THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: jwhouk on 27 Feb 2011, 14:10

Title: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 27 Feb 2011, 14:10
And here you go. This is going to be an interesting week, I think - but that's just me.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: akronnick on 27 Feb 2011, 14:21
MOAR BEEF JERKY!!!!
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 27 Feb 2011, 14:34
I heard somebody say "Burn baby, burn!"  :evil:

That or seeing Dora "accidently" forget her appointment with her therapist...again. (cue Faye the Reminder  :police: )
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 27 Feb 2011, 15:23
Yeah I'd really like to know if Dora's been in therapy at all yet, and if she hasn't, she's due for another violence-o-gram reminder. Can't run away from your demons anymore, Dora.

So.....to pass the time before comic tiem, does anyone here give a shit about the Oscars? Any favorites? j/w...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 27 Feb 2011, 15:49
What are these Oscars of which you speak? Oh wait, yeah, its that snorefest Billy Crystal used to present. I'll thankfully be asleep by the time they start up.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: westrim on 27 Feb 2011, 18:12
What are these Oscars of which you speak? Oh wait, yeah, its that snorefest Billy Crystal used to present. I'll thankfully be asleep by the time they start up.
They start at what, 6? At least, they do on the west coast and, we see it on tape delay; an event, happening here, on TAPE DELAY! *shakes fist at easterners*

Point is, you go to sleep at 6?

Also, DVRs make any program 3 points better, especially variety and awards shows. Grammys in 1 hour, Superbowl in 1 and a half...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 27 Feb 2011, 18:58
The point is, your 6pm, is 2am for me. I live in Ireland.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: westrim on 27 Feb 2011, 19:23
The point is, your 6pm, is 2am for me. I live in Ireland.
This is where I facepalm and check your profile through the handy link attached to your username. So what, does a channel randomly air it live in the wee hours of the morning or would you have to catch it online. I wouldn't bother watching if it weren't right there on the schedule already.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Blackjoker on 27 Feb 2011, 19:26
I just hope the fuckup fairy quits hugging Marten so tightly and goes to visit someone else.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Armadillo on 27 Feb 2011, 19:47
The point is, your 6pm, is 2am for me. I live in Ireland.

What?  Time zones?  Huh?  Ireland?

But yeah, the Oscars suck.  Even so, many of my fellow Americans will gladly spend four or five hours watching Hollywood give itself a reacharound, complete with horrific jokes and overly-long musical numbers. 
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Somnus Eternus on 27 Feb 2011, 21:04
The point is, your 6pm, is 2am for me. I live in Ireland.

Lies!  Everyone knows Ireland only rises out of the ocean on March 17th, and it turns the world's beer green and everyone into a ginger.

(My grandmother, who was off-the-boat Irish, would make this joke a lot, that people stateside really don't care about the Irish until St. Patrick's Day, and then suddenly everyone has a relative with a Mc in their last name.)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: akronnick on 27 Feb 2011, 21:17
D'AWWWW

Jeph starts off yet another week with Hannelore cuteness, but now Faye's actually caring for the wellbeing of another human...my mind, she is blown!
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Somebody on 27 Feb 2011, 21:20
*sets watch until someone links the last occurrence of Faye-boob-sedative* :)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Akima on 27 Feb 2011, 21:24
Marigold had better write that down; I'm sure she could use the technique too. Boobzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! 
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 27 Feb 2011, 21:26
Vulcan boob squish'd (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1332)


BOW NOW
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: slydon on 27 Feb 2011, 21:34
Boobs do make a great sedative
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Shadic on 27 Feb 2011, 21:44
*sets watch until someone links the last occurrence of Faye-boob-sedative* :)
Six minutes!
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 27 Feb 2011, 21:55
SWEET (must try to improve)

Liked the art in the strip, and especially Faye's expressions while boob-squishing Hannelore. I also liked how Hanners just lays right down on Marigold's bed when Faye gets up lol
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: foozlesprite on 27 Feb 2011, 22:05
I can vouch that this is a realistic technique.  My fiance always falls asleep after cuddling my bountiful I-cups.  It's cute, but a little creepy to have a 25-year-old snoring in your cleavage.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: hannahsaurusrex on 27 Feb 2011, 22:12
I also can vouch for this being true, and Faye's breasts are real "knock-outs."
Forgive me for that awful pun.

I'm gonna be at ECCC, any one else?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 27 Feb 2011, 22:31
OK, the boob-squish is good, but something else got me wondering...

When was the last time we saw Faye in shorts (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=386)? 

Also, art ahoy!  Not only does Faye look fantastic, but Hanner's face has the most exquisite expression as she slowly fades through the middle three panels - it's so bloody realistic, it's kinda scary!

And Foozlesprite - I cups?  Really?  Wouldn't those qualify as bolsters in their own right?  I'm tempted to say, "pics or it never happened", but I'll resist...   :angel:


Edit:  Apparantly there's only one 's' in exquisite...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: foozlesprite on 27 Feb 2011, 22:36
Yeah, when I was a teen people joked about them being pillows...by this point I guess they're more like beds.  I would happily donate my extra cuppage to those A-cups feverishly padding their bras.  Well, unless I could convince Faye to go lesbian with me.  Then we could make some really hot porn and never have to work again.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: hannahsaurusrex on 27 Feb 2011, 23:16
Damn dimensions! We can Roger Rabbit that shizz.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: musicalsoul on 27 Feb 2011, 23:26
I can vouch that this is a realistic technique.  My fiance always falls asleep after cuddling my bountiful I-cups.  It's cute, but a little creepy to have a 25-year-old snoring in your cleavage.

I-cups? Damn I thought it was bad when I was fitted earlier this year and went from G to H-cups (curse you weight fluctuation!)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 27 Feb 2011, 23:36
Marigold had better write that down; I'm sure she could use the technique too. Boobzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! 

Knowing Marigold, if she tries this it will lead to inappropriateness, awkwardness and Hyperventilating Hanelore
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: foozlesprite on 27 Feb 2011, 23:38
I can vouch that this is a realistic technique.  My fiance always falls asleep after cuddling my bountiful I-cups.  It's cute, but a little creepy to have a 25-year-old snoring in your cleavage.

I-cups? Damn I thought it was bad when I was fitted earlier this year and went from G to H-cups (curse you weight fluctuation!)

That's ok.  Like it or not, that qualifies you as a member of the too-big-for-their-own-damn-good club.  Here's a card.  It entitles you to unlimited free stares, difficulty finding shirts that fit, further difficulty finding bras that fit, and a lifetime of back pain.  Enjoy!
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: lunakitten on 27 Feb 2011, 23:38
Hub and I always joke about one being a pillow, and the other a pacifier.
And I cups? H cups? Hands up my busty sisters- J here. May our backaches be minimal and may there always be a sale on large bras.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: foozlesprite on 27 Feb 2011, 23:42
Hub and I always joke about one being a pillow, and the other a pacifier.
And I cups? H cups? Hands up my busty sisters- J here. May our backaches be minimal and may there always be a sale on large bras.

Does Jeph have some magical ability to attract large breasted women or something?  Maybe drawing Marigold and Faye is part of a ritual to summon us or something.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: lunakitten on 27 Feb 2011, 23:45
I think it was the "aerodynamically curvaceous' t-shirts.  :D
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 27 Feb 2011, 23:51
I fucking love the Vulcan Boob Squish. And as a dude I can attest to the truth of that power. 's like magnets, drawing you in and coercing you to sleep.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Smerf on 27 Feb 2011, 23:56
Emerald City Comic-con?  Damn you, Jeph!  Damn you, for I am too broke to go!
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Smerf on 28 Feb 2011, 00:00
I will also attest to the power of the boobage.  Want us out of your hair?  Vulcan Boob Squish-> "zzzz...."  Want us to do something for you?  Jedi Boob Trick -> "Yes, Mistress..."
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Afakaz on 28 Feb 2011, 00:27
But I thought Hugging Hannelore Heralds Heavy Hyperventilating???  I figured that the last time was just because she was drunk but no such excuse; was she just too distracted by her paranoid freakout to freak out further at this?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: pendrake on 28 Feb 2011, 01:05
For comic #1871...

1. Great starter for this week, I laughed out loud :laugh: .

2. Panel #2... Absolutely love Faye's serious expression on applying the Vulcan Boob Squish, it made the boob-gag so much funnier.

3. Also Panel #2... Also love Hannelore's shock expression too.  I am not certain why, but it also reminded me of comic #1315: Where Else? (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1315)

4. I certainly am not one to complain about QC attracting large-breasted women to this web-comic &/or forums... 8-)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: akronnick on 28 Feb 2011, 01:12
But I thought Hugging Hannelore Heralds Heavy Hyperventilating???  I figured that the last time was just because she was drunk but no such excuse; was she just too distracted by her paranoid freakout to freak out further at this?

The Vulcan Boob Squish is something for which one must have the courage of one's convictions, as the late Julia Child would say. Hanner's initial reaction is to freak out, but as the boob squish is held, she burns through her freak out, and is rendered blissfully asleep.

Marigold probably does not have the courage of her convictions, and would not be able to hold the squish long enough to adequately get past the initial reaction. The resulting disaster would not be pretty to behold.

Hannelore is especially susceptable to the squish because of her perpetual state of sleep deprivation. If others are to be squished, they need to be willing to indulge themselves in the luxury that being pressed into those lovely bosoms entails. Even placing one's hands on the boobs has been known to induce awestruck silence (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1774) and blissful reverie. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1775)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: J on 28 Feb 2011, 01:18
it works abit like Electro-convulsive therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-convulsive_therapy); overstimulate the brain to a point of controlled seizure, at which point the system shuts down and resets to a more stable pattern.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 28 Feb 2011, 01:57
Breast-o Convulsive Therapy!  :-D

 :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: westrim on 28 Feb 2011, 02:12
Has anyone recorded how many times Hannelore has fallen asleep in somewhere other than her own home? I'm sure it's more than 10- it might be more than 20.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Blackjoker on 28 Feb 2011, 02:30
Has anyone recorded how many times Hannelore has fallen asleep in somewhere other than her own home? I'm sure it's more than 10- it might be more than 20.

Hmm, Fayes breasts and Martens couch....I suddenly imagine Martens sofa somehow with Fayes breasts, and Hannelore is put into a coma.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 28 Feb 2011, 05:09
Has anyone recorded how many times Hannelore has fallen asleep in somewhere other than her own home? I'm sure it's more than 10- it might be more than 20.

OK, after a full scour of the archives the following apply:
558
prior to 611 (woke up after the antroPC party)
719
801
806
887
between 927 and 928
1079
between 1290 and  1293
1332 (boob squish #1)
1871

if i've missed any please correct me
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 28 Feb 2011, 05:22
The point is, your 6pm, is 2am for me. I live in Ireland.
This is where I facepalm and check your profile through the handy link attached to your username. So what, does a channel randomly air it live in the wee hours of the morning or would you have to catch it online. I wouldn't bother watching if it weren't right there on the schedule already.
Random channel...though its usually Sky One or Sky Movies, but by that time, I'm half asleep and I've switched the tv off.

Anyway, d'awwwww, Hanners and the Vulcan Boob Squish, better than any medication Man could make in a lab.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Border Reiver on 28 Feb 2011, 06:00
My wife's lovely onces must be defective then, as they do not put me to sleep, but rather serve to keep me awake and focussed.

As they probably should if you're letting the SO snuggle into them...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 28 Feb 2011, 06:44
There are just twenty ways of both wrong and win in this comic.

Which makes it WAY awesome. :D

Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheBiscuit on 28 Feb 2011, 07:18
My wife's lovely onces must be defective then, as they do not put me to sleep, but rather serve to keep me awake and focussed.
I couldn't help but think the same thing. I'm far less likely to fall asleep while in contact with breasts.

Surely this is a technique Marigold ought to be able to learn? I don't accept for even a second that Faye's boobs are superior...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Odin on 28 Feb 2011, 07:30
Yeah, this thread isn't creepy at all.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 28 Feb 2011, 07:54
Creepy? 


Here? 


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Border Reiver on 28 Feb 2011, 07:58
No more or less than some we've done, but we may be straddling the line.

I for one will agree to back off - for a while at least.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: westrim on 28 Feb 2011, 08:30
Has anyone recorded how many times Hannelore has fallen asleep in somewhere other than her own home? I'm sure it's more than 10- it might be more than 20.

OK, after a full scour of the archives the following apply:
558
prior to 611 (woke up after the antroPC party)
719
801
806
887
between 927 and 928
1079
between 1290 and  1293
1332 (boob squish #1)
1871

if i've missed any please correct me
I admire and fear your dedication. Thanks.

Random channel...though its usually Sky One or Sky Movies, but by that time, I'm half asleep and I've switched the tv off.
Ah, ok.

Yeah, this thread isn't creepy at all.
What in Odin's (oh, wait :evil:) name is creepy about women discussing their own breasts and men expressing their appreciation for those attached to the women they sleep with?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: pwhodges on 28 Feb 2011, 08:37
Yeah, this thread isn't creepy at all.

It remains close to the subject of today's comic, and I see no cause to consider that out of order.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 28 Feb 2011, 08:51
WAIT! Before we stop being creepy, I have to say this:

booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobs.  :psyduck:

Ok I'm done.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: tughluq on 28 Feb 2011, 09:04
So tired of Faye's breasts in this comic.

