THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: jwhouk on 30 Dec 2012, 06:50

Title: WCDT: 2352-2356 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 30 Dec 2012, 06:50
New year, new week, new times!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 30 Dec 2012, 07:11
I want more Sven.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 30 Dec 2012, 07:16
I imagine your avatar saying that...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 30 Dec 2012, 07:23
Bejesus, I want more Sven, FELLA!

Fixed my post for me.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 30 Dec 2012, 15:14
This strip needs a pogo stick.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 30 Dec 2012, 20:04
 He became a creepy guy without the control of Naughty Dog. (?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Melauren on 30 Dec 2012, 20:53
*cough*browneyespanelfive*cough*
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 30 Dec 2012, 21:25
Hmm... Randy eats hope at a hospital? She must be on a diet...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: BariumBlue on 30 Dec 2012, 22:02
Sweet-tits's (Harriet's?) eyes magically changed color! The powers of a bandicoot are truely amazing.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Yarin on 30 Dec 2012, 22:07
i love randy
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 31 Dec 2012, 03:43
So Randy is a tapir now?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: sitnspin on 31 Dec 2012, 04:12
Hmm... Randy eats hope at a hospital? She must be on a diet...

False hope is still hope, just with fewer calories.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 31 Dec 2012, 04:49
Hmm... Randy eats hope at a hospital? She must be on a diet...

Either that or he's in the maternity ward, not ICU.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 31 Dec 2012, 04:50
Happy New Year to all - even those of you now nursing your first hangover and regretting the first bad decision of 2013.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: LordVaughn on 31 Dec 2012, 05:13
"Randy, Hope Devourer" was the first thing that popped into my head. Now I could see it as a Magic card. Planeswalker, of course.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 31 Dec 2012, 06:28
I imagine Randy poops skulls...yup.

"Randy, Hope Devourer" was the first thing that popped into my head. Now I could see it as a Magic card. Planeswalker, of course.

"Randy, Hope Devourer"
Type: Planeswalker, Randy
Cost: 3BBG
Loyalty: 3
Randy, Hope Devourer counts as a Black/Green Bandicoot creature. It cannot block as a creature.
+2: Place a +1/+1 Black Bandicoot Token with flying onto the battlefield.
-1: All Bandicoots have Undying until the beginning of your next turn.
-9: Deal damage equal to twice the number of Bandicoots you control to your opponent and all creatures he or she controls.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 31 Dec 2012, 06:49
(http://imgur.com/dFelS.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: riccostar on 31 Dec 2012, 07:43
I tried to warn y'all about Randy but now look where we are  :oops:  I knew I saw him abouve that funeral home last week...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 31 Dec 2012, 07:57
There's even less hope at a funeral home than at a hospital...

I saw him at a graduation ceremony once, gorging himself. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: riccostar on 31 Dec 2012, 10:55
Wait am I the only one who feels hopeful after the sadness of a funeral...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 31 Dec 2012, 13:09
Randy is weird.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mark7 on 31 Dec 2012, 15:16
Is Harriet suffering from some form of psychosis?  :-\
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 31 Dec 2012, 15:26
Maybe there's so little hope at your hospital because Randy ate it all?

What does hope taste like with peanut butter, anyway?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 31 Dec 2012, 15:48
Hope is sweet, that's why it goes with peanut butter so well. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: mustang6172 on 31 Dec 2012, 21:15
Why is Skullmaster, Master of Skulls, holding a broadsword instead of a war ladle?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 31 Dec 2012, 21:32
Because she is.

Happy New Years all.  And to Jeph, a good night.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 31 Dec 2012, 23:35
Puny mortal! Skullmaster, Master of Skulls feeds upon the living and has no use for ladles!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: sitnspin on 01 Jan 2013, 00:51
Skullmaster deserves her own comic series. Skullmaster would destroy the puny mortal comics and reign supreme as the one true comic.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: techkid on 01 Jan 2013, 01:25
Skullmaster, Master of Skulls is very thorough. Not even a trace that the previous year was there!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 01 Jan 2013, 01:51
Happy new year, everyone! It's been a great year, and I'd like to thank both my fellow mods for bringing me on and doing a great job with the forum.  Let's hope 2013 is a great year for the forum, QC and Jeph!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mad Cat on 01 Jan 2013, 08:31
Sam's wearing the same clothes she was the last time we saw her, when Faye called her "ripe."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 01 Jan 2013, 11:38
There's a certain age when you simply cannot convince a teenager to wash him/herself.  And favorite clothes are favorites, right up until they either self destruct or walk away of their own volition...
Title: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 01 Jan 2013, 12:07
Like a certain pair of leather pants worn by a certain ex-goth.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 01 Jan 2013, 15:07
There's a certain age when you simply cannot convince a teenager to wash him/herself.

You can always show them that they're becoming exponentially unattractive to their peers/crushes...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 01 Jan 2013, 15:57
Unfortunately, it's usually the age right before they start caring about any of that. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 01 Jan 2013, 17:13
Skullmaster is a servant of Morgoth.


Happy (belated) New Year folks.   :)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: mustang6172 on 01 Jan 2013, 17:20
There's a certain age when you simply cannot convince a teenager to wash him/herself.

You can always show them that they're becoming exponentially unattractive to their peers/crushes...

I believe I was about 15 when I finally came to accept the correlation between bathing and cleanliness may actually be rooted in a causation.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 01 Jan 2013, 18:29
Skullmaster is a servant of Morgoth.

I feel a certain Silmarillionic joy at that sentence.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 01 Jan 2013, 18:43
2013! What are you looking forward to this year?

Many laughs, good discussion, great friends and a happy new year!    4 (12.9%)
Another big storyline and character development.    2 (6.5%)
Faye's mom and sis return!    1 (3.2%)
Raven! More Raven!    2 (6.5%)
PENELOPE!!!    0 (0%)
That wedding we've been talking about.    0 (0%)
Marigold!    1 (3.2%)
EMILY!!!!!    5 (16.1%)
More AnthroPC hijinks (and character development)!    1 (3.2%)
Claire's backstory!    4 (12.9%)
No more hand issues from Jeph.    6 (19.4%)
Spathe Ham and Waffles!    1 (3.2%)
MOAR MEMES!    0 (0%)
Whatever it is - it's gonna be GOOD.    4 (12.9%)

Total Members Voted: 31
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 01 Jan 2013, 19:23
Skullmaster is a servant of Morgoth.
I'm pretty sure you have that backwards.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 01 Jan 2013, 19:30
Skullmaster is Randy's lord and master.   
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Jan 2013, 20:26
Have you ever tried to vanquish a leap year with a war ladle?

It's harder than it sounds.

