Topic: WCDT 16-20 May 2011 (1926-1930) (Read 68575 times)

Handmade.Mercury · « **Reply #300 on:** 20 May 2011, 07:21 »

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo adooooooooooooooooooooooorable!!!

Carl-E · « **Reply #301 on:** 20 May 2011, 07:27 »

I like Randy's comment at the bottom of this strip.

I too would like to celebrate the rapture!

It'll give the rest of us something to do while they're all busy...

jwhouk · « **Reply #302 on:** 20 May 2011, 08:00 »

Number of times Jim will reappear in the comic?

Never again.    - 1 (1.3%)
Once, maybe twice more.    - 14 (18.4%)
Maybe a week's worth in a couple of years.    - 12 (15.8%)
Regular rotation of supporting characters.    - 22 (28.9%)
New major character!    - 7 (9.2%)
Dora's replacement!    - 4 (5.3%)
It will all be about Jim.    - 4 (5.3%)
Mmmm, Waffles!    - 12 (15.8%)

Total Voters: 76

Tiogyr · « **Reply #303 on:** 20 May 2011, 10:46 »

Quote from: Carl-E on 20 May 2011, 07:27

I like Randy's comment at the bottom of this strip.

I too would like to celebrate the rapture!

It'll give the rest of us something to do while they're all busy...

With everyone in mourning over the death of Macho Man Randy Savage, I don't know if anyone will notice whether the rapture happens or not.

pendrake · « **Reply #304 on:** 20 May 2011, 11:02 »

1. Weekend Poll should have included an option for Number ASDF: Comic Failure. I would have voted for, (Shelby:) "Should quit job. Pet me full time."

For comic #1960... (Holy Moley...only about 2 months left before we hit 2,000!)

2. I chuckled at this strip, and I had been wondering what happened with these two. This is what happens when you have two supporting characters together but no primary character, event, or social situation (besides awkward silence) to roll with

.

3. I agree that we need more friend-"ships" than romantic, currently.

4. I also agree that I think Hanners and Elliot will be a good pairing for friends once the ball gets rolling in that regard. And I think it will be "interesting" when we see Marigold added to this mix

. [Edit Add: Another height comparision just occurred to me having just written that... Besides Sven, it will be interesting to see height comparision between Dale and Elliot.]

Blyss · « **Reply #305 on:** 20 May 2011, 11:38 »

Does Marten have any idea of these negotiations, and the ensuing goings on?

I just wondered this out of nowhere.

CompSarge · « **Reply #306 on:** 20 May 2011, 12:06 »

Quote from: kent_eh on 20 May 2011, 06:58

Quote from: Method of Madness on 20 May 2011, 05:43
doing some friendshipping. (is that a thing?)

It's friendship, friendship, just a perfect blendship. When other friendships are soon forgot, ours will still be hot. Da da da da da da dig dig dig.

You, sir, are evil. I have that song stuck in my head now after not hearing it for about 10 years.

Of course, mine was the Disney Sing-a-long version, but that's pretty much the definitive one anyway, right?

Tiogyr · « **Reply #307 on:** 20 May 2011, 12:16 »

Quote from: Blyss on 20 May 2011, 11:38

Does Marten have any idea of these negotiations, and the ensuing goings on?

I just wondered this out of nowhere.

He probably will shortly, either thru Faye or Hannelore.

mike837go · « **Reply #308 on:** 20 May 2011, 12:29 »

More likely Faye.

Hanners was at tSB ignoring Eliot while the negotiations were going on at CoD.

Then again, Faye was busy failing to give Padma the beat-down.

Carl-E · « **Reply #309 on:** 20 May 2011, 12:40 »

Quote from: pendrake on 20 May 2011, 11:02

This is what happens when you have two supporting characters together but no primary character, event, or social situation (besides awkward silence) to roll with .

Which makes me thnk of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead.

mike837go · « **Reply #310 on:** 20 May 2011, 12:50 »

Lets face it, Jeph has written Eliot as a the personification of awkward silence.

Today, he just mixed that with the personification of uncomfortable anywhere.

