THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: Method of Madness on 13 Mar 2011, 09:43

Title: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 13 Mar 2011, 09:43
Get to voting!  And speculating...but mostly voting! :mrgreen:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: smilcarek on 13 Mar 2011, 11:13
Speculation!

Hmm... Maybe more about therapy? Or Padma?

Definitely Padma.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 13 Mar 2011, 13:30
I wanna see Marigold realize that the "good" team member on her raids is the "pretty person" known as Sven Bianchi...

Or get attacked by Dale.  (In WoW, not in an alley)

Something, anything to connect WoW to her real world would be good.  At least she'd have a way to relate to the people around her other than arguing about her negative self view. 

[cue Marigold haters]
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 13 Mar 2011, 13:45
So I made this because I thought this thread was just made by whoever made it, then I looked and saw the same person has been making it for months.  I wasn't out of line making this, was I?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: pwhodges on 13 Mar 2011, 13:52
There's no rule who does it; the previous person may well be content to take a break anyway, as he has other things on his mind which is why there was nopoll last week.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 13 Mar 2011, 14:01
Alright, cool, just wanted to make sure.

As for this week in comics, I'm hoping that they back off of Marigold for a while and focus on Marten's antics, and that we find out more about the cast of the Secret Bakery, as well as their "less fresh" bagels.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 13 Mar 2011, 14:52
The Secret Bakery people seem to be destined for regular character status, so character development for them is a priority.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 13 Mar 2011, 19:22
We still don't know tattoo-neck's name. Which is bugging me now that we know everyone else's
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 14 Mar 2011, 00:21
Daww! blushes...

(but think of the happy batter)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 14 Mar 2011, 00:23
I think the any residual happy batter from Marten is well washed out by now. I'm sure this was Tai's subliminal influence in going to the shop.




I lol'd at the newspost but unfortunately I agree; this will not end well. maybe.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: westrim on 14 Mar 2011, 00:27
Weeeell, this should be interesting. Oh, yeeeeeess. *Gendo pose*
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Lubricus on 14 Mar 2011, 00:34
This will surely end in tears. Looking forward to it, though!  :evil:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: PureLionHeart on 14 Mar 2011, 00:42
Oh, I both love and hate the road we're on now.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cesariojpn on 14 Mar 2011, 00:46
Wait, Tai's a Lesbian. So, should I rule out Hermaphrodites and She-Males from the rampant theory speculation mix?

Also, Tai, why the sudden change of face? (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1400)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 14 Mar 2011, 00:56
The upcoming plot makes me kind of sad, if Dora and Tai do get together it could put the potential reconciliation and getting back together of Dora and Marten completely out of the picture. Crazy aside, I always felt they worked well as a couple, both from the standpoint of their happiness, but also in terms of the comic (although that did need the crazy sometimes). Also, i'm imagining that the drama from Tai and Dora getting together will come from either Marten finding out at an inappropriate moment, or Dora calls out Marten's name when she's in bed with Tai.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: DSL on 14 Mar 2011, 01:00
C'mon, Dora. Ask how Marten's doing. It's not like he stopped existing.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 14 Mar 2011, 01:02
Oh man.... I'm just going to agree with Jeph's new post. Oh No... Nooooo  :psyduck:

But then again, Like PureLionHeart said... I kind of love and hate this direction but mostly love since I know this will be the beginning of a heck of drama! welll... Maybe, if it is food poisoning then it's alright. I really want Marten's best though.

I also don't think Dora's thinking of having a boyfriend/girlfriend anytime soon. specially for all the therapy and stuff.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Yes I will.

DSL. Yeah, I kind of agree with you...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: akronnick on 14 Mar 2011, 01:02
This has catastrophe written all over it...


And judging by Dora's body language, It's not gonna be a small one.

 :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: snubnose on 14 Mar 2011, 01:37
I should have known that Tai's "Dora is offlimits because she had *** with Marten" wasnt the truth.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: pwhodges on 14 Mar 2011, 01:53
But she's clearly uneasy about it.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: akronnick on 14 Mar 2011, 02:02
But she's clearly uneasy about it.

Not so uneasy that she won't make a pass at her.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cesariojpn on 14 Mar 2011, 02:08
But she's clearly uneasy about it.

Not so uneasy that she won't make a pass at her.

It was (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1398) really, really (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1400) only a (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1593) matter of (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1595) time actually. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1596)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Akima on 14 Mar 2011, 02:35
Is the Tai Express heading for the buffers? Trainwreck ahead.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: no one special on 14 Mar 2011, 02:57
So I guess the shippers' new cry is going to be "Tora! Tora! Tora!" 

 :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odal on 14 Mar 2011, 03:12
So I guess the shippers' new cry is going to be "Tora! Tora! Tora!" 

 :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
And the shippers' haters' new cry will be, "Dai! Dai! Dai!"
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: akronnick on 14 Mar 2011, 03:25
*slow clap*
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Fenriswolf on 14 Mar 2011, 03:52
I really enjoyed the art today. :) Also, would enjoy if Tai and Dora got together, in a totally not trite or dramatic way.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 14 Mar 2011, 03:54
if Tai and Dora got together, in a totally not trite or dramatic way.

Is that even possible?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 14 Mar 2011, 04:15
I like how the newspost for pi day was written at pi time.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Renewman on 14 Mar 2011, 04:16
But she's clearly uneasy about it.

Not so uneasy that she won't make a pass at her.

It was (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1398) really, really (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1400) only a (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1593) matter of (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1595) time actually. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1596)


Agreed. I seriously would not be surprised if Tai was waiting around for Dora and Marten to break up just so she could have a chance. Now I'm sure Tai genuinely feels remorse for Dora's situation but come on, Tai is human. We all secretly relish in other people's misfortunes. One person's loss is another person's gain. That's like secretly feeling happy that Grandma wasn't coming to visit because that meant you were going to the movies instead. I know Tai is going to try to pursue a relationship with Dora but can you blame Dora if she turns Tai down completely? Who wants a relationship that could go sour even faster because you are dealing with a woman who can get just as easily jealous, emotional, angry, etc. as quickly as you do? I'm digressing quite a bit but in the end I see it going nowhere.

tl;dr - Tai is going to go after Dora but Dora is going to turn her down because a relationship with a female could end up worse then her breakup with Marten.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Delator on 14 Mar 2011, 04:45
Is the Tai Express heading for the buffers? Trainwreck Shipwreck ahead.

Fixed that for ya.  :wink:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Karilyn on 14 Mar 2011, 05:09
Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

*deep breath*

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

*pants*

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...Eee

Yeah that about sums up my reaction when I saw this page.  Tai has achieved critical cuteness mass.  Cue incoming collapse into a cuteness singularity.

Also, Tai, why the sudden change of face? (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1400)
Duh, because before Tai wanted to sleep with Dora cause she thought Dora was hot.  Now she's developing a crush on Dora.  That's quite a bit of an emotional difference.  Which, also judging by Tai's past relationships, she doesn't exactly have a lot of serious relationships, mostly just sex for fun.  Of course Tai is going to be a bit confused and befuddled.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Tergon on 14 Mar 2011, 05:26
Honestly, I read this comic as being pretty straightforward.  Tai caught herself getting all hot and bothered over a girl she's not only friends with, but is a very recent ex of a guy she works and is friends with.  Hence, guilt.  The whole "Tai finds Dora attractive" isn't exactly new ground for us, it's just that while it was fun to joke around with Marten while they were dating, she knows it isn't all that funny anymore in the aftermath of a recent, painful breakup.

I suppose this may be the rare occasion of me not reading enough into the situation?  But really I took Tai's comment at face value, calling a "not cool" on herself for inappropriate girlboners.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 14 Mar 2011, 06:02
Yeah, wanting to have sex with someone isn't necessarily the same as crushing on them, and I'm guessing Tai didn't realize she was developing actual feelings for Dora until just now. How gracefully Tai is able to handle this will really show what kind of character she is, which is just one of the many reasons I'm looking forward to it  :-D

*slow clap*

That was a rare shipping win, yes  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 14 Mar 2011, 06:03
It isn't butterflies in her stomach, or food poisoning. Its her conscience. Not cool Tai, not cool.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: El_Flesh on 14 Mar 2011, 06:07
Why not?
The chick knows who she likes.
What are you supposed to do when you like someone?
Quash it, quell it and KILL it???
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 14 Mar 2011, 06:13
Unwritten man code* - You don't just go and try to ask out a friend's ex-girlfriend. You talk to your friend first, see if they are alright with the idea, and then you go develop butterflies in your stomach.

*As Jeph pointed out, there is no such thing as the unwritten man code**
**Actually, there is, but we're just not allowed to talk about it outloud
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Karilyn on 14 Mar 2011, 06:23
Unwritten man code* - You don't just go and try to ask out a friend's ex-girlfriend. You talk to your friend first, see if they are alright with the idea, and then you go develop butterflies in your stomach.
First, Martin has no more say in Dora's love life than she does in his as they are no longer a couple.  And secondly, you must be a man for the unwritten man code to apply and Tai is not not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 14 Mar 2011, 06:29
Unwritten man code* - You don't just go and try to ask out a friend's ex-girlfriend. You talk to your friend first, see if they are alright with the idea, and then you go develop butterflies in your stomach.

Fuck that bullshit, your friend doesn't own their exes. The only reason to not ask out a friend's ex if you find them attractive and they act like they're interested is if you're not single, yourself.

If your friend can't handle their ex dating someone else, that is their problem, not yours.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: pwhodges on 14 Mar 2011, 06:35
But that doesn't mean, if your friend has a problem with it, that you necessarily want to trample over their feelings, does it?  Sometimes going with the obvious just isn't good enough, if friendship means anything.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 14 Mar 2011, 06:36
Fuck that bullshit, your friend doesn't own their exes. The only reason to not ask out a friend's ex if you find them attractive and they act like they're interested is if you're not single, yourself.

If your friend can't handle their ex dating someone else, that is their problem, not yours.

One - Did I say anyting about myself or any friends of mine?
Two - Common courtesy, which apparently isn't that common, just means taking the time to know if someone is alright with the idea of an ex dating. No one owns anybody jackass.
Three - You might want to go see a doctor, see if he can get that stick out of your ass.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 14 Mar 2011, 06:38
So I made this because I thought this thread was just made by whoever made it, then I looked and saw the same person has been making it for months.  I wasn't out of line making this, was I?

No. The person who normally makes these is having some personal issues right now. Something about unemployment, an insane Governor, and middle age.

And as for Tai: it's not like she's done stuff that she really shouldn't have done before. By the way, did they ever figure out where she put her pants?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: ElvisRevenge on 14 Mar 2011, 06:38
Wait, am I the only one blindly excited by this?!

Damn the consequences says I!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 14 Mar 2011, 06:46
Fuck that bullshit, your friend doesn't own their exes. The only reason to not ask out a friend's ex if you find them attractive and they act like they're interested is if you're not single, yourself.

If your friend can't handle their ex dating someone else, that is their problem, not yours.

One - Did I say anyting about myself or any friends of mine?
Two - Common courtesy, which apparently isn't that common, just means taking the time to know if someone is alright with the idea of an ex dating. No one owns anybody jackass.
Three - You might want to go see a doctor, see if he can get that stick out of your ass.

One - You posted bullshit "man code" (which is 99% misogynistic bullshit, every time), whether you were posting about your personal friends or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion so why are you even asking this?
Two - I already addressed this, if a friend isn't okay with the idea of an ex dating, that is their problem and not yours (who their ex is dating is irrelevant, it literally never matters in the context of them having a problem with the ex dating someone else).
Three - You need therapy if you genuinely believe you have to get your friend's approval before dating one of their exes. Adults don't have to ask their friend's permission, at any rate, what with not being in middle school anymore. See #2.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: slydon on 14 Mar 2011, 07:08
Well, don't be too harsh on all "man code", BROSSSSSSS!!!  :-D

I'm pretty sure one of my exes played for the other team after we broke up. Oddly enough, it brought a lot more mental closure than you'd think.
The most awkward thing IS that it's Tai, Marten's friend, and not some random character, and she knows it, hence the butterflies.

Okay, back to work for me. :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Border Reiver on 14 Mar 2011, 07:14
No, but generally we try not to make our friends more uncomfortable than we have to.  

Anyway, Tai seems to be experiencing the standard response to the idea - excited by the prospect of a date with someone with whom she may be able to have an actual relationship (which seems to be the way she's moving emotionally), and worried that she may upset Marten and jeopardize her friendship and working relationship.  

How will this play out?  Who knows?  Will we stick around to see it (probably)?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: tbones on 14 Mar 2011, 08:08
Ohhh boy, i smell drama disaster...

Two - I already addressed this, if a friend isn't okay with the idea of an ex dating, that is their problem and not yours (who their ex is dating is irrelevant, it literally never matters in the context of them having a problem with the ex dating someone else).
At the end, Tai is totally free to do whatever she wants to do, but there is two sides of everything. If she doesn't consider Marten's feeling about it that makes her a jerk, but also she can't be a slave to what other people thinks she should do. Obviously some time has passed, but is it a good choice? Only time will tell...

Will we stick around to see it (probably)?
Of course we will!!!!

At least i will  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: LeeC on 14 Mar 2011, 08:34
Tai please dont do what I think your going to do down the road. :-o it will not end well.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: pwhodges on 14 Mar 2011, 08:35
You need therapy if ...

Please don't let this stray into getting personal.

Quote
Adults don't have to ask their friend's permission,

But adults will also consider their friend's feelings.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 14 Mar 2011, 08:41
You need therapy if ...

Please don't let this stray into getting personal.

I think I'm handling someone accusing me of having a stick up my ass pretty well, actually.

Quote
Quote
Adults don't have to ask their friend's permission,

But adults will also consider their friend's feelings.

That works both ways: If they're an adult friend, they aren't going to get all pissy because one of their friends is dating one of their exes. This really isn't that difficult to understand, is it?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: pwhodges on 14 Mar 2011, 08:46
That works both ways

Are you seriously saying that you consider it adult behaviour to rely on your friends being adult enough to indulge your pissing on their feelings?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 14 Mar 2011, 08:50
That works both ways

Are you seriously saying that you consider it adult behaviour to rely on your friends being adult enough to indulge your pissing on their feelings?

Are you intentionally misreading everything that doesn't agree with you?

I'm saying an adult friend is going to move on from past relationships with their exes and it should not ever be a problem for their friends to date one of their exes. If the friend seriously has a problem with their Ex dating one of their friends, they have deeper issues with letting go and all that other nasty stuff that goes along with clingy, creepy people than you can help them with (and as I said earlier, it wouldn't matter if the EX is dating a friend or not, the simple fact that they are bothered by the ex dating anybody is indicative of serious mental problems).

EDIT: To bring it back to the comic: enough time has elapsed where if Marten has a problem with Dora dating anybody it will just illustrate his own need for therapy.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Elysiana on 14 Mar 2011, 08:54
Dora and Marten haven't even had any sort of closure yet, have they? And how much time has passed since the breakup?

Odin, I find it funny that you don't think adults should/do consider their friends' feelings when making decisions like that. I think we are more likely to, in fact, because we've grown up and don't just trounce on other people. Teenagers tend to be selfish and not ask for permission; adults are, well, adult enough to talk about it with the party in question first - especially if there has not been closure.

In this case, the breakup happened pretty suddenly and I think both parties were surprised by it. I never got the feeling that Dora had been planning it or brooding over it, she came to more of a sudden realization. Both parties are still a bit shocked and neither has even spoken to the other or really gotten into how they feel other than "It sucks, but I'm getting by."

If there'd been definite closure and both people were obviously comfortable with the decision and seemed happy with the idea of it being permanent, I could understand saying that it's okay for another person to make a move; but not in this case. And with Tai being a friend to both of them and a boss to one... there's a lot of dangerous ground to be tread upon.


Argh, more replies...
You seem to think that adults don't have as many feelings as younger people; where is that coming from? Adults get pissy all the time; just because we know how to hide or handle those feelings better doesn't mean it's not still a dick move. How old are you, out of curiosity?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 14 Mar 2011, 09:06
Dora and Marten haven't even had any sort of closure yet, have they? And how much time has passed since the breakup?

Marten may not have had any closure yet, but it seem Dora has moved on quite nicely (she's been exhibiting the most "normal" behavior out of anyone: she continued on with her life after allowing herself to grieve over the breakup; meanwhile, Marten is changing his entire social circle to avoid having to deal with moving the fuck on).

It has been at least a month since the breakup, QC-time, what with the hair growth and all going on. Considering the relationship itself lasted all of maybe six months QC-time, I think that's pretty easily enough time for people to start moving on with their lives.

Quote
Odin, I find it funny that you don't think adults should/do consider their friends' feelings when making decisions like that.

I've said nothing of the sort, but keep strawmanning me if it makes you feel better.

Quote
I think we are more likely to, in fact, because we've grown up and don't just trounce on other people. Teenagers tend to be selfish and not ask for permission; adults are, well, adult enough to talk about it with the party in question first - especially if there has not been closure.

If it has been a month since one of your friends broke up with their ex of six months and they are still moping around about it like a sad sack, that friend is the one with problems, not you.

Quote
In this case, the breakup happened pretty suddenly and I think both parties were surprised by it. I never got the feeling that Dora had been planning it or brooding over it, she came to more of a sudden realization. Both parties are still a bit shocked and neither has even spoken to the other or really gotten into how they feel other than "It sucks, but I'm getting by."

If there'd been definite closure and both people were obviously comfortable with the decision and seemed happy with the idea of it being permanent, I could understand saying that it's okay for another person to make a move; but not in this case. And with Tai being a friend to both of them and a boss to one... there's a lot of dangerous ground to be tread upon.

Nonsense.

Dora is getting therapy and apparently happily moving on with her life, she is free to date or do whatever she wants and it is literally none of Marten's concern what she does any more.

Quote
Argh, more replies...
You seem to think that adults don't have as many feelings as younger people; where is that coming from? Adults get pissy all the time; just because we know how to hide or handle those feelings better doesn't mean it's not still a dick move. How old are you, out of curiosity?

I'm 29 years old, and I think adults are better at handling their own feelings than children. There is a very huge and not-so-subtle difference between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying, though, so go back and re-read what I actually type instead of being so quick to hit the "Post" button just because you disagree with me.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Karilyn on 14 Mar 2011, 09:12
You need therapy if ...
Please don't let this stray into getting personal.
I think I'm handling someone accusing me of having a stick up my ass pretty well, actually.
Wait?  Were you seriously offended by that?  :psyduck:

Please don't take this as offensive, but you might want to consider working on thickening up your skin.  That's a bit uh, little too thin skinned to be healthy, online or offline.  While it was a bit of an insult, it was hardly a personal insult, and it would be ideal for anybody to let it roll off off like water on a duck's back than let it get to them.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 14 Mar 2011, 09:13
You need therapy if ...
Please don't let this stray into getting personal.
I think I'm handling someone accusing me of having a stick up my ass pretty well, actually.
Wait?  Were you seriously offended by that?  :psyduck:

Please don't take this as offensive, but you might want to consider working on thickening up your skin.  That's a bit uh, little too thin skinned to be healthy, online or offline.

Sarcasm, on my internets?! Well, I never!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: QueenoftheSmileys on 14 Mar 2011, 09:14
I think I understand what Odin is trying to get at here.

It's true, it should not matter who the EX is dating.

It does, however, matter that the FRIEND is dating the ex so soon.

That means, I guess that the Ex can date whoever they damn well please, since the person no longer has any claim on them or their lives.
A friend is a friend though, and SHOULD be considerate to the other friend's feelings. The friend may be viewed as a "vulture" in that sense.

This does not mean that the friend can NEVER date the ex though, a grace period for both parties to move on is simply courtesy.

This comes from personal experience. -_-;

And I beg to differ, adults can often get JUST as pissy as kids. I've seen it myself. xD
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Elysiana on 14 Mar 2011, 09:16
I can't really hold a decent conversation with someone whose M.O. is anger, so... on to other things :)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Near Lurker on 14 Mar 2011, 09:17
Tai, repeat after me: sloppy seconds.  Happy batter.  Sloppy seconds.  Happy batter.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Zwiebel on 14 Mar 2011, 09:27
it may not be the best decision to make my first post this, but I felt the need to just chime in...

1. No, we are not beholden to any of our friends to ask permission to date their exes, and vice versa. However, I would be really upset if one of my good friends just up and decided to date my ex without even talking to me about it. There are a lot of things that go on, and a lot of feelings to be considered. There is no requirement to do so, but if I were thinking about asking the ex of a friend out, I would definitely discuss it with him/her first because they ARE my friend and so their feelings deserve my regard, especially if there was a social group that we were all involved in or if the breakup was particularly acrimonious (in this case it's a bit worse because Dora is having to face issues about herself that she wouldn't have normally and it might lead to an even bigger breakup later, and no one wants the group splintered). Lastly, only a month after? I mean they made the decision to move in together and make some pretty bit progress for both of them relationship-wise. It might still be a bit early to just jump back on the social bandwagon in that case. Being in a rebound is just bad for all involved, although I see that more from Marten than Dora.

2. The bigger issue here that I  see (yeah, there could be drama with Tai/Marten over it, but I think Marten would get over that in time) is the fact that Marten would have no way to avoid it if he DID have issue with it. Taking a break from your social group is one thing- I'm doing that right now- but Marten works with Tai. He has no way to be away from that if it does pose a problem for him. It can be much easier to deal with this kind of thing if you can 'take a break', which Marten seems to have been so far. He's not been hanging out with the COD crowd, and doing his own thing. With Tai and Dora, he won't have that chance because, well, who knows how Tai and Dora will interact. If it spilled over into the Smif world, Marten would not have that space he may need.

3. Dora doesn't really need to be in any kind of relationship right now. I don't like speculating about even a comic character's life, but given her history with Marten, I think it would be vastly better for her to pursue therapy as a single for a while. Even a FWB situation could get hairy. Sven mentions her previous mates were "a**hole alphagoths", and that kind of behavior can also include sexual domination, and not in the sense of personal preference. We're talking about emotional abuse here. I mean, Faye kinda showed what I mean when her situation with Sven ended the way it did- while that kind of relationship can be healthy for those involved, there is a big risk involved if someone gets even a bit emotionally invested.


Just my .02. Feel free to tear the newbie a new one :P
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: The Duke on 14 Mar 2011, 09:42
But she's clearly uneasy about it.

Not so uneasy that she won't make a pass at her.

It was (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1398) really, really (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1400) only a (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1593) matter of (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1595) time actually. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1596)


Wow.  I didn't really realize because they were somewhat spread out, but that is some serious foreshadowing right there.


also: AUUUGGGHHH WALL OF TEXT DESTROY THE NEWCOMER

Just kidding.  Welcome here, Zwiebel!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 14 Mar 2011, 09:50
I can't really hold a decent conversation with someone whose M.O. is anger, so... on to other things :)

People only ever use swear words when angry, folks.  :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 14 Mar 2011, 09:56
Welcome, new person!

Dora was single for a long time pre-Marten, and seemed to manage it OK. So I agree: Dora would be better off not trying to manage a relationship until she straightens herself out.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 14 Mar 2011, 10:02
Odin, if you find yourself being misunderstood by the majority of people who respond to you, the problem may not be with them.  

Just sayin.  

I don't personally think it's a thicker skin you need - it seems plenty thick enough.  But you really  need to work on your communication skills.  You say things so often with no explanation, and using broad generalisations.  Your first comments here were just that, it took you two or three tries to elucidate your idea enough to be understandable, all the while bitching that people didn't understand what you were trying to say, and insulting those who toook offense - so much so that you baited a few other posters.  Your MO may not be anger, but it's not attractive, either.  

You might want to work on that.  

Based on what I know of you though, you probably won't.  
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Miakaru on 14 Mar 2011, 10:03
1802-1818: Day after break up, Therapy call
1819-1837: Martin's Mom Visit
1838-1855: Day After Visit
1856-1874: Random Day
1875-current: Next Day, first day of therapy

I'd say it's been a week since the breakup, tops. The first three days are all linked, and the later two are. 1865, Padma recognizes Martin, but doesn't know his name. He also doesn't know her name, so I while he's been to SB a few times, I doubt more than 2-3.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Sharp on 14 Mar 2011, 10:07
While this is certainly an interesting turn of events, it made me uneasy. I like the drama, I don't like the drama, augh.
I can see this either leading to wacky misunderstandings and more hurt feelings, (I imagine Marten will be run over by a bicyclist, just for good measure) but I think it will serve more as a plot hook than a lasting situation.