I've heard.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 01 Jan 2013, 20:41
(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090324after.gif)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lazurii on 01 Jan 2013, 23:44
You know, I've been really digging Faye's outfit for this arc so far.  I should take some pointers, having a Fayesque body myself.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 01 Jan 2013, 23:49
Quote
no babies in my comic

no babies

Um, didn't we see the baby pictures of Marten?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: tdm88 on 02 Jan 2013, 00:03
Hmm I would have pegged Faye as the absolutely no kids type and Dora as the "maybe someday" one. So I guess Faye and Angus will have to have a conversation at some point at least to find out where the other stands.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 02 Jan 2013, 00:12
I don't see Faye and Angus having kids any time soon, not least because of the speed that comic time runs at. It also removes some opportunities to be mean to Marten.

Of course, it opens up a few more as well.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: idontunderstand on 02 Jan 2013, 01:19
I literally don't know anyone who doesn't ever want to have kids. Most people I know are more like "someday, who knows". And there's also a few "right now, can't wait". But the opposite side of the spectrum I've never met.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: gopher on 02 Jan 2013, 01:29
Nice to see Faye being the grown up. I tend to be suspicious of anyone who uses absolute statements like never, they often protest too much.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: techkid on 02 Jan 2013, 01:47
I literally don't know anyone who doesn't ever want to have kids. Most people I know are more like "someday, who knows". And there's also a few "right now, can't wait". But the opposite side of the spectrum I've never met.
I agree with Dora's "Screaming little shitmachines" comment. Noooo thanks!

I wish any and all children all the happiness, guidance and care that the world can offer them, just so long as they stay the hell away from me.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 02 Jan 2013, 01:55
Hehehehe it's not like Jeph has an option... His characters are alive and do whatever they want wohoooooooooooo  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 02 Jan 2013, 02:21
One of my three brothers and his wife made the decision that they wouldn't add to the worlds population.  He put his money where his reproductive organs are and had a vasectomy. 

One of my other brothers had two boys.  His wife's catholic, they wanted more, but both boys were autistic to different degrees, and so they decided against more. 

My wife and I wanted a large family as well.  After two extraordinarily harrowing caesarians to have our two daughters, we decided not to abuse her body any further. 

....and my youngest brother's over 40 and has never had a serious relationship (except with a bass).  I literally have no idea if he even gives family a thought.  Ever. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 02 Jan 2013, 03:56
Awww, and here I wanted to see a pregnancy arc...not. I have nothing against pregnancy, I just think it will open up too many cans of worms, or Jeph will use the "Hand of the Wrathful God-Writer" and kill the child before birth, one way or another. I'd rather not go down that path.


Skullmaster is a servant of Morgoth.
I'm pretty sure you have that backwards.
Sauron was a servant of Morgoth...it didn't stop him from doing whatever the hell he wanted, including terrorizing Middle Earth, trying to turn all the elves into orcs, starting up a gluten-free bakery to raise awareness of his condition, and creating the One Ring.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: sitnspin on 02 Jan 2013, 04:08
I literally don't know anyone who doesn't ever want to have kids. Most people I know are more like "someday, who knows". And there's also a few "right now, can't wait". But the opposite side of the spectrum I've never met.

Nice to meet you, you just met one. I honestly do not understand the desire to have kids at all. It is such an alien concept to me, that I literally can not wrap my head around it. I suppose it is good for the species that those people exist, but I don't get it it. Kids are awful, messy, and loud. It takes every ounce of energy just to keep them from dying the first few years and it just gets worse after that. And every video of a birth I have ever seen makes me say "Hell no am I letting my vag get ripped open by an a screaming bloody alien-looking thing like that."

I would never wish ill on a child, I was one myself once upon a time and I know the damage a shitty life can wreck, but neither do I want one anywhere near me. I babysat a niece once, and that was enough for me.


Then again,  I don't even want the responsibility of owning a pet.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 02 Jan 2013, 04:57
I think a lot of people who say "I don't want to have children" base that on seeing the awful children other people raise. If you can identify the behaviour you don't like (screaming, making a mess, being generally unpleasant) then you can deal with it when they're your own. Most bad kids are just the product of bad parenting.

That said, I don't think everyone should want to have kids and certainly not everyone should have them. It's a big commitment! And it requires specific skills and character qualities. I know I'd make a good mother. I know I'd make a shitty surgeon. It's the same type of decision.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 02 Jan 2013, 05:22
Well, I have a son, and it was the best thing ever to happen to me.

Emphasis on best thing ever to happen to me. I know better than to generalize my own experience to everyone else. Some people aren't cut out for parenthood.

And I'm glad we won't be seeing a silly arc where we wonder if Angus is really the father of Faye's baby, or if it's the result of a drunken one-night stand with Pintsize.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ihaveavoice on 02 Jan 2013, 05:37
I think a lot of people who say "I don't want to have children" base that on seeing the awful children other people raise. If you can identify the behaviour you don't like (screaming, making a mess, being generally unpleasant) then you can deal with it when they're your own. Most bad kids are just the product of bad parenting.

This is very much not the case for me - I generally like children, though not nearly as much as they like me, and am very good with them. Too good, because it leads to "you'll make a great mother" type comments, to which I always reply, either out loud or in my head, "or cool aunt." While I do like kids, I don't want to be around them for longer than a babysitting gig lasts, no matter how cool any specific child is. I have no desire to go through pregnancy, childbirth, caring for an infant or having a kid to care for after that.

The only scenario in which me having a kid is a happy thing in my head is the very specific future timeline in which I become a very good friend's egg donor, visit every so often and only ever get more involved than that when the kid's old enough to have conversations - also, this involvement does not extend to me having to do any heavy-lifting raising of the kid - I just take her places sometimes, show her to my family and teach her valuable lessons about life. (It's always a she. I guess if the child was born male, I'd just be like, well, I can't have a Ya-Ya Sisterhood of secrets with THAT. Seeya!  :psyduck:) And the reason my egg is even used instead of a more convenient arrangement where I befriend a niece or other child? Just so I can be like, "There, I've passed on my genes, now STFU EVERYONE." So basically, this particular subset of daydreams isn't about me having a kid - it's about me imagining a way to refuse to do what society/my family wants me to do with my uterus/life while never being penalized for it. "Look, I'm involved in her life! I brought her to dinner! I totes did the kid thing so leave me alone."

So yeah, it's ridiculously late and I may have rambled or may have made sense, I don't really know, but the point is: I like kids but do not want any of my own. I face annoying pressure to (and patronizing insistence that, as being female removes my say in all matters, I WILL) change my mind about this when I get older. I keep seeing media be all "every woman wants children or HATES AND FEARS THEM" and as a result will idly make up futures in my mind every once in awhile where I can be off the hook for not working how I'm "supposed to." I therefore would like to refute the assumption that people who don't want kids just think they're all "bad kids" judging by some observed bad behavior. (Not saying you were making that generalization about ALL people who don't want kids, just have to address it. You are awesome, BTW, for not prescribing your choices as The One Right Way for everyone else.) It's quite possible to find kids silly and fun rather than thinking they're screaming poop machines and still have no desire to raise one!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Black Sword on 02 Jan 2013, 06:38
Anti-children attitudes make me go  :psyduck:

Seriously. I can get being pissed at poorly raised children, but using that as a basis to dislike children in general and want to avoid them, let alone not to want to have any? It perplexes me.