At least Hanners is cute.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Odin on 28 Feb 2011, 09:11
It remains close to the subject of today's comic, and I see no cause to consider that out of order.

Where did I say it was out of order? Hell, this ought to be one of the few times where the creepers can go hog wild and Jeph can't complain about it one bit.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: pwhodges on 28 Feb 2011, 09:15
You didn't, and nor did I. 

I could muse on the number of things that (from evidence outside this forum) I don't consider creepy and apparently others do, but on reflection I won't bother.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: themacnut on 28 Feb 2011, 09:49
Yeah, this thread isn't creepy at all.

Hey, if the forum users with big boobs aren't running from this thread in terror, then it's probably not that creepy.

Probably.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Kugai on 28 Feb 2011, 09:57
I could comment about registering as a lethal weapon

But I won't
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Odin on 28 Feb 2011, 10:03
Hey, if the forum users with big boobs aren't running from this thread in terror, then it's probably not that creepy.

Probably.

That would depend on how creepy it is for complete strangers on the internet to know that much about each other (assuming they're telling the truth, or even female to begin with).
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DSL on 28 Feb 2011, 11:12
Faye-zers set to stun.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: shiroihikari on 28 Feb 2011, 11:13
I'm just glad to see this comic lighten up a bit again.  It was painful to read there for a while, and I don't mean that it was of poor quality.  More like, reading it was like watching puppies and kittens and other cute fuzzy animals get kicked by a really big tough guy wearing steel-toed boots.

Also I'm a girl and I thought the boob joke was funny as hell.

Edit: lol word filters
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: tughluq on 28 Feb 2011, 11:38
to be honest, the comic's and the forum's focus on breasts makes me feel a bit unwelcome and creeped out as a woman, although it's not as bad if women are discussing their own. but it's kind of tiresome; it's just one more area of culture where women's bodies (or worse, pieces of their bodies) are objects instead of personal body parts. maybe it's just me...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: shiroihikari on 28 Feb 2011, 11:48
So it's okay for ladies to objectify their own parts but it's not okay for men to objectify them...?

I don't think talking about boobies is inherently bad.  I mean, people like boobs.  Boobs are pretty awesome.  They look good and serve a very useful purpose.  Obviously a person is a total clod if they only hang out with women for the boobies, though.

...I think I've filled my "boobies" word quota for today.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Mad Cat on 28 Feb 2011, 12:09
Faye-zers set to stun.
I admire your neologism, but it is thusly that new words are created. I give you:

NARCOTITS

Edit: And for the record, I'm DD/E, so while mine can't induce delta-wave sleep, they can create in their target a peaceful contentment.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Odin on 28 Feb 2011, 12:18
BTW it would only be creepy if the discussion turned to the male character's tackle

You don't think that is in any way hypocritical?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Doctor Online on 28 Feb 2011, 12:28
My apologies, I should have been clearer, it is absolutly fine to objectify men, however I would not take part once the converation moved outside my comfort zone.

Quoted for Odins viewing again. More like their own personal opinion. =P

My boyfriend sleeps in my breasts, but it's more so my heartbeat that puts him to sleep than the squishyness of my boobs.

Edit: I'm slow. I am sorry.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: pwhodges on 28 Feb 2011, 12:41
This conversation is getting to be like a school playground full of children each trying to be smuttier than the next.  Not creepy at all, but just sad if it's the best the forum can manage today.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 28 Feb 2011, 13:04
Deadlywonky, I don't know if it's premature, but I'm tempted to declare you a Master of the Archives.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: cabbagehut on 28 Feb 2011, 13:43
So it's okay for ladies to objectify their own parts but it's not okay for men to objectify them...?

Someone saying something about their own bodies and someone saying something about someone else's body are really different things.  For example, it's fine for you to bitch about your own family, but if someone else does it, you get all defensive.  Hey, there!  That's my family you're talking about!

I personally find the conversation about breasts a little uncomfortable.  It's not like it makes me want to leave or anything, it just sort of reminds me that yep, objectification happens everywhere.

Surely just discussing the pro's and con's of ones (or ones partner's) breasts can't be creepy? I think it may well be more information than some people are willing to share and may come across as creepy (TMI) to them. I'd be pretty spooked if the forum had turned to a discussion of male genitalia, but then i'd just run and hide.

(BTW it would only be creepy if the discussion turned to the male character's tackle)

I'm going to pretend for a minute that I have a partner - if I found out he or she were discussing the pros and cons of my body on the internet?  I would be incredibly hurt and yeah, really creeped out.  I don't want to be tallied and analyzed on something that's so out of my control, and something that's so often used to demean and objectify women.  (I wouldn't do it to my partner, either.)

And Odin's got a point, there - it's creepy to talk about men's genitalia, but not women's?

Anyhoo!  The expressions in this comic are really great.  I like the slow transition on Hannelore from unfocused freaking out to sleeping, as well as the palette for her.  QC usually has really nice color sense.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: tughluq on 28 Feb 2011, 13:52

I personally find the conversation about breasts a little uncomfortable.  It's not like it makes me want to leave or anything, it just sort of reminds me that yep, objectification happens everywhere.

I'm going to pretend for a minute that I have a partner - if I found out he or she were discussing the pros and cons of my body on the internet?  I would be incredibly hurt and yeah, really creeped out.  I don't want to be tallied and analyzed on something that's so out of my control, and something that's so often used to demean and objectify women.  (I wouldn't do it to my partner, either.)

And Odin's got a point, there - it's creepy to talk about men's genitalia, but not women's?


I agree with this. I also really hate the idea that there might be "cons" about my body (which probably has everything to do with it being a woman's body... it sucks to be reminded that my body is an object constantly up for critique because of my gender). Large breasts obviously being celebrated as the ideal always kind of jars me out of my enjoyment of the comic.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Elysiana on 28 Feb 2011, 14:12
Man, don't let anyone convince you that you're subpar because of how your body is constructed! I used to be really self-conscious about that because I've always had small boobs for my weight - when I was 110 I barely needed a bra, when I was 150 they were a full A, and now that I'm around 190 they're a full B. Then I learned that most women don't like what size they are - they want to be bigger or smaller based on some unattainable ideal. There are advantages to all sizes - and disadvantages too!

As far as culture, it's always been kind of inherent to see body type as a reflection of health and virility, and what that type is changes from culture to culture. That doesn't mean that there aren't people who like other types! I've had to learn to laugh at the people who can't see past someone's body, though - I could sit and be hurt but it won't do me any good. If someone looks down on me because of my genetics, they're not worth my time anyway. Haters gonna hate.

I don't usually make such "yay celebrate your body" type remarks, but yay boobs, all of 'em!
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: westrim on 28 Feb 2011, 14:28
I feel it's important to note that we have not yet actually discussed female genitalia, just secondary sex characteristics.

I agree with this. I also really hate the idea that there might be "cons" about my body (which probably has everything to do with it being a woman's body... it sucks to be reminded that my body is an object constantly up for critique because of my gender). Large breasts obviously being celebrated as the ideal always kind of jars me out of my enjoyment of the comic.
So what, you believe that every body is perfect? Recognizing physical flaws doesn't make a body objectified, just recognized as being human. What importance we attach to those flaws and perhaps what we consider flaws may need changing, but yes, there are cons about your body and everyone else's. Dude's bodies too, we just don't confide our fears about it to other people as much as women do, again because of different measures of importance.

As for the comic, it in no way says that large breasts are better; that's what you are attaching to it. All it says is that they put Hannelore to sleep.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: tughluq on 28 Feb 2011, 14:39
Yeah, I'm generally okay with my body, but it's just like "oh. right. cultural beauty standards again" sometimes. You know? My breasts are fairly 'medium' sized and I still feel that pressure that comes from the idea that women's bodies can *always be improved.* Gross.


So what, you believe that every body is perfect? Recognizing physical flaws doesn't make a body objectified, just recognized as being human. What importance we attach to those flaws and perhaps what we consider flaws may need changing, but yes, there are cons about your body and everyone else's. Dude's bodies too, we just don't confide our fears about it to other people as much as women do, again because of different measures of importance.

As for the comic, it in no way says that large breasts are better; that's what you are attaching to it. All it says is that they put Hannelore to sleep.

Yeah, sorry, but my body doesn't have "flaws" or cons because it's my body. Any perceived "flaws" are just products of subjective cultural standards. Speaking about breasts as if they're not attached to a person - not part of a whole - is what is kind of objectifying; it's part of this idea that women's bodies can and should be improved in parts and pieces.

And there have been more than this one comic where breasts are the focus/punchline... it's easier to notice if you are a person who is subject to ~beauty~ standards re: that body part.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 28 Feb 2011, 14:56
Deadlywonky, I don't know if it's premature, but I'm tempted to declare you a Master of the Archives.
HEY now.
(Points down at Strip-by-Strip list)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: cesariojpn on 28 Feb 2011, 15:28
Faye's Boobs...that is my fetish.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 28 Feb 2011, 16:34
Something I'd like to point out:

Last time we had the VBS, two days later we had a MAJOR PLOT TWIST.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 28 Feb 2011, 16:35
Whi;le looking for someting else, I found this thread (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,25394.0.html) from a while back.  

Seems rather germaine to today's comic, though it has the same "smutty" level pwhodges referred to in his post.  

Seems that, at the heart of every man is that teenaged boy who just wants to play with 'em.  The apparant level of importance that results is way out of line with anything real, but it's soooo hard to stop...

I could go on about body types and social obectification of beauty, but it's not really the issue.  All types are appreciated by someone, and boob aficianados run the gamut from "more than a mouthful is a waste" to gazongaphiles.  As a physical characteristic, they are something that's noticed at first sight, and as has been argued elsewhere, they often contribute to a first impression which includes attractiveness.  It can be unfortunate, but it's the way our little ape-brains work.  We want to be friends with the ones we find attractive at first.  

We become true friends with the ones we like when we get to know them better... remember, the only real sex organ is the mind.  
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 28 Feb 2011, 16:35
DUCK AND COVER! I REPEAT, DUCK AND COVER! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!

But in case this isn't....Blame Jwhouk
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Odin on 28 Feb 2011, 16:39
I feel it's important to note that we have not yet actually discussed female genitalia, just secondary sex characteristics.

It would be a package deal, though, since men don't really have an analogous body part to a woman's breasts as far as discussions of sexy body parts go. If you're talking about women's breasts in a sexual context it is pretty pedantic (read: stupid) to say that they're not technically genitalia as if that makes it okay to go on and on about them in a way that makes other people uncomfortable.

It would've been funny if one of you nerds had come along making "bags of sand" references or something (40 year old Virgin, among other movies), but this whole discussion quickly got sad.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: westrim on 28 Feb 2011, 16:46
Yeah, I'm generally okay with my body, but it's just like "oh. right. cultural beauty standards again" sometimes. You know? My breasts are fairly 'medium' sized and I still feel that pressure that comes from the idea that women's bodies can *always be improved.* Gross.
Replace 'women's' and with 'everyone's' yes, that is exactly true. Everyone's bodies can be improved in some way, shape or form. Perfection is an unattainable goal. Everyone will have some way that their bodies don't run at peak performance or have structural issues or plumbing (yes, I'm comparing us to buildings). As soon as we're old enough to control our functions they start breaking down. Like I said below, what matters is what importance we attach to those flaws, but deciding that they don't matter (which I agree wholeheartedly with) won't change that they are still flaws. It's fine not to give a damn about saggy parts or veins, but that's still connective tissues breaking down and possible blood flow or skin tone problems. As for breasts, so far as I know small and medium are better in terms of health, for reasons I'm sure you're aware of, and anything else is personal preference that has nothing to do with flaws.

Quote from: tughluq
So what, you believe that every body is perfect? Recognizing physical flaws doesn't make a body objectified, just recognized as being human. What importance we attach to those flaws and perhaps what we consider flaws may need changing, but yes, there are cons about your body and everyone else's. Dude's bodies too, we just don't confide our fears about it to other people as much as women do, again because of different measures of importance.

As for the comic, it in no way says that large breasts are better; that's what you are attaching to it. All it says is that they put Hannelore to sleep.
Yeah, sorry, but my body doesn't have "flaws" or cons because it's my body. Any perceived "flaws" are just products of subjective cultural standards. Speaking about breasts as if they're not attached to a person - not part of a whole - is what is kind of objectifying; it's part of this idea that women's bodies can and should be improved in parts and pieces.

And there have been more than this one comic where breasts are the focus/punchline... it's easier to notice if you are a person who is subject to ~beauty~ standards re: that body part.

 As I said before, yes, every body is flawed; I don't know where the "my" comes in because I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about a universal human condition. And as I said before, whether or not we have flaws and whether or not we care about those flaws are two very different things. And talking about a single body part in isolation [opinion]does not automatically objectify it, what does so is dismissing the rest. Liking feet is not objectifying- judging someone solely by their feet is.[/opinion] I'm not sure how treating/improving a wart could possibly affect more than the area immediately adjacent to the wart- people can be improved in parts and pieces, whether it fits your worldview or not.

