THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: BenRG on 02 Jul 2017, 15:12

Title: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: BenRG on 02 Jul 2017, 15:12
So, in commemoration of the 4th of July - the day when more hands are lost to recreational accidents than any other - I thought I'd give the forum a chance to speculate on how Clinton's broken hand may be replaced and with what.

I'm sticking with my idea that Clinton goes to Faye and Bubbles for a quick fix. Faye can't help but be afflicted by feature-creep and Clinton ends up with a fixed Robo-hand with several add-ons that Faye felt would be 'useful' including a pen-torch, a rotating tool socket and a wireless taser. Bubbles is carried along by Faye's enthusiasm for a challenging project (given the complexity of Robo-Hand's control systems and sensor feedback) and only later realises that the repaired unit's specification is probably just a mite bit illegal. All parties experience some... angst... as a result.

As for the strip this week? I'm expecting a continuation of the night at the bar. Maybe we'll check in with Claire and Marten or maybe Renee will come storming over to demand to know why Clinton made Elliot cry, only to be silenced by Clinton's fearful apology for 'upsetting your boyfriend'!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Zebediah on 02 Jul 2017, 15:20
I voted for the replacement hand with a mind of its own. Clinton would definitely benefit from having an evil hand.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Case on 02 Jul 2017, 15:30
I voted for the replacement hand with a mind of its own. Clinton would definitely benefit from having an evil hand.

'Would'? (1911 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1911))
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: SubaruStephen on 02 Jul 2017, 15:40
I voted for the replacement hand with a mind of its own. Clinton would definitely benefit from having an evil hand.

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mefaj0M4wu1rrkgt3o1_500.gif)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: shanejayell on 02 Jul 2017, 16:00
I think Faye and Bubbles will make him a perfectly fine replacement hand.

With flame decals and a spoiler...  :-P
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 02 Jul 2017, 16:32
A visit to Union Robotics is indeed on the cards - no crystal ball required there! Unless Clinton is loaded, though, I don't see much feature creep happening.

On the other hand, I like the idea that he might go for a different colour this time, or even some cool artwork.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 02 Jul 2017, 19:58
Comics up.

And yeah, all guys over a certain height tend to become a jungle gym when there's some alcohol involved.

And yes, this comes from experience.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 02 Jul 2017, 20:28
I was a jungle gym for a friend's two children. (5' 10" and scrawny here.)

In http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3300 we get a quick look at the Northampton bar scene -- including the Horrible Revelation. They weren't hiring at the time, or Brün might be working there now.

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Thrudd on 02 Jul 2017, 20:38
Answer: "Not since High-school."

Question: What do you do for fun?  Tear hockey pucks in half?  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Method of Madness on 02 Jul 2017, 20:43
3300 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3300)
Now I want croissants.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Case on 02 Jul 2017, 21:07
Claireface in panel three is ...

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 02 Jul 2017, 21:17
And Brün's deadpan 'wheee' made me giggle.
(and this is when she's liquored up...)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: brasca on 02 Jul 2017, 21:43
Hopefully, that waitress didn't shake Clinton down for too much or the best Union Robotics can do is a claw.  Then again they created detachable buttocks for $75 so maybe a replacement hand isn't as much as I think it would be in their universe. 
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: DaiJB on 02 Jul 2017, 22:00
Now I'm really looking forward to Elliot meeting Bubbles...


(BTW, I put "Other" in the poll because I think it'll be an apparently primitive, though in fact horribly advanced, spooky second-hand robo-hand with a mind and agenda of it's own...)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Gyrre on 02 Jul 2017, 23:09
I'm torn between the enthusiastic UR repair and Emily whipping up a technorganic/bio-mechanical hand.

Also, I wonder how often Elliot ends up with drunk ladies swinging from his arms.

EDIT: *mechanical . DEATH TO AUTOCORRECT! !!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: BenRG on 03 Jul 2017, 00:13
I think that we are towards the end of the characters' sojourn in the bar. Typically, when Jeph is writing these sorts of scenes, the strip where two of the characters are in a serious discussion and the others are acting increasingly silly is one or two strips before the "You're drunk; go home" event. Considering that the last time we had a scene like this finished with Bubbles coming to terms with the fact that she couldn't force Faye out of her life, I wouldn't be surprised if we get some manner of an outcome with the Clinton/Brun/Elliot triangle.

I must say, I love panel 3. Claire has this huge child-like streak in her that only ever seems to come out when she's drunk. However, it's the expression on Brun's face that's the revelation. She never realised that doing something like this could be fun and she's still trying to process it. However, I also suspect that she's copying Claire's behaviour in the hope that this is somehow socially appropriate and that that she's 'fitting in'. :wink: Seriously, Brun needs friends other than Renee and I think that Claire (and the rest of the girls in the main cast) are ideal for the job!

Here's what I'm thinking: Clinton is now suddenly becoming Martin's friend (as well as prospective brother-in-law). I think that we might be seeing more of him at the apartment to talk about things and to get advice. Marten doesn't know it but he's demonstrated repeatedly that he is a good mentor in lifestyle now that he's got his own act together.

Gotta say, I'm really looking forward to this week's strips. I don't imagine we'll see any resolution to our love-Z for quite some time, but I'm enjoying the ride.

(Also, Renee's sheer unlikeability as a person makes the default sorting a far from optimal way to collapse the wave function. It does seem like Elliot will come up short, but it's far from certain. I might hold out hope of a triad/V relationship forming twixt Brun/Clinton/Elliot...)

I agree; Jeph has no reason to finally resolve this any time soon. FWIW, I suspect that the final configuration will be Clinton with Emily and Brun with Elliot but I'm willing to turn out to be wrong with that. However, I do think that Brun will choose which man she wishes to date after tonight and we'll be following the consequences to both guys afterwards.

As for Renee, if she has any arc with Elliot it could have either a positive or negative outcome. Either way, she will work out that her behaviour really is dragging her down in terms of her relationships with others. What remains to be seen is if she is motivated to change the way Faye has changed or if she so resents the revelation about herself that she leaves (at least her current social circle and maybe even Northampton altogether to escape it.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: shanejayell on 03 Jul 2017, 02:00
I think Faye and Bubbles will make him a perfectly fine replacement hand.

With flame decals and a spoiler...  :-P

Ha! Called it.  Tho we'll have to see what the hand is....
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: avistel on 03 Jul 2017, 03:51
What kind of fucked up front raises do you have do to have 60 kg-ish lifting strength in your delts?

Raises with barely 20 kg per side make my arms scream, what kind of steroid-mutated gorilla person family does Elliot come from ?! And how do I join?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: A Duck on 03 Jul 2017, 05:35
Possible spoiler from Jeph's twitter
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Case on 03 Jul 2017, 06:27
Possible spoiler from Jeph's twitter
(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: A Duck on 03 Jul 2017, 06:36
(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Case on 03 Jul 2017, 06:57
(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 03 Jul 2017, 07:57
Well who remembers stuff they have LITERALLY TATTOOED ON THEIR FLESH ???

"I used to get lost a lot. So I had my address tattooed to the back of my hand. Then I forgot that I was moving to a different city. Those people were so confused when I walked in through the front door."
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Thrudd on 03 Jul 2017, 08:39
(BTW, I put "Other" in the poll because I think it'll be an apparently primitive, though in fact horribly advanced, spooky second-hand robo-hand with a mind and agenda of it's own...)
IIRC Clinton's demonstration of his hands autonomous mode showed that it had a tendency for socially inappropriate behavior, though with more of a focus on boobs than butts.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Case on 03 Jul 2017, 10:21
(BTW, I put "Other" in the poll because I think it'll be an apparently primitive, though in fact horribly advanced, spooky second-hand robo-hand with a mind and agenda of it's own...)
IIRC Clinton's demonstration of his hands autonomous mode showed that it had a tendency for socially inappropriate behavior, though with more of a focus on boobs than butts.

YDRC -> 1911 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1911)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Gyrre on 03 Jul 2017, 11:58
What kind of fucked up front raises do you have do to have 60 kg-ish lifting strength in your delts?

Raises with barely 20 kg per side make my arms scream, what kind of steroid-mutated gorilla person family does Elliot come from ?! And how do I join?
??? I'm 5'5" and I can carry 2 ladies of similar build around on my shoulders, one on each side.

If his hair were curlier, I'd guess Danish. Maybe Scottish and German?

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 03 Jul 2017, 12:47
You can carry a lot more weight directly on your shoulders than you can with a lateral deltoid raise. The deltoid muscle is relatively small.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: oddtail on 03 Jul 2017, 12:56
You can carry a lot more weight directly on your shoulders than you can with a lateral deltoid raise. The deltoid muscle is relatively small.

Plus, it's a simple lever principle. Picking something up is not the same as holding it in an outstretched arm.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Method of Madness on 03 Jul 2017, 13:58
He's having well over 100kg (combined) hanging from his arms and he seems more surprised than physically strained. I'm, uh...I'm glad Elliot and Bubbles are on the same side.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 03 Jul 2017, 14:24
To be fair, I think he is sweating a bit.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Kugai on 03 Jul 2017, 14:27
Elliott.

Bouncer, Baker's Assistant, and super strong impromptu Bar Entertainment/Gym Equipment.

An all round  mutitasker.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 03 Jul 2017, 14:58
To be fair, I think he is sweating a bit.

To be fair, you'd be sweating too if you just crushed a guy's cybernetic hand and now have his sister and a potential romantic interest hanging off you.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 03 Jul 2017, 15:23
To be fair, I think he is sweating a bit.

To be fair, you'd be sweating too if you just crushed a guy's cybernetic hand and now have his sister and a potential romantic interest hanging off you.

I never said I was surprised he was sweating - I'm surprised he isn't sweating a lot more!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Thrudd on 03 Jul 2017, 15:27
Maybe thry keep the place a bit on the cool side due to things heating up as the evening goes on

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: OldGoat on 03 Jul 2017, 16:08
If Jeph wants to keep things stirred up, he can always reveal that Elliott is related to Tai's friend, Bob (https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2618).
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 03 Jul 2017, 20:10
Comics up and my god...the punsters have found each other!

