tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post5806395884578746485..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 604: MistakesCarlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-46460122042776866442009-12-06T21:29:59.501-08:002009-12-06T21:29:59.501-08:00Um why are you talking to me?
But since you'r...Um why are you talking to me?<br /><br />But since you're here: we pretty much all used to be fans of XKCD. So I guess the only person missing out on anything is you! You are missing out on an opportunity not to be a dumbass.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-13734853542497947472009-12-06T09:07:49.687-08:002009-12-06T09:07:49.687-08:00xkcd is very frank, simply put. Its concept is hon...xkcd is very frank, simply put. Its concept is honest, contemplative, emotionally evocative; it has something everyone can relate to, to some degree. Some people will find its humor funny, some will not.<br />Sulpheric's right. Quit the hate shit, trying to make inane bigots like you guys laugh isn't the sole purpose of a good webcomic. If your funnybones were too skeptical to spot the originality of xkcd from its conception (or at least, Munroe's materialization of hidden truths most people can't even put into a good train of thought), you missed out, end of story. Rob, get your high horse back into the stable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-60053569992028764822009-11-13T18:13:33.525-08:002009-11-13T18:13:33.525-08:00@Jaap
Curiously enough, I find I could very easil...@Jaap<br /><br />Curiously enough, I find I could very easily say something like "I can't afford to keep eating out this frequently."<br /><br />Perhaps my conversational English lacks more than I know? Must be. ^ ^Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-1996298087492202222009-07-24T11:37:05.682-07:002009-07-24T11:37:05.682-07:00I guess you haven't been here too long. We'...I guess you haven't been here too long. We're pretty open minded and I don't mind talking about what I like in xkcd - it just isn't too often that I like anything.<br /><br />Anyway, there's a good chance you are right though - I am not sure there is a way for a comic to present a "funny conversation" in the bash.org style and have it be really good. That's because it will always (usually?) come across as contrived and carefully planned out, which dramatically saps the humor. <br /><br />What I'm saying, then, is that there is really no way to do this right, be you Randall or otherwise, and so he should have skipped it entirely and gone to another comic altogether.<br /><br />Of course, with a name like "Math_Mage" i really should expect the highest forms of xkcd-fanboyism, so oh well.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-4421452984196953532009-07-23T23:56:52.938-07:002009-07-23T23:56:52.938-07:00The sad thing about this post is, if Randall had d...The sad thing about this post is, if Randall had done what you suggest here and used the conventional format for this type of joke and made sure his example was recorded as an actual Internet event and dotted his I's and crossed his T's and everything else, you'd probably rip him for being unoriginal and cookie-cutter--and if it wasn't you, somebody would gleefully take up the role so reflexive haters (or "No true fan likes him anymore" types) would have something to nod along to. It's like the too-frequent complaint that Randall likes to continue past the punchline--if he didn't do that, there'd be people whaling on him for ruining the perceived flow. That's this whole blog in a nutshell--you take a smug superior "he's doing it wrong" attitude to every comic, the fact that someone will ALWAYS think that notwithstanding.Math_Magehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642323916552846153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-26921414108745770642009-07-06T10:21:27.868-07:002009-07-06T10:21:27.868-07:00"Please don`t even try that. People don`t cri..."Please don`t even try that. People don`t critique other people`s sense of humour."<br /><br />Sulpheric, please learn to use real apostrophes. You were obviously able to (albeit incorrectly) when you typed "your's."