Of course, at this point my consternation is merely an academic point, since I don't have anyone to even discuss having kids with. (there needs to be an XD smiley on QC)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 02 Jan 2013, 07:03
Did anyone get the feeling that a.) we've had this conversation in-strip before, and b.) this conversation could have been held 1,000 strips previous and the reaction would have been the same?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 02 Jan 2013, 07:15
You would know if it's been in-strip before or not - I don't recall it ever coming up.  But yes, as a topic it seems character-defined (rather than defining), in that the reactions of those involved don't seem like they'd change even if the people themselves changed. 

You may be thinking of the maternal instinct comic that someone brought up, where Dora mentioned that she'd probably eat her young.  I think that's as close as we've gotten. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Cambyses on 02 Jan 2013, 07:27
I don't think people who don't want to have kids are "anti-kid" necessarily. I would love to have kids some day, but with the laundry list of congenital health problems in my family (diabetes, obesity, tendencies towards substance abuse, autism, schizophrenia and many more!) subjecting another human being to the lifelong risk of winding up with one or more (likely more) of these just to have a little mind that I can mold and shape in my image seems unbelievably selfish and callous.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: TheCollyWolly on 02 Jan 2013, 07:50
I see a fight brewing... I really hope Jeph doesn't write Angus out. I like that guy.

On a side note, my girlfriend and I have pretty much decided kids ain't for us. I don't think we're cut out to be parents, and those shits are expensive.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 02 Jan 2013, 08:46
Why would a fight start? Angus seems like he'd want to have kids someday.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 02 Jan 2013, 08:51
Great Leader, are babies not necessary for maintaining the DPRQC? Surely your personal Childfree feelings should be kept out of the propaganda Daily Entertainment Comics of the Web.

Okay, I'm kind of tired of squeezing into this, I'll change my avatar back at the end of the week.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 02 Jan 2013, 09:42
Dora's mentioned her lack of desire for wanting children before. Can't find the strip but I remember when she was asked about babies she mentioned her uterus curling in on itself like a millipede in response. I assumed Faye would have the same opinion but it's neat to see her view of, "Maybe, maybe not." Considering her past she seems she could be a fun, Make The Most Of Every Moment type but over-protective mum.

I personally have never wanted children. There's no real reason other than I Don't Want To.

Edit: Millipede uterus. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1672) I couldn't find it at first because I thought it was said way earlier for some reason. Plus she said she didn't like babies to Jim. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1960)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 02 Jan 2013, 09:43
Why would a fight start? Angus seems like he'd want to have kids someday.

Maybe so, but Angus could be trying to agree with her on the "someday" part and have it go horribly wrong. Since when does a fight have to be about something rational, especially where Faye is involved?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 02 Jan 2013, 09:48
Dora was quite emphatic about not having kids.

Faye would be a better aunt than a mother.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: idontunderstand on 02 Jan 2013, 09:50
No, I'm sure Faye would be a great mother. Someday.  :-P
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 02 Jan 2013, 10:59
There are lots of good reasons not to have children, and all the ones mentioned so far seem reasonable. Frankly if you don't actually want to have them, I think you shouldn't - we have far too many people on this planet to have more just for the sake of appeasing social expectations.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 02 Jan 2013, 11:46
I get bugged when I'm asked to further justify my lack of desire for children. I usually want to say, "Surely there should be more reasons needed for having children rather than just wanting them because? Just wanting a child doesn't mean it's a good idea to have one. Not wanting a child is a very good reason to not have one since if you don't want to be responsible for another living being for the rest of your/their life, they'd probably ended up resented against at the least."

~~

On the comic, I kind of like and dislike Dora's reaction to Faye at the same time. It's more than surprised and kinda dramatic.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 02 Jan 2013, 12:34
I personally have never wanted children. There's no real reason other than I Don't Want To.
That's a perfectly cromulent reason.
Millipede uterus. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1672)
Ha, I was wondering if today's comic was Jeph's way of letting people know he never intended to have kids, but then I saw that his post for the quoted comic was "man I can't wait to get my vasectomy" (which he may have since had? I dunno) so I guess no little Jephs.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: sitnspin on 02 Jan 2013, 12:41
I get bugged when I'm asked to further justify my lack of desire for children. I usually want to say, "Surely there should be more reasons needed for having children rather than just wanting them because? Just wanting a child doesn't mean it's a good idea to have one. Not wanting a child is a very good reason to not have one since if you don't want to be responsible for another living being for the rest of your/their life, they'd probably ended up resented against at the least."


Thank you. I was an accident, my parents were not looking to have a kid, and they ended up being rather horrible at the parenting thing. They are dead now, and while on a certain level I miss them, there is still a whole lot of resentment left over.  I don't want to have kids, and while I have plenty of justification for not wanting them, the lack of desire alone seems a good enough reason to not do so.

The fact that, given my sexual orientation, becoming pregnant would involve an expensive and lengthy ordeal only adds to weight to it. Adoption is an alternative that is also lengthy and expensive.

Personally, I find the apparent need for many people with children to tell us non-breeders to tell us how awesome it is to be a parent and to ask how we could possibly NOT want to have them or to ask the "So when are YOU going to have a kid?" to be  bit obnoxious. I don't tell people not to have kids, all I ask is that they don't try to pressure me into it.

I don't mind being an "aunt" though. I am an only child, but there are a few kids out there who think of me as an aunt because of my relationship with their parents.

Related to the comic: I don't find it all that surprising that Faye would consider the possibility of having kids someday. Beneath the prickly sarcastic armor, Faye is a fun-loving gal and rather child-like in her enthusiasm and rather protective of her family of friends. I could see her being a great mom: loyal, protective, and attentive. The messy bits would drive her nuts, as they do with all parents (I assume), but playing with the kid and teaching it to get by in the world (in her own cynical way) I think she would really enjoy.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 02 Jan 2013, 13:49
Found it!  Mom nom nom (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1317). 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Overkillengine on 02 Jan 2013, 15:40
There are lots of good reasons not to have children, and all the ones mentioned so far seem reasonable. Frankly if you don't actually want to have them, I think you shouldn't - we have far too many people on this planet to have more just for the sake of appeasing social expectations.

/scrooge paraphrase butchery

If they'd rather not, then they had better not do it and decrease the surplus population.