We're all doomed.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Perfectly Reasonable on 03 Jul 2017, 20:34
I don't get it.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: St.Clair on 03 Jul 2017, 21:20
Princess Celestia: Run.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: jwhouk on 03 Jul 2017, 22:23
I don't get it.

The last one needs to be said like a grrr: "You're under arrrrr(f)rest!"
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Near Lurker on 03 Jul 2017, 22:53
Maaartenn, Brun's stealing your girlllfriennnd...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: BenRG on 03 Jul 2017, 23:36
I think we have all been in situations where we have seen drunks (or been drunk enough so that it is us) react to a completely unfunny 'quip' as if it was the best joke in all the world ever! Yes, I suspect that Brun has made a friend for life and I suspect that is going to just make Clinton's existence that much more uncomfortable - Can he not find a woman who isn't also besties with his sister? :wink:

FWIW, I suspect that Claire and Brun will both have purgatorial hangovers tomorrow. I also hope that there will be a Noodle Incident that they can't remember but that Marten, Clinton and Renee keep on referring to in the vaguest terms whilst chuckling to each other about it.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Storel on 04 Jul 2017, 00:58
What kind of fucked up front raises do you have do to have 60 kg-ish lifting strength in your delts?

Raises with barely 20 kg per side make my arms scream, what kind of steroid-mutated gorilla person family does Elliot come from ?! And how do I join?
??? I'm 5'5" and I can carry 2 ladies of similar build around on my shoulders, one on each side.

If his hair were curlier, I'd guess Danish. Maybe Scottish and German?

Maybe Dutch? They can get pretty large.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: St.Clair on 04 Jul 2017, 01:59
Weight on your shoulders is mostly leg strength - can you stand and move with that extra load?
Weight on your (extended) arms is mostly on the arms themselves, and all the stuff about levers applies (the further out they are, the harder it's gonna be).
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Akima on 04 Jul 2017, 02:17
Shouldn't it be "Du er anholdt!"?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Zebediah on 04 Jul 2017, 04:52
OK, Clinton, you can forget all about dating Brun. It's Claire and Brun from now on.  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: sitnspin on 04 Jul 2017, 05:55
Claire leaving Martin for Brun would definitely be an unexpected twist.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: DSL on 04 Jul 2017, 06:18
Panel 3 had me wondering.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: flondrix on 04 Jul 2017, 06:37
Maaartenn, Brun's stealing your girlllfriennnd...

I don't think Claire had many girl friends before dating Marten.  Meeting other women she can hang with is a good thing.

Of course it could lead to one of those "who gets custody of the friends" situations if Claire breaks up with Marten or Clinton has a falling out with Brun...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Gyrre on 04 Jul 2017, 07:49
Weight on your shoulders is mostly leg strength - can you stand and move with that extra load?
Weight on your (extended) arms is mostly on the arms themselves, and all the stuff about levers applies (the further out they are, the harder it's gonna be).
I can walk around carrying both of them and even jog a few paces.

Short and stocky with broad shoulders, a barrel chest, and plenty of leg strength. I'm the guy who gets to help the fork lifts get moving when the floor is too slick at work.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Undrneath on 04 Jul 2017, 08:40
What kind of fucked up front raises do you have do to have 60 kg-ish lifting strength in your delts?

Raises with barely 20 kg per side make my arms scream, what kind of steroid-mutated gorilla person family does Elliot come from ?! And how do I join?
??? I'm 5'5" and I can carry 2 ladies of similar build around on my shoulders, one on each side.

If his hair were curlier, I'd guess Danish. Maybe Scottish and German?

Maybe Dutch? They can get pretty large.

Perhaps Scandinavian a lot of the strong man competitors come from that area.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: OldGoat on 04 Jul 2017, 09:10
I also hope that there will be a Noodle Incident that they can't remember but that Marten, Clinton and Renee keep on referring to in the vaguest terms whilst chuckling to each other about it.

That would be cruel and unusual.  Excellent idea!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Kugai on 04 Jul 2017, 17:24
This was a PUNishing strip
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: brasca on 04 Jul 2017, 19:47
Three Stooges entrance plus 2. 

Guess Renee had to join them, but I don't think the room is big enough for Faye and her doppelgänger.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 04 Jul 2017, 19:50
Wow, strange minds do think alike.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/l2JdWhwKrIWJY67Li/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Kugai on 04 Jul 2017, 20:13
Hail hail, the gang's all here
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 04 Jul 2017, 20:21
They just can't get through the door.

"Move it chowder head!"
"Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!"
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: UmberGryphon on 04 Jul 2017, 21:17
Since (in my opinion) someone has to link to it: PUSHEEN!  http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2181 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2181)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 04 Jul 2017, 22:52
Hoo boy that brings back memories. It was undeserved good luck that we had patient trans* people guiding us through the initial ignorance. That could have been an absolute disaster so easily ...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: BenRG on 04 Jul 2017, 23:51
I'm guessing that everyone's so drunk that it will be most efficient for Bubbles and Elliot to simply stack them in a corner of the lounge like freshly-cut firewood to sleep it off.

I'm also increasing the likelihood that there is going to be a large number of "Oh my god, what did I do last night?" moments tomorrow, in-universe. Especially for Clinton and Brun who both seem to be mostly out-of-it right now. At the very least, I'm expecting a few drunken declarations that will only reinforce in Faye's mind why drinking is such a bad idea.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Mehre on 05 Jul 2017, 01:32
I'm guessing that everyone's so drunk that it will be most efficient for Bubbles and Elliot to simply stack them in a corner of the lounge like freshly-cut firewood to sleep it off.

Actually Bubbles-Elliot would be interesting. He is one of few people where height difference wouldnt be a problem, plus his personality could attract her. Certainly could be fair candidate for first robo-human relationship.

Do you think we will see something like this #2795 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2795)?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: hakko504 on 05 Jul 2017, 04:49
So, Brun, Renee, Claire and Clinton seems to be rather intoxicated. This could see some rather interesting developments: Does Marten and Claire's relation survive the night? Will any of the others hook up? There is quite a lot of potential here with Elliot swooning over Brun, Renee harassing Elliot, Clinton taking out Brun for lunch etc.

I'm guessing that everyone's so drunk that it will be most efficient for Bubbles and Elliot to simply stack them in a corner of the lounge like freshly-cut firewood to sleep it off.

Actually Bubbles-Elliot would be interesting. He is one of few people where height difference wouldnt be a problem, plus his personality could attract her. Certainly could be fair candidate for first robo-human relationship.

Now, I wouldn't completely rule out Clinton/Bubbles either. He's likely to have the same reaction as Momo had when she first met Bubbles (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3059). I don't think it's very likely but should the evening progress in a way that puts Brun in the arms of Elliot, then a rejected Clinton might be up for anything that takes him out of his misery. Though that's probably Renee, who in that case is probably feeling just as down for the same reason.
Not sure I think Elliot/Bubbles have any chance of happening either. Would be interesting to see though.
Do you think we will see something like this #2795 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2795)?
More like Claire's comment in #2798 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2798).
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TinPenguin on 05 Jul 2017, 04:57
What kind of fucked up front raises do you have do to have 60 kg-ish lifting strength in your delts?

Raises with barely 20 kg per side make my arms scream, what kind of steroid-mutated gorilla person family does Elliot come from ?! And how do I join?
??? I'm 5'5" and I can carry 2 ladies of similar build around on my shoulders, one on each side.

If his hair were curlier, I'd guess Danish. Maybe Scottish and German?

Maybe Dutch? They can get pretty large.

His maternal grandmother was a Flemish Giant rabbit.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: shanejayell on 05 Jul 2017, 07:14
One wonders how Bubbles will react to the influx of strangers. *lol*
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Zebediah on 05 Jul 2017, 07:52
I have a feeling that Bubbles and Elliot will get along quite well. After they size each other up (:claireface:), they'll spend hours comparing notes on how they've been misunderstood due to how big they are.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: flondrix on 05 Jul 2017, 08:24
According to Momo, most anthro PCs have no interest in pursuing sexual relationships with humans.  Pintsize must be an aberration.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: retrosteve on 05 Jul 2017, 08:30
Hopefully, that waitress didn't shake Clinton down for too much or the best Union Robotics can do is a claw.  Then again they created detachable buttocks for $75 so maybe a replacement hand isn't as much as I think it would be in their universe.

A lot more moving parts and complicated joints in a hand than in a butt. If they charge less than 750 they are probably losing money.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 05 Jul 2017, 08:36
According to Momo, most anthro PCs have no interest in pursuing sexual relationships with humans.  Pintsize must be an aberration.

Momo, the one who fantasizes about Sven? The one who protests way to much when May crudely brings up the subject? Not sure I entirely trust her impartiality here. I imagine she is correct though. But it does seem a significant portion of robot-kind does think about it. Pintsize, Momo and May for sure. Seems likely Bubbles is included in that as well, given how she acts when Faye gets touchy-feely. Pintsize is still an aberration, just not because he wants a giant robo-dick and is obsessed with human porn.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: OldGoat on 05 Jul 2017, 10:42
His maternal grandmother was a Flemish Giant rabbit.

Them's some BIG damn bunnies!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: A Duck on 05 Jul 2017, 11:13
Aah, a bunch of intoxicated people hanging out at Marten, Pintsize and Faye's (and Claire and Bubbles' now) apartment.
This is some old-school QC and I love it.

I've said it before, but I repeat: this is the only way I see Bubbles meeting Elliot going
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GHNWGXOmQZY/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: tut21 on 05 Jul 2017, 13:11
Whenever Jeph draws his trademark "bubbles" for intoxication my brain assumes the characters have been drinking bubble bath soap.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: SubaruStephen on 05 Jul 2017, 16:47
For a second there I thought that Clinton had his hand in his sisters pocket. :?

Then I remembered what happened back at the bar and realized it could be in her pocket, or anyone else's. Or back at the bar in the Lost and Found box.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: A Duck on 05 Jul 2017, 17:51
I just realized we're also about to get (as far as I can remember) the first meeting between Renée and Faye!