Analogy: Everyone is has some type of bad habit (flaw), most of which don't matter and can be ignored (caring about the flaw); say, fingernail biting. If that they bite their nails is the sole thing that a person perceives of them (objectification), that's bad or very limited. Helping them stop biting their nails doesn't somehow affect their knees (parts and pieces) nor is it bad to attempt fixing it. Viewing something that isn't a bad habit (flaw) as one, like, I dunno, eating left handed, is still a view (caring) problem; its flawedness isn't the issue, the perception is, and that may need your work. (I think that's where your point is, but you're expanding it unnecessarily with your claim that we don't have flaws, only perceptions of them.)

As for the comic, again, this strip only says that Faye's boobs put Hannelore to sleep. And that Angus likes them, I forgot that. That's it. It doesn't say why; anything else is your own projections. Yes, he's made jokes about breasts before, but as part of using cultural standards for humor, not bowing to them. Making note of a noticeable physical characteristic doesn't make the joke bad or demeaning, whether it's breasts or being skinny and physically unimposing .

TL;DR Everybody's body is flawed, how people view them is the concern; please don't confuse the two issues.


Deadlywonky, I don't know if it's premature, but I'm tempted to declare you a Master of the Archives.
HEY now.
(Points down at Strip-by-Strip list)
So, you two can be Sith, master and apprentice.

I feel it's important to note that we have not yet actually discussed female genitalia, just secondary sex characteristics.

It would be a package deal, though, since men don't really have an analogous body part to a woman's breasts as far as discussions of sexy body parts go. If you're talking about women's breasts in a sexual context it is pretty pedantic (read: stupid) to say that they're not technically genitalia as if that makes it okay to go on and on about them in a way that makes other people uncomfortable.

It would've been funny if one of you nerds had come along making "bags of sand" references or something (40 year old Virgin, among other movies), but this whole discussion quickly got sad.
Penises and breasts are still not 1/1 comparisons, because they are not analogous structures. Saying 'if breasts, then penises' is an escalation no matter how you try to reason it out. They are still prominent physical characteristics of Faye that were directly involved in the strip's plot; I remember a couple pages of discussion when Marten's tackle was mentioned in a strip too (with that term, if I recall correctly).

My point is, I made that note because people were bringing up penises and escalating the discussion and I was trying to bring it back down.

Dangit, I promised myself I wouldn't do any more of these hourlong posts.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Armadillo on 28 Feb 2011, 16:55
I'll just say this: there have been occasions in this forum where the topic has drifted into territory I don't feel comfortable getting into, for whatever reason.

Whenever that happens, I don't participate in the conversation.  Why ruin somebody else's good time because of my ookiness, when I haven't been personally referenced/attacked? 
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 28 Feb 2011, 17:02
Deadlywonky, I don't know if it's premature, but I'm tempted to declare you a Master of the Archives.
HEY now.
(Points down at Strip-by-Strip list)

We could appoint you Grand Master of the Archives to distinguish you from mere Masters.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: tughluq on 28 Feb 2011, 17:16

 As I said before, yes, every body is flawed; I don't know where the "my" comes in because I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about a universal human condition. And as I said before, whether or not we have flaws and whether or not we care about those flaws are two very different things. And talking about a single body part in isolation [opinion]does not automatically objectify it, what does so is dismissing the rest. Liking feet is not objectifying- judging someone solely by their feet is.[/opinion] I'm not sure how treating/improving a wart could possibly affect more than the area immediately adjacent to the wart- people can be improved in parts and pieces, whether it fits your worldview or not.

As for the comic, again, this strip only says that Faye's boobs put Hannelore to sleep. And that Angus likes them, I forgot that. That's it. It doesn't say why; anything else is your own projections. Yes, he's made jokes about breasts before, but as part of using cultural standards for humor, not bowing to them. Making note of a noticeable physical characteristic doesn't make the joke bad or demeaning, whether it's breasts or being skinny and physically unimposing .

TL;DR Everybody's body is flawed, how people view them is the concern; please don't confuse the two issues.


You are deluding yourself if you think men have the same level of pressure to live up to beauty standards as women. Women's bodies are made into separate pieces, objectified and held to standards in a way that those of men are not.

Everyone's body is flawed according to whom? There is no such thing as an objective appearance flaw; there are standards which are entirely cultural and subjective. My body only has "cons" according to arbitrary, ever changing standards; there is not actually anything wrong with my appearance - it has no "cons." (Your building comparison doesn't actually work because its using the idea of proper function - despite what evolutionary psychologists tell you, whether I live up to beauty standards has nothing to do with my body's function, i.e. doing everything it's supposed to do.) It's incredibly frustrating to be confronted with those standards in every realm of culture, including webcomics. The intent for humor doesn't negate that. <-- my original point, relevant to comic discussion :P
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 28 Feb 2011, 18:27
We're forgetting something:

What Faye did in today's strip?

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Odin on 28 Feb 2011, 18:31
We're forgetting something:

What Faye did in today's strip?

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY.

Mission Failed, then, given how nobody is talking about it in that context and it has gone on into an argument about tangents.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 28 Feb 2011, 18:39
To paraphrase a certain Mr. Reed;

"I posit that ladies breasts are rad."

Do we agree or disagree?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 28 Feb 2011, 18:58
Do we need to?  I mean, you can posit all you want; some will agree, some won't. 

And some may be offended. 

Regardless, I think that we're running out of things to talk about at this point.  As several others have said, if the conversation makes you a bit uncomfortable, you don't need to participate; if it gets out of hand, we actually have moderators; so I don't think there's anything to argue about here, beyond being pedantic. 

I'm going to go to a friends for poker and beer. 


Oh, and I think jwhouk may prefer the title Grand Poobah of the Archive, unless Jeph's reserved that title for himself! 
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Blackjoker on 28 Feb 2011, 19:22
On a somewhat related note, pintsize seems to face imminient shutdown if he touches Fayes breasts...while that might not be a narcotic it does seem to follow similar principals.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Armadillo on 28 Feb 2011, 19:28
To paraphrase a certain Mr. Reed;

"I posit that ladies breasts are rad."

Do we agree or disagree?

Seconded, and the motion carries.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 28 Feb 2011, 19:47
Jeph has even admitted that he's not sure about some of the older comics.

Grand Poobah. I guess I can take that.

The best things about women's bosoms is the women to whom they are attached.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: westrim on 28 Feb 2011, 20:42
You are deluding yourself if you think men have the same level of pressure to live up to beauty standards as women. Women's bodies are made into separate pieces, objectified and held to standards in a way that those of men are not.

Everyone's body is flawed according to whom? There is no such thing as an objective appearance flaw; there are standards which are entirely cultural and subjective. My body only has "cons" according to arbitrary, ever changing standards; there is not actually anything wrong with my appearance - it has no "cons." (Your building comparison doesn't actually work because its using the idea of proper function - despite what evolutionary psychologists tell you, whether I live up to beauty standards has nothing to do with my body's function, i.e. doing everything it's supposed to do.) It's incredibly frustrating to be confronted with those standards in every realm of culture, including webcomics. The intent for humor doesn't negate that. <-- my original point, relevant to comic discussion :P
Boy this has gotten out of hand. You seem to be reading everything through a highly personal, gender based filter that doesn't jibe with my belief that everyone is just people, all with real flaws that can and should be generally dismissed, which are not related to any imagined flaws on the part of others which we should not concern yourself. But Nope, stopping now. Point is, lets relax and enjoy the comic some more and dammit! I need to stop poking passengers!

It's annoying to realize that oneself is part of the problem.

And  I agree with the above 7 posts or so.

And why are my waffles gone and the walrus cage open?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 28 Feb 2011, 21:04
What's in store for this week?

Elliot Tells All!    - 16 (17.8%)
Marigold finds her WOW character has been defeated - by DALE!    - 12 (13.3%)
Why Dora's Therapy Session is On Hold    - 14 (15.6%)
Faye & Angus do the Secret Booty Dance!    - 12 (13.3%)
Cosette finally burns down CoD.    - 6 (6.7%)
Tai's turn to find romance!    - 0 (0%)
Pintsize antics. MOAR MOAR MOARRRR!!!11!!!!!    - 1 (1.1%)
And now, for something completely different.    - 15 (16.7%)
Does it really matter?    - 10 (11.1%)
Waffles. I forgot waffles.    - 4 (4.4%)

Total Voters: 90
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 28 Feb 2011, 21:25
Will the new poll involve boobs?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 28 Feb 2011, 21:27
My good man, I would not dare to stoop to such rubbish as that.

Women's breasts should not be the subject of something as tawdry and crass as a "poll" on a website.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: akronnick on 28 Feb 2011, 21:39
The real question is will the poll involve anything other than boobs?




Not that it needs to...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Smerf on 28 Feb 2011, 21:45
To paraphrase a certain Mr. Reed;

"I posit that ladies breasts are rad."

Do we agree or disagree?

Seconded, and the motion carries.

Boobs are like bacon.  Everybody loves bacon.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: musicalsoul on 28 Feb 2011, 21:46
Yeah, I'm generally okay with my body, but it's just like "oh. right. cultural beauty standards again" sometimes. You know? My breasts are fairly 'medium' sized and I still feel that pressure that comes from the idea that women's bodies can *always be improved.* Gross.


So what, you believe that every body is perfect? Recognizing physical flaws doesn't make a body objectified, just recognized as being human. What importance we attach to those flaws and perhaps what we consider flaws may need changing, but yes, there are cons about your body and everyone else's. Dude's bodies too, we just don't confide our fears about it to other people as much as women do, again because of different measures of importance.

As for the comic, it in no way says that large breasts are better; that's what you are attaching to it. All it says is that they put Hannelore to sleep.

Yeah, sorry, but my body doesn't have "flaws" or cons because it's my body. Any perceived "flaws" are just products of subjective cultural standards. Speaking about breasts as if they're not attached to a person - not part of a whole - is what is kind of objectifying; it's part of this idea that women's bodies can and should be improved in parts and pieces.

And there have been more than this one comic where breasts are the focus/punchline... it's easier to notice if you are a person who is subject to ~beauty~ standards re: that body part.

So you're saying you're body doesn't have any flaws that you consider a flaw? I find that hard to believe. I'm a happy, confident, 23-year-old woman, but I still have body flaws that I consider flaws. And I don't base them on cultural standards. Because... well, by most cultural standards, my biggest flaw is great (Just read some of the replies on this message board). I have very large breasts, but I consider how large they are to be somewhat of a flaw because they cause back problems and I feel like they sag. I wear a size H bra and there were a few ladies who stated they were larger. And I'm comfortable with how  big they are, but I do consider the fact that I can't sleep on my back because I feel as though I'm suffocating a flaw. Just sayin.


Also, based on your further responses, I can tell that this is a touchy subject for you. So I apologize in advance if I've offended you in anyway.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: ecstaticjoy on 28 Feb 2011, 22:14
I love how Jeph said "I look forward to seeing some of you there" ...but only some of you.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: hannahsaurusrex on 28 Feb 2011, 22:36
He probably means my boyfriend, who went for me last year. He doesn't read the comic and when asked for a drawing of Dora for me he said "wait you're drawing the guy not the girl!"
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: cesariojpn on 01 Mar 2011, 00:28
Awww, now Marigold is regretting not being a paladin in Warcraft.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CEOIII on 01 Mar 2011, 00:35
HE COMES!

Seriously, this isn't building to any sort of "Faye has to kill Hanners before she summons Nylarhotep" storyline, is it?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 01 Mar 2011, 00:36
Mrfl
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 01 Mar 2011, 00:39
Wake ye not the Scion of the Lady Beatrice; for she speaketh with the Dreamer's own Voice. And if she waketh afore her time, so too shalt He. Iä! Iä-R'lyeh! Cthulhu fhtagn!

(...also holy shit, guys, you got baited into turning a thread about boobs into an argument...?

 I...I don't even. D: )
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Blackjoker on 01 Mar 2011, 00:53
Damn it, now I have 'Freddy the Red Brained Mi-Go' stuck in my head
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Skewbrow on 01 Mar 2011, 00:56
Mrfl
qwerty
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Akima on 01 Mar 2011, 00:57
"Disturb me and i shall summon a horde of shoggoths to rend your flesh!"

Can Marigold understand the Dreamer's Tongue? Or does the very sound of those dread syllables banish sleep?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Mad Cat on 01 Mar 2011, 00:59
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"

Everyone remember 1753: Hannelore Fhtagn (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1753)? I think that's the callback to which Jeph is referring, but I'm not 100% sure.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: pwhodges on 01 Mar 2011, 01:20
While drawing today's comic, Jeph said that he remembered Dora's speaking in tongues, but had forgotten that Hannelore had done it before.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CEOIII on 01 Mar 2011, 01:24
IIRC, Dora and Hanners are the only ones that have gone all "evil language" on us.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Mad Cat on 01 Mar 2011, 01:42
Who sleeps in their pants voluntarily? I mean, even having just received a curse of the Great Old Ones, I'd still doff my pantaloons and seek out a spare blanket.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CEOIII on 01 Mar 2011, 01:50
Who sleeps in their pants voluntarily? I mean, even having just received a curse of the Great Old Ones, I'd still doff my pantaloons and seek out a spare blanket.