A hypergolic mixture that went *fizzle*

SirDudley · « **Reply #311 on:** 20 May 2011, 13:42 »

Quote from: mike837go on 20 May 2011, 12:50

Lets face it, Jeph has written Eliot as a the personification of awkward silence.

Today, he just mixed that with the personification of uncomfortable anywhere.

A hypergolic mixture that went *fizzle*

Agreed. But that still makes the strip a fun one. Well, for me it is. Because Elliot is almost a perfect recreation of how I tend to act in public. Very quiet and awkward.

Seriously, the resemblance between Elliot and me is TERRIFYING. But I like it. Are we sure Jeph hasn't been stalking me for character inspiration?

Method of Madness · « **Reply #312 on:** 20 May 2011, 14:31 »

Just realized, nobody's commented on the hidden end-of-the-world joke in the title yet (I actually just noticed it now).

MrMonk · « **Reply #313 on:** 20 May 2011, 14:42 »

Enough with all the fiddle-faddlin' and latent shippin': it's past time that Hannelore had a boyfriend, and that's that. And that Elliot seems such a nice young man.

iduguphergrave · « **Reply #314 on:** 20 May 2011, 14:58 »

He seems like a nice young man, but you know what they say about the quiet ones....

Method of Madness · « **Reply #315 on:** 20 May 2011, 14:59 »

@MrMonk There can be relationships without physical contact. I wouldn't want that for myself, but romance and physical intimacy don't have to go hand in hand. Hanners could very well start dating someone, as long as this was clear from the start.

@iduguphergrave They dig up women's graves?

idontunderstand · « **Reply #316 on:** 20 May 2011, 15:14 »

He probably has an gigazmous penis. I bet Hannelore is afraid of wangs, though..

Method of Madness · « **Reply #317 on:** 20 May 2011, 15:52 »

Eh, you have the right idea, but the execution was off. You put x in yo x, you don't put y in yo x.

iduguphergrave · « **Reply #318 on:** 20 May 2011, 15:57 »

One time I put y in my x and couldn't walk straight for days.

ysth · « **Reply #319 on:** 20 May 2011, 16:05 »

Quote from: jwhouk on 20 May 2011, 08:00

Number of times Jim will reappear in the comic?

Never again.    - 1 (1.3%)
Once, maybe twice more.    - 14 (18.4%)
Maybe a week's worth in a couple of years.    - 12 (15.8%)
Regular rotation of supporting characters.    - 22 (28.9%)
New major character!    - 7 (9.2%)
Dora's replacement!    - 4 (5.3%)
It will all be about Jim.    - 4 (5.3%)
Mmmm, Waffles!    - 12 (15.8%)

Total Voters: 76

I would have voted for "Spin-off!"

Method of Madness · « **Reply #320 on:** 20 May 2011, 16:07 »

Hahaha, well done, Gravey. My favorites are problably: this one and this one.

ysth · « **Reply #321 on:** 20 May 2011, 16:08 »

Quote from: Carl-E on 20 May 2011, 12:40

Quote from: pendrake on 20 May 2011, 11:02
This is what happens when you have two supporting characters together but no primary character, event, or social situation (besides awkward silence) to roll with .

Which makes me thnk of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead.

Or I could lick yours, of course.

Jedit · « **Reply #322 on:** 21 May 2011, 01:40 »

Quote from: snubnose on 20 May 2011, 00:34

I agree about the "must not ship Hanners + Anyone". I dont think Hanners is ready.

Why 'ship when we have reality? Hanners is clearly trapped between two equal and opposing forces: her OCD aversion to touching other people and her long-restrained natural urge to, if I may be blunt, f**k like a beast. She'll be frozen in place until one of these forces overcomes the other, which probably means "until her feet start hurting", sore feet not being conducive to horniness.

(Good job, really - they've got access to food and coffee. If they were sitting down, Jeph could probably have come back to them next Friday.)

BluePaladin25 · « **Reply #323 on:** 21 May 2011, 06:44 »

Wait, nobody pointed out the joke in the title? Y'ALL ARE SLACKING.

