Page 249 of 2684

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:02 am UTC
by cout
I don't understand why Cueball hasn't grown any facial hair and we haven't seen him shave in weeks.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:03 am UTC
by Kieryn
cout wrote:I don't understand why Cueball hasn't grown any facial hair and we haven't seen him shave in weeks.


Or go pee or poop.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:04 am UTC
by BlandSauce
I'm expecting the water to eventually rise up to mini castle's level so it will be "accurate", and then we zoom in.
Having tiny people there would be goofy, though.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:04 am UTC
by KarMann
cout wrote:I don't understand why Cueball hasn't grown any facial hair and we haven't seen him shave in weeks.

a) What are these "weeks" of which you speak?
b) He could easily have been doing that during his time out of frame.
c) What about his scalp hair? Trust me on this, a good cueball dome takes quite a bit of upkeep. Why the focus on beards & moustaches?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:05 am UTC
by patzer
Okay, so it was a river before, and now it's the sea?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:05 am UTC
by Kieryn
Around 73 Posts before 10k! I will be comaed. Dammit.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:07 am UTC
by Kieryn
patzer wrote:Okay, so it was a river before, and now it's the sea?


Apparently, this river is elsewhere. Maybe some screens off to the left.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:11 am UTC
by squonk
They are the last two people left in the world, and they're building an elaborate device to tell time.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:15 am UTC
by TheRic
I know there are currents in water, is there a river in a sea?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:17 am UTC
by Elmach
Thë seä ïs thë thïng tö thë right, änd thë rivër ïs thë thïng tö thë left.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:23 am UTC
by robhagopian
He doesn't understand what the ocean is doing? I don't understand what Randall is doing. Dropping this on a Friday? (The ocean doesn't change behavior much.) Is he going to wait for slow points in traffic and then start more plot to drive traffic? I've posted before but not in this thread and now he's sucking me into the forums too? I'm still hooked but I'm not going to check until Monday to keep my sanity. GET OUT OF MY HEAD! :-)

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:37 am UTC
by LoneMarauder
Count me among the de-lurkers. Never visited the fora much before this strip. But I'm here to stay now, you sick twisted freaks :twisted:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:40 am UTC
by Exodies
kryton wrote:If this were flatland they would have to go over the sandcastles, there would be no behind the castles.

And they wouldn't be able to make the holes - arches we saw before the Attack Of The Great Trebuchet

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:41 am UTC
by Jellyfish-derp
So since the dialogue about the sea, the number of users on this forum has doubled

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:51 am UTC
by htom
And coma calls.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:02 am UTC
by ChronosDragon
Ah! It is a sea!

Damn. I guess that makes the "metaphor for human civilization" idea hold a lot less water...

Edit: Wow, my 100th post was random song lyrics no one else here recognizes. :)

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:13 am UTC
by Shepherdess
Came back to comment on the sea comment, and I see that people have beaten me to it. That said, if the river is just to the left, where do they keep wondering off to?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:14 am UTC
by NotThatHatGuy
This is only the nth time I've exclaimed "Randall is playing with us!"

I, like any human, try to recognize patterns and predict what is to come, but I do remember the Only Commandment of the Creator of Time and I "Wait for it".

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:17 am UTC
by Shepherdess
Speaking of the Creator of Time, how do I convert? Whom must I sacrifice, and at what phase of the moon?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:25 am UTC
by thelonghalloween
I just wish he'd post a way to re-watch everything until this point. Too many hours stuck working and missing each change. Maybe that's his overall message, that time keeps moving forward...

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:33 am UTC
by Valarya
Guess that kills every Ice/Coffee/Semenated idea there ever was.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:35 am UTC
by ChronosDragon
Valarya wrote:Guess that kills every Ice/Coffee/Semenated idea there ever was.


Not quite...it could be a SEA of ice/coffee/semen. I wonder how the tides of those things would compare to water tides...

In other news, I decided to give my avatar a hat in honor of my 100th post. It only seemed reasonable, given the number of members of this thread/forum with a prediliction for hats.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:37 am UTC
by spamjam
INEIGTDI
Image

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:40 am UTC
by JCPenney
I REALLY wish I didn't have to do things Outside, in light of the recent action....however the good need is that in only a few longpix I'll have uninterrupted Time time.....is it sad that I'm really excited about this?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:49 am UTC
by KarMann
ChronosDragon wrote:
Valarya wrote:Guess that kills every Ice/Coffee/Semenated idea there ever was.


Not quite...it could be a SEA of ice/coffee/semen. I wonder how the tides of those things would compare to water tides...

In other news, I decided to give my avatar a hat in honor of my 100th post. It only seemed reasonable, given the number of members of this thread/forum with a prediliction for hats.

I'm Cardinal KarMann*, and I approve this message.