But yes, having children is a huge responsibility that should not be taken on trivially. I see so many people my age spawning without thought; or thinking the child will bring them some sort of fulfillment; or will make someone else happy, or fix their destined to fail relationship...and all I can feel is pity for the poor child subjected to that, and resolve not to make that mistake myself.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 02 Jan 2013, 16:50
Generally speaking, I quite like other people's kids. That's all I'll say on that topic.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 02 Jan 2013, 19:04
Faye would be a better aunt than a mother.

She already is, to Sam...pretty much. She's the cool aunt that spoils the kids and pisses off their parents in the process. Aww yeah...

My aunt watches Cow and Chicken. she's the cool aunt. 8)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 02 Jan 2013, 19:41
Is my memory playing tricks on me?

Is there a strip in which Dora says that Faye would eat her own young?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: henri bemis on 02 Jan 2013, 20:46
I quite like kids, especially when they're older, but I don't want any of my own.  I've already got two young half-siblings and a niece that I love spending time with.  But the idea of being pregnant creeps me out, and I'm sure I'd hate every second of it (I know some women who love it, and that's great for them!  It's just not for me), and since I don't really have any desire to reproduce, why bother finding out?  When I'm older, and if I ever have the money and time, I could see myself fostering or adopting older kids, and I've always assumed I'd take in my siblings if anything happened to my parents (I'd be the only family that could), but I fully intend to keep my own uterus unoccupied.

I think Faye would make a rad mom.  She's obviously not planning to get pregnant right now, just keeping her options open because she isn't sure yet.  I get that.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 02 Jan 2013, 21:55
Faye would need to develop a longer fuse if she were to be a good parent.

If she treated a toddler the way she does Pintsize, there would be issues and repercussions.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 02 Jan 2013, 22:18
Is my memory playing tricks on me?

Is there a strip in which Dora says that Faye would eat her own young?

I don't think so, but there's one where Dora says she'd eat her own young.  I cited it four posts before you asked. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 03 Jan 2013, 01:53
Anti-children attitudes make me go  :psyduck:
I'm not anti-children. I'm anti the massively unbalanced social and economic impact of having children on women. There is not much we can do about the fundamentals of biology, or the way the still-considerable medical risks of child-bearing fall almost exclusively on women, but economic policy and social status are matters of choice. When I read articles like this (http://www.economist.com/node/5577379), and this (http://www.economist.com/node/15174489), having kids really does not seem a good bet.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 03 Jan 2013, 03:41
No comic today?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 03 Jan 2013, 03:43
And somehow by posting that I FIXED IT.   :-o
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 03 Jan 2013, 03:50
This might be better in the DISCUSS forum but still...

Quote from: The first article Akima linked
Women are making the wrong choices early in their careers

Now that, I find offensive. I am one of those women making a career choice that will lead to a fairly poorly-paid job, and hopefully I will be taking time out from that job in order to raise children. It is the right choice for me. I'm 100% behind the idea that women ought to be paid the same amount as men (and that traditionally "female" jobs like, for instance, midwifery, teaching, administrative work and shop work should be paid at an equal level to comparable "male" jobs like being a doctor, construction, being a solicitor and accountancy) but I find that sentence to be suggesting that it is women's own fault if they don't make a shitton of money because they made the wrong choice. I should not have to choose between doing a job I would be good at and enjoy, and having a decent wage.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 03 Jan 2013, 04:11
Diapers - nothing more fun than watching someone change a newborn's diaper for the first time.

Newbie:  "This isn't so tough, don't know what the problem is...Oh My Sweet?!?  This kid just drinks milk - where the hell did all this green stuff come from?!?"

Baby:  "Goo" (while looking so cute and helpless that it is nearly impossible to contemplate running away in terror)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 03 Jan 2013, 04:39
It just occurred to me that possibly the last time that Dora, Faye and Marten were all bouncing off one another like this, was just before the break-up. It's been too long. :)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Near Lurker on 03 Jan 2013, 04:40
(and that traditionally "female" jobs like, for instance, midwifery, teaching, administrative work and shop work should be paid at an equal level to comparable "male" jobs like being a doctor, construction, being a solicitor and accountancy)

Now hang on - look at what you're asking.  In terms of the required skills, administration isn't really comparable to accountancy.  While the same isn't true of shop work vs. construction, a construction site, no matter how well managed, should be worlds more dangerous than a properly run shop.  These two became "female" professions due to a low estimation of women, not the other way around.  As for the one that if anything stems from a mystic overestimate of women, midwifery, how necessary or useful it is at all is an open question, but it can't be denied that it's a highly specialized skillset compared to the much broader knowledge base required of nurses and doctors.

(Teachers and lawyers... well, that's a more interesting one.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 03 Jan 2013, 04:57
I am responding to Barymoo and At the risk of kicking over a bee-hive here:

I have yet, in all the years I've worked, to meet a woman who is willing to work on an equal level as her male counterpart.

"I'm sorry I can't do that it smells bad."

"Oh that's icky,  do it for me."

"I'm having *issue* due to ____,  I need accommodation."

And the ever popular  using flirting/sex-appeal to get people to foist work off on others... along with the ever popular pretend-harassment/everything-is-offensive-accommodate-me types.   This applies equally to office-work, as well as manufacturing and fabrication work

This is a cross-section of the population numbering in the thousands,  it is across 20+ years of working,  and my observations are backed up by many others across the region, state, country, internet.

Women want true equality?    Stop being a weasel,  roll up your sleeves and grease that drive-shaft.    Yes it smells nasty.   Yes you have to lift/twist/bend.   Yes it can be interpreted as an innuendo.    Get over it and get the job done then we'll talk equal pay.

I'm sure there are women out there who are more than willing to work as a true equal,  I just haven't met any.   :)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 03 Jan 2013, 05:03
I am responding to Barymoo and At the risk of kicking over a bee-hive here:

I have yet, in all the years I've worked, to meet a woman who is willing to work on an equal level as her male counterpart.

"I'm sorry I can't do that it smells bad."

"Oh that's icky,  do it for me."

"I'm having *issue* due to ____,  I need accommodation."

And the ever popular  using flirting/sex-appeal to get people to foist work off on others... along with the ever popular pretend-harassment/everything-is-offensive-accommodate-me types.   This applies equally to office-work, as well as manufacturing and fabrication work

This is a cross-section of the population numbering in the thousands,  it is across 20+ years of working,  and my observations are backed up by many others across the region, state, country, internet.

Women want true equality?    Stop being a weasel,  roll up your sleeves and grease that drive-shaft.    Yes it smells nasty.   Yes you have to lift/twist/bend.   Yes it can be interpreted as an innuendo.    Get over it and get the job done then we'll talk equal pay.

I'm sure there are women out there who are more than willing to work as a true equal,  I just haven't met any.   :)

I find your four spaces between sentences, and two after commas, very offensive. Off to the Kwalliso with you.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 03 Jan 2013, 05:41
I giggled, but... How large is the age-gap between Faye and her sister (who'd just failed her first year at college the last time we saw her, so 19-ish then, I suppose)? Faye's in her mid-twenties, so six or seven years? I wonder how many seven-year-olds are changing nappies?

