic, hence fiction...

    Last, I know there is a punchline, and I have to admit, I don't get it. But there is one. It's not too funny to me but hey, it's not my kind of humor. It apparently isn't your kind of humor either, so just stop reading xkcd. I know for a fact that some people actually enjoy it so just leave it to them and either find another comic that you enjoy or make your own. Why spend your life in hate when you could be laughing over something else just as easily?

    ReplyDelete
  138. well, one, these people are doing morally reprehensible deeds by liking xkcd.

    second, hate is much more enjoyable than liking things.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Hey guys, I don't understand your problem with the Munroe reprint of Biggles Learns To Fly. I mean, sure, half the paragraphs were upside-down and printed in yellow, but most people have to read it a few times to understand it anyway! You guys are just lazy!

    Also, I don't understand punchlines that involve hitting people with bricks. The context for that shit is just too deep, and you expect me to get it first time round? I'm not Randall, you know.

    Now excuse me, I have to spend my life laughing at unfunny mindfarts drawn by a talentless nerd. I don't have time for hate.

    ReplyDelete
  140. 254: Haha, good way to put most of fat Rob's Rants in one single comment! If it is what you young fellows call "doing a troll", it is a success!

    I also want to address a point Rinnon brought up earlier: "Furthermore, nothing in the comic does anything to support the idea that trochees are either common or popular on the Internet."

    The trochees she is saying are common internet (more like 4chan) memes, like "laser monkey", "pirate doctor" or "raptor jesus", so i think you are wrong.

    That said, the point has already been maid: there are a LOT of two syllable words stressed on the first syllable in the english language, so the observation is lame.

    Like noticing that most of the dictators of the 20th century were dark-haired (think about it: Hitler, stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Mobutu... Coincidence??!!!)

    That's Joincidence with a C.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Anon 2:54: The same reason you felt the need to type up a post here, and if you're reading this, the same reason you came back to see if anyone responded.

    You feel the need to come on here and assert that spending our time hating a Webcomic is a waste*, when we could just ignore it and do something else enjoyable. You stumbled on this blog somehow. It apparently is something you dislike, feel it's reprehensible and a waste of space. It was possible for you to just ignore it, but it's so much more satisfying to put your thoughts out there, so that's what you did. If you're reading this, it means you came back to see what kind of an affect your words had. How is that any different than what the blog itself does?

    Re-reading: Laziness is not a factor in not wanting to re-read something. If the message or point is conveyed in such a way that it REQUIRES re-reading, there is a problem. Especially when we're not talking about a full novel, which you might forget little details from the beginning, close to the end. We're talking about no more than 8 lines of dialogue, in your native language, in your native dialect (I assume). If you need to re-read it to understand it, that's a fault of the writer for not conveying thoughts clearly.

    The Brick: It's not about whether or not it's real or not. I don't believe Randall thinks hitting a child with a brick is a solution. What I DO believe, is that he thinks suggesting hitting a child with a brick is funny. If he didn't think it was funny he would not have written it in. Even if the character was being ironic, Randall thinks the idea of someone suggesting a brick, is funny stuff. It's the punchline no less.

    Which brings me to my next point, the punchline. A punchline, is meant to be the climax of a humorous story, typically it is the last line of said story. If it's not the last line, there is unneeded after punchline writing, which usually dilutes the humor of the punchline itself. The problem of course, is that you don't find "get a brick" funny. And why should you? It's not very funny as we seem to agree on.

    The argument "comics aren't meant to be funny" might come up at this point, but it's extremely clear that the brick line was meant to be funny, as it has nothing to do with the rest of the theme of the comic. It doesn't further the "story" or the "point" of the comic in any way. He meant it to be funny

    In closing, I enjoy critical thinking. This blog gives us an opportunity to practice it, and on a topic that is refreshed 3 times a week! What more could you ask for?

