0858: "Milk"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby BioTube » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:05 pm UTC

Aic wrote:Which one doesn't seem well-founded, the idea of having sex with a pregnant woman or the idea that "sex with a pregnant woman = ewe"?
The latter(well, spelt "eww"; see below). Could just be the parts of the internet I flounder around, but they're not exactly fetish sites. TVTropes, for instance
(I am indeed not too fond of the idea to almost poke your baby's head with your dick's head.)
Because there's no barrier there to keep several pounds baby and amniotic fluid in that might need to break and let the water out before the kid can see the outside world. Also, I'm pretty sure most of the time in the womb is spent head-up.
The latter are of a different level of association and reasoning. But I think neither of us feels like discussing that.
The point is(well, seems to be) that you're overthinking it if lactation's a turnoff. Just remember that the fact that milk comes out of boobies is as far as you need to go.
Kisama wrote:I agree that the idea that sex with a pregnant women is equivalent to a sheep isn't well-founded.
For some reason I though shesheep was spelled differently. That's what I get for rarely using onomatopoeias.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

Aic
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:57 am UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby Aic » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:42 pm UTC

Because there's no barrier there to keep several pounds baby and amniotic fluid in that might need to break and let the water out before the kid can see the outside world. Also, I'm pretty sure most of the time in the womb is spent head-up.
I just don't think a penis should be anywhere near a baby for sexual reasons. It is head-up most of the time but that wouldn't have fit for my head-to-head-comment. (Though I personally seemed to like weird positions which also was the reason I wasn't born the natural way.)

The point is(well, seems to be) that you're overthinking it if lactation's a turnoff. Just remember that the fact that milk comes out of boobies is as far as you need to go.
It's just obvious for me, I don't actively think about it. I never think anything on purpose, I avoid thinking but it doesn't help much. Also I do not think in words or pictures which makes it even less controllable. When I think I am pretty convinced that one should never stop thinking at a certain point only because else it would be unpleasant. Actually, that's a reason to think on.

At least this fetish stuff doesn't hurt anyone except my brain.
I do gud englisch. Also, yes, I'm a girl. Sorry.

User avatar
Bruce Springsteen
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:34 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby Bruce Springsteen » Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:17 am UTC

I am a retrograde, conservative Republical monster.

Come and get me.
sup
Image

zAlbee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby zAlbee » Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:56 am UTC

mattbob wrote:The argument that lactation is a common sexual desire is misguided, but I believe it actually comes from a true place. Men probably find breasts to be attractive because they feed their possible children. But for most people, the line is drawn at actually wanting to lactate your sexual partner to turn you on.


This is exactly my point. The fact that someone may draw the line here, i.e. squeezing breasts = sexy, squeezing breasts with liquid coming out = not sexy, is totally arbitrary.* How could you not realize that this line could be placed elsewhere for different people? Also, it's completely commonplace for liquids, lubricants, and "being wet" to be associated with sex and arousal, so it doesn't surprise me if it is MORE likely to be a turn-on than not. And this is all before invoking Rule 34.

Anyway, there are much weirder things out there that turn people on.

Finally, I find it especially funny how SirMustapha latches onto this topic with over-the-top ALLCAPS outrage, as if finally there is a reason to validate his baseless hatred of Randall and xkcd. LOL. How predictable.


*If you think about it logically from the perspective of a sex-less robot, NEITHER of them make any sense. There's no use in logical explanations for this.

User avatar
Bruce Springsteen
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:34 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby Bruce Springsteen » Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:17 am UTC

zAlbee wrote:Finally, I find it especially funny how SirMustapha latches onto this topic with over-the-top ALLCAPS outrage, as if finally there is a reason to validate his baseless hatred of Randall and xkcd. LOL. How predictable.

Baseless love of Randall and xkcd is just as bad.

And don't say you don't always love every xkcd. We all do. Even SirMustapha the volcanic planet. He just doesn't realize it yet.
sup
Image

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby SirMustapha » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:46 am UTC

zAlbee wrote:The fact that someone may draw the line here, i.e. squeezing breasts = sexy, squeezing breasts with liquid coming out = not sexy, is totally arbitrary.