* Hey, I hadn't even noticed how alliterative that is!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:00 am UTC
by spamjam
Image

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:04 am UTC
by Shepherdess
Not much change then.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:07 am UTC
by diego5wh
Shepherdess wrote:Not much change then.

no :S, but the hash did change and using the program in the wiki it gives me this.
diff.png
difference

it seems they moved a little...

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:09 am UTC
by ubscdt
Davidy wrote:
KarMann wrote:
udscbt wrote:
KarMann wrote:
htom wrote:
udscbt wrote:
htom wrote:It's is the contraction of "It is".
Its is the possessive of it.

Not if It is the name of a person. E.g.: "That is It's book" or "Who's that cursed hat?" "It's It's".

That is its book. You've written "That is it is book."
It's its. You've written "It is it is."
Sorry. It took me years and a good secretary to learn this.
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/its.html
edit -- messed up the quotes.

No, they're* talking about someone like Cousin It, in which case, yeah, that would be It's book. About the cursed hat, though, did you mean "who is that cursed hat?", or "whose is that cursed hat?", i.e. "to whom does that cursed hat belong?"
Any way you slice it, though, it's still me** and mine.

* she, he, it, It, whatever
** properly I, I know, but who really says that?

Ok, that was actually wrong. I meant whose.

EDIT: and I think it's actually "it's still me", since the subject is "it" and not "me". On the other hand, I'm italian and they don't teach english too well here.

The predicate of a copula is in the nominative/subjective case in at least most languages, including English. But, in casually spoken English, we often use the accusative/objective case anyway.

And that produces abominations like, "Me and her went to the movies."


i'm a linguist when i'm not a cardinal, so i feel the need to get all uppity here.

FIRST of all, in "me and her went to the movies" there is no copula.

SECOND, "me" is not in the predicate.

third, the nominative case as object is one of those "hey! latin did it, so let's be fashionable & impose it in english too!" rules. if someone says "who wants ice cream?", what do you cheer? "i!" or "me!"? if you say "i!", you're lying. I CAN SEE YOU LYING.

you might say -- okay, but what about if we used a sentence with a copula? that is the point, after all. okay, fine. "who's there?" "i!" no. in real life situations, you'll say "me." i know you will.

fourth, there's actually perfectly good reasons why it emerges as "me" in "me and her went to the movies" but not in "she and i went to the movies." it has to do with a verb's ability to assign case, which it can't in the first construction (so default case -- accusative in english) is used. in the second construction, nominative case can be assigned, so it is. "i and she went to the movies" and "her and me went to the movies" are marked as worse than the first two sentences by native english speakers.

fifth, but kind of first -- "me and her went to the movies" is not an abomination. that is perfectly legit english. i will fight you.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:13 am UTC
by Valarya
KarMann wrote:
ChronosDragon wrote:
Valarya wrote:Guess that kills every Ice/Coffee/Semenated idea there ever was.


Not quite...it could be a SEA of ice/coffee/semen. I wonder how the tides of those things would compare to water tides...

In other news, I decided to give my avatar a hat in honor of my 100th post. It only seemed reasonable, given the number of members of this thread/forum with a prediliction for hats.

I'm Cardinal KarMann*, and I approve this message.

* Hey, I hadn't even noticed how alliterative that is!


Has that perfect ring to it. The kind you want to hear when getting approval of Seas of Semen.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:33 am UTC
by NotThatHatGuy
ubscdt wrote:<snip>
i'm a linguist when i'm not a cardinal, so i feel the need to get all uppity here.

FIRST of all, in "me and her went to the movies" there is no copula.

SECOND, "me" is not in the predicate.

third, the nominative case as object is one of those "hey! latin did it, so let's be fashionable & impose it in english too!" rules. if someone says "who wants ice cream?", what do you cheer? "i!" or "me!"? if you say "i!", you're lying. I CAN SEE YOU LYING.

you might say -- okay, but what about if we used a sentence with a copula? that is the point, after all. okay, fine. "who's there?" "i!" no. in real life situations, you'll say "me." i know you will.

fourth, there's actually perfectly good reasons why it emerges as "me" in "me and her went to the movies" but not in "she and i went to the movies." it has to do with a verb's ability to assign case, which it can't in the first construction (so default case -- accusative in english) is used. in the second construction, nominative case can be assigned, so it is. "i and she went to the movies" and "her and me went to the movies" are marked as worse than the first two sentences by native english speakers.

fifth, but kind of first -- "me and her went to the movies" is not an abomination. that is perfectly legit english. i will fight you.


I'm neither a cardinal nor a linguist, I just happened to study linguistics under Michael Brame at the University of Washington in the Late Cretaceous, and so have a bias toward descriptive grammar. Therefore "me and her..." is correct or incorrect only in the sense that native speakers will or will not use it a natural sentence.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:44 am UTC
by azule
patzer wrote:Okay, so it was a river before, and now it's the sea?

