THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: jwhouk on 17 Feb 2013, 18:38

Title: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Feb 2013, 18:38
Sorry I'm late. Work issues. Namely, forced additional hours of work issues. Discuss what's next for Marten's Mom's Speed Dating Services(tm).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 17 Feb 2013, 18:44
Sorry I'm late. Work issues. Namely, forced additional hours of work issues. Discuss what's next for Marten's Mom's Speed Dating Services(tm).

Some drama, lots of hilarity, and possibly some character development.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 17 Feb 2013, 18:58
Hard to beat MDBS' summary so I'm not gonna try. 

Waiting for the late week bits, or for the mixup where Claire and Marten end up with the same hotel room.  For the awkwardness - it'll be funny.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 17 Feb 2013, 19:30
If they were in Northampton, she could just ask Pintsize for some lube. He'd probably have some.  :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 17 Feb 2013, 19:59
Don't most hotels have a supply of commonly forgotten items?  You know, toothpaste, shave cream, razors, hairspray...

You'd think lube would be right up there on the list. 



Also, sleepytime Claire is quite adorkable. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 17 Feb 2013, 20:09
It's probably available through Room Service
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 17 Feb 2013, 20:22
I don't know that I'd want someone coming by the room with it...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: St.Clair on 17 Feb 2013, 21:04
I just hope she'll have enough tact and/or sense not to go asking the grooms for some.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Tabfan on 17 Feb 2013, 21:37
I don't think Marten's mom is going to meet anyone right away at the wedding.  I think this is setting her up for romantic hijinks later on down the line.  As for who she'd end up with, well, there is that single father who owns the bakery where Padma worked.  Or, for a more temporary and amusing pairing, perhaps Sven?  I remember she seemed attracted to him when they briefly met a while back, and it could lead to lots of fun complications if they hooked up.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DrBear on 17 Feb 2013, 23:08
They are in town for a gay wedding. SOMEBODY will have some lube.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 17 Feb 2013, 23:12
While Veronica and I are of the same generation, and she's no doubt an interesting person in her own right... I don't understand her at all. Then again, I never did understand people like her when I was in my teens and twenties either.

I did like the look of concern and caring on Marten's face when he saw Claire was flaking out. He's a good guy. Congrats to the artist too, never thought you could convey so much with such minimalistic drawing.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 17 Feb 2013, 23:16
It's ESPECIALLY with minimalist styles that deepest emotions can be conveyed. You are forced to fill in the blanks yourself, so to speak ;)

@Comic:
Shit-lube? ... wow, she really has NO idea about the proper order of dating activities, does she?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Adjamemnon on 17 Feb 2013, 23:43
hurr hurr hurr....Jeph said "artisanal."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 17 Feb 2013, 23:56
As the comic title alludes, perhaps pain in the ass airport restrictions were the reason she didn't bring any.

I love that I can still take 3 ounces of liquid explosive (say, nitroglycerin) on board a plane yet they can't depend on common sense to determine that, for example, water is water. But complaints about smoke and mirrors security procedures that only make people feel protected without actually protecting them are for another thread.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Feb 2013, 00:20
"Pain in the ass"

Did you do that on purpose?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 18 Feb 2013, 08:27
Doesn't relly matter, it's still there. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 18 Feb 2013, 08:34
Veronica's hands in the last panel make me think she punched her hand in a dramatic gesture. I'd say she's just wringing her hands but I find the idea amusing.
I can't help but think Claire, even with Marten's warning, is being very patient and polite. I mean have you ever been around two people who know each other really well and they start talking about things you're not familiar with? That crap is annoying and awkward enough without cocaine and lube added to the mix.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 18 Feb 2013, 09:14
It's ESPECIALLY with minimalist styles that deepest emotions can be conveyed. You are forced to fill in the blanks yourself, so to speak ;)

@Comic:
Shit-lube? ... wow, she really has NO idea about the proper order of dating activities, does she?
There's a joke about a certain former Pennsylvania senator somewhere in there, but I doubt he'd show up to a gay wedding.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Blood-Tree on 18 Feb 2013, 13:40
Is that puce I see on the walls behind the reception desk in panel 4?

That is a pretty classy hotel.

(If you're from the 90's...)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 18 Feb 2013, 13:45
From the twitters (https://twitter.com/jephjacques/status/303618518715359234):
Quote from: jeph
Okay, got a script. It is about BEDROOM AWKWARDNESS :o

Looks like it has been called:

Who's prepared for the ~LOL double-bed hotel room mixup XD~?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 18 Feb 2013, 13:47
Bwahaha...Oh, VeroniVance-chan, you never cease to amuse me.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 18 Feb 2013, 14:00
My prediction: the awkwardness stems from someone going into the wrong room, for instance Veronica into Henry and Maurice's room.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Feb 2013, 14:28
It's ESPECIALLY with minimalist styles that deepest emotions can be conveyed. You are forced to fill in the blanks yourself, so to speak ;)

@Comic:
Shit-lube? ... wow, she really has NO idea about the proper order of dating activities, does she?
There's a joke about a certain former Pennsylvania senator somewhere in there, but I doubt he'd show up to a gay wedding.

We never did learn the name of the Senator who was into hot wax and rulers.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 18 Feb 2013, 15:04
Hey, maybe we will meet Kirk (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1829)!  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 18 Feb 2013, 16:03
Hey, maybe we will meet Kirk (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1829)!  :-D

Better bring some Purell.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 18 Feb 2013, 16:10
So Jeph reckons that Claire is cuter without her glasses (http://jephjacques.com/post/43439758775/i-dont-usually-see-finished-claire-drawings). I can see what he means, but I disagree. I think that people generally look better wearing glasses.

Yes, I wear glasses. No, I'm not biased. :P
I don't think glasses make people look good because I wear them, I wear glasses because I think they make people look good.
Blame Rupert Giles. :P
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 18 Feb 2013, 17:05
Lol. Giles is the shit, with or without glasses.

I tend to like girls with glasses myself, but I think that Claire has a certain aura of femininity that's more visible without the spectacles.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 18 Feb 2013, 17:16
but I think that Claire has a certain aura of femininity that's more visible without the spectacles.

The aura of sharing one less trait with Clinton's design, perhaps?  :wink:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 18 Feb 2013, 17:18
It's ESPECIALLY with minimalist styles that deepest emotions can be conveyed. You are forced to fill in the blanks yourself, so to speak ;)

@Comic:
Shit-lube? ... wow, she really has NO idea about the proper order of dating activities, does she?
There's a joke about a certain former Pennsylvania senator somewhere in there, but I doubt he'd show up to a gay wedding.

We never did learn the name of the Senator who was into hot wax and rulers.
Every Republican? :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 18 Feb 2013, 17:20
I didn't even think of that...yah, good point.

And not obsessing over hydrodynamic swimwear too.

 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2299)
We never did learn the name of the Senator who was into hot wax and rulers.
Every Republican? :psyduck:
And Anthony Weiner.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Tabfan on 18 Feb 2013, 18:04
I tend to like girls with glasses myself, but I think that Claire has a certain aura of femininity that's more visible without the spectacles.

Yeah, that's the same vibe I got from that pic as well.  Mind you, I tend to prefer girls with glasses as well, though I like some frames more than others.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 18 Feb 2013, 20:15
Damn it, Marten, of all the times to forget your onesie.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: celticgeek on 18 Feb 2013, 20:18
Another awkward zone initiated. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Aquaisces on 18 Feb 2013, 20:25
but I think that Claire has a certain aura of femininity that's more visible without the spectacles.

I think it's because her eye makeup is actually, y'know, visible.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ysth on 18 Feb 2013, 20:26
Jeph did a nice job with the door, I thought.

But, do hotel bathroom doors usually open in or out?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 18 Feb 2013, 21:14
Jeph did a nice job with the door, I thought.

But, do hotel bathroom doors usually open in or out?
Usually inward, from what I've seen, but it depends on the house. It doesn't matter, really.



Also: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Must not ship, must not ship, must not ship, must not ship.... >__<;;
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Feb 2013, 21:16
It was an unjustified assumption to book Marten and his "plus one" into the same bedroom.

Other guests will be making unjustified assumptions about Marten and Claire.

Don't boxers meet relevant standards of decency?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 18 Feb 2013, 21:24
I'm glad Marten wasn't "stuck in a cot or something". He's really a nice guy. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the fact that he just assumed that as the alternate arrangement was... gentlemanly? Rare. Sorry, it is rare.

Claire could do a lot worse, is all.  I mean, if... I'll shut up now.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: mustang6172 on 18 Feb 2013, 22:16
It was an unjustified assumption to book Marten and his "plus one" into the same bedroom.

Other guests will be making unjustified assumptions about Marten and Claire.

Don't boxers meet relevant standards of decency?

I'm going to assume it wasn't so much an asumption as it was cheapness.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 18 Feb 2013, 22:17
I highly doubt that Henry would book his own son into a cot for his wedding.

But come to think of it, I've seen plenty of hotel rooms with two separate bedrooms.
That said, I think the only unjustified assumptions about Marten or Claire are going to come from the forums. :P
The other wedding guests probably won't care. Or if they do, they are apparently incredibly nosy for no reason.

The REAL problems and unjustified assumptions would arise if Claire caught the bouquet... :evil:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 18 Feb 2013, 22:19
looks like a fun week
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 18 Feb 2013, 22:21
Must not ship, must not ship, must not ship, must not ship.... >__<;;

I have the anti-ship missile standing by in case your control falters.  ;)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: StevenC on 18 Feb 2013, 22:26
Ah yes, wonderful awkwardness. How we love thee.
I must ask though, what is a cot? My translator gave varying results.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Wagimawr on 18 Feb 2013, 22:56
I must ask though, what is a cot? My translator gave varying results.
I think this is the standard definition of a cot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cot_%28PSF%29.png
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 18 Feb 2013, 22:59
my vocabulary (US-English, Southeast and California) describes a cot as a small, generally uncomfortable, folding hammock-like bed:

(http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/public/B_NpMavQDjamykq3qbXkqvThDc9F6eqVIoOKX9gUUufxeHy-F_2xdXotT6YCzK7T_sIEhx-mls1qqi-XFeWDkM84BqpQhJTxtAvqEH-fxqdo1MpK-14WWmbPsvhAYEgJMjmZJImUzK2C8hxvZSw3nuGugVkP5yGH-46RYHTL1slOxRrILVajJpqu0skpzvA2EyQ2WpfHRg=s220-c)

basically "booking Marten into a cot" would mean that marten's dad had decided to intentionally reserve a room that would have meant Marten didn't have a bed, so would need a portable one from the hotel's closet.

"stuck in a cot" would imply some chivalrous or gallant instinct in Marten where he would be taking the worse bed to give Claire the better one given a situation where they were accidentally given a room with too few beds
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: hakko504 on 18 Feb 2013, 23:40
Don't boxers meet relevant standards of decency?
That depends: 1230 (http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=1230) and 1740 (http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=1740)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Feb 2013, 23:50
Marten has a history of being chivalrous about sleeping arrangements (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=117).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ysth on 18 Feb 2013, 23:54
Don't boxers meet relevant standards of decency?
I think Marten assumed so...until Claire mentioned PJs.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 18 Feb 2013, 23:58
He could add a t-shirt to his bedtime apparel.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: techkid on 19 Feb 2013, 00:10
It's a good thing there are two single beds in the room. That would have made for some uncomfortable living arrangements (figuratively and eventually literally).

Unfortunately, his ability to stick his foot in it got the better of him... again (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2307).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 19 Feb 2013, 00:14
To me, "cot" means the little bed in which babies sleep (cf: cot deaths). Google agrees (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=cot&gbv=2&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi). I'm aware of its use for a simple bed, as in "three hots and a cot (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/three_hots_and_a_cot)", but it's not how I would use the word normally.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 19 Feb 2013, 00:16
Don't boxers meet relevant standards of decency?
That depends: 1230 (http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=1230) and 1740 (http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=1740)
And a thought once thunk cannot be unthunk. Much as Claire would like to. Fortunately, she's really, really tired. Otherwise she might not get much sleep, trying not to speculate about.... I'm going to shut up now, again. How about them Dodgers?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 19 Feb 2013, 00:40
So does this qualify as UST or just regular T?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2013, 00:58
In US English, across a couple of regions where I've lived, "cot" would be the folding bed substitute.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 19 Feb 2013, 01:16
At least Veronica didn't bust out this line (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1821) when she was playing matchmaker earlier.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 19 Feb 2013, 02:29
I'm glad Marten wasn't "stuck in a cot or something". He's really a nice guy. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the fact that he just assumed that as the alternate arrangement was... gentlemanly? Rare. Sorry, it is rare.

Claire could do a lot worse, is all.  I mean, if... I'll shut up now.

Well... you said it for me. Saves me the trouble!

Claire's blush face in the 4th panel almost put me into a coma it was so freakin cute.

On a side note, I've always used "cot" for any form of folding framed bed. Except when speaking the dialect of English used by the US Marine Corps, in which case all places one sleeps are referred to as "the rack". I'll let you all figure out what Rack PT is on on your own.

Side Note: A field stretcher, body bag and sleeping bag combined together make an incredibly comfortable all weather sleeping environment, but it will get you some looks from one's squad mates.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 19 Feb 2013, 05:38
And a thought once thunk cannot be unthunk. Much as Claire would like to. Fortunately, she's really, really tired. Otherwise she might not get much sleep, trying not to speculate about.... I'm going to shut up now, again. How about them Dodgers?

Ah, y-yes, you gotta love.. sports? *Coughs*

Claire's blush face in the 4th panel almost put me into a coma it was so freakin cute.

She has a non-blush face? :laugh:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 19 Feb 2013, 06:19
He could add a t-shirt to his bedtime apparel.

Or athletic shorts, which is how I sleep, sharing a room or not sharing a room.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 19 Feb 2013, 06:27
Another awkward zone initiated.

Has someone been keeping track of this? I think the over/under was six or so.

Jeph did a nice job with the door, I thought.

But, do hotel bathroom doors usually open in or out?
They usually open out, especially in newer hotels.

To me, "cot" means the little bed in which babies sleep (cf: cot deaths). Google agrees (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=cot&gbv=2&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi). I'm aware of its use for a simple bed, as in "three hots and a cot (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/three_hots_and_a_cot)", but it's not how I would use the word normally.

This is what is meant by a "cot" in a room (spoilered for size)
(click to show/hide)

Most hotels have these roll-away, fold-down beds available for travelers with more than two-to-four people.

EDIT: I'm going to consolidate these posts. I'm not a post #####.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 19 Feb 2013, 06:49
He could add a t-shirt to his bedtime apparel.

Almost every time we've seen him in bed, he has in fact been wearing a t-shirt and boxers.  He may be intending to do the same, but just let Claire know that he would be stripping down to his underclothes rather than wearing full-on pyjamas (since pyjamas with shorts rather than long-legged bottoms seem to be commonplace these days, it's not necessarily a lot different anyway).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 19 Feb 2013, 07:12
I think this is the standard definition of a cot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cot_%28PSF%29.png
That's certainly my depiction of a standard-issue U.S. Army bunk 50 years ago. When I think of cot, I see the canvas stretched on a folding wood frame.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Ruhtrax on 19 Feb 2013, 07:20
Boxers are kinna too roomy ...
I have no idea how to explain it,
It somehow lacks the feeling of  "safety" than underwear ...  .
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 19 Feb 2013, 07:48
All this confusion confuses me. Nearly every hotel room I've been in had two beds, yet some speak like it's an aberration. Several hotel rooms I've been in had couches with fold away beds inside- I know because I was the lucky occupant. Such is travel with family. And yes it's technically chivalrous to offer to sleep on a cot instead of with a female friend you do not currently have any romance with, but that's like saying not catcalling someone walking down the street is chivalrous. It's just basic decency mixed with the remnants of patriarchy (since poor, fragile women don't get the cot while strong, manly men get the bed).

I also find the dancing around shipping more annoying than any actual shipping, especially since Jeph himself is putting so much focus on their relationship. It's only logical to speculate on whether he intends for this relationship to become a ship. To unfurl canvas. To slip out of drydock. To hit the water.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2013, 08:30
In US English, across a couple of regions where I've lived, "cot" would be the folding bed substitute.

And a baby's bed would be a "crib"?

In my formative dialects, yes.

Everyone's missed how the Principle of Maximum Awkwardness could play out.

What could be worse than Claire passing out halfway through changing clothes, Marten having to tap on the door and ask whether she's all right, then have to decide whether to go in and check on her?

The only thing that could be worse would be if she woke up at that point.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 19 Feb 2013, 08:31
In most hotels in the US, there's a mix of rooms with one king bed, and two queen beds.

If they had been put in a room with one king bed, then a rollaway bed or similar (or the couch) would be required.