This could be very interesting...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Kugai on 05 Jul 2017, 18:40
Since (in my opinion) someone has to link to it: PUSHEEN!  http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2181 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2181)

You forgot the music to go wit that

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: flondrix on 05 Jul 2017, 18:48
Trying to work out if you were a brand new user led me to this thread (https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,28433.msg1112094.html), and I probably would have preferred not to have read it. Or been made aware of these (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=615) two (http://www.questionablecontent.net/1300) strips.

I wonder if Dora might reference that in one of her darker moods if she is pissed off at Marten about something.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: flondrix on 05 Jul 2017, 18:51
Hopefully, that waitress didn't shake Clinton down for too much or the best Union Robotics can do is a claw.  Then again they created detachable buttocks for $75 so maybe a replacement hand isn't as much as I think it would be in their universe.

A lot more moving parts and complicated joints in a hand than in a butt. If they charge less than 750 they are probably losing money.

I agree about more joints, but I assume that her ass contained some heavy-duty bearings critical to her leg movement.  Note that her friend had to carry her in, she couldn't walk.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: flondrix on 05 Jul 2017, 19:10
Do you think we will see something like this #2795 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2795)?
More like Claire's comment in #2798 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2798).

Supposedly no one is bringing any booze into the apartment, so no one can get any drunker than they already are, unlike the situation Claire was commenting on.
Claire doesn't get very drunk, Marten seems functional, and Faye and Elliot should have had nothing to drink at all.  (Elliot was on duty as a bouncer, and by all indications he is responsible and good at his job.)  I don't know if Elliot's skills in dealing with drunk people extend to preventing them from making bad life decisions or screwing up nascent relationships...but that is what Faye is for, god help us.  In a pinch, Hanners is just upstairs.  The gang is in as good of hands as one could hope for.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: retrosteve on 05 Jul 2017, 19:19
Hopefully, that waitress didn't shake Clinton down for too much or the best Union Robotics can do is a claw.  Then again they created detachable buttocks for $75 so maybe a replacement hand isn't as much as I think it would be in their universe.

A lot more moving parts and complicated joints in a hand than in a butt. If they charge less than 750 they are probably losing money.

I agree about more joints, but I assume that her ass contained some heavy-duty bearings critical to her leg movement.  Note that her friend had to carry her in, she couldn't walk.

Still, a bionic hip replacement (including the operation) is only about $5000 in our world. A fully articulated bionic hand is available for $11000 (google bebionic) and that doesn't include hooking it up with the arm tendons and nerves.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 05 Jul 2017, 20:10
Pintsize! No! DON'T NOT GO NEAR THE BOAT! THAT IS WHAT CAUSE THE TITANIC TO SINK! THAT IS HOW SUBMARINES ARE MADE! THAT'S GODZILLA'S NIGHT TERRORS!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: retrosteve on 05 Jul 2017, 20:12
Still, a bionic hip replacement (including the operation) is only about $5000 in our world. A fully articulated bionic hand is available for $11000 (google bebionic) and that doesn't include hooking it up with the arm tendons and nerves.

"Only".

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0CPJ-AbCsT8/maxresdefault.jpg)

Yeah, "only".
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Welu on 05 Jul 2017, 20:15
Since (in my opinion) someone has to link to it: PUSHEEN!  http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2181 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2181)

Trying to work out if you were a brand new user led me to this thread (https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,28433.msg1112094.html), and I probably would have preferred not to have read it. Or been made aware of these (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=615) two (http://www.questionablecontent.net/1300) strips.

Welcome back to the forum, anyway.

That reveal and thread was FIVE years ago?  :psyduck: And that strip was NINE.....??  :psyduck:  :psyduck:

On today's strip, this was a character interaction that I did not expect and definitely did expect to go so well. My question for the next strip is Brun sliding herself away or is someone else pulling her?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 05 Jul 2017, 20:39
That reveal and thread was FIVE years ago?  :psyduck: And that strip was NINE.....??  :psyduck:  :psyduck:

Anyone else feeling ancient?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: OldGoat on 05 Jul 2017, 20:47
Anyone who can put a startle into Pintsize is okay in my book.  Right on, Brun!!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: PersonMcPerson on 05 Jul 2017, 21:28
Hi everyone!

Pintsize was charging itself when Brun scared it. His charging port is located on a green circle slot where the laser used to be(3015). Wasn't it replaced by a laser pointer instead of a charging port? Is the port both a laser pointer and a charging point? Did they change it and they didn't tell us?

I couldn't go to bed without sharing my confusion. Thanks


PD: Those are rhetoric questions :)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: BenRG on 05 Jul 2017, 23:26
I'm starting to think that Brun is going to wake up tomorrow with a serious hangover and several friends that she doesn't remember making. I'm also thinking that Pintsize is going to make it his mission to find out what he needs to say to freak her out. Given her tendency to take things at face value, he's going to be trying for a very long time.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: flondrix on 06 Jul 2017, 00:01
On today's strip, this was a character interaction that I did not expect and definitely did expect to go so well. My question for the next strip is Brun sliding herself away or is someone else pulling her?

It's a thing kids do, lying on your back and pushing yourself along with your feet.  Pulling is harder than pushing, but I am certain that is what she is doing.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Jul 2017, 00:45
Hi everyone!

Pintsize was charging itself when Brun scared it. His charging port is located on a green circle slot where the laser used to be(3015). Wasn't it replaced by a laser pointer instead of a charging port? Is the port both a laser pointer and a charging point? Did they change it and they didn't tell us?

I couldn't go to bed without sharing my confusion. Thanks


PD: Those are rhetoric questions :)

I don't remember a laser pointer feature at all.

Have we seen Pintsize charging before? Is the port always in the same place?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: oeoek on 06 Jul 2017, 01:56
(dreamy voice) Let's go back to your childhood ildhood ildhood

Not sure if I would call it a laser pointer, but uhm this  (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=61) or this (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=124) suggest some jewelled light source... And the wisdom of Robotic Annihilation Insurance. 

You can wake up now...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: hakko504 on 06 Jul 2017, 05:03
(dreamy voice) Let's go back to your childhood ildhood ildhood

Not sure if I would call it a laser pointer, but uhm this  (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=61) or this (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=124) suggest some jewelled light source... And the wisdom of Robotic Annihilation Insurance. 
But that Laser gun was removed in #147-151 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=147) and we've never seen anything like that afterwards.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: brasca on 06 Jul 2017, 06:39
Seeing as how Brun had patrons like Barry I doubt Pintsize is going to scare her. 
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Kugai on 06 Jul 2017, 15:51
I wonder who will confuse who here.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 06 Jul 2017, 15:54
I wonder who will confuse who here.

I'm going to say it'll be a win for Brun. Pintsize tends to get taken down a couple of pegs when it comes to him trying to mess with strangers.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Gyrre on 06 Jul 2017, 17:06
Hail hail, the gang's all here
So ring out a song of good cheee~er!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Zebediah on 06 Jul 2017, 19:34
Comic's up. It's like seeing a unicorn.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: A Duck on 06 Jul 2017, 20:11
Ha! I called it! (kind of)

Possible spoiler from Jeph's twitter
(click to show/hide)

Also, I really hope Clinton and Elliot become a thing, if only because the cast could use more (any) gay/bi dudes IMHO.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: DaiJB on 06 Jul 2017, 20:37
"Awkward Zone"?! Do we get to see Elliot and Clinton in fancy suits??  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: shanejayell on 06 Jul 2017, 20:58
HA!  :-D :laugh: :lol:
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: SubaruStephen on 06 Jul 2017, 21:01
"Unicorns aren't that rare." says Bubbles as she sniffs her tea.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Oenone on 06 Jul 2017, 21:02
Uh oh. If Renee is a snot to Claire, Marten might get mad.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: St.Clair on 06 Jul 2017, 23:06
Quote from: Jeph
I can hear the shippers squealing

... each to each?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: BenRG on 06 Jul 2017, 23:11
Faye, you've just done the worst thing to Clinton that he can imagine: Tell him that he needs to start covering up robo-hand. He likes having visible cybernetic augmentation, damn it! That's the whole cool part of it that makes up for blowing off his original hand!

I think it is the curse of the modern concept of masculinity that men are limited in the way that they can express themselves to each other so that they are not considered 'gay'. I mean, I get what Clinton (alcohol-lubricated as he is) is trying to say and so does Elliot but they have to maintain norms of self expression so...

Meanwhile, by the end of tonight, I think that Claire's shipping chart for the Secret Bakery would look like someone dipped a spider in LSD-laced ink and let it walk across the page. Just about every dot will be connected to just about every other dot!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 06 Jul 2017, 23:36
Clinton needs to start wearing a cover on the hand. It doesn't have to be flesh colored though. It could be a shiny chrome covering or bright red, or have flame decals on it. It can be anything he wants it to be, even a printed replica of the bare metal hand.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Akima on 06 Jul 2017, 23:42
I think it is the curse of the modern concept of masculinity that men are limited in the way that they can express themselves to each other so that they are not considered 'gay'.
Mmm... Clearly Clinton should have said "jolly decent chap" instead of "sweetheart"...  :laugh:
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TinPenguin on 07 Jul 2017, 00:16
Clinton needs to start wearing a cover on the hand. It doesn't have to be flesh colored though. It could be a shiny chrome covering or bright red, or have flame decals on it. It can be anything he wants it to be, even a printed replica of the bare metal hand.

Hm, but then people might not recognise him with a bright red hand.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: brasca on 07 Jul 2017, 02:01
Clinton needs to start wearing a cover on the hand. It doesn't have to be flesh colored though. It could be a shiny chrome covering or bright red, or have flame decals on it. It can be anything he wants it to be, even a printed replica of the bare metal hand.

Considering that May had a choice in what colors she could change her face to I don't see why they wouldn't have some options. 
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: DSL on 07 Jul 2017, 03:38
I suppose Clinton could do anything from a custom-made, custom-graphics Proper Waterproof Covering (TM) to cheaping out and buying a box of latex gloves.
Though he'd better be careful about Autonomous Mode for a while. Thing's gonna be pissed..
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: MrNumbers on 07 Jul 2017, 03:41
Yeah, a see-through covering would be an option, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: flondrix on 07 Jul 2017, 06:46
Yeah, a see-through covering would be an option, wouldn't it?
It would look pretty crappy once it got scuffed up.