The problem is not in "being arbitrary": the problem is not realising that lactation is a turn-off much more often than it is a turn-on. You don't need statistics for that, it's just common sense. But then again, Randall's comics seem completely detached from reality so often that it doesn't really surprise me that much.

zAlbee wrote:Also, it's completely commonplace for liquids, lubricants, and "being wet" to be associated with sex and arousal, so it doesn't surprise me if it is MORE likely to be a turn-on than not.


Yes, certainly much more people are aroused by urine than not, right?

zAlbee wrote:Finally, I find it especially funny how SirMustapha latches onto this topic with over-the-top ALLCAPS outrage, as if finally there is a reason to validate his baseless hatred of Randall and xkcd.


As far as I recall, my hatred for xkcd was already validated way back in comic 584. The caps are, as all the cool geeks would say, just for the lulz.

zAlbee wrote:*If you think about it logically from the perspective of a sex-less robot, NEITHER of them make any sense. There's no use in logical explanations for this.


I have a wild guess that most people here are talking in terms of goddamn common sense. But I'm not surprised that an xkcdite is trying to apply "logic" to everything.

Aic
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:57 am UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby Aic » Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:01 pm UTC

Yes, certainly much more people are aroused by urine than not, right?

At least that wouldn't make me think of babies x) Just yesterday I basically lost a fetish (since now it grosses me out so much it's not usable as a turn-on anymore), maybe I can trade it in for urine. Maybe it works with some absurd conditioning. Someone (not here) pointed out that this milking-fascination may be related to male ejaculation > white liquid oozing out = end-highlight.
My boob is a dick, your argument is invalid.
I do gud englisch. Also, yes, I'm a girl. Sorry.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby BioTube » Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:03 am UTC

zAlbee wrote:*If you think about it logically from the perspective of a sex-less robot, NEITHER of them make any sense. There's no use in logical explanations for this.
Breasts are erogenous zones; manipulating such zones for erotic purposes is hardly illogical.
SirMustapha wrote:The problem is not in "being arbitrary": the problem is not realising that lactation is a turn-off much more often than it is a turn-on. You don't need statistics for that, it's just common sense. But then again, Randall's comics seem completely detached from reality so often that it doesn't really surprise me that much.
This is a case where we need proof for your claim; something tells me most people are ambivalent to it.
Yes, certainly much more people are aroused by urine than not, right?
Except most people aren't disgusted by milk in general.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

zAlbee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby zAlbee » Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:27 am UTC

SirMustapha wrote:The problem is not in "being arbitrary": the problem is that I AM ALWAYS RIGHT AND WHY DOES NO ONE REALIZE THIS.

Why doesn't everybody agree with me? GRRR!! Why are there people that like things I hate? GRRR!! I hate everything! GRRRR!!

Hey, I think I can save you time by posting in fewer words.

SirMustapha wrote:I have a wild guess that most people here are talking in terms of goddamn common sense. But I'm not surprised that an xkcdite is trying to apply "logic" to everything.


Hey, careful who you're calling an xkcdite, Mr. 843 posts since 2008.

SirMustapha wrote:For Heaven's sake, is it TOO ILLOGICAL


Yes John. You are the aliens.

fagricipni
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:32 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby fagricipni » Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:49 am UTC

BioTube wrote:
zAlbee wrote:*If you think about it logically from the perspective of a sex-less robot, NEITHER of them make any sense. There's no use in logical explanations for this.
Breasts are erogenous zones; manipulating such zones for erotic purposes is hardly illogical.


And breasts are logically erogenous zones, why?; The gametes come out of the penis and need to be placed in the vagina for maximum effectiveness; "Logically", the other erogenous zones are distractions.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby BioTube » Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:13 am UTC

fagricipni wrote:And breasts are logically erogenous zones, why?; The gametes come out of the penis and need to be placed in the vagina for maximum effectiveness; "Logically", the other erogenous zones are distractions.
Seems to be vaguely related with making the bother put up with being milked; remember that it didn't used to be too unusual to breastfeed children past their first birthday(in other words, teeth on something inconsiderate).
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

Volbla
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:41 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby Volbla » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:02 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:Literally or not, the title text is implying that the woman is making a very safe bet that the guy is thinking about milking a woman (not just breasts in general; she gives a very specific use of them). No, that's not normal thinking.