Now that, I find offensive.
It set my teeth on edge too, but the article was discussing a government report that only addressed income inequality, and reasons for it, not job-satisfaction, self-actualisation or any of the other nice things at the top of Maslow's pyramid. Until all jobs are equally paid (unlikely and probably undesirable), making choices that lead to lower-paid employment is foolish, if the only thing you care about is the wage.

Stop being a weasel,  roll up your sleeves and grease that drive-shaft.    Yes it smells nasty.   Yes you have to lift/twist/bend.   Yes it can be interpreted as an innuendo.    Get over it and get the job done then we'll talk equal pay.
Stop being a bully, stop assuming that only men are entitled to define the working environment, stop demanding that women accommodate men while offering no accommodation in return, and then we'll talk about whether anything other than bigoted contempt is being offered.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 03 Jan 2013, 05:55
Ahem... DISCUSS, please?

And you guys are missing the big reveal!

Marten's an ONLY CHILD, y'all! It's CANON, baby!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: hakko504 on 03 Jan 2013, 06:02
Diapers - nothing more fun than watching someone change a newborn's diaper for the first time.

Newbie:  "This isn't so tough, don't know what the problem is...Oh My Sweet?!?  This kid just drinks milk - where the hell did all this green stuff come from?!?"

Baby:  "Goo" (while looking so cute and helpless and aiming it's stream of p** into newbie's face)
Fixed.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 03 Jan 2013, 06:05
... Marten's an only child as far as he knows. Veronica's a little hazy on the subject.

I was thinking that I'd feel sorry for Sven the next time he walks into CoD except for:
a.) He's less likely to have changed Dora (two-year age gap) than Faye to have done similar service for Amanda; and
b.) If he had, he'd make some snarky comment about infant Dora's diaper region, finally receiving his Faye-supplied beatin'.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 03 Jan 2013, 06:08
Anti-children attitudes make me go  :psyduck:
I'm not anti-children. I'm anti the massively unbalanced social and economic impact of having children on women. There is not much we can do about the fundamentals of biology, or the way the still-considerable medical risks of child-bearing fall almost exclusively on women, but economic policy and social status are matters of choice. When I read articles like this (http://www.economist.com/node/5577379), and this (http://www.economist.com/node/15174489), having kids really does not seem a good bet.
That's where the whole marriage thing comes in handy, providing an extra person to support the kid/s. On the general topic of income inequality, I always feel the distinction is often not made clear between people being paid differently for the same work (we've both spent 5 years delivering mail, why does he get paid 2 dollars more than I do?) and being paid differently for different work (I'm a nurse, she's a doctor, she makes much more than me), which are entirely different issues.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 03 Jan 2013, 07:17
Marten's an ONLY CHILD, y'all! It's CANON, baby!

I just kinda assumed...wow, was that really not defined up until now? :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 03 Jan 2013, 07:54
Actually, it's made pretty clear here (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=436), and in the next one where she says she doesn't have any illegitimate children either.  Any doubt expressed in the forum is just people riffing on the remark about the years before Marten's birth being a bit of a blur.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 03 Jan 2013, 07:58
I'm sure there are women out there who are more than willing to work as a true equal,  I just haven't met any.   :)

I have.  Many of them.  And my life is richer for it. 

My goddaughter was a mechanic in the army, and is now working as a gunsmith (she's also now a mother). 

One of my best friends in the theatre group works for DPA in cleanup, not to mention being a registered electrician (mainly so she can work the union theatrical lighting gigs). 

Not only do they exist, they are more common than you'd think.  Just 'cause you've led a sheltered work life...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 03 Jan 2013, 08:30
I'm sure there are women out there who are more than willing to work as a true equal,  I just haven't met any.   :)

I have had more female bosses than male over the past 45 years, and have worked with many, many female peers on an equal footing.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 03 Jan 2013, 08:40
In my previous life as a newspaper guy, I worked for a total of seven boss-editors. The three best are women. They kicked ass, took names, made sure they had the names right. They never, ever, insisted they or any source be treated any differently because of internal plumbing -- more than I can say for the male boss-editors.

I've worked with and for hilariously incompetent male and female journalists, too. I remember them because (and this is an institutional quirk of the news business) they were the loud exception -- and I have to actively remind myself of former co-workers who, to put it bluntly, gave a shit and let it show in their work.

Excuse me, gotta run -- I'm supposed to be taking care of my 83-year-old mother, who literally does not know how to NOT work and is adjusting with difficulty to enforced retirement.

If you'd care to define "taking care of" as "trying and hilariously failing to keep up with," you can posit that I'm doing OK at it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrudd on 03 Jan 2013, 08:47
I have.  Many of them.  And my life is richer for it.  .....
 ...... Not only do they exist, they are more common than you'd think.  Just 'cause you've led a sheltered work life...

Even your rebuttal's opening and closing statement points out that such people are still not in the majority

Up until recently I also had a sheltered work environment where everyone was capable, and also willing to lend a hand if an issue cropped up.
[ small high tech / pharma start-ups ]

Now I am in the Real World [tm] (service industry) and am constantly amazed and appalled at the general populace.
It's not so much a gender thing, except in how individuals go about it [girls do it one way, guys another] but people are more often then not stupid or lazy if not both [a dangerous combination].

The world, she is crazy  :psyduck:

Warning - while you were typing 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Bah - I'm posting this anyways even though they are much better than mine  :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 03 Jan 2013, 08:57
I think this discussion should go over to DISCUSS. Unfortunately just at the moment I am too furious to contribute rationally to it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Skewbrow on 03 Jan 2013, 09:37
This might be better in the DISCUSS forum but still...

Agree that this belongs to DISCUSS. Mods?

Quote from: The first article Akima linked
Women are making the wrong choices early in their careers

Now that, I find offensive. I am one of those women making a career choice that will lead to a fairly poorly-paid job, and hopefully I will be taking time out from that job in order to raise children. It is the right choice for me. I'm 100% behind the idea that women ought to be paid the same amount as men (and that traditionally "female" jobs like, for instance, midwifery, teaching, administrative work and shop work should be paid at an equal level to comparable "male" jobs like being a doctor, construction, being a solicitor and accountancy) but I find that sentence to be suggesting that it is women's own fault if they don't make a shitton of money because they made the wrong choice. I should not have to choose between doing a job I would be good at and enjoy, and having a decent wage.

(bolded the "being a doctor" part as my comment is mostly about that)

There is a lot of variation country by country. I don't know about UK, but here a clear majority of doctors are women. Already about 30 years ago, when yours truly and his classmates were starting college. I attended some parties organized by the med students (well, I was dating one), and it was very evenly split, but the stats showed that female students had a majority. The development since has only strengthened this to the extent that I cannot remember, when I last had an appointment with a male doctor. Granted, I have only needed the services of GPs lately.