Flexible materials tend to be disappointingly mortal.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: OldGoat on 07 Jul 2017, 07:45
Clinton needs to start wearing a cover on the hand. It doesn't have to be flesh colored though. It could be a shiny chrome covering or bright red, or have flame decals on it. It can be anything he wants it to be, even a printed replica of the bare metal hand.

Hm, but then people might not recognise him with a bright red hand.
Genealogy check - Are either of the Augustus sib's maternal grandparents O'Neills or O'Donnghailes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hand_of_Ulster)?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Dal Gurak on 07 Jul 2017, 08:25
Clinton needs to start wearing a cover on the hand. It doesn't have to be flesh colored though. It could be a shiny chrome covering or bright red, or have flame decals on it. It can be anything he wants it to be, even a printed replica of the bare metal hand.

Hm, but then people might not recognise him with a bright red hand.
Genealogy check - Are either of the Augustus sib's maternal grandparents O'Neills or O'Donnghailes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hand_of_Ulster)?

Dang.  I was feeling proud of myself for thinking of this song, but your reference totally outdoes mine.  Suppose I'll still share, since the song is cool.

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Jul 2017, 08:27
Uh oh. If Renee is a snot to Claire, Marten might get mad.

I had trouble imagining this at first but then it gave me a chill when I thought about the ninja monks.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: A Duck on 07 Jul 2017, 09:30
I'm more worried about Renee and Faye. Suppose Faye realizes Renee is Angus' ex and mentions that. Renee then goes on to say how much of an ass Angus is, assuming Faye would join her.

Since Faye's breakup with Angus was due to external circumstances, there's no reason for her to thing anything bad of him, that might set things off a bit.

I mean, Angus hasn't even been mentioned since the break up, and that is a character that had been around for a long, LONG time.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: OldGoat on 07 Jul 2017, 10:03
Dang.  I was feeling proud of myself for thinking of this song, but your reference totally outdoes mine.  Suppose I'll still share, since the song is cool.

I wasn't familiar with Nick Cave.  This is delightfully creepy - thank you!
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Ztyx on 07 Jul 2017, 10:30
Clinton needs to start wearing a cover on the hand. It doesn't have to be flesh colored though. It could be a shiny chrome covering or bright red, or have flame decals on it. It can be anything he wants it to be, even a printed replica of the bare metal hand.

Hm, but then people might not recognise him with a bright red hand.

More like if he gets a red right hand people will think he's a Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds lover.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: hedgie on 07 Jul 2017, 11:05
Or just obsessed with Paradise Lost.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: A Duck on 07 Jul 2017, 11:07
Clinton, soon
(http://alternativemindz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/metal-gear-solid-5-the-phantom-pain-gdc-2013-trailer-motorcycle-snake.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Rincewind on 07 Jul 2017, 11:53
Dang.  I was feeling proud of myself for thinking of this song, but your reference totally outdoes mine.  Suppose I'll still share, since the song is cool.


I wasn't familiar with Nick Cave.  This is delightfully creepy - thank you!
It's on disc called "Songs in the Key of X" music inspired by the show X-files.  Sheryl Crow's "On the Outside" is pretty much my theme song. Most of the tracks have an eerie/creepy feel to them.
https://www.discogs.com/Various-The-X-Files-Songs-In-The-Key-Of-X/release/487195 (https://www.discogs.com/Various-The-X-Files-Songs-In-The-Key-Of-X/release/487195)

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: sitnspin on 07 Jul 2017, 12:03
It was originally released on the Nick Cave album Let Love In.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Jakk Frost on 07 Jul 2017, 14:34
Annnnnnnnd that reaction is precisely why most guys don't talk to each other like that.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 07 Jul 2017, 15:19
No. Toxic masculinity is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Viewing accidental flirting or paying a sincere compliment being seen as a sign of being gay and therefore a bad thing is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Fragile egos and fear of being ostracized are why guys don't talk to each other like that. Two girls thinking they were cute and having a little chuckle is not the reason.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 07 Jul 2017, 15:29
Funny story - before Oscar Wilde's trial for gross indecency, men of the period used to walk around, holding hands and acting more affectionate towards each other. It was not uncommon to see soldiers walk through Hyde Park. Because the trial was such a high profile, it changed the gender mindset overnight.

Wait...that's not funny.

That's just fucking tragic.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Kugai on 07 Jul 2017, 17:20
He should wear a leather glove

Leather gloves are cool



I very muxh doubt the SS Ellioton will ever leave the slipway, let alone sail.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: St.Clair on 07 Jul 2017, 17:36
No. Toxic masculinity is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Viewing accidental flirting or paying a sincere compliment being seen as a sign of being gay and therefore a bad thing is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Fragile egos and fear of being ostracized are why guys don't talk to each other like that. Two girls thinking they were cute and having a little chuckle is not the reason.

While all this is true, and at the risk of taking something intended as a joke too seriously - is there a line or case where sexualizing two people with no actual attraction to each other, and deriving [ amusement, enjoyment, gratification, satisfaction ] from their reaction to their finding out about that, becomes okay?

tl;dr - "Oh, I was just thinking about the two of you fucking.  ... And the face you just made, that was great too."
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 07 Jul 2017, 18:51
Except that isn't what happened, not even close. Renee said 'accidentally flirt'.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 07 Jul 2017, 19:17
St.Clair was presumably referring to Claire shipping anything that moves, not Renee's reaction.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: St.Clair on 07 Jul 2017, 19:37
Yeah.  Not really a fan of shipping in general (and fandom's obsession with it), and when it's of "real" people (in context), personally known to the shipper(s) even...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: shanejayell on 07 Jul 2017, 20:41
Does anyone else want Clinton to get a mock chainsaw and do Evil Dead for halloween?   :-D
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Oenone on 07 Jul 2017, 20:48
I'm more worried about Renee and Faye. Suppose Faye realizes Renee is Angus' ex and mentions that. Renee then goes on to say how much of an ass Angus is, assuming Faye would join her.

Since Faye's breakup with Angus was due to external circumstances, there's no reason for her to thing anything bad of him, that might set things off a bit.

I mean, Angus hasn't even been mentioned since the break up, and that is a character that had been around for a long, LONG time.


I'll do you one better. What if Faye doesn't realize Renee is the "crazy" ex Angus mentioned, because Renee seems so chill? She accidentally jokes about Angus having a thing for deeply broken bullies, Renee gets all big eyed because wtf is that what he THOUGHT of her... and then out of no where, Brun is all I'm not sure what you said but you need to leave my friend alone!!!

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: MrNumbers on 08 Jul 2017, 01:50
On fiction shipping;

As a writerly authorly fellow, shipping's great. You hypothesize how two personalities interact deeply, long term. That's the basic fundamental core of all human drama right there. It's something most people relate to or identify with at some level -- if you're doing it right, anyway -- and it's just fantastic character exercise work.

It's like a chemistry experiment, seeing how they bubble, fizz and react.

It, by definition, doesn't hurt anyone. Perhaps you disagree with the mindset of someone who enjoys the exercise? Sure. But it's damn fun for those of us who do like it, a free and infinite vice unlikely to harm mind, body or soul, mine or yours.

On real life people shipping:

That shit can affect real actual people, and as much harm can come from something done for someone as to someone. Not saying don't think about it, because thought policing is bullshit, but don't act on it or talk about it. Rumours still suck. Highschool never ends.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: pwhodges on 08 Jul 2017, 02:39
In this forum, we try to show the same respect to the fictional characters as we do to real people.  It's a form of practice for real life, perhaps, but more importantly it's also true that real people can be hurt by the treatment of fictional people that they identify with in some manner.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Drunken Hamster on 08 Jul 2017, 04:54
No. Toxic masculinity is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Viewing accidental flirting or paying a sincere compliment being seen as a sign of being gay and therefore a bad thing is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Fragile egos and fear of being ostracized are why guys don't talk to each other like that. Two girls thinking they were cute and having a little chuckle is not the reason.

"Toxic Masculinity"

Try Toxic SJW. Oh, wait. You already have.

Anyway, to be on topic, in such an advanced world, where a seemingly full naturally functioning bionic hand would only cost 250 to fix being crushed and repair the neglect from not having a covering; Wouldn't you think it'd be sealed against that stuff as is??

Not to mention strong enough to withstand a simple friggen handshake????

{{Side theory, Elliot is a Radically Engineered Ancient Humaniform just like Alice, Sedna, and Mr. Church from Alice Grove.}}

{{OOOHH, DOUBLE SIDE THEORY, Elliot IS Mr. Church. As, like, a sleeper agent or something. Or maybe he's Mr. Church before he became Mr. Church. Like, before he went crazy or whatever.}
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: BenRG on 08 Jul 2017, 05:18
Anyway, to be on topic, in such an advanced world, where a seemingly full naturally functioning bionic hand would only cost 250 to fix being crushed and repair the neglect from not having a covering; Wouldn't you think it'd be sealed against that stuff as is??

Not at all. Think of it from a retail perspective. The actual hand (the mechanism and superstructure is more or less common to all customers of that body type. The covering material is an aethetic customisation. Additionally, as said covering probably isn't as robust as the superstructure, it will almost certainly need to be replaced. Also, I can imagine people wanting a different cover for different moods or circumstances. So having the covering as a separate 'glove' makes sense on many levels.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Drunken Hamster on 08 Jul 2017, 05:30
Anyway, to be on topic, in such an advanced world, where a seemingly full naturally functioning bionic hand would only cost 250 to fix being crushed and repair the neglect from not having a covering; Wouldn't you think it'd be sealed against that stuff as is??

Not at all. Think of it from a retail perspective. The actual hand (the mechanism and superstructure) is more or less common to all customers of that body type. The covering material is an aesthetic customization. Additionally, as said covering probably isn't as robust as the superstructure, it will almost certainly need to be replaced. Also, I can imagine people wanting a different cover for different moods or circumstances. So having the covering as a separate 'glove' makes sense on many levels.