Maybe the joke is "Two people were thinking the same totally random thing". It still isn't funny. That's bad sitcom level humor.

I took it more like: out of all the things the guy could be thinking of when sitting across from a girl was whether he could milk her. The girl knows him well enough to percieve his thoughts. That is definitely funnier than him just blurting out what's on his mind, whether you like the actual joke or not. The title text i kind of disregard if i don't like it. I see this as just unrelated hyperbole attempting to be a joke itself.

SirMustapha wrote:Because now, apparently, it is geeky to think of milking women, because... because Randall said so, I guess.

Well, of course it is. God, woman. Have you never been fascinated by and interested in a phenomenon? How not as fun as Randall's your life must be.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby SirMustapha » Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:15 pm UTC

zAlbee wrote:Hey, I think I can save you time by posting in fewer words.


Actually, I dismiss the suggestions of a person who seems to have zero ability in coping with people who actually try to defend their opinions. I mean, yes, people often do have a reason to think in a particular way.

zAlbee wrote:Hey, careful who you're calling an xkcdite, Mr. 843 posts since 2008.


I actually used to be one. I once was one of those who thought that Randall couldn't possibly do any wrong, so I do have knowledge of cause here.

zAlbee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby zAlbee » Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:48 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:a person who seems to have zero ability in coping with people who actually try to defend their opinions


You've described yourself quite aptly. What you've said is that "<x> is disgusting and it should be obvious to everyone that it is disgusting, unless they are retarded sheep." Sound familiar? That's because <x> can be replaced by either <lactation fetish> (this thread) or <the latest xkcd comic> (all the time).

I have no problem with your opinion that <x> is bad. I'll even say that some of your objective criticism of the comics has been quite valid and informative. But repeatedly insulting the people that don't share your opinion? No. You're the one that can't cope with people's opinions, not me.

SirMustapha wrote:
zAlbee wrote:Hey, careful who you're calling an xkcdite, Mr. 843 posts since 2008.


I actually used to be one. I once was one of those who thought that Randall couldn't possibly do any wrong, so I do have knowledge of cause here.


Why would you ever think that "Randall couldn't possibly do any wrong"? That's ridiculous. I don't think that. If you're serious, I would have to conjecture that you are projecting your old self onto everyone that has shown a liking to the comic, which is why you hate them so much.

User avatar
Kisama
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:52 am UTC
Location: (0, 0, 0)

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby Kisama » Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:59 pm UTC

GhostlyKarliion wrote:I did not find this comic to be in reference to sexuality at all
+1

I saw it as a "Meet the Parents" reference, and had a laugh at what would have been a brilliant line in that movie:
"I had-- I had no idea you could milk a cat."
"Oh, yeah, you can milk anything with nipples."
"I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?"
"No, you'd have to be lactating."

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26522&start=40#p825294
SirMustapha wrote:Not to start a war or anything, but what I come to xkcd for is the unpredictability. I think the only times I came to read a new strip with a vague notion of what was to come were during "Choices" and "1337", because otherwise, it's impossible to even guess what's coming up; today, it's a rickroll joke, next time, it might be a pop culture reference, and then, it's a really deep and thought provoking work of art. Perhaps there's a kind of "trial by fire" for new xkcd readers sometime, after which he realises it's pointless to demand anything from the comic.

Would you concede that at least this comic was unpredictable?
cd880b726e0a0dbd4237f10d15da46f4

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby SirMustapha » Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:59 pm UTC

zAlbee wrote:You've described yourself quite aptly. What you've said is that "<x> is disgusting and it should be obvious to everyone that it is disgusting, unless they are retarded sheep." Sound familiar? That's because <x> can be replaced by either <lactation fetish> (this thread) or <the latest xkcd comic> (all the time).


