tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post2223376372849401587..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 631: William Monty Hughes "Weighs" In (at 224...pounds!)Carlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-85084788116807513712010-03-12T05:45:36.685-08:002010-03-12T05:45:36.685-08:00Sorry to be contrary, but photographic memory does...Sorry to be contrary, but photographic memory does not exist. 'Tis just a myth my friends.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-22837222620630855872009-09-10T23:03:00.886-07:002009-09-10T23:03:00.886-07:00Satirical pseudo-intellectual know-noting is satir...Satirical pseudo-intellectual know-noting is satirical. This guy does to xkcd what Borat did to Kazakhstan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-74988010378697115222009-09-06T11:29:26.275-07:002009-09-06T11:29:26.275-07:00Jay, sometimes someone just wants to come here and...Jay, sometimes someone just wants to come here and hate. Why you gotta be so <i>logical</i>??<br /><br />Just kidding. Love you!Amandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11192581573588205095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-12661612559077979182009-09-06T02:11:30.816-07:002009-09-06T02:11:30.816-07:00The subjunctive, WMH. Learn it.The subjunctive, WMH. Learn it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-41851360244721308142009-09-06T00:56:24.089-07:002009-09-06T00:56:24.089-07:00Willy hughes is something that grows on you, I gue...Willy hughes is something that grows on you, I guess.Person #1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-48222290486919642312009-09-05T17:48:53.102-07:002009-09-05T17:48:53.102-07:00@ Jay: "We" doesn't include master b...@ Jay: "We" doesn't include master blogwriter William M. Hughes.<br /><br />@ Covizapi...etc.: We can never know lord comic writer Randall's intent. Sometimes the possibility is oh so much funnier than the truth.<br /><br />@ Anon 3:09: If William Monty Hughes post wasn't funny to you, I'm afraid your humour box has been killed. Maybe you need to stay on this blog a little longer, but I found myself laughing about it hours later into the day.<br /><br />Anyway, Anon, how judgemental were you of this blog? When you entered, were you thinking "Oh man, this blog is gonna suck, I <i>know</i> it is?" Because that singular point is so very tied to your reaction, that your hatred my be based entirely on it.<br /><br />Hell, imagine everyone here as a person again. Before I started posting, I too imagined them as slimeballs (Which I'm almost sorry for. Soon.) People didn't gather here because they hate XKCD and they need a place to vent. They came here for a metaphorical game of baseball where at the end everyone's smiling, <b> not raging </b>, communicating, and knowing that they had good fun. (Except in this game of baseball, the ball is actually a metal slug of irony, and no matter what the ref says the pitcher aims for Randall. My metaphor's rambling.)<br /><br /><i>Sweet 7 year old boy voice </i><br />Hey man, d'you, you wanna play? I swear it'll be fun.TheMesosadenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-36100772889740850792009-09-05T17:22:31.572-07:002009-09-05T17:22:31.572-07:00in general the blog is very, very biased
IT IS CA...<i>in general the blog is very, very biased</i><br /><br /><i>IT IS CALLED XKCD SUCKS.</i> I am not sure what else you were expecting. The blog is not called xkcd: it's ok sometimes, or xkcd: an in-depth look at the jungian archetypes in randall munroe's world, or xkcd: happy fun fun magical rabbit love times. <br /><br />Basically what I am saying here is that you are an idiot.AuntieClarencenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-37040013015017567702009-09-05T16:11:50.087-07:002009-09-05T16:11:50.087-07:00Is Somebody going to ReView 632 OR NOT?Is Somebody going to ReView 632 OR NOT?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-82420585598087399172009-09-05T16:09:28.067-07:002009-09-05T16:09:28.067-07:00"As for the entertainment - well, for me it&#..."As for the entertainment - well, for me it's not entertaining at all, reading posts here. I assure you that I have read 4 or 5 of them and had a look at some more, and found no atom of entertainment. Really. This is why I won't stay here, as a part of the community."<br /><br />Not every post is going to be brilliant. Write 200 posts and eventually it'll get hard to keep them interesting. If you dislike every post on this site though, then I guess that's just that.<br /><br />"As for xkcd's author's attitude to this blog - at this moment I really don't see any chance of him coming here and reading the posts or comments. (... more stuff...) That's why I think this blog will not make xkcd better, not a bit."