Well, if I were in the industry and designing/producing said hands, the mechanism and superstructure would be sealed. Even if only for durability's sake. After all, I bet there are soldiers with bionic replacements. What if the coverings are melted/torn/shot off [etc.] and they have to treck hundreds of miles through the desert to get to the nearest base to be sent home?

Can't have their bionics giving out because they weren't dust proofed. It seems like a poor marketing strategy to me. "Hey, our robo-hands work just like real ones, but a firm handshake will crush them, and we force you to wear coverings because they weren't finished enough to be resistant to particle ingress! :D "

My only explanation for all of this is that Jeph didn't want Mary Sue level tech in his world, and he probsibly wanted a plot point. But, realistically, there would be no excuse for this in a real world product, IMHO.

EDIT/Addon:: Hey, does anyone else imagine Pintsize with an almost Elmo-like voice? Maybe slightly deeper?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: JimC on 08 Jul 2017, 06:50
Well, if I were in the industry ... the mechanism and superstructure would be sealed.
Most motorcyles sold round the world have exposed rear drive chains, with only a guard above them to stop oil and grease being flung onto the rider. This means that the chain and sprockets are covered in road dirt, grit and salt, lubrication is washed off and must be regularly replaced at expense and so on.

Chain enclosures are easy to design and have been in use for decades, save maintenance, drastically reduce the need for expensive replacements, keep the bike cleaner and have precious few disadvantages.

Really just one - they don't look cool. So most motorcyles sold round the world have exposed rear drive chains...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: bhtooefr on 08 Jul 2017, 07:18
That also goes for bicycles - there are belt drives that are low/zero maintenance, there are chain cases... but a lot of bicycles go for exposed chains.

Of course, with bicycles, it's hard to design a good chain case around a derailleur, but still.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 08 Jul 2017, 08:04
Anyway, to be on topic, in such an advanced world, where a seemingly full naturally functioning bionic hand would only cost 250 to fix being crushed and repair the neglect from not having a covering; Wouldn't you think it'd be sealed against that stuff as is??

Not at all. Think of it from a retail perspective. The actual hand (the mechanism and superstructure) is more or less common to all customers of that body type. The covering material is an aesthetic customization. Additionally, as said covering probably isn't as robust as the superstructure, it will almost certainly need to be replaced. Also, I can imagine people wanting a different cover for different moods or circumstances. So having the covering as a separate 'glove' makes sense on many levels.

Well, if I were in the industry and designing/producing said hands, the mechanism and superstructure would be sealed. Even if only for durability's sake. After all, I bet there are soldiers with bionic replacements. What if the coverings are melted/torn/shot off [etc.] and they have to treck hundreds of miles through the desert to get to the nearest base to be sent home?

Can't have their bionics giving out because they weren't dust proofed. It seems like a poor marketing strategy to me. "Hey, our robo-hands work just like real ones, but a firm handshake will crush them, and we force you to wear coverings because they weren't finished enough to be resistant to particle ingress! :D "

My only explanation for all of this is that Jeph didn't want Mary Sue level tech in his world, and he probsibly wanted a plot point. But, realistically, there would be no excuse for this in a real world product, IMHO.

EDIT/Addon:: Hey, does anyone else imagine Pintsize with an almost Elmo-like voice? Maybe slightly deeper?

To be fair, I don't think the group that manufactures those cybernetics have them stressed tested to Elliot levels.

As for hand coverings, its been said before that Clinton could use the covering for his own hand, but chooses not to because he likes how the bare look looks.

A lot of real world first generation gear tends to follow function over form to get the basics down pat. Once you have that, then you work on making it look fancy. It also comes down to efficiency, the more weight involved, the more the device has to work which can affect with how it operates. Now, a hand covering might not sound like it would be anything other than a featherweight, but fine motor control tends to be quite delicate and a covering might affect it, especially if Clinton has never used one.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: DaiJB on 08 Jul 2017, 08:08
Well, if I were in the industry and designing/producing said hands, the mechanism and superstructure would be sealed. Even if only for durability's sake. After all, I bet there are soldiers with bionic replacements. What if the coverings are melted/torn/shot off [etc.] and they have to treck hundreds of miles through the desert to get to the nearest base to be sent home?

I used to work with a company that put together computers for military use. The process consisted of dismantling ordinary home computers, scrapping the original, less robust cases, connectors, mountings and cables, then replacing them with more robust components, e.g., metal cases, heavy-duty cables etc. Probably cost a mint, but that's what the military pays for - military-grade equipment.
My point is -  do we get military-grade stuff? - no, we get cheaper and (often) nastier. Military-grade is better quality for a reason.

Can't have their bionics giving out because they weren't dust proofed. It seems like a poor marketing strategy to me. "Hey, our robo-hands work just like real ones, but a firm handshake will crush them, and we force you to wear coverings because they weren't finished enough to be resistant to particle ingress! :D "

Well, that's the world of marketing as it actually exists!
 
For instance, look at cars - you can get everything from a Bugatti or Maserati down to a Pinto or a Yugo!
I can get a Samsung or iPad tablet - or I can buy the thing that I actually did buy...  (You get what you pay for :roll: )

Business will sell what people will buy - and if we can't afford a better machine, we might be buying something more dodgy.

I suspect Clinton's family isn't exactly rich - maybe his hand is simply the budget model? ("Budget" often being a euphemism for "cutting corners"  :wink: )
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 08 Jul 2017, 08:28
In this forum, we try to show the same respect to the fictional characters as we do to real people.  It's a form of practice for real life, perhaps, but more importantly it's also true that real people can be hurt by the treatment of fictional people that they identify with in some manner.

People here have identified very strongly with the characters.

Another issue, which might make more sense to a writer, is that these are somebody else's characters.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 08 Jul 2017, 08:45
I suspect Clinton's family isn't exactly rich - maybe his hand is simply the budget model? ("Budget" often being a euphemism for "cutting corners"  :wink: )

Bear in mind as well that Clinton lost his hand years ago due to a fireworks accident, so that probably happened in his late childhood or early teen years. Just a brief check on the net and a company has produced a new myoelectric prosthetic hand that costs on average $11000 (or €9000), to put that into perspective that's designed to be "affordable", other more advanced replacements could almost hit $100,000. Prosthetics have to be replaced every couple of years both due to wear and tear and to account for the growth of an individual. So multiply that a couple of times.

Now consider that Clinton's hand doesn't seem to be an overly basic model - autonomous function and all, which I doubt their insurance would cover, unless its really good! I think the Augustus family would have essentially been buying something as expensive as a secondhand car every couple of years. And factor in Clinton and Claire both being in college and Claire transitioning and I think its safe to say that the Augustus family would have been cutting corners where they could - "Well Clinton, you could have the covering for your hand, or we could pay the heating bill for winter..."
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: OldGoat on 08 Jul 2017, 08:53
I suspect Clinton's family isn't exactly rich - maybe his hand is simply the budget model? ("Budget" often being a euphemism for "cutting corners"  :wink: )
^^^THIS^^^

They aren't wealthy, but they do okay by managing what they have well.  For example, Claire is the only QC cast member we know of who owns a car, an older Mazda (https://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2378) - which I reckon she saved up for and purchased outright for cash*. 

They didn't go cheap on Clinton's current hand (as TheEvilDog points out, the prosthesis has been replaced at least a couple times), but it's not top of the line, either.    It's a white collar worker's hand.  If it have been designed to be used by a pipefitter, he may have matched or even injured Elliott.  As a plot device, it serves to reinforce Elliott's status as the gentle giant.  Damaging a prosthesis is on the margins of what we can believe Elliott's capable of, but still on the credible side of the line.

*I see Claire as debt-adverse to the point she considers carrying a balance on a credit card a personal failing.  As the relationship progresses, this will contrast with Marten's empty-the-savings-account-for-a-guitar tendencies.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: bhtooefr on 08 Jul 2017, 10:37
Worth noting that in 2013 when that comic was published, that Mazda was available new.

It was, however, very cheap for a new car, partially because it got mediocre fuel consumption for its class.

My headcanon is that there's quite a bit of money to go around despite the divorce, though - Clinton's hands, Claire's car, Claire's transition, and a nice house in Massachusetts.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: OldGoat on 08 Jul 2017, 10:51
Worth noting that in 2013 when that comic was published, that Mazda was available new.

It was, however, very cheap for a new car, partially because it got mediocre fuel consumption for its class.

My headcanon is that there's quite a bit of money to go around despite the divorce, though - Clinton's hands, Claire's car, Claire's transition, and a nice house in Massachusetts.
You probably know the Mazda line better than I.  I was seeing it as two or three years old with 20,000 miles or so when she bought it - just the kind of vehicle a frugality freak like I envision Claire to be would look for.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: bhtooefr on 08 Jul 2017, 11:19
It could've been that old, yes - it came out for model year 2011 in the US market.

However, that would've meant that she would've just gotten it in when that comic was published. (Cars in the QCverse don't appear to follow the timeline at all - estimates are that that strip was set in summer 2006 IIRC, and that car didn't exist then. Phones don't follow it either, FWIW.)

Note that Claire is 24 as of that point, and she's a grad student.

My guess is that she got the car new, as a graduation gift. If she were buying the car with her own money, it would've been a descent into the land of $1000 Craigslist beaters, if she got anything.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: flondrix on 08 Jul 2017, 11:59
Two girls thinking they were cute and having a little chuckle is not the reason.

Consider how offended the typical woman (typical, not sex-positive kinky dreamgirls you see in the media and online but not in real life) gets if she finds out that a guy was "shipping" her and her cute friend.  Is it any wonder that guys don't like it?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: flondrix on 08 Jul 2017, 13:56
Not to mention strong enough to withstand a simple friggen handshake????

A handshake, yes.  Two guys trying for the "crush", not so much.  (I think it has been made pretty clear that Clinton tried to go for the crush and Elliot responded in kind.)

Machinery is notoriously vulnerable to stupid unnecessary abuse, and can often be outdone by flesh and blood in ways you wouldn' expect.  One reason that it is hard to fine genuine bagels instead of torroidal shaped bread is that no commercial dough-kneeding machine can handle stiff bagel dough as well as a Jewish grandmother can.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: flondrix on 08 Jul 2017, 18:16
Are we overdue for a new WCDT?  It is July 8th.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 08 Jul 2017, 18:19
Are we overdue for a new WCDT?  It is July 8th.