Carl-E · « **Reply #324 on:** 21 May 2011, 07:22 »

Well, two others have pointed out that there is a joke in the title. So did we really need to discuss it further?

AsteriskEnye3 · « **Reply #325 on:** 21 May 2011, 08:01 »

I think Jeph is just fucking with the Hanners + anyone shippers now. There's just going to be a series of progressively more awkward and non-threatening yet kind of attractive male characters with whom Hanners will be adorably awkward and ultimately not do anything about. And then there will be a dude WHO IS TOTALLY PERFECT FOR HER and then Hanners will look like she's starting to warm up to him and then she'll paralyze him, put him in suspended animation and store him in her lab where she will do something creepy with him and the Marten blood she saved awhile back.

~~Schmorgluck~~ · « **Reply #326 on:** 21 May 2011, 08:01 »

Count me in the Hanners-Elliot "friendshippers". They've got some amusing dynamics.

Carl-E · « **Reply #327 on:** 21 May 2011, 08:50 »

This is Jeph's modus operandi, though - most character pairings have amusing dynamics. Marigold & Dale, Marigold & Hanners, Marten & Tai (in the older comics), Steve & Damn Near Anyone, Angus & Faye, Wil & Sven, Sven & Dora, and the list goes on...

Oh, and you can't beat Tai for awkwardness lately...

DSL · « **Reply #328 on:** 21 May 2011, 09:05 »

Padma has the key to the restroom.

The Duke · « **Reply #329 on:** 21 May 2011, 11:59 »

Quote from: Method of Madness on 20 May 2011, 14:59

@MrMonk There can be relationships without physical contact. I wouldn't want that for myself, but romance and physical intimacy don't have to go hand in hand. Hanners could very well start dating someone, as long as this was clear from the start.

Pushing Daisies was an excellent show.

Jedit · « **Reply #330 on:** 21 May 2011, 14:00 »

Quote from: Carl-E on 21 May 2011, 08:50

This is Jeph's modus operandi, though - most character pairings have amusing dynamics. Marigold & Dale, Marigold & Hanners, Marten & Tai (in the older comics), Steve & Damn Near Anyone, Angus & Faye, Wil & Sven, Sven & Dora, and the list goes on...

It had better not go on that far.

~~Schmorgluck~~ · « **Reply #331 on:** 21 May 2011, 16:13 »

Quote from: Jedit on 21 May 2011, 14:00

Quote from: Carl-E on 21 May 2011, 08:50
This is Jeph's modus operandi, though - most character pairings have amusing dynamics. Marigold & Dale, Marigold & Hanners, Marten & Tai (in the older comics), Steve & Damn Near Anyone, Angus & Faye, Wil & Sven, Sven & Dora, and the list goes on...
It had better not go on that far.

Carl-E was just speaking of interesting dynamics between various pairs of characters, dammit! He even mentioned Marigold & Hanners, Marten & Tai, and Wil & Sven in his pairings, three pairs that have absolutely no possibility of taking any turn to anything remotely resembling a romantic direction (and I strongly suggest anyone who thinks otherwise to go and play in the microwave oven).

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #332 on:** 21 May 2011, 16:23 »

I didn't take that as sexual pairings at all. I urge more moderate discussion than "go play in the microwave".

~~Schmorgluck~~ · « **Reply #333 on:** 21 May 2011, 16:50 »

Sorry, Jedit remark irked me, and I found no more decent way to vent off my steam than to crack a Bill Waterson reference.

EDIT: and after reading it for the fifth or sixth time, I finally see how it can have been more generally sarcastic than I initially perceived. I'm slow tonight. Sorry, Jedit, my bad.

I don't retreat my "go play in the microwave" remark as a general appreciation, though. It's still valid, and it wasn't even targeted at Jedit to begin with, anyway.

EDIT 2: And just in case my previous post could be somehow read as an attack against Carl-E as well, I prefer to preemptively specify that it wasn't. Anyone who reads it that way is reading it wrong.

gprimr1 · « **Reply #334 on:** 21 May 2011, 19:29 »

Hanners def has a flirty pose in the last panel.