And rixk getting Cthlulu tentacles lodged in your orifi as you sleep? You're braver than I, my friend.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 01 Mar 2011, 02:16
Blimey, 'tis the season for callbacks. QC, Yehuda Moon, Hope for the Future...

Clearly a scourge of lazy writing is spreading through the webcomicverse.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: pwhodges on 01 Mar 2011, 03:04
Well, Jeph broke off during the drawing of today's strip to fetch his wife from the airport, who has been away for a while.  I think we can excuse him having some of his mind elsewhere on this occasion.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Loki on 01 Mar 2011, 03:51
Could anyone with Archive-Fu link the one where Dora speaks in tongues?

Also, Marigold should be familiar with Cthulhu, there are a few references to him (it?) in WoW.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: akronnick on 01 Mar 2011, 03:56
She is.



That's why she's so afraid!  :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 01 Mar 2011, 04:49
Could anyone with Archive-Fu link the one where Dora speaks in tongues?

Dagon Bianchi...I mean Dora Bianchi (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1754)

Seriously, it was the comic right after Hanners attempted to summon Cthulu.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Odin on 01 Mar 2011, 04:52
Boobs are like bacon.  Everybody loves bacon.

Except for Jews, Muslims, Rastafarians, etc., etc., etc...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Lubricus on 01 Mar 2011, 05:21
Well, Jeph broke off during the drawing of today's strip to fetch his wife from the airport, who has been away for a while.  I think we can excuse him having some of his mind elsewhere on this occasion.

Sure, but in R'lyeh?  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Border Reiver on 01 Mar 2011, 05:35
Awww, now Marigold is regretting not being a paladin in Warcraft.

A mere paladin is no match for the Old Ones. 

Unless she's really leveled up.

Nah, better just take off and nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 01 Mar 2011, 05:47
Paladins can beat an Old God, they just need 24 of their mates, a good communication system and some epic level gear.

So glad I don't play WoW anymore.

 :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 01 Mar 2011, 06:06
Could anyone with Archive-Fu link the one where Dora speaks in tongues?

Dagon Bianchi...I mean Dora Bianchi (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1754)

Seriously, it was the comic right after Hanners attempted to summon Cthulu.

See, the problem isn't your archive-fu, it's that you just have better timing due to my work schedule issues.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 01 Mar 2011, 06:29
You mean you have another job? 
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: tughluq on 01 Mar 2011, 06:34

So you're saying you're body doesn't have any flaws that you consider a flaw? I find that hard to believe. I'm a happy, confident, 23-year-old woman, but I still have body flaws that I consider flaws. And I don't base them on cultural standards. Because... well, by most cultural standards, my biggest flaw is great (Just read some of the replies on this message board). I have very large breasts, but I consider how large they are to be somewhat of a flaw because they cause back problems and I feel like they sag. I wear a size H bra and there were a few ladies who stated they were larger. And I'm comfortable with how  big they are, but I do consider the fact that I can't sleep on my back because I feel as though I'm suffocating a flaw. Just sayin.


Also, based on your further responses, I can tell that this is a touchy subject for you. So I apologize in advance if I've offended you in anyway.

well, those cultural standards are bs - there is such thing as an objective flaw when it comes to appearance

my body works the way it should, and I'm healthy. not seeing the flaws that one poster was so insistent must be there.

(and i can't do anything but lol at westrim's response. lawdy lawd. god forbid i see cultural products through the lens of MY CULTURE and god forbid i think about things like objectification. if only feminists knew how to enjoy life! goodness)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 01 Mar 2011, 06:44
You mean you have another job?  

EDIT: In light of events within my state today (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117192173.html), I retract that previous statement.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: ExoticTeacup on 01 Mar 2011, 07:04
I deciphered Hannelore's evil-speak (yay cryptograms!), and I believe it says, "Disturb me and I shall summon a horde of shoggoths to rend your flesh"

I didn't see a translation posted by anybody else yet, so I felt obligated to contribute.  Now, I'll step down and go back to lurking.

Oh, and just a P.S. for anybody who wants to give me a hard time for being "new" here, I've been a member of this forum for 3 years, and I've been keeping up with the discussions.  I've been here a long time, and I know all of the rules (even the newer ones).  I'm just more of the silent type.  Now, back to my cave...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 01 Mar 2011, 07:24
I deciphered Hannelore's evil-speak (yay cryptograms!), and I believe it says, "Disturb me and I shall summon a horde of shoggoths to rend your flesh"

I didn't see a translation posted by anybody else yet, so I felt obligated to contribute.  Now, I'll step down and go back to lurking.

Oh, and just a P.S. for anybody who wants to give me a hard time for being "new" here, I've been a member of this forum for 3 years, and I've been keeping up with the discussions.  I've been here a long time, and I know all of the rules (even the newer ones).  I'm just more of the silent type.  Now, back to my cave...

Errrrr
"Disturb me and i shall summon a horde of shoggoths to rend your flesh!"

Can Marigold understand the Dreamer's Tongue? Or does the very sound of those dread syllables banish sleep?
I think Akima get there before you by about 6 hours.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Black Sword on 01 Mar 2011, 07:55
Out of idle curiosity, how does Jeph get the eldritch language alphabet and all that? Is there a particular website for it?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: The Seldom Killer on 01 Mar 2011, 08:15
iforonewelcomeoureldritchoverlords.org.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: pendrake on 01 Mar 2011, 09:03
For comic #1872...

1. World of Warcraft has featured Cthulhu Mythos references since Classic ("vanilla") WoW, and has generally been added as raid-level encounters with major content patches during the mid- to late-tier of each expansion.

2. Were I Marigold, I would be not-sleeping fully clothed too, with running shoes at the foot of the sofa and Elder Signs hanging overhead.  ("Can't sleep...Clown will eat me...Can't sleep...Clown will eat me...")

3. Hannelore is cute, hilarious, quirky, and occasionally utterly terrifying.  Probably more like both her parents than she realizes (if/when we ever actually meet Professor Ellicott...).

4. I too am curious where one would find a "Cthulhu-speak" translator site...?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 01 Mar 2011, 09:42
There are a couple of (http://www.ffonts.net/Cthulhu-Glyphs.font) Cthulu fonts (http://www.ffonts.net/Cthulhu-Runes.font), not to mention a slew of Lovecraftian fonts (http://www.monstrous.com/Monstrous_Art/Cthulhu_fonts.html) for that historically accurate feel. 

But Jeph seems to be using something else...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Kal on 01 Mar 2011, 10:02
Who sleeps in their pants voluntarily? I mean, even having just received a curse of the Great Old Ones, I'd still doff my pantaloons and seek out a spare blanket.
Me.  I prefer sleeping in jeans.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: ExoticTeacup on 01 Mar 2011, 10:08
I think Akima get there before you by about 6 hours.

Gah!  Sorry, guys!  Somehow I read right over that line in Akima's post.  That will teach me to come out of hiding...   :oops:
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 01 Mar 2011, 11:44
Who sleeps in their pants voluntarily? I mean, even having just received a curse of the Great Old Ones, I'd still doff my pantaloons and seek out a spare blanket.
Me.  I prefer sleeping in jeans.

It doesn't look like she's going to be getting any sleep anyway.  Yeah, she took off the shoes and glasses, but that's a fetal ball o' fear, right there. 
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 01 Mar 2011, 12:09
People in the QC-Verse better be a little more careful or else one of these days ol' Cthulu's just gonna come zooming into CoD on a motorized pogo stick made of human heads
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DoomMagnet on 01 Mar 2011, 12:30
Seems likely. Though he might just be there for a coffee. There are two people working there who speak his language.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Skewbrow on 01 Mar 2011, 12:46
Yeah. At first I thought that there is a simple disruption in the space-time continuum at that very spot behind the counter. But the Old One seems to be using Hannelore as a channel. May be he is rising?

A job for Claire !!!!! I soooo want to see more of her. An exorcism coming up?

Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DSL on 01 Mar 2011, 12:55
Seems to me Hanners has the words, but not the music ... There's no shadow effect or glowing eyes such as we got with Dora after Hanners asked Sven for a pretend-date.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Kugai on 01 Mar 2011, 13:54
There are a couple of (http://www.ffonts.net/Cthulhu-Glyphs.font) Cthulu fonts (http://www.ffonts.net/Cthulhu-Runes.font), not to mention a slew of Lovecraftian fonts (http://www.monstrous.com/Monstrous_Art/Cthulhu_fonts.html) for that historically accurate feel. 

But Jeph seems to be using something else...

Didn't yo know?

Jeph is an agent of the Dark Lord Melkor
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 01 Mar 2011, 13:56
Seems to me Hanners has the words, but not the music ... There's no shadow effect or glowing eyes such as we got with Dora after Hanners asked Sven for a pretend-date.

Her eyes are still closed, so you don't see the bloody glow.  

And that's where the light comes from that make the shadows, so you don't see them, either...

[/rationalization]
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Akima on 01 Mar 2011, 13:59
Seems likely. Though he might just be there for a coffee. There are two people working there who speak his language.
Hannelore is the only character to speak actual sentences in Dreamer's Tongue so far. Dora could only manage incoherent snarling. It's like the difference between actual Chinese-speakers and the cast of Firefly...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DoomMagnet on 01 Mar 2011, 14:18
Point taken, though I've never seen firefly nor am I multilingual so I shall take your word for it.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: westrim on 01 Mar 2011, 14:35
Point taken, though I've never seen firefly nor am I multilingual so I shall take your word for it.
You don't have see it/ speak/ take her word, it's well documented. I'd give you the Cracked or TVTropes pages, but I'm not feeling evil today.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: tobiasgies on 01 Mar 2011, 14:42
"Disturb me and i shall summon a horde of shoggoths to rend your flesh!"

Since someone else also - supposedly independently - came up with that translation, may I ask HOW you did it? A google search for dreamer's tongue didn't really yield any useful search results for me...

Having read The Code Book, one thing I can see now that you posted the plaintext is that the ciphertext just seems to be a simple letter substitution.  Am I ignorant enough to not recognize some kind of Chinese letters? Do you happen to know the font Jeph uses? Or did you just use your Mad Cryptology Skillz to get the plaintext?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Akima on 01 Mar 2011, 15:16
Since someone else also - supposedly independently - came up with that translation, may I ask HOW you did it? A google search for dreamer's tongue didn't really yield any useful search results for me...

Having read The Code Book, one thing I can see now that you posted the plaintext is that the ciphertext just seems to be a simple letter substitution.  Am I ignorant enough to not recognize some kind of Chinese letters? Do you happen to know the font Jeph uses? Or did you just use your Mad Cryptology Skillz to get the plaintext?
I invented the term "Dreamer's Tongue", but I don't know enough about Cthulhu/Lovecraft to know if it is actually original. It is a simple letter substitution, and the first time Jeph used it, I and several others entertained ourselves with a little cryptanalysis. But Jeph later revealed in a post/tweet/something that the font he used was Miskatonic (http://www.fontspace.com/blambot/miskatonic).

You are not ignorant; there are no such things as "Chinese letters". The tables used by bad tattoo artists etc. (http://hanzismatter.blogspot.com/2006/08/gibberish-asian-font-mystery-solved.html) to offer some sort of one-to-one mapping of the Roman alphabet to Chinese characters are completely fraudulent. Naturally, "there's an app for that" (http://goodcharacters.com/alphabet/) too, from a company called Good Characters Inc. (the irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife).
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Heliphyneau on 01 Mar 2011, 15:40
Whi;le looking for someting else, I found this thread (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,25394.0.html) from a while back.  

Gah!

>_>

In my defense, I started that thread during the week of the WCDT of Doom -- I can't remember if it was before or after that thread was shut down, but there was a plethora of side-threads, many of which sought to explore the Fundamental Character of _______ (I even misspelled the word as "Fundemental" to point up the dementedness of what was going on at the time, but that was a bridge too far pun-wise.  :oops: )  So basically, it's a silly thread.  Not like this thread.

My breasts are not, to my knowledge, any form of soporific.  If they were, I can only hope that I would use my powers for good . . .

Regarding today's strip, I guess Marigold prefers the potential horrors of what stains might be left on the couch by her roommate and his girlfriend to the potential horrors of what Hanners might do were she further disturbed from sleep.  Poor Mari.  Maybe she has Momo keeping watch in case the Old Ones to come.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Mar 2011, 17:05
Momo-tan is a high end model. I wonder if Sony has an app for that.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 01 Mar 2011, 17:17
Please, Sony have been trying to raise R'lyeh from the depths since 1946 so that they may commune with the great slumbering Cthulu and so they can worship the Great Old Ones.

Also, H.P. Lovecraft has been on their board of directors for years, as the head of their Undead Division.

Cthulhu fhtagn.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: westrim on 01 Mar 2011, 17:23
Please, Sony have been trying to raise R'lyeh from the depths since 1946 so that they may commune with the great slumbering Cthulu and so they can worship the Great Old Ones.

Also, H.P. Lovecraft has been on their board of directors for years, as the head of their Undead Division.