Also, damn, Claire is cute: http://jephjacques.com/post/43488595021/asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf-so-cute-asdfn-dsfgsdgjl
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 19 Feb 2013, 08:40
Also, damn, Claire is cute: http://jephjacques.com/post/43488595021/asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf-so-cute-asdfn-dsfgsdgjl

Eeeee! :3

(Also: "altered-blackbird said: Sorry to point this out, but Claire’s reflection looks like she’s stepped out of the mirror." Oh Masking, thou art a fickle mistress.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 19 Feb 2013, 09:06
Also, damn, Claire is cute: http://jephjacques.com/post/43488595021/asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf-so-cute-asdfn-dsfgsdgjl

...squeeee...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 19 Feb 2013, 09:26
Also, damn, Claire is cute: http://jephjacques.com/post/43488595021/asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf-so-cute-asdfn-dsfgsdgjl

 (http://i.imgur.com/go8n4Eu.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 19 Feb 2013, 09:32
All this confusion confuses me. Nearly every hotel room I've been in had two beds, yet some speak like it's an aberration. Several hotel rooms I've been in had couches with fold away beds inside- I know because I was the lucky occupant. Such is travel with family. And yes it's technically chivalrous to offer to sleep on a cot instead of with a female friend you do not currently have any romance with, but that's like saying not catcalling someone walking down the street is chivalrous. It's just basic decency mixed with the remnants of patriarchy (since poor, fragile women don't get the cot while strong, manly men get the bed).

I also find the dancing around shipping more annoying than any actual shipping, especially since Jeph himself is putting so much focus on their relationship. It's only logical to speculate on whether he intends for this relationship to become a ship. To unfurl canvas. To slip out of drydock. To hit the water.

Agreed.  The tiptoeing forcing of the Marten/Claire ship is more tiresome than actual full on shipping.  It's grating.  Then again, I'm of the opinion Marten will never entertain such thoughts and merely view Claire as a very close friend, which is better than entangling them into anything more.


All said, I miss me my Hanners cuteness on this arc.


On the subject of boxers.  I can't stand regular underwear, which I refer to as whitey-tighties.  Way to constrictive.  It's either regular boxers for every day use or boxer-briefs for working out.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 19 Feb 2013, 09:35
Boxer briefs FTW.

A little more freedom than tighty whities, but not so much that there's a testicular torsion risk. Because that's no laughing matter.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: TimO on 19 Feb 2013, 09:39
The canvas folding bed that someone posted earlier, reminds me of MASH, I don't think I've ever seen a bed like that in real life!

To me, from a UK English point-of-view, I have to support the definition that Cot equals a babies bed.  I'd call a bed that folds away a folding bed.  I've had to use one once in a hotel room many years ago, but then again, I don't care much about what I sleep on, I can sleep on the floor relatively comfortably!

Still from context, cot as a folding bed made sense in this strip.

... and yes, Claire does look cute in those pictures of Jeph's! :-) :oops: :laugh:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 19 Feb 2013, 09:46
Like I said before, I predict that Claire will fall for Marten, but Marten will sink the ship.

And, in en_US, a cot is a temporary bed with a (usually canvas) surface over a (usually wooden or metal) frame, designed to be collapsed for portability, and often associated with the military or camping. A rollaway is the normal name for the temporary beds used in hotels when 2 beds aren't enough, and a crib is the normal name for what a baby sleeps in (or, in Ebonics, the name for a home).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2013, 09:53
Claire probably doesn't have much relationship experience.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 19 Feb 2013, 11:00
Claire probably doesn't have much relationship experience.

(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1278/kidbear.png)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Tabfan on 19 Feb 2013, 11:21
Sad Lain is Sad  :-(
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 19 Feb 2013, 11:28
Claire probably doesn't have much relationship experience.

Probably not.  On the other hand, she doesn't strike me as someone who's just out to get some experience points to "level up", either. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2013, 11:49
Agreed, but it may increase vulnerability to crushes (cf. Marigold).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: HeavyP on 19 Feb 2013, 12:16
The amount of discussion over an offhand comment is simultaneously entertaining and weird.  Marten is American and extrapolating from that, he's familiar with American English and the common usage of the word "cot" (correctly or incorrectly) as a temporary bed, regardless of form.  I'd probably make the same statement in that situation, even being aware that a rollaway is the correct term for what you'd get in a hotel, because "cot" gets more usage (also it's like midnight and they've been drinking so I expect mental faculties aren't in full swing).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Near Lurker on 19 Feb 2013, 13:24
Google agrees (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=cot&gbv=2&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi).

Only localized. (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cot&gbv=2&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1366&bih=679&sei=Oe0jUfW1Cs2K0QG4i4DgCg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 19 Feb 2013, 13:26
Question in relation to the comic abit: A transgendered girl I met last year told me during her change, her penis doesn't have any "feeling" nor she can't get an erection anymore, and because of this, she pimps herself out as a BDSM painslut slave (her words, not mine). Am I bad to think that Claire is getting aroused down there or not given her facial expressions and her eye look?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Near Lurker on 19 Feb 2013, 13:33
It probably doesn't bear thought either way.  I can read her as aroused, but if she is, it's best to leave it at that rather than go down that road.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Merdrak on 19 Feb 2013, 13:37
Google agrees (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=cot&gbv=2&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi).

Only localized. (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cot&gbv=2&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1366&bih=679&sei=Oe0jUfW1Cs2K0QG4i4DgCg)

I'm going to assume they meant the military style one, based off the fact that they're in the U.S., and that they wouldn't be talking about a crib.    Also, it seems that this whole storyline is leaving awkward-waves behind it, but it's definitely been amusing. 

And Marten has the best response to Claire having awkward-thoughts now:  "Well, excuse me for not dropping my pants right in front of you".

Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 19 Feb 2013, 15:04
The amount of discussion over an offhand comment is simultaneously entertaining and weird.  Marten is American and extrapolating from that, he's familiar with American English

So what's weird?  Many people in this forum are not American, and so discussion over the meanings of words used in the comic (or simply in discussions on the forum itself) is commonplace.  Indeed there are people here with a particular interest in language and words who relish these discussions.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 19 Feb 2013, 15:27
That reminds me, I should look for a military surplus cot. Those are so much nicer than the crappy ones that have the same basic design as a military cot (folds into a small, thin, rectangular package, and folds out such that rods are inserted on either end to tie it all together), but are cheap Wal-Mart grade.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 19 Feb 2013, 16:08
This comic eerily reminds me of the first time my partner and I shared a bed, which happened to be in a hotel.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: mustang6172 on 19 Feb 2013, 17:10
I highly doubt that Henry would book his own son into a cot for his wedding.

But come to think of it, I've seen plenty of hotel rooms with two separate bedrooms.
That said, I think the only unjustified assumptions about Marten or Claire are going to come from the forums. :P
The other wedding guests probably won't care. Or if they do, they are apparently incredibly nosy for no reason.

The REAL problems and unjustified assumptions would arise if Claire caught the bouquet... :evil:

I think when multiple bedrooms come into play, it ceases to be a hotel room and becomes a suite.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 19 Feb 2013, 18:24
Like I said before, I predict that Claire will fall for Marten, but Marten will sink the ship.

I think, to a certain extent, Claire already has fallen for Marten. Or at least is starting to. Marten seems completely oblivious to this so far.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Emperor Norton on 19 Feb 2013, 18:28
The amount of discussion over an offhand comment is simultaneously entertaining and weird.  Marten is American and extrapolating from that, he's familiar with American English

So what's weird?  Many people in this forum are not American, and so discussion over the meanings of words used in the comic (or simply in discussions on the forum itself) is commonplace.  Indeed there are people here with a particular interest in language and words who relish these discussions.

I think its more over the implication the word is WRONGLY USED that is weird. From searching using google.au to prove their usage (if they were really interested in figuring out the usage in context of the strip, why wouldn't they you know, use the general google search) saying they would have to put "support behind cot meaning baby bed" people seem to be trying their best to avoid the fact that neither matters, the meaning in the US for cot = foldaway canvas bed thing.

Now, it may be a bit of sensitivity, but I know I get tired of the "oh you silly americans and not knowing what words mean", and I'm sure that isn't what people intend here, but it really comes off that way when there is a history of arrogant Englishmen claiming you can't even speak the language.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Ph2 on 19 Feb 2013, 18:33
Considering the high levels of awkward thus far, I couldn't wouldn't be suprised if something unpleasant happens tommorow.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 19 Feb 2013, 18:34
I'm sure Veronica could give Marten some tips on 'Stripping To Please Your Friends'     :evil:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Ph2 on 19 Feb 2013, 19:12
Considering he knows Japanese Rope Binding, I'm pretty sure he already knows the tips.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 19 Feb 2013, 19:42
Boxer briefs FTW.

A little more freedom than tighty whities, but not so much that there's a testicular torsion risk. Because that's no laughing matter.
Geez, now I'm afraid to sleep naked...I haven't had a torsion incident since I was 16. Now you've got me all worried...
thanks, bhtooefr-Obama. :emotrex:

Like I said before, I predict that Claire will fall for Marten, but Marten will sink the ship.

I think, to a certain extent, Claire already has fallen for Marten. Or at least is starting to. Marten seems completely oblivious to this so far.

Marten is the epitome of oblivious. He could look in the dictionary under "Oblivious", and it would be a picture of him...only he wouldn't notice, because he's too oblivious. :parrot:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2013, 19:58
It was an unjustified assumption to book Marten and his "plus one" into the same bedroom.

Other guests will be making unjustified assumptions about Marten and Claire.

Don't boxers meet relevant standards of decency?

I'm going to assume it wasn't so much an asumption as it was cheapness.
Yeah, the unjustified assumption would be booking a room with a single bed. A single room with two beds just assumes that Marten and his guest get along, and why would he invite someone he didn't get along with? :psyduck:

Modified portion - Egads, I missed the second page. Well, if I repeated something someone already said then sorry, I'll go catch up now and post the results below.
Boxers are kinda too roomy ...
I have no idea how to explain it,
It somehow lacks the feeling of  "safety" than underwear ...  .
Oh god, I had to wear non-boxer underpants for a few days (that fit otherwise) a few months ago when the airline lost my bag and...what you call safety, I call imprisonment
Boxer briefs FTW.
Fuck no, I think those were the types I wore, since they were called boxers on the lying packaging. They had the disadvantages of both boxers and briefs. (Then again, this was in Israel, where if you ask for an "iced coffee" they give you a blended milk and coffee thing rather than just...ice and coffee, as the words imply. I found out the day before I left that I was supposed to ask for a "cold Americano" to get what I wanted. Kind of frustrating.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: celticgeek on 19 Feb 2013, 20:13
Well, Claire does look very pretty.  And, yes, Marten should probably wear pants. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2013, 20:21
And, yes, Marten should probably wear pants.
This ain't the Ritz.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: celticgeek on 19 Feb 2013, 20:33
Also, Marten has gone pantsless before. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2077)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 19 Feb 2013, 20:38
ズボンなし!!

I can't wait for Panel 4 to become a QC Captions frame. Aww yeah.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Tabfan on 19 Feb 2013, 21:31
Question in relation to the comic abit: A transgendered girl I met last year told me during her change, her penis doesn't have any "feeling" nor she can't get an erection anymore, and because of this, she pimps herself out as a BDSM painslut slave (her words, not mine). Am I bad to think that Claire is getting aroused down there or not given her facial expressions and her eye look?

Kinda hard to say, since we don't know for certain whether she's pre-op or post-op.  Though I imagine if Claire and Marten end up going to Makeout Town, we'll soon find out.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: helloandgoodbye on 19 Feb 2013, 21:44
CLAIRE'S SHOULDER FRECKLES
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 19 Feb 2013, 22:04
Well-calibrated choice, Claire! It's nice enough to be respectful at an allegedly casual gathering, and not so fancy as to be showing off.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 19 Feb 2013, 22:11
Am I bad to think that Claire is getting aroused down there or not given her facial expressions and her eye look?
No, not bad, it's natural I guess. I don't know, I've never been cis!

These matters are intensely personal. It's not unknown for pre-ops to have a "mental blank" in that area, and to insist on keeping underwear on in case they accidentally look "down there" and suffer what can only be described as hysterics. While some non-ops are OK with it, in general, most of those would prefer things to be otherwise, they just don't like the risks. People vary.

I think we're on safe ground to say that the usual male physiology, and physiological responses, don't apply. Hormones do that. Physiologically, a few years of HRT cause things to atrophy to a pre-pubescent state. Those working on films, saving for surgery, have to walk a tightrope with hormones, and can't do it for long. Obviously, post-ops don't have such issues.

She's a girl. That's it. Born with unusual and probably quite distressing anomalies. I don't know how much she's had fixed, or has felt it necessary to fix, that's private. These kinds of private issues don't just apply to Trans people, there are many Intersex people with genital anomalies who also feel the same. There are also those women who have had radical hysterectomies, requiring complete vulval reconstruction, but who may not have had it yet. There are those who are victims of FGM (female genital mutilation), and so on.

Here's something that may aid understanding. It's written by a guy I know.

Quote
Imagine yourself as a small child. Your body, apart from those bits normally concealed by your undies is sexually ambiguous. And the hidden bits don't do anything anyway - they don't really bug you. But you know what Dad looks like - that thick, hanging thing. In your dreams, you have one too, but it's always gone when you wake up. You get used to it.

You start growing up. You hit puberty, your breasts start to grow and are extremely painful. One morning you wake up and your bottom sheet (normally blue) is bright red and your legs and hands and face are blood smeared. You knew this would happen eventually, but you thought that your head would change at the same time - that you'd no longer feel like a boy. Instead you're more a boy and kinda scared. But you know that if you act like a boy, you'll get a talking-to from your parents. You sit and bear all the reminders (more frequent now that you bleed and have things on your chest) to act like a lady, wondering when you'll feel like a lady and when someone will tell you how to act like a lady. It's hard work looking at everyone and cataloging their actions, working out how women are meant to behave. And it feels so wrong when you do that stuff.

Around about the same time, you realise, rather suddenly, that when what's happening to you finishes, IT LOOKS REALLY GOOD! Not to put too fine a point on it, you Like Girls. Well that explains everything then. You're a Lesbian. You guess all lesbians feel like they're really boys in disguise - that's why they like other girls right? Because they're only sort-of girls? It's normal for a lesbian to hate wearing a bra - because it makes her chest shape all wrong. It's normal for a lesbian to feel embarrassed and hate her body below the waist. And above.

Then the real test comes: You've never really had any romantic attachment before. For some reason it has always felt wrong and you've avoided it. Sure sometimes you take special care, go out wearing a shirt and tie, bind the chest and uh. something in the trousers. It feels good but as soon as you start talking to someone, your voice gives you away as a pretender, a wannabe.

But someone comes along, someone that you could talk to forever, hold forever. She's a beautiful woman and God, you Want her. She's keen on you too and before you know what's happening, you're lying, naked, warm and relaxed in a mutual embrace. But even in ecstasy (and that's hard enough), you can't fully suppress the screaming in your head. Your body is wrong.

Is there any way to fix it? Whose idea is this anyway? Making you walk around for your entire life with the wrong shaped body. Why do people look at you and say "Yeah, right" when you say that you're a guy?

You find out that there is hormones and surgery. In the first, you're lucky: In a hormone fight, Testosterone wins. In the second, not so good, they can fix your chest such that it's flat, they can remove the parts that make you bleed (though that'll stop anyway with T), but you'll never have the penis that you can feel.

Once you consent to going through puberty again, you're on your way to becoming the guy you've always been - and it's only a few years too late. But there's a problem. People you love, people you work with, people you socialise with. They were all dependent on having a daughter, a sister, a female colleague, a female friend. I mean you had a female name right? Even though you never acted like a daughter, a sister, a girl, a woman. Somehow the fact that you were badged, when you were barely self aware is meant to define you forever. They reject you. They know your body will never be complete enough to reproduce and so they condemn you to be a girl forever. They'll never accept you as anything but.

There is hope though, some people, even if they don't really understand what it's like for the head to say something different to the genitals, care. And you'll go on in life and meet people that never knew you as a wannabe girl. They'll just see, and work with and share with the man you are. You'll care a bit more about women too - people you work and live with - because once, you faced the same challenges as they do. For you it was harder - you weren't wired for it, most of them are. They always could bear to look in the mirror, they always felt right when someone they loved loved them, they always woke up with all the right bits attached, all the right clothes in the wardrobe. Now, so do you.

His surgical results were reportedly excellent. His fiance knows his past, but none of his colleagues where he is now.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: xAmilli0n on 19 Feb 2013, 22:32
And so we finally get to see Claire's (surprisingly casual) fancy dress!  And poor Marten still can't catch a break.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 19 Feb 2013, 23:18
Wooo! Claire looks super pretty!