<br /><br />That is all.Amandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11192581573588205095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-27967585926297869522009-07-06T06:04:59.762-07:002009-07-06T06:04:59.762-07:00"No, criticizing things that are effort-drive..."No, criticizing things that are effort-driven can be good or bad. For example: If I spent six years building a model plane and putting it's flight on Youtube. You say it looks like crap, and decide to blog about it sucking, just because everyone likes it. If that doesn't sound like being an asshole, I really don't want to live in your universe. However, saying "I think the plane could look better, maybe I can help," is not, as you offer to help (I will admit that the blogwriter offers support on occasion, mockingly, though, when possible), as well as not looking as if he's trying to belittle his efforts."<br /><br />Incorrect analogy. Randall does not spend six years on each comic strip. When we criticize a strip, he does not make the effort to improve any of his flaws from one strip to the next. <br /><br />A more proper analogy would be if you spent a day hastily folding a model airplane out of a cocktail napkin, and, because their were a number of lonely, insecure cocktail napkin lovers on the Internet, when you posted a video of your masterpiece on YouTube, they flocked to you and formed a community based around your poorly-made cocktail napkin airplanes. Then, a few people come a long and say, "Hey, these aren't very good airplanes - here's how you could improve them: [insert list of valid ways your]," and those people were quickly shot down by the fans and ignored by you and you continued to produce videos of shitty cocktail napkin airplanes. So these people continued to point out how, though their is an audience for these shitty cocktail napkin airplanes, it would be much cooler if these cocktail napkin airplanes were improved, and formed a community to talk about it.<br /><br />TL;DR You suck at analogies. Die in a fire.David Poorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10173847419796847573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-71468406175694601122009-07-05T20:31:27.194-07:002009-07-05T20:31:27.194-07:00Do you, like, not speak English? "Verbatim&qu...Do you, like, not speak English? "Verbatim" does not mean the same thing as "ad nauseum" in the slightest. "Inexistant" is not a word. You serve no function as a human being. Your entire existence is purposeless. There are no redeeming qualities about you. You will live a long, unfulfilled life, if you can call such an empty existence living.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-23318049862361992232009-07-05T20:24:34.007-07:002009-07-05T20:24:34.007-07:00Sorry for the spam, I guess, but...
Imagine the se...Sorry for the spam, I guess, but...<br />Imagine the second "Where I'm wrong," as being inexistant, if you please.Sulphericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-69829668212238097792009-07-05T20:22:25.936-07:002009-07-05T20:22:25.936-07:00Okay, you seem to love sarcasm, clearly indicated ...Okay, you seem to love sarcasm, clearly indicated by your liberal use of italics, as well as the several <i> oh so subtle </i> nuances that you use.<br /><br />Where I'm wrong:<br />- Perhaps he tries to help XKCD, on occasion. *Shrug* he's preaching to a crowd of people that dislikes XKCD. If he wished to help, it might be better to try the forums.<br /><br />Where I'm wrong:<br />- I did mean ad nauseam. So I blended a latin phrase with an english word that pretty much means the same thing. My bad.<br /><br />- Perhaps I wasn't clear enough why he should be shot. How's this: "His attitude of finding amusement in belittling efforts and complain (Therefore, a lot of people deserve to be shot, don't point that out)."<br /><br />That's about as far as I got. Now, where your wrong:<br />- He doesn't hate XKCD because it's bad. He hates it becauses it's bad and has a high readership, therefore, it doesn't deserve it. Therefore, indirectly thinking the readers of XKCD suck.<br /><br />- The validity of humour, is a very messed up statement. There are jokes that are low-brow, high-brow, mean, sarcastic, dumb, smart, inside, topical, and so forth. Sure, you can judge the comic for not reaching it's target audience. To my knowledge, though, the forums are filled with "intelligent" (Depending on the way you look at it) people, that seem to like the comic. If the comic fails to please them, then it might suck.<br /><br />- No, criticizing things that are effort-driven can be good or bad. For example: If I spent six years building a model plane and putting it's flight on Youtube. You say it looks like crap, and decide to blog about it sucking, just because everyone likes it. If that doesn't sound like being an asshole, I really don't want to live in your universe. However, saying "I think the plane could look better, maybe I can help," is not, as you offer to help (I will admit that the blogwriter offers support on occasion, mockingly, though, when possible), as well as not looking as if he's trying to belittle his efforts.