Cthulhu fhtagn.
Plus, Godzilla is getting bored and needs something else to fight before he rises and smites Osaka. Again.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DoomMagnet on 01 Mar 2011, 18:12
Point taken, though I've never seen firefly nor am I multilingual so I shall take your word for it.
You don't have see it/ speak/ take her word, it's well documented. I'd give you the Cracked or TVTropes pages, but I'm not feeling evil today.
I Frequent TV Tropes so I shall check it out at one point.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 01 Mar 2011, 18:57
I Frequent TV Tropes ...

Willingly? 


Really?!?

 :laugh:
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: akronnick on 01 Mar 2011, 20:35

Willingly? 


Really?!?

 :laugh:

Some of us don't have lives.



...or taste.






...or self control.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: johnny5 on 01 Mar 2011, 20:49
M: Hannelore, you awake? *Poke* Hey, you still asleep?

H: Zzzzzz

M: 'Cause this is about to get weird. *unzip*
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CEOIII on 01 Mar 2011, 22:01
M: Hannelore, you awake? *Poke* Hey, you still asleep?

H: Zzzzzz

M: 'Cause this is about to get weird. *unzip*

I don't know if I should hug you or slap you.

*flips a coin*

*hugs*

(came up tails, if you care)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: knucklesandgyros on 01 Mar 2011, 22:25
Marten in a dress with boobs...oh dear lord how I cracked up at that.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Nentuaby on 01 Mar 2011, 22:37
It took me until a third reading to realize that panel 3 was not simply Dora.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: St.Clair on 01 Mar 2011, 22:49
The only way that could have been more traumatic for her is if she was somehow wearing one of Mare's shirts.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: LordVaughn on 01 Mar 2011, 22:59
It appears I'm not the only one who thought that was Dora in the third panel. And I think that this is the closest that anything has gotten to being something like my trippy dreams..
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Enduar on 01 Mar 2011, 23:07
It took me until a third reading to realize that panel 3 was not simply Dora.

I only noticed once I came here and saw it pointed out.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Kugai on 01 Mar 2011, 23:17
The most disturbing thing about that was Marten

In a dress

with the body of Dora



*Wakes up screaming*
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 01 Mar 2011, 23:22
Marten with boobs (http://www.questionablecontent.net/1169).
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 01 Mar 2011, 23:36
I thought I was the only one who dreamed about being Dave Willis

Jeph are you stealing my dreams

(also Pintsnake aaaaaauuuugh)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 01 Mar 2011, 23:42
Those tits are way bigger than Dora's. It's like he traded bodies with Faye.

Nice sexy little black dress though
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Sorflakne on 01 Mar 2011, 23:43
Still trying to figure out where Marten being a girl comes from, but I laughed at the rest.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 01 Mar 2011, 23:47
Those tits are way bigger than Dora's. It's like he traded bodies with Faye.

Nice sexy little black dress though

Agreed on the dress.

Though for some reason the legs seemed Doraesque to me. Perhaps his dreamself is a horrible chimera of him/Dora/Faye?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 02 Mar 2011, 00:29
More Powerful than Faye's Vulcan Boob Squish?

NOTHING.    - 18 (18.9%)
Marigold's Killer Death Gas.    - 6 (6.3%)
Pintsize's Laser!    - 2 (2.1%)
Marten's Tongue of Snark.    - 1 (1.1%)
Dora's "NO" look.    - 15 (15.8%)
Sven's "Come Hither" look.    - 16 (16.8%)
Rene's Belch of Boredom.    - 2 (2.1%)
Elliot's Ninja Looming Skills.    - 9 (9.5%)
Hanner's Ninja Cleaning Skills.    - 12 (12.6%)
Cosette's Dung-Heap Touch    - 0 (0%)
Dale's Gendo Glasses Look.    - 4 (4.2%)
Waffles!    - 7 (7.4%)
Beef Jerky!    - 3 (3.2%)

Total Voters: 95
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Mad Cat on 02 Mar 2011, 00:34
First reading: Wow, a transsexual gag with Martin(a) in a nighty. Now trendy.

Second reading: Wait, maybe that's supposed to be Martin's head on Dora's body... in a nighty.

Third reading: Or maybe that's just straight up Dora? Damn her butch haircuts! I can't tell anymore!

Also, on further consideration, I think keeping her jeans on was the better decision. Better to contain any... spillage... a wake up alarm like that might cause.

So, what was it that really set Hanners off? The dream weirdness? Waking up in a strange place? Or specificly waking up in the bed of the geekgirl she had to decontaminate while wearing a hazmat suit?

Also, props to Mari-bear for her keen ninja skillz, waking up in the TIger Claw defensive stance.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 02 Mar 2011, 00:39
Hanners was set off by the fact that everyone called her "Marigold" in the dream - and when she woke up, she realized she was in Marigold's bedroom. And, therefore, she thought she had somehow turned into Marigold.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: akronnick on 02 Mar 2011, 00:44
One thing's for sure:


Hanners will never eat beef jerky again.


Three steps forward, two steps back.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Mad Cat on 02 Mar 2011, 01:59
Ah! I had never considered an MSG-induced dreamscape.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: snubnose on 02 Mar 2011, 02:13
It took me until a third reading to realize that panel 3 was not simply Dora.
Hmm I only noticed after reading your posting.

I dont usually read the comic three times over, though.


First reading: Wow, a transsexual gag with Martin(a) in a nighty. Now trendy.

Second reading: Wait, maybe that's supposed to be Martin's head on Dora's body... in a nighty.

Third reading: Or maybe that's just straight up Dora? Damn her butch haircuts! I can't tell anymore!
Who is Martin ?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Merlijn on 02 Mar 2011, 02:45
Marten... with... boobs...
What has been seen can't be unseen! +___+
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 02 Mar 2011, 02:54
I'm imagining that Hanners will scream for much of tomorow's comic, Marigold will try the boob squish and through her inexperience end up either a) asleep b) sent flying

Deadlywonky, I don't know if it's premature, but I'm tempted to declare you a Master of the Archives.
HEY now.
(Points down at Strip-by-Strip list)

We could appoint you Grand Master of the Archives to distinguish you from mere Masters.

I'd willingly take an aprentiship to avoid treading on Master's toes
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Antario on 02 Mar 2011, 04:21
First reading: Wow, a transsexual gag with Martin(a) in a nighty. Now trendy.

Second reading: Wait, maybe that's supposed to be Martin's head on Dora's body... in a nighty.

Third reading: Or maybe that's just straight up Dora? Damn her butch haircuts! I can't tell anymore!

Also, on further consideration, I think keeping her jeans on was the better decision. Better to contain any... spillage... a wake up alarm like that might cause.

So, what was it that really set Hanners off? The dream weirdness? Waking up in a strange place? Or specificly waking up in the bed of the geekgirl she had to decontaminate while wearing a hazmat suit?

Also, props to Mari-bear for her keen ninja skillz, waking up in the TIger Claw defensive stance.

your first thought was correct, dora doesnt have tha big of a rack and doesnt look like that at all...



and did jeph run into writers block?   im not really liking this silly arc...hope it ends soon
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Border Reiver on 02 Mar 2011, 05:16
JW, interesting poll.

Is it a bad sign that on reading Marigold's entry, I pictured a "Red Sonja-esqe" outfit?  Or is it the sign of a person that has read way too many comics and seen too many B-grade sword and sorcery flics over the years?

Cause I wasn't sure that was possible.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DSL on 02 Mar 2011, 05:30
Wondering who the pith-helmet guy is, in the first panel. Doesn't look like any of the male characters seen so far, or much like Hanners' fantasy Indiana Jones. Thought it might be a more-confident Elliot, who as far as we've seen Hanners has only seen once, behind the counter at the bakery, but ...

... I'll just wait and see what Jeph does next.

For the sake of "teh funnie," I'll speculate that Hanners, in her freakout, leaves Marigold's room a mess.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Border Reiver on 02 Mar 2011, 05:32
I think he's supposed to be the dream embodiment of Hanner's fireman fetish.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 02 Mar 2011, 06:07
Hanners was set off by the fact that everyone called her "Marigold" in the dream - and when she woke up, she realized she was in Marigold's bedroom. And, therefore, she thought she had somehow turned into Marigold.

Someone should have told Hanners not to read Kafka's Metamorphisis before Faye knocks her out with a Vulcan boob squish. (Even though she did not become an insect...)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: carg1 on 02 Mar 2011, 06:50
Good God, it took me a few looks to realize that was Marten's head on a woman's body and not Dora.  They did look alike, didn't they?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Black Sword on 02 Mar 2011, 07:12
Good God, it took me a few looks to realize that was Marten's head on a woman's body and not Dora.  They did look alike, didn't they?

They do, hence the faux incest comment back when Veronica first visited, and the thoughtful silence about whether or not Veronica birthed Dora.

My oh my. What a freaky dream.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Odin on 02 Mar 2011, 07:12
I think he's supposed to be the dream embodiment of Hanner's fireman fetish.

His name is Guy Montag. He is a fireman that starts fires, after all.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Monkey Says Yes on 02 Mar 2011, 08:24
Yes, Jeph as David Willis.  This must happen.

And Firefly is gold, people.  Bright, shiny gold in a universe too good for it.  Best damn $8.88 I ever spent at Sam's (well, ok, the beef jerky was a better deal.  And those blackberries.  And the tortilla chips and nacho cheese dip.)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: westrim on 02 Mar 2011, 10:48
 :police: Why did this thread suddenly start talking about Firefly? That's one hack of a tangent. Pull over immediately.  :police:
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: StevenC on 02 Mar 2011, 10:53
I just noticed the comic's title. I laughed. Again.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Black Sword on 02 Mar 2011, 12:36
Okay, this comic made me sign up, because all I can think of when looking at the second panel is the chibi-AnthroPC's comment about live eels.  :-P

If this isn't a one shot joke, I can see Hanners explaining her dream, and Marigold getting upset/depressed because it sounds like she's saying she thinks it would be a nightmare to be living her (Marigold's) life. Marigold needs some self confidence booster shots, stat.


They are not worth paying for. The show features some of the worst cliched writing ever by Joss Whedon and the only reason anyone still thinks the show is good is because it was canceled long before the normal idiocy Whedon pulls in every single thing he writes had a chance to crop up (seriously, Google up and check some of the concepts for the show Whedon was planning on before it got canceled, like the quasi-incest sub-plot in Season 2 between Simon and River *shudder*).

The show survives purely on the magnificent casting job that was done for each character and the acting chops they each brought to their roles. I mean, you have Adam Baldwin basically reprising his Animal Mother role from Full Metal Jacket IN SPACE, which is pretty funny, but still not worth buying.

Borrow it or rent it, don't buy it.



Are you saying that the only reason people still like Firefly is because they never got to see what might have happened in the next season(s)? I may be alone here, but isn't it better to critique a show, or any artistic creation, by what was actually put forth, rather than what was conceptualized? Condemning a creative fiction because the storyboarding has not been to your liking pretty much stomps on a creator's ability to learn and grow as an writer. To put it another way, I don't believe there are bad creative ideas, only ideas that help you be more creative.

I know you probably didn't mean to say that this was the only reason it was bad (you mentioned cliched writing which, yes, it does, in my case it didn't detract from my enjoyment very much but I respect your opinion that it does). I hope you'll agree with me though that the finished product shouldn't be judged by the outline, or even the rough draft.

fanfiction.net would like a word with you.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Smerf on 02 Mar 2011, 17:25

Why, we could start with how every major female character in QC thus far has a mental disorder and can't be in a stable relationship without therapy. We could start. But I'd rather not. ;)


Take a look: most of the characters have some sort of mental issue.  I honestly think the only mostly normal ones are Penelope and Angus.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 02 Mar 2011, 17:48

Why, we could start with how every major female character in QC thus far has a mental disorder and can't be in a stable relationship without therapy. We could start. But I'd rather not. ;)


Take a look: most of the characters have some sort of mental issue.  I honestly think the only mostly normal ones are Penelope and Angus.

I'm sorry, have you seen Penelope? The blonde pent up ball of rage and misdirected aggression? The woman who despises the fact that she wants to be a literary agent but doesn't want to the hard graft to realise that ambition? The barrista who rages at the fact that someone like Faye has a natural talent for sculpting but, for her own reasons, has lost her passion for sculpting, while Penelope is behind a coffee counter? A woman who religious upbringing has made her blind and ignorant of other people's own beliefs, to the point where she will ridicule them for those beliefs?

That Penelope, or is there some other Penelope running around that I don't know about? (and don't say Pizza Girl, coz when was the last time she was in the comic?)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DSL on 02 Mar 2011, 18:58
Penelope is "fear of success" embodied.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 02 Mar 2011, 19:10
There's a new thread for Firefly-related posts. Firefly posts from this thread have been moved there.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Smerf on 02 Mar 2011, 19:20

I'm sorry, have you seen Penelope? The blonde pent up ball of rage and misdirected aggression? The woman who despises the fact that she wants to be a literary agent but doesn't want to the hard graft to realise that ambition? The barrista who rages at the fact that someone like Faye has a natural talent for sculpting but, for her own reasons, has lost her passion for sculpting, while Penelope is behind a coffee counter? A woman who religious upbringing has made her blind and ignorant of other people's own beliefs, to the point where she will ridicule them for those beliefs?

That Penelope, or is there some other Penelope running around that I don't know about? (and don't say Pizza Girl, coz when was the last time she was in the comic?)