As to pants! Don't surrender Martin! Fight the power and prove yourself a truly manly man in one fell stroke against the wide world.

Wear the greatest clothing item ever conceived by man whilst incredibly drunk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ35SOU9HTM

Wear a kilt.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Vurogj on 19 Feb 2013, 23:54
Gah, hate to be the nit-picker, but something was throwing me off about panel 1, and at least if I post it it might help anyone else who's thinking "something's not right there". Claire's legs are reflected incorrectly.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Feb 2013, 23:56
Damn, you're right.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 20 Feb 2013, 00:33
I can only echo Jeph's sentiment:

asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf so cute aSDFn,dsfgsdgjl (http://jephjacques.com/post/43488595021/asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf-so-cute-asdfn-dsfgsdgjl?ea0cc628)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 20 Feb 2013, 00:38
Here's something that may aid understanding. It's written by a guy I know.
Quote
...

I have recently read that as an additional problem, sexual preferences can sometimes be reversed in trans* people when they undergo hormonal therapy. Is that even remotely true?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: CrowFairy on 20 Feb 2013, 00:40
Gah, hate to be the nit-picker, but something was throwing me off about panel 1, and at least if I post it it might help anyone else who's thinking "something's not right there". Claire's legs are reflected incorrectly.
Same with her hair. It looks like it's swaying in the mirror, but it's clearly straight down IRL.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 20 Feb 2013, 00:56
I don't know why, but I find that bow on the back of her neck very intriguing.

You know Marten, you could have dressed while she was in the bathroom. Just saying.

Kinda hard to say, since we don't know for certain whether she's pre-op or post-op.  Though I imagine if Claire and Marten end up going to Makeout Town, we'll soon find out.
There are several communities in Shipping Shire, like Slash Settlement, Coitus City, Dating District, and of course Marriage Metropolis. Makeout Town is kind of odd because it's not Alliterative.

Gah, hate to be the nit-picker, but something was throwing me off about panel 1, and at least if I post it it might help anyone else who's thinking "something's not right there". Claire's legs are reflected incorrectly.
Same with her hair. It looks like it's swaying in the mirror, but it's clearly straight down IRL.
The only logical explanation is that light moves much slower in QCverse, so there's some lag time. Either that, or it's a smart picture mirror that can take snapshots so you can examine your reflection without contortion.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 20 Feb 2013, 01:04

You know Marten, you could have dressed while she was in the bathroom. Just saying.
He prolly has to change his undies and was afraid she was going to come out at an unopportune moment. If that is so, he just displayed an unusual case of Genre Savvy.
Quote
There are several communities in Shipping Shire, like Slash Settlement, Coitus City, Dating District, and of course Marriage Metropolis. Makeout Town is kind of odd because it's not Alliterative.

Makeout Metropolis!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 20 Feb 2013, 01:21
Claire looks very nice (I love the shade of blue), except that white bow is very strange. I've never seen anything like it, but I imagine Jeph found it somewhere. Marten reveals a hitherto hidden flair too. His tee-shirt and boxers harmonise!

The shower-curtain in the first panel is much too short, and there's no sign that it is the outer curtain of a double-curtain arrangement. You'd flood the bathroom every time you took a shower.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 20 Feb 2013, 01:35
Gah, hate to be the nit-picker, but something was throwing me off about panel 1, and at least if I post it it might help anyone else who's thinking "something's not right there". Claire's legs are reflected incorrectly.

Yeah, the perspective is a bit skewed anyway. If you look at the mirror's frame, it's perfectly rectangular so the mirror is facing directly toward the viewer. (Also confirmed by the infinite reflection of another mirror that must be right in line with the first one.) At that angle, Claire should be standing in the way of her own reflection. But I won't argue with artistic licence because otherwise we couldn't see her and asdfasdf so cute

Of course, if you look closely at the legs in the Tumblr sketch, you'll see something weirder.

oh god she's stepping out of the mirror help (http://jephjacques.com/post/43488595021/asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf-so-cute-asdfn-dsfgsdgjl?ea0cc628)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Mad Cat on 20 Feb 2013, 01:48
ACK! It's Dople-Claire! She's crossing into this plane! Stop her!

As to the blurb with which Jeph accompanies this strip... What shoes? There are no shoes in evidence in the strip.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 20 Feb 2013, 01:49
There are shoes because he's just told you there are shoes.  Believe in the shoes.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 20 Feb 2013, 02:49
Quote
why is he wearing SHOES

Cold feet?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 20 Feb 2013, 03:08
I have recently read that as an additional problem, sexual preferences can sometimes be reversed in trans* people when they undergo hormonal therapy. Is that even remotely true?
Yes. About a third of the time. Usually from lesbian to straight for trans women - though more like asexual to sexual.
If the change happens 9 months after starting HRT, it's probably physiological, it takes that long for Vassopressin to clear cellular receptors in the brain. But it may be clearing of a psychological block, as it is if it happens long before or long after.

Some trans women who easily cope with all other challenges in transition have some difficulty if they're in that one in three.

Yes, I speak from personal experience. No-one else was surprised, but I was utterly convinced I'd be happily lesbian, and not straight. WRONG!!!!!!

I really don't know how (nearly) everyone else copes with puberty. You do it in your teens too. I found it difficult enough at 48.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 20 Feb 2013, 03:15
Gah, hate to be the nit-picker, but something was throwing me off about panel 1, and at least if I post it it might help anyone else who's thinking "something's not right there". Claire's legs are reflected incorrectly.

Depends - have you never seen a 3D large screen capture before? It might not be an old fashioned analog mirror, but a 3D image snapped some seconds before.

A very useful consumer device, allowing the user to take a snap, then examine the back of the head for hairdo failures etc. It would have made a mint for the inventors, but they put it in the public domain.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 20 Feb 2013, 03:55
Yes. About a third of the time. Usually from lesbian to straight for trans women - though more like asexual to sexual.
If the change happens 9 months after starting HRT, it's probably physiological, it takes that long for Vassopressin to clear cellular receptors in the brain. But it may be clearing of a psychological block, as it is if it happens long before or long after.

Some trans women who easily cope with all other challenges in transition have some difficulty if they're in that one in three.

Yes, I speak from personal experience. No-one else was surprised, but I was utterly convinced I'd be happily lesbian, and not straight. WRONG!!!!!!
To clarify (I think I get what you're saying), you were (at least somewhat) interested in women before beginning HRT, and then became interested in men once everything chemically realigned?

I really don't know how (nearly) everyone else copes with puberty. You do it in your teens too. I found it difficult enough at 48.

I actually suspect it'd be worse to go through puberty later in life - going through it as a teen, everyone around you is going through it too, and if you screw up it's not a HUGE deal (a lot of things that happen in high school don't actually matter, and there's usually a good safety net of some sort at that time). That said, you don't have the life experience to cope with it, but still... I definitely wouldn't want to go through it again, though.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 20 Feb 2013, 04:09
Considering he knows Japanese Rope Binding, I'm pretty sure he already knows the tips.

More in practical terms.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lubricus on 20 Feb 2013, 04:12
Considering he knows Japanese Rope Binding, I'm pretty sure he already knows the tips.

More in practical terms.

Yeah, his look of concentrated boredom will really ruin the show!  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Tai Fanboi on 20 Feb 2013, 04:26
Well, at least he wasn't poking out of his boxers this time, don't think Claire could handle the drama that seems to bring. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 20 Feb 2013, 04:28
Getting dressed while Claire was in the bathroom would have been the smart thing to do.  Maybe it's the old school Uniform Parades I had to do as a young whippersnapper in the Army, but getting out of underwear and into fresh ones and a pair of pants is what, 30 seconds - 45 if you're slow.  After that the timings for Marten wouldn't be that strict.

And that is a very nice outfit on Claire.  The colour suits her.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 20 Feb 2013, 04:40
Depends - have you never seen a 3D large screen capture before? It might not be an old fashioned analog mirror, but a 3D image snapped some seconds before.

A very useful consumer device, allowing the user to take a snap, then examine the back of the head for hairdo failures etc. It would have made a mint for the inventors, but they put it in the public domain.

WHOAH! That'd solve all the perspective questions too.

Right. After all, they do live post-singularity.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: teclo on 20 Feb 2013, 05:00
He could have been waiting to use the bathroom to have a shower and shave before getting ready... I know I wouldn't get dressed for a wedding without doing that first.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 20 Feb 2013, 05:17
Getting dressed while Claire was in the bathroom would have been the smart thing to do.  Maybe it's the old school Uniform Parades I had to do as a young whippersnapper in the Army, but getting out of underwear and into fresh ones and a pair of pants is what, 30 seconds - 45 if you're slow.  After that the timings for Marten wouldn't be that strict.

But we know that if Marten would have changed in the bedroom, chances are he would have gotten his foot stuck i the arm hole of his shirt or something, and been immobilized just long enough for Claire to come out of the bathroom and see something that can't be unseen. Come on, it's Marten we're talking about. It would happen.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 20 Feb 2013, 05:39
Seems to me Marten's been reacting pissily to some relatively minor comments. Want to see where this goes.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 20 Feb 2013, 05:43
To clarify (I think I get what you're saying), you were (at least somewhat) interested in women before beginning HRT, and then became interested in men once everything chemically realigned?
Not women so much as one particular woman. So interested, I fell head-over-heels in love with her at first sight. Engaged after a month, married a year later.

It's our 32nd anniversary on the 21st.

Now... a venture into TMI territory. Necessary to answer you completely though, alas.

One problem. Actually, two. I didn't realise just how far from the male norm my body was. There were certain physical issues. But just as big a problem was that I didn't get issued with a sexual orientation as such. No instincts. I can remember my father saying that all I had to do was relax, let instinct take over, my body would know what to do.

It didn't. I could control blood flow to certain places, but it took concentration - like learning to stop urinating in mid flow. Very hydraulic, controlling deliberately muscles that usually operate on autopilot.

Had my instincts been in place, or had my genitalia been more usual, perhaps intercourse would have been possible. When I went to a fertility clinic 4 years after marriage, they did say that physically it wasn't quite impossible. But I knew that.

Basically, I could please, but not be pleased. Anorgasmic. That had certain advantages, I couldn't believe that most guys were finished in less than 45 minutes.

No matter, We were, and are, in love. I looked male enough to be attractive to her. We're both intelligent people, and imaginative. It was always something of an intellectual exercise for me, if not for her. I was OK with it. I didn't actually understand sex.

After the change... it was an eye-opener. So much now made sense. I gained an insight, emotional, visceral, into other people's feelings, something I'd only understood intellectually before. It really is instinctive, your body responds, you're just along for the ride.

If this were fiction, we'd both discover we were lesbian, or at least Bi. No such luck. There's zero chemistry. We're both unalterably, irretrievably straight. But we're both totally in love. We want to share our lives together, to grow old together. As a bonus, though it took syringes etc to extract gametes from mostly dysfunctional glands, we even made a child together, before the change hit and sterilised me in the first week.

This isn't typical, I'm Intersex rather than normally Trans. Such natural (partial, apparent etc etc) sex changes happen, but except for a few parts of the world, they're quite rare. The F to M ones are pretty well understood, the rarer M to F ones less so.
See http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html for an example. Or http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/17/gaza.gender.id/ .

We both tried boyfriends - but we both came to the conclusion that we were both already in love, and having sex with someone you weren't in love with, when there was someone else you were, while physically satisfying just didn't ring any bells. Too complicating too, and not fair on the guys.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 20 Feb 2013, 05:47
Claire looks very nice (I love the shade of blue), except that white bow is very strange. I've never seen anything like it, but I imagine Jeph found it somewhere.
I thought it added the perfect finishing touch. But then, my clothes sense is on a par with Marigold's.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 20 Feb 2013, 06:30
Claire is cute in that dress. Just in case no one's decided to say it yet.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 20 Feb 2013, 06:45
I like the bow too, it's fairly normal for dresses like that to tie with a bow at the back (sort of a halterneck but not quite). Also, to whoever said it didn't look very fancy, we can't tell what material it is made of - if it's something silky or linen or anything basically other than cotton it's definitely fancy. In fact I've worn cotton dresses to black tie dinners and got away with it, so they're definitely ok for laid-back summer weddings.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: sitnspin on 20 Feb 2013, 07:31
Holy crap I love shoulder freckles on a lady.



ZoeB, I wanted to thank you for being so open with us about your experience. While I realize your individual experience doesn't necessarily  extrapolate to trans* people in general, your story has been enlightening. I've only known one other trans* person in my life and unfortunately I had to move and lost touch before I could get to know her for very long. I always appreciate learning about people's experience that differ widely from my own. As a lesbian, I have encountered a lot of transphobic nonsense from certain people in the lesbian community over the years and even more complete ignorance. Thanks for giving more information to go on. I think it's really awesome that you are brave enough to share with us in such an open and honest way.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: LantisEscudo on 20 Feb 2013, 08:42
Being a glasses-wearer with a pretty heavy prescription, every time I see a character that normally wears glasses without them, I have to wonder: contacts, light prescription, or "flying blind?"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Near Lurker on 20 Feb 2013, 09:11
I really don't know how (nearly) everyone else copes with puberty. You do it in your teens too. I found it difficult enough at 48.

...there is no damn way you're 48.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Ruhtrax on 20 Feb 2013, 09:48
I am not sure .. Somehow Claire look a bit better with glasses ...
I donno why .. maybe it makes her look smarter?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 20 Feb 2013, 10:02

You know Marten, you could have dressed while she was in the bathroom. Just saying.
He prolly has to change his undies and was afraid she was going to come out at an unopportune moment. If that is so, he just displayed an unusual case of Genre Savvy.
Quote
There are several communities in Shipping Shire, like Slash Settlement, Coitus City, Dating District, and of course Marriage Metropolis. Makeout Town is kind of odd because it's not Alliterative.

Makeout Metropolis!
Makeout Municipality?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 20 Feb 2013, 10:22
Makeout Municipality?

Man, if all the makeouts in the world are supposed to fit there it's no wonder prime real estate is such a big deal!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ankhtahr on 20 Feb 2013, 11:20
I so know these problems…
Real awkwardness when you're sleeping over at someone, and everyone changes into PJs, when you don't have any with you…
And to me Loki's explanation seems most likely (waiting for her, to avoid any more awkwardness caused by her leaving the bathroom while he is changing), at least it's what I would have done in such a situation.

Also thanks to you ZoeB, for giving us insights into what is rather unknown to many of us!

by the way, Valdís, nice quote in your signature! The Hávamál is a great piece of old norse poetry!

Also: First post of me as a former lurker!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 20 Feb 2013, 11:30
Hello! Today is the first day of the rest of your over-analyzing life!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 20 Feb 2013, 12:44
...there is no damn way you're 48.
Why wouldn't she be 48? I know people in their 60s that are similarly undecayed.

Being a glasses-wearer with a pretty heavy prescription, every time I see a character that normally wears glasses without them, I have to wonder: contacts, light prescription, or "flying blind?"
I must share this sentiment. I suspect it's a nearsighted vs farsighted issue. My vision is okay at 20/40, but I still have never considered going without my glasses. Occasionally, I don't even take them off to swim.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 20 Feb 2013, 12:51
by the way, Valdís, nice quote in your signature! The Hávamál is a great piece of old norse poetry!

Also: First post of me as a former lurker!

Why hello there! :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 20 Feb 2013, 13:09
Welcome, kindasorta new person!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: CrowFairy on 20 Feb 2013, 13:33
My left eye is currently (according to a prescription from three years ago) at 20/40, while my right eye is 20/200. I only wear my glasses when I need to see detail on something far away or in class when there are slides on the screen. In 2002, my left eye was 20/10, while my right eye was 20/40. My sister's eyesight degenerated much earlier and faster than mine, and my dad and his side of the family all have similar degeneration.

But I don't feel the need to wear my glasses most of the time, as I can see perfectly fine without them, as long as I'm not looking for someone (because I can't see facial features at a distance).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 20 Feb 2013, 14:19
They usually stop testing my left eye when they get down to 20/20, but I'm about 20/15 uncorrected, and my vision is stable.

The right eye is odd. Lazy eye, and my brain rejects input from that eye, in favor of the left eye that can't see. End result, it's about 20/120ish, and needs bifocals to prevent eyestrain when trying to focus.

And then, when you correct one eye, you correct the other... so my left eye has bifocals on top of it, too.