<br /><br />- I do not believe his good intentions, simply because he points that out in his "sucks hugely" (I find those faqs to have terrible titles, but that's beside the point) section. Far more often, I'd rather read and analyze the angle he's coming from, and the writer, whom I'll refer to as Carl now (Rob, sorry I guess?). Anyway, after reading the "reviews," it looks to be more on the side of a "vitrolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness against a silly and harmless comic."<br /><br />- I didn't mean I don't like you, I meant Carl (Whom I only hate by extension of his hobby). Anyway, I haven't seen enough of your writing to hate you yet.<br /><br />- All criticism should have a basis in good, and if Carl truly is aiming for the better instead of just trying to slander a comic, as it says in the title, than he can sleep in solace knowing that I am wrong. I wouldn't believe him if he told me though. The reputation he builds (through consistent review writing, and if he does anything else notable) is what I'll look at.<br /><br />- Okay, so you live in Shanghai. You don't win because it happens to be evening there. The morning is from my perspective, obviously, so assume 6-8 hours.<br /><br />- Hating you is my opinion of you. There is no intent to do anything, I don't intend to take down your work, I just hate you. Take it hard, take it lightly, I really don't see how you can possibly relate it to criticizing work. The goal here isn't to love everybody. It's to find the time where your opinions are actually opinions (My hate comment) or, trying to make your opinions factual by saying that "XKCD sucks". (Maybe the whole underlying message here is the simple, "IT'S ONLY YOUR OPINION," whiny crap. I only agree with those people when the opinion is desperately trying to be fact. (This site, it does))<br /><br />- @ the 2nd to last paragraph. I'm laughing that you called me a prick. What? It's kinda like, why can't we hate a comic in peace? Hatred engenders hatred.<br /><br />I'm running out of characters. Stupid blogs.Sulphericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-65723564939915618112009-07-05T16:19:01.883-07:002009-07-05T16:19:01.883-07:00Carl "Ugly" Wheeler: My name is WILLIAM ...Carl "Ugly" Wheeler: My name is WILLIAM Monty Hughes.<br />Address me fully OR not at all. It just ENRAGES me that you once possessed the AUDACITY to assume you could simply refer to me so informally. I demand respect.<br />Additionally, I am NOT pretentious you ADDLE-MINDED PLEBIAN. <br /><br />-William M. Hughes<br />IQ 224<br />"Cogito Ergo Sum"William Monty Hughesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-9431518506959610072009-07-05T14:34:37.989-07:002009-07-05T14:34:37.989-07:00Didn't think this one was so great. 'Qwert...Didn't think this one was so great. 'Qwertial Asphasia' (assuming that that term even really exists; can't say I've ever heard of it before) sounds like it'd a good source of comedy, it's just a shame that Randall couldn't come up with anything wittier than oral bestiality.<br /><br />Also, this week's ZP was awesome and so true, which means a lot coming from me - I love The Sims.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-67696662088909586742009-07-05T11:22:04.706-07:002009-07-05T11:22:04.706-07:00I - i'm sorry! I just wanted to be friendly. A...I - i'm sorry! I just wanted to be friendly. Also as far as pretension goes, you may be losing to Monty Hughes or whoever.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-4966900501945528522009-07-05T05:36:48.119-07:002009-07-05T05:36:48.119-07:00i just heard about this band, i think they're ...i just heard about this band, i think they're australian or something<br /><br />they're called "the beetles"<br /><br />they're pretty goodNapoleon In Ragshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17431599369752601413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-89449792818584473832009-07-05T05:22:49.225-07:002009-07-05T05:22:49.225-07:00Wait, seriously? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