New WCDTs are posted Sunday evening.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Method of Madness on 08 Jul 2017, 18:31
New WCDTs are posted whenever someone wants to make them if nobody else has first. Usually it's on a Sunday, but if you wanna make one now, flondrix, that's perfectly fine.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: hedgie on 08 Jul 2017, 19:30
Hells, I wouldn't mind seeing them on Saturdays, since I'd like to vote/post before I see the comic.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Case on 09 Jul 2017, 04:08
No. Toxic masculinity is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Viewing accidental flirting or paying a sincere compliment being seen as a sign of being gay and therefore a bad thing is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Fragile egos and fear of being ostracized are why guys don't talk to each other like that. Two girls thinking they were cute and having a little chuckle is not the reason.

"Toxic Masculinity"

Try Toxic SJW. Oh, wait. You already have.

Profound and original! Can I have an autograph?
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 09 Jul 2017, 04:38
I'm glad you brought this up, Case, because I do have a (mild) criticism of the original post in your quote.

Viewing accidental flirting or paying a sincere compliment being seen as a sign of being gay and therefore a bad thing is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Fragile egos and fear of being ostracized are why guys don't talk to each other like that.

These comments are pretty reasonable explanations, IMO, as to why (some) guys don't talk to each other like this, at least not publicly. Although it might be interesting to discuss the deeper reasons why these behaviours are seen the way they are, by (again, some) males and females.

"Toxic masculinity," on the other hand, does not explain why. It's a very broad umbrella term describing all kinds of undesirable male behaviours, including the ones above and many many others. As such, it doesn't really add anything to the discussion except to perhaps ostracise anyone who might mistake the expression for implying that masculinity is inherently "toxic." As such, I feel that the post would have been better without it.

As I said, not really a big deal, but seeing as it came again, thought I'd throw that in.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Case on 09 Jul 2017, 05:14
"Toxic masculinity," on the other hand, does not explain why. It's a very broad umbrella term describing all kinds of undesirable male behaviours, including the ones above and many many others. As such, it doesn't really add anything to the discussion except to perhaps ostracise anyone who might mistake the expression for implying that masculinity is inherently "toxic."

Yeah, I once suffered the same confuzzlement.

Then I googled it.


My 2 cents: Neko's hit it on the head - there's many possible masculinities (actually, there's as many as there's specimens of menfolk, whatwith us being bona fide human beings), and there's one widespread stereotype being drilled into every male's head that turns out to be poison for us XY-chromosome bearers, and via the infected, hurtful for the rest. That this stereotypical behaviour encompasses many aspects means it is the explanation for several different types of bullshit. Don't see any logical problems here (And if we're tired of hearing it from wimminfolk then mayhap we should start having a look at this shit & taking care of it ourselves ... but don't let them hear that [SecretHandshake]).   

(Still find it annoying to have a running commentary to my interactions, no matter if it's found 'cute' or not. It's a bit voyeuristic to my taste. No biggy, though)

Edit: Come to think of it, take 'XY-chromosome' as a placeholder-term.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: MrNumbers on 09 Jul 2017, 05:32
In this forum, we try to show the same respect to the fictional characters as we do to real people.  It's a form of practice for real life, perhaps, but more importantly it's also true that real people can be hurt by the treatment of fictional people that they identify with in some manner.

People here have identified very strongly with the characters.

Another issue, which might make more sense to a writer, is that these are somebody else's characters.

I'm going to say straight up this isn't an argument, I'm not disagreeing, and I acknowledge the rules and culture of this forum. With that out of the way, I want to talk about this for the sole reason I've never heard this argument before, I've not encountered this mindset, and I genuinely do not understand it.

1) Is it not accepted that one can identify with a character very strongly while still acknowledging one is not the character, and others may have different interpretations of the character that are not one's own? I find the notion of taking personal offense or discomfort to this... bizarre?

2) They are fictitious characters, not real people. Treating them like real people is... They're constructs. They're fabrications. They're tools to explore ideas, like interpersonal relationships. To say to me to treat them like real people, is like telling me to be gentle with a hammer. Or less violent with a saw. While I understand, superficially, that the actions themselves can be construed negatively, it seems to go against the purpose/function of the tool.

3) Other persons' character... Actually ties neatly to 1) and 2) for me. When someone writes my characters, they're not writing my character, they're writing their interpretation of the character. It's a response in a conversation to an idea I've put forth. Hell, I put forward the idea of music remixes as a similar practice in another medium. Fanfiction in general and shipping in specific isn't a malicious act, or plagiarism; It's someone resonating with an idea enough they want to personally explore it and extrapolate it from their perspective. And that's pretty cool, in my opinion.

That's what it comes down to for me. The idea of not wanting to treat characters as characters, as literary tools, to explore as ideas and explore ideas with, because it might offend someone who identifies with them -- when identifying with a character is the point of that character being an effective tool  -- is utterly antithetical to my core understanding of fiction as a concept.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Case on 09 Jul 2017, 05:55
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Drunken Hamster on 09 Jul 2017, 06:01
No. Toxic masculinity is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Viewing accidental flirting or paying a sincere compliment being seen as a sign of being gay and therefore a bad thing is why guys don't talk to each other like that. Fragile egos and fear of being ostracized are why guys don't talk to each other like that. Two girls thinking they were cute and having a little chuckle is not the reason.

"Toxic Masculinity"

Try Toxic SJW. Oh, wait. You already have.

Profound and original! Can I have an autograph?
I would, but, unfortunately, autograph signings are between 2 and 4 every other Thursday.

And this Thursday is a skip week. Lol.

;P

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: JimC on 09 Jul 2017, 06:16
...utterly antithetical to my core understanding of fiction as a concept.
Maybe so, but clearly not antithetical to other folk's understanding.

It seems to be a general principle/considered good manners amongst writers that you don't steal other folks characters and put them in situations the originator hadn't envisaged *unless* there is specific permission. I find that very easy to understand. What I find less easy to understand is people thinking that because they call themselves fans they, as amateur writers, are automatically given a licence that professional writers wouldn't have. To me that's wrong. If its bad manners to take other folks characters and use them then its bad manners whether you're a pro or a fan.

In this particular case the creator has made it very clear that he objects to having his characters taken and used to construct relationship scenarios. To my mind its his privilege to object, and I have no problem whatsoever with it, and its entirely correct that this forum should follow his wishes.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: BenRG on 09 Jul 2017, 07:07
@JimC,

I think that you're missing the central thrust of MrNumbers' post. He is stating that the official disapproval of speculation and theorising regarding unknowns or ambiguities about the characters (including shipping, specifically in the area of sexual alignment) has a basis that he feels is not entirely rational and that, whilst he undertakes to abide by it, he won't pretend to entirely understand it. I feel the same way sometimes.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 09 Jul 2017, 08:12
See, I took the comic to be a dig at the fandom who think that any interaction between two characters automatically thinks they're going to end up banging. Which is not a healthy attitude for anyone involved. At the end of the day, the forum tends to be a little cautious on overly shipping characters because (i) it can quickly get out of control, (ii) can quickly become creepy (C.F. Anything involving Hanners), (iii) other forum members can feel uncomfortable with it and (iv) it creeps Jeph out.

Even if people think that fictitious characters shouldn't be seen as real people, there are certainly real people who are also reading them and there should be a certain level of consideration for them. This is an inclusive forum, no one wants to be driven away and of course people shouldn't feel as if they are being booted out. 
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: pwhodges on 09 Jul 2017, 09:08
1) Is it not accepted that one can identify with a character very strongly while still acknowledging one is not the character, and others may have different interpretations of the character that are not one's own? I find the notion of taking personal offense or discomfort to this... bizarre?

You may feel that it was bizarre when early on we insisted on the correct spelling of names (usually Marten's), as a matter of respect for the author.  However, the real issue came into play when Claire was shewn to be transgendered.  We had people coming to the forum spilling bile about this, and transgender folk who came to the forum (because they wanted to thank Jeph for handling it so well) told us that they were upset when the character Claire was abused by other forum members for being just like they were.  So it was clear to us that we had to draw a line.  And once such a line is drawn, we cannot easily say it is only for this kind of person, or that state of affairs - so it became our general rule.

Listen to the people who say it is a problem to them rather than saying it isn't one to you.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: hakko504 on 09 Jul 2017, 10:36
For example, Claire is the only QC cast member we know of who owns a car, an older Mazda (https://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2378) - which I reckon she saved up for and purchased outright for cash*. 
Um, no. We know at least Dale, Tai and Raven have their own cars. IIRC Dora has one as well. bhtooefr posted a summary of all cars shown in the comics here: (old WCDT) (https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,30289.msg1283882.html#msg1283882)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: hedgie on 09 Jul 2017, 11:21
Dora does as well.  She *does* drive from Amherst to go to work after all.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 09 Jul 2017, 14:31
I would say it's rude to J.K. Rowling to force Harry and Draco into bed together, and don't see it as a form of literary exploration either, being instead simply prurient.

Some of the shipping that's happened here was just that childish and just that creepy. That was a long time ago but is what comes to mind for the moderation team.

MrNumbers, am I getting you right, that what you're describing as shipping is thoughtful instead? Like exploring how an organic and a synthetic could have a romantic relationship instead of writing Faye/Bubbles porn?

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: MrNumbers on 09 Jul 2017, 16:34
Quote
MrNumbers, am I getting you right, that what you're describing as shipping is thoughtful instead? Like exploring how an organic and a synthetic could have a romantic relationship instead of writing Faye/Bubbles porn?

I mean, yeah. Yep, that's how I take it, that's how I've been interpreting it, and that's what I mean. The former is what I take to be shipping, literally 'relationshipping', the latter I would classify as 'slashfic' because... well, as you did there, "/".

Quote
We had people coming to the forum spilling bile about this, and transgender folk who came to the forum (because they wanted to thank Jeph for handling it so well) told us that they were upset when the character Claire was abused by other forum members for being just like they were.

Ah! I now understand the problem. Excellent.