Torlek · « **Reply #335 on:** 21 May 2011, 19:51 »

Quote from: gprimr1 on 21 May 2011, 19:29

Hanners def has a flirty pose in the last panel.

That's kind of what I was thinking. On any other woman I'd consider that a highly flirtatious rendition of the sad puppy face. Of course this is Hanners so there's no way it can be that and were that suggested to her she'd either go catatonic from terror or start speaking the language of the old ones.

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #336 on:** 21 May 2011, 20:31 »

Agreed. If she doesn't even know how to smile at a stranger there's no way she knows how to flirt.

jwhouk · « **Reply #337 on:** 21 May 2011, 21:22 »

Quote from: gprimr1 on 21 May 2011, 19:29

Hanners def has a flirty pose in the last panel.

Thing is, this is a woman who doesn't recognize flirting, remember?

Kugai · « **Reply #338 on:** 21 May 2011, 21:56 »

True enough

But I think she's not quite as oblivious as she once was

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #339 on:** 21 May 2011, 23:11 »

For example, in the sledding arc, she recognized Faye and Angus's arguing as a "flirty" thing.

Carl-E · « **Reply #340 on:** 22 May 2011, 00:32 »

She was just recognising Belligerent Sexual Tension.

Sorry for wasting your time...

Skewbrow · « **Reply #341 on:** 22 May 2011, 05:59 »

Something like that. This can be explained by Hannelore's brain being stuck in an endless loop. Complete with the auxiliary activities (sorry, I don't know the proper psychological term in English). Elliott is presumably at work, and cannot run away. Neither of them knows the proper protocol. This was quite believable though exaggerated for maximum effect.

OTOH, if Hannelore's line in the last panel had been something like "Have . you .. ever ... been .... a .... fireman?", then IMVHO we could justifiably say that sending a subset of his fans into fits of shipping hysteria is Jeph's way of saying that he does luv us all.

Mr_Rose · « **Reply #342 on:** 22 May 2011, 13:38 »

Quote from: jwhouk on 21 May 2011, 21:22

Quote from: gprimr1 on 21 May 2011, 19:29
Hanners def has a flirty pose in the last panel.
Thing is, this is a woman who doesn't recognize flirting, remember?

Thing is, flirting is sort of semi-instinctual anyway. Hanners would only need to know what it looks like mostly to stop herself doing it unconsciously, as most people do, and also to be sure when a flirt is being thrown in her direction.
Besides it's not as if she is unaware of flirting in theory...remember the guy in the restaurant that the tried to smile at?

Deadlywonky · « **Reply #343 on:** 22 May 2011, 23:32 »

But that could have just been friendly, for all the crazy we've seen from Hanners she could have just have thought "boy is smiling at me, he's trying to be friends, I could let this happen provided he follows the rules'

Followed by the disastrous return smile. she wouldn't have needed to understand flirting at all for that

Jedit · « **Reply #344 on:** 22 May 2011, 23:50 »

Quote from: Schmorgluck on 21 May 2011, 16:50

I don't retreat my "go play in the microwave" remark as a general appreciation, though. It's still valid, and it wasn't even targeted at Jedit to begin with, anyway.

So you responded to an inoffensive comment that didn't even address you by dropping a nuke on my city, but it's OK because it wasn't targeting me specifically? Good job I didn't crack a "yo momma" joke - Howard Camping might have ended up being right.

Happily I am not the type of man to take offense at such things, at least not where there is snark to be mined from the situation.

~~Schmorgluck~~ · « **Reply #345 on:** 23 May 2011, 01:46 »

My remark was directed at creepy shippers, which I thought you were accusing Carl-E of turning into, while you were just cracking a joke (I was tired and read it wrong). So at no point of my thought process you were the target of this particular remark.

pwhodges · « **Reply #346 on:** 23 May 2011, 02:04 »

Please leave this now, or take it to PMs if you feel you need to.

questionablecontentfan · « **Reply #347 on:** 01 Jun 2011, 22:00 »

I thought Elliot was kinda cute, maybe Hanners thinks so too.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Poll

The Moment... Of... THE WEEK!

Author Topic: WCDT 16-20 May 2011 (1926-1930) (Read 68575 times)