We live in...Wait, seriously? <i>Seriously</i>? <i>SERIOUSLY</i>?<br /><br />We live in a universe where the fact that "Like A Rolling Stone" is awesome has to be pointed out?Ann Apolishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08566528013026340201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-31687250922778720282009-07-05T03:03:31.926-07:002009-07-05T03:03:31.926-07:00@ Cuddlefish: k i'mma do this paragraph by par...@ Cuddlefish: k i'mma do this paragraph by paragraph <i>thus proving me to be a serious professional who's taking this seriously</i>.<br /><br />Aight, so you've drawn a distinction here. Even if it turns out being relevant, remind me which side Carl is on? This blog is "XKCD sucks", not "People who think XKCD is funny suck", so... I guess Carl is critiquing humor and is thus not a jerk? But really, if you get self-righteous enough, you can warp any "I don't find this funny" statement as an "Anyone who finds this funny is a moron who sucks" statement. Good to know you have that capability.<br /><br />Sure, they can be brought up for any piece of humor! The question is... are they valid? If you argue for them and someone else argues against them, do they hold up? This is what separates any good art from any bad art: do potential criticisms hold up against inspection? Seriously, you're displaying ignorance of <i>the very foundation of debate</i> here! I say something, and you say something that conflicts, and we see which of these statements makes more sense. This is not complicated.<br /><br />Really, now? Just because someone puts time into something, they're immune to being criticized on that thing? This is not logic, sir! This is a staggeringly baseless categorical statement that seems to attack the entire concept of opinion! You are effectively saying that if someone has created something, publicly voicing dislike of it is by definition "terrible taste". What's unsettling here is that I don't even have to put words in your mouth. <i>This is what you actually believe.</i> Also, bonus points for writing a second sentence that could be accurately reworded as "He doesn't deserve to be shot for criticizing XKCD, he deserves to shot for his choice of hobby, which is criticizing XKCD". What.<br /><br />Umm, I do not know where you are getting this stuff. Every so often, Carl will grudgingly admit he liked the latest strip. This could be a master plan to <i>pretend</i> to be objective, but it could also just be him... having honest opinions? That plenty of other people agree with? Also, 3rd question on his "sucks hugely" FAQ: "I am hoping to either get Randall Munroe to shape up and make better comics . . ." This, even if it's one third of his potential goals, is pretty much as "well-intenioned" as critics can get. What, do you want to him to criticize XKCD with the ultimate goal of solving poverty? <i>That would be silly</i>.<br /><br />you don't like me? but i like you... now you have made me sad :( :( :(<br /><br />And my ideology is that free speech is more important than letting tyranny and censorship prevail just because somebody's afraid of somebody's feeling getting hurt. See? I can baselessly link this to a larger ideological issue in an attempt to scramble for ethos too!<br /><br />Two facts: 1) I am in Shanghai, and thus it is early evening here and not morning. 2) I speak Latin, thus I can tell you that the "ad" you stuck before "verbatim" is entirely unnecessary. Were you perhaps trying to say "ad nauseam"? So, I've just beaten you on two technicalities <i>meaning I have beaten your argument as a whole. Ha ha. I win. You lose.</i><br /><br />You just hate us and want us to know you hate us? Shit, son! Those seem like pretty <i>malicious intentions</i> to me! It's almost like you're criticizing something without intending to help it, but rather just to point out that you hate the effort somebody has put into something! And that's terrible.<br /><br />Also, Rob, I think he has pretty much checkmated you by admitting he has no arguments and is just here to be a prick baselessly. Oh no we have looooooost<br /><br />@Carl: It is indeed a good song. Though to be honest, I picked the name more because of how pretentious it makes me sound. <i>I think it's working!</i>Napoleon In Ragshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17431599369752601413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-10820161588369906172009-07-04T23:48:53.835-07:002009-07-04T23:48:53.835-07:00If you need me to jump in, Napoleon, just say so. ...If you need me to jump in, Napoleon, just say so. Have I mentioned that I totally know where your username is from and it's an awesome song?Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-3335501718657302892009-07-04T23:44:57.199-07:002009-07-04T23:44:57.199-07:00Okay, let's have a look Napoleon.