I think Marten will notice Tai's unease. Tai may broach the subject with Marten after some prodding. Marten will probably do his whole "Bwuh dwuh?" thing and he will either give his consent or he will tell Tai that even though he may not like it, he can't stop her. (I can't see Marten saying "No" flat out.)

Or maybe it will come from Dora: Tai may start dropping in more often, start dropping hints. If she asks Dora out I can totally see Dora rejecting her for either her own stability or what she sees as Marten's best interests. I've always thought that Dora really did see Tai as just a friend.

I think that what a lot of people are forgetting is that Marten and Dora were in Love. And I think that they may still be, albeit seperated. At the very least, they still love each other without being IN love. They still care about what happens to the other person and they both seem okay with a break right now.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 14 Mar 2011, 10:09
1802-1818: Day after break up, Therapy call
1819-1837: Martin's Mom Visit
1838-1855: Day After Visit
1856-1874: Random Day
1875-current: Next Day, first day of therapy

I'd say it's been a week since the breakup, tops. The first three days are all linked, and the later two are. 1865, Padma recognizes Martin, but doesn't know his name. He also doesn't know her name, so I while he's been to SB a few times, I doubt more than 2-3.

You may want to review those strips again, many pages were spent in the WCDT threads for them talking about the various instances of "time gaps" in them.

It has been at least a month, if not longer.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Somebody on 14 Mar 2011, 10:17
Dora was single for a long time pre-Marten, and seemed to manage it OK. So I agree: Dora would be better off not trying to manage a relationship until she straightens herself out.
I basically agree with the above (although, since a Dora/Tai relatiionship is what's being discussed, "until she straightens herself out" is perhaps a poor choice of words ;) )

1802-1818: Day after break up, Therapy call
1819-1837: Martin's Mom Visit
1838-1855: Day After Visit
1856-1874: Random Day
1875-current: Next Day, first day of therapy

I'd say it's been a week since the breakup, tops. The first three days are all linked, and the later two are. 1865, Padma recognizes Martin, but doesn't know his name. He also doesn't know her name, so I while he's been to SB a few times, I doubt more than 2-3.
#1861 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1861): "It's been weeks [since the breakup]"
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Zwiebel on 14 Mar 2011, 10:20


also: AUUUGGGHHH WALL OF TEXT DESTROY THE NEWCOMER

Just kidding.  Welcome here, Zwiebel!
[/quote]

Argh, every single time. You know, this whole pitchforks-and-torches thing gets old after a bit. I'm quite flammable, you know, and medical bills are expensive! :)

Thanks for a warm welcome all, and if swearing means one is angry... oh dear. I'm a very angry person, since I am very sweary.

I can't really hold a decent conversation with someone whose M.O. is anger, so... on to other things :)

People only ever use swear words when angry, folks.  :roll:


Thanks for a warm welcome all, and if swearing means one is angry... oh dear. I'm a very angry person, since I am very sweary.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: ysth on 14 Mar 2011, 10:20
None of the above, Tai. YOU'RE PREGGERS!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 14 Mar 2011, 10:20
^^^Marten was warned about using the unisex restroom at the library to masturbate! He just didn't listen! (reference to Clerks II, by the way)

Odin, if you find yourself being misunderstood by the majority of people who respond to you, the problem may not be with them.  

Just sayin.

It isn't anywhere near a majority, only the two or three people that don't bother to read (or don't retain, pick one) what has been discussed in the past two or three weeks of WCDT.

I don't have a problem with them, personally. I just can't resist the urge to poke fun at people that are not paying attention to things that were just discussed in this forum not even a week ago that contradicts the problems they have with what I say half the time (this latest argument being the exception); like the post above ignoring the lengthy thread we had discussing the time gaps in recent strips (and a couple prior instances of the same gaps earlier in the QC series).

Quote
I don't personally think it's a thicker skin you need - it seems plenty thick enough.  But you really  need to work on your communication skills.  You say things so often with no explanation, and using broad generalisations.  Your first comments here were just that, it took you two or three tries to elucidate your idea enough to be understandable, all the while bitching that people didn't understand what you were trying to say, and insulting those who toook offense - so much so that you baited a few other posters.  Your MO may not be anger, but it's not attractive, either.
 

I just don't see the need to go trawling through 50 pages of 3 different threads to dig up links to posts that everyone should have already read up to this point. It isn't even that difficult to have read the previous threads (and being the kind of person that rushes straight from the comic page to the forum to post without reading what was said prior to their post pretty much deserves to get called out on it), is it?

Quote
You might want to work on that.  

Based on what I know of you though, you probably won't.

I'll start working on sourcing my references to previous threads when people start making it clear that they haven't read the discussions up to whatever the current point is and ask for some sort of summary relative to their perception of things. Otherwise, if they aren't going to put forth the effort, they kind of deserve the frustration of not knowing where my posts are coming from (they all work and make perfect sense if you use the correct context of "wait, did we discuss this within the last few days on these very forums? Woah!").
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Mustakyy on 14 Mar 2011, 10:26
Hooo-boy..   :-o  :-o  :-o  :-o

Somehow I get the feeling that this will end tears.. Seems that we've seen fair share of comedy lately (Good times with Faye and Angus, the introduction of TSB and its employees, brotimes with Steve)and another session of teh drama is due.


Zwiebel, quite nice (and accurate, imho) first post. *applaud*
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Miakaru on 14 Mar 2011, 10:33
1802-1818: Day after break up, Therapy call
1819-1837: Martin's Mom Visit
1838-1855: Day After Visit
1856-1874: Random Day
1875-current: Next Day, first day of therapy

I'd say it's been a week since the breakup, tops. The first three days are all linked, and the later two are. 1865, Padma recognizes Martin, but doesn't know his name. He also doesn't know her name, so I while he's been to SB a few times, I doubt more than 2-3.

You may want to review those strips again, many pages were spent in the WCDT threads for them talking about the various instances of "time gaps" in them.

It has been at least a month, if not longer.


Yes, god forbid I don't read the forums everyday and just when something interesting happen in the strip I'm curious to other peoples opinions on. However, Somebody did point to a strip saying it had been "weeks" since the breakup.

One of my main points was the therapy call/visit. From past experiences, I don't think it would take longer than a month from the time of her call to her first visit. 2-3 weeks even seems like large amount of time.

Also, as a general thought, is it not common curtsy to give half the time of a friends relationship before even asking their opinion on your asking them out?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Kugai on 14 Mar 2011, 10:58
Hoooooo  boy

This will either end in a Commitment Ceremony or a trip to Davy Jones' Locker.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: westrim on 14 Mar 2011, 10:59
Also, as a general thought, is it not common curtsy to give half the time of a friends relationship before even asking their opinion on your asking them out?
Curtsying isn't very popular these days. We'd probably get along better if people would curtsy more. Specifically, I haven't heard of a rule that says you must curtsy to a friend with a lost relationship before going after their ex for a specific period of time, just an undefinable 'until the hurt goes away'. Methinks everyone views the proper curtsy for that situation differently, and all the arguing on a comic forum thread in the word isn't going to change their gut instinct.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 14 Mar 2011, 11:01
Quote from: Odin
You may want to review those strips again, many pages were spent in the WCDT threads for them talking about the various instances of "time gaps" in them.

It has been at least a month, if not longer.


Yes, god forbid I don't read the forums everyday and just when something interesting happen in the strip I'm curious to other peoples opinions on. However, Somebody did point to a strip saying it had been "weeks" since the breakup.

 :mrgreen:

Quote
One of my main points was the therapy call/visit. From past experiences, I don't think it would take longer than a month from the time of her call to her first visit. 2-3 weeks even seems like large amount of time.

This would depend entirely on how huge a client list your local therapist has (and how many therapists are available in your area), honestly. I know there is a woeful shortage of them in Georgia and you're pretty much shit out of luck unless you live near medium-sized city (plenty of child therapists around, not so many for adults).

Quote
Also, as a general thought, is it not common curtsy to give half the time of a friends relationship before even asking their opinion on your asking them out?

Well, if you're going so far as to curtsy while asking, sure.  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: CEOIII on 14 Mar 2011, 11:02
*putting on my asbestos suit*

I'm with Odin. The heart wants what it wants when it wants it. Tai should, at least, try hanging out with Dora and see where that goes.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Black Sword on 14 Mar 2011, 11:20
In the metaphysical sense, heart causes more problems than the (upper) head. People who advocate with the heart cause more long-term problems than those who follow their (upper) heads.

I really hope Jeph surprises me and doesn't do what I think he's going to do. I'd be fairly disgusted if he did.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: John_Knee on 14 Mar 2011, 11:26

Dora and Marten haven't even had any sort of closure yet, have they? And how much time has passed since the breakup?

Marten may not have had any closure yet, but it seem Dora has moved on quite nicely (she's been exhibiting the most "normal" behavior out of anyone: she continued on with her life after allowing herself to grieve over the breakup; meanwhile, Marten is changing his entire social circle to avoid having to deal with moving the fuck on).

If it has been a month since one of your friends broke up with their ex of six months and they are still moping around about it like a sad sack, that friend is the one with problems, not you.

Dora is getting therapy and apparently happily moving on with her life, she is free to date or do whatever she wants and it is literally none of Marten's concern what she does any more.
[/quote]

I'll state right out that I think the breakup is a month tops rather than months.....

I'm not convinced Dora is over it. A common response to emotionally painful situations is to put a mask on the situation by telling everyone you are ok and trying to act "normal". If you are acting normal and all over it then people are less likely to ask how you are feeling and therefore force you to consider your still raw emotions. We know from the first major argument between Martin and Dora that Dora's exes have been general lowlife... But Martin only found that out upon talking to Sven and wondering why Dora was over reacting. Dora strikes me as someone who acts more stereotypically male by dealing with breakups by burying them rather than talking about them.

In terms of your last comment, the issue is whether or not Tai should be making a move on Martin's ex while emotions are still maybe high. The question isn't if Dora should start dating Tai or anyone else. I suspect that if Dora did have a one night rebound night with Tai then she'd be mortified afterwards.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Kugai on 14 Mar 2011, 11:38
Actually, I think that subconsciously Dora is looking for a 'Change in Direction'

After all, she managed to fuck up what is, to all intents and purposes. her first long term relationship with a guy (Marten) in god knows how long - and she knows she's the one who fucked it up.  It may be that she's seeking to swing to the other side of her Bisexual nature, and Tai is an easy target since she knows that Tai would just love to get between the sheets with her.

Whether or not it works or turns into another train wreck is a matter of conjecture - and what direction Jeph wants to go in.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Elysiana on 14 Mar 2011, 11:42
John_Knee... that's kind of how I feel. Plus we've barely seen Dora since the breakup... Marten's mom came over and talked to her and she didn't seem over it then... she moved in with Sven... she had her therapy session and didn't "get to" talk about her problems... and she told Marigold to try a miniskirt lol. That's pretty much been all we've seen of her.

I would be extremely interested to see what Dora's reaction to Tai coming in was. Imagine how different the comic would be if SHE had said "I wonder if this is butterflies or food poisoning?"  :psyduck: I hate speculation, but I am curious to see if we will see her reaction tomorrow.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: tbones on 14 Mar 2011, 11:44
I really hope Jeph surprises me and doesn't do what I think he's going to do. I'd be fairly disgusted if he did.
...

...


Uhm...

What do you think he is going to do??? :P
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Heliphyneau on 14 Mar 2011, 11:45
Empathy is learned behavior.  Always interesting to see who has learned it and who has not.

More interesting will be whether Dora will find herself returning Tai's more-than-platonic feelings or if this will turn out to have been one of those I-flirted-with-you-while-I-had-a-boyfriend-because-I-knew-nothing-would-happen situations.   :|  Any of a number of directions Jeph could take this.

And weren't Dora and Marten together for about 2 years QC-time?  At least that's what I thought Jeph said in one of his end notes awhile back . . .
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: mary tyler murder on 14 Mar 2011, 11:46
the feeling in my stomach is *barfs*
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: musicalsoul on 14 Mar 2011, 11:58
I find Odin makes sense, to an extent, cause the heart wants what the heart wants.
Now time for a personal anecdote:
A couple of years ago, I was in love with a guy. He fell in love with my best friend. My friend, asked me for permission before they started dating and it has shaped my opinion on these types of situations ever since.

There is basically no point in asking. Whether it's your friends ex, the guy/girl they've been trying to hook up with for years, or the love of their life, there's no point in asking for permission.
When I was asked if it was okay, I said yes. Because, am I really gonna say no? Am I really going to be that big of a bitch? Am I really gonna try and keep someone else from finding their happiness cause it's not with me? Is my saying no really going to stop them? No. And if for some reason, it actually did, would I want to live with that kind of guilt? What if they were fuckin' soul-mates or something? You can't know.
Now, when my friend asked me, it was a nice gesture, and it did make her seem like she was being considerate. But I don't for a second think that she wouldn't have dated him if I said no. And that's okay.

Did it make things awkward for a little while? Yes, cause I had serious feelings for the guy my best friend was now dating. But, it actually helped me get over them, knowing he was no longer an option. And it was nice seeing two of my best friends happy. If it had been my ex boyfriend who I had just broken up with a month or so ago, it still would have turned out that way. Part of you doesn't want to see someone move on faster than you, but if they've moved on to your friend, and you know your friend will treat them right, if you still care about them, that turns out to be a good thing.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Somnus Eternus on 14 Mar 2011, 12:14
It's good to see that Tai clearly has misgivings about developing feelings for Dora, only because I think it's likely because she's considering her friendship with Marten when she's getting those butterflies of hers.

If, however, she does wind up going for it, I really hope Marten doesn't kill the friendship out of hurt/jealousy.  It would sting, I'm sure, but I'd hope he could handle it with enough maturity that, even if it becomes awkward for a while, he and Tai don't become completely alienated.

In the end, friendships should be able to survive dating your friend's ex (or your friend dating your ex) provided it's handled the right way, so TL;DR: I hope they handle it the right (read: sensitive) way.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Elysiana on 14 Mar 2011, 12:15
I wouldn't say you have to ask for permission, but a "So what's the deal with you two, are you officially done and over now?" is a nice gesture and makes sense. Especially in a case such as this where it was like "Look, I'm obviously not in the right frame of mind to date you right now, I need to get my brain sorted out first." There was no "I can't date you, we don't work as a couple" per se.

Whether or not permission is asked, and whether or not Tai knows if Dora/Marten are "officially" broken up, I think Dora is probably strong enough to handle herself. She is good at letting people know her mind and I don't think she would hesitate to tell Tai where they stand.

Marten, however, is a different story I think. He has really run the gamut of emotions lately and I can EASILY see him calling Tai out on it and saying, "What the hell, were you just waiting for me to be out of the picture?" If that's the case, Tai may sense that too - she's not trying to stifle her feelings because they're both her friends but because she knows or thinks she knows what his reaction would be.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Moxie on 14 Mar 2011, 12:15
I'm finding this thread pretty interesting and just wanted to add in my own thoughts :)

Dora and Marten haven't even had any sort of closure yet, have they? And how much time has passed since the breakup?
Marten may not have had any closure yet, but it seem Dora has moved on quite nicely (she's been exhibiting the most "normal" behavior out of anyone: she continued on with her life after allowing herself to grieve over the breakup; meanwhile, Marten is changing his entire social circle to avoid having to deal with moving the fuck on).

It has been at least a month since the breakup, QC-time, what with the hair growth and all going on. Considering the relationship itself lasted all of maybe six months QC-time, I think that's pretty easily enough time for people to start moving on with their lives.

In regards to the break-up: a common rule of thumb I've heard many times is that it takes half the time you were in a relationship to fully "be over it". So, if Marten and Dora were in a relationship for 6 six months, I'd expect both of them to have grown more comfortable with the idea and moved on in about 3 months. Longer than that and yes, I'd say one or the other is having a more difficult time and may need to seek some kind of help or such.

As far as moving on: someone else has already mentioned that Dora's "normal" behavior could simply be her faking it (so that she doesn't have to talk about it...which given her past, I'm inclined to believe it). Yes, she's living her life and going to therapy and such, but that doesn't necessarily mean she's moved on nicely - it may only mean she's capable of faking it (hopefully until she makes it). As far as Marten changing his whole social circle...well, that doesn't have to be a terrible thing. Yes, it could mean he's being childish and not dealing with his issues, and finding a group that can fulfill him like the others. However, it could also mean that he's realized being in the previous group was akin to him being in a rut, and the break-up with Dora gives him a free pass on moving on with his life. I don't know if that's really the case, of course, but it could be.


I think we are more likely to, in fact, because we've grown up and don't just trounce on other people. Teenagers tend to be selfish and not ask for permission; adults are, well, adult enough to talk about it with the party in question first - especially if there has not been closure.
If it has been a month since one of your friends broke up with their ex of six months and they are still moping around about it like a sad sack, that friend is the one with problems, not you.

Again, if it's only been a month, I'd give the friend the benefit of the doubt. If it lasts longer than 3 months (because of the whole 'half as long as the relationship' thing) then yes, I would believe that they've moped around longer than what they should have, and maybe have more problems. People are allowed to be sad and grieve about things ending, especially if it was unexpected. I believe to be a good friend is to be supportive of that, and perhaps try to help the person find closure...but again, of course a friend can only do so much, and a limit should be expected. But unless the relationship only lasted 2 months, I think it's asking a lot of the person to be completely over within a month.




Edit:
Quote from: Elysiana
Marten, however, is a different story I think. He has really run the gamut of emotions lately and I can EASILY see him calling Tai out on it and saying, "What the hell, were you just waiting for me to be out of the picture?"
I can so see this too! Doesn't mean that it's right for Marten to react that way, but seriously, after only a month, that seems like it would really sting...especially given Tai's behavior while Marten and Dora were dating. I could see it making life for Marten and Tai really tough at work. (I can also see this reaction from Marten if Dora would turn Tai down - it's just the fact that Tai would 'make a move' on Dora so soon! And again, not that such a reaction would be right, but it would certainly be understandable, especially given the short amount of time since the break-up).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: DJRubberducky on 14 Mar 2011, 12:45
One of my main points was the therapy call/visit. From past experiences, I don't think it would take longer than a month from the time of her call to her first visit. 2-3 weeks even seems like large amount of time.

1) You may well have had enviable past experiences.  I know I've had to wait 2-3 weeks for an initial appointment because of the times I was available.

2) I've had an every-two-week appointment cancelled by a life event on the therapist's part.  So it was a month between visits.

3) Nothing stopping Dora from abusing those possibilities fraudulently.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Elysiana on 14 Mar 2011, 13:02
I can so see this too! Doesn't mean that it's right for Marten to react that way, but seriously, after only a month, that seems like it would really sting...especially given Tai's behavior while Marten and Dora were dating.
I think you hit the nail on the head here - if Tai hadn't talked about it so much before then I think he MIGHT let it slide. As it stands, she's made numerous remarks about liking Dora and it really would look pretty bad. Actually I kind of wonder if she thought she was joking about it with them before but now realizes that it's less of a joke than she thought? That would explain why she seems surprised at her butterflies.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: HiFranc on 14 Mar 2011, 13:11
Actually, they were dating about 18 months.  If you remember, they kissed whilst the weather was still cold, they had a summer, Wil was traveling the next winter (and they the sledge party that year) and now it's summer again.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Razgriz on 14 Mar 2011, 13:12
I'm saying an adult friend is going to move on from past relationships with their exes and it should not ever be a problem for their friends to date one of their exes. If the friend seriously has a problem with their Ex dating one of their friends, they have deeper issues with letting go and all that other nasty stuff that goes along with clingy, creepy people than you can help them with (and as I said earlier, it wouldn't matter if the EX is dating a friend or not, the simple fact that they are bothered by the ex dating anybody is indicative of serious mental problems).

This quote really makes me sad for you, because I honestly can't imagine that you've ever cared about anyone in your entire life if you think still missing someone after a month is indicative of serious mental problems.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: ecstaticjoy on 14 Mar 2011, 13:42
Yay! Dora and Tai!!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Moxie on 14 Mar 2011, 13:54
I can so see this too! Doesn't mean that it's right for Marten to react that way, but seriously, after only a month, that seems like it would really sting...especially given Tai's behavior while Marten and Dora were dating.
I think you hit the nail on the head here - if Tai hadn't talked about it so much before then I think he MIGHT let it slide. As it stands, she's made numerous remarks about liking Dora and it really would look pretty bad. Actually I kind of wonder if she thought she was joking about it with them before but now realizes that it's less of a joke than she thought? That would explain why she seems surprised at her butterflies.

I definitely see your last point there - Tai joking about it, but now realizing it maybe isn't that. After all, she could have been keeping her own feelings hidden from herself since she didn't want to really come between Marten and Dora, and now that that isn't a block anymore she can start to explore those feelings. Or at least acknowledge that they are real to her?


Actually, they were dating about 18 months.  If you remember, they kissed whilst the weather was still cold, they had a summer, Wil was traveling the next winter (and they the sledge party that year) and now it's summer again.

Well then, I'd say it'd take Marten the better part of a year (roughly about 9 months) to be fully over Dora and ready to move back into the dating world without his head being muddled by feelings from the relationship. If it really has been only a month, I'm not too terribly worried about him still being mopey.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Fenriswolf on 14 Mar 2011, 14:47
if Tai and Dora got together, in a totally not trite or dramatic way.

Is that even possible?
Ha, doubtful. But possible... obviously it would have to be something that developed really slowly. It'd just be nice to see a bi woman end up in a relationship with a woman in a natural way, because you seldom see it in popular media. A man or woman who is genuinely attracted to multiple genders, for whom it is not a big deal (beyond harassment holding hands and other discrimination) for them to get out of a hetero relationship and end up in a gay one.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: LoveJaneAusten on 14 Mar 2011, 15:16
Ugh, I hope the story doesn't just become the QC cast trading boyfriends/girlfriends. Friends was a bad show.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: SJCrew on 14 Mar 2011, 15:29
Even though Dora gives off some pretty strong bisexual vibes, I can't seriously see her hooking up with a chick. Just doesn't seem right.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 14 Mar 2011, 15:35
In the "Fat Faye" thread, Jeph said that Dora's attentions to the Pugnacious Peach were sincere.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: LeeC on 14 Mar 2011, 16:20
(http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/4779979/Melissa-stop-dating-Brad-Hes-my-ex-boyfriend-you-know-Hot-dog-princess-is-way-lumpin-cooler-than-you.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Lumpy-space-princess)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: justanotherbrick on 14 Mar 2011, 16:21
Personally, I'm in the "courtesy" camp - not necessarily that you have to ask permission, per se, but that you should at least be sensitive to the situation and empathic towards the ex.

Also, no one has brought this up yet, so I guess I'll be the one to stir the pot...Dora sure didn't wait before Faye was done moving on from Marten, did she? I mean, I agree that "the heart wants what it wants", but while we're on the subject of whether it's appropriate to date a friend's ex immediately or not, it seems that there's a precedent in this group of friends. Marten and Faye were practically "exes" after the talk, for all the emotional baggage there was, and Dora waited "TWO FRIGGIN' DAYS?!" (in the words of Faye) before snatching him up. Granted, she felt bad about it, but actions speak louder than words.

That being said, I don't think that Marten would have a right to be upset if Tai and Dora became involved with each other. It's been pretty clear for a while that Tai is interested in Dora ("Basically, my ideal is you, only single").


Also....EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE I've always thought that Tai and Dora would make a good couple, far better than Dora and Marten.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: SJCrew on 14 Mar 2011, 16:29
*imagines Tai and Dora make out*

*not getting a boner*

Yeah, I'm convinced: don't do it Dora!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 14 Mar 2011, 16:44
I'll start working on sourcing my references to previous threads when people start making it clear that they haven't read the discussions up to whatever the current point is and ask for some sort of summary relative to their perception of things. Otherwise, if they aren't going to put forth the effort, they kind of deserve the frustration of not knowing where my posts are coming from (they all work and make perfect sense if you use the correct context of "wait, did we discuss this within the last few days on these very forums? Woah!").

OK, time to call you on your  bullshit.  This is not  about references, or other people not following the discussion - this is about you

Unwritten man code* - You don't just go and try to ask out a friend's ex-girlfriend. You talk to your friend first, see if they are alright with the idea, and then you go develop butterflies in your stomach.

