Topic: WCT March 8-12 2010 (Read 58143 times)

ndperfesser · « **Reply #150 on:** 11 Mar 2010, 17:16 »

Cuddle rabies should become one of those Internet viral meme thingies I keep hearing about. You know, the ones the TV newsclowns obsess over until Jon Stewart starts making fun of them.

ThePrettyMonster · « **Reply #151 on:** 11 Mar 2010, 20:05 »

Did anyone else see the smiley face in Faye's muffin?

The Duke · « **Reply #152 on:** 11 Mar 2010, 20:08 »

Heh, that's pretty funny.

Carl-E · « **Reply #153 on:** 11 Mar 2010, 23:15 »

Well, at least the order's right, and everyone fucks before he retires.

Talk about fan service!

westrim · « **Reply #154 on:** 11 Mar 2010, 23:32 »

A Hannelore realdoll?! Where can I place my ord- I mean, that's weird and creepy and not cool Jeph. *cough*

NeverQuiteGoth · « **Reply #155 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 00:04 »

I think I've switched my fan-drooling from Hanners to Marigold now. I mean, Hanners is cute as all get out and I identify with her OCD (especially the days and days without sleep stuff), but Marigold is just so geeky and adorable, and it seems like Marigold would be way better in bed too.

Kugai · « **Reply #156 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 00:19 »

Shouldn't that read "Hannelore Marigold's Realdoll"?

Caliban · « **Reply #157 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 00:31 »

Coffee of Doom shows up in Shortpacked! again, as well as cameos from other comic strips: http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20100312.html

snubnose · « **Reply #158 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 00:59 »

Ugh ! Seriously, is there ANYTHING more creepy than a realdoll ? Even if its one of Hannelore, or of Drew Barrymore, or of your own girlfriend - thank you, but no, just no.

raoullefere · « **Reply #159 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 02:56 »

Hannelore + Realdoll (made of germ resistant plastic, naturally) sounds like a plan. I mean, give her a break. She's not like these schmoos one sees on TV—Hanners is making an effort. And otherwise, I don't see how the "everybody" can get together with the "fucks."

Binary · « **Reply #160 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 02:57 »

Hmmm. When I read the strip, I assumed "Hannelore realdoll" meant Hannelore gets a (male) realdoll, since that's the only way she could be included in the "Everybody fucks" part.

Edit: Goddammit Raoullefere, you ninja'd me again!

Mr_Rose · « **Reply #161 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 03:00 »

Quote from: snubnose on 12 Mar 2010, 00:59

Ugh ! Seriously, is there ANYTHING more creepy than a realdoll ? Even if its one of Hannelore, or of Drew Barrymore, or of your own girlfriend - thank you, but no, just no.

I hear that some guy has "upgraded" his to have rudimentary motion.
Also moans.

Also also, pretty sure the RealDoll people won't let make duplicates of real people or celebrities.

NeverQuiteGoth · « **Reply #162 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 04:11 »

Are real-doll users really that much creeper than people who bang random strangers they meet at bars or wherever? I mean, both are cases of a hollow, meaningless fuck without emotional involvement or interpersonal effort. I don't think the doll guys are that much creepier. Just probably uglier. (And less disease-ridden)

Tuitsuro · « **Reply #163 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 05:19 »

Maybe Hannelore is a realdoll with a severe programming error. Someone informing her of that fact would cause her braincase to explode from the sheer mindfuckery. Would also explain why she has urges to 'kill all humans'.

Mad Cat · « **Reply #164 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 05:24 »

Quote from: ThePrettyMonster on 11 Mar 2010, 20:05

Did anyone else see the smiley face in Faye's muffin?

Why did I first look for the front of Faye's pants?

The Hannelore Realdoll would have OC embedded in the skin and if that doesn't do it, a network of fine wires in the skin connected to a stun gun mechanism inside.

Hanners' OCD is so powerful, even her Realdoll can't stand to be touched.

The Duke · « **Reply #165 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 12:44 »

Quote from: Border Reiver on 11 Mar 2010, 04:16

Quote from: jwhouk on 10 Mar 2010, 21:01
So... do we mention anything about that other, not-as-well-drawn comic with too much drama and toy obsession?

Sure we can bring it up - it's not like it's the first time they've shown up here.