Here it's not a problem of people identifying with the character, so much as others criticizing traits they identify with personally. That's far more understandable! Yes, when people are using it to deride a character you identify with, it's hard not to take it as a personal attack, because they're attacking an aspect of yourself that you share.

That's completely straightforward to me, and not something I was getting from the initial posts and arguments. I disagree with this being tied to the original conclusions I was responding to, but now I at least appreciate where you're coming from, which is what I was missing before.

Quote
Listen to the people who say it is a problem to them rather than saying it isn't one to you.

I am listening. I was not understanding, and trying to outline where I wasn't understanding. I appreciate these things being explained so that I can follow the spirit of these issues, as well as just the letter of them.

And @JimC, what @BenRG said, practically verbatim.

Quote
In this particular case the creator has made it very clear that he objects to having his characters taken and used to construct relationship scenarios. To my mind its his privilege to object, and I have no problem whatsoever with it, and its entirely correct that this forum should follow his wishes.

I was not aware of this. I strongly object to this, purely personally, on both legal and ethical grounds, but I was not aware of this and I'll take that into consideration.

My objection being "I will abide by your decision, but I disagree with you making this decision" and not "I will ignore this has been said" to be as clear as possible.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: St.Clair on 09 Jul 2017, 16:36
It, by definition, doesn't hurt anyone. Perhaps you disagree with the mindset of someone who enjoys the exercise? Sure. But it's damn fun for those of us who do like it, a free and infinite vice unlikely to harm mind, body or soul, mine or yours.

In that sense, it is much like masturbation (an activity which, in my experience, it often accompanies and provides material for).  As such, while I agree with your assessment as to the (lack of) actual harm, I would still tend to prefer that people do it in private, where I don't have to see it.

Fandom is, IMO, in general, inordinately concerned with (getting off to) who's getting off with whom, which I find both offputting and tiresome.  (For what it's worth, I feel almost exactly the same about another common fannish activity, the speculation over "who would beat who in a fight", including the comparison to masturbation.)
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 09 Jul 2017, 17:13
"Toxic masculinity," on the other hand, does not explain why. It's a very broad umbrella term describing all kinds of undesirable male behaviours, including the ones above and many many others. As such, it doesn't really add anything to the discussion except to perhaps ostracise anyone who might mistake the expression for implying that masculinity is inherently "toxic."

Yeah, I once suffered the same confuzzlement.

Then I googled it.


My 2 cents: Neko's hit it on the head - there's many possible masculinities (actually, there's as many as there's specimens of menfolk, whatwith us being bona fide human beings), and there's one widespread stereotype being drilled into every male's head that turns out to be poison for us XY-chromosome bearers, and via the infected, hurtful for the rest. That this stereotypical behaviour encompasses many aspects means it is the explanation for several different types of bullshit. Don't see any logical problems here (And if we're tired of hearing it from wimminfolk then mayhap we should start having a look at this shit & taking care of it ourselves ... but don't let them hear that [SecretHandshake]).   

(Still find it annoying to have a running commentary to my interactions, no matter if it's found 'cute' or not. It's a bit voyeuristic to my taste. No biggy, though)

Edit: Come to think of it, take 'XY-chromosome' as a placeholder-term.


The term toxic masculinity does have a specific meaning. Which is behaviors that are taught and propagated that men must behave in certain ways to be seen as 'real men', or otherwise ostracized. It has many facets, one of which being that two men talking like Clinton and Elliott were in the comic is a sign that they are not manly enough and probably gay, which is not appropriate. This term is not to call out all masculinity as toxic, but rather the behavior of considering there to be only one true way to be a man is inherently sexist and harmful, both towards men who do not live up to the standard, and those who do.

I apologize if I was not clear in my post, and to any hurt or confusion I may have caused to anyone. That certainly wasn't my intention. Though I do stand by the point I was trying to make. Renee and Claire joking was not why 'guys don't act like that'. It's because being thought of as gay is considered inferior according to the terms and reasoning I laid out above. They did come close to that point, but there was one difference, that I think is telling. They weren't mocking or insulting the guys for their behavior. They thought they were being  cute for being open enough to talk about their feelings, which could be seen by some as flirtatious in some ways with the way they were talking. Only filtered though the toxic mindset is that seen as a negative thing.

Two guys should be able to talk about that without anyone a) thinking they are gay or b) thinking there was anything wrong with it. But because of the culture of sexism, this sort of behavior is looked down on and insulted, leading to this toxic view that to be a man means not having emotions or conversations like that.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Case on 09 Jul 2017, 17:19
Listen to the people who say it is a problem to them rather than saying it isn't one to you.

You know, that sounds like a reasonable, balanced and fair approach ...

... to discussions in the WCDT.

You MONSTER!  :x

(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 09 Jul 2017, 21:46
In this particular case the creator has made it very clear that he objects to having his characters taken and used to construct relationship scenarios. To my mind its his privilege to object, and I have no problem whatsoever with it, and its entirely correct that this forum should follow his wishes.

For whatever it's worth, I am thankful for this rule on a daily basis.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 10 Jul 2017, 18:58
Quote from: MrNumbers
resonating with an idea enough they want to personally explore it and extrapolate it from their perspective

The moderators would see a ton of difference between "Can two people with PTSD make a relationship work?" and "When are they going to fuck already?".

Thank FSM, there's the sub-Reddit, free of the constraint of being Jeph's property.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Gyrre on 10 Jul 2017, 21:33
I would say it's rude to J.K. Rowling to force Harry and Draco into bed together, and don't see it as a form of literary exploration either, being instead simply prurient.

Some of the shipping that's happened here was just that childish and just that creepy. That was a long time ago but is what comes to mind for the moderation team.

MrNumbers, am I getting you right, that what you're describing as shipping is thoughtful instead? Like exploring how an organic and a synthetic could have a romantic relationship instead of writing Faye/Bubbles porn?
Ah. That's ultimately what it boils down to, isn't it. Motivation and intention.

Is it being done to explore something, or is it purely prurient (maturbatory)?

EDIT: Harry x Draco and Cloud x Sephiroth are the two common examples given for male-male arbitrary shipping that goes against character. What are two examples of arbitrary female-female shipping that goes against the character's personality/motivations. i.e. Sephiroth wants to kill Cloud, not have sex with him.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: BenRG on 11 Jul 2017, 05:54
It's my experience that a significant element of fan-shipping (especially between character antagonists) boils down to 'they look cute together' and has no other real basis beyond some strange idea that you can have a functional relationship based on violent passion moving from hate to lust.

I may ship on more than one occasion but there are some out there who do it...? Well 'crazy' doesn't come close to defining it.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Gyrre on 11 Jul 2017, 06:29
If the fanfic writer actually takes time to write full character arcs that work with their established character, I don't mind so much. But, as I understand it, that almost never happens.
Considering how many people write fanfic, at least one person has actually tried to make it believable within the confines of canon.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Neko_Ali on 11 Jul 2017, 07:02
One of the biggest female FoeYay fanships I've seen lately has been WidowTracer, from Overwatch. They're on enemy teams, pre-game banter shows they don't much like each other. Tracer is shown to be in a relationship, while Widowmaker is an emotionless husk who killed her own husband. Yet it's one of the most popular ships in Overwatch. To be fair, I have seen a number of explanations that could explain why they could be a couple, but none of that is supported in canon. Hasn't stopped anyone though, never does.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Case on 11 Jul 2017, 07:07
Awwwh, c'mon! It's obvious!

(http://i.imgur.com/sW1R14j.png)

:parrot:
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: MrNumbers on 11 Jul 2017, 10:25
So what I'm getting from this, then, is it's not that you guys have a problem with shipping, conceptually -- at least, not when it's written as a romantic piece instead of as an erotica piece -- you guys just have a problem in that most of the time it's done superficially or badly.

And, yeah, okay that's fair enough.

Quote
If the fanfic writer actually takes time to write full character arcs that work with their established character, I don't mind so much.

This would go a lot smoother for me if this were assumed to be the actual point, or at least the direction I approached this from. In the circles I choose to move in, it definitely is the whole point. "Then they fucked" isn't even a thing most of the time.

Quote
The moderators would see a ton of difference between "Can two people with PTSD make a relationship work?" and "When are they going to fuck already?".

Fantastic. The first one is so much more interesting. That's what I'm talking about here.

Like when I say I am one of the original Claire-Marten shippers, I mean I spent time thinking about how Marten would handle being in a relationship with a person who was way more passive than Dora, where he'd be the one taking the lead for once, and I spent approximately between nothing and bupkis thinking about her genitals. Bah.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Case on 11 Jul 2017, 10:43
This would go a lot smoother for me if this were assumed to be the actual point, or at least the direction I approached this from. In the circles I choose to move in, it definitely is the whole point. "Then they fucked" isn't even a thing most of the time.

Marigold hates you (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1790) ...
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 11 Jul 2017, 10:56
Quote
The moderators would see a ton of difference between "Can two people with PTSD make a relationship work?" and "When are they going to fuck already?".

Fantastic. The first one is so much more interesting. That's what I'm talking about here.
You can see that and that's great.

To paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones slightly: You're a person. A person is smart. Fandoms are dumb, toxic animals who can leap to the wrong conclusion and become vicious when challenged and you know that. Fandoms can latch onto unhealthy ideas of what relationships entail and let them colour their view of the rest of the world. Which in turn can have a negative effect on others around them. Now, I'm not saying shipping is wrong, but I think we can all agree that we have seen the worst of it on the net.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: pwhodges on 11 Jul 2017, 12:49
So what I'm getting from this, then, is it's not that you guys have a problem with shipping, conceptually -- at least, not when it's written as a romantic piece instead of as an erotica piece -- you guys just have a problem in that most of the time it's done superficially or badly.

Indeed.  In fact, even I have written fan fiction - a conclusion (https://cassland.org/words/AfterwardsBook.pdf) following the third Evangelion film in which there are three possible ships with the MC (Shinji) with which I tease the readers ever so gently (ending up with the one they are conventionally least likely to expect, naturally).  The shipping is not the essence of the story, though.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Thrillho on 11 Jul 2017, 13:03
Something I have enjoyed about coming to terms with my own queerness and investing in the queer community more is having a group of male friends that I can be affectionate with, verbally and physically, the same way I am with my female and non-binary friends.