Fuck that bullshit, your friend doesn't own their exes. The only reason to not ask out a friend's ex if you find them attractive and they act like they're interested is if you're not single, yourself.

If your friend can't handle their ex dating someone else, that is their problem, not yours.

Your first post on the topic.  As others pointed out, you're not being much of a friend, but that's not my point...

Two - Common courtesy, which apparently isn't that common, just means taking the time to know if someone is alright with the idea of an ex dating. No one owns anybody jackass.
Two - I already addressed this, if a friend isn't okay with the idea of an ex dating, that is their problem and not yours (who their ex is dating is irrelevant, it literally never matters in the context of them having a problem with the ex dating someone else).
Three - You need therapy if you genuinely believe you have to get your friend's approval before dating one of their exes. Adults don't have to ask their friend's permission, at any rate, what with not being in middle school anymore. See #2.

Second post (excerpted, obviously.  The other points were irrelevant to my point).  TheEvilDog never said anything about approval or permission.  You accuse others of not reading your posts, but really now, who needs to read more carefully?  Asking if your friend is "alright with it" is just considerations of another's feelings - are they really over it?  Would you be doing something hurtful to a friend?  Of course, it's may just be a way to express your concern for your friend, because while asking if they're alright, you're also telling your friend that you're interested in the ex.  Unless you're able to do it subtly (look it up, I'm pretty sure it's not a word you're familiar with). 

Quote
Quote
Adults don't have to ask their friend's permission,

But adults will also consider their friend's feelings.

That works both ways: If they're an adult friend, they aren't going to get all pissy because one of their friends is dating one of their exes. This really isn't that difficult to understand, is it?

Third post, and we finally get a little insight into what you were actually thinking.  Not much, really, but of course it also uses the offensive defense; you were misunderstood, you know  you were, yet you try to make the readers be at fault. 

That works both ways

Are you seriously saying that you consider it adult behaviour to rely on your friends being adult enough to indulge your pissing on their feelings?

Are you intentionally misreading everything that doesn't agree with you?

I'm saying an adult friend is going to move on from past relationships with their exes and it should not ever be a problem for their friends to date one of their exes. If the friend seriously has a problem with their Ex dating one of their friends, they have deeper issues with letting go and all that other nasty stuff that goes along with clingy, creepy people than you can help them with (and as I said earlier, it wouldn't matter if the EX is dating a friend or not, the simple fact that they are bothered by the ex dating anybody is indicative of serious mental problems).

Fourth post, and finally, finally, you explain your thoughts.  It's full of absolutes (never say... never mind) and assumptions about others that may well not be true.  BTW, no one misread anything - we just read what you wrote, curt as it was.  You need to try and see it from the point of view of another, we're not in your head (there isn't room for all of us ...)

I don't know you, I only see what you write on this board.  But from what you've written, it seems you'd have a hard time understanding what it means to be a friend.  Do you really treat your friends the way you advocate in here?  That's your business, of course, but I can't imagine they appreciate it. 

Of course, you probably wouldn't care, either.  At least, if your posts are to be believed, that's how it seems. 

As another person said, it's pretty damn sad. 
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Near Lurker on 14 Mar 2011, 16:47
Even though Dora gives off some pretty strong bisexual vibes, I can't seriously see her hooking up with a chick. Just doesn't seem right.

She has in the past, at least once... the DJ, remember?

However, Tai seems like a bad idea on a couple levels.  Fortunately, I doubt she'll do it - when she said she didn't go for butch girls, it's possible she was just making fun of Ellen, but her general habit of treating Tai like a puppy seems genuine enough, so I really don't think she's in a state of mind to sexualize her.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Akima on 14 Mar 2011, 17:19
Two - I already addressed this, if a friend isn't okay with the idea of an ex dating, that is their problem and not yours (who their ex is dating is irrelevant, it literally never matters in the context of them having a problem with the ex dating anyone someone else).
The "Don't date a friend's ex without their permission" thing is part of the (mostly bullshit) "girl code" too. I don't think the issue  here is whether the friend has a problem with the ex dating anyone else at all ever. That would indeed be an unhealthy vengeful and controlling attitude. But someone could have legitimate issues with one of their friends dating an ex, especially if the relationship ended badly. Sharing the same social circle is likely to be very uncomfortable at least if you have to keep meeting the person who stole from you, cheated on you, gave you an STD etc. Personal autonomy is all well and good, but it shouldn't lead people into social autism.

Almost the definition of a friend is someone for whom you care enough to sacrifice some personal autonomy. If you care about someone, you at least think twice before doing something that will cause them discomfort or distress. If someone's feeling about a person is "I'm going to do what I want to do, and if they don't like it that's their problem", I'd suggest that their relationship with them is not friendship. Or at least that the word "friend" means something very different to them than to me. After all, any random person on the street is entitled to some consideration from me as part of my duty of a citizen, and surely a friend is entitled to more?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 14 Mar 2011, 18:11
How about this for a compromise.  If you want to date a friend's ex, you tell your friend your intentions.  Not to ask for permission, since that is not theirs to give, but to ask if they are ok with that.  If not, then ask why.  Not out of any obligation to an outdated "code" or because of any fucked up concept of ownership.  If anything, it's done so your friend can find out from you, rather than finding out from a third party.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: John_Knee on 14 Mar 2011, 18:18

Also, no one has brought this up yet, so I guess I'll be the one to stir the pot...Dora sure didn't wait before Faye was done moving on from Marten, did she? I mean, I agree that "the heart wants what it wants", but while we're on the subject of whether it's appropriate to date a friend's ex immediately or not, it seems that there's a precedent in this group of friends. Marten and Faye were practically "exes" after the talk, for all the emotional baggage there was, and Dora waited "TWO FRIGGIN' DAYS?!" (in the words of Faye) before snatching him up. Granted, she felt bad about it, but actions speak louder than words.

That being said, I don't think that Marten would have a right to be upset if Tai and Dora became involved with each other. It's been pretty clear for a while that Tai is interested in Dora ("Basically, my ideal is you, only single").


Also....EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE I've always thought that Tai and Dora would make a good couple, far better than Dora and Marten.

The difference in terms of the first paragraph is that Martin and Faye never dated and Faye always made it clear that nothing was likely to happen between them. Therefore when Dora and Martin hooked up, it was a slightly different thing. Additionally, on the night it did happen, Martin felt honour bound to wake Faye up to tell her as it was felt she had a right to know. Plus Dora had often asked Faye what was the deal between her and Martin and Faye had often teased Dora about her attraction to Martin.

I think where Martin would have a right to be upset is the fact they basically broke up due to Dora's insecurities despite their attraction towards each other - for Dora to 'move on' within a month could be taken as an insult to him. The insult is based upon the fact she moved on very quickly - more so as they broke up still having feelings and the whole "I love you but I have issues that stop this relationship working" angle. The fact Tai is female may also cause further upset. Although Dora has expressed the fact she is also attracted to women, her moving onto a woman would hit his male ego in another way. Martin might well wonder if their relationship was a lie and that Dora preferred women but saw him as a short term shag. Slightly irrational thinking? Maybe, but Sven (I think it was) revealed that in the past Dora would sleep with people for the attention and the feeling of being loved etc even if the guy was bad for her. As readers of the comic, we know that wouldn't be Dora's motivation, but in a real life situation, that might well hit Martin hard at a time he is probably emotionally less stable.

Saying that, if anything does happen between Dora and Tai, I suspect that Dora and Tai will be chatting where there is booze, Dora will reveal she is lonely and Rai will make a move. Partly as a result of alcohol and feeling sorry for herself, I'd expect Dora to respond but stop before any clothes are removed. And I expect Dora to be horrified by it. Tai will take offence or realise making a move was a bad idea and Martin will ask her what is wrong at work......
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 14 Mar 2011, 18:24
OK, time to call you on your  bullshit.  This is not  about references, or other people not following the discussion - this is about you.

*posting about what you're failing to counter with your argument
(this latest argument being the exception)
*more words about the argument you're trying to say I'm making badly*

Quote
Fourth post, and finally, finally, you explain your thoughts.  It's full of absolutes (never say... never mind) and assumptions about others that may well not be true.  BTW, no one misread anything - we just read what you wrote, curt as it was.  You need to try and see it from the point of view of another, we're not in your head (there isn't room for all of us ...)

It took four posts for me to spell out something that should be patently obvious to everyone that has ever had any lasting relationships at any point in their life, does that mean I'm terrible at explaining things or that people aren't willing to expend near the critical thinking on this tangent as they are on whether or not Jeph is going to Rule #34 us with Tai and Dora?

Quote
I don't know you, I only see what you write on this board.  But from what you've written, it seems you'd have a hard time understanding what it means to be a friend.  Do you really treat your friends the way you advocate in here?  That's your business, of course, but I can't imagine they appreciate it.

I treat my friends the way they've treated me, yes. You act as if this kind of behavior would make us all monsters, but to me, people that act like you and other posters on here seem to believe you should act are the monsters.

We've all been friends since Kindergarten, why would that stop just because more than one of us dates the same girl at any point in our collective life times? It is pretty much a given that this will happen occasionally, nobody that has grown up into a well-adjusted adult has a problem with it and you have to be pretty fucked up in the head to have a problem with one of your friends dating one of your exes (or even anybody else dating one of your exes, you have to accept that they're going to be dating other people after all--what kind of fucked up mind seriously puts those kinds of limitations on their friends regarding relationships that are over?).

Moving on:

How about this for a compromise.  If you want to date a friend's ex, you tell your friend your intentions.  Not to ask for permission, since that is not theirs to give, but to ask if they are ok with that.  If not, then ask why.  Not out of any obligation to an outdated "code" or because of any fucked up concept of ownership.  If anything, it's done so your friend can find out from you, rather than finding out from a third party.

How about this: If you want to date someone, you date them and anyone that has a problem with who you are dating can just Deal With It.  8-)

Quote
In regards to the break-up: a common rule of thumb I've heard many times is that it takes half the time you were in a relationship to fully "be over it".

Do I have to give actual examples for why this rule is stupid, or can people figure this one out on their own?

EDIT: Here is a freebie - Someone that gets divorced after a five year marriage should not have to wait two and a half years before they can start dating again without being scrutinized.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 14 Mar 2011, 19:01
Rather than a long drawn out post that will somehow ramble off on a tangent halfway through, I'm just going to kinda list out the points I agree and disagree with;
Agree
Disagree
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: mary tyler murder on 14 Mar 2011, 19:11
OK, time to call you on your  bullshit.  This is not  about references, or other people not following the discussion - this is about you.

*posting about what you're failing to counter with your argument
(this latest argument being the exception)
*more words about the argument you're trying to say I'm making badly*

Quote
Fourth post, and finally, finally, you explain your thoughts.  It's full of absolutes (never say... never mind) and assumptions about others that may well not be true.  BTW, no one misread anything - we just read what you wrote, curt as it was.  You need to try and see it from the point of view of another, we're not in your head (there isn't room for all of us ...)

It took four posts for me to spell out something that should be patently obvious to everyone that has ever had any lasting relationships at any point in their life, does that mean I'm terrible at explaining things or that people aren't willing to expend near the critical thinking on this tangent as they are on whether or not Jeph is going to Rule #34 us with Tai and Dora?

Quote
I don't know you, I only see what you write on this board.  But from what you've written, it seems you'd have a hard time understanding what it means to be a friend.  Do you really treat your friends the way you advocate in here?  That's your business, of course, but I can't imagine they appreciate it.

I treat my friends the way they've treated me, yes. You act as if this kind of behavior would make us all monsters, but to me, people that act like you and other posters on here seem to believe you should act are the monsters.

We've all been friends since Kindergarten, why would that stop just because more than one of us dates the same girl at any point in our collective life times? It is pretty much a given that this will happen occasionally, nobody that has grown up into a well-adjusted adult has a problem with it and you have to be pretty fucked up in the head to have a problem with one of your friends dating one of your exes (or even anybody else dating one of your exes, you have to accept that they're going to be dating other people after all--what kind of fucked up mind seriously puts those kinds of limitations on their friends regarding relationships that are over?).

Moving on:

How about this for a compromise.  If you want to date a friend's ex, you tell your friend your intentions.  Not to ask for permission, since that is not theirs to give, but to ask if they are ok with that.  If not, then ask why.  Not out of any obligation to an outdated "code" or because of any fucked up concept of ownership.  If anything, it's done so your friend can find out from you, rather than finding out from a third party.

How about this: If you want to date someone, you date them and anyone that has a problem with who you are dating can just Deal With It.  8-)

Quote
In regards to the break-up: a common rule of thumb I've heard many times is that it takes half the time you were in a relationship to fully "be over it".

Do I have to give actual examples for why this rule is stupid, or can people figure this one out on their own?

EDIT: Here is a freebie - Someone that gets divorced after a five year marriage should not have to wait two and a half years before they can start dating again without being scrutinized.

Things well-adjusted people don't do: consider other people's feelings

Things well-adjusted people do: Dump piles of words on the internet calling people fucked up in the head for considering other people's feelings

I mean I just wanna make sure I'm clear how this all works now.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: mary tyler murder on 14 Mar 2011, 19:29
I can't help but feel all of this is leading up to a really long post about Ayn Rand
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: sepik121 on 14 Mar 2011, 19:30
So, I finally got around to making an account on this forum. I may be on occasionally during the day if I get bored at work. I've been reading this comic for ages now, and I decided to make a forum account.

My first question, what does WCDT actually stand for? I have no clue, so I'm quite curious. Ooh. Just noticed the poll at the top. Still have no clue what WCDT means.

Also, I do feel like this could lead to some trouble later on down the road, but I don't really see Tai trying to actively make Dora swoon so close to the breakup. Especially while Marten is still at the library. That could lead to a lot of drama, and I don't think Tai really wants to piss everyone off. I also don't think Dora would jump on her so quickly either.

Now for the drama I see on these forums (everything QC related is dramatic man)

Odin, I understand what you're trying to say about how a mature friend should just get over it. And while I agree with that, it's still a considerate thing to do to at least tell your friend about it. Dora and Marten were together for a long time in this context, more than 6 months as someone mentioned earlier. It was clearly a long term stuff, but wounds don't heal that quickly for a deep relationship.

Quote
It took four posts for me to spell out something that should be patently obvious to everyone that has ever had any lasting relationships at any point in their life, does that mean I'm terrible at explaining things or that people aren't willing to expend near the critical thinking on this tangent as they are on whether or not Jeph is going to Rule #34 us with Tai and Dora?

Here's the thing, I've had a lasting relationship before. It fell apart for reasons very similar to Dora's and Marten's (which kinda struck a chord with me when I was reading the rage at Dora threads and felt bad for her too). If a good friend of mine told me that he wanted to date my ex-girlfriend within a few weeks, I'd be a little shocked. But I'd appreciate the gesture of what they did. I'd warn them about what's about to happen, and probably say that I don't know if my ex would be ready at the time for another relationship. I got over it in a matter of weeks, but that's just how I am. I move on pretty damn quickly from anything. If someone asked me now? I'd be perfectly okay with it. I'd laugh a little on the inside (and outside too) because I can't really imagine any of my friends doing that, but hey, I got over it. It takes time for things to heal and after a breakup, you're trying (or at least supposed to try) to be nice because it's just not a good experience for anyone.

Another thing you might not realize is how you sound to others on a forum. Sadly, we aren't your friends. None of us know you in person. I can be a pretty sarcastic person in real life and say some mean things because I think they're funny at the time, which sometimes turns out to be true. I would never say things I say in real life on a forum simply because it's a different medium and things are harder to pick up.

Now, when you say things like "it should be obvious", it comes off as rude and presumptuous. I don't think you're trying to be a prick, but that's how you come off as. It's not that we don't read your posts, it's that we are that causes the problem.  I don't think the half the time thing is a great stick to measure by either, but I'm not going to instantly say it's stupid. That helps no one in the long run, and only makes people think you look like more of jerk. Is it silly? Yes. Do I think the author of that post meant the post is the
absolute authority on relationships either? Probably not. More of a guide, a rule of thumb if you will.

Holy wall of text batman. No one's getting a tl:dr on it either. We're all literate if we're on a forum I assume. Also Ayn Rand.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Boomslang on 14 Mar 2011, 19:39
I'm not a big fan of arbitrary limits, like the 50% of time together- you should know your friends well enough to gauge when they're actually over a previous relationship. For everyone else, you shouldn't assume anything. If you really need a guideline, though, I guess you could do worse. Like Marten's mom did.

As far as dating the ex of a friend? No, your friend doesn't 'own' that person, but it's entirely possible for them to feel very protective or still have feelings for that ex. If you don't make at least a basic attempt to find that out before starting a relationship with their ex, you're setting yourself up for failure. Personally, I'd stay clear of that particular boundary. First off, it does come off as being a vulture or otherwise casting doubt on the essential nature of the friendship, and secondly, your friend presumably either broke up with that particular guy/gal for a damn good reason, or was dumped. Neither says a lot for your chances of happiness with their ex.

Regarding the comic per se-

I think Tai and Dora would be a fairly interesting pairing, assuming Dora is able to be less crazy than she was with Marten. The fact that she's almost half again Tai's age might cause some social issues, but nothing insurmountable.

Marten's as close to being over it as he's ever going to be. We already know he retains feelings for women he dated in the past, and this is unlikely to be any different. But he's already looking for another girl to be in a relationship with. I hope it's not Padma, and not because I don't like her. Marten and she have no chemistry from what we've seen, at best he wants to sleep with her and she simply doesn't care all that much about Marten.

Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 14 Mar 2011, 19:39
WCDT
Weekly Comic Discussion Thread.

As for Odin, I'm kind of disappointed in his response to my post, since it didn't seem like he actually read it.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: sepik121 on 14 Mar 2011, 19:41
WCDT
Weekly Comic Discussion Thread.

As for Odin, I'm kind of disappointed in his response to my post, since it didn't seem like he actually read it.

Thank you. Today I learned...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Razgriz on 14 Mar 2011, 19:47
WCDT
Weekly Comic Discussion Thread.

As for Odin, I'm kind of disappointed in his response to my post, since it didn't seem like he actually read it.

At least he responded to yours.  My post mocking his 'over it in a month or you're a creepy loser who probably stalks her' outlook was completely ignored.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 14 Mar 2011, 20:03
(moderator)The odds are seriously against a discussion of another poster leading to anything good. Meantime it's a distraction from talking about the comic.(/moderator)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 14 Mar 2011, 20:06
My money is that Dora's gonna shoot her down either way.

Why? She's seen what Tai's like when she's drunk/high/wasted/whatever.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 14 Mar 2011, 20:07
Will Marten have waffles in the tSB tomorrow?
Will Tai see her breakfast again very soon?
Will Wil be in the Horrible Revelation this week?

Find out same Jeph time, same Jacques channel...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 14 Mar 2011, 20:12
(moderator)The odds are seriously against a discussion of another poster leading to anything good. Meantime it's a distraction from talking about the comic.(/moderator)
Well you're no fun.  Which isn't to say you're not completely right.

So onto the comic.  Dora seemed rather excited to see Tai, and to enjoy talking to her.  Maybe this is not a one way street?  But I hope tomorrow's (tonight's?) comic takes place at the Bakery that is Secret.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: The Duke on 14 Mar 2011, 20:14
How about this for a compromise.  If you want to date a friend's ex, you tell your friend your intentions.  Not to ask for permission, since that is not theirs to give, but to ask if they are ok with that.  If not, then ask why.  Not out of any obligation to an outdated "code" or because of any fucked up concept of ownership.  If anything, it's done so your friend can find out from you, rather than finding out from a third party.

I word.

(is "word" still a thing?)

(lots of discussion that I don't want to quote for space's sake)

Things well-adjusted people don't do: consider other people's feelings

Things well-adjusted people do: Dump piles of words on the internet calling people fucked up in the head for considering other people's feelings

I mean I just wanna make sure I'm clear how this all works now.

Mary Tyler Murder, I think you and I are going to get along just fine.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: sepik121 on 14 Mar 2011, 20:22
(moderator)The odds are seriously against a discussion of another poster leading to anything good. Meantime it's a distraction from talking about the comic.(/moderator)
Well you're no fun.  Which isn't to say you're not completely right.

So onto the comic.  Dora seemed rather excited to see Tai, and to enjoy talking to her.  Maybe this is not a one way street?  But I hope tomorrow's (tonight's?) comic takes place at the Bakery that is Secret.

I don't think Dora has ever expressed interest in Tai though. Mainly because she was with Marten at the time, but I have a feeling that this crush in rather unrequited. I will say it makes Tai look rather adorable with the blushing.

Also, to Razgriz, cool name. I loved the Acecombat series, so when I saw the name, my opinion of you rose quite dramatically.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 14 Mar 2011, 20:39
Dora may have been kidding in 1400, and 776 was more about being cute than being attractive.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 14 Mar 2011, 20:40
Duke, word's still a thing, but I don't know if it's been verbed.  As for 1400, my good mod, it doesn't apply, since the hypothetical if/then statement involved Marten dumping Dora as the if, while we all know the reverse happened.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 14 Mar 2011, 20:56
I have this feeling that this thread is going to decrease exponentially in quality as it increases in length.

Jeph meanwhile will be sitting in the front of the blinged-out QC bus with all the charabros as sunglasses of ironic quality drop onto all their faces at the same time and the plotline tells the readers to DEAL WITH IT.

I am kind of excited for this.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: PureLionHeart on 14 Mar 2011, 21:35
Wait, Tai's a Lesbian. So, should I rule out Hermaphrodites and She-Males from the rampant theory speculation mix?

Also, Tai, why the sudden change of face? (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1400)
More realistic comics have thrown them in since. I wouldn't rule anything out. >_>
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 14 Mar 2011, 21:37
I have this feeling that this thread is going to decrease exponentially in quality as it increases in length.

When have they ever not done that?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: IanClark on 14 Mar 2011, 21:43
I don't think it so much has to do with "is it a dick move to date someone else's ex?" When two people are seriously involved for a year (which is how long Jeph said it was, can't find the link but if anyone wants to back me up...), and they break up, there are a series of events involved, not just one. This is why people constantly ask how their ex is doing, particularly if they're the one who got dumped. In a way, they want them to hurt. As long as they're not complete dicks, they don't want their ex to be miserable, but they do want him or her to have a sore spot in their psyche from the breakup. It seems like a really selfish sentiment but if you examine it it's not. When someone breaks up with you, they're rejecting you, one way or another. When you hear that they're still hurting inside, it means that they really did love you and even though they're rejecting you, they're not doing it out of an unfavourable opinion of you or because they latently hate your guts. It means that you were something so special to them that they haven't been able to rationalize the idea of making their life alright without you. When they start dating someone else, the metaphorical boom is dropped. They've done it. They've come up with a way to be content without you. It's an entirely new experience, because the way our society is built, we're taught to believe that true love is forever, meaning the love you thought you shared wasn't really "true love". I genuinely have no idea if I believe that or not, but there's at least some grain of truth to it. There's a lot of layers to it, most notably the uncertainty that comes from having to believe that you weren't able to tell that your love wasn't real, and wondering if you'll ever know for sure since you just turned out to be so wrong when you were so certain.

This is why I do believe that you should ask permission to date a friend's ex, only if you'd be the first one to date them since your friend. You're not just asking for permission to be with a person, you're asking for permission to be the one to shatter your friend's perception of what the relationship they had was. You're asking permission to be the one to send them into that period of doubt and what's almost the second breakup. It has nothing to do with being possessive over a person, it has everything to do with the consequences of being the one to force your friend to come to terms with something they may not be ready to do yet. Sure they'll have to eventually, but if it was someone else, they could put the face of their anger and dejection on a complete stranger. Instead, they're putting it on a friend.