Speaking of Shortpacked in relation to Questionable Content, Ethan seems to be meeting a date at Coffee of Doom, complete with random drawing on the chalkboard (which I believe is Randy yelling "OH FRAPPE").

Also, I think I see Marten in the first panel.

Carl-E · « **Reply #166 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 13:38 »

Oh, I see him now. Well, a faded black hoodie and some black hair - could be anyone, really. But that's definitely Hazel and Jamie from GWS in the first panel lower left!

Akima · « **Reply #167 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 14:07 »

Quote from: The Duke on 12 Mar 2010, 12:44

Speaking of Shortpacked in relation to Questionable Content, Ethan seems to be meeting a date at Coffee of Doom, complete with random drawing on the chalkboard (which I believe is Randy yelling "OH FRAPPE"). Also, I think I see Marten in the first panel.

Definitely Marten. And Hazel and Jamie in the foreground, I think. I totally LOL'd at the previous day's strip (Hint: View it flipped left-to-right if you're not good at reading mirror-writing).

pwhodges · « **Reply #168 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 14:12 »

An easier hint - it's the name of the image file.

The Duke · « **Reply #169 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 14:38 »

Since his speech bubble was in the way, I totally read it as "COFFEE BITCH THEFT".

Lol.

Mr_Rose · « **Reply #170 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 16:23 »

Quote from: Akima on 12 Mar 2010, 14:07

Quote from: The Duke on 12 Mar 2010, 12:44
Speaking of Shortpacked in relation to Questionable Content, Ethan seems to be meeting a date at Coffee of Doom, complete with random drawing on the chalkboard (which I believe is Randy yelling "OH FRAPPE"). Also, I think I see Marten in the first panel.
Definitely Marten. And Hazel and Jamie in the foreground, I think. I totally LOL'd at the previous day's strip (Hint: View it flipped left-to-right if you're not good at reading mirror-writing).

Also in the first panel: Shanna Erixon from Fans and what I think might be Biff.

jwhouk · « **Reply #171 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 17:46 »

Quote from: Tuitsuro on 12 Mar 2010, 05:19

Maybe Hannelore is a realdoll with a severe programming error. Someone informing her of that fact would cause her braincase to explode from the sheer mindfuckery. Would also explain why she has urges to 'kill all humans'.

No, that would only make sense if we were on Caprica.

jwhouk · « **Reply #172 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 17:55 »

Quote from: Mr_Rose on 12 Mar 2010, 16:23

<snip>
Also in the first panel: Shanna Erixon from Fans and what I think might be Biff.

I'm not sure but I don't think that's Jamie. I think that's another character from another webcomic, but I'm not familiar with the style.

The other three are pretty much right on: Hazel (or perhaps Danielle) from GWS; Shanna Erixon from Fans and Biff from The Adventures of Biff.

est · « **Reply #173 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 17:59 »

Quote from: NeverQuiteGoth on 12 Mar 2010, 04:11

Are real-doll users really that much creeper than people who bang random strangers they meet at bars or wherever? I mean, both are cases of a hollow, meaningless fuck without emotional involvement or interpersonal effort. I don't think the doll guys are that much creepier. Just probably uglier. (And less disease-ridden)

You cannot be serious.

Akima · « **Reply #174 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 18:37 »

Quote from: snubnose on 12 Mar 2010, 00:59

Ugh ! Seriously, is there ANYTHING more creepy than a realdoll ? Even if its one of Hannelore, or of Drew Barrymore, or of your own girlfriend - thank you, but no, just no.

Realdolls are pretty creepy. But sometimes I've thought they should be available on Medicare, so all those to whom they appeal could have one, and leave real girls alone.

Realdolls and QC collided in my brain while reading these postings, and produced the horrid image of Dora, Faye, Hanners etc. as Bratz dolls... Ugh... Pass the brain-bleach, I should stay away from this forum at weekends.

Steve the Pocket · « **Reply #175 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 20:50 »

Quote from: Akima on 12 Mar 2010, 18:37

Realdolls and QC collided in my brain while reading these postings, and produced the horrid image of Dora, Faye, Hanners etc. as Bratz dolls... Ugh... Pass the brain-bleach, I should stay away from this forum at weekends.