    *I'm going to cut you some slack on the fact that on the left under "Rob's Rants" and "Frequently Asked Questions" you'll find an answer to your question. A retort to your statement if you will. You are not the first to suggest this. I cut this slack, because you were not a complete jerk right off the bat.

    PS: Please forgive the wall of text.

    ReplyDelete
  142. There's this one thing that bothers me about these self-righteous people that complain about xkcdsucks...

    "Ok, first, you made an entire website just to vent all your bad feelings about xkcd to everyone? Talk about obsessed over something that you don't even like! If you don't like it so much, just don't read it......."

    "Ok, first, you made an entire website just to vent all your bad feelings about xkcd to everyone?"

    "you made an entire website"

    IT'S A BLOGGER BLOG, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A GENIUS TO CREATE A BLOG ON BLOGGER AND THEN SPEND 5-20 MINUTES WRITING A SIMPLE POST THREE TIMES A WEEK. IF A SCHOOL REPORT WAS MADE WITH AS MUCH EFFORT AS IT TAKES TO CREATE A BLOG IN BLOGGER, IT WOULDN'T EVEN GET C- FOR EFFORT!

    No wonder Randall can get away with the shit he does, these people think a BLOG ON BLOGGER actually takes work to make!

    ReplyDelete
  143. Rinnon, that asterisk should have gone at the end of the sentence. Now I've had to stop reading in the middle of that sentence and scroll past several paragraphs just to see what that thing means. Boo hoo.

    ReplyDelete
  144. @Jon levi: Hahahaha, nice catch. =D

    ReplyDelete
  145. Asterisks: The devil's punctuation?

    ReplyDelete
  146. WHERE DID HE PULL THE GUN FROM

    WAS IT HIS INVISIBLE STICK-ANUS???

    ReplyDelete
  147. He certainly pulled the punchline from there.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Comic 857: Hm. I actually laughed. Nothing special, more just an absurdist subversion than anything that clever. But not bogged down by shit.

    So, no complaints here. It was... kinda funny.

    Femalethoth: yes.

    ReplyDelete
  149. What would happen if I took a famous quote, and replaced the ending with some tangentially related cultural meme? Wouldn't that be hilarious? For example, Nietzsche once said, "If you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss will wonder whether it has something stuck in its teeth". Someone should give me money.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Trevor: um wait I laughed at your joke too.
    I'm starting to think I just have low standards.

    ReplyDelete
  151. 857:
    No. This comic is an abomination.

    ARGH. It is the epitome of laziness. He draws 3 stickfigures, a gun, and makes a joke whose only support is a non-sequitur.

    In other words, it uses Tim Buckley's old (or maybe current, I stopped reading) method of "Random ninja stabbings/arrow wounds = funny."

    Good for a 15 year old, not good for anyone interested in anything intellectual.

    ReplyDelete
  152. I figure'd I'd try something: http://i.imgur.com/zZtVn.png

    ReplyDelete
  153. I actually liked this one from the forums:

    If I have seen further than those who have come before me it is because I have poked out their eyes. -- Newton

    ReplyDelete
  154. Non-sequiturs by themselves do not a joke make, although they do tend to create memes in social circ -

    Oh. Oh, very clever. I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE RANDALL.

    ReplyDelete
  155. I can't be bothered to read the next 100 comics to check this, but like 90% of what I read was dumb. The comic isn't about internet memes, it's about the fact that people who want to say "random" stuff always come out with the same dumb words. Though most prominant is probably "cheese" which is not a trochee.

    And yeah the comic sucks, who saw that coming.

    ReplyDelete
  156. @12:29 we are now on to the next comic moron. Keep up.

    ReplyDelete
  157. In the words of Roger Ebert, "I HATED this comic! I HATED HATED HATED HATED HATED this comic!"