Odin, we're already in an argument in another thread, so I don't want to seem like I'm dogging you personally and deliberately, but I think I can shine some light into this situation. Personally, I'm not offended by the fact that you don't think it's inappropriate behaviour to ask out a friend's ex because clearly, in your social circle, it isn't. Maybe you guys are just less sensitive than the people arguing with you, and that's not a bad thing or a good thing. It all has to do with how much value you place in the concepts of love, friendship, possession, and so on and also in how you deal with a breakup. There's nothing wrong with that. No one gets too deeply involved, no one gets hurt. My issue is that my social circle doesn't work that way. And while I would never want to inflict my standards on you or your friends, I do take issue to you saying that I and mine are immature and childlike because that's not how we do things. You can say I'm immature and possessive, and I can argue that you're shallow and don't feel emotions as strongly as normal people, but at the end of the day we're just standing on opposite sides of the shoreline screaming "My completely subjective standards are better than your completely subjective standards!" I've been studying philosophy for a very long time and I've been searching for any kind of framework to state that one person's socially-related emotional makeup is objectively better than another person's, and it just isn't there. What you're doing is assigning psychological characteristics to people to explain how they allowed themselves to be wrong when you haven't actually explained why they're wrong, and you're not going to. Unless you can poke a tangible hole in my mindset, leave me to it, and we'll leave you to yours.

As far as I'm concerned, the argument as it pertains to the comic is whether or not it's a dick move in the QC social circle. Based on the fact that even Tai seems to think it is, I think it's safe to say it is.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cesariojpn on 14 Mar 2011, 21:51
I really hope Jeph surprises me and doesn't do what I think he's going to do. I'd be fairly disgusted if he did.
...

...


Uhm...

What do you think he is going to do??? :P

Blantant Actual Canon Fanservice?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 14 Mar 2011, 21:52
I have this feeling that this thread is going to decrease exponentially in quality as it increases in length.

When have they ever not done that?

Well true all the threads in here decay like they're radioactive, but this thread is going to have the worst half-life in a while I think, some real seaborgium shit

Especially if Jeph pursues a hookup storyline over the course of the week

Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: akronnick on 14 Mar 2011, 22:04
Where was the thread that went to forty page before getting locked at right before that Tuesday's comic came out?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 14 Mar 2011, 22:16
:P I'm not trying to claim it's that bad yet, but I remember LE SHITSTORM and I can see it happening again. Got the old ache in my bones, don'cha know.

Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: akronnick on 14 Mar 2011, 22:22
Might want to check and make sure your Turkey's saddle still fits.

Never know when we'll have to ride!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 14 Mar 2011, 22:43
Better get the brooms out of storage, while we're at it.     :roll:

[skip to the bit about the comic]

As far as I'm concerned, the argument as it pertains to the comic is whether or not it's a dick move in the QC social circle. Based on the fact that even Tai seems to think it is, I think it's safe to say it is.

That's what I was thinking, too.  The source of her butterflies is definitely not just the nervous flush of a new infatuation, but seems to be partly based on a sense of impending dooooooom

Or maybe the muffins were "less fresh". 

Wait, did she buy anything  at the shop?  Not even a coffee...?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cesariojpn on 14 Mar 2011, 22:48
Better get the brooms out of storage, while we're at it.     :roll:

[skip to the bit about the comic]

As far as I'm concerned, the argument as it pertains to the comic is whether or not it's a dick move in the QC social circle. Based on the fact that even Tai seems to think it is, I think it's safe to say it is.

That's what I was thinking, too.  The source of her butterflies is definitely not just the nervous flush of a new infatuation, but seems to be partly based on a sense of impending dooooooom

Or maybe the muffins were "less fresh". 

Wait, did she buy anything  at the shop?  Not even a coffee...?

Maybe she had cunnilingus before she went to the shop with a cute goth chick that always seems to dress like a slutty schoolgirl?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dust on 14 Mar 2011, 23:34
Finally got around to making an account, so I think I should avoid the infamous  :psyduck: discussions for a while. If not forever.

Although, I'm not getting the "Marten changing his social circle rather than getting over it" bits. We've seen him with everyone he would have been hanging with (not counting Jimbo, obviously).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 15 Mar 2011, 00:36
Well you see Dust you're not actually seeing that, you're seeing the effects of Marten's becoming disconnected from space-time at a quantum level. Those are all different Martens, from various doomed timelines created by unstable loops. We still haven't seen the Alpha Marten.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Mar 2011, 00:39
We've seen Marten change his coffee shop, which is drastic enough.

EDIT: I like the experimental camera angle too. And considering what can happen at CoD, for once Hannelore isn't being overprepared.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 15 Mar 2011, 00:48
Damnit, Jeph, adorable explosive sauropod espresso machines are not conducive to the forum exploding into rage and horseshit

I am disappoint  :x
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 15 Mar 2011, 00:48
Man 15 psi is not something that tolerates poor build quality :psyduck:

I love Faye's expression of confidence in her work in the second panel.

why did hanners put her helmet on after the explosion? It isn't Fukushima
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Kugai on 15 Mar 2011, 00:49
Hmmmmmmm

Q would definitely  be proud of that.  I wonder if Faye would consider working for the CIA's equivalent of Q Branch?

Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 15 Mar 2011, 00:53
Not too surprising the quality's slipping a little....Faye's been a bit...distracted (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1851)  lately  :wink:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Skewbrow on 15 Mar 2011, 01:03
And considering what can happen at CoD, for once Hannelore isn't being overprepared.

Well, Cosette works there, so...

It isn't Fukushima

I have mixed feelings about this. Magnitude 9 quake followed by a tsunami is about the worst imaginable thing our dear planet can throw at a construction, so I have been impressed with the way the reactors (presumably the oldest designs at this site) are holding up. Perhaps we should buy our next one from Japan? I like to think that most of the reactors in the world have been built/designed with that kind of redundancy upon redundancy principle, but that is probably an optimistic view.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Moxie on 15 Mar 2011, 01:05
Disagree
  • This stuff about waiting half as long as the relationship lasted. Honestly, think about it, and how impractical it would be after a significant period of time, say three years, or four years. Its too impractical to wait 2 years before saying "Well, I'm better, off I go." I do believe that everyone recovers at their own pace, but there is a limit to how long someone can mope around. Quick example, if a relationship lasted 3 years before it broke up, I'd expect to be understanding for either friend for three months, possibly four, but after that, I'm going to try and get them off their ass and do something rather than vegetate. If they persist or insist or wallowing in self pity after that, I will drag them out the back and hose them down, and I'll walk away. I will be there for my friends, I would like to believe I'll be there when they need my help. But as a friend I will not put up with they're whiny crap for 18 bloody months.

Wow, I didn't think that comment would create this much discussion! I just wanted to clarify what I meant by that.
I did not mean that, if a relationship lasted 2 years, after a break-up it's fine it the person whines and mopes and is a general sad sack for a year.

I did mean that it's possible for it to take a year for a person to fully go through the grieving process of losing the relationship. That means that maybe for the first month or two the person may be sad and mopey, and want to be isolated, then maybe for another month the person would be angry, and then for another month or two the person might be thinking about ways to fix the relationship and get back into it, and then maybe there's another sad/wistful month or so and eventually the person accepts the break-up and is able to move on, a hopefully better person for it. Depending on how much was invested by the person into the relationship, it could take only a month to get over a 2 year relationship, or possibly that full year to be totally accepting of it.

I see it more as, if the person continues to be sad, or to not really accept the fact that the relationship is over past that half mark, then there is probably good reason to be concerned. But before that, it's just the person going through the stages of grief. And I think there are a lot of factors that influence how quickly a person does that. And naturally, not every person is the same, and naturally, it's not saying that if a person dates or gets involved in another relationship it's going to be the end of the world (after all, how common are rebound relationships?) but most of what people do seems to be with the effort of recovering and moving on from that break-up (again, how many rebounds last?). Some people may need more prodding from friends, given personalities and all, but most people seem to be able to handle getting over a relationship in a reasonable about of time. I think all that half of the time rule is trying to say is, anything over this is not reasonable, especially if the person is still in that sad and isolated stage of grief.

I don't know if that makes it better or worse, but that's more what I meant by that. :)


Meanwhile, today's comic!
I don't think Dora is as affected by Tai as Tai was by Dora. This is all based on the fact that Dora is back to business as usual.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: snubnose on 15 Mar 2011, 01:09
I think a 6 month period after a breakup is in order.

Or a full year, depending upon the person.

Anyway, I really wonder why Hanners would own a helmet. After all, thats something that does NOT help against bacteria and stuff.

Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Akima on 15 Mar 2011, 01:11
I like the experimental camera angle too. And considering what can happen at CoD, for once Hannelore isn't being overprepared.
The camera angle is very dynamic and cinematic. Jeph is mostly fairly conventional in his placing of the fourth wall, and it's nice to see something different.

Possibly Faye's in the wrong line of business. A contract to develop grenade-launchers might be more up her street.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Mar 2011, 01:13
The Pugnacious Peach being distracted reminds me of a story about a French restaurant. A diner made so bold as to complain that the soup was too salty, only to be steamrollered by the waiter's superciliousness, until he finally persuaded the waiter to taste the soup. The waiter's expression turned blank, he headed back to the kitchen without a word, then came back and said

"Monsieur, we crave your pardon, the soup is indeed too salty, but please try to understand: the cook, he is in love".

EDIT: Hannelore has used a helmet for cleaning. She says you can't be too careful.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: westrim on 15 Mar 2011, 01:14
And... It's a field goal! The crowd goes wild! The unnonamericans wonder what the heck I'm talking about!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: akronnick on 15 Mar 2011, 01:22
Why?

Can't you get wikipedia outside the United States?

I know that's what I did when everybody was carrying on about World Cup and what not...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Mar 2011, 01:48
Espressosaurus may have enough history at this point to justify a wiki article, but what category to use? He's not really a robot.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: pwhodges on 15 Mar 2011, 01:49
:P I'm not trying to claim it's that bad yet, but I remember LE SHITSTORM and I can see it happening again.

No, it won't.  In any case there isn't any hint here of what made that so bad.

Vigorous discussion is fine so long as it sticks within the rules; in particular, keep to argument about ideas and avoid any kind of personal attacks.  Of course, if the same points just get reiterated repeatedly, it can become tedious; in the present case, it seems to me that both sides of the issue of starting to date a friend's ex have been well-enough aired, and further discussion is unlikely to change anyone's view.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Mad Cat on 15 Mar 2011, 03:17
Quote
We could market it as a feature.
If I had a nickel for every time this phrase was uttered in a Microsoft developer's meeting, I could buy and sell Gates himself.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Somebody on 15 Mar 2011, 03:44
Wait, wasn't the commissioned thing meant to be the same as v1?

It isn't Fukushima

I have mixed feelings about this. Magnitude 9 quake followed by a tsunami is about the worst imaginable thing our dear planet can throw at a construction,...
Two words: "Pyroclastic flow". (Imagine a tsunami made of 600degC ash travelling at hundreds of miles an hour)

[Also, the fact that (a) the diesel generators failed because they were kept below sea level and so guaranteed to fail in the event of any sort of flood and (b) meltdown has occurred because the portable generators trucked in to replace the flooded ones used the wrong sort of plug... Well, not the best advert for Japan even if it took the quake itself]
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Enduar on 15 Mar 2011, 04:02
Well you see Dust you're not actually seeing that, you're seeing the effects of Marten's becoming disconnected from space-time at a quantum level. Those are all different Martens, from various doomed timelines created by unstable loops. We still haven't seen the Alpha Marten.

Tooooo much Homestuck, there, Doctor.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 15 Mar 2011, 06:18
Anyone else keep hearing the Jurassic Park theme every time the Espressosaurus appear in the comic?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Border Reiver on 15 Mar 2011, 07:24
No, but I was thinking how she needs to increase the connection strength of the neck attachment (presumably so that it can be stored in a conveniently sized box and then assembled.), at least it came apart at a seam - should make repairs easier.

Faye's got a real dino theme going - is Jeph catering to Mr. Willis' love of Transformers and the Beast Wars storyline?  Or just indulging an older love?

I've definitely been in too long - was wondering if Hanner's helmet is kevlar or steel.  If it's kevlar she should get a cloth cover for it - the kevlar's ballistic protection goes down if it's exposed to UV.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 15 Mar 2011, 07:30

Things well-adjusted people don't do: refuse to pursue romantic relationships because the person they want to pursue it with might offend their friends.

Fixed this one for you.

Quote
Things well-adjusted people do: Dump piles of words on the internet calling people fucked up in the head for not living in abject fear of offending their friends by dating someone their friends don't want them to.

Fixed again, since the post I was responding to was about twice as long as the one you quoted there.

Quote
I mean I just wanna make sure I'm clear how this all works now.

Hope that helps.

And I just want to single this bit out and thank IanClark for demonstrating so perfectly why it is so fucked up from my perspective that people are seriously arguing as if there is an "all exes of friends are off limits unless and until the friend is okay with it" law of relationships that should be adhered to.

This is why people constantly ask how their ex is doing, particularly if they're the one who got dumped. In a way, they want them to hurt. As long as they're not complete dicks, they don't want their ex to be miserable, but they do want him or her to have a sore spot in their psyche from the breakup. It seems like a really selfish sentiment but if you examine it it's not. When someone breaks up with you, they're rejecting you, one way or another. When you hear that they're still hurting inside, it means that they really did love you and even though they're rejecting you, they're not doing it out of an unfavourable opinion of you or because they latently hate your guts. It means that you were something so special to them that they haven't been able to rationalize the idea of making their life alright without you. When they start dating someone else, the metaphorical boom is dropped. They've done it. They've come up with a way to be content without you. It's an entirely new experience, because the way our society is built, we're taught to believe that true love is forever, meaning the love you thought you shared wasn't really "true love". I genuinely have no idea if I believe that or not, but there's at least some grain of truth to it. There's a lot of layers to it, most notably the uncertainty that comes from having to believe that you weren't able to tell that your love wasn't real, and wondering if you'll ever know for sure since you just turned out to be so wrong when you were so certain.

Do any of you not see how screwed up a person has to be for this quote to actually apply? That is a pretty abusive attitude to have about the people you date.

Quote
This is why I do believe that you should ask permission to date a friend's ex, only if you'd be the first one to date them since your friend. You're not just asking for permission to be with a person, you're asking for permission to be the one to shatter your friend's perception of what the relationship they had was. You're asking permission to be the one to send them into that period of doubt and what's almost the second breakup. It has nothing to do with being possessive over a person, it has everything to do with the consequences of being the one to force your friend to come to terms with something they may not be ready to do yet. Sure they'll have to eventually, but if it was someone else, they could put the face of their anger and dejection on a complete stranger. Instead, they're putting it on a friend.

If this is true of the vast majority of people out there, we are a world of people in desperate need of therapy because this is a really fucked up outlook on life that requires validation from every ex you have to let you know that you're worth loving.

Quote
Odin, we're already in an argument in another thread, so I don't want to seem like I'm dogging you personally and deliberately, but I think I can shine some light into this situation.

You've been helping a lot to illustrate my points in the quotes above, yes.

Quote
Personally, I'm not offended by the fact that you don't think it's inappropriate behaviour to ask out a friend's ex because clearly, in your social circle, it isn't. Maybe you guys are just less sensitive than the people arguing with you, and that's not a bad thing or a good thing. It all has to do with how much value you place in the concepts of love, friendship, possession, and so on and also in how you deal with a breakup. There's nothing wrong with that. No one gets too deeply involved, no one gets hurt.

Going to stop you there and say that it has nothing to do with "not getting deeply involved", but failing to get over past relationships reveals some severe codependency issues and you have to admit that is a huge red flag for a need to seek therapy. It is a pretty well established point in psychiatric circles that codependency is a huge deal and not normal or healthy, are you and others on here disputing this?

*********

For today's comic, I could see that model of espressosaurus being marketed as a kids toy (anyone remember the Dino-Riders?).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Elysiana on 15 Mar 2011, 08:04
Codependency... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Elysiana on 15 Mar 2011, 08:08
Also the Dino-Riders were awesome. Then I tried watching them (on VHS) a few years ago and went "How did I like this??" Of course I also did that with Transformers, He-Man, and Thundercats.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Black Sword on 15 Mar 2011, 08:10
I really hope Jeph surprises me and doesn't do what I think he's going to do. I'd be fairly disgusted if he did.
...

...


Uhm...

What do you think he is going to do??? :P


Sorry for the delay in responding, didn't really check in after my post yesterday. What I'm afraid he'll do is that he'll hook up Tai and Dora (nothing wrong with lesbian relationships, so anyone who wanted to try to flame me over that can kiss my other cheek), then have Marten find out and then...no consequences. I'm weary of Saint Marten of Reed, who lacks anger, a backbone, or any ability to selfishly pursue something he wants, to get angry and lash out, to do something. "Oh, if it makes you happy" la di da the rest. If Tai and Dora hook up, I want to see him react instead of just burying it all. Quit his job! Tell them off! Grow a backbone and express displeasure! Something!

Moving away from that, I am loving the espressosaurus. Faye, can I have one, please?

Though now that I think about it....if the reason it's launching the neck and head is because of too much pressure, that means there's a design flaw somewhere. Judging from the comic, it seems there's too much heat and steam built up, and nowhere for it to go but out. I'd guess that if she added vents to give the steam a place to go...

...am I really discussing engineering on a comic forum?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 15 Mar 2011, 08:11
Codependency... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I know exactly what it means (it used to be limited to relationships where people refuse to abandon abusive people, but has expanded to also include the abusers), just because the person isn't actively in a relationship at the time they're exhibiting that horrible behavior doesn't mean they magically no longer fall under the definition.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Schmorgluck on 15 Mar 2011, 08:12
It's obvious that Tai has second thoughts, but what can she do about it?

Well, I can totally imagine her setting up some kind of plan to help Marten get over Dora, so that she can make her moves. And, given her character, that plan would be...
 :-D
Cue Tai throwing single college girls at Marten! Wacky hijinks ensue...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 15 Mar 2011, 08:17
Also the Dino-Riders were awesome. Then I tried watching them (on VHS) a few years ago and went "How did I like this??" Of course I also did that with Transformers, He-Man, and Thundercats.

You should have seen the prospective script for Jurassic Park 4 back when it was circulating the Internet.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Elysiana on 15 Mar 2011, 08:19
Codependency... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I know exactly what it means (it used to be limited to relationships where people refuse to abandon abusive people, but has expanded to also include the abusers), just because the person isn't actively in a relationship at the time they're exhibiting that horrible behavior doesn't mean they magically no longer fall under the definition.
I'm not saying that it only applies to people in a current relationship, but I think you are confusing codependency with grieving. Grief is a very normal emotion and most psychologists/counselors will encourage a person to go through a grieving period. It's certainly not unhealthy.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Blackjoker on 15 Mar 2011, 08:21
I'm rather weird, after seeing this I actually kind of heard a narration in my head with the voice of the narrator from Worms

"And then it was that in the war between Coffee of Doom and the Secrety Bakery that Faye unleashed her greatest weapon, filling the Espressauras with the most explosive of coffee mixtures the pushed the button, launching the metallic creatures head for many miles, striking the leader of the secret bakery square between the eyes. The cry then rang up 'We've Won the War!!' "
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 15 Mar 2011, 08:23
I'm not saying that it only applies to people in a current relationship, but I think you are confusing codependency with grieving. Grief is a very normal emotion and most psychologists/counselors will encourage a person to go through a grieving period. It's certainly not unhealthy.

Okay, it is a very unhealthy way to grieve, how about that (the bits about being horribly upset at the notion of someone loving someone else after supposedly loving you seems really terrible)?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Skewbrow on 15 Mar 2011, 08:31
Espressosaurus may have enough history at this point to justify a wiki article, but what category to use? He's not really a robot.

Hmm. Would it make sense to introduce a new category such as "accessories" or "works of art"? The problem with this might be that both of these categories would be rather small. We might want to include items such as "pulsemaster 9000" into "accessories", so may be not. "Works of art" might include the recurring posters and Faye's cookie sculptures... Is there a suitable catch-all label? Something that might be viewed as an extension of the "weapons" category?

Or may be "instruments and appliances" (again leaving it to the native users of the English language to come up with a suitably broad sticker) such as Marten's & Sven's respective Les Pauls, Hanners' drums & gong, Faye's toaster (R.I.P.)...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 15 Mar 2011, 08:36
Codependency... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

INCONCIEVABLE!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: DJRubberducky on 15 Mar 2011, 08:42
Espressosaurus - coffee so good, you'll blow your top!  :laugh:

And since it's a comic strip, I can understand Faye wanting to show rather than tell, but I'm still surprised that the final panel didn't include beatings and "WTF you could have killed somebody!".
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Elysiana on 15 Mar 2011, 08:47
Odin, I think I'm not following you to some extent. I don't know if you're actually jumping around or you're maybe not including all your thoughts right away? You seem to be arguing one thing then changing the stance and I don't know if it's lost in translation or if I just have pregnancy brain.

I agree that Person A should not be horribly upset at Person B loving the person they loved. I agree that Person A should not be horribly upset that the person they loved now loves Person B. I do still feel that tact can go a long way to remedying that though. I don't think I would expect a friend to ask me if I'm over someone, but I would really appreciate it.

I disagree that it is unhealthy to grieve for a month over a relationship that lasted at least 6 months. I do think that it might be unhealthy to grieve for 6 months though.

I agree that the "half the time" rule of thumb isn't valid with long-term relationships or super-short-term relationships; the percentage goes down the longer the relationship is, I think. It can easily take a year to get over a marriage that lasted 10 years, for example, but I think 5 is awfully high.

Other than that, I'm happy with the way my circle of friends works, and you're happy with the way your circle of friends works, and I don't think that makes either of us any more well-adjusted than the other - we've just had different life experiences that have shaped the way we see the world.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: tbones on 15 Mar 2011, 08:56
Sorry for the delay in responding, didn't really check in after my post yesterday. What I'm afraid he'll do is that he'll hook up Tai and Dora (nothing wrong with lesbian relationships, so anyone who wanted to try to flame me over that can kiss my other cheek), then have Marten find out and then...no consequences. I'm weary of Saint Marten of Reed, who lacks anger, a backbone, or any ability to selfishly pursue something he wants, to get angry and lash out, to do something. "Oh, if it makes you happy" la di da the rest. If Tai and Dora hook up, I want to see him react instead of just burying it all. Quit his job! Tell them off! Grow a backbone and express displeasure! Something!
Ugh, tell me about it. Sometimes i dream about Marten snaping, and becoming the suave motherfucker i know he is inside, throw character development obviously.

...
Ok i MAY have exaggerated a bit there. But you know, i really do want to see him grow a little backbone!

Moving away from that, I am loving the espressosaurus. Faye, can I have one, please?

Though now that I think about it....if the reason it's launching the neck and head is because of too much pressure, that means there's a design flaw somewhere. Judging from the comic, it seems there's too much heat and steam built up, and nowhere for it to go but out. I'd guess that if she added vents to give the steam a place to go...

...am I really discussing engineering on a comic forum?
Yes you are!
Also, was the head supposed to be the part that de-attaches? if so, it should had a slot so when when you attach it to the body it... ehm, what is the word i'm looking for...like, when you put 2 pieces of lego together they... ARGH, curse my ignorance! But yeah, the preassure is certainly a problem there.

It took four posts for me to spell out something that should be patently obvious to everyone that has ever had any lasting relationships at any point in their life, does that mean I'm terrible at explaining things or that people aren't willing to expend near the critical thinking on this tangent as they are on whether or not Jeph is going to Rule #34 us with Tai and Dora?
Ok this one, and just this one. The thing i want to point out is that not everyone is the same, and in the same way not every relationship is the same. So how to handle a break up should NOT be patently obvious! Every person in this planet handles a break up differently, and so the friends and people around the couple that is breakin up! Some are more affected by it, and if a friend would want to date his or her ex, hewill appreciate that the friend would talk and be clear that there is no bad intentions in doing so. And some others don't care!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 15 Mar 2011, 09:08
Ok this one, and just this one. The thing i want to point out is that not everyone is the same, and in the same way not every relationship is the same. So how to handle a break up should NOT be patently obvious! Every person in this planet handles a break up differently, and so the friends and people around the couple that is breakin up! Some are more affected by it, and if a friend would want to date his or her ex, hewill appreciate that the friend would talk and be clear that there is no bad intentions in doing so. And some others don't care!

A big part of where I'm coming from on this one can be found the lengthy OP of a thread on another forum (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3386887) (especially the "you are not a unique snowflake" and Rule #1 portions).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Mar 2011, 10:16
"Remember, you're unique, just like everyone else".
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 15 Mar 2011, 10:19
A meaningless sentiment, if you're honest about it.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: CEOIII on 15 Mar 2011, 10:22
Really not sure that taking relationship advice from a forum called "Something Awful" is a good idea. Just throwing that out there.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: musicalsoul on 15 Mar 2011, 10:29
Totally unrelated, to this argument at this point, and I'm pretty sure no one even read my last post, but if any one of my friends wanted to date my ex, I'd like them to tell me, not cause I'm not over him. I was over him before we broke up, but so I could warn them about how much of a total creeper he is.