Math on the other hand... even that has changed since, but only to the extent that 90-10 split has become something 80-20. I discussed this with a Spanish colleague once. Over there it was that the medical profession was predominantly male, but at her math department they had a 50-50 split. Go figure? A possible explanation we came up with was the lack/presence of encouragement and/or positive role models for smart girls. There is some injustice here that usually boys are encouraged to pursue the specialty of their choice, but girls may not receive similar attention and positive feedback for doing the same (at the critical age, say junior high school or so).

It is up to we the parents, teachers, ..., to fix this last thing. The educated women can do their part as role models. That will help the young girls - in a generation or two.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 03 Jan 2013, 09:59
Agree that this belongs to DISCUSS. Mods?
I would but some posts have stuff about both this topic and the comic itself, so it'd be tricky to split it off without interrupting one of the threads.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 03 Jan 2013, 10:31
I'm sure there are women out there who are more than willing to work as a true equal,  I just haven't met any.   :)

I have.  Many of them.  And my life is richer for it. 

My goddaughter was a mechanic in the army, and is now working as a gunsmith (she's also now a mother). 

One of my best friends in the theatre group works for DPA in cleanup, not to mention being a registered electrician (mainly so she can work the union theatrical lighting gigs). 

Not only do they exist, they are more common than you'd think.  Just 'cause you've led a sheltered work life...

It may be a generational "thing" rather than a gender-specific thing.    I understand there are thousands of women in the armed-forces who are HIGHLY educated in the mechanical and technical arts.

And it could also be a cost/HR thing as well.     Those kick-ass true-equal women more than likely aren't working for $7.50 an hour in a plastic factory for 12 hours a day either.    One assumes the good ones get hired up and retained at much higher wages at those hypothetical "really great places to work" that just don't exist in this region.

End result is the situation I have described.    I freely admit that I have "yet" to meet these rare folks.  I would LOVE to not have to watch my back in regards to pretend harassment charges.   It would be a dream come true to no have to warn new coworkers about "that one lady over there reports everyone for menacing behavior" (except it's never been just one) and it would be an honor to work alongside someone who can do the same tasks that I can do without accommodation for icky-ness, odor, 'excessive' bending/lifting, or dozens of other oddly specific complaints.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 03 Jan 2013, 10:34
I'm going to bow out of further discussion on this topic to avoid offending people further.   My work experience, while far from unique is obviously radically different than what the rest of you have experienced.

Want to discuss it with me further lets take it to another thread or private messages please.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 03 Jan 2013, 10:44
A thread on women in the workforce is started in DISCUSS. Please use it. MoM is right about the difficulty of splitting the current discussion but I'm not ruling it out.

Marten was known to be Veronica's only son, but sisters were a theoretical possibility up to now.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 03 Jan 2013, 10:50
I'm going to bow out of further discussion on this topic to avoid offending people further.   My work experience, while far from unique is obviously radically different than what the rest of you have experienced.
Multispacing between sentences and doubleposting!? I'm sorry, but I can never forgive your transgressions, it'll have to be a life sentence.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 03 Jan 2013, 11:16
It's not impossible that Marten could have a sibling which he doesn't know about. I'm a good example of that: until I was 16 I was the eldest of two. Now I'm the middle of eight. Granted, five of those new siblings are due to marriage/foster/repartnering but one is an honest-to-God biological sibling that no one told me about until two years ago.
Title: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 03 Jan 2013, 12:38
THAT would be a hilarious pregnancy arc:

"Hi mom, what's up?"

"I'm pregnant, Marten dear. Don't tell your father."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: sitnspin on 03 Jan 2013, 20:29
I agree with Martin. I am so glad I was an only child.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 03 Jan 2013, 20:35
I dunno, it might be interesting to watch them raise a kid.


Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 03 Jan 2013, 20:43
That might be part of Sam's punishment....
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 03 Jan 2013, 20:49
Are we sure it's Sam's punishment, and not everyone else's?


Wait...what? Did you mean having Sam take care of a baby?! Hah...lil' baby Skullmaster. I shall call her...Mini-skull.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: CrowFairy on 03 Jan 2013, 22:30
It's not impossible that Marten could have a sibling which he doesn't know about. I'm a good example of that: until I was 16 I was the eldest of two. Now I'm the middle of eight. Granted, five of those new siblings are due to marriage/foster/repartnering but one is an honest-to-God biological sibling that no one told me about until two years ago.
My closest friend has quite a few half-siblings for varying reasons (three by his dad and three by his mom). One of them (from my friend's dad's loins :P) was taken away by the mom and just kinda vanished. He suddenly showed up a year ago, and he's pretty much a terrible person, and I think I'm not the only one who wishes he hadn't shown up, after the way he treated the family. One of the other half-siblings is just recently trying to be in touch with my friend. But it's super-awkward, because he's still in middle school, and we attempt to spend time with him, but it's hard because how do you hang out with someone 10 years younger than you and is still in freakin' middle school without it feeling like babysitting?? (Answer, I have yet to find a way.) Two of the half-siblings are self-entitled pigs and turds. But they're little and love me, so they aren't all bad. :P I don't really know anything about the other half-siblings because they haven't shown any interest in hanging out with my friend, and I only met them once, and that was because we were picking up the middle-schooler...

What I'm getting at is that siblings show up out of the friggin' woodwork, man.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 04 Jan 2013, 00:50
I'm sure the sole reason for Dave Dale being relieved no one offered to bone him is his concern for and commitment to his work schedule. Yeah. No one is being heterophobic around here, no sir.
 :psyduck:

<mod> corrected name to avoid misunderstanding</mod>

<me> Oops. </me>
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 04 Jan 2013, 01:03
Or possibly because Hannelore has flashing warning lights and a sign saying "DETOUR: ANY OTHER FEMALE IN EXISTENCE (http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=1076)". :P
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Doc on 04 Jan 2013, 01:41
What kind of pizza is that? It looks like cream-strawberry to me.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Skewbrow on 04 Jan 2013, 02:13
Pepperoni (salami)?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lubricus on 04 Jan 2013, 02:19
It's obviously Generic Comics Pizza!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 04 Jan 2013, 04:23
how do you hang out with someone 10 years younger than you and is still in freakin' middle school without it feeling like babysitting?

Talk to them like a human being! I have no idea what middle school is but I have friends who are 10, friends who are 14, friends who are 8 even. Obviously the topics of conversation are a little different - no point talking about my dissertation to kids who don't really understand what university even is, and certainly I wouldn't discuss sex with a kid (although I did once talk about sex to the 12 year old I was taking care of, but naturally I made it age-appropriate and it was in response to her questions). Remember that kids are people too, treat them like you'd treat any adult but just avoid conversation topics you wouldn't bring up with, for instance, your grandmother or a friendly old man in the bus queue.