Yeah, well, you just made me picture Bratz sex dolls. *five minutes of jibblies-having*

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #176 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 21:57 »

What would be even worse would be an underage Bratz doll.

raoullefere · « **Reply #177 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 23:30 »

Quote from: est on 12 Mar 2010, 17:59

Quote from: NeverQuiteGoth on 12 Mar 2010, 04:11
Are real-doll users really that much creeper than people who bang random strangers they meet at bars or wherever? I mean, both are cases of a hollow, meaningless fuck without emotional involvement or interpersonal effort. I don't think the doll guys are that much creepier. Just probably uglier. (And less disease-ridden)

You cannot be serious.

I won't go as far as NeverQuiteGoth, but for some people, a realdoll might be…cleaner…than the trail of emotional betrayal they leave behind them. But there's more to it, of course, than that.

Quote from: Akima on 12 Mar 2010, 18:37

Realdolls are pretty creepy. But sometimes I've thought they should be available on Medicare, so all those to whom they appeal could have one, and leave real girls alone.

Better still, couple that (hah) with sexual therapists and surrogates who might actually teach these folks how to relate to a partner.

est · « **Reply #178 on:** 13 Mar 2010, 04:20 »

I meant more that NQG equating a dude picking up a lady in a bar to a dude banging a doll is objectifying the woman involved, removing her choice in the matter and implying that she is a passive participant. I have seen ladies coming onto guys in bars, too y'know. Also, saying that there isn't any interpersonal effort involved is bullshit. I can agree that some people just get drunk and go home with whoever lets them, but for others there is a few hours of talking and dancing and generally having a good time at a club or something before heading back to someone's place, so I would hardly put that on the same level as buying a goddamn doll and sticking your cock into it.

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #179 on:** 13 Mar 2010, 11:13 »

I don't remember the details and don't feel like typing in the necessary search terms, but someone recently announced a $7000 posable sex toy mannequin with a hot air system to keep the skin warm and voice recognition/synthesis to simulate conversations.

Akima · « **Reply #180 on:** 13 Mar 2010, 13:26 »

Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 13 Mar 2010, 11:13

I don't remember the details and don't feel like typing in the necessary search terms, but someone recently announced a $7000 posable sex toy mannequin with a hot air system to keep the skin warm and voice recognition/synthesis to simulate conversations.

Or so you heard.

Zipperstuck · « **Reply #181 on:** 13 Mar 2010, 19:10 »

Dora is pregnant

Tuitsuro · « **Reply #182 on:** 14 Mar 2010, 00:06 »

Hannelore will be situationally forced to deliver the baby.

NeverQuiteGoth · « **Reply #183 on:** 14 Mar 2010, 04:00 »

Quote from: est on 13 Mar 2010, 04:20

is objectifying the woman involved, removing her choice in the matter and implying that she is a passive participant.

How the hell did you get that out of what I said? I think you're being a bit sexist. I said "people" not "men". I made no gender distinctions.

I was TRYING to make the point that it is only creepy if the person using the doll is using it as a surrogate focus for the EMOTIONAL intimacy of sex with a person they know and care about, and that people who do one-night-stands are more often guilty of this, of projecting phantom feelings onto their partners and psychologically disregarding the actual person. So what's creepier? Using a artificial body as an interchangeable blank, or using real people as interchangeable blanks?

Jimmy the Squid · « **Reply #184 on:** 14 Mar 2010, 06:25 »

Artificial body is creepier.

Furthermore sometimes sex is just sex and there doesn't need to be any emotional drive behind it. Your posts (both in this thread and in others) and denoted a certain, puritanical attitude towards sex and women in general. Based on a more thorough reading of the kinds of things you say I do not believe that it is unreasonable to assign a sexist tone to a lot of posts you have made.

Dliessmgg · « **Reply #185 on:** 14 Mar 2010, 10:20 »

Quote from: Jeans on 14 Mar 2010, 06:39

make up yr own truth

westrim · « **Reply #186 on:** 14 Mar 2010, 13:00 »

HAPPY PI DAY!!!

Dliessmgg · « **Reply #187 on:** 14 Mar 2010, 13:17 »

ΠπΠπΠπΠ!

keikun496 · « **Reply #188 on:** 14 Mar 2010, 18:40 »

I suppose I'm not the only one that noticed that the yelling bird template Copyright Date needs to be updated so it reflects up to 2010, right?

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Poll

Is Dora Pregnant?

Author Topic: WCT March 8-12 2010 (Read 58143 times)

westrim

westrim