On a comic-related note, I think this Espressosaurous is even cuter than the last one. Even with its missile launching head.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 15 Mar 2011, 10:32
Really not sure that taking relationship advice from a forum called "Something Awful" is a good idea. Just throwing that out there.

In a thread dedicated to getting over failed relationships in the sub-forum they've dedicated to any and all interpersonal drama. Just throwing that out there.

Also, your reasoning there is the kind of reasoning that allows networks like Fox News to get such high ratings.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: AlternatePosition on 15 Mar 2011, 11:05


Moving away from that, I am loving the espressosaurus. Faye, can I have one, please?

Though now that I think about it....if the reason it's launching the neck and head is because of too much pressure, that means there's a design flaw somewhere. Judging from the comic, it seems there's too much heat and steam built up, and nowhere for it to go but out. I'd guess that if she added vents to give the steam a place to go...

...am I really discussing engineering on a comic forum?

It would be pretty neat if the vent to release the steam came from the mouth, then you would have a smoke breathing coffee pooping dinosaur.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: tbones on 15 Mar 2011, 11:47
A big part of where I'm coming from on this one can be found the lengthy OP of a thread on another forum (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3386887) (especially the "you are not a unique snowflake" and Rule #1 portions).
"Remember, you're unique, just like everyone else".

Sigh, yeah sorry i said "not everyone is the same", i should have said that "not everyone is EXACTLY the same". Some people will be sad if they break up for a week, some for a month, some for half a year. I did not say that this is a jennifer aniston movie :psyduck:


But anyway, seems the discussion isn't going anywhere with ya Odin, maybe my viewpoints are wrong, or maybe yours are? I don't know...

It would be pretty neat if the vent to release the steam came from the mouth, then you would have a smoke breathing coffee pooping dinosaur.
That's.... pretty awesome actually.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 15 Mar 2011, 11:50
It would be pretty neat if the vent to release the steam came from the mouth, then you would have a smoke breathing coffee pooping dinosaur.

Kind of like a percolator, the steam turns darker as the coffee reaches the strength you want it to be.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Mar 2011, 11:53

...am I really discussing engineering on a comic forum?
And why not? There's engineering in the comic.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Napoleon_Blownapart on 15 Mar 2011, 12:15
I think Tai's unknowingly diving into a world of shit that she won't be able to handle.

I had an ex from a while back who was quite poisonous and treated me like garbage half the time when she wasn't being clingy during the other half. It didn't last long, and a month later I heard she moved on to another guy who wasn't a close friend, but was an associate of mine. My first thought wasn't "How could that bitch do this to me?!", it was "That poor guy doesn't know what he's getting himself into...". They didn't date for long either.

When I saw the Dora/Tai possibilities Jeph was hinting at, I seem to have had a different reaction than a few other people here. The first thing I thought was "Tai's not going to find what she wants in Dora, which is an emotionally stable relationship - and Tai might end up getting herself hurt".

Dora just ruined a perfectly good relationship with a guy she loved because of her emotional issues. She smothered him, treated him with far too little trust, then ran away and stuck her head in the sand after he confronted her about it. She didn't even respect him enough to work on it with him. Dora's behaviour has all the trappings of Histrionic Personality Disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder). It may not be certain, but it does seem likely that she will repeat the same behaviour with Tai or someone else unless she devotes enough time to getting the therapy she needs.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Blood-Tree on 15 Mar 2011, 13:11
I find it very difficult to tell whether the espressosaurus is a scale model of an Apatosaurus or a Diplodocus.

Clearly the Diplodocus, with its highly refined palate, would be the initial choice for any coffee-maker, but there's something about the curve of the neck, and the look in its eye, that suggests it would be a superior lover, which naturally leads to the Apatosaurus.

It's just so difficult to know what Jeph is thinking sometimes...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: covale on 15 Mar 2011, 13:21
1st post, so... either kill me fast or be gentle, don't half-ass it  :wink:

Re Dora/Tai: I don't get the feeling that Dora would dare get into a new relationship, but I still suspect there will be some drama over Tai flirting with Dora, or from her trying to get approval from Marten to go ahead.

And about the Espressosaurus... This one doesn't seem to be pooping espresso, since the hose attaches at the butt instead of at the feet (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1644).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Mar 2011, 13:26
Welcome!

True, we haven't seen Dora turn on her relationship-seeking radar since the breakup, and she may have a feeling she should prioritize therapy. On the other hand, her emotions may run away with her -- emotions have a way of doing that.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: John_Knee on 15 Mar 2011, 13:32
I'd hate to be Odin's friend in real life knowing that if I ever split with my wife, the very next day he'd inform me that he has starting a relationship with her and I can go f*** myself if I have an issue with it and that I should be happy for him....
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: StevenC on 15 Mar 2011, 13:43
*facepalm* Odin might not be the easiest person to understand what he means but seriously?
Also, if your wife decides to date someone else one day after you break up with her then something was definitely wrong for quite some time and you should be worried about your friend and not pissed at him.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: pwhodges on 15 Mar 2011, 13:55
You will note that the thread that Odin uses as a source doesn't consider the possibility that a relationship might involve either marriage or children (together or separately).  It is therefore immediately limiting its relevance to a subset of the people with whom he is discussing it here; this could help explain some of the extreme differences in viewpoint - that's before we go into some of the questionable statements there.  The limited viewpoint of that thread is shown for example by the absolute: "sever contact with your ex"; this is not practical in the case of either marriage or children (OK, you can negotiate finance etc through lawyers, but I would not listen to the advice of someone who has no experience of it for a recommendation on that matter).

if your wife decides to date someone else one day after you break up with her

Of course that decision commonly precedes  the breakup of a marriage - as it did in my case (my wife was having an affair, not her first either).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: SJCrew on 15 Mar 2011, 14:09
I think this whole 'dinosaur espresso' thing is going to eventually lead to Faye quitting CoD, something I'm totally looking forward to for the dire change of scenery QC so desperately needs. We've been in the safe zone with "friends at a coffee shop" for a while, but there's a whole bunch of other cool stuff the QC cast could be doing. I hope Jeph agrees with this sentiment and starts to move a little outside of the box soon.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: John_Knee on 15 Mar 2011, 14:37
*facepalm* Odin might not be the easiest person to understand what he means but seriously?
Also, if your wife decides to date someone else one day after you break up with her then something was definitely wrong for quite some time and you should be worried about your friend and not pissed at him.

Slightly exaggorated (spelling??) but the principle is the same.... ie, he'd be happy to make a move on an ex the very next day even if you were still upset about the breakup - especially if it was the other person who called the relationship off....
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: mickcheese on 15 Mar 2011, 14:43
I think this whole 'dinosaur espresso' thing is going to eventually lead to Faye quitting CoD, something I'm totally looking forward to for the dire change of scenery QC so desperately needs. We've been in the safe zone with "friends at a coffee shop" for a while, but there's a whole bunch of other cool stuff the QC cast could be doing. I hope Jeph agrees with this sentiment and starts to move a little outside of the box soon.
Seconded. I'd like to see her and, to a lesser extent, Penny move on to bigger and better things. I've been itching to see Faye leave CoD since Raven disappeared and Jeph commented about her lack of forward momentum in-comic (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1509). How long are Penny and Faye going to keep working the same dead end job? The hiring of Hanners and Cosette seems like the perfect opportunity to see the more tenured employees take off and find better jobs or even real careers.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: covale on 15 Mar 2011, 14:47
I think this whole 'dinosaur espresso' thing is going to eventually lead to Faye quitting CoD[...]

Faye has stated she's happy with working at CoD exactly because it's safe and comfortable (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1510), and that she actually dislikes crafting multiple dinos (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1648).

... I still wonder about where the second dino was supposed to pour the coffee from, seeing as the poop-option wasn't available.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: smilcarek on 15 Mar 2011, 14:57
I think this whole 'dinosaur espresso' thing is going to eventually lead to Faye quitting CoD, something I'm totally looking forward to for the dire change of scenery QC so desperately needs. We've been in the safe zone with "friends at a coffee shop" for a while, but there's a whole bunch of other cool stuff the QC cast could be doing. I hope Jeph agrees with this sentiment and starts to move a little outside of the box soon.

Actually, at least in my own experience, if you were to start reading from the beginning up till now, it seems like a lot less time stuck at the same thing. It presents a much more cohesive and interesting story than reading day-by-day. I'm not saying that the day-to-day story ISN'T, because it is, it's just that much better if you don't have to stop and wait for tomorrow.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 15 Mar 2011, 15:06
I think this whole 'dinosaur espresso' thing is going to eventually lead to Faye quitting CoD[...]
Faye has stated ... that she actually dislikes crafting multiple dinos (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1648).

I read that comic as saying she didn't want to make another T. Rexpresso.  I was thrilled to see that she'd channeled her creative forces into fulfilling the contract, but with a different design - she gets to create another espressosaurus original! 

What's next - Tricerotops? 
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: covale on 15 Mar 2011, 15:20
I think this whole 'dinosaur espresso' thing is going to eventually lead to Faye quitting CoD[...]
Faye has stated ... that she actually dislikes crafting multiple dinos (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1648).
I read that comic as saying she didn't want to make another T. Rexpresso...

That might be a better interpretation of that strip, so I'll just fall back on argument B (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1734).   8-)
She still doesn't believe it's something to do seriously, for her it's just a "when I grow up I want to be a ..." kinda thing that she outgrew.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Elysiana on 15 Mar 2011, 15:22
Velocispresso!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Heliphyneau on 15 Mar 2011, 15:23
Love the angle and dynamic body positions in panel 5!  Faye and Dora flinching in the foreground and Hanners' 'eep' face in the distance as the dino head flies by is great.  I can't recall if we've ever seen that much of a close-up on a hand in this strip as appears in panel 3 -- it's cool to see Jeph trying new things artistically.  As to the Espressosaurus itself, I want to say that the espresso would come out its mouth, but if the bottom of its neck holds the grounds . . . I dunno, that doesn't seem like it would work.  Maybe it would come out of the tip of its tail?  Can't fit a cup under its belly really.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 15 Mar 2011, 15:25
decrease exponentially in quality as it increases in length.
(http://i52.tinypic.com/27zfaqu.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: DSL on 15 Mar 2011, 17:55
Looks like a hatch in the top, hinged next to the power switch, is where the coffee makings go. Also looks like it holds together better than the head-neck/spigot attachment point; try a twist-and-lock collar, there, Faye. Also, the head-neck, when independent of the body, looks like something else entirely.
Prediction: Marten, finally deciding to chance a return to CoD, is beaned by flying espressosaurus parts as he walks in the door.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 15 Mar 2011, 18:25
Bam!  It has most likely been no more than six weeks since 1645 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1645), since Dora is checking up on Faye's progress, but not accusing her of being behind schedule.  So I guess the general estimate of a little more than a month since the breakup works.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: horsefish on 15 Mar 2011, 18:37
Prediction: Marten, finally deciding to chance a return to CoD, is beaned by flying espressosaurus parts as he walks in the door.

Prediction:  Pintsize sabotaged it as a tiny step in his plan for world domination for shits and giggles.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Boomslang on 15 Mar 2011, 18:50
I think this whole 'dinosaur espresso' thing is going to eventually lead to Faye quitting CoD[...]
Faye has stated ... that she actually dislikes crafting multiple dinos (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1648).

I read that comic as saying she didn't want to make another T. Rexpresso.  I was thrilled to see that she'd channeled her creative forces into fulfilling the contract, but with a different design - she gets to create another espressosaurus original! 

What's next - Tricerotops? 

Ankylosaurus. They get no love. (sobs)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 15 Mar 2011, 18:52
Bam!  It has most likely been no more than six weeks since 1645 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1645), since Dora is checking up on Faye's progress, but not accusing her of being behind schedule.  So I guess the general estimate of a little more than a month since the breakup works.

Considering how long it took her to make the first one, it might actually be longer.

Second look: Five weeks sounds about right. That'd mean a pace of about 6.7 strips/day, which would mean (possibly) it's only been about nine months since "Pintsize, I'm home."

Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: justanotherbrick on 15 Mar 2011, 19:21
Bam!  It has most likely been no more than six weeks since 1645 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1645), since Dora is checking up on Faye's progress, but not accusing her of being behind schedule.  So I guess the general estimate of a little more than a month since the breakup works.

Considering how long it took her to make the first one, it might actually be longer.

Second look: Five weeks sounds about right. That'd mean a pace of about 6.7 strips/day, which would mean (possibly) it's only been about nine months since "Pintsize, I'm home."



Nicely done! Although there have been a few time skips and I'm fairly confident that Marten and Dora dated for over a year and that they knew each other for at least a month before they started dating. Between them meeting, falling for each other, dating for a while, moving in together, dating for a more while, breaking up and it being at least a month since they broke up, I'd say that the span of QC has been closer to two years than six months.

Think about how many different pairs of glasses Faye has had! Most people only get a new pair of glasses every two years or so.    8-)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: DSL on 15 Mar 2011, 21:19
Pace is pickin' up. Counting through the QCv.1, early on the comic's pace could be 25-30 strips for one day of QC Standard Time.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cabbagehut on 15 Mar 2011, 22:20
What exactly was this dinosaur SUPPOSED to do?  I'm not too smart.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: celticgeek on 15 Mar 2011, 22:34
Make coffee like this one. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1644)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: westrim on 15 Mar 2011, 22:43
Think about how many different pairs of glasses Faye has had! Most people only get a new pair of glasses every two years or so.    8-)
Maybe she collects and rotates them like some women collect purses or shoes and use a new one/pair every couple of weeks or occasion. At least guys actually notice glasses.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 15 Mar 2011, 23:12
She does actually need them to see, though.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: westrim on 15 Mar 2011, 23:27
She does actually need them to see, though.
Well, sure, they all have the correct prescription in them. But maybe it's just a "today I feel like red frames" sort of thing, and she was willing to shell out however much it costs in Massage Chewing Sets for frames and lenses to augment her as-yet-unrevealed collection.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: pwhodges on 16 Mar 2011, 00:09
When she broke her glasses she didn't have a spare pair to fall back on.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: snubnose on 16 Mar 2011, 00:39
[...] At least guys actually notice glasses.
No, we dont.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cabbagehut on 16 Mar 2011, 00:55
HERDADERP I GET IT NOW

Thanks for the review!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: akronnick on 16 Mar 2011, 00:56
[...] At least guys actually notice glasses.
No, we dont.

I might notice if a lady is wearing glasses.








Maybe...   :angel: :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Sharp on 16 Mar 2011, 01:01
Oh Wil.  :roll: I have to admit I've used/abused creative license in a similar way before.



Well you see Dust you're not actually seeing that, you're seeing the effects of Marten's becoming disconnected from space-time at a quantum level. Those are all different Martens, from various doomed timelines created by unstable loops. We still haven't seen the Alpha Marten.

And then dead Martens start piling up, and we don't want that. D34D M4RT3NS 4R3 TH3 3N3MY H3H3H3H3!!!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 16 Mar 2011, 01:09
[...] At least guys actually notice glasses.
No, we dont.

I might notice if a lady is wearing glasses.

Depends.  

Where's she wearing them?  

 :angel:

And on to today's comic...

I always hear Wil's voice as an upperclass English accent.  I just can't believe he's local to North Hampton, Mass... (he was living in his parent's basement when he met Pen-pen).  

Then again, maybe his folks are also English (college professors?), and he came here with them as a teen (too late to lose the accent).  

Or perhaps they were Boston patricians.  

Although with the facial hair, there's a definite resemblance to a young Colonel Sanders.  Maybe a southern patriarchal drawl?  Naaahhh....
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: westrim on 16 Mar 2011, 01:16
[...] At least guys actually notice glasses.
No, we dont.
Aw, Snub. Whenever I thing "no, I don't need to make note of exceptions, people will get the point," I can always count on you to not. So here you go, just for you:

* Excepting those who do pay attention to purses and shoes and those who don't notice those things framing a woman eyes, of course.

Happy?

Depends. 
Where's she wearing them? 
 :angel:
Why, over her irises, which are blooming quite well.

Well, at least he's honest the morning after- that has to count for something. Right? ....right?

Oh Will, you poor, literature befuddled bastard.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Blackie62 on 16 Mar 2011, 01:21
[...] At least guys actually notice glasses.
No, we dont.
Aw, Snub. Whenever I thing "no, I don't need to make note of exceptions, people will get the point," I can always count on you to not. So here you go, just for you:

* Excepting those who do pay attention to purses and shoes and those who don't notice those things framing a woman eyes, of course.

Happy?

This has actually become my standard way of remembering girls I've just met; "white soft leather Micheal Kors," "tacky Louis Vouiton print," "hemp bag," "cute Mexican knit satchel," etc.

Wait a second Wil mentions a bouncer named Elliot. Is this the same quietly looming Elliot we saw previously, it would certainly be in the fashion of the comic.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Kugai on 16 Mar 2011, 01:29
I think that Wil is going to be cut off for the week for that.

But really, Penny should have known better.   :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Skewbrow on 16 Mar 2011, 01:34
So Elliot is their bouncer. Hmm. He certainly has enough bulk for the job, but will a quietly looming giant make the most effective bouncer?

Ok. When things at the bar are civil, it is definitely a good thing that the bouncer is mostly invisible.

But to prevent an argument from ever escalating (which is what the peacemaker should ideally achieve) would it not be better if all the parties were aware (at some level) of his presence? This looming giant approaching any table, where voices are raised... :oops:

I guess I talked myself into believing that Elliot is da man for dis job
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Blackie62 on 16 Mar 2011, 01:38
Huh, I wonder if the bouncer has to follow the same dress code as the other employees at that bar. *Tries to imagine Elliot in Victorian attire* Not seeing it but then again I can't imagine how Wil would look in a t-shirt and jeans.

Also I'm definitely using "I'm a poet! I was using creative license!" My mind is just brimming with situations where it would be invaluable.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: westrim on 16 Mar 2011, 01:44
Huh, I wonder if the bouncer has to follow the same dress code as the other employees at that bar. *Tries to imagine Elliot in Victorian attire* Not seeing it but then again I can't imagine how Wil would look in a t-shirt and jeans.

Also I'm definitely using "I'm a poet! I was using creative license!" My mind is just brimming with situations where it would be invaluable.
*Caught driving an ocean liner*
*Arrested for entering a nuclear weapons facility*
*Accused of impersonating a gynecologist*
I'm not sure how willing they would be to buy it, though.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 16 Mar 2011, 01:58
So... Elliot's day job is at The Secret Bakery, but by night he's a bouncer at The Horrible Revelation?

Interesting combination of jobs. Baked Goods in the morning, Boozed-up Guys and Gals in the evening.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cesariojpn on 16 Mar 2011, 02:20
Interesting combination of jobs. Baked Goods in the morning, Boozed-up Guys and Gals in the evening.

"I say Madam, you are quite inebriated, I respectfully ask that you leave the premises post haste." (woman does a uppercut) "How uncouth of you!! I must now take appropriate action and have you evicted from the establishment. Alley-oop!!" 
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: IanClark on 16 Mar 2011, 02:31
A big part of where I'm coming from on this one can be found the lengthy OP of a thread on another forum (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3386887) (especially the "you are not a unique snowflake" and Rule #1 portions).

See, this is what I have a problem with. I don't regard relationships as a social convention. I'm not content to say that there should be rules for how you should feel and when you should move on, or at least not rules that are based on the simple idea of "relationship". I think that far more important than the concept of a relationship are the feelings shared and the emotional framework built between two people. Two people who are/were deeply in love should be held to different standards than people who just dated for a few months but never really envisioned themselves together forever. Or even people who dated for years but their feelings were never that strong. I'm not going to say no two relationships are the same, because that would be foolish, but relationships are different from one another.

Take Rule #1 for example. It gets violated all the time. There are tons and tons of stories of couples breaking up, but for some reason or another neither of them really felt it was time to move on and they ended up getting back together and living happily (whether permanently or not). For every time that article (I'd call it an article) says "This is never true" or "Don't tell yourself this, it's always a lie" or "Don't delude yourself into thinking this" there are hundreds of people who can honestly say "Actually, that happened to me." People break up for any myriad of reasons, some of them leave more than a little room for reconciliation. Believing that a relationship isn't truly over just because someone says it is may usually prove wrong, but there are more than enough exceptions that someone might be justified in thinking otherwise. And even in those situations where it turns out the relationship is really over, who's to say they couldn't have rekindled it if they'd acted differently? Even if most of the things they said in that post were usually true, that doesn't mean they're always true and it definitely doesn't mean that someone should think it's automatically true just because that's the way things usually go. It has nothing at all to do with thinking yourself a unique snowflake and everything to do with being aware of the almost immeasurable complexity of the human condition.

Quote
If this is true of the vast majority of people out there, we are a world of people in desperate need of therapy because this is a really fucked up outlook on life that requires validation from every ex you have to let you know that you're worth loving.

I never said it had anything to do with requiring validation from every ex. Personally, at the end of every serious relationship I've ever been in, I take stock in exactly what went wrong and how I could've stopped myself from getting hurt. By the time the next relationship comes along, I've got a plan. This time I'm going to be more vigilant for the warning signs, I'm not going to let myself fall in love until I'm absolutely sure it's not going to happen again. Okay, I've been vigilant enough, I've kept myself guarded properly, I'm finally going to let my feelings out and completely fall for this woman, and son of a bitch, it happened again!

Realizing that someone is completely over you means realizing that you actually have no idea what the hell you're doing. No matter how sure you were that they loved you enough that they'd never hurt you the way they did, you were wrong. And you may never be right. And for the reasons I've outlined above, the moment of realizing someone's done with you doesn't always come with when they said they were done with you.

Quote
Going to stop you there and say that it has nothing to do with "not getting deeply involved", but failing to get over past relationships reveals some severe codependency issues and you have to admit that is a huge red flag for a need to seek therapy. It is a pretty well established point in psychiatric circles that codependency is a huge deal and not normal or healthy, are you and others on here disputing this?

First of all this argument is obviously going to be a contentious one because there is no DSM criteria for codependency. Codependency is defined as excessive emotional or psychological reliance on a partner, and I think anyone who's ever been in an argument with anyone ever can tell what the key word there is. In fact, the very fact that the word "excessive" is there means that there is such a thing as non-excessive reliance. If you love someone, it would logically follow that you would be sad if they were gone. That's what love is. Love is wanting to be close to someone, and it therefore follows that if you do love someone, you should be sad to see them walk out of your life. The more you love someone, the more sad you should be. It doesn't classify as codependence if your reaction is proportionally appropriate to the situation. Codependence only applies if you get too close too fast, or if you take a lot longer than you should to get over it. If you get over a relationship as soon as it's over, that's fine, but it also means you didn't love the person (which does happen in a lot of relationships). Maybe from there you can argue that love only holds us back, but that's a whole separate argument.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: akronnick on 16 Mar 2011, 02:44
So... Elliot's day job is at The Secret Bakery, but by night he's a bouncer at The Horrible Revelation?

Interesting combination of jobs. Baked Goodshungover Guys and Gals in the morning, Boozed-up Guys and Gals in the evening.

FTFY.

Also...

When the hell does he sleep?!


Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 16 Mar 2011, 03:03
Wait, do we even know he has a job at tSB? He could just hang out there like Marten used to do at CoD.

Alternatively, it's just been assumed that the Elliot that hangs out at tSB is the Elliot that bounces for Wil's bar; it could easily be another guy named Elliot. Or girl. Did we ever find out the name of the "Ladie's Night" bouncer that nearly defenestrated Sven?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 16 Mar 2011, 03:18
A big part of where I'm coming from on this one can be found the lengthy OP of a thread on another forum (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3386887) (especially the "you are not a unique snowflake" and Rule #1 portions).

See, this is what I have a problem with. I don't regard relationships as a social convention.

Neither does the thread you spend two paragraphs failing to write-off as if it does, go back and read it again.