    ReplyDelete
  158. Charles Augustus FortescueFebruary 7, 2011 at 3:21 AM

    Neil Stevenson, Supercalifrag etc is not "a trochee". It's a word made up of seven trochees.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Yep, new comic is criminally lazy. It literally took him more time to upload to the website than it took to write and draw.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Speaking of Buckley's "ha ha violent non-sequitors!" it seems that him and Randy are on the same page today.

    Must be relieving some of that pent-up Super Bowl fury. Since both of them were probably too busy being smug in their superiority to actually watch it.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Fair point Charles. However, you spelled my name wrong. How dare you. HOW DARE YOU. GO BACK TO PARSING LATIN YOU LITTLE GOODY TWO-SHOES.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Is the guy who runs xkcdsucks trolling? This is the first time I've read his blog, and it seems like he must be. Complaining about font size? The position of an asterick? Has to be a troll. Shame on me for not noticing it sooner.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Randall, that was just a sad and pathetic. There's really not much else to say about this. Your job is to make 3 STICK FIGURE COMICS A WEEK. That's it, there's nothing else you really *have* to do. And you copy/paste three fucking stick figures and slap on a lazy non-sequitur.

    You didn't even attach the goddamned heads to the first two stick figures.

    ReplyDelete
  164. It's asterisk, damn it! Stop spelling it like a fuckwad.

    ReplyDelete
  165. @Ian: No shit eh? I mean, how many different ways could his weekend have gone, that this was the best he could come up with?

    A) The Responsible Man: The Super Bowl is this weekend, but I need a quality comic by Monday. I will work all day Saturday, and if I'm not finished, all day Sunday to make sure it's done.

    B) The Semi-Responsible Man: Um, I don't feel like doing it Saturday... I'll go home after the Super Bowl to get it done, even if it means I don't have a lot of time.

    C) Randal: "Fuck it, I'm watching the Super Bowl at my friends, getting plastered. I'll write the comic from there, while hammered, and my fans will still love me. I'm sure it will be amazing." But instead of starting after the Super Bowl, him and his friends proceeded to watch an action movie. Probably Die Hard. In a drunken stupor, it came to him. What if Archimedes had threatened to kill a hostage every hour? Surely his readers have thought the same thing! Oh will they be pleased.

    My one true hope is that Randal woke up on Monday Morning and went "Shit, that's what I came up with?" But I doubt it. He's probably sitting at home, nursing his hangover, thinking to himself "At least I did a good job on my comic."

    ReplyDelete
  166. @Rinnon: Randy has no friends.

    ReplyDelete
  167. You think Randall actually watches the Super Bowl? Sports are for dumb jocks. Randall, the man of science he is, cares not for big sweaty men fighting over a little ball.

    No, Randall, as a true nerd, completely ignored the Super Bowl and went to Youtube after the game so he could watch all the commercials and complain about how they suck now and aren't as good as the old Super Bowl commercials.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Also according to Jeff Jacks, creator of popularly-hated webcomic Questionable Content, Randall Munroe likes girly drinks. And will therefore likely will be unable to get properly plastered.

    captcha: axlat, I feel like I could make a good joke about that if I could get over how much it sounds like Aflac.

    ReplyDelete
  169. there are some girly drinks you can get pretty plastered on

    ReplyDelete
  170. http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/
    http://xkcd.com/700/

    buckley is literally randall

    ReplyDelete
  171. @R. We already brought that up. I will literally vomit spiders on you while you sleep for being so stupid.

    @Rob: maybe if you're some sort of creature made entirely of fat who could stomach all that sugar, or don't drink much.

    ReplyDelete
  172. An interestingly revealing attempt to replicate Randy's humor from an XKCD forumite:

    "I love you, Randall. Which is why I have to kill you. Otherwise my enemies will only use you against me. There's this fish they want, and I refuse to deliver."

    ReplyDelete
  173. listen. if nerds can drink all the mountain dew and energy drinks they drink these days, they can drink a couple girly drinks.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Alcohol is good for getting drunk.