So, I don't need glasses in day to day life, but I wear them all the time anyway. Makes using my MBP Retina in 2880x1800 native comfortable. :D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 20 Feb 2013, 14:55
Being a glasses-wearer with a pretty heavy prescription, every time I see a character that normally wears glasses without them, I have to wonder: contacts, light prescription, or "flying blind?"
I am not sure .. Somehow Claire look a bit better with glasses ...
I donno why .. maybe it makes her look smarter?
^
Both relevant to my interests. :P

It's possible that Claire doesn't have that big a problem with her sight. I often go without glasses at work, because I'm only slightly short-sighted, but that's okay because I don't need to see past the edge of the restaurant. And when I do, it's just to check whether the slightly blurred people shapes are walking past or coming to order food. I do have contacts, but they're a bit more of a hassle than I thought they'd be.
Also, as I believe I said before, glasses do make people look better. And smarter. :P
It's entirely possible that Claire has contacts, though I like to believe that she just doesn't want to start weeping into her glasses when the grooms say "I do".
ALTERNATIVELY, and I'm surprised nobody's considered this yet, she COULD still be wearing glasses to the wedding, but she took them off in order to get changed and simply hasn't put them back on yet.

Gosh, a lot of this conversation would look a bit silly if that were the case... :P
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 20 Feb 2013, 15:00
Gah, hate to be the nit-picker, but something was throwing me off about panel 1, and at least if I post it it might help anyone else who's thinking "something's not right there". Claire's legs are reflected incorrectly.

Ahh!  So that's where the Quantum Mirror from Stargate went to!!



:D


Definitely a nice dress Claire.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 20 Feb 2013, 15:43
I'm getting this feeling from Claire that she has a problem with guys in their underwear...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 20 Feb 2013, 15:47
I may be misremembering but I believe Zoe is in fact in her fifties now. I agree, Zoe you do not look it!

Perhaps Claire just feels awkward around anyone she doesn't know very well in their underwear. I know I would. Actually I'd feel awkward around people of the opposite sex in their underwear unless I was the cause of them undressing - no matter how well I knew them.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: LantisEscudo on 20 Feb 2013, 16:16
ALTERNATIVELY, and I'm surprised nobody's considered this yet, she COULD still be wearing glasses to the wedding, but she took them off in order to get changed and simply hasn't put them back on yet.

Gosh, a lot of this conversation would look a bit silly if that were the case... :P

A possibility, but I know I always put my glasses as soon as my shirt is on, so I can actually see the mirror instead of a blob of color.  But then, I can't see the big E on the eye chart without my glasses (with my left eye, I can read the second row with my right). 

I've got contacts I wear for exercising and days I know I'm going to have other things near/on my face, but they're more of a hassle than just putting my glasses on, so they don't get worn otherwise.  So my guess is either Claire has contacts for special occasions like this, or her prescription is light enough to get away with not wearing them for a while.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 20 Feb 2013, 17:38
Just an observation - since Claire noticed Marten's lack of pants, I think we can assume that she can see reasonably well at the moment. So, she's not "flying blind". My guess is that she's wearning contacts, but doesn't really like them and finds her glasses more comfortable for everyday use.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 20 Feb 2013, 19:41

...there is no damn way you're 48.
No, I turn 55 soon. My Icon's from when was 51.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 20 Feb 2013, 19:49
You look closer to 35-ish...no joke.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 20 Feb 2013, 20:18
You look closer to 35-ish...no joke.
A recent - as in taken 5 mins ago - webcam picture. Age 54, I turn 55 in a month.

(http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/58793_4908390861039_1866581752_n.jpg)

One thing many Trans and Intersex people get is a bit of clock-reversal from hormones. Extra collagen under the skin too.
Hmmm... time to diet I think, I need to lose some weight.

In looks, I resemble Marigold (though not her figure, darnit). In history, Claire. In personality - Momo, definitely.

Now can we talk about the impending nuptials please? It's their day, after all, not Marten's, not Claire's, not Veronica's.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 20 Feb 2013, 21:02
Now can we talk about the impending nuptials please? It's their day, after all, not Marten's, not Claire's, not Veronica's.
♫♪♫♪♫♪ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'm the cult of NUPTIALITYYYYYYYYYY ♫♪♫♪♫♪

Yeah, Living Colour going on in the head.

I hope they break the glass under their feet and do the chair dance. ^_^
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 20 Feb 2013, 21:13
It's their day, but we don't know them well.

By all evidence they will be happy together. It's hard to write comedy about happy people.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 20 Feb 2013, 21:30
It's their day, but we don't know them well.

By all evidence they will be happy together. It's hard to write comedy about happy people.
Maybe Dad Harder will turn out to be straight and fall for MartenMom. Wouldn't that be a plot TWEEST and ironic reversal!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ysth on 20 Feb 2013, 21:56
Gah, hate to be the nit-picker, but something was throwing me off about panel 1, and at least if I post it it might help anyone else who's thinking "something's not right there". Claire's legs are reflected incorrectly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_Dtsx-VGG0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_Dtsx-VGG0)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 20 Feb 2013, 23:47
You look closer to 35-ish...no joke.
A recent - as in taken 5 mins ago - webcam picture. Age 54, I turn 55 in a month.

(http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/58793_4908390861039_1866581752_n.jpg)

One thing many Trans and Intersex people get is a bit of clock-reversal from hormones. Extra collagen under the skin too.
Hmmm... time to diet I think, I need to lose some weight.

In looks, I resemble Marigold (though not her figure, darnit). In history, Claire. In personality - Momo, definitely.

Now can we talk about the impending nuptials please? It's their day, after all, not Marten's, not Claire's, not Veronica's.

Ok one quick compliment and that's it:  daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang.   ;)

Also,  I do not look anywhere near my age.  I am old enough to have children in advanced graduate programs,  yet I am routinely mistaken for a college freshmen.     Try as I might I cannot get my goddamn hair to fall out or go grey.    :-D   I am in a pipefitter class on Wednesdays and when I walked into the Vocational School the security told me Freshmen weren't admitted after hours... then I pulled my ID and got an apology.     :roll:


BAAAAAAAAAACK to the comic now.   Anti-ship missile battery still on standby.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 20 Feb 2013, 23:59
Dubstep.......MY EARS, THEY HURT!!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Ashtagon on 21 Feb 2013, 00:13
Quote
I was waiting to change in the bathroom.

Is this a thing in the USA? Round here, the bedroom is the more usual place to get dressed.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: reicreature on 21 Feb 2013, 00:36
In mixed company in a standard hotel room the bathroom would be the only sufficiently private place to change clothing.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 21 Feb 2013, 00:37
In mixed company in a standard hotel room the bathroom would be the only sufficiently private place to change clothing.

What about a closet?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Sidhekin on 21 Feb 2013, 00:51
Much too prone to "coming out" jokes ... even if they're big enough, bright enough, and equipped with mirrors.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 21 Feb 2013, 01:19
Looks like we have some tie tying awkwardness. From media experience, that results in either relief if a relative does it, a quick kiss if a wife does it, and sexual tension if a friend does it.

I never did get the hang of ties. The dozen or so times I wore one consisted of me looking at a chart and fumbling for 10 minutes, then one of my parents fixing it. It's fascinating to me that they still haven't died out.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 21 Feb 2013, 01:38
You need the ultimate guide (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-85-Ways-Tie-Aesthetics/dp/1841155683).

The scientific papers that led to the book are here (http://cassland.org/Tie_knots_paper_nature.pdf) and here (http://cassland.org/Tie_knots_paper_physica_a.pdf).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: reicreature on 21 Feb 2013, 02:03
I've never stayed in a hotel where there was an actual closet. Just a clothes rack near the door.

As for ties, I can only tie one around my own neck.
I prefer a fluffy cravat.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 21 Feb 2013, 02:07
When I've had to tie a tie (which isn't something that happens often - job interviews, basically), I googled for how to tie it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: reicreature on 21 Feb 2013, 02:08
Oh goodness. Is Martin sympathy blushing in the penultimate panel?

Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Nighthawk700 on 21 Feb 2013, 02:26
Looks like Claire picked up the "Dom Voice" and has it pretty nailed down.   :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 21 Feb 2013, 02:30
Looks like we have some tie tying awkwardness. From media experience, that results in either relief if a relative does it, a quick kiss if a wife does it, and sexual tension if a friend does it.

Okay, it's starting to look a little bit like Jeph's intentionally leading us up the garden path, as it were. We've had just enough clichéd situations to make it look like they're getting closer, but not enough that it's just being shoved down our throats.
Odds of Claire passing out at some point, from hypothermia or otherwise? (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1313)
Just to make it more awkward.


For the comic itself: As if they could BOTH forget how to tie a tie! I mean, first you flip it 'round, and then you... up through the ... or was it... but then...
Damnit.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Nevinz on 21 Feb 2013, 02:34
Ties aren't that bad. My high school did a bunch of formal things, so I had to learn. I tie ties for other people too.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: de_la_Nae on 21 Feb 2013, 02:41
How come I didn't remember that Discworld reference? >_< I have failed nerds the world over with my lack of dedication!

Also...*looks over comic*...*yoink!*
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 21 Feb 2013, 02:44
Claire's blushing so hard she'd be the FIRST target for a Predator. No mud is hiding that heat!

There is something awfully intimate about having a woman tie your neck tie... maybe it's the chance for her to murder you via strangulation? ;) Nah it's probably how close you have to get to do it properly and it's a great position for a smooch before you head out the door.

Personally I loath neck ties with a passion. I prefer a mandarin collar. Pardon a military example of a mandarin collar for those who don't know  as I couldn't find a civvie photo I liked (me on the right, much younger and way dumber). Spoiler tags are to shield you from my motardedness.

(click to show/hide)

Honestly neck ties are an anachronism in the modern age, their original purpose was to attach your collar to your shirt. We can let them die now. We have the technology!

For a full explanation on why I'm a classless fuckwit who shouldn't be invited to anything nicer then a hog wrestling competition or perhaps your next hunting trip, behold! The only website I've ever seen that's managed to convey a pretentious tone in text: http://www.blacktieguide.com/ for every formal wear question you could possibly ever have.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: PixelMoose on 21 Feb 2013, 02:50
Man, I can never get my Ties right, I know your pain Marten!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 21 Feb 2013, 03:15
I learned tieing the double windsor knot in about 5 minutes. It's really not that hard and there's tons of "tutorials" on the web. In the age of smartphones one should think Marten could get it right on the third or fourth try at least. :D

But this strip really made me smile. I've tied one for a girl friend of mine once and we ended up a giggling like two idiots. Nice memories, always worth a chuckle.

And Claire really blushes easily. I don't think she'll return to a normal skin color all through the wedding.
(Or maybe red IS her normal skin color... hmm...)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 21 Feb 2013, 03:49
Redeclair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89clair_%28pastry%29)e is becoming the new Tannelore  :-D



...This is not catchy enough. Reclaire? Claired?

Are we allowed to ship Claire with the color Red?

Ow... Okay, who sent the Space Owls at my head?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Tai Fanboi on 21 Feb 2013, 04:34
Occupation always had me wear clip ons for safety concerns (IE if I got into an altercation a tie is a liability)  But as I worked my way up the chain to wear I am now, tie's sadly became a way of life.  I cheat and use the 4 in hand.  Long Torso so if I use the windsor they come out way too short on me, four in hand allows the tie to hang long in the front while I usually only have a very miniscule amount of fabric in the underside, which doesn't really matter with a tie clip or pin.

It is a piece of knowledge that is slowly fading out though.  After hours functions, business dress.  Usually see the older higher ups in suit and tie, younger ones are suit sans tie.  Then you've got the ones with the clip ons, clip on in my opinion is better then no tie but it's still easy to spot.  Most of the new guys  I get in their late teens early twenties couldn't even tell you where to begin with a tie.  I usually have to perform a demonstration before business dinners actually.

To be fair though, I don't even know which end is up on a bow tie.

(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk277/Teutonic_Knight_Funnay/tie-knots-diagram-2_zps206820cb.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 21 Feb 2013, 04:50
I've been tying a full windsor since I was in cadets, so about 30 years now and after about three or four tries, I don't think I could forget how to tie a tie. 

That being said Jeph is having fun with putting MArten and Claire into the stereotypical sexual tension scenarios, probably before he does something else and has his wicked way with us.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 21 Feb 2013, 05:00
[ ... ] That being said Jeph is having fun with putting MArten and Claire into the stereotypical sexual tension scenarios, probably before he does something else and has his wicked way with us.

Not sure if that counts as a jinx or not... REALLY confused now.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 21 Feb 2013, 05:13
You know, I wonder if this is a Chekhov's Gun: http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2324

If Jeph is setting up the "Claire falls for Marten, Marten rejects Claire" scenario, I could totally see Marten talking to someone (I'm thinking either Faye or Steve - and Faye would have more comedic/dramatic potential for the comic as a whole, given that Steve isn't as tight with the rest of the social circle, and I think Faye has less tact) about it. And accidentally outing Claire. (Or, he follows her wishes to the letter, but not quite the spirit. Think something along the lines of, after a shot or two of Midnight Hobo... Faye: "Come on, she's cute and you two get along really well, why WOULDN'T you date her? What, does she have a penis or something?" Marten: "Um... actually... she did say that she's trans, so she might...")

The other thing is, I really don't think Marten is open-minded enough (and he said he wouldn't consider dating one of the interns, but he was disappointed when Emily's invite to the lake house party wasn't a love note), but Jeph might invert the tropes at play here. Marten falls for Claire, Claire rejects him, and Marten decides to go get drunk. Then the Chekhov's Gun becomes Chekhov's Gatling Gun.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 21 Feb 2013, 05:17
Knot theory? Where is Carl-E when we need him?

I've never actually worn a tie (it was not part of my school uniforms), but I would imagine that tying one on someone else from in front could be a challenge? Claire might have been better to sit Marten in a chair and do it from behind.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 21 Feb 2013, 05:20
Aww, forgot the neck tie loop.

It's one twist, two twist, under, and through!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: idontunderstand on 21 Feb 2013, 05:21
I walked into this international lawyer student mingling thing uh... a soiree or something? Anyway this huge Chinese guy that I was talking took one look at my tie and said in a very deep voice "LET ME FIX THAT FOR YOU" and reached over and pulled up my miserable attempt at a windsor and made me a perfect knot in 5 seconds or something. I think he could have murdered me even quicker. Pretty sure of it, actually..
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 21 Feb 2013, 05:30
I had a tie as school uniform from age 9 (worn with a wing collar from age 14), so I've had plenty of practice.  I have no reason to wear one now, except weddings or funerals. 

When I was once ordered to wear a tie (for a specific visit) at Norsk Data in the mid 1980s, I wore the naffest string tie I could find (brough back from America by my brother in the 1960s), and tied a formal tie round the base of my VDU, hanging over the front of the desk.  Nothing was said, sadly, so I couldn't have an argument over subverting the requirement, but at least my colleagues approved.

I never learnt to knot a bow tie, so I use a ready-made for concerts.  My son, on the other hand...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: slydon on 21 Feb 2013, 05:32
I have about a 50% chance of tying one right. 25% of a "good enough" and another 25% of "argh it's all wrong! Help me, internet!".
Side note: as a person who didn't need glasses until his 20s, the trope of "remove glasses, suddenly cute" rings pretty true from experiencing the contrapositive.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Seripham89 on 21 Feb 2013, 05:34
The intimacy of having your tie fixed by another human being comes from its subtext imo.  You are essentially saying, "I care enough about you as a person to help you look your absolute best."  The person wearing the tie has to allow this to happen, and for a moment at least leaves their vanity completely in the hand of the fixer.  It's intimate regardless of the situation, and was actually a little awkward when my soon to be father in law asked me to look at his tie and fix it if it was messed up.

I'm going to let that sink in.

It is also worth noting that this can be seen as a form of performance for the tie tyer(whatever you get it). 

It's only sexual tension if the people involved or outside observers feel there is and Claire may be falling into the so awkward it is adorable category.  Plus a fit young man is sexy as hell.  That's my two cents anyway, but I think a number of commentors had it right as well I just didn't want to include allllllll of them in the post.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 21 Feb 2013, 05:35
I've never actually worn a tie (it was not part of my school uniforms), but I would imagine that tying one on someone else from in front could be a challenge? Claire might have been better to sit Marten in a chair and do it from behind.
I had to wear ties. "Professional Image" and all that. Also since boarding school in the UK.

So now I don't (Hurray!) but do sometimes have to wear makeup *SIGH*.

And when I first attempted to tie a guy's tie.... I mean, I'd tied ties for ages, of course I could do it.... exactly the same thing happened to me as happened to Claire.

This one made me laugh out loud.