<br /><br />Randall discovered this site sometime before last October. This blog was just not that negative back then. Before then, I made more of an attempt to be nice, because I thought there was a chance Randall might actually be reading it.<br /><br />And again - if he DID read this blog, I guarantee you we would be able to have a positive, constructive discussion with him. I'd bet you any amount of money. A lot of the negativity here is because we KNOW he doesn't read it, we know he has no INTEREST in reading it, know he didn't take what we had to say to heart even when we were polite. So we're yelling into empty air.<br /><br />"Posts on this blog look like attempts to find all possible mistakes in xkcd strips. Starting with "he might have said it in a more funny way", ending with "the idea is old and so stupid that I can't stand it". I do see from time to time also remarks like "this strip is above the average" or "I quite like it", but in general the blog is very, very biased."<br /><br />Dude, think. Think what blog this is. Would most of us have bothered to type "xkcd sucks" into Google if we didn't dislike most of the strips?<br /><br />But you know what, you do have a point. We're more vocal if we hate a strip. The most recent one for example, I thought it was all right, but I didn't bother to leave a comment saying so until now. I just didn't care enough. Consider it a personal flaw.<br /><br />"You also keep calling the author of xkcd by his first name, which really looks rude in the context. What I see here is repulsive for me, so even some bits of real discussion just sink in this."<br /><br />Look man, I am genuinely not trying to insult you, but if calling him Randall bothers you, then you have really thin skin. I mean - what do you expect us to call him? Randall is what he goes by. "Mr. Munroe"?<br /><br />The atmosphere here... look, this isn't half as negative as it could be. Look at "Your Webcomic is Bad and You Should Feel Bad." The atmosphere on THAT blog is repulsive to me. Maybe you just have a low tolerance for this kind of stuff.<br /><br />But it's true, a constant stream of FUCK SHIT HATRED gets old. It gets boring. Which is why Carl DOESN'T write that way all the time, and I try to write in a more measured style when I guest-post (which I've done a few times.) I don't know what posts you're looking at, but if you're judging the whole blog by the last few, well. We hated comic 631 a whole lot, if you couldn't tell.<br /><br />This blog is all about why xkcd sucks. People are free to post what they want and left to their own devices a lot of people will be assholes. But it's not pure jackassery here either.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06037127857062536971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-77546167729899915062009-09-05T15:38:37.238-07:002009-09-05T15:38:37.238-07:00"I don't find it fun, therefore it's ..."I don't find it fun, therefore it's not fun"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-76307894404982425912009-09-05T15:09:03.472-07:002009-09-05T15:09:03.472-07:00Well, OK, "constructive criticism" and r...Well, OK, "constructive criticism" and related stuff are always easy to dodge, let me use the word. I read more or less what's under the link that you gave, and I agree partially. But probably that's not the point.<br /><br />As for the entertainment - well, for me it's not entertaining at all, reading posts here. I assure you that I have read 4 or 5 of them and had a look at some more, and found no atom of entertainment. Really. This is why I won't stay here, as a part of the community.<br /><br />As for xkcd's author's attitude to this blog - at this moment I really don't see any chance of him coming here and reading the posts or comments. I wouldn't like to read in each post how bad my strips are, how they suck and what shit they are, even if the anger is faked or jokes. He'll not come I guess, because at this moment this blog is offensive, the name being first on the list. That's why I think this blog will not make xkcd better, not a bit.<br /><br />Posts on this blog look like attempts to find all possible mistakes in xkcd strips. Starting with "he might have said it in a more funny way", ending with "the idea is old and so stupid that I can't stand it". I do see from time to time also remarks like "this strip is above the average" or "I quite like it", but in general the blog is very, very biased. Not even trying to look as objective criticism. This is why I thought that when I write a pro-xkcd comment, I'll be treated like a pro-choice on a catholic forum. I was wrong, I must admit. Nevertheless, the impression of a place where xkcd sucks no matter what, remains, and is very negative for me. Probably we could discuss 432 (I already made my statement and justified it), but still only descriptions like "stupid guy, why only one picture, the bench is drawn badly, the monologue sucks and the whole strip is shit" seems to match the atmosphere of this blog.