Sometimes I like to tell someone I like what they're wearing or that their hair looks good. This shouldn't need to be something unique to my interaction with females.

I am actually very pleased that a couple of my hetero cis male friends are down with this kind of thing too. It's actually even more heartening. I work with a guy who is a definitive 'lad' but is such a softy deep down and is always quick to comment if I've had a trim or if he likes my shirt.

The world is getting better in some small ways, sometimes.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Jul 2017, 20:21
Quote from: MrNumbers
So what I'm getting from this, then, is it's not that you guys have a problem with shipping, conceptually -- at least, not when it's written as a romantic piece instead of as an erotica piece -- you guys just have a problem in that most of the time it's done superficially or badly.

Ultimately though ours is not the opinion that matters.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 11 Jul 2017, 20:58
You're a moderator. Your opinion of what kind of shipping does or does not constitute a problem matters a very great deal.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: pwhodges on 11 Jul 2017, 23:08
He means that we try to do what we believe Jeph would want in his forum (in the first instance to prevent him feeling the need to close the forum down, which was a real possibility when I became a moderator); and he has in fact endorsed our attitude to shipping - see the sticky thread: "Conduct in this forum".  Our opinion matters to the forum because it is what informs our decisions; but it is intended, in this respect, to be a mirror of Jeph's opinion rather than necessarily our own personal one (which, mind you, could be the same).
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Jul 2017, 23:13
That's what I was trying to say.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 11 Jul 2017, 23:30
Yes, sure. But because your opinion does indeed inform your decisions, and you don't presumably discuss every moderator discussion with Jeph himself, then as I said, your opinion cannot be held to be unimportant. And your opinion obviously matters to people who post and don't want to break the rules. If, in a moderator's opinion, a poster has indeed broken the rules, then they have broken the rules.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: pwhodges on 11 Jul 2017, 23:40
Given that Jeph leaves it to us, that's the best we can do for him, naturally.  But it does mean that we may well be making decisions that are not the same as each of us might make in another forum without that constraint.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Jul 2017, 23:43
The word "ultimately" was key to the meaning of that sentence. We run the place but bottom line is we don't own it.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 12 Jul 2017, 00:00
I comprehend and appreciate what you are saying.

I just wonder if you could put on your official moderator hats and answer the question to the best of your understanding of what Jeph does or does not want posted here.

Here it is again.

Quote from: MrNumbers
So what I'm getting from this, then, is it's not that you guys have a problem with shipping, conceptually -- at least, not when it's written as a romantic piece instead of as an erotica piece -- you guys just have a problem in that most of the time it's done superficially or badly.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: JimC on 12 Jul 2017, 01:00
... answer the question to the best of your understanding of what Jeph does or does not want posted here.

from the https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,27466.0.html Please Read if you are new topic above
Quote
One of the key things you need to understand about how things work is that it's Jeph's comic, not ours. What that means is that the forum is for discussion, speculation, even criticism (specific and respectful), but not for posting about how you would write it, or heaven forbid telling Jeph what to do. Creativity is good, and there's a whole subforum for it, but only Jeph gets to be creative with the QC characters.  In particular, "shipping" is not allowed - there is a discussion of this in the Conduct in this forum thread.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 12 Jul 2017, 01:26
With respect, I'm asking the mods, not you. And I'm certainly not asking to be recited that thread. I've read it more than once.

The rule says "no shipping," but clearly some degree of shipping has been allowed and continues to be allowed. What I'm requesting is a clear answer to the specific question.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: anahata on 12 Jul 2017, 04:11
I seem to remember somewhere in that thread a guideline that suggests it's OK to discuss a relationship that is quite clearly already developing or at least being hinted at in-comic, but off limits to pick a pathologically unlikely or inappropriate pair of characters and try shipping them.

No, I'm not a mod either. Sorry about that.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: pwhodges on 12 Jul 2017, 08:24
I'm sorry if you find the guidelines in the Conduct thread unclear; they've served pretty well for well over six years now.  The essence of them is contained in this post and the following (https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,25614.msg989636.html#msg989636) (note that Cold wasn't yet a mod when he wrote that).  Beyond that, if we think it's going beyond our guidelines we will let you know; we're not going to punish people without clarifying where they stand.  On the other hand, systematically pushing the limits for too long might be seen as acting in bad faith - but again, not without warning.

It is my experience elsewhere that trying to write completely comprehensive rules is a futile endeavour, leading to great over-complication, and people still finding loopholes.  Relying on common sense and friendly guidance is preferable by far.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: flondrix on 12 Jul 2017, 08:56
I would say it's rude to J.K. Rowling to force Harry and Draco into bed together, and don't see it as a form of literary exploration either, being instead simply prurient.

On the other hand, I do not apologize in the slightest for the many gruesome and painful ways fans found to kill off Wesley Crusher back in the late eighties and early nineties.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 12 Jul 2017, 14:52
Answering the question would not have even remotely involved "writing comprehensive rules." I thought the question was perfectly reasonable, but instead of a straight answer, it got evaded in a way that would have made our PM green with envy.

I guess I will just drop it, but I am surprised and disappointed.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: DSL on 12 Jul 2017, 19:24
I would say it's rude to J.K. Rowling to force Harry and Draco into bed together, and don't see it as a form of literary exploration either, being instead simply prurient.

On the other hand, I do not apologize in the slightest for the many gruesome and painful ways fans found to kill off Wesley Crusher back in the late eighties and early nineties.

Considering some of those ways were likely to have been dreamed up the actor who played him, I think an apology is contraindicated here anyway.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Method of Madness on 12 Jul 2017, 19:59
I comprehend and appreciate what you are saying.

I just wonder if you could put on your official moderator hats and answer the question to the best of your understanding of what Jeph does or does not want posted here.

Here it is again.

Quote from: MrNumbers
So what I'm getting from this, then, is it's not that you guys have a problem with shipping, conceptually -- at least, not when it's written as a romantic piece instead of as an erotica piece -- you guys just have a problem in that most of the time it's done superficially or badly.

Basically if it can't be justified by canon, it doesn't belong here. If it can be justified by canon, still don't be creepy about it. Obviously what can and can't be justified by canon is an example of varying mileage, but be reasonable.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 12 Jul 2017, 20:33
I would say it's rude to J.K. Rowling to force Harry and Draco into bed together, and don't see it as a form of literary exploration either, being instead simply prurient.

On the other hand, I do not apologize in the slightest for the many gruesome and painful ways fans found to kill off Wesley Crusher back in the late eighties and early nineties.

Considering some of those ways were likely to have been dreamed up the actor who played him, I think an apology is contraindicated here anyway.

See, I would have imagined it was the Writers who should have suffered those gruesome fates. If only for the episode "Shades of Grey".
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 12 Jul 2017, 20:37
Thank you, Mister Madness. That is pretty reasonable.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 12 Jul 2017, 22:01
I comprehend and appreciate what you are saying.

I just wonder if you could put on your official moderator hats and answer the question to the best of your understanding of what Jeph does or does not want posted here.

Here it is again.

Quote from: MrNumbers
So what I'm getting from this, then, is it's not that you guys have a problem with shipping, conceptually -- at least, not when it's written as a romantic piece instead of as an erotica piece -- you guys just have a problem in that most of the time it's done superficially or badly.

Officialness, on!
Global Moderator Comment To the extent we understand what Jeph does and doesn't want, it boils down to "don't be creepy", probably with a chaser of "respect my intellectual property". That is inherently subjective and resistant to concrete explicit rule-making. Our decision making is inevitably going to be case by case. See also Method's good clear summary: if it's canon, it's exploring the characters, if not, then it's hijacking them. The more grounded it is in the evidence of the comic and the less explicit it is, the better. Wrong: Marigold/Hannelore. Right: Dora/Tai anytime after the "butterflies" strip. Infinitely debatable: Faye and Bubbles. That falls lamentably short of the clear line you asked for but I hope it helps.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 12 Jul 2017, 23:03
Thank you, IICIH. I can't speak for MrNumbers of course, but I found that useful. If I do decide to participate in a discussion in, say, human/AI relationships in the comic, I'll feel happier having that guidance.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: pwhodges on 12 Jul 2017, 23:16
Today's comic (3524 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3524)) makes the point that friendship is not necessarily romantic or sexual, and that jumping too quickly to the conclusion that it is can quickly get one out of line with the characters' own canon reactions.  I'm inclined to take it as a gentle warning from Jeph to be careful when shipping.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: MrNumbers on 12 Jul 2017, 23:29
Thank you, IICIH. I can't speak for MrNumbers of course, but I found that useful. If I do decide to participate in a discussion in, say, human/AI relationships in the comic, I'll feel happier having that guidance.

Sorry, yes, should jump back in; I've been watching, I just stopped replying because I was really satisfied with a lot of the answers here (Especially MoM's. Love you, MoM) and didn't really feel the need to reply because of it.

But yeah, no, I've been following along and nodding my head pretty hard at the resolution of this. Like I said, I want to understand the spirit of the rules, not just the letter of them, and this has been extremely helpful in that regard.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Tova on 13 Jul 2017, 02:04
Today's comic (3524 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3524)) makes the point that friendship is not necessarily romantic or sexual, and that jumping too quickly to the conclusion that it is can quickly get one out of line with the characters' own canon reactions.  I'm inclined to take it as a gentle warning from Jeph to be careful when shipping.

I think that my current averse reaction to shipping stems from my time at university, when two of my friends developed a close friendship but were mutually uninterested in dating each other. Many people assumed either that they were secretly dating or soon would be dating. It annoyed them, and their annoyance rubbed off on me, I guess. A close friendship is an incredibly valuable thing, and I do think that shipping can devalue it. I have only a small number of what I would call close friendships, and they are priceless to me. I'd like to see more discussion of the nature of friendships and fewer mindless portmanteau name posts.

My 2 coppers.
Title: Re: WCDT Strips 3516 to 3520 (3rd to 7th July 2017)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 13 Jul 2017, 20:55
You've got company in that point of view.