Quote
Take Rule #1 for example. It gets violated all the time. There are tons and tons of stories of couples breaking up, but for some reason or another neither of them really felt it was time to move on and they ended up getting back together and living happily (whether permanently or not). For every time that article (I'd call it an article) says "This is never true" or "Don't tell yourself this, it's always a lie" or "Don't delude yourself into thinking this" there are hundreds of people who can honestly say "Actually, that happened to me." People break up for any myriad of reasons, some of them leave more than a little room for reconciliation. Believing that a relationship isn't truly over just because someone says it is may usually prove wrong, but there are more than enough exceptions that someone might be justified in thinking otherwise. And even in those situations where it turns out the relationship is really over, who's to say they couldn't have rekindled it if they'd acted differently? Even if most of the things they said in that post were usually true, that doesn't mean they're always true and it definitely doesn't mean that someone should think it's automatically true just because that's the way things usually go. It has nothing at all to do with thinking yourself a unique snowflake and everything to do with being aware of the almost immeasurable complexity of the human condition.

pwhodges already touched on this, but the intended audience for that thread is a very limited section of the population so most of your objections are already out the window (males in the US, where there is somewhere between a 2:1 & 3:1 ratio of women:men in many areas of the country). All of that aside, Rule #1 is a very good rule to keep in mind and you're confusing it with one of the other rules, apparently (Rule #1 is "The relationship that just broke up is over, get the fuck over it!", not "Don't Talk to an ex until you're over the breakup!", but that is still a very good rule as well).

Quote
Quote
If this is true of the vast majority of people out there, we are a world of people in desperate need of therapy because this is a really fucked up outlook on life that requires validation from every ex you have to let you know that you're worth loving.

I never said it had anything to do with requiring validation from every ex.

Quote from: You, in the post I quoted leading up to this part
You're not just asking for permission to be with a person, you're asking for permission to be the one to shatter your friend's perception of what the relationship they had was. You're asking permission to be the one to send them into that period of doubt and what's almost the second breakup.

Comes pretty close to that, though.

Quote
Personally, at the end of every serious relationship I've ever been in, I take stock in exactly what went wrong and how I could've stopped myself from getting hurt. By the time the next relationship comes along, I've got a plan. This time I'm going to be more vigilant for the warning signs, I'm not going to let myself fall in love until I'm absolutely sure it's not going to happen again. Okay, I've been vigilant enough, I've kept myself guarded properly, I'm finally going to let my feelings out and completely fall for this woman, and son of a bitch, it happened again!

Realizing that someone is completely over you means realizing that you actually have no idea what the hell you're doing. No matter how sure you were that they loved you enough that they'd never hurt you the way they did, you were wrong. And you may never be right. And for the reasons I've outlined above, the moment of realizing someone's done with you doesn't always come with when they said they were done with you.

Hey, guess what, you just posted that you did exactly what was advised in the OP of the thread you're complaining about. Go read it again.

Quote
Quote
Going to stop you there and say that it has nothing to do with "not getting deeply involved", but failing to get over past relationships reveals some severe codependency issues and you have to admit that is a huge red flag for a need to seek therapy. It is a pretty well established point in psychiatric circles that codependency is a huge deal and not normal or healthy, are you and others on here disputing this?

First of all this argument is obviously going to be a contentious one because there is no DSM criteria for codependency. Codependency is defined as excessive emotional or psychological reliance on a partner, and I think anyone who's ever been in an argument with anyone ever can tell what the key word there is.

It is also extremely common and often misdiagnosed due to other DSM-accepted disorders where there is some overlap in symptoms (http://smith.soehd.csufresno.edu/codependence.html).

Quote
In fact, the very fact that the word "excessive" is there means that there is such a thing as non-excessive reliance. If you love someone, it would logically follow that you would be sad if they were gone. That's what love is. Love is wanting to be close to someone, and it therefore follows that if you do love someone, you should be sad to see them walk out of your life. The more you love someone, the more sad you should be. It doesn't classify as codependence if your reaction is proportionally appropriate to the situation. Codependence only applies if you get too close too fast, or if you take a lot longer than you should to get over it. If you get over a relationship as soon as it's over, that's fine, but it also means you didn't love the person (which does happen in a lot of relationships). Maybe from there you can argue that love only holds us back, but that's a whole separate argument.

I bolded the relevant bit, there. Stop straw-manning my argument, guys, I never said it was okay to immediately start dating a friend's ex (not bothering to respond to the idiot that took it to the level of asking out a freshly divorced woman the day her divorce papers were signed, holy shit that guy was dumb). If it's been long enough that the ex is interested in dating and you're interested in dating them, your friend really has no authority to stop you so why patronize them by acting like you give a damn about whether they approve? Again, this is someone who is looking to date again anyway and you're already interested in them, this implies that enough time has gone by that your friend should be over it, too.

To make this relevant to the comic, we must be getting very bored with the more recent strips for things to derail this badly so quickly.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Akima on 16 Mar 2011, 03:19
Think about how many different pairs of glasses Faye has had! Most people only get a new pair of glasses every two years or so.
Ah, but have they really been new glasses, or merely art-change glasses? And Will is a complete nitwit, it's official.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 16 Mar 2011, 03:25
Think about how many different pairs of glasses Faye has had! Most people only get a new pair of glasses every two years or so.
Ah, but have they really been new glasses, or merely art-change glasses? And Will is a complete nitwit, it's official.


Will has been a nitwit since he was introduced. I would comment on being surprised that he could maintain a relationship at all, but he's dating a barista (not exactly known for being the most stable people in the world, both in the QC verse and in ours).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: pwhodges on 16 Mar 2011, 03:29
Penny may acknowledge her attraction to Wil's (one "l", folks) literary side, bad though it is; but I can't help feeling that there are also elements of both desperation and pity in that relationship.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: snubnose on 16 Mar 2011, 03:33
Wil is an artist and artists arent practical people.

The relationship works because both Wil and Penpen get what they would otherwise lack.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: sepik121 on 16 Mar 2011, 03:37
The relationship between will and penelope always makes me smile. Mainly because they're both ridiculous people, but Wil just tops it off by being hilarious.

Creative license gets all the babes.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 16 Mar 2011, 03:43
Penny may acknowledge her attraction to Wil's (one "l", folks) literary side, bad though it is; but I can't help feeling that there are also elements of both desperation and pity in that relationship.

See, even his name is needlessly pretentious!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: shlominus on 16 Mar 2011, 05:39
Quote from: Odin
a barista (not exactly known for being the most stable people in the world, both in the QC verse and in ours)

See, even his name is needlessly pretentious!

...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 16 Mar 2011, 05:55
Someone has obviously never paid any attention to the stuff you'll typically hear baristas talk about behind the counter while waiting on their coffee (you might be amazed at how much they have in common with Waffle House waitresses).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 16 Mar 2011, 06:27
Will Wil be in the Horrible Revelation this week?

Huh....turns out I was half right......
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Border Reiver on 16 Mar 2011, 06:37
I think this whole 'dinosaur espresso' thing is going to eventually lead to Faye quitting CoD[...]
Faye has stated ... that she actually dislikes crafting multiple dinos (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1648).

I read that comic as saying she didn't want to make another T. Rexpresso.  I was thrilled to see that she'd channeled her creative forces into fulfilling the contract, but with a different design - she gets to create another espressosaurus original! 

What's next - Tricerotops? 

Ankylosaurus. They get no love. (sobs)

Nah, she's going to take it in a whole new direction - Mammoth/Mastodon
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 16 Mar 2011, 06:40
Nah, she's going to take it in a whole new direction - Mammoth/Mastodon

Or she'll say "fuck it" and take it in an adult novelty direction: Priapic Percolators!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Elysiana on 16 Mar 2011, 06:51
I dunno, the head/neck on that apatosaurus looks pretty serviceable already...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Border Reiver on 16 Mar 2011, 06:57
Gives a whole new meaning to putting the cream in your coffee.

Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 16 Mar 2011, 07:21
Alternatively, it's just been assumed that the Elliot that hangs out at tSB is the Elliot that bounces for Wil's bar; it could easily be another guy named Elliot. Or girl. Did we ever find out the name of the "Ladie's Night" bouncer that nearly defenestrated Sven?

If it was just another dude named Elliot Jeph wouldn't have taken the trouble to have Wil name him in dialogue. It really makes no sense to have two dudes in a story with the same name for no actual reason.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 16 Mar 2011, 07:27
Yeah, Eliot isn't a very common name (a little less than 1600 people with that name according to howmanyofme.com, though that site isn't exactly scientific), but to be fair it doesn't have to be the same guy.

Wasn't he hanging out with Padme at the bar during the whole "I can't believe Steve isn't gay!" thing? He'd be a shitty bouncer if that was the same bar (plus we should have realized Wil was bartending by now if he worked the same shift).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 16 Mar 2011, 08:03
Wait, do we even know he has a job at tSB? He could just hang out there like Marten used to do at CoD.

It's possible that he's just a hanger on at tSB, but he was behind the counter, and even leaning on it, when we first met him.  I don't know a lot of food service places that would (or could legally) allow that...

And I can see him in a wife-beater, unbottoned vest, and rakishly tipped bowler, playing a tough.  But it just doesn't seem to fit his personality...

Mayhaps Jeph slipped up in naming the bouncer?  Naaahh...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 16 Mar 2011, 08:18
Wasn't he hanging out with Padme at the bar during the whole "I can't believe Steve isn't gay!" thing? He'd be a shitty bouncer if that was the same bar (plus we should have realized Wil was bartending by now if he worked the same shift).

This doesn't have to be the day directly after that night. We all know how vague Jeph is with exactly how many days have passed between the days we see in QC.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: CompSarge on 16 Mar 2011, 08:27
Think about how many different pairs of glasses Faye has had! Most people only get a new pair of glasses every two years or so.
Ah, but have they really been new glasses, or merely art-change glasses? And Will is a complete nitwit, it's official.


Will has been a nitwit since he was introduced. I would comment on being surprised that he could maintain a relationship at all, but he's dating a barista (not exactly known for being the most stable people in the world, both in the QC verse and in ours).

I must disagree with you on this point, because I work at a coffee shop and NONE of us are what you would call "unstable." In fact, the people I work with are some of the most down-to-earth people I know.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 16 Mar 2011, 08:28
Okay, modify that statement to "baristas in the Southern US", then.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: CompSarge on 16 Mar 2011, 08:30
I will accept that change.  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: tbones on 16 Mar 2011, 08:36
Did Wil has a mustache? I thought he only wear a fake one for work....


decrease exponentially in quality as it increases in length.
(http://i52.tinypic.com/27zfaqu.jpg)
This is so, SO friggin' funny.

I dunno, the head/neck on that apatosaurus looks pretty serviceable already...
I can't believe it took me more than 10 seconds to figure out what you are talking about. That is, if i'm right about what you are talking about.
it is food, right?
 :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Elysiana on 16 Mar 2011, 08:55
I dunno, the head/neck on that apatosaurus looks pretty serviceable already...
I can't believe it took me more than 10 seconds to figure out what you are talking about. That is, if i'm right about what you are talking about.
it is food, right?
 :psyduck:

Or she'll say "fuck it" and take it in an adult novelty direction: Priapic Percolators!
It was actually in relation to this ^

I mean, yes.... food... :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: O8h7w on 16 Mar 2011, 10:03
I haven't been in here since, uhh, before holidays. Way before. But sure I've read the comic!  (except for a few days just before christmas when I was even more depressed than the rest of this autumn and winter, and until the 27th when I was a lot better)

Well, anyway, I'm back for a reason.  :mrgreen:  Yesterday's comic deserves praise!  :mrgreen:

It's almost like the good old times of jokes in the coffeshop, in the very beginning - except there's way better art, and there's Hannelore!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: The Duke on 16 Mar 2011, 10:18
Huh, I wonder if the bouncer has to follow the same dress code as the other employees at that bar. *Tries to imagine Elliot in Victorian attire* Not seeing it but then again I can't imagine how Wil would look in a t-shirt and jeans.

I somehow imagine him as some kind of vaudevillian villain with a monocle, coat-tails, and a top hat, or a 20's thug with a monocle, bowler hat, and suspenders.  The monocle is key, for some reason.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 16 Mar 2011, 10:23
Huh, I wonder if the bouncer has to follow the same dress code as the other employees at that bar. *Tries to imagine Elliot in Victorian attire* Not seeing it but then again I can't imagine how Wil would look in a t-shirt and jeans.

I somehow imagine him as some kind of vaudevillian villain with a monocle, coat-tails, and a top hat. The monocle is key, for some reason.

Don't forget the handlebar moustache for him to twirl as he laughs maniacally. Oh, and he would also need a cape. Can't be a villain without a cape.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Border Reiver on 16 Mar 2011, 10:28
No Capes!

Several of the best villans in both DC and Marvel don't wear capes - Lex Luthor, the Joker, Green goblin, Red Skull, the Kingpin to name a few. 
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: pwhodges on 16 Mar 2011, 10:39
Besides, Wil wears a cape, and he can't be confused with a villain (can he?).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: AlternatePosition on 16 Mar 2011, 11:13
Did anyone else think that the "extremely inebriated young man at the bar last night" was either Marten or Steve

At first I thought it might be Marten...

But it could be Steve after an argument with Cosette over him flirting with Padma
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: covale on 16 Mar 2011, 11:30
Did anyone else think that the "extremely inebriated young man at the bar last night" was either Marten or Steve

At first I thought it might be Marten...

But it could be Steve after an argument with Cosette over him flirting with Padma

nah, Wil would recognize them after all this time, right?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 16 Mar 2011, 11:38
He would recognize Marten, but I'm not sure he ever met Steve (can one of the archives divers check?).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dust on 16 Mar 2011, 12:28
http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1864 Not a definite, but he'd have some idea.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 16 Mar 2011, 13:41
Good catch, new person!

None of the male characters seem like violent drunks.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 16 Mar 2011, 14:20
Probably one of the U Mass bros...

or a member of the panhandler mafia (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1064).  They can get pretty riled up, I hear! 
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: pwhodges on 16 Mar 2011, 15:30
How did Wil manage to get a black eye without his glasses getting broken?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 16 Mar 2011, 15:34
How did Wil manage to get a black eye without his glasses getting broken?

The frames themselves probably caused the black eye, especially if they were sturdy enough. Unless Wil is one of those people who has a dozen of the same pairs of glasses.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: westrim on 16 Mar 2011, 15:44
How did Wil manage to get a black eye without his glasses getting broken?
Spare/ old pair? Or maybe he collects them like Faye does.

The frames themselves probably caused the black eye, especially if they were sturdy enough. Unless Wil is one of those people who has a dozen of the same pairs of glasses.

Getting punched in the eye while wearing glasses is more likely to make the rim cut you- I know from experience. Fortunately the scars are either healed or hidden by my eyebrow, but I had a nice ring around my left eye for a few weeks.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 16 Mar 2011, 15:51
The frames themselves probably caused the black eye, especially if they were sturdy enough. Unless Wil is one of those people who has a dozen of the same pairs of glasses.

Getting punched in the eye while wearing glasses is more likely to make the rim cut you- I know from experience. Fortunately the scars are either healed or hidden by my eyebrow, but I had a nice ring around my left eye for a few weeks.

So have I, I wore glasses for 17 years before I got lasik surgery last year. And I've also gotten a few black eyes from my frames. It depends on the size and thickness of the frames. Wire-rimmed glasses will probably cut around the eyelid, but a heavier frame will give someone a black eye.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 16 Mar 2011, 17:32
Especially if the lenses are actual glass lenses. Still got that scar below my left eyebrow from that sledding incident when I was about 11.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 16 Mar 2011, 17:33
How was that lasik procedure? I've been thinking of getting it done but don't know how much trust to put in an office that isn't at Emory doing it.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 16 Mar 2011, 17:57
I found it useful and worth it, especially as I couldn't really wear contacts without my eyes getting really dry and irratated very quickly, and in my work, eyeglasses were a pain, especially as I worked in labs and had to wear goggles a lot.

If you're thinking about it Odin, go see your GP or family doctor, talk to them and see if they can refer you to a specialist. They can run you through the procedure (its not exactly for the squimish), and will give you some instructions if you wear contacts before the procedure. Once its done, they give you some antibiotic eye drops which you'll have to use a couple of times a day for a few weeks, and you'll be given some goggles to wear when you sleep. Just follow the instructions and you'll be fine. You'll probably want to stay in darkened rooms for a few days afterwards.

Overall, you're in there for a couple of hours for the procedure, I went in in the morning, and I was out in the middle of the afternoon. You might feel some discomfort during the procedure, but its a small price to pay to be free of glasses....On top of the fee to have it done, which for me, was about €1200 for both eyes.

A word of warning though, the white of your eyes will look bloody for at least a couple of weeks, thats normal, but it might freak people out. My girlfriend almost screamed when I got back from the checkup and took off the sunglasses.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 16 Mar 2011, 18:13
My eye doctor said that the best specialists don't need to advertise, so a good rule of thumb is not to go anyplace you've seen an advert for.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 16 Mar 2011, 18:15
Hence my point about getting a referal. Doctors will usually know a good specialist, or at least point you in the right direction.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Joax737 on 16 Mar 2011, 18:23
Probably one of the U Mass bros...

or a member of the panhandler mafia (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1064).  They can get pretty riled up, I hear! 

now that i look at the panhandler mafia again i think the guy with the yellophone looks like an old washed up gary oak
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: St.Clair on 16 Mar 2011, 18:51
Hey, those were BIG spiders.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Sharp on 16 Mar 2011, 20:42
Oh, and he would also need a cape. Can't be a villain without a cape.

"Oh snap wwe talkin about capes? You knoww wwhat a good vvillian needs wwith a cape? A good scarf."
(http://i658.photobucket.com/albums/uu307/SharpArcher01/th_1295590205515.png) (http://s658.photobucket.com/albums/uu307/SharpArcher01/?action=view&current=1295590205515.png)

And kudos to those who have undergone Lasik surgery. I am the envy, it's me. Seeing as I couldn't even afford a $1200 root canal, I think it will be a while before I can afford a $2000 eye surgery.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: ysth on 16 Mar 2011, 22:06
oh man
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 16 Mar 2011, 22:17
In Beowulf's defense, those spiders were rather large.  And evil.  And in the shape of Angelina Jolie, if the recent movie is to believed?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 16 Mar 2011, 22:20
oh man

Oh man, you're right.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 16 Mar 2011, 23:08
Re:  Lasik - remember, as you age, even with the procedure, you'll still need reading glasses.  It does nothing to reduce the stiffening of the lens over time.  You just won't need bifocals! 

And my opthamologist recommended against it, as my prescription still shifts a bit each year.  If I'd gotten Lasik, I still would've needed glasses after a year or two!  Granted, most people aren't in my glasses shoes, but it's best to check first.  Just another good reason to avoid the places that are "selling" it! 
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Skewbrow on 17 Mar 2011, 00:24
I have had problems finding glasses for all my needs. I could probably still drive a car safely without, but prefer to get some aid from a lense. I need about +4 for reading, so progressive bifocals are the catch-all solution. Unfortunately that is not sufficient for computer work, so I have another pair for "close range only" use. This is a recent addition - other solutions might be out there.  A further complication comes from my hobbies one of which is orienteering. There you need to see distant objects, but also need to see tiny details on the map. AND as you are running full steam thru forests, across marshland and over the boulders, the risk of accident is always there. The price of progressive bifocals is kinda high, so I tried some narrow, cheap +4s down on my nose. Unfortunately that creates a discontinuity zone, so after limping thru a couple of seasons I gave up on that idea. My ophthalmologist keeps renewing my presciption every two years, so at that time the solution of using the old pair for sports was available, and mostly satisfactory (if need be I can use the small magnifying glass attached to my compass). She also recommended that I try contacts for sportactivities, but I never learned the trick of putting them on quickly enough.

Surgery is pointless at this age for the reason Carl-E described.

I'm currently in my 3rd pair of progressive bifocals. The pair #1 is somewhere in the swamps after a tree branch I ran into recoiled and knocked them out of sight. Pair #2 works for sport use, but I get funny looks from others as I tie a shoelace around my head in order to not lose that pair...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Tetrinity on 17 Mar 2011, 00:43
I've been wearing glasses for around nine or ten years now, and almost every time I go for a checkup or to pick up some new frames, I get inundated with suggestions (mostly from friends) that I get laser eye surgery instead. I've vaguely considered it, especially since my prescription seems to have more or less plateaued around -5.5 at this point, but... eh. I like my glasses and feel they suit me, but it does make going swimming or to a metal concert rather inconvenient. I don't think it's something I should commit to unless I'm completely sure I want it done; those operations cost a lot of money...

Mind you, I've never even tried contact lenses. I remember asking my parents when I was around thirteen whether I could get them, to be met with a resounding, "no, you're not hygienic enough", which I thought was a bit harsh, but hey. Never pushed the issue after that, and when I turned eighteen and didn't have to get them to countersign any forms, I'd been wearing my glasses for too long to think about switching. Perhaps I'll get some of those temporary contacts and try them out over a weekend or something.

Incidentally, is it only referred to as lasik surgery in the US? I'm in the UK and have only ever heard it called laser eye surgery; I thought it was some kind of in-joke I was missing until I Googled the term!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cabbagehut on 17 Mar 2011, 01:00
I considered laser eye surgery, but I'm not a candidate.  My eyes have been deteriorating since I was about five, and they haven't stabilized.  They're so bad that I'll never be without glasses, but that's okay.  I'd just like a pair to cost less than $500, and to have the option to wear contacts.  That'd be swell!  Mostly, it's just nice to have options.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: westrim on 17 Mar 2011, 01:14
I've been wearing glasses for around nine or ten years now, and almost every time I go for a checkup or to pick up some new frames, I get inundated with suggestions (mostly from friends) that I get laser eye surgery instead. I've vaguely considered it, especially since my prescription seems to have more or less plateaued around -5.5 at this point, but... eh. I like my glasses and feel they suit me, but it does make going swimming or to a metal concert rather inconvenient. I don't think it's something I should commit to unless I'm completely sure I want it done; those operations cost a lot of money...

Mind you, I've never even tried contact lenses. I remember asking my parents when I was around thirteen whether I could get them, to be met with a resounding, "no, you're not hygienic enough", which I thought was a bit harsh, but hey. Never pushed the issue after that, and when I turned eighteen and didn't have to get them to countersign any forms, I'd been wearing my glasses for too long to think about switching. Perhaps I'll get some of those temporary contacts and try them out over a weekend or something.

Incidentally, is it only referred to as lasik surgery in the US? I'm in the UK and have only ever heard it called laser eye surgery; I thought it was some kind of in-joke I was missing until I Googled the term!

I've never had it suggested to me that I get surgery. I guess I just look good in glasses. The transfer if I ever did it would be a bit weird, since I wear them from the moment I get out of bed to the moment I get back in- excepting showers, of course.

Also, Lasik is one of those brand names that gets so dominant it becomes a term for the product no matter who supplies it. Like Kleenex, or aspirin, pot noodle (for a UK specific product), or... Google.

Edit: Oh hey, Wikipedia  has a list; apparently the term is 'genericized trademark' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark). Lasik isn't listed, but that's why you see it.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Mar 2011, 01:18
Hmmm... I think we're on the same day since 1874 right now. Hanner's dream in 1873 came at the end of yesterday.


EDIT: OMG, I think these two need to cool it off for a while. Not paying attention to where you're going is NOT cool.

And how in the heck did they get in if the door was LOCKED?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Joax737 on 17 Mar 2011, 01:24
Hmmm... I think we're on the same day since 1874 right now. Hanner's dream in 1873 came at the end of yesterday.


EDIT: OMG, I think these two need to cool it off for a while. Not paying attention to where you're going is NOT cool.

And how in the heck did they get in if the door was LOCKED?

how did faye's bra disappear the last time they were smoochin'?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Mar 2011, 01:27
It's gotta be either Pintsize or Momo.

Momo probably caught the Amorality PPC Virus from Pintsize.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Akima on 17 Mar 2011, 01:30
And how in the heck did they get in if the door was LOCKED?

Faye the metal-worker has psycho-kinetic lock-picking powers? Somehow I can't imagine Hanners having anything less that a top-of-the-line deadlock though. Just to be sure the tapirs can't get in.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Mar 2011, 01:32
You know it. But I wonder if she has a copy of Hanner's key? Or perhaps Winslow opened it up because she knew Hanners was on her way home?