UPDATE - by the way - I interpret that blush not as embarassment, but as anger. She's got the traditional fiery redhead temper. She doesn't get angry at others though, just herself for not being able to ferschlugginer potrzebie tie a fararckling TIE grrrrrrr.
It's FINE, OK?  Fine. (mutter mutter)
(married men will recognise that as a danger signal....)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 21 Feb 2013, 05:37
My secondary school had ties in the uniform. I think it was a half-windsor I tied and did it almost everyday for five years and don't remember how at all. Although if I relax and let muscle memory take over it works pretty well. I can only tie them on myself so if I've had to do one for someone else it didn't get American TV sitcom on the situation.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 21 Feb 2013, 05:41
I also wore a tie every day for six years for school (at primary school my tie was on elastic) and I think I do the four in hand knot. I've worn a bow tie a few times but wouldn't remember how to wear it. I wear a necktie for choir which you tie by doing half the steps for a four in hand - round your neck, cross one end over the other, bring it behind, up and over the knot and tighten. So ties, yea, I can do those.

But tying one for someone else? I have to stand behind them and put my arms round to tie it like it was on myself.

The choir spends a lot of time readjusting each other's ties and surplices, so I'm fairly comfortable with that these days. I hate people touching my neck, but I don't find it at all intimate to straighten someone else's necktie or widen the knot or pull it up to cover more of their skin.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 21 Feb 2013, 05:44
Half-Windsor, I can do. Full Windsor, I suck.

I have no idea what that is that Claire did to Marten.

And I'm getting more and more of a vibe that Claire just did NOT like "dressing up" as a male.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 21 Feb 2013, 05:46
I don't know, when I was in high school girls seemed to be more likely than guys to know how to tie a tie. I used YouTube for a while before finally being confident enough to tie one without it. But yeah, I don't see why Marten doesn't just pull out his phone, YouTube "how to tie a tie" and just do that.

Also I object to the "Four in Hand" being called "cheating", that's the only one I use.

I agree with Barmy, I don't think fixing someone's tie is inherently intimate, I think it'd mostly just be intimate if there was already something between the two people.

Ha, damn it, red text, then when adjusting my post to include Barmy's, our original poster pops in.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 21 Feb 2013, 05:47
I've always used the half windsor...it's the only way I know.


Also: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She DOES crush on him!

I'm pretty sure she can tie a necktie with ease, but perhaps her proximity to Marten is...limiting her faculties.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 21 Feb 2013, 06:04
Technically, it could be explained away as her becoming increasingly embarrassed at her inability to tie the tie despite her confidence.

(Personally, I don't believe that, but it is a rational explanation for what's going on.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: judemorrigan on 21 Feb 2013, 06:10
Also I object to the "Four in Hand" being called "cheating", that's the only one I use.
Absolutely.  While there are certainly plenty of people who disagree, there's a school of thought which holds that the four in hand is actually the most formal tie knot.  Fun historical fact: the actual Duke of Windsor did not wear a windsor knot.  Rather, he worse a four in hand with a particularly thick tie.  If, on the other hand, you'd like an example of an individual who wears a full windsor knot, I offer you Vladamir Putin.

Finally, allow me to note that James Bond didn't trust men who wore Windsor knots.  He noted in From Russia With Love that it was often the mark of a cad.  James.  Bond.  Game, set, match. 

 :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 21 Feb 2013, 06:16
That being said Jeph is having fun with putting MArten and Claire into the stereotypical sexual tension scenarios, probably before he does something else and has his wicked way with us.

Jeph is DEFINITELY messing with us now. Whether or not Claire and Marten hook up, he's having fun keeping us all hanging.

All I can say is, poor Claire. She is trying so hard, and Marten is still oblivious.

New prediction: Marten will figure out he actually does want Claire - about five minutes too late.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lubricus on 21 Feb 2013, 06:21
Finally, allow me to note that James Bond didn't trust men who wore Windsor knots.  He noted in From Russia With Love that it was often the mark of a cad.  James.  Bond.  Game, set, match. 

BAH! That barbarian who drinks his Dry Martinis SHAKEN? Double Windsor FTW!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 21 Feb 2013, 06:26
All I can say is, poor Claire. She is trying so hard, and Marten is still oblivious.

New prediction: Marten will figure out he actually does want Claire - about five minutes too late.

That will be PAINFUL for me to read. PAINFUL.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 21 Feb 2013, 06:28
Finally, allow me to note that James Bond didn't trust men who wore Windsor knots.  He noted in From Russia With Love that it was often the mark of a cad.  James.  Bond.  Game, set, match. 

 :-D

Because James Bond could never be called a cad, of course!

Glass houses, mister Bond. Glass houses.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 21 Feb 2013, 06:43
Yeah, the Marten oblivious factor is actually part of why I don't see anything being inverted, and it being Marten pursuing Claire.

We already know Claire finds someone who essentially looks like Marten plus 20-30 years or so to be so attractive that she can barely speak (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2380), too. And, she's so defensive of Marten that she destroyed work that her boss assigned her (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2370), when she believed that her boss did something to hurt Marten.

Poor girl is head over heels for Marten, I suspect. (Hell, she might've been attracted to him quite early on, and that's why she came out to him.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: TimO on 21 Feb 2013, 06:44
Presumably the implication is that Claire has tied ties previously for herself (himself?  I'm not sure which gender to use in this context), but now having to tie one for someone else, and from the wrong perspective, is what's confused her.  I take that red face as relating to frustration rather than embarrassment at being too close to Marten.

Whilst I did my own tie for four years at secondary school, and over a decade whilst working in the Civil Service, and can still easily tie one now (for Weddings, Funerals etc), I think I'd be stumped trying to do it from that perspective, and I'd also need the big-end on the right, the opposite way to how Marten has it.  Wearing open necked shirts and T-shirts for work is sooo much easier, and far more comfortable. :-)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 21 Feb 2013, 06:46
All I can say is, poor Claire. She is trying so hard, and Marten is still oblivious.

New prediction: Marten will figure out he actually does want Claire - about five minutes too late.

That will be PAINFUL for me to read. PAINFUL.

Well, yes. That's the point. I'll let you in on a little secret from the standard author's toolkit: You always do the worst things to the characters you like the best. Your audience will scream bloody murder about it, and then demand more.

Seriously though, there's a reason why "happily ever after" comes at the end of a story. I've learned to beware a happy ending that comes too soon - you're just being set up for a tragedy. So we have a choice: Claire and Marten live happily ever after, and QC ends; or they don't, and QC continues to document Marten's tragic love life.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 21 Feb 2013, 06:51
Technically, it could be explained away as her becoming increasingly embarrassed at her inability to tie the tie despite her confidence.

(Personally, I don't believe that, but it is a rational explanation for what's going on.)

I honestly don't think she can tie a tie, but figured it wouldn't be that hard.  Needless to say, when you think you can do something and you fail mightily, you get massively flustered.  I turn beet red when it happens to me.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 21 Feb 2013, 06:51
The other thing is, happy characters (or at least their relationships) tend to be put on a bus, unless they're needed to advance another plot line, or to play something for laughs (i.e., dancing while only wearing a puce condom). A happy relationship with nothing dramatic happening isn't that INTERESTING once it starts. That's probably a lot of why we don't see much of, say, Steve and Cossette - there's nothing interesting (read: dramatic or funny) happening in their relationship now. But, we saw them in the lake house scene because they were both needed to advance Claire's character in a funny way.

QC is a large enough comic by now that it wouldn't have to end just because Marten and Claire got a "happily ever after" ending, though. There's still a lot of plot lines there - Dora and Tai, Faye and Angus (which isn't completely resolved), Veronica, Marigold and Dale, Sven has a lot of plot development left, Hannelore has a TON of plot development left (and it's been damn near stated that she wants to have a functional romantic and sexual relationship with someone, which would take a whole lot of time to resolve). Plus, even with a "happily ever after" ending for a hypothetical romantic relationship between Marten and Claire, there's still interesting dynamics that each of those characters could have in the story (I mean, the classic dynamic in the comic is the Marten and Faye dynamic, even when it's just platonic). Not to mention, QC could go to gag-a-day Pintsize comics and still maintain a huge reader base. (That said, I highly doubt Marten and Claire will even enter a romantic relationship, let alone have a happily ever after ending. Just saying that them having such an ending wouldn't end the comic.)

And, I should've said, I don't believe that's the FULL reason her face turned beet red.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 21 Feb 2013, 06:52
I never thought part if Claire's awkward fumbling could have been from remembering tying ties on herself but it's an interesting idea.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ankhtahr on 21 Feb 2013, 06:58
I'm seriously surprised nobody referenced the tie knotting manual which is being referenced by the title:
(click to show/hide)

Whatever. I guess all this tie stuff will become more relevant to me in a few months. Everyone has to wear tie and suit at the formal graduation ceremony at German "Gymnasium"s.

And I really think Claire becomes even cuter than she normally is when she blushes. But I'd guess that in this moment it's only due to the embarrassment of failing. (mind, the blushing, not the cuteness)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 21 Feb 2013, 07:04
for herself (himself?  I'm not sure which gender to use in this context)

Herself. It wasn't that part which changed. :)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: TimO on 21 Feb 2013, 07:26
I don't see any relationship's "Happy Ever After" causing the end of a comic (or story), since there are so many ways to torpedo a relationship, however happy it may appear to be.   That's true in real life, and even more so in fiction where there are any number of possible unusual disruptions that can be introduced that would be too unlikely in reality.  In fact, letting a "Happy Ever After" briefly happen before wading in with something to either utterly fubar things, or more subtly cause issues, seems like a perfectly normal way to progress things in fiction.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 21 Feb 2013, 07:33
And, that's been done a couple times in QC.

Steve and Ellen, and Marten and Dora come to mind.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 21 Feb 2013, 07:37
I don't see any relationship's "Happy Ever After" causing the end of a comic (or story), since there are so many ways to torpedo a relationship, however happy it may appear to be.   That's true in real life, and even more so in fiction where there are any number of possible unusual disruptions that can be introduced that would be too unlikely in reality.  In fact, letting a "Happy Ever After" briefly happen before wading in with something to either utterly fubar things, or more subtly cause issues, seems like a perfectly normal way to progress things in fiction.

Well, yes, that's more or less what I was getting at when I said "beware a happy ending that comes too soon." In a novel, if the hero and heroine are happy 4/5 of the way through, I start to expect it to end badly. Since QC is open-ended, Jeph could have Marten and Claire be happy for a while - but only for a while. Either QC outlasts the relationship, or the relationship outlasts QC.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: snubnose on 21 Feb 2013, 07:40
Seriously though, there's a reason why "happily ever after" comes at the end of a story. I've learned to beware a happy ending that comes too soon - you're just being set up for a tragedy. So we have a choice: Claire and Marten live happily ever after, and QC ends; or they don't, and QC continues to document Marten's tragic love life.
Uh....

Oh yeah, thats why they killed off Lily and Marshall after they married on "How I met your mother" !

And the Prince Valiant story ended after he married Aleta.

Oh wait, neither of these things happened. So there might actually be life after marriage ! Who would have guessed.

I dont see any problem with Marten getting into a stable relationship. He was in one for hundreds of comics with Dora.



Quote
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Yeah, I dont think so.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 21 Feb 2013, 07:46
Is it called shipping if the author is doing it? Because that's what this is. :P

Note (in the second-to-last panel particularly) that while Claire's blushing like crazy, Marten's cheeks are also gaining a little color. HandsOnApproach (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HandsOnApproach) (tvtropes warning)?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 21 Feb 2013, 07:52
Note (in the second-to-last panel particularly) that while Claire's blushing like crazy, Marten's cheeks are also gaining a little color.

I actually overlooked that earlier. I guess Claire's intense blushing tendencies made it seem relatively non-blushing!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Near Lurker on 21 Feb 2013, 07:54
I'm still trying to decide whether Claire is brainwarped or just frustrated with the tie.  I think I'm hearing from both sides, each of whom I feel seem to think everyone's read it the same way.  Maybe that should be a poll?

And there is no "happily ever after."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: judemorrigan on 21 Feb 2013, 08:03
Oh yeah, thats why they killed off Lily and Marshall after they married on "How I met your mother" !
And yet you'll note how that show seems bound and determined to avoid introducing the mother until the very end.  Despite the title, I know there's a nontrivial portion of the fanbase who would be happy enough to stretch the title a bit, adding in some [and how we fell in love with each other] to it.  Protagonist relationships and side character relationships are a bit different.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrudd on 21 Feb 2013, 08:17
With respect to the Tie tying, two things.

1) Her blush or heat of frustration is reflected in Martins face. Please note that his facial colour is more a reflection than a source.

2) There is an even simpler answer/explanation - Twin Brother - Has everyone already forgotten Mr Groper .... er .... Mr Hydrodynamics? *facepalm*
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Skewbrow on 21 Feb 2013, 09:26
Today's comic reminds of a skit from 20+ years ago. A couple was rushing to their wedding but the groom had problems with his tie. The only person capable of helping him was an undertaker who had plenty of experience. The catch was that for the undertaker to get it right from a perspective he was familiar with the groom would have to lie on his back.

But seriously, you young dudes. It is not that difficult to make something passable. Practice - don't just keep that one tie unknotted in your closet. You know, the one your mother tied the knot for you for your high school graduation party.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: sitnspin on 21 Feb 2013, 09:54
As a frequent wearer of ties, I can say it is far easier to tie your own than to tie someone else's. You learn to do it from one angle and reversing the perspective can be quite confusing.


Thrudd, it has long been established and oft repeated, they are NOT twins.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jesslc on 21 Feb 2013, 10:03
Presumably the implication is that Claire has tied ties previously for herself, but now having to tie one for someone else, and from the wrong perspective, is what's confused her.  I take that red face as relating to frustration rather than embarrassment at being too close to Marten.

That's is exactly the way I read it. She laughs at Marten in the first part of the strip when he says he can't remember how to tie a tie - and then when she can't get it right, she's frustrated and a bit embarrassed.

I used to have to tie a tie when at high school and I could never tie one on someone else (the wrong perspective just totally messed me up). If a friend did ask me to help with their tie, I would tie it while wearing it myself, loosen it enough to slip it over my head and then give it to them. So I think Claire's frustration is perfectly plausible. I think it fits with her character too (doesn't like to make mistakes).

Personally I haven't seen any thing beyond friendship between Claire and Marten in the comic. Whenever Claire has been attracted to someone (Steve, Henry) it's been very very obvious - she can't seem to control her blush and/or what she says... Based on those instances I reckon if she was attracted to Marten, it would be way more obvious. Also Claire seems to get all awkward around people she finds attractive, so surely she wouldn't be so comfortable chatting with Marten or just hanging out if she was interested in him romantically. The comment she makes in panel 4 of 2389 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2389) confirms it for me (no blush or awkwardness there).

...but hey I'm not Jeph so I may well be proved wrong tomorrow. 


On a completely different note - the wedding will be any time now. Who's betting on Veronica meeting someone at the reception and hitting it off? Perhaps one of Maurice's friends or cousins? I think that would be hilarious! And also very much in character for her - she doesn't really seem like the type to take it slow, not to mention she's been feeling lonely and broody lately.

(It's not shipping if Marten said it first, right? (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2387))

Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Xader on 21 Feb 2013, 10:18
Whoa, Jeph...Whoa.

That came dangerously close to being a cheesy rom-com moment....
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 21 Feb 2013, 10:19
Everyone has to wear tie and suit at the formal graduation ceremony at German "Gymnasium"s.

If you're into etymology then wearing a suit and tie at a Gymnasium is funny.

Marten, it's supposed to be pretty casual! You can skip the tie.

In my native subculture at least, correcting a man's clothing is something expected of a wife.

Claire's memories of putting on neckties must be unpleasant.

A crush on Marten would be really bad for her, so it will probably happen.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 21 Feb 2013, 10:30
In my native subculture at least, correcting a man's clothing is something expected of a wife.
Which native subculture is that, if I may ask?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Emperor Norton on 21 Feb 2013, 11:11
But seriously, you young dudes. It is not that difficult to make something passable. Practice - don't just keep that one tie unknotted in your closet. You know, the one your mother tied the knot for you for your high school graduation party.

I'm not that young, but I always have to look up how to tie a tie when I need one. I work from home, I don't do church, and I don't do social events.

But sure, let me practice a skill I will use once or twice a year when someone gets married or dies, rather than spend that time learning something relevant or just doing something fun.

This year was an exception, as I went on a cruise and wore formal wear to the dinners (Though honestly, you can manage formal without ties nowadays, the times change, my dad almost never wears them and he goes to church and wears suits constantly). I got by just fine with a little diagram and having to retie it a few extra times when I had screwed up. Actually learning how to do it to a degree beyond that level is just really pointless to my lifestyle.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 21 Feb 2013, 11:20
West Virginia and Louisiana, and I gather it's not uncommon in US history.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Karilyn on 21 Feb 2013, 11:25
Poor girl is head over heels for Marten, I suspect. (Hell, she might've been attracted to him quite early on, and that's why she came out to him.)
I was under the impression at the time that she wanted to kiss him when she was sitting on the dock with him.  But decided to do (the risk-adverse thing) and tell him that she was trans first.  Which is a really smart idea, considering the sheer volume of transsexuals murdered for getting into relationships with guys who don't know they are trans.  It doesn't hurt to practice cautionary discretion to avoid potentially dangerous situations.