Weighting s...Okay, let's have a look Napoleon.<br /><br />Weighting sense of humour, no. Please don`t even try that. People don`t critique other people`s sense of humour. They critique the humour itself. Being a pompous, pumped up person and saying "My sense of humour is better than your's" is being a jerk.<br /><br />All of the points I brought up (Obvious, not obvious enough etc.) can be brought up for EVERY piece of humour. Perspectives matter, but some people just love to think that theirs matters more. I defy you to try finding a humorous instance of anything that can't be refuted by that list.<br /><br />Okay, moving on. He doesn't deserve to be shot for criticizing XKCD, he deserves to shot for his choice of hobby. Listen, chances are, Randall spent a lot of time on his comics (Regardless of what this blog might say, I'd still wager over a hundred hours at least). Does it not seem in terrible taste to criticize someone's endeavours like that? But, obviously, not caring is what this blog is about, right? (I'm sounding fanboy-ish now. Rest assured, I'd defend anyone's efforts. Part of the reason I'm saying not to tear down this blog.)<br /><br />Let's keep going. You seem to think that being a critic justifies what you do. "I can slam a comic, but (Puts on critic hat) I'm a critic," followed by a decisive look. Ultimately, all these reviews do are tell the comic that it's not funny, and Randall should get off the block and make way for new blood. Good critics don't (at least shouldn't, blahblah, idealist, etc.) do that, 'scuse me as I say, good critics try to have good intentions. (If you do, disregard this, but as I have seen so far, what good intentions?) If not, well, back to square one of me loathing you.<br /><br />More fun stuff to come, isn't there. I really don't care if other people have made other arguments, very similar to mine. Hopefully, and I really hope I get the point across, I don't like you, right up to the point of loathe. (Ultimately, trying to chalk another one up for "People who don't like me".)<br /><br />Some might say I'm being too righteous, or that the world can't live in peace, and maybe you're just the least of the evils. I'm too idealistic for that. So far, though, Napoleon, I'm going to stand by my ideology, which really has yet to be refuted, that to criticize other people's sense of humour isn't right. (Maybe I AM bringing up subjectivity, unfortunately, this is valid grounds for that. Screw you people with your damn objective lenses, cause humour and sense of humour are not measurable)<br /><br />I'm almost done writing on your blogspace, arguing with you has been a pleasure. Anyway, I'm going to bring the final part to the table, unless you decide to keep on arguing till morning, and by then, we'll just be repeating arguments ad verbatim won't we? <br /><br />Rambling aside, what do I intend to accomplish, you've asked. Assuming you read, my point among this whole thing was not to shutdown this blog. Maybe you'll recognize, even with your selective lenses, that I just <b> loathe </b> people like you. (You probably don't care, or maybe you might like knowing that you're a person who I'd love to trip and laugh at. Loathe me for it? More hate to go around, best of both worlds isn't it?) Changing you isn't my goal, and, in my limited experience, no one changes over an internet comment. I'm just going to drive it home now, I dislike you. Hopefully, you'll just take it and shut up, because there's nothing to argue there, unless you really want me to like you (and, that would just be cheesy.) <br /><br />Finally Rob, the unfortunate part with calling me a cuddlefish is you're probably going to have to rework that definition now, cause if you decide to argue (and it's really hard to argue with a statement like, I hate your guts), I'm not going to back down. (Unless you decide to play some pansy game like, not say anything for six months, reply to my comment, and then go lolcuddlefish.) See you if you argue, otherwise, I'm likely not to come back. (Good riddance, rite?)Sulphericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-49548512665463772342009-07-04T21:48:22.762-07:002009-07-04T21:48:22.762-07:00I mean yeah, we've all done it so much before....I mean yeah, we've all done it so much before. Good to let other people try.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-48106312006338351822009-07-04T21:45:46.365-07:002009-07-04T21:45:46.365-07:00no it's cool, we like to let everyone have a t...no it's cool, we like to let everyone have a turn snarking at the idiot "um why don't you guys get a life" cuddlefishrshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-15273091232089731812009-07-04T21:27:41.549-07:002009-07-04T21:27:41.549-07:00oh god what have i become