Quote
What I'm getting at is that siblings show up out of the friggin' woodwork, man.

True dat. So true.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 04 Jan 2013, 04:25
It's obviously Generic Comics Pizza!
Well, it certainly was delivered in a very generic box. I suppose Pizza brand pizza is like the Beer brand beer Jeph drew a while ago. It looks nasty.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: LordVaughn on 04 Jan 2013, 04:36
Is it just me, or has the shade of white in Hannelore's place changed? It's more of a creme color now than an outright white like it used to be. Maybe that's why the pizza seems so white in comparison.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 04 Jan 2013, 05:14
She probably switched light bulb brands to one with a softer light.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 04 Jan 2013, 05:17
 Does Dale work with Pizza-Girl? They have the same box. (?

 (http://i.imgur.com/lN5Yw.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lubricus on 04 Jan 2013, 05:29
Does Dale work with Pizza-Girl? They have the same box. (?

 (http://i.imgur.com/lN5Yw.jpg)

Maybe Dale IS Pizza Girl!  :laugh:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 04 Jan 2013, 05:36
Maybe Dale IS Pizza Girl!  :laugh:

I mean, come on! Could that bag BE anymore the same color as most of PGs outfit?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: iduguphergrave on 04 Jan 2013, 05:58
OK yeah it was funny the first couple times but I'd kinda like to see Dale's eyes again  :-P
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 04 Jan 2013, 06:10
He's like Gendou Ikari...every rare instance of him must be saturated in mystery.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Cambyses on 04 Jan 2013, 06:15
Quote
Well, it certainly was delivered in a very generic box. I suppose Pizza brand pizza is like the Beer brand beer Jeph drew a while ago. It looks nasty.

Well, a lot of pizza places that aren't the huge chains like Domino's or Pizza Hut or whatever do have generic red white and green boxes, usually with bad art of a grinning fat chef with a handlebar mustache to indicate that he's an offensive national stereotype. Though the box for the pizza I ate just yesterday just said "PIZZA" and had a kind of simplistic design that I think was supposed to resemble the striped awning of an old-timey pizza parlor.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: drewdane on 04 Jan 2013, 07:36
The look on Marigold's face is CLASSIC!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: sitnspin on 04 Jan 2013, 08:16
If that is something that actually happens, I want to work as a pizza delivery gal.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Jan 2013, 08:23
As the title suggests, only in porno. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 04 Jan 2013, 08:25
how do you hang out with someone 10 years younger than you and is still in freakin' middle school without it feeling like babysitting?
Talk to them like a human being! I have no idea what middle school is but I have friends who are 10, friends who are 14, friends who are 8 even. Obviously the topics of conversation are a little different - no point talking about my dissertation to kids who don't really understand what university even is, and certainly I wouldn't discuss sex with a kid (although I did once talk about sex to the 12 year old I was taking care of, but naturally I made it age-appropriate and it was in response to her questions). Remember that kids are people too, treat them like you'd treat any adult but just avoid conversation topics you wouldn't bring up with, for instance, your grandmother or a friendly old man in the bus queue.

This reminds me that one of my better friends is my best friend's dad. He's one hell of a cool guy and we talk a lot.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 04 Jan 2013, 08:33
I laughed pretty hard at this strip. Didn't realize how much I missed Dale till I saw him.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 04 Jan 2013, 09:14
Maybe Dale IS Pizza Girl!  :laugh:

We've never seen them together!

Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: gangler on 04 Jan 2013, 09:27
I love that this acknowledges how incredibly uncomfortable the situation would be were somebody to make that offer in real life. To comedic effect no less!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: PHDrillSergeant on 04 Jan 2013, 09:44
I'm a pizza delivery guy. I've never been offered sex as payment/tip, but I have has a hot girl answer the door completely naked...she also tipped me $10. So it was win/win.

On the other hand, if anyone offered to share the pizza with me as a tip, I'd decline...I'm sick of our pizza.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: HiFranc on 04 Jan 2013, 09:50
Marigold seems to be hiding from the conversation and/or Dale.  I wonder what role she's going to play in the proceedings.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: celticgeek on 04 Jan 2013, 10:00
There seems to be an even number of toppings on Hannelore's slice of pizza.  Just sayin'.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: sitnspin on 04 Jan 2013, 10:18
I'm a pizza delivery guy. I've never been offered sex as payment/tip, but I have has a hot girl answer the door completely naked...she also tipped me $10. So it was win/win.


I have only ever worked either in retail, as  a barrista, and as a tattoo artist. Two involved tips and only one involved seeing a woman (partially) naked. But, yes, win/win.

You know, now that I think about it, it probably would be more awkward than sexy.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Urbonov on 04 Jan 2013, 10:52
...Can anyone remind me, as I cannot seem to recall if it's ever come up, but does Hanners know Marigold and Dale have met before? I know someone commented on how Dale seemed into her before but she shot it down with a "An alliance rogue? I'm not THAT desperate." or something like that.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: HiFranc on 04 Jan 2013, 11:04
...Can anyone remind me, as I cannot seem to recall if it's ever come up, but does Hanners know Marigold and Dale have met before? I know someone commented on how Dale seemed into her before but she shot it down with a "An alliance rogue? I'm not THAT desperate." or something like that.

That happened in 1680 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1680).  Going backwards from that strip we see that Hanners arived in 1679 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1679).  In other words it's probable that she knows.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Urbonov on 04 Jan 2013, 11:12
That happened in 1680 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1680).  Going backwards from that strip we see that Hanners arived in 1679 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1679).  In other words it's probable that she knows.

Well, first, thanks for the speedy research.  I am very hopeful we get at least another comic with these three. Possible awkward hilarity.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: HiFranc on 04 Jan 2013, 12:06
You're welcome, Urbonov.

However, there is no big secret to finding things fast.  As someone once pointed out to me, there is a shortcut (http://www.scribd.com/doc/32349451/Questionable-Content-Strip-by-Strip).

Then again, there was a time that I knew the archives well enough to put my hand on any strip within 10 mins or so.  Nowadays, I can't do that.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: CrowFairy on 04 Jan 2013, 12:48
how do you hang out with someone 10 years younger than you and is still in freakin' middle school without it feeling like babysitting?

Talk to them like a human being! I have no idea what middle school is but I have friends who are 10, friends who are 14, friends who are 8 even. Obviously the topics of conversation are a little different - no point talking about my dissertation to kids who don't really understand what university even is, and certainly I wouldn't discuss sex with a kid (although I did once talk about sex to the 12 year old I was taking care of, but naturally I made it age-appropriate and it was in response to her questions). Remember that kids are people too, treat them like you'd treat any adult but just avoid conversation topics you wouldn't bring up with, for instance, your grandmother or a friendly old man in the bus queue.

Quote
What I'm getting at is that siblings show up out of the friggin' woodwork, man.