Point well made.  At least you didn't argue with me about Angus.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: IanClark on 02 Mar 2011, 23:19
Angus was introduced to the comic by borderline stalking Faye...

I don't think too many of the characters in QC have "serious mental issues", nor do I think they need therapy, but they're all a little bit strange. Which is the attraction. (Some may argue it's the realism that's the attraction, but then that's not really a disagreement.)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: cesariojpn on 02 Mar 2011, 23:52
Pintsize, you've just lost major points with me by doing such a stupid car culture action.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Mad Cat on 03 Mar 2011, 00:05
"Ghostriding the Roomba" was not the first thing I thought upon seeing the first three panels.

I wouldn't have even cracked the top 1000 things I thought was going on there.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 03 Mar 2011, 00:06
Nothing good can come of it when Pintsize has a grin that wide.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CEOIII on 03 Mar 2011, 00:09
Um.....unless he's about to set his head on fire and give Marten a penance stare, I don't see how Pintsize is ghost riding anyone or anything.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 03 Mar 2011, 00:25
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghost%20ride

I had to look it up. Sometimes I get scared at how many cultural references I'm missing.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Tova on 03 Mar 2011, 00:39
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghost%20ride

I had to look it up. Sometimes I get scared at how many cultural references I'm missing.

Glad I wasn't the only one.

And how do you ghostride something you can't even get inside to drive in the first place?

Meh. At least these kinds of cultural references aren't required to enjoy the comic most of the time.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Akima on 03 Mar 2011, 00:39
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghost%20ride I had to look it up.
So did I, but I feel better about it now.

And Marten has smaller feet than Faye! I bet he was wearing cute Jimmy Choo sling-backs with that little black dress in yesterday's strip...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 03 Mar 2011, 00:42
WHEN YOU GET A NEW CAR

(uh huh uh huh)

AND YOU FEELIN LIKE A STAR

(okay okay)

WHATCHU GONNA DO?

(GHOST RIDE IT!)

GHOST RIDE THE WHIP!

Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: akronnick on 03 Mar 2011, 01:27
I'm almost certain that voids the warranty.


For Cars, Roombas and AnthroPCs!
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 03 Mar 2011, 04:40
Thanks for looking it up for us, IsIsColdInHere.  It was my next stop. 

And thank you Urban Dictionary for pointing out that it's a form of natural selection...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Border Reiver on 03 Mar 2011, 05:44
Um.....unless he's about to set his head on fire and give Marten a penance stare, I don't see how Pintsize is ghost riding anyone or anything.

There's also that whole using a flaming chain to make his point as well...

Let's just hope pintsize isn't scheduled to be played by Nick Cage, but maybe we can get Sam Elliot to show up as Marten's Dad...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Odin on 03 Mar 2011, 06:12
Anyone have that awesome Jason Aaron Ghost Rider spread with forty different ghost riders on it from over the years/various worlds?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 03 Mar 2011, 06:14
"Ghostriding the Roomba" was not the first thing I thought upon seeing the first three panels.

I wouldn't have even cracked the top 1000 things I thought was going on there.

Before the dictionary definition was given, I was pretty sure ghostriding was a euphamism for waffles. 

 :angel:
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 03 Mar 2011, 06:17
What Dreams May Come - The worst QC Character Nightmare?

Pintsize in ANYONE's dream.    - 19 (24.1%)
Dora as the Evil Witch of the West.    - 0 (0%)
Faye as Deathbot 6000.    - 0 (0%)
Marten as his MOM.    - 22 (27.8%)
Angus as Rush Limbaugh.    - 12 (15.2%)
Sven as Elton John.    - 2 (2.5%)
Marigold as an Alliance Nightelf.    - 12 (15.2%)
Waffles as Pancakes.    - 3 (3.8%)
Pancakes as Beef Jerky.    - 2 (2.5%)
Beef Jerky as Waffles.    - 7 (8.9%)

Total Voters: 80
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Black Sword on 03 Mar 2011, 07:01
I'm... stumped. I think I'll join the Reed-aker Abode mains in staring in confusion.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 03 Mar 2011, 07:27
Um.....unless he's about to set his head on fire and give Marten a penance stare, I don't see how Pintsize is ghost riding anyone or anything.

There's also that whole using a flaming chain to make his point as well...

Let's just hope pintsize isn't scheduled to be played by Nick Cage, but maybe we can get Sam Elliot to show up as Marten's Dad...

I hope you are not disrespecting the erudite cinematic performance of Mr. Cage in that movie.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Odin on 03 Mar 2011, 07:59
I'll give him credit for one thing, Johnny Blaze never struck me as such a goofy fucker in the comics (but given how they did Blackheart, I can't really fault Cage's portrayal of the Rider, either).
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Border Reiver on 03 Mar 2011, 09:09
Um.....unless he's about to set his head on fire and give Marten a penance stare, I don't see how Pintsize is ghost riding anyone or anything.

There's also that whole using a flaming chain to make his point as well...

Let's just hope pintsize isn't scheduled to be played by Nick Cage, but maybe we can get Sam Elliot to show up as Marten's Dad...

I hope you are not disrespecting the erudite cinematic performance of Mr. Cage in that movie.

Do I really need to answer that question? 

Mr. Cage's performance seemed phone in, I've seen him do better.  And that Menedez woman was definitely there to be eyecandy.

Mr. Elliott and Mr. Fonda turned in credible performances which are worth watching, but there's only so much you can do when you're up against someone channeling the emotional range of a fencepost.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 03 Mar 2011, 09:33
Or, worse, the emotional range of a Keanu Reeves.

Like, whoa.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Insectile on 03 Mar 2011, 10:02
But Pintsize wasn't riding the roomba, he was dancing next to it. How was that Ghostriding?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CaptainFish on 03 Mar 2011, 10:29
You can ghost ride by dancing next to your car as it coasts, but it is definitely more recognizable if you are on the hood.
WHEN YOU GET A NEW CAR

(uh huh uh huh)

AND YOU FEELIN LIKE A STAR

(okay okay)

WHATCHU GONNA DO?

(GHOST RIDE IT!)

GHOST RIDE THE WHIP!
I'll just leave this link here: Ghost Ride It (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLvlGVNInw4)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: appleshampooid on 03 Mar 2011, 12:22
But Pintsize wasn't riding the roomba, he was dancing next to it. How was that Ghostriding?
Yeah that was my confusion too...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 03 Mar 2011, 12:32
The term should probably be ghost driving, since there's apparently no one behind the wheel. 


Hence, the ghost is in the machine. 




Sorry.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CEOIII on 03 Mar 2011, 12:32
GUESTCOMICBYRANDYMILHOLLANDSQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

......sorry. Just read the note at the bottom of the comic and I got a little............yeah.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: stumpoman on 03 Mar 2011, 12:54
I'll just leave this here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hcaJNQkj2I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hcaJNQkj2I)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Smerf on 03 Mar 2011, 13:28
I'm almost certain that voids the warranty.


For Cars, Roombas and AnthroPCs!

I'm pretty sure Pintsize is waaaaay beyond his warranty at this point.  Failing anything, the military issue chassis is probably not a normal modification.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Kugai on 03 Mar 2011, 13:47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtXSmqEq1eA&NR=1      :evil:
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DoomMagnet on 03 Mar 2011, 15:42
I wonder if Winslow is still within the bounds of his warranty?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 03 Mar 2011, 16:17
Probably not.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: akronnick on 03 Mar 2011, 16:46
Being in the same room as Pintsize probably voided Winslow's warranty.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 03 Mar 2011, 17:02
I seem to remember an early strip that said Pintsize was out of warranty, but the searchable parts of the archives don't agree.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: cabbagehut on 03 Mar 2011, 18:07
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghost%20ride

I had to look it up. Sometimes I get scared at how many cultural references I'm missing.

Count me among those who had to look it up, too.  I'm an Old, so it's okay.  I'm also Midwestern, so... we're not cool enough to ghostride here.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: westrim on 03 Mar 2011, 18:12
I wonder if Winslow is still within the bounds of his warranty?
Nah, he's too corrupted.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 03 Mar 2011, 18:15
That and I think spending at some time as a AnthroPopicle probably didn't Winslow's warrenty any good.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DoomMagnet on 03 Mar 2011, 21:58
He and Pintsize rode the Romba driven chariot down some stairs at one point. If that doesn't void warranty's then the popcicle thing defiantly did.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: akronnick on 03 Mar 2011, 22:21
Randy Mulholland is going to Hell.




That is all...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: daryljfontaine on 03 Mar 2011, 22:24
Font size reduced for spoiler alert
Quote from: Damn You Milholland
work the shaft like it'll bring back Daddy

Randy has won OVER 9000 Internets with that line alone.

D
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DSL on 03 Mar 2011, 22:25
I *had* been wondering what happened to Pizza Girl ...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CEOIII on 03 Mar 2011, 22:27
Moral: If you're not reading Something Positive, YOU SHOULD BE. Go start an archive binge over there. NOW.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 03 Mar 2011, 22:34
Something Positive does nothing for me, but this was a thing of beauty and wonder. Good show, Randy. Good show.

Have a good con, Jeph! Don't get seduced by Willis; his silver tongue is FRAUGHT WITH LIES D:

Any other huge nerds cool dudes going to ECCC, be sure to check out the booth for The Exiled (http://www.theexiled.com) whilst you're there! It's made by a couple of friends, is about wizardry and modern fantasy, and is pretty fucking boss. :D
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Akima on 03 Mar 2011, 22:35
Eh, guest comics... Sometimes you get the elevator. Sometimes you get the shaft.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Swedish Chef on 03 Mar 2011, 22:49
Braaainnnsss... and anchovies


wb P.G
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: il3Eli on 03 Mar 2011, 22:52
All I have to say is that this better be canon.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DSL on 03 Mar 2011, 22:53
Something Positive doesn't always do it for me, but every now and then Mr. Milholland hits one out of the park ... generally with a guest strip. And generally by taking whatever subtle character cues the original creator uses, spray painting them International Orange and hanging them from the flagpole. I admired the changes he rung on Candy the Carnivore in the crossover with Girls with Slingshots. Subtle as an 18-wheeler in a Wendy's drive-thru, but effective.

Hey, it occurs to me: Jeph, Mr. Milholland and Ms. Corsetto seem to be pretty tight, and riff well off one another, at least when comicking. A Questionably Positive Slingshot might make even me, uh, squee. (that *is* the right word, isn't it?) And I'm the type who wouldn't care to be caught dead squee-ing.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: ThomasKemper on 03 Mar 2011, 23:01
First post, longtime lurker, blah blah, been reading QC forever, blah blah blah.
Anyway...

All I have to say is that this better be canon.
You beat me to it!

I have hated practically every guest strip, but this guest comic is what I wish would actually happen.  I laughed at this comic while I have only chuckled at QC for the past months.
All the relationship drama has taken a lot of the fun out of everything, so something lighthearted like this is extremely refreshing (even if it is just a guest strip).

So basically, I guess I am saying...
More autoerotic asphyxiation, strap-on wearing Pintsize please!
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Kazukagii on 03 Mar 2011, 23:05
I just wanted to come out of my cave in purgatory to say this is probably the best guest comic strip I've ever seen, or at least that I've seen in a long, long time. This has been a great week in terms of QC humor, and this was a wonderful top to it. It's also proof that Pintsize's antics will never get old. Never.

That is all.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: ChibiSoma on 03 Mar 2011, 23:06
Hey looks guys, another guest comic trying ever so desperately to get in on a little of that shock factor bank!

Like every fucking other one!

Yeah, this shit got played out long ago. Words words words words blah blah blah blah. Can these guest artists think up something original to do? Wait, that would require some effort.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Spoom on 03 Mar 2011, 23:49
Best guest comic in a long time.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CEOIII on 03 Mar 2011, 23:52
Something Positive doesn't always do it for me, but every now and then Mr. Milholland hits one out of the park ... generally with a guest strip. And generally by taking whatever subtle character cues the original creator uses, spray painting them International Orange and hanging them from the flagpole. I admired the changes he rung on Candy the Carnivore in the crossover with Girls with Slingshots. Subtle as an 18-wheeler in a Wendy's drive-thru, but effective.

Hey, it occurs to me: Jeph, Mr. Milholland and Ms. Corsetto seem to be pretty tight, and riff well off one another, at least when comicking. A Questionably Positive Slingshot might make even me, uh, squee. (that *is* the right word, isn't it?) And I'm the type who wouldn't care to be caught dead squee-ing.

OOOOH. I'm trying to think who in each comic travel regularly. Kharisma's on the run, Candy has to do some traveling as a dom (I remember an SP where there was a poster of her for an upcoming appearance at a strip club).........say they both run into Pizza Girl...........I like where this is going.

Oh, and ChibiSoma? Normally I'd agree with the "GUEST COMICS SUCK" vibe you're giving off (Most of the time guest strips do suck, sorry to say) but in this one case.............you need to hush.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: cabbagehut on 03 Mar 2011, 23:55
Aww, this one makes me sad, for dinky personal reasons.  Dora!  I'm sad for you!
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Antario on 03 Mar 2011, 23:57
jikes what a burn on faye at the end there, if jeph made pintsize do that it would simply be the end of pintsize....

oh and.... OMG PENELOPE PIZZA GIRL
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 03 Mar 2011, 23:58
Hey looks guys, another guest comic trying ever so desperately to get in on a little of that shock factor bank!