The sea, possibly, is to the right. The river is also to the right, much further out. They were looking in that direction when the question came up.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:47 am UTC
by mybrainhurts
ChronosDragon wrote:In other news, I decided to give my avatar a hat in honor of my 100th post. It only seemed reasonable, given the number of members of this thread/forum with a prediliction for hats.

Its' just 2 addictive 2 w/stand, i'ts time for me 2, I had 2 have a hat 2!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:56 am UTC
by Kabuthunk
Well, it appears as though this topic has utterly smashed the previous record for most replied to comic thread. Should have kept this topic open and checked it more often though... I don't think I have the willpower to try to read through all 249 pages.

I predicted a long while back... like somewhere around page 25 or something... that this would run for a year. Looks like it's horrendously unlikely to run that long, but at least I had it down that it'd run a lot longer than most people predicted. I almost want to predict that the sea will rise, wipe out the castle, look like that for a while, then a week later or something the sea resides, and it loops back onto itself and repeats.

Also... STILL gotta give mad props to the auto-updating animated gif.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:01 am UTC
by tman2nd
Image

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:04 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
ubscdt wrote:third, the nominative case as object is one of those "hey! latin did it, so let's be fashionable & impose it in english too!" rules. if someone says "who wants ice cream?", what do you cheer? "i!" or "me!"? if you say "i!", you're lying. I CAN SEE YOU LYING.

I would most likely say "I do!", or possibly, yes, "me". In the latter case, the structure in mind is "[The person who wants ice cream is] me!"; "me" is the object of that proposition, not the subject. I am not predicating wanting-icecream of myself, as I do when I say "I do [want ice cream]". I am predicating myself as the identify of the person who wants ice cream.

I supposed technically that should only be the answer to the question "Whom wants ice cream?", but nobody says that even if they meant it. And such subject-object agreement is probably why I'm more inclined to answer "I do" to a "Who" question instead of "me". Likewise in the third person: Who wants ice cream? He and they do, as do I. Whom wants ice cream? Him and them, and me.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:12 am UTC
by Elmach
Pfhorrest wrote:
ubscdt wrote:third, the nominative case as object is one of those "hey! latin did it, so let's be fashionable & impose it in english too!" rules. if someone says "who wants ice cream?", what do you cheer? "i!" or "me!"? if you say "i!", you're lying. I CAN SEE YOU LYING.

I would most likely say "I do!", or possibly, yes, "me". In the latter case, the structure in mind is "[The person who wants ice cream is] me!"; "me" is the object of that proposition, not the subject. I am not predicating wanting-icecream of myself, as I do when I say "I do [want ice cream]". I am predicating myself as the identify of the person who wants ice cream.

I supposed technically that should only be the answer to the question "Whom wants ice cream?", but nobody says that even if they meant it. And such subject-object agreement is probably why I'm more inclined to answer "I do" to a "Who" question instead of "me". Likewise in the third person: Who wants ice cream? He and they do, as do I. Whom wants ice cream? Him and them, and me.

"Whom wants ice cream?" doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

Now, I might be completely wrong here, but "whom" is like an accusative and "ice cream" is an accusative in the sentence, and "wants" doesn't seem to have anything that can be applied as a subject.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:13 am UTC
by ChronosDragon
Pfhorrest wrote:
ubscdt wrote:third, the nominative case as object is one of those "hey! latin did it, so let's be fashionable & impose it in english too!" rules. if someone says "who wants ice cream?", what do you cheer? "i!" or "me!"? if you say "i!", you're lying. I CAN SEE YOU LYING.

I would most likely say "I do!", or possibly, yes, "me". In the latter case, the structure in mind is "[The person who wants ice cream is] me!"; "me" is the object of that proposition, not the subject. I am not predicating wanting-icecream of myself, as I do when I say "I do [want ice cream]". I am predicating myself as the identify of the person who wants ice cream.

I supposed technically that should only be the answer to the question "Whom wants ice cream?", but nobody says that even if they meant it. And such subject-object agreement is probably why I'm more inclined to answer "I do" to a "Who" question instead of "me". Likewise in the third person: Who wants ice cream? He and they do, as do I. Whom wants ice cream? Him and them, and me.


I don't remember the original context of the argument, but it seems to me that spoken english and written english tend to have different standards, or at least different levels of people who get really picky about it.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:15 am UTC
by Helper
I'ma coma. G'night.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:40 am UTC
by Reka
1. So has anyone identified the geography yet? Seems to me that all the clues we've gotten (sea that doesn't have tides, doesn't have waves, but very slowly rises; river somewhere not too far off; lots and lots of sand on the beach) ought to be enough for someone to identify a plausible location, but I'm definitely not that someone.

2. All y'all need to check out http://english.stackexchange.com. Just sayin'. (For example, here's how to answer "who wants ice cream".)