Still - MAJOR funneh. :)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 17 Mar 2011, 01:34
Winslow's been known to let people in, but never when Hannelore was out. Let's blame Pintsize somehow.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 17 Mar 2011, 01:36
My "Faye is slightly distracted lately" theory is quickly gaining ground :-D

If the intensity of the makeouts are enough to vaporize bras then they can probably destroy locks.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: akronnick on 17 Mar 2011, 01:38
Either that or Faye's traumatic life has given her telekinetic powers, but until she learns how to use them, they only manifest themselves when she's completely in the moment...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: westrim on 17 Mar 2011, 01:40
I wonder what boob trance would sound like. Perhaps a soft rhythm yet a firm beat?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 17 Mar 2011, 02:16
Something along the lines of "uhn tiss uhn tiss uhn tiss", I imagine. Possibly the sound is different for each who hears it.

@Sharp: and a good vvillainous piece a background music to go wwith of course, like say this here (http://homestuck.bandcamp.com/track/eridans-theme)
you havve that swweet sound backin you up and evveryone knowws wwhat you're about

(Oh Eridan. You are so cool in your own mind.

Also Sharp I don't know if you love HS as much as I do but if you do what did you think of AlterniaBound)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: snubnose on 17 Mar 2011, 03:18
In Beowulf's defense, those spiders were rather large.  And evil.  And in the shape of Angelina Jolie, if the recent movie is to believed?
I would guess his wife was Angelina Jolie, and he got it all mixed up.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 17 Mar 2011, 03:18
Re:  Lasik - remember, as you age, even with the procedure, you'll still need reading glasses.  It does nothing to reduce the stifening of the lens over time.  You just won't need bifocals!  

And my opthamologist recommended against it, as my prescription still shifts a bit each year.  If I'd gotten Lasik, I still would've needed glasses after a year or two!  Granted, most people aren't in my glasses shoes, but it's best to check first.  Just another good reason to avoid the places that are "selling" it!  

Oh, I ignore the places that run ads, that's why I only mentioned Emory above because I know they do it (and are pretty well known for being the best medical facility in Georgia) and had to search their website to confirm they actually offer it there (though it is more like $1,500 per eye there).

It's just that within the past five years my prescription has taken a sharp dip, going from -1.0 in my left eye and -1.25 in my right eye to -3.75 in my left eye and -4.5 in my right eye (for no discernible reason other than "welp, getting older" apparently). Buying contacts is a bitch because the ones that work well for me (Air Optix Night and Day lenses) are pretty expensive and I have to buy two boxes just to get what I need for each eye, it sucks.

So I was just wondering.

Anyway, as for today's comic, anyone want to take bets on Hanners having a Jack Nicolson in As Good As It Gets moment where she realizes she didn't lock the door when she left the apartment that morning (and the reason it was locked when she got home was, well,  because Angus and Faye locked it behind them)?

That or she's still outraged about them being in there and she's yelling about them locking her door, could be read either way.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: snubnose on 17 Mar 2011, 03:21
Hmmm... I think we're on the same day since 1874 right now. Hanner's dream in 1873 came at the end of yesterday.


EDIT: OMG, I think these two need to cool it off for a while. Not paying attention to where you're going is NOT cool.

And how in the heck did they get in if the door was LOCKED?

how did faye's bra disappear the last time they were smoochin'?
Its the Matrix. Too much smoothing causes certain bugs in the code to alter reality.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: akronnick on 17 Mar 2011, 03:37
Smoothing or smooching?

Big difference! :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: DSL on 17 Mar 2011, 04:11
That from the lady who used to sort of ... appear ... in a certain downstairs apartment. A little slack here, Hanners. Just a little ...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Mar 2011, 04:29
Her argument back then was that Pintsize let her in.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: sepik121 on 17 Mar 2011, 04:57
Hmmm... I think we're on the same day since 1874 right now. Hanner's dream in 1873 came at the end of yesterday.


EDIT: OMG, I think these two need to cool it off for a while. Not paying attention to where you're going is NOT cool.

And how in the heck did they get in if the door was LOCKED?

how did faye's bra disappear the last time they were smoochin'?
Its the Matrix. Too much smoothing causes certain bugs in the code to alter reality.

Which clearly explains why Neo and Trinity had to do that back in the real world rather than the Matrix.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 17 Mar 2011, 05:35
And my opthamologist recommended against it, as my prescription still shifts a bit each year.  
It's just that within the past five years my prescription has taken a sharp dip, going from -1.0 in my left eye and -1.25 in my right eye to -3.75 in my left eye and -4.5 in my right eye (for no discernible reason other than "welp, getting older" apparently).

That right there is one ofthe best reasons not to get it yet, at least until the eyes settle down.  Aging usually makes the values go up, not down, I'd get an opthamologist's opinion (not just an optometrist, their medical knowledge's considerably more limited). 

In my case, the eyeball itself is elongated.  I was nearsighted enough to be legally blind by the age of 5 when I got my first glasses, and it got worse as I grew.  It stabilisedfor a few years afer college, but was always shifting a little, up or down a quarter point or so every couple of years.  Over the last few years I've shifted from the -12's into the -11 range, and that's attributed to "normal aging".  And although I should  be using bifocals, I find it easier (and cheaper) to let my glasses slip down my nose for close work and push them back up for distance vision, and can get anything in between. 

And without my glasses, my focal length of about 2 in lets me see incredible detail without a loupe!


Comic?  There was a .... Oh, yeah.  Maybe as they paused in the hall, falling against the door in their intensity, Winslow thought someone was knocking and went to let them in.  When they fell through the door, he ran and hid in fear of the thrashing, stumbling beast they'd become.  Could you imagine that coming towards you from his tiny POV?  She'll find him in the closet holding the collapsible baton, just in case...

Would've been funny if he'd whacked the amorous couple with the baton a few times, shouting "Get a room!" 
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 17 Mar 2011, 06:34
Panel three: Hanners was all :x, and Faye was all  :-o, while Angus was just :?.

Of course, like everyone else, they'll all end up :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Black Sword on 17 Mar 2011, 06:37
...how in the...?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Border Reiver on 17 Mar 2011, 06:47
Doesn't matter - the facial expressions in the last panel are priceless, especially Hanners'.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: snubnose on 17 Mar 2011, 06:51
Smoothing or smooching?

Big difference! :psyduck:
Ooops. Yeah.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 17 Mar 2011, 06:54
Doesn't matter - the facial expressions in the last panel are priceless, especially Hanners'.

Channeling her mom (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=916). 
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 17 Mar 2011, 06:55
Three words Hanners, pot, kettle, black. Thats all I'm going to say about it.

@Method of Madness: I should punch you for mentioning that abomination of a movie. Read the book man!

@Odin. That is something I forgot to mention last night. They will probably want your eyesight to settle for about a year or so before they do the procedure. For much of my life, I had incredibly poor eyesight (don't ask me the rating, I can never remember), then when I was about 22, went to get my eyesight tested and they told me my eyesight would improve a bit each year until I was about 25, when it would settle. Which gave me a few years to save up for the Lasik. Of course the best thing about it was the rather queasy look people had when I told them what happened during the operation.  :evil:

Still disappointed that I don't have laser vision though....
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: covale on 17 Mar 2011, 07:00
I'd really like to quote Faye in 1604 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1604)... "Geez, glass houses, lady! Glass houses!" I can't (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1607) think (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=528) of anyone (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=596) in the comic (http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=1046) who've shown less respect for her friends private space than Hanners (and I still can't find the one where she magically ended up in Martens appartment). But then, she also shows true concern for them, so it evens itself out.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: kent_eh on 17 Mar 2011, 07:03
Maybe as they paused in the hall, falling against the door in their intensity, Winslow thought someone was knocking and went to let them in. 

I've always been puzzled about how the APCs reach the lock to open the door(s)

I'm voting for "phase shifted thru the wall due to intensity of makeouts"
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 17 Mar 2011, 07:05
I've always been puzzled about how the APCs reach the lock to open the door(s)

Obviously its the extendo-armstm
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: tbones on 17 Mar 2011, 07:07
Either that or Faye's traumatic life has given her telekinetic powers, but until she learns how to use them, they only manifest themselves when she's completely in the moment...
Oh god, if she climaxes we are all doomed.... (?)

 :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 17 Mar 2011, 08:01
@Odin. That is something I forgot to mention last night. They will probably want your eyesight to settle for about a year or so before they do the procedure. For much of my life, I had incredibly poor eyesight (don't ask me the rating, I can never remember), then when I was about 22, went to get my eyesight tested and they told me my eyesight would improve a bit each year until I was about 25, when it would settle. Which gave me a few years to save up for the Lasik. Of course the best thing about it was the rather queasy look people had when I told them what happened during the operation.  :evil:

Still disappointed that I don't have laser vision though....

I'm 29 years old, though, my vision should have evened out five years ago.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: DSL on 17 Mar 2011, 08:20
I'd really like to quote Faye in 1604 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1604)... "Geez, glass houses, lady! Glass houses!" I can't (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1607) think (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=528) of anyone (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=596) in the comic (http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=1046) who've shown less respect for her friends private space than Hanners (and I still can't find the one where she magically ended up in Martens appartment). But then, she also shows true concern for them, so it evens itself out.
I thought that, too; I think she made it as far as the kitchen once before asking if she could come in. But to give the lady her due, consider from her point of view her introduction to this bunch. I could forgive her assuming the boundaries were lowered when an inebriated, strange young man (who's spent the evening oversharing with the bar) enters the wrong restroom and uses the sink as a urinal in front of her. And in that last comic covale linked, Dora (herself under the influence of some ... er, anxiety-ameliorating chemicals) was going through Hanners' groceries.
But, as Jeph noted early on ... with all those little robots running around, things aren't quite what we call normal.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Border Reiver on 17 Mar 2011, 10:03
I've always been puzzled about how the APCs reach the lock to open the door(s)

Obviously its the extendo-armstm

APCs just ram the door, shattering it and disgorging their troops right into the fight there at the objective.  Keeps the infantry alive longer that way. 


Or did you mean something else.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 17 Mar 2011, 10:06
593 is the one where Marten came home and wondered what Hanners was doing there.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Tormuse on 17 Mar 2011, 11:16
Hmmm... I think we're on the same day since 1874 right now. Hanner's dream in 1873 came at the end of yesterday.


EDIT: OMG, I think these two need to cool it off for a while. Not paying attention to where you're going is NOT cool.

And how in the heck did they get in if the door was LOCKED?

how did faye's bra disappear the last time they were smoochin'?
Its the Matrix. Too much smoothing causes certain bugs in the code to alter reality.

Which clearly explains why Neo and Trinity had to do that back in the real world rather than the Matrix.

No, it clearly explains why Neo and Trinity should have done it in the Matrix instead of back in the real world.  ;)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Heliphyneau on 17 Mar 2011, 11:48
Maybe as they paused in the hall, falling against the door in their intensity, Winslow thought someone was knocking and went to let them in.  When they fell through the door, he ran and hid in fear of the thrashing, stumbling beast they'd become.  Could you imagine that coming towards you from his tiny POV?  She'll find him in the closet holding the collapsible baton, just in case...

Would've been funny if he'd whacked the amorous couple with the baton a few times, shouting "Get a room!" 

I like this scenario.  I could also see him rushing out with the baton to defend Hanners if he thought she was in danger.  If he did hit Faye and Angus, they'll know by the interesting welts on their shins.

I've always been puzzled about how the APCs reach the lock to open the door(s)

Obviously its the extendo-armstm

I was thinking they might be equipped with Fing-Longers: http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Fing-Longer (http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Fing-Longer).  Though I'm not sure those would grip very well.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 17 Mar 2011, 11:56
@Method of Madness: I should punch you for mentioning that abomination of a movie. Read the book man!
It's on my to read list.  The problem is, I was a classics major in college, so it was just slightly too new for me to have read then.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: sepik121 on 17 Mar 2011, 12:12
I always just kinda thought the APCs could make their hands "adhesive" somehow. Basically just make it so it can stick to things. Maybe they have the stretchy legs like in the old cartoons with cars that beat traffic by just gaining 30 feet and ignoring the rest. The vespabot could transform, so I don't think it would be wholly unreasonable for them to have minor capabilities too.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Blackie62 on 17 Mar 2011, 12:59
I feel Hannelore's rage in this comic. If anyone were to be in my dorm when I wasn't it would be possibly violent rage first questions later. But the more important thing of this week of this comics is that Hannelore can pull off the elusive 4 button suit jacket, a rare feat.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Matheyus on 17 Mar 2011, 13:04
I'd really like to quote Faye in 1604 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1604)... "Geez, glass houses, lady! Glass houses!" I can't (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1607) think (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=528) of anyone (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=596) in the comic (http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=1046) who've shown less respect for her friends private space than Hanners (and I still can't find the one where she magically ended up in Martens appartment). But then, she also shows true concern for them, so it evens itself out.

To be fair to Hannelore, it isn't just that they were in her apartment while she wasn't there; they were also making out on her couch.  Considering her need to have everything clean, and the way the characters have been known to treat couches... 
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1610It

It seems like an understandable reaction.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: BartManNL on 17 Mar 2011, 13:19
Hanners looks sad in panel 1 of 1884... *sigh*  What happened? would it be the express-o-saurus?

(on a totally non-related note: last panel of 1882 made me think of the 'arrow' scene in Sin Sity)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 17 Mar 2011, 13:21
And Hanners has slept on that couch at least half a dozen times.
She has also rooted through Marten's wardrobe at least once.
Made out with an AnthroPC (try washing away that taste!)
Sneaked into Marten and Faye's place countless times.

Face it, karma has come after her and Hanners doesn't like it.

Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: O8h7w on 17 Mar 2011, 13:28
This (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=941) is a clue to the APCs door-opening capabilities. Or, at the very least, it confirms that it exists and that it is a mystery :)

Judging by the fact that they can hold things, and seemingly without any moving parts in their "hands", the best explanation I can see is that those "hands" have some variably adhesive feature. But they must not be able to walk on walls, for obvious safety reasons... it would make sense that this feature is limited to their "hands", and not strong enough to hold themselves up.

On the Matrix discussion, I thought the Matrix is what we live in, and "the real world" was something else... but I haven't seen it, so I don't know where they were doing it. But of course, bugs in the Matrix could express themselves the way proposed - and mean that it's a good idea not to do it in this world, but rather in "the real world". Am I right, or am I misguided?

On another almost unrelated discussion, namely the theory that Faye has been slightly distracted lately, where the heck is this (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=923)?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 17 Mar 2011, 13:36
We already had the presentations when Faye was sleeping with Sven. And the mental imagery, not to mention the projectile vomiting from Dora....
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Kugai on 17 Mar 2011, 13:41
Angus is secretly an X-Man with the power to teleport through things - His first cousin is Kurt Wagner   :-D

Either that, or Winslow let them in.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Y on 17 Mar 2011, 13:50
It's Faye's butt that bumped against the door that created a certain resonance in the lock that opened it automatically. Either that or the keys fit all doors in the building.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Blood-Tree on 17 Mar 2011, 14:52
But the more important thing of this week of this comics is that Hannelore can pull off the elusive 4 button suit jacket, a rare feat.

Well said amigo. I seem to recall mentioning this earlier in relation to 1880 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1880) where you can observe the jacket in its fully buttoned glory.

Although, with the jacket opened, I'm struck by just how daring the H-Bomb's shirt is. Only one letter away from the profane, surely she would notice this???
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 17 Mar 2011, 15:07
The H-Bomb?











Just making sure.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: DSL on 17 Mar 2011, 15:33
She left her helmet at work ... Probably where she'll need it more.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 17 Mar 2011, 16:34
In 428, an AnthroPC who seemed to have the stock 8600 chassis complained of not being able to reach the lock on the door.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Akima on 17 Mar 2011, 17:08
Somehow I can't imagine Hanners having anything less that a top-of-the-line deadlock though. Just to be sure the tapirs can't get in.
Looking at the first panel again, I see something rather odd. Hanners apparently has three latches on her door. From the bottom, there's a knob (possibly incorporating a lock set), a dead-bolt just above, but the lock at the top is strange. It looks like a deadlock, but the lock is mounted in the door-frame rather than on the door. Is that a USA thing? Or just artistic license?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: pwhodges on 17 Mar 2011, 17:12
I've got a security catch not totally unlike that.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Mar 2011, 17:24
That top one is what I think is called a "surface-mounted deadbolt". It's pretty common in apartment buildings as a third lock. It can only be opened (theoretically) from the inside, by turning the knob on the main lock base. I do believe that Jeph put the knob on the wrong part of the door, but that's picking nits.

EDIT: Here's an example of what I'm talking about (http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&productId=100541785&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=100541785&cm_mmc=shopping-_-googlebase-_-D25X-_-100541785&locStoreNum=4941). The knob should actually be on the door, not on the frame.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Akima on 17 Mar 2011, 17:55
APCs just ram the door, shattering it and disgorging their troops right into the fight there at the objective.
Or did you mean something else.

Yes. Spot the difference.
(http://i735.photobucket.com/albums/ww358/AndiJF/pintsize.jpg) (http://i735.photobucket.com/albums/ww358/AndiJF/type63_01.jpg)

One is a dangerous and destructive piece of military hardware, the other is an armoured personnel carrier.

Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Watched Pot on 17 Mar 2011, 18:21
The knob should actually be on the door, not on the frame.

You fool! That's exactly what they'll expect!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Mar 2011, 18:33
Ha.

Unfortunately, by putting the lock tumbler on the frame and not the door, there's no way you could unlock the door from the outside if you had to. Which kinda defeats the purpose of having a lock on your door in the first place.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 17 Mar 2011, 19:53
That must be from Ariadne's front door

#inceptionjokes #doubleasgreekmythjokes
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Mar 2011, 20:15
It's a real item, too. (http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/titaniumlabyrinth.html)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 17 Mar 2011, 20:39
Quote from: iduguphergrave
You can't spell Faye without  F, YEA!

And you can't spell "The Pugnacious Peach" without "Punches Huge Tapioca".

Another term for Hannelore's mystery security device is "rim lock". In any case it should be anchored far enough from the door to screw into a stud. /security nerd
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cesariojpn on 17 Mar 2011, 21:22
The H-Bomb?


Damnit, now you made me remember Angel Cop. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVpwJbLLivU) (NSFW)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 17 Mar 2011, 21:26
That top one is what I think is called a "surface-mounted deadbolt". It's pretty common in apartment buildings as a third lock. It can only be opened (theoretically) from the inside, by turning the knob on the main lock base. I do believe that Jeph put the knob on the wrong part of the door, but that's picking nits.

EDIT: Here's an example of what I'm talking about (http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&productId=100541785&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=100541785&cm_mmc=shopping-_-googlebase-_-D25X-_-100541785&locStoreNum=4941). The knob should actually be on the door, not on the frame.


Actually, it's looks more like a vertical deadbolt, aka a Segal lock (http://www.segallock.com/history.shtml). 

But yeah, installed backwards.  With the cylinder on the doorframe, how the hell do you unlock it from outside? 
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: horsefish on 17 Mar 2011, 21:38
And you can't spell "The Pugnacious Peach" without "Punches Huge Tapioca".

Or, somewhat apropos of the strip, "Age Unhappiest Couch"

Edit: new favorite: Ape Caught Penis Ouch  :-o
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Boomslang on 17 Mar 2011, 21:47
But yeah, installed backwards.  With the cylinder on the doorframe, how the hell do you unlock it from outside? 

I'd just assume it's something Hanners locks when she's already inside. It's hardly out of character.


Anyways, my vote is for either Hannelore either not locking the door in the first place OR someone with a key (or lockpicking skills) has been stalking her and going through her things, but forgot to lock the door.

OR IS STILL INSIDE.

Hanners, now is not necessarily a bad time to start freaking out.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cabbagehut on 17 Mar 2011, 22:35
Damnit, now you made me remember Angel Cop. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVpwJbLLivU) (NSFW)

AAAAAAAAANGEEEEELLLLLLL COOOOOOOP

I thought my sister and I were the only people to see that terrible, terrible show.  PUNK 'EM TO DEATH, ASURA
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: muffin_of_chaos on 17 Mar 2011, 22:59
Sure do seem to be a lot of comics lately with punchlines involving the total magnificence of Faye's boobs.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Blackjoker on 17 Mar 2011, 23:14
I actually wonder if the owner of the building uses duplicate locks for certain floors. It's unlikely that Hannelore would leave her door unlocked so maybe what happened was just that they went to the wrong floor and Angus' key actually matched Hannelores. Either that or the landlord uses the same key for every room and prays no one ever thinks to test it.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 17 Mar 2011, 23:21
This may become one of the unsolved mysteries, like the lambskin condoms and the purple hair in the shower.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 17 Mar 2011, 23:23
I actually wonder if the owner of the building uses duplicate locks for certain floors. It's unlikely that Hannelore would leave her door unlocked so maybe what happened was just that they went to the wrong floor and Faye's key actually matched Hannelore's. Either that or the landlord uses the same key for every room and prays no one ever thinks to test it.

FYP.  Hanners lives upstairs from Marten and Faye.  I think Angus and Marigold live in a different building.  

But your theory explains how Hanners is always going into Marten's place, too.  I'm guessing they may have copies of each other's keys, in case of emergency, and lucked into usong the wrong key on the right apartment....  
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: J on 17 Mar 2011, 23:24
That top one is what I think is called a "surface-mounted deadbolt". It's pretty common in apartment buildings as a third lock. It can only be opened (theoretically) from the inside, by turning the knob on the main lock base. I do believe that Jeph put the knob on the wrong part of the door, but that's picking nits.

EDIT: Here's an example of what I'm talking about (http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&productId=100541785&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=100541785&cm_mmc=shopping-_-googlebase-_-D25X-_-100541785&locStoreNum=4941). The knob should actually be on the door, not on the frame.


Actually, it's looks more like a vertical deadbolt, aka a Segal lock (http://www.segallock.com/history.shtml).  

But yeah, installed backwards.  With the cylinder on the doorframe, how the hell do you unlock it from outside?  

it's possible that it's mounted that way to prevent unlocking from the outside. ie to keep her safe from people with lockpicks and/or copies of her key when she's at home, rather than to keep burglars out when she's away.

or maybe jeph just made a mistake.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Mar 2011, 23:49
I'm betting that's not even what Hanners is going to be angry about.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: LoveJaneAusten on 18 Mar 2011, 00:15
Sure do seem to be a lot of comics lately with punchlines involving the total magnificence of Faye's boobs.

Enough that a thread (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,25394.0.html) was made about them, yeah. Jeph seems to be obsessed with her breasts. It's getting too easy to distill Faye's character to "the busty girl with emotional problems". I suppose as far as cheap punchlines go, you could do worse, but it's a stale joke by now.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 18 Mar 2011, 00:52
To be fair, that thread was made as a joking response to a series of "What are so-an-so's fundamental characteristics?" that came up during the breakup arc, when people were trying (desperately) to channel some of the flood of melodrama away from vitriol. 

It didn't work, and more than one thread was locked down by moderators.  But after a lot of discussion of Dora's problems, Marten's ... niceness, and Marigold's issues, someone (hell if I know)  thought this would lift the mood a bit. 

It did. 

Well, it lifted my  mood, iif you catch my drift, wink wink, nudge nudge, saynomore... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: CompSarge on 18 Mar 2011, 01:01
NEW COMIC YAAAAAY!

Also: You had a BONER on my COUCH??  :mrgreen:

I missed Hanners dearly. It's good to be back!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 18 Mar 2011, 01:02
Ewwww. Kissing.

Wait a minute... WHAT?


EDIT: I still keep thinking about the green room joke - "Jeph, darling, you've been far too lax in giving me the punchlines in the strip lately. I'd suggest you get on fixing that, or I will have mother ruin your credit rating."
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: snubnose on 18 Mar 2011, 01:03
I am utterly at loss why a boner would trigger Hanners OCD ...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Kazukagii on 18 Mar 2011, 01:05
To be fair, that thread was made as a joking response to a series of "What are so-an-so's fundamental characteristics?"

I remember those threads, if only because I spent way too much time on the boards during that arc, and ended up writing a five page essay on Marten. Good times...

Also why the hell is "You had a boner on my couch!?" not one of epic lines?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: CompSarge on 18 Mar 2011, 01:07
I am utterly at loss why a boner would trigger Hanners OCD ...

I think it's more "righteous indignation" than outright OCD. Think about it...would you REALLY want to hear that your buddy had a stiffy on YOUR couch?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 18 Mar 2011, 01:09
The H-Bomb?