Murder is not okay.   :psyduck:

See, this is what I like about Martin.  He's not the sort of person to murder a girl outta rage because she has a penis.  And that is the most important milestone for measuring morality by.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Ruhtrax on 21 Feb 2013, 11:47
Ah .. The Tie ...
Haven't retie mine for a year now ...
I think I should spend my day doing it...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 21 Feb 2013, 11:52
(Though honestly, you can manage formal without ties nowadays, the times change, my dad almost never wears them and he goes to church and wears suits constantly)

This really depends where you are, and what you mean by "formal". For me, formal dress for men involves bow ties, never mind ties. Ties are required at the twice-weekly formal dinners and a fair few people wear them to lectures in my faculty (but they are aspiring lawyers so that may not be a representative sample). I can't even imagine anyone turning up to a job interview not wearing a tie.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 21 Feb 2013, 12:02
This really depends where you are, and what you mean by "formal". For me, formal dress for men involves bow ties, never mind ties. Ties are required at the twice-weekly formal dinners and a fair few people wear them to lectures in my faculty (but they are aspiring lawyers so that may not be a representative sample). I can't even imagine anyone turning up to a job interview not wearing a tie.
If I go to the UK and hire you as my driver, I shall wear a tie, and a suit, and sit in the back seat.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ysth on 21 Feb 2013, 12:19
Odds of Claire passing out at some point, from hypothermia or otherwise? (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1313)
https://twitter.com/jephjacques/status/304533572100976641 (https://twitter.com/jephjacques/status/304533572100976641)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: riccostar on 21 Feb 2013, 12:20
I do wish I had that problem Marten...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 21 Feb 2013, 12:24
If I go to the UK and hire you as my driver, I shall wear a tie, and a suit, and sit in the back seat.
I'm not sure where that came from.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 21 Feb 2013, 12:26
I was under the impression at the time that she wanted to kiss him when she was sitting on the dock with him.  But decided to do (the risk-adverse thing) and tell him that she was trans first.  Which is a really smart idea, considering the sheer volume of transsexuals murdered for getting into relationships with guys who don't know they are trans.  It doesn't hurt to practice cautionary discretion to avoid potentially dangerous situations.

Murder is not okay.   :psyduck:

See, this is what I like about Martin.  He's not the sort of person to murder a girl outta rage because she has a penis.  And that is the most important milestone for measuring morality by.

I see your point, but if she hadn't already trusted Marten to not be an ass, she would have waited to tell him under different circumstances if at all. Violent transphobes are dangerous regardless of relationship status...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Emperor Norton on 21 Feb 2013, 12:33
I can't even imagine anyone turning up to a job interview not wearing a tie.

One would hope I'm not going to job interviews enough times to need to know how to tie a tie either.

It does depend on the area you live in, my point was that for a lot of people its a pointless skill to learn, so there is no reason to act like its something everyone should know.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 21 Feb 2013, 12:36
Seriously though, there's a reason why "happily ever after" comes at the end of a story. I've learned to beware a happy ending that comes too soon - you're just being set up for a tragedy. So we have a choice: Claire and Marten live happily ever after, and QC ends; or they don't, and QC continues to document Marten's tragic love life.
Uh....

Oh yeah, thats why they killed off Lily and Marshall after they married on "How I met your mother" !

And the Prince Valiant story ended after he married Aleta.

Oh wait, neither of these things happened. So there might actually be life after marriage ! Who would have guessed.

I dont see any problem with Marten getting into a stable relationship. He was in one for hundreds of comics with Dora.



Quote
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Yeah, I dont think so.

Ugh.  That show has been ruined for coming on 3 seasons.  It's almost unwatchable some weeks.  And yet it got another season.

In other news.

Now I know why shipping here was banned.  At least forced-shipping.  The ridiculousness of it becomes nauseating fast.


I don't think Claire told Marten her secret because she crushes on him.  I tend to think that's a silly reason to out such a huge secret.  The reason she outed herself to him is because she's seen him around the other interns and his friends enough to know he's a decent enough guy not to make a big deal about it and blab.  I don't see how anyone can tie anything romantic into it at all.

Or romantic about the tie thing either...It's only intimiate if the two are into each other.  Then again, I've had to have my brother tie my tie for me before.  But then, I only know one way and he wanted the groom's ties in a specific way for his wedding.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 21 Feb 2013, 12:37
If I go to the UK and hire you as my driver, I shall wear a tie, and a suit, and sit in the back seat.
I'm not sure where that came from.
A running tease with Barmymoo, who has a better sense of formal wear than many of us.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 21 Feb 2013, 12:47
Now I know why shipping here was banned.

Jeph said (https://twitter.com/jephjacques/status/304464785733472257);

Cristi said (https://twitter.com/pengraffe/status/304465083155746816).

 :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 21 Feb 2013, 12:49
Now I know why shipping here was banned.

Jeph said (https://twitter.com/jephjacques/status/304464785733472257);

Cristi said (https://twitter.com/pengraffe/status/304465083155746816).

 :-D

lulz at the Turk/JD comment.  The most bromantic brocouple ever.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 21 Feb 2013, 12:57
If I go to the UK and hire you as my driver, I shall wear a tie, and a suit, and sit in the back seat.

Haha no, then I'd have to wear a stupid cap and not speak to you.

I find it quite funny that in the UK, at least, black and white tie dress codes are basically defined by what Oxbridge students wear to balls. According to certain etiquette codes anyway.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 21 Feb 2013, 13:13
(Though honestly, you can manage formal without ties nowadays, the times change, my dad almost never wears them and he goes to church and wears suits constantly)

This really depends where you are, and what you mean by "formal". For me, formal dress for men involves bow ties, never mind ties. Ties are required at the twice-weekly formal dinners and a fair few people wear them to lectures in my faculty (but they are aspiring lawyers so that may not be a representative sample). I can't even imagine anyone turning up to a job interview not wearing a tie.

Wear a tie to a welding-job interview and you'll be laughed out of the building.    :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 21 Feb 2013, 13:23
If I go to the UK and hire you as my driver, I shall wear a tie, and a suit, and sit in the back seat.

Haha no, then I'd have to wear a stupid cap and not speak to you.

I find it quite funny that in the UK, at least, black and white tie dress codes are basically defined by what Oxbridge students wear to balls. According to certain etiquette codes anyway.
I thought they wore robes. Unless I'm thinking of Hogwarts.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 21 Feb 2013, 13:29
I can't even imagine any man turning up to a job interview for a white-collar job not wearing a tie.
Fixed that for you. :)  I have never worn a tie to a job interview.

Everyone has to wear tie and suit at the formal graduation ceremony at German "Gymnasium"s.
Even the girls? I've always thought that ties were perhaps the only item of clothing where men's conventional wardrobe was stupider than women's
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Emperor Norton on 21 Feb 2013, 13:34
Wear a tie to a welding-job interview and you'll be laughed out of the building.    :-D

Really, job interview attire has a lot to do with finding the culture of the company and what the job you are applying for IS.

Even in "white collar" there are job interviews where a suit/tie would be overdoing it. (I work in internet marketing for a program that is marketed primarily to people in their teens/early twenties. I wore a blue dress shirt and khaki slacks when I interviewed. Dressing suit and tie would have been overkill)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Blood-Tree on 21 Feb 2013, 13:44
I dunno guys, I kinda like wearing a tie sometimes.

I used to find them annoying when I was at school, but these days I think they can look good with a suit.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 21 Feb 2013, 14:03
In my world a suit is what you wear to a funeral or to the bank to negotiate a loan. 

Dress-shirt and nice slacks/pants for 'formal office' stuff.

Rest of the time,  expendable T-shirts and sorry-pants.  (as in "ain't those the most sorry looking pants you've ever seen?   pass 'im the duct tape so he don't lose a leg.")
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 21 Feb 2013, 14:09
I've never stayed in a hotel where there was an actual closet. Just a clothes rack near the door.

You poor thing. You should try to find hotels that were built before 1980.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Ruhtrax on 21 Feb 2013, 14:10
I've never stayed in a hotel where there was an actual closet. Just a clothes rack near the door.

You poor thing. You should try to find hotels that were built before 1980.

or spend a tad bit more money...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 21 Feb 2013, 14:37
How come I didn't remember that Discworld reference? >_< I have failed nerds the world over with my lack of dedication!

Also...*looks over comic*...*yoink!*


Perhaps this should go in the confessions thread, but...what reference?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Merdrak on 21 Feb 2013, 14:50



I don't think Claire told Marten her secret because she crushes on him.  I tend to think that's a silly reason to out such a huge secret.  The reason she outed herself to him is because she's seen him around the other interns and his friends enough to know he's a decent enough guy not to make a big deal about it and blab.  I don't see how anyone can tie anything romantic into it at all.

Or romantic about the tie thing either...It's only intimiate if the two are into each other.  Then again, I've had to have my brother tie my tie for me before.  But then, I only know one way and he wanted the groom's ties in a specific way for his wedding.

I could see Claire becoming attracted to Marten after she told him, unintentionally.  It is a big trust issue, after all, so I could see how that could lay groundwork for romantic feelings.   

Just tossing ideas into the wind, and hoping they don't frisbee back at meh face.   But still... I wonder how this arc turns out?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 21 Feb 2013, 14:59
Now I know why shipping here was banned.

Jeph said (https://twitter.com/jephjacques/status/304464785733472257);

Cristi said (https://twitter.com/pengraffe/status/304465083155746816).

 :-D

Dear God, that is the BEST twitter exchange I've seen in a LONG time. :D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: de_la_Nae on 21 Feb 2013, 15:04
How come I didn't remember that Discworld reference? >_< I have failed nerds the world over with my lack of dedication!

Also...*looks over comic*...*yoink!*


Perhaps this should go in the confessions thread, but...what reference?

In the comic with Hannelore passing out that was linked. "Millennium Hand and Shrimp" is a catchphrase of one of the recurring characters, essentially.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ankhtahr on 21 Feb 2013, 15:29
Everyone has to wear tie and suit at the formal graduation ceremony at German "Gymnasium"s.
Even the girls? I've always thought that ties were perhaps the only item of clothing where men's conventional wardrobe was stupider than women's

Girls usually wear long dresses to the ceremony. They are more free in their choice of clothing.

If you're into etymology then wearing a suit and tie at a Gymnasium is funny.

Damn, now you got me thinking about the name of our schools. Damnit, take these pictures out of my mind!

To everyone wondering what I'm talking about, a German Gymnasium is in a way the equivalent of a high school.

See here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium_(Germany)).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 21 Feb 2013, 16:29
How come I didn't remember that Discworld reference? >_< I have failed nerds the world over with my lack of dedication!

Also...*looks over comic*...*yoink!*


Perhaps this should go in the confessions thread, but...what reference?

Don't worry Pilchard, there are a lot of Discworld books to go through. I'm working my way through them, albeit more slowly than Sir Terry is writing them. I don't really understand it either.
*looks it up*

Okay, apparently it also doubles as half a reference to They Might Be Giants, which makes it about the coolest reference ever. (Sir Terry apparently took inspiration from a song of theirs called "Particle Man" which mentioned a "millenium hand".)

Oh, and the book you're looking for is "Reaper Man".
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 21 Feb 2013, 17:15
Even the girls? I've always thought that ties were perhaps the only item of clothing where men's conventional wardrobe was stupider than women's
Quoted for truth. I feel exactly the same way.

Though the last time I wore a tie was at my 30th High School reunion. The Old School Tie tied loosely, hanging between by breasts, schoolgirl-fashion. Actually.. I think that's the only time I've worn a tie because I wanted to, and thought it looked good. It went well with the black top and dress denim skirt anyway.

It's an all-male school, so it took a bit of courage to attend. First time I've ever had drinks brought for me, it was wonderful! There was some serious SQUEEing afterwards.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 21 Feb 2013, 17:19
Okay, apparently it also doubles as half a reference to They Might Be Giants
As opposed to "We're Definitely Dwarves".
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 21 Feb 2013, 17:48
I've never stayed in a hotel where there was an actual closet. Just a clothes rack near the door.

You poor thing. You should try to find hotels that were built before 1980.

or spend a tad bit more money...

Sometimes spending more =/= better accommodations. For example, one hotel i'd go to on vacation is nearby a Walmart, a large shopping center, a transit hub, and a few other perks, whereas the hotels in the more touristy areas are smashed together and the nearest market/shop is overpriced and limited.   
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: TheEvilDog on 21 Feb 2013, 18:02
You know, I have never once had any problem doing up a tie, probably comes from 12 years of having to wear a tie for school. (I wouldn't count the first two years as everyone had to wear those stupid fake ties with the elastic string to go around the neck, god, I hated those things).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 21 Feb 2013, 18:29
Sometimes spending more =/= better accommodations. For example, one hotel i'd go to on vacation is nearby a Walmart, a large shopping center, a transit hub, and a few other perks, whereas the hotels in the more touristy areas are smashed together and the nearest market/shop is overpriced and limited.   

Quite so. The Mrs. and I honeymooned in Las Vegas for a fortnight, hopping to a different hotel every two days. We got most of our supplies at the CVS on the strip, because it's just as reasonable priced as any other CVS. Other places had priced jacked up through the roof...Subway's "$5 footlongs" were $14.50.

Niagara Falls was a little trickier, since it gets more revenue from tourism than gambling (though there are a couple casinos there), so we had to drive several miles north, to Niagara-On-The-Lake (yes, that's really the name of the town), and got cold cuts from a local deli, and made sandwiches back at the hotel room. A nice, quiet dinner.

...My wife still won't let me live down the fact that I forgot a knife to spread condiments, and I ended up using a toothbrush to do it instead. You do that once, and you learn from it. I was only 19 at the time. ^^;;
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: reicreature on 21 Feb 2013, 18:38
That and having a closet in a hotel doesn't really seem like a main priority to me.
But I kind of laugh at spending more money as I've never actually spent money on a hotel room. My parents or grandparents have usually purchased a hotel room when I've needed it.
Other times I've just crashed at a friend's/family's  place or camped out in my tent/car.

That being said, it seems like even the really nice hotels I've stayed at don't have closets.  I could guess that a bed and breakfast or resort type place would be different though.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 21 Feb 2013, 18:52
I could guess that a bed and breakfast or resort type place would be different though.
B&B's typically are crafted out of what was once a home, so closets are a natural accomodation. Which reminds me, if you're ever in the New Hampshire/Vermont area, you HAVE TO stay at Adair (http://www.adairinn.com/). No excuses, you must enjoy the splendid serenity that it is. We went for our first anniversary, stayed three nights...AWESOME EVERYTHING. Especially the tea. (FYI we stayed in the LaFayette Room...not all of them are quite that expensive).


Marten is blushing too. I just noticed.....heeeeehehehehe....
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: mustang6172 on 21 Feb 2013, 18:58
I deem the four-in-hand knot to be the best tie knot because it is the easiest.

I don't care what the collar looks like.  8-)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: reicreature on 21 Feb 2013, 19:03
Marten is blushing too. I just noticed.....heeeeehehehehe....

hahaha! I noticed that first thing. I thought it was just in the penultimate panel, but he starts blushing in the one before that as he looks away.


Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Sorflakne on 21 Feb 2013, 19:04
Half windsors are easy to tie.  A full windsor though...I had to tie a tie last week, and even looking at a guide, it still took me a few tries to get it right.  And then I had to retie it because it was too short and went only halfway down my chest (I hate being tall...).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: St.Clair on 21 Feb 2013, 20:22
I'm going to be back on the job market after the first... this just reminded me that I'm gonna have to get my ties out and re-learn how to put them on, for interviews. :p
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 21 Feb 2013, 20:55
I don't think Claire told Marten her secret because she crushes on him.  I tend to think that's a silly reason to out such a huge secret.  The reason she outed herself to him is because she's seen him around the other interns and his friends enough to know he's a decent enough guy not to make a big deal about it and blab.

I think you have it right. It's also shows another facet of Claire, that she can be a good judge of character.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 21 Feb 2013, 21:20
Personally, I HATE Ties.  I never really learned how to tie them properly, but if pushed I can make a halfway decent go at it.  It's been years since I was anywhere where I had to wear a Tie and these days, I have one or two of those Cheat Ties around just in case I ever have to wear one.