Like every fucking other one!

Yeah, this shit got played out long ago. Words words words words blah blah blah blah. Can these guest artists think up something original to do? Wait, that would require some effort.

Why do you keep coming back here

I mean honestly, all it does is make you upset

And you come here and bitch and moan and make terrible statements

And you aren't banned for some reason

I just don't get it
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Odal on 04 Mar 2011, 00:00
Go start an archive binge over there. NOW.
I've honestly tried this.  It was one of the most painfully boring comics I've tried to read.  I'm not fond of the repetative humor which constantly revolves around two girls ridiculing the main character because he can't get a woman.  After the umpteenth time of this same humor being used over and over I quit and never went back.

And all I can say about the guest comic is: Good thing it's a guest comic.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Mad Cat on 04 Mar 2011, 00:10
Or, worse, the emotional range of a Keanu Reeves.

Like, whoa.
Who is presently slated to play Spike Spiegel in the live-action adaptation of Cowboy Bebop (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1267295/). No. *hangs her head* I'm not kidding.

Ghost ride the MRAP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irjl6z5SZzQ

Speaking of voiding the warrantee, please tell me that strap on does not socket into an OEM port on Pintsize. Like Marigold said, "Only thing creepier than the Uncanny Valley is the Uncanny Valley with a writhing erection." (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1459)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DSL on 04 Mar 2011, 00:18
One suspects there is damn little that is OEM about Pintsize anymore. He may have been standard issue 8600 at the start of the strip, but what with the cake mix and the crickets and the military chassis and whatever he's been downloading ...

Marten, it's time to take that droid into Anchorhead and have its memory flushed.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Mad Cat on 04 Mar 2011, 00:20
Did everyone miss OHNOROBOT in panel 2?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Sorflakne on 04 Mar 2011, 00:29
Hey look!  It's Pizza Girl!
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheoGB on 04 Mar 2011, 00:37
This guest strip is bloody amazing. Pizza girl, garlic bread cat, ride it like it'll bring back daddy... All kinds of win. :D
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DSL on 04 Mar 2011, 00:38
@CEOIII:
Well, Davan showed up at Slingshot's Wedding of the Century (and afterward did a bit of sledgehammer psychoanalysis on Candy, to which she responded as a domme who's been out-dommed) ... there's the whole cat-reproduction thing which indirectly led to Hazel's present predicament ... Ms. Corsetto has done a bit of poking around inside the skulls of Faye and Marigold ... Hazel and Jamie were at Northampton's beer-sledding party in the park along with most of the rest of the Webcomics pantheon ... and it's not the first time Mr. Milholland has been rude to Faye.

Hmmm. Candy and Clarice apprentice to Veronica as heirs apparent; Jameson and Dora are thrown together when Hannermom buys out CoD and Joe Shmoe, Davan tries out his psychoanalytical skills on Faye and is, um, attacked by owls ...

Truly, it would be the comics singularity.


Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Mar 2011, 00:58
Did everyone miss OHNOROBOT in panel 2?

I think you mean red robot from Diesel Sweeties? 
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Tova on 04 Mar 2011, 03:41
I demand moar Garlic Bread Kitty appearances.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 04 Mar 2011, 04:06
Or, worse, the emotional range of a Keanu Reeves.

Like, whoa.
Who is presently slated to play Spike Spiegel in the live-action adaptation of Cowboy Bebop (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1267295/). No. *hangs her head* I'm not kidding.
Oh hell. I haven't watched much Bebop but even I know how terrible that casting is. Howinhell does he still keep getting work? I mean FFS; even post-scientology Cruise is a better actor than Reeves.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: El_Flesh on 04 Mar 2011, 04:56
OK so did today REALLY happen??

I dare J to make it so!
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Border Reiver on 04 Mar 2011, 05:16
I laughed, I cried,

Dammit, I love both these comics.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: J on 04 Mar 2011, 05:27
OK so did today REALLY happen??

I dare J to make it so!
/me crosses his arms and nods once

It is so.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Somebody on 04 Mar 2011, 05:34
I demand moar Garlic Bread Kitty appearances.
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp08302010.shtml
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Somnus Eternus on 04 Mar 2011, 05:59
Hey looks guys, another guest comic trying ever so desperately to get in on a little of that shock factor bank!

Like every fucking other one!

Yeah, this shit got played out long ago. Words words words words blah blah blah blah. Can these guest artists think up something original to do? Wait, that would require some effort.

I take it you've never actually read S*P then.

Did everyone miss OHNOROBOT in panel 2?

I think you mean red robot from Diesel Sweeties? 

Ha!  I did until this made me go back and look. It's a beautiful thing.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 04 Mar 2011, 06:13
Why do you keep coming back here

I mean honestly, all it does is make you upset

And you come here and bitch and moan and make terrible statements

And you aren't banned for some reason

I just don't get it

I refer you to Pintsize's last line in the guest strip for your answer :-P
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: MrMonk on 04 Mar 2011, 06:15
Mortally wounded pizza delivery girl stuffed in a garbage can just didn't make my day. It's been fun to speculate on what happens to QC's "disappeared" characters, but, cripes!  Even a pile of bones in a mound of allosaurus poo would be better than that.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 04 Mar 2011, 06:34
All I have to say is that this better be canon.
This x1000.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Loki on 04 Mar 2011, 06:40
First post, longtime lurker, blah blah, been reading QC forever, blah blah blah.
Anyway...

All I have to say is that this better be canon.
You beat me to it!

I have hated practically every guest strip, but this guest comic is what I wish would actually happen.  I laughed at this comic while I have only chuckled at QC for the past months.
All the relationship drama has taken a lot of the fun out of everything, so something lighthearted like this is extremely refreshing (even if it is just a guest strip).
I agree with the bolded part, but not for the same reasons. I feel inclined to say that this single comic has (or rather, would have, if it was canon) progressed the story between Dora and Marten more than anything else Jeph has done since the breakup. I mean, sure:
a) Dora was supposed to go to therapy, but we haven't seen even as much as a hint she has actually been there. In fact, I just realized we haven't even seen here since 1848 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1848), which equals weeks in universe time.
b) Marten is supposedly somewhat over Dora (judging from the Padma-in-the-bar-arc), but what I feel is really missing is the two talking out things. I mean, all they have done since the break-up is repressing stuff and avoiding each other (cf. It'd be too weird. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1842)) I really wish for some progress about that.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 04 Mar 2011, 06:41
What Dreams May Come - The worst QC Character Nightmare?

Pintsize in ANYONE's dream.    - 20 (22%)
Dora as the Evil Witch of the West.    - 0 (0%)
Faye as Deathbot 6000.    - 0 (0%)
Marten as his MOM.    - 28 (30.8%)
Angus as Rush Limbaugh.    - 13 (14.3%)
Sven as Elton John.    - 2 (2.2%)
Marigold as an Alliance Nightelf.    - 14 (15.4%)
Waffles as Pancakes.    - 3 (3.3%)
Pancakes as Beef Jerky.    - 2 (2.2%)
Beef Jerky as Waffles.    - 9 (9.9%)

Total Voters: 92
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: slydon on 04 Mar 2011, 06:52
Great comic.. if you think this is dark, you should see what Mil puts his own characters through on a regular basis.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 04 Mar 2011, 06:58
a) Dora was supposed to go to therapy, but we haven't seen even as much as a hint she has actually been there. In fact, I just realized we haven't even seen here since 1848 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1848), which equals weeks in universe time.


Try a bit later than that. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1856)

b) Marten is supposedly somewhat over Dora (judging from the Padma-in-the-bar-arc), but what I feel is really missing is the two talking out things. I mean, all they have done since the break-up is repressing stuff and avoiding each other (cf. It'd be too weird. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1842)) I really wish for some progress about that.

Dude. Since 1842, we've had Marten and Hanners finding TSB, Steve and Marten going out to the Horrible Revelation for drinks, and the whole "Faye sleeps over at Angus" thing - and that's before Faye even meets Padma.

The number one issue with an ensemble cast in any work of serial fiction - books, comics, TV, et cetera - is that sometimes it takes a while for the storyline to come around to certain cast members.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: ThomasKemper on 04 Mar 2011, 07:29
I agree with the bolded part, but not for the same reasons. I feel inclined to say that this single comic has (or rather, would have, if it was canon) progressed the story between Dora and Marten more than anything else Jeph has done since the breakup.
Yes! That's how I feel too.  Everyone may not like how the stuff in this comic happened, but at least something finally did happen!

The past few weeks, and especially this week, have felt like filler to me.  I like Hanners just as much as anyone, but a whole week of her adventure with beef jerky was hard to read when I was/am thinking "What about Dora???" the whole time.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Tormuse on 04 Mar 2011, 08:24
Pizza Girl!  NOOOooo!  :(
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: cesariojpn on 04 Mar 2011, 08:27
I demand moar Garlic Bread Kitty appearances.

Wasn't he in like some strips? 1400-ish range?

*watches as the archivists frantically search the archives in a vain attempt*
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DoomMagnet on 04 Mar 2011, 09:37
Perhaps Dora will go the way of Steve in the early days. Where he basically disappeared like nothing, was mentioned once, and then returned full blown. Or worse yet, Sarah! Of course I am kidding. About Sarah, not Steve.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: akronnick on 04 Mar 2011, 09:37
Wait...


Why is Marten asking Dora to bring his stuff?
They were living together when they broke up.

Dora's place was Marten's place
All of Marten's stuff was already at Marten's place.
Sven came over to Marten's place with a box to get Dora's stuff.

And how did Choo-choo-bear get to Northampton? Doesn't Davin live in Texas or something?

I'm so confused! :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Mar 2011, 09:53
I demand moar Garlic Bread Kitty appearances.

Wasn't he in like some strips? 1400-ish range?

*watches as the archivists frantically search the archives in a vain attempt*

You will not send us scurrying with such simple tricks, padawan.  After all, we KNOW the archive!


Just not in the biblical sense. 

Well, except jwhouk.   :wink:
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DSL on 04 Mar 2011, 10:53
Water lines. Choochoobear travels by water lines. He may have additional powers as Garlic Bread Kitty, but that hasn't been explored. He's also been known to filch small items from places he's visited by water line. Or Sven took something by mistake and it was at his apartment, I dunno. Pizza Girl was investigating when she disappeared.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 04 Mar 2011, 11:27
The number one issue with an ensemble cast in any work of serial fiction - books, comics, TV, et cetera - is that sometimes it takes a while for the storyline to come around to certain cast members.
Qc has a pretty big cast, with more being added all the time. The real reason Jeph is on Twitter is to gain experience telling a story with 140 characters.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CEOIII on 04 Mar 2011, 12:18
@CEOIII:
Well, Davan showed up at Slingshot's Wedding of the Century (and afterward did a bit of sledgehammer psychoanalysis on Candy, to which she responded as a domme who's been out-dommed) ... there's the whole cat-reproduction thing which indirectly led to Hazel's present predicament ... Ms. Corsetto has done a bit of poking around inside the skulls of Faye and Marigold ... Hazel and Jamie were at Northampton's beer-sledding party in the park along with most of the rest of the Webcomics pantheon ... and it's not the first time Mr. Milholland has been rude to Faye.

Hmmm. Candy and Clarice apprentice to Veronica as heirs apparent; Jameson and Dora are thrown together when Hannermom buys out CoD and Joe Shmoe, Davan tries out his psychoanalytical skills on Faye and is, um, attacked by owls ...

Truly, it would be the comics singularity.


During which Pintsize will BECOME PORN.

Just realized something: Pizza Girl's sidekick should really be called BreadStick Kitty. Not all bread served with pizza is garlic bread, it's usually breadsticks. Cheese breadsticks, generally.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 04 Mar 2011, 12:21
Qc has a pretty big cast, with more being added all the time. The real reason Jeph is on Twitter is to gain experience telling a story with 140 characters.

You forgot the /rimshot after that
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DSL on 04 Mar 2011, 13:15
Pintsize, you shouldn't talk that way to Faye when you're standing on top of a stack of boxes with a noose around your neck. Just sayin' ...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CEOIII on 04 Mar 2011, 13:19
Yeah, because we all know ROBOTS BREATHE.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 04 Mar 2011, 13:24
Well in all fairness, the mouth/neck is probably where the cpu fan is.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Kugai on 04 Mar 2011, 13:24
0 _ o
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: celticgeek on 04 Mar 2011, 14:22
Robots need air. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=382#)

Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 04 Mar 2011, 14:31
First of all, I do not "KNOW" the archives.

Secondly, this is most likely CCB's first appearance in the strip, even through past guest strips. In fact, I believe this is only RKM's second guest strip with QC. The last time was Rippy the Razor and Yelling Bird ravaging through San Diego and TJ during ComiCon.

Lastly, I might not be able to keep up for much longer, kiddies. Someone got their job layoff notice last night. :(

Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Kugai on 04 Mar 2011, 14:54
And now Garlic Bread Kitty will go on to take terrible and protracted revenge.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: billydaking on 04 Mar 2011, 14:57
First post, longtime lurker, blah blah, been reading QC forever, blah blah blah.
Anyway...