I do actively question people's liking for the comic, but the lactation thing here is different. My problem is not with people not thinking it isn't disgusting, but with the people saying that being turned off by lactation is some sort of issue, as if it's a sign of intolerance, social awkwardness or puritanism, as if only a prude could not love lactation and feel completely horny when thinking of it. That is the problem: a person admitting to being turned off by lactation suddenly ends up under a shitstorm by people who want to feel "cool" and "different" by being oh-so-open about everything sexy -- and using such twisted logic such as "but milk comes from boobies, and booooobies are sexy by default, so milk is as sexy as boooooooooobies!!". Bleh. Give me a break. I'm arguing here that breast milk is less often seen as sexy than not. Demanding for statistical data or proof is ridiculous: just speak about it in public. It's like trying to argue that far more people are okay with homosexuals than not; please, just talk about it in public and see it for yourself.

I have no problem with your opinion that <x> is bad. I'll even say that some of your objective criticism of the comics has been quite valid and informative. But repeatedly insulting the people that don't share your opinion? No. You're the one that can't cope with people's opinions, not me.

zAlbee wrote:Why would you ever think that "Randall couldn't possibly do any wrong"? That's ridiculous.


Indeed it is! And I was just like that. When I came to xkcd, I always came here expecting something amazing and great. I always thought Randall was at an all time high and nothing he put out was mediocre, let alone bad. I wasn't neutral or fair about it, and I was always trying to see something funny about it. I believe that is what people originally called the "Get out of my head" effect, which is the feeling that Randall was talking about things that we thought only happened to us, like walking according to tile patterns, the urge to go up the down escalator and things like that. It made xkcd sound way more personal and truthful than most webcomics. Of course, over time, Randall revealed that he actually is terrible at making humour, writing decent dialog, knowing the medium he works with (the "(" comic is a Twitter post, not a comic), and overall having a grip on what people can relate to. And, nowadays, "Get out of my head" is a stupid, vain attempt at feeling "closer" to Randall by finding whatever meaningless, irrelevant coincidence between the comic and one's life.

Too many people here try too hard to show that they are totally geeky and intelligent enough to like xkcd, as in trying to validate themselves as worthy enough of being part of a "group". xkcd is an "intelligent" comic, and many people here are trying to prove themselves as intelligent enough. Other people just merely like the comic and that's that, and either they don't post here or it's very easy to tell them from the others; despising the "Get out of my head" syndrome, for example, is a clear sign of that.

zAlbee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby zAlbee » Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:36 am UTC

Really? You're turning my argument around on me? OK.

SirMustapha wrote:I do actively question people's liking for the comic, but the lactation thing here is different. My problem is not with people not thinking it isn't disgusting, but with the people saying that being turned off by lactation is some sort of issue

That's never been said in this thread. And it most certainly was not implicated by the comic. However, you do seem to have an issue where you feel every comic Randall draws is some sort of attack against you for thinking different. Here's a tip: It's not about you.

SirMustapha wrote:, as if it's a sign of intolerance, social awkwardness or puritanism, as if only a prude could not love lactation and feel completely horny when thinking of it.

False dichotomy. Also that was never said.

SirMustapha wrote:That is the problem: a person admitting to being turned off by lactation suddenly ends up under a shitstorm by people who want to feel "cool" and "different" by being oh-so-open about everything sexy

The outrage initiated from you. Prior to that, no one was being attacked. Most posts from the other side presented one of two counter-arguments: 1) either it wasn't meant to be sexual, or 2) if someone has that turn-on, they aren't being abnormal. Where is the part where people were marginalized for not liking it? I personally unleashed the shitstorm on you, and you only, because it was a prime example of your intolerance towards people of the other opinion. I don't give a crap about lactation; that's not what this is about.

SirMustapha wrote: -- and using such twisted logic such as "but milk comes from boobies, and booooobies are sexy by default, so milk is as sexy as boooooooooobies!!". Bleh. Give me a break.

Pull your head out of the sand for a second and realize that you only think it's twisted logic because it doesn't come to your preferred conclusion. Read my argument again. Don't twist my words.I said the line was drawn arbitrarily; for some people, the turn-ons stop short at milk; for others, it includes milk. There is no definitive reason why the line should be drawn before milk. Baby-related is not a good enough reason, because sex itself is baby-related (you're making me repeat myself). It is a perfectly good personal reason, which is why I have no problem with Aic's personal opinion, but it's nowhere near good enough to be a universal reason for all mankind, which is what you and some others implied.