Marten sympathy blushing is almost as cute as Claires reaction to tieing his Tie.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Sorflakne on 21 Feb 2013, 21:23
The tie cannot go extinct fast enough.  The sooner we stop wearing useless pieces of cloth tied in slipknots around our necks, the better off we'll be.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 21 Feb 2013, 21:43
What, you don't like the handy-dandy suicide-cloths that businesspeople wear? They're for quick escapes from the mortal plane when the SEC finds out about their embezzlement. True fact: Bernie Madoff did not wear ties.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 21 Feb 2013, 21:54
Geez, get busy for a day, and three damn pages slip by...

Ties: I only wear a double windsor (or what is more properly called a full windsor), because I'm not very tall and have long legs.  So the torso's kinda short, and I hate having a tie dangle down into my crotch. 

And I wear a bow tie more often that a regular one, because I rarely wear a regular one (church on Christmas and Easter and job interviews) but I wear a bow tie (real) for concerts. 

Also, the last school I worked at had "bow tie days" in the math department because the chair was a fan of them.  I was at a branch campus, but decided to participate anyway, and had a pic taken to prove the point...

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8101/8497301478_25fbd2a98c_n.jpg)


Also, Paul, thanks for the links to the scholarly papers - gonna have to read up!  Why do people answer the really cool knot theory questions before I even think of them...?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 21 Feb 2013, 21:55
Okay, apparently it also doubles as half a reference to They Might Be Giants
As opposed to "We're Definitely Dwarves".

I've already heard about We're Definitely Dwarves, and what that tells me is that I really need to read Soul Music. :D

But I meant that "Millenium Hand and Shrimp" which Jeph referenced in this comic (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1313) was in itself a reference to TMBG.

Jeph, as far as I know, has never mentioned We're Definitely Dwarves in the comic. But now that you mention it, if he did it would be amazing.
QC is already full of actual indie rock references. Surely he can squeeze in a fictional one somewhere? :P

Oh, and just to derail this thread even more, what is everyone's favourite TMBG song?
I'm pretty sure that everyone's going to say Birdhouse in Your Soul, but my personal favourite is Doctor Worm.
I'm gonna go get my tomato shield just in case that doesn't sit right with some people. :P
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 21 Feb 2013, 22:11
I don't think Claire told Marten her secret because she crushes on him.  I tend to think that's a silly reason to out such a huge secret.  The reason she outed herself to him is because she's seen him around the other interns and his friends enough to know he's a decent enough guy not to make a big deal about it and blab.
Did anyone think that she think that she told him because she was attracted to him instead of just feeling able to trust him?


My biggest problem with ties is that screeching sound they make flying past.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 21 Feb 2013, 22:22
So I'm guessing that's her little sister? Also, yes. Yes, it does, Marten.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: westrim on 21 Feb 2013, 22:27
Wait, which of them gets paid for sex acts again? :psyduck:

Is that his dad or his mom's sister? I suppose we'll find out next week.

If they're both in the sexy time business as implied, and they are actual sisters and not just sisters-in-law...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 21 Feb 2013, 22:34
 Nice strip  :-) .

 Ehm...didn't Claire have a little overbite?  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 21 Feb 2013, 22:44
Anybody else think of this? 



No?  Just me? 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 21 Feb 2013, 22:50
Ehm...didn't Claire have a little overbite?  :psyduck:
I think she still does have a tiny overbite, in the 4th panel.
Trust me to try derailing the thread RIGHT BEFORE the comic went up.

Okay then.
What I really want to know is, were Jeph and Cristi bouncing "ideas" off each other for this strip? You know, to make it as realistic as possible? :evil:
And Veronica may be right, Maurice may not be wearing a tie, but I like to think that that's because Maurice is actually wearing a gigantic bridal gown. Because if you have a reasonable opportunity to wear one, that's what you do, right? :P
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 21 Feb 2013, 23:07
THIS is what I'd been missing about QC lately. The happy banter.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 21 Feb 2013, 23:15
Don't you mean happy batter?

Also goes by the name euphoria fluid
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lubricus on 21 Feb 2013, 23:37
Don't you mean happy batter?

Also goes by the name euphoria fluid

Not quite yet. Maybe later, after a few drinks.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 22 Feb 2013, 00:08
Ok I laughed at this strip.    :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 22 Feb 2013, 01:10
In the comic with Hannelore passing out that was linked. "Millennium Hand and Shrimp" is a catchphrase of one of the recurring characters, essentially.

Oh, that one. I thought you were talking about in the comics from the last few days.

Bugrit.

Oh, and the book you're looking for is "Reaper Man".

Why Reaper Man specifically? The not-Beggars are in most of the books, at least most of the books set in Ankh-Morpork.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: de_la_Nae on 22 Feb 2013, 01:22
Maybe that's the first Foul Ol' Ron appears in? I don't remember.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 22 Feb 2013, 01:56
Other times I've just crashed at a friend's/family's  place or camped out in my tent/car.

One hard rule in my family is that we never spend a night at a relatives place. Especially when you wanna go out and do something that will take to the wee hours of the morning. Plus it's much easier just to crash in a hotel room that have your relatives be at your beck and call. 

What I really want to know is, were Jeph and Cristi bouncing "ideas" off each other for this strip? You know, to make it as realistic as possible? :evil:

I was gonna make a shipping joke, but then again, I've offended enough people for today.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 22 Feb 2013, 02:26
This thread moves too quickly for me to keep up!

Closets really aren't common in the UK, and I don't think I've seen them in Europe in general. We have free-standing wardrobes and sometimes built-in wardrobes, but not actual rooms you can walk into, I've only seen those in the US.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Indicible on 22 Feb 2013, 02:41
Holy crap...
I was laughing while reading the comics. Which is a bit problematic, considering my students were having a test. They were quite astonished to see me laughing while they were at work.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 22 Feb 2013, 02:44
We have free-standing wardrobes and sometimes built-in wardrobes, but not actual rooms you can walk into,

Think of "dressing rooms".  Still not common, I admit, though I have one as an adjunct to an en-suite bathroom.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lubricus on 22 Feb 2013, 02:59
Holy crap...
I was laughing while reading the comics. Which is a bit problematic, considering my students were having a test. They were quite astonished to see me laughing while they were at work.

I hope you pointed out to them that you were laughing at their misfortune?  :evil:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: hakko504 on 22 Feb 2013, 03:48
Closets really aren't common in the UK, and I don't think I've seen them in Europe in general. We have free-standing wardrobes and sometimes built-in wardrobes, but not actual rooms you can walk into, I've only seen those in the US.
Not in general, I agree, but me and my wife moved to a new house a few months ago, and we converted one room into a large closet for all our clothes as there was way too few wardrobes in the house.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 22 Feb 2013, 03:52
I loved this strip. I can see Faye and Dora having a similar exchange when they get older.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Emperor Norton on 22 Feb 2013, 04:01
Closets really aren't common in the UK, and I don't think I've seen them in Europe in general. We have free-standing wardrobes and sometimes built-in wardrobes, but not actual rooms you can walk into, I've only seen those in the US.

I wonder if its for a similar reason to why you don't see a lot of closets in pre-1900 US houses. At one point the property tax on houses was based on number of rooms, and a closet counted as a separate room, so it was cheaper to keep wardrobes. Closets were a super rich person thing.

Or so I was told by a person conducting a tour of an old plantation house. They could have been making shit up for all I know. But it does have some logic to it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Srxjo on 22 Feb 2013, 04:09
Hey, I'm new here (to the forums not the comic, been reading for years now) and must say I loved the new comic, I wonder if that is her sister or in-law, if it is her sister then it'll be even funnier and why is there so much hating on ties going on? I personally love ties (Though I don't really ever have a reason to wear one), I did hate them back when i was forced to wear them for school but that might be because the colours was ugly as sin.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 22 Feb 2013, 04:13
Closets evolved with the clothing industry in the US.  If you only have three changes of clothes and a sunday suit, all you really need is a dresser and a couple of hooks...

I live in a house built in 1900.  Every bedroom has a closet, but they are extraordinarily small - not much wider than the door, and less deep then they are wide.  They're rimmed with hooks, and had two short rods added (running front to back on each side of the door, they're not deep enough for a side-to-side rod) for hangers.  There's also a shelf.  The largest bedroom has two closets of that type. 

Not a lot of room for clothes, really.  No coat closets or anything on the first floor.  We have some extra wardrobes and dressers in the bedrooms and a coat rack downstairs. 


The world was a very different place...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 22 Feb 2013, 04:20
Wait, which of them gets paid for sex acts again? :psyduck:

Is that his dad or his mom's sister? I suppose we'll find out next week.

If they're both in the sexy time business as implied, and they are actual sisters and not just sisters-in-law...

I'm guessing that Jane is Henry's sister, therefore Veronica's ex-sister-in-law. Just a guess, though. And it sounds to me like Jane isn't in the business, just... an enthusiastic amateur, shall we say.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: zmeiat_joro on 22 Feb 2013, 04:37
Bugrit.

Oh, and the book you're looking for is "Reaper Man".

Why Reaper Man specifically? The not-Beggars are in most of the books, at least most of the books set in Ankh-Morpork.

Also, why Discworld specifically? "Millenium hand and shrimp" and "bugrit" also appear in the Johny Maxwell series. I think it was Mrs. Tachyon. She definitely uses it in at least Johny and the Bomb, and I think it was a vague plot hint.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 22 Feb 2013, 05:11
Does this mean that Marten is related to Yelling Bird somehow?  :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 22 Feb 2013, 05:25
I would love to have a walk-in closet! My conception of a dressing room is an actual room in which you get dressed, which might itself contain a wardrobe or chest of drawers or whatever. One of my schoolfriends had a dressing room; it was a small room with a dressing table (not sure what this is called in American - a vanity?) and a wardrobe and lots of shoes.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Black Sword on 22 Feb 2013, 06:15
Yes, Marten. Your taste in friends makes tons more sense now. I'm guessing this is a paternal aunt, since there's no resemblance to Ms. Reed.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 22 Feb 2013, 06:17
Hey, I'm new here (to the forums not the comic, been reading for years now) and must say I loved the new comic, I wonder if that is her sister or in-law, if it is her sister then it'll be even funnier and why is there so much hating on ties going on? I personally love ties (Though I don't really ever have a reason to wear one), I did hate them back when i was forced to wear them for school but that might be because the colours was ugly as sin.

Howdy there, new person! Don't be afraid to set up an intro thread here! (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php?action=post;board=6.0) ;D

I still can't tell if they're blood relatives or not...because if Marten's friends are any guide to these two, they've probably been going at each other like this for years.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Indicible on 22 Feb 2013, 06:19
Quote
I hope you pointed out to them that you were laughing at their misfortune?

Actually, no, I aid I was laughing about veneral diseases. They were quite puzzled. I also pointed out that in German (the language I teach), veneral diseases are called Franzosen (Frenchmen).

In any case, Claire is slowly getting immune to blushing: being in the middle of a verbal sparring match revolving around sexual diseases would be blush worthy.

Quote
Warning - while you were talking about veneral diseases a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your test results.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lubricus on 22 Feb 2013, 06:25
Quote
I hope you pointed out to them that you were laughing at their misfortune?

Actually, no, I aid I was laughing about veneral diseases. They were quite puzzled. I also pointed out that in German (the language I teach), veneral diseases are called Franzosen (Frenchmen).

"Franzosen"? I didn't know that. Hee hee!

Quote
In any case, Claire is slowly getting immune to blushing: being in the middle of a verbal sparring match revolving around sexual diseases would be blush worthy.

IDK, it seems like her blushing is more tied to her personally - she might not be affected by others' lack of grace if it doesn't apply to her directly.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 22 Feb 2013, 07:14
I'm guessing that Jane is Henry's sister, therefore Veronica's ex-sister-in-law. Just a guess, though. And it sounds to me like Jane isn't in the business, just... an enthusiastic amateur, shall we say.
The nose gives it away, methinks. Compare Jane to Henry back in 2383 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2383). There's a family similarity.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 22 Feb 2013, 07:30
I don't know, to me it seems Veronica, Henry and Jane have rather similar noses, but I guess she could be either sister. Or maybe she's just a family friend that Marten calls Aunt, who knows?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 22 Feb 2013, 07:42
There's that, but I suspect it's more family.

If Jane is Henry's sister, it'd be much more likely that she'd be invited to the wedding than if it was Veronica's sister.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 22 Feb 2013, 08:10
I still think an old friend (of Henry's, probably) is a distinct possibility. 


Probably the one who warned him against getting married in the first place...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: sitnspin on 22 Feb 2013, 08:41
Personally, I love wearing a tie. I think they look cool. Then again, I am an androgynous mildly gender-bent lady so I have a slightly different perspective.


This "aunt" may well be a family friend (frienemy?) and not an actual relative. It is quite common for kids to grow up referring to such people as aunt/uncle. The toddler little sister of my deceased wife refers to me as her aunt, even though sister-in-law would be more accurate, even if the marriage wasn't legally recognized.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: judemorrigan on 22 Feb 2013, 09:02
It's not just his taste in friends - it makes me think that Gordon knew what he was doing when he assigned Pintsize to Marten.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Merdrak on 22 Feb 2013, 09:19
New comic was awesome.. feels like how some of my friends and I greet each other on the daily. haha.

As for ties.. Half Windsor is about all I can tie, and the big bossman just decreed we're wearing Service Uniforms every Friday, so ... I gotta get used to tying 'em.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: de_la_Nae on 22 Feb 2013, 10:47
Also, why Discworld specifically? "Millenium hand and shrimp" and "bugrit" also appear in the Johny Maxwell series. I think it was Mrs. Tachyon. She definitely uses it in at least Johny and the Bomb, and I think it was a vague plot hint.

Hoho! I'd forgotten about that, well played! Though I do suspect a comparison of data would put an early appearance of the phrase in a Discworld book first, though I could be wrong.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ScoutX on 22 Feb 2013, 11:30
Martin reconciles with, marries, and impregnates Dora only to later realize he is gay. The child grows up, moves across the country for a girl, and befriends a sassy young lady and her assertive boss.

 :psyduck:

Time is cyclical. I can see the fabric of the universe.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 22 Feb 2013, 12:52
Martin reconciles with, marries, and impregnates Dora only to later realize he is gay. The child grows up, moves across the country for a girl, and befriends a sassy young lady and her assertive boss.

 :psyduck:

Time is cyclical. I can see the fabric of the universe.
There's a time warp somewhere between California and Massachusetts. Veronica and Henry are in fact older versions of Dora and Marten who, being aware of the time warp, have changed their names to keep the younger versions of Dora and Marten from finding out. Marten is in fact his own father. At the wedding reception, Henry will reveal the secret to all by singing the song "I'm My Own Grandpa."  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ScoutX on 22 Feb 2013, 13:03
Martin reconciles with, marries, and impregnates Dora only to later realize he is gay. The child grows up, moves across the country for a girl, and befriends a sassy young lady and her assertive boss.

 :psyduck:

Time is cyclical. I can see the fabric of the universe.
There's a time warp somewhere between California and Massachusetts. Veronica and Henry are in fact older versions of Dora and Marten who, being aware of the time warp, have changed their names to keep the younger versions of Dora and Marten from finding out. Marten is in fact his own father. At the wedding reception, Henry will reveal the secret to all by singing the song "I'm My Own Grandpa."  :psyduck:

All of reality turns to static. Martin finds himself in a room of monitors replaying key moments of his life.

In the center of the room is a large chair. It slowly turns to reveal Pintsize.

"I am the architect Martin, but the program can only continue if you will it. Press the red button to continue the cycle. Walk out that door to start anew."

"Seriously?"

"Heh. No. The whole wedding thing was a ploy to keep you distracted while I wallpapered the apartment with pictures of butts."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Zebediah on 22 Feb 2013, 13:10
And from outside of time Randy watches it all, over and over again.  :evil:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: K1dmor on 22 Feb 2013, 14:04
 Oh, Jane and Vicky, that's how friends behave after all  :lol: :
 
 (http://i.imgur.com/dYZMuoQ.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 22 Feb 2013, 14:23
Martin reconciles with, marries, and impregnates Dora only to later realize he is gay. The child grows up, moves across the country for a girl, and befriends a sassy young lady and her assertive boss.

 :psyduck:

Time is cyclical. I can see the fabric of the universe.
There's a time warp somewhere between California and Massachusetts.

Marten eventually figures this out and spends an indeterminate amount of time perfecting his light-year drive and drawing faces in ketchup.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: bhtooefr on 22 Feb 2013, 14:45
Wait, time warps?

There's a character that has perfected those...

Just goes to show, I was right to not change my sig. Blodwyn really is the chessmaster!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 22 Feb 2013, 16:57
Yeah, yeah, I finally got around to putting up a poll. :P
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: RedWolf4 on 22 Feb 2013, 17:37
God I wish that poll was multiple choice.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 22 Feb 2013, 18:18
I suddenly had visions of these two being the Faye and Dora of their generation.

Scary thought.