<br /><br />As for myself, I'm a big fan of xkcd (also when measured in $). Some strips are just perfect, some are hard to understand and this makes them not very funny for me, and some are experiments, which might not be funny, but are creative. There are also some that seem to completely miss my taste. In fact, I don't like 631 too much. But the reaction "OH. HOLY. CRAP. OH WHAT THE FUCK. WHAT THE FUCK, RANDALL? what is this supposed to be? Seriously, tell me what it is supposed to be. I don't have a fucking clue" is just awful for me. As a lot of things here, it is pretentious. But OK, maybe it is really funny for some of you. You also keep calling the author of xkcd by his first name, which really looks rude in the context. What I see here is repulsive for me, so even some bits of real discussion just sink in this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-32635601711592081102009-09-05T14:33:54.437-07:002009-09-05T14:33:54.437-07:00What do you mean, "would be", TheMesosad...What do you mean, "would be", TheMesosade?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-61225873064137318682009-09-05T14:28:19.190-07:002009-09-05T14:28:19.190-07:00I find that XKCD fans coexist with the critics.
W...I find that XKCD fans coexist with the critics. <br />Without the fans, the comic writer gets bored and apathetic trying to please a community of people who dislike his work.<br />Without the critics, the comic writer realizes that the community will be pleased with less and less effort, and the quality goes down.<br /><br />Funnily enough, it seems that critics are like predator-parasites, fans are like prey, and the media (XKCD) is the giant coral reef where they play. Sure, a comic can live with just fans, but wherever there are fans, there's sure to be a critic.<br /><br />I like XKCD. I read it, I enjoy it. The reasons why are immaterial. In fact, I enjoyed 631 because I knew the reaction with this blog would be HILARIOUS. And I'm totally right. Ultimately, XKCD's existence is to make ours more enjoyable, and it does not matter how it achieves it.<br /><br />(That's why it would be utterly hilarious -and right- to realize that 631 was just messing with the blog.)TheMesosadenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-88802599536498296212009-09-05T14:05:29.675-07:002009-09-05T14:05:29.675-07:00gooble gobble gooble gobblegooble gobble gooble gobblealoriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01318832080088871491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-57130149230518203682009-09-05T14:02:21.234-07:002009-09-05T14:02:21.234-07:00ONE OF US
ONE OF USONE OF US<br />ONE OF USAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-19435620149687448302009-09-05T13:57:51.416-07:002009-09-05T13:57:51.416-07:00SEE, I TOLD YOU!
No one can stay away. NO ONE.
...SEE, I TOLD YOU!<br /><br />No one can stay away. NO ONE. <br /><br />Now who wants to start a pool on how long it takes for us to convert this one over to the dark side?aloriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01318832080088871491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-78428119091706855322009-09-05T13:50:37.537-07:002009-09-05T13:50:37.537-07:00"http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2008/06/comic-..."http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2008/06/comic-432-sucks-ass.html"<br /><br />Well, I don't like that either, and if you want to we can discuss why, BUT: don't confuse Carl's opinion for the opinion of the entire blog. People frequently disagree here. It is not a circlejerk, despite what <a href="http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2009/08/comic-629-falter-ego.html?showComment=1251711826377#c631164578245838719" rel="nofollow">some would have you believe.</a><br /><br />"if you don't have better ideas then just shut up and find better place than xkcd (which should be easy if xkcd really sucks), and if you do, take pencil and draw the best comic strips on the planet yourselves."<br /><br />I wouldn't have to draw the best comic strips on the planet. I'd just have to make them consistently funny.<br /><br />But that's irrelevant. If you read the link I posted, you know what I think about this attitude. It's bullshit. We're talking about Randall, not me - you don't have to be a director to write a review of a movie.<br /><br />"I'm pleasantly surprised to see such an elaborate comment. Let me answer in a few words, I wouldn't like you to feel like your effort of writing it was not appreciated."<br /><br />Whatever you think about this blog, I feel that I (we) have proven that we put some thought into what we write and don't outright dismiss our detractors.