Damnit, now you made me remember Angel Cop. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVpwJbLLivU) (NSFW)

Oh my God what the fuck is this it's like Ghost in the Shell had a developmentally disabled baby with Jerry Bruckheimer.

Also, I love that Hanners owns a UV wand. It's so perfect.

Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: enigmamf on 18 Mar 2011, 01:09
After I read the last line, I was simultaneously hoping and afraid it was depicted in the art. So I stared long enough to be sure it wasn't.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Mar 2011, 01:13
It wouldn't be surprising if anything remotely biological triggered Hannelore's OCD.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: DSL on 18 Mar 2011, 01:14
A little bit of the old Hanners is back ... and by old Hanners, I mean Hanners from strips 525-1000, before she became everyone's little sister.
Poor kid, she's had A Day. Nearly beaned by mechanical dinosaur parts, discovery that her locks don't work the way she thought they should (read the installation instructions next time, kiddo) and now her couch is makeout heaven. The only thing that would make this day perfect, just perfect, would be the battery going out in the UV wand, and not a spare in the house.
I am wondering, however, how much fun it would be to say: "Hanners honey, lemme tell you about those *other* couches on which you've crashed. But first, let me get out of arm's reach."
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: rje on 18 Mar 2011, 01:24
Ahaha Hanners is so right, when you reaally think about it...all the various places we put various parts of ourselves...

intimacy is disgusting

And late to comment but I just had to say: a big shy schmoopy teddy bear baker bouncer?!
I-i..i love him  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 18 Mar 2011, 01:26
Damn good thing the emotions/hormones/urges triggered by a good kiss overwhelm all those rational thought processes...

Someday, Hanners, you may find that out. 



You pokeslut, you! (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1660) 
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 18 Mar 2011, 01:27
And late to comment but I just had to say: a big shy schmoopy teddy bear baker bouncer?!
I-i..i love him  :psyduck:


I know, right?  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 18 Mar 2011, 01:43
Mikey, from Recess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_Recess_(TV_series)).  The big, softhearted one.  Likes poetry and ballet.  Good goalie, not just because of his size, but because he doesn't like offense. 
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Akima on 18 Mar 2011, 02:05
Damn good thing the emotions/hormones/urges triggered by a good kiss overwhelm all those rational thought processes...
It's best not to think too hard about lots of things about our bodies. I'm not sure if it's a good thing that I've been working at the hospital long enough that I can happily eat my lunch while someone else at the table is discussing, say, a patient's prolapsed bowel, but basically I've learned that we're all disgusting bags of goop. I hope Hanners never starts thinking about the state of all the other people's sofas and beds that she's passed out on...
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Boomslang on 18 Mar 2011, 02:16
Kind of odd that we can, let alone do, find ourselves disgusting.

I mean, it's not like we have anything to compare it to. We start as bags of goop, and end (usually) as bags of goop.

So I have to wonder what the reason for the disgust is.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odal on 18 Mar 2011, 02:19
I use the same logic for kissing, but for opposite reasons.

I often say something like,

"I don't understand people who say they won't do certain things with their lover because they think it's gross.  I mean, these people are willing to share millions of germs through saliva when making out but they won't do 'X' because they think it's gross."
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: JackFaerie on 18 Mar 2011, 02:28
Oh Hanners, honey.

a) yes of course human mouths are filthy--but they're filthy all on their own, so not-kissing isn't gonna keep yours magically clean!
b) the point of romantic love and attraction is that you stop caring about the icky factor of your chosen one's body. It goes for a romantic partner and it goes for any children you may have, too.

I mean, think about oral sex alone. Doing that for someone who you have zero attraction or attachment to? Ew. But with someone you care for/are attracted to? Suddenly we disregard the "ew" factor and it's pleasant.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: DSL on 18 Mar 2011, 03:34
Some things just don't bear thinking about. Such as googling the word "pokeslut." Now why the hell did I do that (rhetorical)?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 18 Mar 2011, 04:12
Actually, I'd say "dust", not "goop", but that's just me.

And I think we need to switch to THIS WEEK's "moment of the week".

Suggestions:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 18 Mar 2011, 04:43
I had something snarky to say, but something else I read this morning derailed all that. Check my thread in the Discuss! forum for details.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: sepik121 on 18 Mar 2011, 04:56
Actually, I'd say "dust", not "goop", but that's just me.

And I think we need to switch to THIS WEEK's "moment of the week".

Suggestions:
  • Tai visits CoD!
  • "I really hope it's just food poisoning."
  • "So how's the next espressosaurus coming along?"
  • BOOFSH! "Definitely needs more work"
  • "We could market it as a feature."
  • "I knew I brought my helmet to work today for a reason."
  • Nice black eye Wil.
  • "extremely inebriated, homophobic slur, everything went red..."
  • "bouncer Elliot actually took him out."
  • "I'm a poet! I was using creative license!"
  • The truth behind Beowulf.
  • "WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN MY APARTMENT?"
  • "We were makin' out on the stairs... one flight too many?"
  • "The DOOR was LOCKED."
  • Never understand the appeal of kissing.
  • The spectrometer!
  • "YOU HAD A BONER ON MY COUCH?!"

All of the Hanners ones are my favorites. Every time she says something, it's basically the punchline of the strip. The door was locked one is my favorite though. I had quite a hearty laugh after that one.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Tetrinity on 18 Mar 2011, 05:08
Heh. Kissing is indeed gross when you think about it in that way. But then again, so are a lot of other things that humans frequently do. So I think the question that needs asking is... who cares? Other than Hanners, I guess. :roll:

This may become one of the unsolved mysteries, like the lambskin condoms and the purple hair in the shower.

The purple hair was due to Pintsize, although it's still unclear as to why he had it. I just put it down to "Pintsize is fuckin' weird" and left it at that. Strange how most unsolved mysteries in QC are due to him, isn't it?

Unfortunately, my archive-fu is failing me, so I can't find the comic in question. :-(
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Loki on 18 Mar 2011, 05:31
Actually, as far as I know, Hanners has no reason to be freaked out by kissing, considering that it strengthens the immune system.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: jwhouk on 18 Mar 2011, 06:10
Unfortunately, my archive-fu is failing me, so I can't find the comic in question. :-(

967. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=967)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: El_Flesh on 18 Mar 2011, 06:14
Quote
Man sometimes I get to thinking about kissing and completely gross myself out about it.

Was that written by a woman???
Seriously - who the fuck cares about swapping spit?
OK unless the woman just did oral sex on you or some other guy, maybe then...
but really - all the guys I know including me are like dogs - we don't care where our muzzle goes.

There is no better kiss than french for me!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Border Reiver on 18 Mar 2011, 06:21
Yeah, well if that works for you..

Any way what's Hannelore got to worry about?  They were still dressed, so at most there's some sweat on the couch - any fluids would be contained at the moment in their undergarments.  But I think that .our resident OCD blonde needs a little space and maybe an apology for the intrusion
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 18 Mar 2011, 06:26
Pfft, Hanners was just exacting the perfect revenge for their intrusion into her apartment: Ruin their mood!  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Border Reiver on 18 Mar 2011, 07:20
If it was yourself, or me, then I'd buy that.  Personally I think our waif is genuinely icked out by the idea and is also a little ticked about the invasion of her privacy. 

Yes, she had a tendency to just appear in Faye's apt at one point, don't ask for consistency in humans. 
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 18 Mar 2011, 07:54
... even more so in crazy blondes
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 18 Mar 2011, 08:05
Ruin their mood!  :mrgreen:

Exactly!  Look at them in the background.  Holding hands in panel 2, then in panel 3 the *ick* factor kicks in...

Just masterful!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: tbones on 18 Mar 2011, 08:35
Poor hanners she's just getting in bad situations latelly....

I mean, for her perspective that is.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 18 Mar 2011, 08:36
Hanners, don't knock it 'til you try it. Thats all I'm going to say.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: mike837go on 18 Mar 2011, 09:38
I'd like to get back to the espressosourus. YOU CAN NOT put a vent in it. The whole point is to build 1 to 1.2 bar of steam pressure to force the hot water and steam through the slightly packed grounds.

Total catostrophic failure is an unacceptable outcome.

BUT IS FUNNY AS HELL!!!

[Think of the clips of the 1895-1902 aircraft attempts]
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: sitnspin on 18 Mar 2011, 09:56
It may be disgusting, but it is also fun. Far more fun than disgusting. Making out (and sex) is one of the things that makes life worthwhile. War, famine, pestilence, natural disasters. The world is full of so much that is horrible and agonizing. Luckily we have such awesomeness to counter-balance it. Poor Hanners. :(
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Carl-E on 18 Mar 2011, 10:10
I don't think you'llget any arguments on your point in here! 

...sex) is one of the things that makes life...

Well, it keeps life going, at least!  ;D
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Sharp on 18 Mar 2011, 12:09
I find it funny enough that Hannelore can even say the word "boner!" She seems far too shy about the subject to throw about such...uncouth euphemisms!
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cesariojpn on 18 Mar 2011, 12:28
The H-Bomb?


Damnit, now you made me remember Angel Cop. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVpwJbLLivU) (NSFW)

Oh my God what the fuck is this it's like Ghost in the Shell had a developmentally disabled baby with Jerry Bruckheimer.

Basically it's about......yeah, think GITS only with a shitload of swearing, bloody bits, and psychics. And half of Section 9 is offed thru the series.

As for the comic......so, the entire week was just a way to tie up loose plotholes from previous comics?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Doctor Online on 18 Mar 2011, 13:18
I mean, think about oral sex alone. Doing that for someone who you have zero attraction or attachment to? Ew. But with someone you care for/are attracted to? Suddenly we disregard the "ew" factor and it's pleasant.

I've never understood why most girls I were friends with back in the day would perform oral before considering having sex with someone random. I have always viewed oral as extremely personal, I would have sex sooner than I would give oral. I am putting my face around a area that releases WASTES on a daily basis, and I'm putting one of the "instruments of waste removal" into my MOUTH. However, with the person I care for, you are right, it's very pleasant.


Why do I usually only show up when sex is involved in the discussion?  :psyduck: Uhhh.. I'm just a very sexual person who's in her prime?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 18 Mar 2011, 13:24
...an area that releases WASTES on a daily basis, and I'm putting one of the "instruments of waste removal" into my MOUTH. However, with the person I care for, you are right, it's very pleasant.

Three engineering students were gathered together discussing the possible designers of the human body.
One said, "It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints."
Another said, "No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of electrical connections."
The last one said, "No, actually it had to have been a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?"

 :-D

Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Kugai on 18 Mar 2011, 13:42
*Sigh*

I like Hanners, but sometimes . . . . .    :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: SJCrew on 18 Mar 2011, 14:30
This is what I like about Hannelore, though. She has a very unique perspective on things, and tends to question a lot of what we accept as a given. Of course I know it's because of her whacked-out OCD side, but coming from a guy who's just reading the comic and not actually having to put up with it, I find it adorable when she gets her OCD freak-outs and starts going on about how filthy everything is. That's what makes it all the more refreshing when she cuts her losses and does normal things like hugging, or even all of that cool stuff she did when she was on medication. Man, those meds were kickass.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Heliphyneau on 18 Mar 2011, 15:09
someone (hell if I know) thought this would lift the mood a bit. 

It did. 

 :mrgreen:

*hugs you*

"No, actually it had to have been a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?"

Hahaha!  Love it.   :-D

I particularly enjoy the way Faye and Angus are standing in the background like scolded children as Hanners proceeds to gross them out.  As ever, the expressions are great.  And yeah, if Hannelore really wants a scare, she should bring that luminol to those other couches -- the ones she's slept on.  She may be blocking out her memories of those.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 18 Mar 2011, 15:37
Actually, I'd say "dust", not "goop", but that's just me.

And I think we need to switch to THIS WEEK's "moment of the week".

Suggestions:
  • Tai visits CoD!
  • "I really hope it's just food poisoning."
  • "So how's the next espressosaurus coming along?"
  • BOOFSH! "Definitely needs more work"
  • "We could market it as a feature."
  • "I knew I brought my helmet to work today for a reason."
  • Nice black eye Wil.
  • "extremely inebriated, homophobic slur, everything went red..."
  • "bouncer Elliot actually took him out."
  • "I'm a poet! I was using creative license!"
  • The truth behind Beowulf.
  • "WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN MY APARTMENT?"
  • "We were makin' out on the stairs... one flight too many?"
  • "The DOOR was LOCKED."
  • Never understand the appeal of kissing.
  • The spectrometer!
  • "YOU HAD A BONER ON MY COUCH?!"
I'll use these if I make next week's poll.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: tomart on 18 Mar 2011, 16:53
I wonder what boob trance would sound like. Perhaps a soft rhythm yet a firm beat?

New house music craze!  I am in favor!    Overall, must be soft, soft, soft....... 

Title: Area effect: Grossness
Post by: bunnyThor on 18 Mar 2011, 18:32
It seems a little odd that Hanners would get all freaked out about a tongue in her mouth when she was perfectly willing to stick a lit cigarette in her mouth. Both grosser and far more lethal.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Mar 2011, 18:43
Depending on which Google result you believe, between 5 billion and 50 billion bacteria in a human mouth. Cigarette smoke may actually be sterile.

Hannelore was afraid of cigarettes, too, and was smoking to see if she could overcome a fear (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1046).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: themacnut on 18 Mar 2011, 19:13
It seems a little odd that Hanners would get all freaked out about a tongue in her mouth when she was perfectly willing to stick a lit cigarette in her mouth. Both grosser and far more lethal.

Remember Hanners is essentially mentally ill, and mentally ill people have a...logic all their own. Doesn't make sense to us, but works for them. Half the time they see US as the crazy ones.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 18 Mar 2011, 19:18
Depending on which Google result you believe, between 5 billion and 50 billion bacteria in a human mouth. Cigarette smoke may actually be sterile.

Yeah, coz the 4000 or so chemicals in a cigarette's smoke aren't nearly as bad as the bacteria in a human mouth. Bacteria which are pretty much harmless when exchanged between mouths, as they have specifically evolved to thrive there.

Given the choice between smoking or kissing, I'll take the "disgusting" exchange of saliva any day.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: SJCrew on 18 Mar 2011, 20:22
I think you guys missed the part where in the same comic she mentions she was jacked up on anti-anxiety meds. That's not just Hanners craziness, that's a pinpoint medical source. She wasn't being herself.

She can try smaller-scale stuff like dating and mild contact, but I very much doubt she'd go on and try smoking again in her normal (yet still unstable) state of mind. Even as a character who's full of surprises, I'd imagine she recognizes cigarettes to be more disgusting than anything the human body can produce.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Bastion on 18 Mar 2011, 21:38
Man Jeph's anatomy has really upped the ante lately. Now if only his ability to draw objects such a windex would improve as much....
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Mar 2011, 21:47
Maybe Hannelore has her Windex custom-made to her own specifications in a bottle of her own design.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Zwiebel on 18 Mar 2011, 23:33
I mean, think about oral sex alone. Doing that for someone who you have zero attraction or attachment to? Ew. But with someone you care for/are attracted to? Suddenly we disregard the "ew" factor and it's pleasant.

I've never understood why most girls I were friends with back in the day would perform oral before considering having sex with someone random. I have always viewed oral as extremely personal, I would have sex sooner than I would give oral. I am putting my face around a area that releases WASTES on a daily basis, and I'm putting one of the "instruments of waste removal" into my MOUTH.

I think it's because (at least in America) oral sex is kind of made a go-around. You can do it and still be a virgin, it doesn't really count, etc. When I think of oral sex, I think of the discussions we had in HS Sex Ed (what a joke) that basically encouraged oral sex as an alternative to actual intercourse. They'd never come out and say it but there was always this "Well, you can do THESE things and you WON'T have as much a chance to get pregnant if you do!"

Weird, I know, and I feel the same as you, but that's a definite factor. Plus, you consider the mainstreaming of oral sex (Clinton, it's used as a gag in American Pie, etc.) and it's become a less-threatening option in a lot of ways, especially when virginity is so prized, but sexuality is still thrust in our faces. Like I said, this is a purely American perspective, although mine isn't that of the typical American.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Mar 2011, 00:08
There are few concepts more amusing than the "technical virgin".
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 19 Mar 2011, 00:34
Damnit, now you made me remember Angel Cop. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVpwJbLLivU) (NSFW)

Oh my God what the fuck is this it's like Ghost in the Shell had a developmentally disabled baby with Jerry Bruckheimer.

Basically it's about......yeah, think GITS only with a shitload of swearing, bloody bits, and psychics. And half of Section 9 is offed thru the series.

And the dialogue on man's relationship with technology, I see, was handily replaced with the glorious axioms "You've underestimated the power of Japanese technology, you evil bitch!" and "Shut up you self-righteous moralizing pinko Commie scumbag, you make me sick!"

Truly, a classic for our times.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: JackFaerie on 19 Mar 2011, 01:39
I mean, think about oral sex alone. Doing that for someone who you have zero attraction or attachment to? Ew. But with someone you care for/are attracted to? Suddenly we disregard the "ew" factor and it's pleasant.

I've never understood why most girls I were friends with back in the day would perform oral before considering having sex with someone random. I have always viewed oral as extremely personal, I would have sex sooner than I would give oral. I am putting my face around a area that releases WASTES on a daily basis, and I'm putting one of the "instruments of waste removal" into my MOUTH.

I think it's because (at least in America) oral sex is kind of made a go-around. You can do it and still be a virgin, it doesn't really count, etc. When I think of oral sex, I think of the discussions we had in HS Sex Ed (what a joke) that basically encouraged oral sex as an alternative to actual intercourse. They'd never come out and say it but there was always this "Well, you can do THESE things and you WON'T have as much a chance to get pregnant if you do!"

Weird, I know, and I feel the same as you, but that's a definite factor. Plus, you consider the mainstreaming of oral sex (Clinton, it's used as a gag in American Pie, etc.) and it's become a less-threatening option in a lot of ways, especially when virginity is so prized, but sexuality is still thrust in our faces. Like I said, this is a purely American perspective, although mine isn't that of the typical American.

My personal stance is on par with you guys, but since for many people blowjobs go into the "it doesn't count" or even "it isn't cheating" folder (by this I mean, I know couples where they both consider kissing/blowjobs/handjobs with other people ok, but intercourse is off limits), I put "someone you're attracted to" as well as "someone you're attached to" up there. But it really is a very intimate act, not just because of the whole waste/germs factor, but because it's when you get as close to the other person's  most private (and usually concealed) areas as you ever will in terms of smell and taste and touch. With kissing--we see each other's faces all the time, and friendly kisses can be common. With sex--there's certainly highly intimate contact but it's contained to pure physical sensation only. Oral sex is intimacy with an all-around close up.

Heh.

And btw, to whoever said "what's the big deal about swapping spit, who cares...unless the girl just went down on you"--that's kinda funny to me. I figure that if you expect her to do that and not find it gross, you have to deal with both of your bodies' physicality in that way as well. I'm glad that people I've been with never minded kissing right after the act (or during). That can heighten intimacy, too.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: The Duke on 19 Mar 2011, 12:32
...?

You hope what was deliberate?  I don't understand.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: vettechinohio on 19 Mar 2011, 12:34
I believe they are referring to the use of the word "thrust" (:
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Doctor Online on 19 Mar 2011, 12:56
I think it's because (at least in America) oral sex is kind of made a go-around. You can do it and still be a virgin, it doesn't really count, etc. When I think of oral sex, I think of the discussions we had in HS Sex Ed (what a joke) that basically encouraged oral sex as an alternative to actual intercourse. They'd never come out and say it but there was always this "Well, you can do THESE things and you WON'T have as much a chance to get pregnant if you do!"

Weird, I know, and I feel the same as you, but that's a definite factor. Plus, you consider the mainstreaming of oral sex (Clinton, it's used as a gag in American Pie, etc.) and it's become a less-threatening option in a lot of ways, especially when virginity is so prized, but sexuality is still thrust in our faces. Like I said, this is a purely American perspective, although mine isn't that of the typical American.

I had a friend of a friend date and eventually marry this woman (last I heard they're now divorced) which I could never understood her logic. It was torture to the poor guy. She was a virgin, said she wasn't going to have sex or perform any sexual act until she was married. No oral, no hand job, no anal, nothing at all. However, she would allow the guy to go down on her, to finger her... so on (but no PnV contact). Even now, I have nothing to say about it, when I try to think of how to word my thoughts on this logic of hers, my brain literally just stops. All I can put to words is, WTF?  :psyduck:

Maybe it was her way of conning him into actually going through with marrying her? I'm not quite sure.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Boomslang on 19 Mar 2011, 14:04
The entire "No X until I'm married" business always seemed a bit... off, to me. The reasons are varied, but personally it's a huge turnoff, not because I require sex in a relationship, but because it reads as a bribe attempt.


Also, I try to ignore the fact that women have an ecosystem down there when getting down to business. That, and the consequences of that ecosystem dying, because that's not fun for anyone.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Odin on 19 Mar 2011, 14:41
I believe they are referring to the use of the word "thrust" (:

And "in our faces".
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Mar 2011, 19:09
"No X until I'm married"
You're missing two Xs (sorry, I had to).
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: The Duke on 19 Mar 2011, 19:37
I believe they are referring to the use of the word "thrust" (:

And "in our faces".

Yes.

Ah yes, I see it now.  I apologize.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cabbagehut on 19 Mar 2011, 20:58
One of the appeals of oral sex for hetero couples might be the lack of risk for pregnancy.  Sure, you can get STDs/STIs and whatnot, but the concern for pregnancy is zero.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 20 Mar 2011, 02:12
One of the appeals of oral sex for hetero couples might be the lack of risk for pregnancy.  Sure, you can get STDs/STIs and whatnot, but the concern for pregnancy is almost, but still not quite zero.
FYP.
One recalls the approximately one-in-a-trillion conception of a girl who got stabbed in the stomach almost immediately subsequent to sucking off her boyfriend.
(never mind the hundreds of slightly more probable cases involving reciprocal oral attention every year)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cesariojpn on 20 Mar 2011, 02:56
Maybe Hannelore has her Windex custom-made to her own specifications in a bottle of her own design.

Her mom is a rich bitch.....
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cesariojpn on 20 Mar 2011, 03:00
Some things just don't bear thinking about. Such as googling the word "pokeslut." Now why the hell did I do that (rhetorical)?

So you got alot of Pokemon Rule /34/, huh?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: akronnick on 20 Mar 2011, 03:12
Maybe Hannelore has her Windex custom-made to her own specifications in a bottle of her own design.

Her mom is a rich bitch.....


Or maybe Jeph didn't want to spend three hours rendering in exacting detail the perfect artistic representation of a bottle of Windex®, only to be sued by the S. C. Johnson corporation for trademark infringement.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 20 Mar 2011, 03:30
Plus, you consider the mainstreaming of oral sex (Clinton, it's used as a gag in American Pie, etc.) and it's become a less-threatening option in a lot of ways, especially when virginity is so prized, but sexuality is still

thrust in our faces

thrust in our faces

thrust in our faces


I hope that was deliberate  :-D

(http://data.tumblr.com/v8Y1VvbEma2efk3vWvg3NmQm_400.gif)
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: akronnick on 20 Mar 2011, 03:39
That was a moving gif of Orson Welles clapping his hands.

Your argument is irrelevent.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 20 Mar 2011, 05:30
I cannot believe I did not recognize the double entendre until Andy pointed it out.

That gif was the only sufficient response, containing both my shame at not recognizing it and my vigorous congratulations of Andy.
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: cesariojpn on 20 Mar 2011, 11:22
Maybe Hannelore has her Windex custom-made to her own specifications in a bottle of her own design.

Her mom is a rich bitch.....


Or maybe Jeph didn't want to spend three hours rendering in exacting detail the perfect artistic representation of a bottle of Windex®, only to be sued by the S. C. Johnson corporation for trademark infringement.

Or maybe mother has it special made for her and doesn't require an overactive imagination coupled with threats of lawsuits?
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 20 Mar 2011, 11:34
It could also be generic glass cleaner, or possibly actual Windex in a different spray bottle that she bought, or it's hospital-grade anti-microbial stuff (my bet) in a different spray bottle

and there's pretty much no call at all to be passive-aggressively arguing about it since the function is pretty clear regardless
Title: Re: WCDT 14 Mar-18 Mar 2011 (1881-1885)
Post by: Sharp on 20 Mar 2011, 16:08
"DISENFECTO! It's function is pretty clear, just like your windows!"