SirMustapha wrote:I'm arguing here that breast milk is less often seen as sexy than not. Demanding for statistical data or proof is ridiculous: just speak about it in public. It's like trying to argue that far more people are okay with homosexuals than not; please, just talk about it in public and see it for yourself.

First: Dumbest argument I have ever heard. You make a statistical claim; then you say actual statistics are not necessary because you know it to be true. Another thing: being a taboo topic of conversation implies it's not something people think about it in their heads, or that it's not something they do in their private lives? Horrible fallacies here.

Second: I said "I wouldn't be surprised if" the popular opinion was in favour. I never claimed it to be true. The guess was based on the following through the logic in my post. I then qualified the post by saying the desire for sex itself is not logical. It is driven by hormones, and not driven by analyzing some sort of risk-benefit ratio in your head. You then chided me for applying logic, after I already made that same point. So if you won't use logic and won't use statistics, what do you have left? Pulling numbers out of your ass? Looks like that's exactly what you're doing!

Third: I can do a much better estimate of people's acceptance of homosexuality than whatever you're doing. I'd say 55% in opposition because of recent referendums.

SirMustapha wrote:
zAlbee wrote:Why would you ever think that "Randall couldn't possibly do any wrong"? That's ridiculous.


Indeed it is! And I was just like that. When I came to xkcd, I always came here expecting something amazing and great. I always thought Randall was at an all time high and nothing he put out was mediocre, let alone bad. I wasn't neutral or fair about it, and I was always trying to see something funny about it. I believe that is what people originally called the "Get out of my head" effect, which is the feeling that Randall was talking about things that we thought only happened to us, like walking according to tile patterns, the urge to go up the down escalator and things like that. It made xkcd sound way more personal and truthful than most webcomics. Of course, over time, Randall revealed that he actually is terrible at making humour, writing decent dialog, knowing the medium he works with (the "(" comic is a Twitter post, not a comic), and overall having a grip on what people can relate to. And, nowadays, "Get out of my head" is a stupid, vain attempt at feeling "closer" to Randall by finding whatever meaningless, irrelevant coincidence between the comic and one's life.

Too many people here try too hard to show that they are totally geeky and intelligent enough to like xkcd, as in trying to validate themselves as worthy enough of being part of a "group". xkcd is an "intelligent" comic, and many people here are trying to prove themselves as intelligent enough. Other people just merely like the comic and that's that, and either they don't post here or it's very easy to tell them from the others; despising the "Get out of my head" syndrome, for example, is a clear sign of that.


I don't see that. I see people enjoying the comic. I see people who post because they enjoy it and the comic resonated with them. Are they being naive by not realizing that the comic, much like all observational humour, was written to resonate with a large portion of the audience and so Randall never needed to be in their head? Perhaps, but so what? Not everyone has the same amount of life experience.

I see GOOMHR as an inside joke, and a meme that's on this board only. Most of the time, people post it as a joke and aren't being serious.

DVC
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:20 am UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby DVC » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:41 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
zAlbee wrote:Why would you ever think that "Randall couldn't possibly do any wrong"? That's ridiculous.


Indeed it is! And I was just like that. When I came to xkcd, I always came here expecting something amazing and great. I always thought Randall was at an all time high and nothing he put out was mediocre, let alone bad. I wasn't neutral or fair about it, and I was always trying to see something funny about it. I believe that is what people originally called the "Get out of my head" effect, which is the feeling that Randall was talking about things that we thought only happened to us, like walking according to tile patterns, the urge to go up the down escalator and things like that. It made xkcd sound way more personal and truthful than most webcomics. Of course, over time, Randall revealed that he actually is terrible at making humour, writing decent dialog, knowing the medium he works with (the "(" comic is a Twitter post, not a comic), and overall having a grip on what people can relate to. And, nowadays, "Get out of my head" is a stupid, vain attempt at feeling "closer" to Randall by finding whatever meaningless, irrelevant coincidence between the comic and one's life.