    ReplyDelete
  175. "@R. We already brought that up."

    who is we? your anon hivemind?

    both comics literally use batman punching someone as the punchline. i literally don't think this has been brought up. how ironic

    ReplyDelete
  176. you are literally a fucktard

    ReplyDelete
  177. XKCD is arguably the best web comic out there. Just because you're some asshole and think that you need to point out made-up faults in someone else's work to make yourself feel better about your own incompetencies, doesn't mean that you're right or that there is anything wrong with XKCD. If you don't like it, don't read it. Asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  178. UndercoverCuddlefishFebruary 7, 2011 at 4:31 PM

    @4:16 lol

    ReplyDelete
  179. How could something even be the best comic when it doesn't have art? Even if the writing in XKCD was as good as Jeffrey Rowland, Kate Beaton, or Chris Onstad (which it really, really, really, isn't), it would still only be half a comic because even at its best the art is merely functional.

    ReplyDelete
  180. YEAH ASSHOLE WHERE DO YOU GET OFF

    ReplyDelete
  181. "XKCD is arguably the best webcomic out there"

    You know, I always wondered what it sounded like when someone literally talks out of their own asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  182. xkcdsucks is arguably the best blog out there. Just because you're some asshole and think that you need to point out made-up faults in someone else's work to make yourself feel better about your own incompetencies, doesn't mean that you're right or that there is anything wrong with xkcdsucks. If you don't like it, don't read it. Asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Dear Anon 4:16,

    If you could please direct my attention to the made up faults, I'd really appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  184. i think my favorite part about 4:16 is how he seems to believe that we think we're right about xkcd sucking because we post a blog about it. that is, he thinks that the blog causes us to think we're right.

    ReplyDelete
  185. but rob surely you are aware that posting something on the internet makes it true

    CAPTCHA: bingsame. moar liek bingsameasgoogle

    ReplyDelete
  186. Nono, the blog just lends legitimacy, sort of like giving a cult a cool name makes it more rad.

    ReplyDelete
  187. This is pathetic. The ONLY reason any of you have for hating xkcd is Randall's love for Megan, which you constantly make fun of, since there's nothing in the comic you can find to criticize.

    I admit that, based on the comics, it's a fair guess that there's a girl called Megan that Randall isn't over. It's really childish and mean to make fun of that- haven't you ever had an ex that you couldn't get over?

    I doubt Megan really has any restraining orders on him (I understand you're using that for "humor") but even if she did, it probably wouldn't be his fault. These days, a man can merely say hello to a woman and she can slap him with a restraining order and accuse him of stalking and sexual harassment.

    No wonder Randall comes off as misogynistic in some of his comics! He should be commended for portraying women as well as he does. Instead, you make fun of that as well and call it "white knighting." Randall just understands that women these days want equality, yet still expect you to be chivalrous and open doors for them and buy them dinner. He's doing the best he can with the society he lives in.

    And women never appreciate smart, nice guys like Randall, just like they don't appreciate the sort of smart, nice guys who read xkcd. Randall connects with his audience in that way, and that makes him insightful and a good writer. You guys are all just too dumb to understand any of the comics, so you have to make a hate blog to raise your self esteem and try to convince yourselves you have a modicum of intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Anon818: ...Troll? I don't know, you sound sincere and it worries me because I know people who sound like you, but I'm not worried enough to do anything about it in your case. =\

    Matt, if you're out there, I'm gonna stop writing on a hate-blog, mmk?

    I'm just gonna make some creepy comics about you and how you really DO want to make out again and turn it into my job, because that is totally the appropriate course of action here.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Anons 4:16 and 8:18 really make it difficult for people to accept real criticism over the Internet. Which can be slim to none at times, but it's definitely out there.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Anon 8:18:"The ONLY reason any of you have for hating xkcd is Randall's love for Megan[...] You guys are all just too dumb to understand any of the comics"

    I would like to direct your attention, at this time, to the latest comical offering by Mr. Munroe. XKCD #857. I propose, that this is a terrible comic. I further suggest it is un-funny, poorly written, and very lazily put together. If you'd like to weigh in on the subject, I'd love a nice discussion about it.