All I have to say is that this better be canon.
You beat me to it!

I have hated practically every guest strip, but this guest comic is what I wish would actually happen.  I laughed at this comic while I have only chuckled at QC for the past months.
All the relationship drama has taken a lot of the fun out of everything, so something lighthearted like this is extremely refreshing (even if it is just a guest strip).
I agree with the bolded part, but not for the same reasons. I feel inclined to say that this single comic has (or rather, would have, if it was canon) progressed the story between Dora and Marten more than anything else Jeph has done since the breakup. I mean, sure:
a) Dora was supposed to go to therapy, but we haven't seen even as much as a hint she has actually been there. In fact, I just realized we haven't even seen here since 1848 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1848), which equals weeks in universe time.
b) Marten is supposedly somewhat over Dora (judging from the Padma-in-the-bar-arc), but what I feel is really missing is the two talking out things. I mean, all they have done since the break-up is repressing stuff and avoiding each other (cf. It'd be too weird. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1842)) I really wish for some progress about that.

That's because this is a character-driven comic, not a plot-driven one. Like real people, Marten and Dora aren't going to go out of their way to confront each other and deal with each other post-break-up a mere few weeks after it. Neither one is that foolish. You're talking about two people who (a) had a lengthy relationship, (b) lived together for a bit of it, and (c) were friends before that and share most of their own friends. We're not talking about two people who started dating shortly after meeting each other; we're talking about something far more complicated and now fragile.

Having them deal with each other so soon after crash-and-burning makes absolutely no sense character-wise. It would be script-logic: "They do it because the script says so." And that's bad writing; it ignores the characters Jeph's spent the last several years developing. Dora is probably going to therapy; she's going to be in no shape to deal with Marten right away (heck, I had a friend who spent nearly a year in therapy before meeting with me to deal with something that happened between us--and that was just as roommates).

And things have been progressing, just not completely in the Dora-Marten relationship. Most of the strips have followed Marten's point-of-view, not surprising considering he's the main character. I really liked seeing Angus and Faye together, since we hadn't seen that relationship for a while, for instance. And the return to humor--and QC always has been a humor comic with drama, not a soap operatic one--was welcome after a run of out-and-out melodrama.

If and when QC gets to the point that Dora and Marten meet again, that probably will be another major arc. What happened is a major event that affects all of the characters, and it's consequences are not something that should be rushed into. Otherwise, you wind up with something as meaningful as today's guest strip.

(Yay, Pizza Girl!)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Somebody on 04 Mar 2011, 14:58
Pintsize, you shouldn't talk that way to Faye when you're standing on top of a stack of boxes with a noose around your neck. Just sayin' ...
Bigger risk is that she rips the rope off the ceiling and uses it to hammer-throw him into a wall at a human-powered AnthroPC speed record...

Robots need air. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=382#)
Nah, that's not relevant to this scenario - being hung may cause his head to come off, but it won't seriously obstruct the flow of air to his fans...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: akronnick on 04 Mar 2011, 15:21
I think the noose is simply for shock value.

Pintsize gets off on that.

Just look at his twitter feed...
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Border Reiver on 04 Mar 2011, 16:00

Lastly, I might not be able to keep up for much longer, kiddies. Someone got their job layoff notice last night. :(


Sorry to hear that JW.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: pwhodges on 04 Mar 2011, 16:05
Sad news, indeed!  Good luck with looking for that "opportunity"...  :|

And as for the comic, no one has commented on: THE COW SAYS "WOOF".
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 04 Mar 2011, 17:04
Have excellent luck.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: treyhawk on 04 Mar 2011, 17:46
I really hope this isn't canon.  Because once Marten and Dora realize that Pintsize sent the e-mails, Faye and them will turn PintSize into a pile of metal shavings.

I'm not happy about Pizza Girl's death either, but superheroes come back from the dead all the time.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 04 Mar 2011, 18:04
If any of the guest strips were canon, Faye would have caused her father's suicide by appearing before him via time travel, the entire male cast of QC would be gender switched robots created by Tai, Dora and (male) Marten would be advanced robots, and there is a distinct possibility that Marten and Steve would be waking up together.

Seriously, guest strips are just a bit of fun.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Mar 2011, 18:36
Lastly, I might not be able to keep up for much longer, kiddies. Someone got their job layoff notice last night. :(

JW, I'm so sorry.  This truly sucks. 

Aren't you in Wisconsin?  Are you one of the public service union members who just got pink-slipped by the governor?  If so, stay strong, brother...

Oh, you can't scare me, I'm stickin' to the union! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuK4m3UzRk)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: daryljfontaine on 04 Mar 2011, 19:29
Secondly, this is most likely CCB's first appearance in the strip, even through past guest strips. In fact, I believe this is only RKM's second guest strip with QC. The last time was Rippy the Razor and Yelling Bird ravaging through San Diego and TJ during ComiCon.

Third.  Fat girls don't deserve paternal love. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=936)

D
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: The Duke on 04 Mar 2011, 20:41
The number one issue with an ensemble cast in any work of serial fiction - books, comics, TV, et cetera - is that sometimes it takes a while for the storyline to come around to certain cast members.
Qc has a pretty big cast, with more being added all the time. The real reason Jeph is on Twitter is to gain experience telling a story with 140 characters.

Heh.  Nice.

(paddin' the postcount aw yeah)

Does Garlic Bread Kitty remind anyone of that one cat that was in GWS?  (Did somebody bring this up already?)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 04 Mar 2011, 20:46
You mean Choo-Choo-Bear? Davan MacIntire's cat from Something*Positive (the artist of which did today's guest strip)? The father of Hazel's cat Sprinkles' kittens?

Yeah, there is a passing similarity.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Near Lurker on 04 Mar 2011, 21:04
Choochoobear has defeated Pizzagirl.  Thus in death she learns the lesson of the fate of all filthy by-product of excessive cattle farming.  Die happily!  Thank you, dear catty, there's nothing that a hundred men or more could ever do.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CEOIII on 04 Mar 2011, 22:53
Choochoobear has defeated Pizzagirl.  Thus in death she learns the lesson of the fate of all filthy by-product of excessive cattle farming.  Die happily!  Thank you, dear catty, there's nothing that a hundred men or more could ever do.

Sorry to hear about your plight, jwhouk. Hopefully you'll find new work and continue to hang out here, but until then, I suggest you take some time to do the things you never had.

oooh-ooo.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 05 Mar 2011, 00:20
Good Luck jwhouk, it's one of the most upsetting things to have to deal with, hopefully you will be able to find the silver lining soon.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: cesariojpn on 05 Mar 2011, 01:10
I demand moar Garlic Bread Kitty appearances.

Wasn't he in like some strips? 1400-ish range?

*watches as the archivists frantically search the archives in a vain attempt*

You will not send us scurrying with such simple tricks, padawan.  After all, we KNOW the archive!


Just not in the biblical sense. 

Well, except jwhouk.   :wink:

I smell challenge!!

Okay, Tai openly lying to someone.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Smerf on 05 Mar 2011, 04:04
Lastly, I might not be able to keep up for much longer, kiddies. Someone got their job layoff notice last night. :(

And now I feel bad for having gotten a job offer yesterday.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 05 Mar 2011, 06:13
Lastly, I might not be able to keep up for much longer, kiddies. Someone got their job layoff notice last night. :(

JW, I'm so sorry.  This truly sucks.  

Aren't you in Wisconsin?  Are you one of the public service union members who just got pink-slipped by the governor?  If so, stay strong, brother...

Oh, you can't scare me, I'm stickin' to the union! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuK4m3UzRk)

(Nods, sadly) I'm one of the 290 who got essentially axed.  I'm starting to hate Northern Wisconsin.

I'm gonna land on my feet, though. Even though my boss is an idiot, they have to help me find a new job.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: horsefish on 05 Mar 2011, 08:30
I hope I'm not crossing the line into the frowned-upon political zone, but....

Places like Wisconsin have long been a beacon of hope for many of us union supporters who live in "right-to-work" states.  I'm also sorry, JW.  This is scary stuff. When all the shit started hitting the fan up there with the legislators going into hiding, my first thought was "oh, christ, not Wisconsin! - how could this happen there of all places?" 
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 05 Mar 2011, 09:15
I just also wanted to offer my sorries to jwhouk; I hope it's not too difficult for them to find you a new job. Good luck, man  :-)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: The Duke on 05 Mar 2011, 10:20
You mean Choo-Choo-Bear? Davan MacIntire's cat from Something*Positive (the artist of which did today's guest strip)? The father of Hazel's cat Sprinkles' kittens?

Yeah, there is a passing similarity.

Aw man, I knew when I posted it that there must be something really glaringly obvious about my post.  I don't actually read S*P, so that's my (feeble) excuse.

I hope I haven't taken up too much of your time.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 05 Mar 2011, 10:44
Nah, you're alright, I always have time for sarcasm  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Mar 2011, 18:18
I smell challenge!!

Okay, Tai openly lying to someone.
973
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 05 Mar 2011, 23:40
Oh, we can get more recent than that... (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1789)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: jwhouk on 06 Mar 2011, 06:10
Moment of the Week?

Vulcan Boob Squish II - The Wrath of Faye!    - 9 (12.9%)
"My Boobs are a Powerful Narcotic."    - 5 (7.1%)
Hannelore, wake up...    - 0 (0%)
Hanners channels the Old Ones again...    - 5 (7.1%)
Hannelore's weird dream    - 3 (4.3%)
Marten in a dress?    - 3 (4.3%)
Hanner's Kafka-esque moment    - 7 (10%)
Ghost Ridin' the Roomba!    - 6 (8.6%)
RK Milholland: Questionable Guest Strip    - 32 (45.7%) LANDSLIDE.

Total Voters: 70
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Mar 2011, 10:47
Canon or not, it really was  the perfect storm of comic-dom.  Characters we know saying things we wanted to hear (well, from Dora, anyway - never saw Marten as the toy collector type) and Pintsize pulling a prank not only of epic proportions, but downright amorally cruel.   Threatened violence from Faye, and even a Pizza Girl appearance! 

I'll say this for Randy - he doesn't do it in his own comic, but he sure knows how to do fanservice! 
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: cesariojpn on 07 Mar 2011, 00:36
I smell challenge!!

Okay, Tai openly lying to someone.
973

Oh, we can get more recent than that... (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1789)

And stuck in the middle.... (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1400)
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Shremedy on 12 Mar 2011, 21:57
I hope I'm not crossing the line into the frowned-upon political zone, but....

Places like Wisconsin have long been a beacon of hope for many of us union supporters who live in "right-to-work" states.  I'm also sorry, JW.  This is scary stuff. When all the shit started hitting the fan up there with the legislators going into hiding, my first thought was "oh, christ, not Wisconsin! - how could this happen there of all places?" 
Simple:  that very history makes us (yes, I am also Wisconsinite) the biggest and most crucial target.  'nuff said.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: horsefish on 13 Mar 2011, 06:54
I hadn't thought of it that way, but now I think you are absolutely right. I wonder why that "targeting" approach tends to work so much better from the right than from the left.  Somehow I don't see an inverted scenario working very well.  Like maybe a concerted effort to legalize gay marriage in Alabama.  um, yeah. that'll work. :mrgreen:

EDIT: I know I'm treading on thin ice here - I really need to hit 100 posts so I can unlock the DISCUSS forum.  Or is that a myth? :?
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: pwhodges on 13 Mar 2011, 07:02
No, that's correct; although it's not stated clearly anywhere, I can confirm that at present the Discuss forum becomes available when you have 100 posts.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Carl-E on 13 Mar 2011, 07:32
I wonder why that "targeting" approach tends to work so much better from the right than from the left.  Somehow I don't see an inverted scenario working very well.  Like maybe a concerted effort to legalize gay marriage in Alabama.  um, yeah. that'll work. :mrgreen:

Well, philosophically, the left has never been able to attack unless provoked.  The tendency is to appeal to reason, not fear.  So something so coordinated is really anathema, you can't coordinate rational thought.  It's the old "herding cats" scenario. 

I realize some may be offended by my implication that the right bases its tactics on fear.  Please remember that conservatism is, by definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative), a resistance to change.  The desire to leave things alone, though not unsupported by reason, is often a decision based on fear, whether based on the rhetoric of others or bad experiences with past changes.  The desire may be to stop current change, or roll back recent changes, or even to to get rid of years/decades/centuries of change in certain areas.  And, while many changes have unintended results that can be a problem, these should be fixed, not undone.  Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is never a good idea! 
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: DSL on 13 Mar 2011, 09:11
"targeting" by its nature is suited to an "anti" position and not a "pro" or inclusive position. It's all about THEM and what THEY'll do to you unless THEY're stopped.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 13 Mar 2011, 14:46
There's no longer a written rule against politics, since the Discuss subforum came into being. Still, there are many places to discuss politics on the web that aren't a webcomic message board.
Title: Re: WCDT 28 Feb-4 Mar 2011 (1871-1875)
Post by: CEOIII on 20 Mar 2011, 13:05
Moral: If you're not reading Something Positive, YOU SHOULD BE. Go start an archive binge over there. NOW.

And there went another two weeks of my life...

You're welcome. *bows*