Too many people here try too hard to show that they are totally geeky and intelligent enough to like xkcd, as in trying to validate themselves as worthy enough of being part of a "group". xkcd is an "intelligent" comic, and many people here are trying to prove themselves as intelligent enough. Other people just merely like the comic and that's that, and either they don't post here or it's very easy to tell them from the others; despising the "Get out of my head" syndrome, for example, is a clear sign of that.


I can totally see where you are coming from, and I do get the impression that some of the people on the forum have fallen into that mode. But like you say there are others here who just enjoy the comic, either most of the time or occasionally. This one I didn't like, but there have been a couple in the last fortnight that I really did. Thing is you are so often down on the comic that you are actually chasing people away from the forum. If I enjoyed a comic, I often don't feel like coming to the forum because I don't really want to read someone trash something I enjoyed, and your criticism is so consistent it's grating. The irony is that the people you are chasing away aren't the randophiles but just the run of the mill fans. And worse from your point of view, you are actually making the randophiles stronger in their opinions. An extremest view creates an extremest opposition.

There are a lot of web comics out there, this one, like many of those is occasionally good. It also experiments a bit with form, which is perfectly fine for something on the web. We aren't paying for the comic, the writer can do what he likes. In most places if a comic fails or is bad, at most you'll see a comment like 'this sucks" and then the commenter leaves and doesn't return. That's normal, people don't stick around to constantly bag something they don't like. You've become evangelical though, trying to convert everyone. If only they could see the light right? Well, they won't, as long as you're in the town square shouting 'The end is nigh,' no-one is going to take your predictions of the end seriously, you're just going to make their perambulation through town less enjoyable.

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby SirMustapha » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:52 pm UTC

DVC wrote:You've become evangelical though, trying to convert everyone. If only they could see the light right?


I don't know, it worked with me... though in my case, I fell on the "xkcd sucks" camp by my own will, but took some time for me to move from "gaaah you're all so stupid YOU DON'T GET THE JOKE" to "wait, what the hell was I thinking??"...

Honestly, people have as much right to complain about me being here as I, and many other people, have to complain about the frequent xkcd-related Wikivandalism (or, as I like to call it, Randalism) we see on Wikipedia: "oh, hey, the latest strip involved water! I'll change the Water article to include a mention to xkcd!"

DVC
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:20 am UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby DVC » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:10 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
DVC wrote:You've become evangelical though, trying to convert everyone. If only they could see the light right?


I don't know, it worked with me... though in my case, I fell on the "xkcd sucks" camp by my own will, but took some time for me to move from "gaaah you're all so stupid YOU DON'T GET THE JOKE" to "wait, what the hell was I thinking??"...

Honestly, people have as much right to complain about me being here as I, and many other people, have to complain about the frequent xkcd-related Wikivandalism (or, as I like to call it, Randalism) we see on Wikipedia: "oh, hey, the latest strip involved water! I'll change the Water article to include a mention to xkcd!"


This is kinda my point if you had the realisation by yourself why do you think others need your help? When you were a follower, how do you think you would have reacted to a hater? Would you have listened to them, or would you have been stirred to greater support? I would guess at the latter.

The changing of wikipedia pages is stupid I agree. Very occasionally a page may warrant a mention of xkcd, but the fact that people try to make changes so often means that the editors now have a knee-jerk response and nothing is going to get through, even if it is appropriate.

User avatar
Tyrannosaur
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:39 am UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby Tyrannosaur » Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:13 am UTC

[Reads forum]
[Notes interesting views on comments]
[Sir mustafa posts]
[Yawn conversation turns into the exact same thing he talks about all the time]
djessop wrote:The t-shirt should read "There are 11 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't and those who insist the number above is pronounced as eleven no matter what base you're in".

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby SirMustapha » Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:23 am UTC

zAlbee wrote:...


*facepalm*

I'm sorry, if you're so set in your ways, I don't see any point in further discussing here.

User avatar
Tyrannosaur
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:39 am UTC

Re: 0858: "Milk"

Postby Tyrannosaur » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:33 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
zAlbee wrote:...


*facepalm*

I'm sorry, if you're so set in your ways, I don't see any point in further discussing here.


if only if only...
djessop wrote:The t-shirt should read "There are 11 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't and those who insist the number above is pronounced as eleven no matter what base you're in".


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Moose Anus and 105 guests