    "And women never appreciate smart, nice guys like Randall, just like they don't appreciate the sort of smart, nice guys who read xkcd. Randall connects with his audience in that way, and that makes him insightful and a good writer."

    The crux of the matter. I might be way off, but I'm detecting some bitterness here. You clearly feel that you relate to Randall in some way. Your words are in defense of Randall, but you write as if you yourself are being attacked. Why is that? Is an assault on something you like, an assault against you yourself?

    Randall produces a comic 3 times a week, it is his job. This is how he makes a living. You are his customer, or potential customer if you've never purchased from his store. You enjoy his products, IE: His Comic. That's fine. We are suggesting that he has a bad product, and if you actually look through and read some of the real critiques, you'll find we provide ample evidence to support it. If you'd like to debate the matter, that's fine. But you wouldn't feel so zealous about defending Coke if I tried to tell you it was a poorly made drink, and you liked it, would you?

    ReplyDelete
  191. Anon818: Yes, I've had a crush I had trouble getting over. There's a difference in scale and appropriateness in having that feeling, maybe sharing it with a couple close friends, maybe even an anonymous Internet posting; and making it part of your full-time job advertising T-shirts.

    Also, that's not the only reason people here are frustrated at xkcd. It's just the only thing that gets blog posts after the blog founder buggered off, because Rob, who is now kind of in charge, is an avowed troll and you keep taking his damn bait. He also makes outrageous statements about atheists that I can barely resist retaliating against.

    "These days, a man can merely say hello to a woman and she can slap him with a restraining order and accuse him of stalking and sexual harassment."

    This here is a thing that has never, ever happened.

    I deleted a much longer bit of White Knighting on my own part, but I have to add this:

    I don't think Megan has a restraining order on Randall (I don't think her real name is Megan, either -- maybe she doesn't know she's in the comic). But if she does, then actually it very probably is his fault. And it's actually frightening that you say it probably wasn't his fault. Like you don't believe in crime or something.

    ReplyDelete
  192. 8:18 is definitely a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Yeah, but sometimes you can bait them into coming back for seconds.

    ReplyDelete
  194. "Anons 4:16 and 8:18 really make it difficult for people to accept real criticism over the Internet. Which can be slim to none at times, but it's definitely out there."

    i've occasionally tried to express this sentiment, but it's hard to put into words without sounding like i'm calling most of my critics stupid because they're critics, instead of because they're stupid. but the biggest reason i ignore criticism is basically that.

    ReplyDelete
  195. I wouldn't care if you insulted a drink or food that I like, because food and drink products like Coke aren't personal. Works of art, though, are very personal. What kind of art you like (or don't like) says something about you as a person. If you insult the comics, movies, books, video games, TV shows, music, etc. that someone likes, then you're insulting a part of that person.

    I don't think the latest comic is unfunny. It relies on a reversal of expectations, which is a really common thing in humor; most people find it funny when their expectations are subverted. The guy starts saying a famous quote, but then at the end, suddenly says something totally unexpected- yet something that could actually logically follow from the previous words he said. So it's not totally nonsensical, yet is surprises us, and therefore makes us laugh.

    Absurdity is another major staple of humor- most people are inclined to laugh at absurdity. The idea of Archimedes having a gun and threatening to kill hostages is absurd, and therefore funny. This comic has both the unexpected and the absurd, which most people find humorous.

    It's not "haha random violence is funny," like some stupid Buckley thing- it's about the absurd and the unexpected.

    So in what way is it unfunny, terrible, or poorly written? You make these assertions, but don't back them up. I can see how you might think it's lazy art-wise, but this particular comic didn't need more detailed art in order to tell the joke. Putting in superfluous art would only detract from the joke in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  196. well, that and they all miss the point completely.

    ReplyDelete