have i become a fun ste...oh god what have i become<br /><br />have i become a fun stealerNapoleon In Ragshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17431599369752601413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-21289857725373827122009-07-04T21:22:02.593-07:002009-07-04T21:22:02.593-07:00I think your friend and mine Napoleon got this one...I think your friend and mine Napoleon got this one Carl. But you can have the next one if you want. I don't want to steal all the fun.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-42636044869361458872009-07-04T21:20:10.378-07:002009-07-04T21:20:10.378-07:00No, sir. Whoever tries weighting senses of humor i...No, sir. Whoever tries weighting senses of humor is a critic. There are plenty of them, and some are even famous! If they raise good points, it is generally wise to listen to them. So please stop trying to be Alexander Pope, because you're not very good at it.<br /><br />And, of course, banging your "everything's subjective!" drum just makes you look like a petulant devil's advocate who has no idea what he's talking about. Note the list of Carl's criticisms you brought up: can you refute any of them? Can you point to any of them and say "no, this doesn't prevent the comic from being unfunny"? Can you do that for all of them?<br /><br />If not, you're swapping all your logos for bargain-basement pathos (i'm pretentious, amirite) and pretty much crying out "it's not FAIR that he's criticizing XKCD! It's not FAIR and he should be SHOT and he's a SOCIETAL DRAIN because he spends maybe half an hour tops every few days discussing flaws in a comic strip!"<br /><br />If you wanna play that game, that deplorable "If you have an opinion, you should NEVER TELL IT EVER because that makes you a Satan" game, go tell the same thing you just told Carl to every critic who's ever slammed something you like. And then, to every other critic too, just to prevent being a hypocrite. You're not a hypocrite, right?<br /><br />Seriously, now, this blog's been up and running for a very decent amount of time! Did you think nobody had thought of criticizing it before? Did you think nobody had thought of criticizing it with better-formulated arguments before? If so, that's a pretty stunning display of unwarranted arrogance, buddy! If not... what did you think you were going to accomplish, you SOCIETAL DRAIN? Aaauauuggghh I am so mad at you on the internet.<br /><br />P.S. Oh wait he invited criticism in his last line, this means all my criticism is invalid because he's already ready to dismiss it on invalid grounds oh noooooooooNapoleon In Ragshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17431599369752601413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-90973576735035424862009-07-04T21:16:50.264-07:002009-07-04T21:16:50.264-07:00should I take this one? Rob, you want to do it? I ...should I take this one? Rob, you want to do it? I can get it if needed.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-60492837717350622122009-07-04T19:06:12.905-07:002009-07-04T19:06:12.905-07:00Introduction: I've read through quite a bit of...Introduction: I've read through quite a bit of these reviews, now I'm going to comment. That's all.<br /><br />When I read your reviews, I look at how you judge "funny." Well, carefully looking, you've done what many others do to comedy, point out a stupid flaw and declaring "AHA, it's not funny,"<br /><br />Let's see what you've harped on before in your reviews...<br />Unrealistic dialogue/situation, too realistic (in the sense that if it could happen, it shouldn't in a comic) dialogue/situation, obvious jokes, jokes you don't get, sex related humour, romance related humour, wikipedia related humour, bad artistry, unclear artistry, art choice, laziness, too intelligent, not intelligent enough, and, this list doesn't stop.<br /><br />WHY? Because you've become so used to hating this comic that the first thing you do when you look at it is disect it for the smallest of problems. Oh guess what, maybe it's funny if YOU LET IT BE FUNNY. (How do I know? I don't, but, assuming you're human, you'll be subjected to biases, even if you decide to inflict them on yourself).<br /><br />Furthermore, the point of your articles are completely innane. You try to PROVE something's not funny. HOLY JESUS, I can't believe I had to write that out. Attempting to prove stuff isn't funny is incredibly stupid, because laughter comes naturally. If something isn't funny, it's obvious. If something is, equally obvious. So unless you're trying to prove that other's sense of humour is inferior to yours, you have no point. (And whoever tries weighting sense of humour deserves to be shot).<br /><br />So, what's my point? (And take from this what you will, if you enjoy being thought of a societal drain, fine by me) I think you should get a life that doesn't involve parasiting on another person's hobby or lifestyle. However, I do not expect you to change, at all, so, let me segue into this new point. I loathe you and your hobby as you try to belittle someone else's efforts, and that's just disgusting.<br /><br />Long post over. Have fun doing to this exactly what you do to comics, and try to find the worst thing about it and griping on and on about it.Sulphericnoreply@blogger.com