True dat. So true.
I do try! But it's seriously just really awkward for both of us. And ethnocentric me forgot about non-Americans there--sorry! Middle school is typically 6th-8th grade, also known as junior high school, and consists of 11-13-year-olds...ish. What happened with the kid the other day was just mostly trying to figure out what to do. Um, video game? How about this one now? And now this movie that isn't terribly interesting and kinda rips off the new Muppets movie but you brought it so we feel obligated to sit through it? We try talking to him, but he's not terribly bright. :/ I don't mean that he should understand college-level stuff or anything, but we try to teach him card games, and he's lost. He seems kinda...clueless. So it's hard to talk about stuff he should know without it feeling like we're talking down to him. He's also kind of a perv and makes jokes about sexual stuff I hadn't even heard of until a couple of years ago.

I love being around kids and such and can talk to anyone of any age most of the time, now that I think about it (forgot about all the little volunteers I mentor at the library), but for some reason, hanging around this kid is just awkward. I can entertain kids 10 and under and mentor kids 13 and up. But 11 and 12? They're always in just that weird state where I have no idea what to say. :/

how do you hang out with someone 10 years younger than you and is still in freakin' middle school without it feeling like babysitting?
Talk to them like a human being! I have no idea what middle school is but I have friends who are 10, friends who are 14, friends who are 8 even. Obviously the topics of conversation are a little different - no point talking about my dissertation to kids who don't really understand what university even is, and certainly I wouldn't discuss sex with a kid (although I did once talk about sex to the 12 year old I was taking care of, but naturally I made it age-appropriate and it was in response to her questions). Remember that kids are people too, treat them like you'd treat any adult but just avoid conversation topics you wouldn't bring up with, for instance, your grandmother or a friendly old man in the bus queue.

This reminds me that one of my better friends is my best friend's dad. He's one hell of a cool guy and we talk a lot.
I used to love to talk to people's parents and even teachers!! :-D I guess I got more self-conscious, because now I'm always paranoid that they're judging me. @_@
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 04 Jan 2013, 13:59
I'm the other way around... I'm more self-conscious with people of my age. With adults or children I have no big deal talking to.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 04 Jan 2013, 14:02
I do have a problem with kids aged about 14, though, so perhaps it just depends on the person. My issue with 14 year olds is that mostly, they are horrible.
Title: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 04 Jan 2013, 14:16
You're welcome, Urbonov.

However, there is no big secret to finding things fast.  As someone once pointed out to me, there is a shortcut (http://www.scribd.com/doc/32349451/Questionable-Content-Strip-by-Strip).

Yeah, but the idiot who put that together really drags his feet on updating it. It's like he has a life or something.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Jan 2013, 14:53
You wouldn't think so, reading the forums...

 :-D :angel: :evil: :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 04 Jan 2013, 15:47
I assume that the psyduck was added after glancing at the comparative number of posts.  8-)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Jan 2013, 15:57
Guilty as charged.  Check my new year's resolutions (broken already!)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 04 Jan 2013, 16:00
That's only because Carl-E got here first.

Oh, and HiFranc / Urbonov: the link in that post is to the "older" version, the one not updated as much.

The more recent version is available somewhere else, but I really can't remember where the link is.




vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: no one special on 04 Jan 2013, 17:45
OK yeah it was funny the first couple times but I'd kinda like to see Dale's eyes again  :-P

His prescription was filled by J.J. Abrams, O.D.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Throg on 04 Jan 2013, 18:57
WHYYYYYY is Hannelore still orange? Is she now a secret spray tan addict?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 04 Jan 2013, 19:31
Remember

No Tips for Alliance scum!!!

 :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 04 Jan 2013, 19:44
WHYYYYYY is Hannelore still orange? Is she now a secret spray tan addict?

Maybe it didn't wear off...does it come off with water?

Or maybe she's become Trendy Tannelore®. We'll see...or maybe not. It depends on Jeph's machinations, I suppose.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Urbonov on 04 Jan 2013, 20:11
I totally forgot this already happened. http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1895
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Vurogj on 05 Jan 2013, 02:29
Just reading those callbacks (good work archive divers) makes me wonder, which is the bigger driving force behind Hanners' shipping tendencies. A desire to see her friends (Marbear especially) happy, or her own voyeurism?

* For the record, I consider her voyeurism non-sexual (if that's a valid definition). I see it as curiosity not prurience.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 05 Jan 2013, 03:10
Hanners is a practitioner of Vicarious Social Development.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 05 Jan 2013, 06:47
She wants to see her friends happy, and she wants to observe it happening.

I think she's trying to write the sequel to the Mathematics of Happiness.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 05 Jan 2013, 07:17
How much is curiosity, how much is wanting to see her friends happy, and how much is trollage?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Jan 2013, 07:30
She wants her friends to do well in order to give her hope for her own life. Somewhere around 1143 or 1144.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Renimar on 05 Jan 2013, 09:12
WHYYYYYY is Hannelore still orange? Is she now a secret spray tan addict?

Hopefully Hanners isn't adopting the Ganguro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganguro#Characteristics) style.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 05 Jan 2013, 09:16
They look like Snooki, and that's never a good thing :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Earin on 06 Jan 2013, 05:07
She wants to see her friends happy, and she wants to observe it happening.

I think she's trying to write the sequel to the Mathematics of Happiness.

She's probably trying to extend it to a time-dependent form, to work out how you maximise d^2H/dt^2.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Jan 2013, 06:39
It needs to be on an s-shaped curve, not a parabolic one, so as to avoid exceeding the lethal level.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Jan 2013, 15:20
The lethal level (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1437)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: T on 06 Jan 2013, 21:30
Wait a moment! Hanners is eating a pizza she ordered by phone? Doesn't her OCD and paranoia would impede her of such acts? Like what if it is contamined? What if someone coughed on it? What if it is the wrong topping? What if some crazy psycho poisoned it... oh wait, that's why she pretended to not have a tip.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Jan 2013, 22:09
I don't know why I didn't remember this joke on Friday; 

What did the leper say to the prostitute? 

|
|
|
V
|
|
|
V
|
|
|
V
|
|
|
V
|
|
|
V
|
|
|
V
|
|
|
V

"That's OK, keep the tip!" 

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8472/8356085831_11bf3a8e5c_m.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 07 Jan 2013, 00:38
Wait a moment! Hanners is eating a pizza she ordered by phone? Doesn't her OCD and paranoia would impede her of such acts? Like what if it is contamined? What if someone coughed on it? What if it is the wrong topping? What if some crazy psycho poisoned it... oh wait, that's why she pretended to not have a tip.

"If we shall dine together, then we shall die together." How romantic...except poor Mar-Bear ends up as a casualty of war. x__x
Title: Re: WCDT: 2353-2357 (31 Dec. 2012-4 Jan. 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Jan 2013, 03:57
"No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to dine."