And yes Marten, yes it does.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Near Lurker on 23 Feb 2013, 06:45
I'm going with sister-in-law, only because it seems odd to call your sister "darling."  And yes, these are Faye and Dora in thirty years.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 23 Feb 2013, 08:37
You have to assume that Jane (or Janet) is probably intentionally calling her "Vicky" instead of "Veronica" or even "Ronnie".
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 23 Feb 2013, 08:41
Ha, didn't even notice that.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 23 Feb 2013, 08:59
I'd make a prediction for what will happen the next time IDUHG puts up a frame of Dora and Faye for the caption contest, but you can all predict what my prediction will be ...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 23 Feb 2013, 09:57
You have to assume that Jane (or Janet) is probably intentionally calling her "Vicky" instead of "Veronica" or even "Ronnie".

I was assuming that Veronica is her professional name, and that she goes by either.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 23 Feb 2013, 11:55
See, the problem with that she goes by both Veronica Vance and Veronica Reed, which would mean that she only changed her last name for her nom de porn. That doesn't mean she doesn't go by Vicky now and again, nicknames don't always make sense. (Seriously, how the hell is Peggy short for Margaret?)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lubricus on 23 Feb 2013, 12:44
See, the problem with that she goes by both Veronica Vance and Veronica Reed, which would mean that she only changed her last name for her nom de porn. That doesn't mean she doesn't go by Vicky now and again, nicknames don't always make sense. (Seriously, how the hell is Peggy short for Margaret?)

In the same way "Kate" is short for "Bob", I assume.  :-D

Apologies for the Black Adder joke, I'll try to behave...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 23 Feb 2013, 12:56
The Kate I remember was 6 feet tall. This Bob is 5'10".
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ChaosWolf on 23 Feb 2013, 13:12
looking back at it... is it just me, or are the last two panels of #2389 just begging for an "awkward boner moment" edit?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 23 Feb 2013, 14:37
I'd make a prediction for what will happen the next time IDUHG puts up a frame of Dora and Faye for the caption contest, but you can all predict what my prediction will be ...

Actually, you could go back to any of several (hundred) strips and input dialogue in that last frame for captioning...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 23 Feb 2013, 17:57
THE MOMENT OF THE WEEK!

The wedding has made mom all Broody.    0 (0%)
$#!+! LUBE! I  KNEW I forgot to pack something! (WELP GOOD NIGHT)    1 (2.3%)
I usually sleep in my boxers, is that okay? (Y-yeah, whatev... er...)    0 (0%)
I would've been fine but now you've got me thinking about it and it's awkward    1 (2.3%)
Well excuse me for not just dropping my pants right in front of you.    4 (9.1%)
Claire in the blue dress!    15 (34.1%)
I know it's supposed to be a casual ceremony, but you should at least put on some pants.    0 (0%)
I can't remember how to tie a stupid necktie. (Seriously? Here.)    2 (4.5%)
Uh- IT'S FINE IT'S PERFECT    12 (27.3%)
Marten! Oh, you look so precious in your suit!    1 (2.3%)
Oh, Jane. I thought I smelled a gonorrhea infection.    0 (0%)
I'm impressed, Vicky. 11 AM and you're not at the bar! Or did you drink all their scotch last night?    1 (2.3%)
Last I heard, Henry and Maurice weren't doing pity-invites.    0 (0%)
Good to see you, you horrid old twat.    3 (6.8%)
You too, darling. You've lost weight! Is that just from sucking #### all day?    2 (4.5%)
Suddenly my taste in friends makes a lot more sense to me.    2 (4.5%)

Total Members Voted: 44
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: mustang6172 on 23 Feb 2013, 18:52
As soon as Jane shows up, a gun appears in the background.  Is it Checkov's gun?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: de_la_Nae on 23 Feb 2013, 22:45
Hm. Chekhov's gun.

Veronica and Jane enact the the Faye/Dora relationship that is never to be.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Bluesummers on 23 Feb 2013, 22:57
As soon as Jane shows up, a gun appears in the background.  Is it Checkov's gun?

Who?

Wait, did I seriously just miss a Star Trek reference? If I did I'm gonna kick myself...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: GarandMarine on 23 Feb 2013, 23:38
As soon as Jane shows up, a gun appears in the background.  Is it Checkov's gun?

Who?

Wait, did I seriously just miss a Star Trek reference? If I did I'm gonna kick myself...

Nothing to do with that Chekov, it's a writing concept/trope that follows the idea that if you write in a story that there's a gun on the wall, it's going to go off within the next two pages.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Loki on 24 Feb 2013, 00:37
I have heard it worded as

Quote
If you see a play where a gun is shown to be on the wall in Act II, it is sure to be fired by Act V.

Chehov was a Russian playwright.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 24 Feb 2013, 01:09
As soon as Jane shows up, a gun appears in the background.  Is it Checkov's gun?

Actually,  it appeared in 2379 well before Faye Jane arrived.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 24 Feb 2013, 02:07
For more information (and less time), see here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 24 Feb 2013, 05:07
I would've recommended this (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Chekhov%27s+gun). 

And I'm thinking "old friend" aunt.  Relatives that talk to each other like that aren't usually friendly...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Arancaytar on 24 Feb 2013, 06:06
Latest comic gives us another instance of two characters with the same name (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=253)...

Since "Vicky" is addressed to Veronica in the latest strip, that thought leads to a weird place.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 24 Feb 2013, 06:20
Latest comic gives us another instance of two characters with the same name (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=253)...

Since "Vicky" is addressed to Veronica in the latest strip, that thought leads to a weird place.

That is a weird place. But not totally surprising.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 24 Feb 2013, 07:53
Latest comic gives us another instance of two characters with the same name (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=253)...

Since "Vicky" is addressed to Veronica in the latest strip, that thought leads to a weird place.
Okay, going with the time warp story... the Vicky that Marten dated was an younger version of Dora, with her hair dyed brown instead of black. The Vicky that appeared at Coffee of Doom and got the milk thrown at her was a fake planted by Raven (the Chessmaster) to confuse Marten. And so this whole thing is basically Raven being cruel to Marten in retaliation for him and Faye making fun of her when she worked at Hot Topic.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jesslc on 24 Feb 2013, 08:08
I would've recommended this (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Chekhov%27s+gun). 

And I'm thinking "old friend" aunt.  Relatives that talk to each other like that aren't usually friendly...

I'm on the "family friend who gets referred to as aunt" boat too. My money's on an old friend of Veronica from way back - they got into the business at the same time (or similiar) - before she had Marten. It wouldn't be unusual for Marten to be brought up calling her Aunt Jane (well not where I am anyway).

As well as Carl-E's point; I think Marten's comment "suddenly my taste in friends makes a lot more sense to me" makes more sense if they're friends rather than related.


Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 24 Feb 2013, 08:47
But why would an old friend of Veronica's be invited to this wedding? - I find it strange enough (based on related experience!) that Veronica has been.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: celticgeek on 24 Feb 2013, 08:55
Henry checked with Veronica (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1518), as well as Marten, before the wedding was set up.  So she knew, and was probably invited then.

I have no clue about Aunt Jane.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 24 Feb 2013, 09:01
But why would an old friend of Veronica's be invited to this wedding? - I find it strange enough (based on related experience!) that Veronica has been.
That's why I think if it's a friend, it's a friend that met them while they were a couple, who Veronica kept in touch with after the divorce but hasn't seen since.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jesslc on 24 Feb 2013, 09:22
Okay, pwhodges has a point about Jane

So I'm revising my story to: Jane is an old friend of Henry's, who meets Veronica through Henry, and either
1. She gets into the business around the same time as Veronica (which leads to the friendship/rivalry dynamic with Veronica that we just saw). or
2. She is already in the business when she meet Henry's new girlfriend, Veronica (and the fact that Veronica is in the same line of work as her helps build their friendship, but with just a bit of rivalry)


I don't think it odd that Veronica has been invited. If they weren't on good terms it'd be odd, but it's been mentioned many times that Henry and Veronica are friends. My mum is on good terms with both my dad and his new partner. If my dad eventually decides to marry his partner, I'd be more surprised if my mum didn't get an invite than if she did. (We've already had Christmas one year at mum's house with dad, his partner, my brother, my brother's girlfriend, my other brother, and I). Maybe my family (and Marten's) is the exception not the rule though.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 24 Feb 2013, 12:45
I don't think she's necessarily "in the business", the gonorrhea and  cock-sucking comments could well have been personal.   :-\
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: hakko504 on 24 Feb 2013, 23:41
See, the problem with that she goes by both Veronica Vance and Veronica Reed, which would mean that she only changed her last name for her nom de porn. That doesn't mean she doesn't go by Vicky now and again, nicknames don't always make sense. (Seriously, how the hell is Peggy short for Margaret?)

In the same way "Kate" is short for "Bob", I assume.  :-D

Apologies for the Black Adder joke, I'll try to behave...
No apology needed. It's probably the best comedy series ever written IMHO.

OT: Big britcom fan here, Black Adder, Bottom, Monty Python, 'Allo 'Allo, Fawlty Towers (list too long to continue). Also, my favourite writers are Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett & Robert Rankin. There may be a trend here.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 25 Feb 2013, 10:30
I've only seen the third series, so I didn't get that one (and if that was third series it's been nearly a decade), so I may have missed that one. I should watch the whole bit, it's all on Netflix.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: TimO on 25 Feb 2013, 12:26
I've only seen the third series, so I didn't get that one (and if that was third series it's been nearly a decade), so I may have missed that one. I should watch the whole bit, it's all on Netflix.

I have a cunning plan, more cunning than a very cunning thing, go and watch them all, now. :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 25 Feb 2013, 13:18
As soon as Jane shows up, a gun appears in the background.  Is it Checkov's gun?


So that's what happened to that Phaser after they returned to the future with the Whales.




 :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ankhtahr on 25 Feb 2013, 13:30
argh. AARGH. This hurts.

But I liked that movie. Do they seriously leave a phaser behind? I never noticed that.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 25 Feb 2013, 14:57
I thought it was the Klingon walkie-talkie Chekov was trying to pretend was a weapon. Or did Kirk leave his phaser behind in the hospital treatment room after he slagged the door lock?

Cramps.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 25 Feb 2013, 21:06
He left a Klingon Communicator, his Starfleet ID and a Phaser behind during the incident aboard the Aircraft Carrier Enterprise.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lubricus on 26 Feb 2013, 00:19
I've only seen the third series, so I didn't get that one (and if that was third series it's been nearly a decade), so I may have missed that one. I should watch the whole bit, it's all on Netflix.

It's from the second series. Which is a lot better than the third, IMO. Go watch it!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 26 Feb 2013, 04:30
I've only seen the third series, so I didn't get that one (and if that was third series it's been nearly a decade), so I may have missed that one. I should watch the whole bit, it's all on Netflix.

Blackadder goes Forth is the best in the series IMHO.  And the ending of the final episode is actually poignantvice comedic.

That and it has given me one of favourite lines, "Rhymes with 'clucking bell'."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: TimO on 26 Feb 2013, 05:57
Which is the best series is a widely argued point, although series one is generally considered to be the worst, since it was prior to Ben Elton being brought in to write the second (and onwards) series, and with Blackadder and Baldrick's behaviours being swapped over.

Personally I quite like the first series, it definitely has its good points, but the later series were mostly better.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 26 Feb 2013, 10:49
That and it has given me one of favourite lines, "Rhymes with 'clucking bell'."

"And that's what people would do in the Somme."

*hastily removes pencils from nose*
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 26 Feb 2013, 12:54
Actually, when you consider it, that final scene in Blackadder Goes Forth is really rather poignant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fssPqRWx9U0
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: TimO on 26 Feb 2013, 13:47
Actually, when you consider it, that final scene in Blackadder Goes Forth is really rather poignant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fssPqRWx9U0

The rather odd thing is, that it ended up being created because they didn't really have enough room in the studio to run very far, so they slowed down the very limited footage they had, and then added on the footage of the field fading between them.  It wasn't really originally planned to be done in that way, but that's what they ended up with.

When the series was first proposed, they received some criticism, since people thought that it was belittling a fairly horrific period in history, but that episode has apparently since been shown as part of an otherwise serious sequences of programmes relating to Armistice Day.

It seemed to work very well, and did make a point about the horror of the WW1 trench warfare (not that any warfare is exactly fun and games).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 26 Feb 2013, 14:46
Actually, when you consider it, that final scene in Blackadder Goes Forth is really rather poignant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fssPqRWx9U0

"Thank God! We lived through it! The Great War, 1914 to 1917.."

I've cried every time I've sat down and watched that episode. That one number says so much.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 26 Feb 2013, 14:55
Guys, this isn't a Blackadder thread, please stop spoiling the last episode  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 26 Feb 2013, 15:11
Guys, this isn't a Blackadder thread, please stop spoiling the last episode  :psyduck:

Surely talking about a program which ceased airing before I was born could be considered outside of "Spoiler" territory!

P.S. It doesn't end well for Romeo and Juliet.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 26 Feb 2013, 15:20
Still, if someone mentions a show and says they plan on watching it soon, it's usually considered impolite to talk about that show's last episode.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 26 Feb 2013, 15:27
Ah, the post from page 7. Sorry. Was just responding to the YouTube clip. <_<

For what it's worth it's intentionally left unseen in the show. Just because I cry easy at stuff like that doesn't mean it actually ends that way for them.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 26 Feb 2013, 18:31
Some of the best storytelling arises from having to work around financial/technical limitations in telling of said story. Jay Ward's studio took their "limited" animation to the ... Limit ... In creating some truly genius "Rocky and Bullwinkle" stories. The six-minute running time limit imposed by Leon Schlesinger resulted in some smartly-paced Looney Tunes shorts -- even if chuck Jones would never admit it.

Fo the obverse, see any of the  "CSI" TV shows. " Writing" those things has to be the easiest job in television.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 27 Feb 2013, 03:43
"Thank God! We lived through it! The Great War, 1914 to 1917.."

I've cried every time I've sat down and watched that episode. That one number says so much.
Yes.

My Grandad Brain joined up in 1914. Trained as a sniper, he was in the first wave at Gallipoli in 1915, and covered the evacuation afterwards. Thence to the Western Front, just in time for the Somme in 1916. It was at Passchendaele in 1917 that he had most of his arm blown off, and somehow managed to survive to be evacuated.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: TimO on 27 Feb 2013, 05:59
Presumably there's an implication that Captain Blackadder and Private Baldrick survived, because some of the Blackadder specials have been set in the present, and both (in their current incarnations) are present which suggests that they must have survived to procreate and generate some sort of succession.  I guess it's also possible that other family members could continue their lines, or that convergent evolution had to produce another one of each because the environment required it. :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Lubricus on 27 Feb 2013, 06:17
Presumably there's an implication that Captain Blackadder and Private Baldrick survived, because some of the Blackadder specials have been set in the present, and both (in their current incarnations) are present which suggests that they must have survived to procreate and generate some sort of succession.

I don't think you can make that assumption - the first Black Adder did certainly not have any children, after all.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 27 Feb 2013, 08:05
My Grandad Brain

Was that a typo of Brian, or was he really named Brain? 


"...the same thing we do every night, Pinky..."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 27 Feb 2013, 08:12
There is a story in my family about my uncle, who when his son was born, wrote "Brain" instead of "Brian" on the birth certificate application...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Near Lurker on 27 Feb 2013, 08:18
I don't think you can make that assumption - the first Black Adder did certainly not have any children, after all.

I thought it was generally accepted that all the Blackadders after the first were Baldrick's descendants, falsely given his name, which is why they switch IQ's between the first and second series.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 27 Feb 2013, 16:13
My Grandad Brain

Was that a typo of Brian, or was he really named Brain? 


"...the same thing we do every night, Pinky..."

Narf
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: ZoeB on 27 Feb 2013, 19:48
My Grandad Brain

Was that a typo of Brian, or was he really named Brain? 


"...the same thing we do every night, Pinky..."

It's my surname.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 27 Feb 2013, 20:28
This thread refuses to die.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 27 Feb 2013, 21:00
Poit!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Valdís on 27 Feb 2013, 21:02
This thread refuses to die.  :psyduck:

Its genes have been spliced?

While I'm not obsessive (seriously, don't worry), I think this particular intro has a rather neat crossover AMV for ze ponies. Given both Pinkie and "Twilight campaign". *Whistles innocently*

Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 28 Feb 2013, 05:58
That was surprisingly disturbing...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 28 Feb 2013, 11:18
The Ponies finally make sense to me.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 28 Feb 2013, 13:46
The anvil falling on the pony's head at the end was reassuring. Some things never go out of 'toon style.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2387-2391 (18-22 February, 2013) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 28 Feb 2013, 17:05
Indeed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r1knpIlcV8)