<br /><br />Anyway, you're obviously free to go, but I hope you stick around. I like having xkcd fans on this blog, provided they don't act like jackasses. Which so far you've done. Sorry.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06037127857062536971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-4629322150304396642009-09-05T13:49:34.165-07:002009-09-05T13:49:34.165-07:00Yeah, Anon, I think you're here to stay. You h...Yeah, Anon, I think you're here to stay. You had your chance to take your potshot and leave and you didn't (which is a good thing - it's childish and annoying.) I think you're here for the duration of the conversation at least.<br /><br />If you don't mind I'll just skip over the insults ("pathetic" "small penis" etc) because as creative as they are, we've seen them a few times before and they've kind of lost their effect by now.<br /><br />"You suggest that I suggest that you all should just shut up and not criticise xkcd. This is not true, you can always criticise what you don't like, especially on the internet. The problem is - do you know the term "constructive criticism"? I guess you might not know it. There is not a bit of it on this blog."<br /><br />Ignoring that R USED THE TERM IN HIS POST, I want you to read this link, <a href="http://plover.net/~bonds/stupidresponses.html" rel="nofollow">http://plover.net/~bonds/stupidresponses.html</a>, which pretty well expresses my thoughts on the subject. Read it. Done?<br /><br />What you're missing is that this blog has two purposes. The first is <i>entertainment.</i> We read (and comment) on this blog because it's a fun diversion, and most of the people here have an interest in webcomics and criticism that goes beyond just hating xkcd. <br /><br />The second purpose is to make xkcd better. And this is a lesser purpose. There IS a lot of useful criticism on this blog - we almost never say we hate a strip without saying WHY. If Randall actually read this blog, even commented on it - I fucking guarantee you we'd all get a lot nicer. But he doesn't, and we <a href="http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2009/07/comic-610-independence.html" rel="nofollow">know</a> he doesn't. He's had conversations ABOUT this blog, he knows it exists, but he's never shown the slightest inclination to COME HERE and take what useful criticism from it he may. He's never even had the guts to tell us to fuck off. So why should we pander to him? He'd never even read it.<br /><br />If you read the earlier posts when this blog started, they're a lot nicer. A lot more mellow. It wasn't even called xkcd sucks then, it was called "xkcd: overrated." I wonder why we changed?<br /><br />"What you can find here is hate and anger towards xkcd and its author. If a post begins with "shit, shit, shit, shit, ...", it is not constructive. It is useless, and pitiful."<br /><br />Now why is it pitiful? Let me tell you a secret: a lot of the anger on this blog is faked. I don't lie awake nights, seething with hatred about how much I hate xkcd. For me, this blog is a fun diversion where I can come to talk about a subject I'm interested in. I don't think that's "pitiful", pathetic, or unhealthy.<br /><br />The FUCK SHIT RAGE thing is a gimmick. It's supposed to be funny or at least interesting to read. Obviously you don't think so. Popular opinion seems to be against you.<br /><br />(comment too long, rollover - geez, that's never happened before)Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06037127857062536971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-45179910009979029312009-09-05T13:09:56.834-07:002009-09-05T13:09:56.834-07:00Oh fellow anonymous. I love how you're clearly...Oh fellow anonymous. I love how you're clearly trying to make yourself out to be rational and intelligent with such wonderfully stilted sentences as "One might agree or not that there is a decline in quality of xkcd comic strips." and then go and ruin it by using the word "tard".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-86161270424222640492009-09-05T11:37:48.144-07:002009-09-05T11:37:48.144-07:00Dear R.,
I'm pleasantly surprised to see such...Dear R.,<br /><br />I'm pleasantly surprised to see such an elaborate comment. Let me answer in a few words, I wouldn't like you to feel like your effort of writing it was not appreciated.<br /><br />One might agree or not that there is a decline in quality of xkcd comic strips. There is surely a change, but not everyone says it is a change for worse. Some just see it as the process of evolution. Some like it and others don't, and this is not what I think, this is the fact.<br /><br />You suggest that I suggest that you all should just shut up and not criticise xkcd. This is not true, you can always criticise what you don't like, especially on the internet. The problem is - do you know the term "constructive criticism"? I guess you might not know it. There is not a bit of it on this blog.<br /><br />What you can find here is hate and anger towards xkcd and its author. If a post begins with "shit, shit, shit, shit, ...", it is not constructive. It is useless, and pitiful. When you name your posts "that fucking hat with lines shit" and so on, it just isn't funny, constructive, anything. I wanted to give some more example of useless "destructiveness" of this blog but I just can't stand reading these posts.<br /><br />Let me just say that the comic mentioned in http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2008/06/comic-432-sucks-ass.html is one of the good comics (not necessarily the best, but good). Unless you are a tard and don't even try to see the message it carries, and the mood, the atmosphere, the sense of emptiness which is contained within these few strokes. Can't you see it, and admit that you probably wouldn't do it better? (What's wrong with the strip, you say? That it is short? Let me leave it without comment.)<br /><br />Somehow I'm not afraid of the quality of xkcd. For me it's just xkcd, and if you don't like then: if you don't have better ideas then just shut up and find better place than xkcd (which should be easy if xkcd really sucks), and if you do, take pencil and draw the best comic strips on the planet yourselves. That's just my suggestion which I know you will ignore. I just expressed my thoughts, which are related to what I find useful and constructive, and what I find to be awful and bad in the moral sense.<br /><br />Now, a word to you all, who think "HA, HE RETURNED, AS I SAID!": I don't write it neither for you nor for the blog or its author. This is just a response to what R. said. I'm being polite, just like R. was.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-65184281757889734642009-09-05T11:00:31.445-07:002009-09-05T11:00:31.445-07:00Oh, forgot to mention something.
If he didn't...Oh, forgot to mention something.<br /><br />If he didn't want to be criticised he shouldn't have put the comic on the internet, for everyone to see.<br />He's had the praise, now it's time for him to cope with the backlash.R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-70677281459009985302009-09-05T10:51:05.631-07:002009-09-05T10:51:05.631-07:00This site is necessity.
Randall gets lots of prai...This site is necessity.<br /><br />Randall gets lots of praise and very little criticism. We believe that because of this, he now thinks he is perfect or good enough, and doesn't try to improve any more, or put much effort into his comics. That everything he does is pure gold, but it's not.<br />Only the most deluded of fanboys refuses to notice the massive decline in quality.<br />Possibly, Randall may one day actually read the constructive criticism, and if we're lucky, actually improve. This is the best possible situation.<br />If Randy keeps getting worse, more fans will be converted by this site (eg. Fernie Canto), or independently. If this becomes a significant loss (to the point where xkcd becomes the new CAD or Garfield), Randall will either continue what he's doing or work hard to regain/hold onto his current fanbase. The former is unlikely, as he makes his income off the site. The latter however, may, just may, make the comic much better. This is desirable.<br />You, Anon 10:18 and the people like you, are the main reason why xkcd is so terrible now. Your blind fanboyish worship of Munroe is actually hurting him. If you truly care for the comic and for his livelihood, you will stop praising him as your god. <br />"The worst thing you can tell a creator is that he does not need to improve".<br /><br />Also, it's fun to bash something you hate with likeminded people.R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-34688725483863742602009-09-05T10:26:27.091-07:002009-09-05T10:26:27.091-07:00@ anon 10:18:
Mmm... fanboy tears...@ anon 10:18:<br /><br />Mmm... fanboy tears...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-70701330417137054832009-09-05T10:22:44.228-07:002009-09-05T10:22:44.228-07:00This falls in the "You're wrong because y...This falls in the "You're wrong because you're wrong" category on the bingo chart. With an added bonus of "and because you are wrong, you are also stupid"<br /><br />BINGOPerson #1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-9714557320189354932009-09-05T10:21:51.340-07:002009-09-05T10:21:51.340-07:00YOU'LL BE BACK
oh yes.
You will be back.
A...YOU'LL BE BACK<br /><br />oh yes.<br /><br />You will be back. <br /><br />And Carl's penis is quite large (I know because he is Randall and I am Megan)aloriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01318832080088871491noreply@blogger.com