1122: "Electoral Precedent"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Quicksilver
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:21 am UTC

1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Quicksilver » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:40 am UTC

Image
http://xkcd.com/1122/
Alt Text:"No white guy who's been mentioned on Twitter has gone on to win."

Conditional probability? Really? Well, No black person born outside of Hawaii has ever gone on to win an election, either.
Last edited by Quicksilver on Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:49 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby rhomboidal » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:45 am UTC

This is precisely the problem with incumbent precedents.

User avatar
Quicksilver
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:21 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Quicksilver » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:47 am UTC

He's really grasping at straws come 1996, but it's a damn solid effort.

quetzalc
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:59 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby quetzalc » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:58 am UTC

Should 1800 say Jefferson instead of Adams? Am I missing something?

Edit: yay he fixed it!
Last edited by quetzalc on Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:31 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby da Doctah » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:11 am UTC

2008: No one has ever been elected president of a USA that has as many states as it had the day he was born...

...until Obama was.

Crown of Fire
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:50 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Crown of Fire » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:12 am UTC

Quicksilver wrote:He's really grasping at straws come 1996, but it's a damn solid effort.


Imo that's his best one, hahaha... because he had to work so hard at it.

dspyz
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:08 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby dspyz » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:16 am UTC

How old is cueball?

AtG
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby AtG » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:21 am UTC

1800: Shouldn't it be "but Jefferson did"?

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Angelastic » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:55 am UTC

Is anyone else tempted to write a parody of Jonathan Coulton's 'The Presidents' citing the streaks each president broke?
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby AvatarIII » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:04 am UTC

dspyz wrote:How old is cueball?


either
As old as Uncle Sam
or
His family has a long history of baldness and making bad election predictions.

MindSpy
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:48 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby MindSpy » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:54 am UTC

Maybe Im just confused but aren't a couple of these redundant or contradictory? For example theres "No challenger has beaten a incumbent", and then immediately there's "No incumbent has beaten a challenger". And he has "No challenger can win without getting the popular majority" (or an equivalent phrase) for both 1824 and 1876. That kind of ruined it for me, especially cause that first mix up is right at the start.

TheEngineer
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby TheEngineer » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:23 am UTC

I read the penultimate panel as "All iterative tickets ..".

"Is this some weird aspect of the US election system", I wondered.
"Do they have recursive tickets too?" I pondered.

After I had rebooted my brain from it's cerebral stack crash I read it correctly.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby AvatarIII » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:28 am UTC

I don't think "No challenger has beaten a incumbent", and "No incumbent has beaten a challenger" are contradictory, because they are both true at the relevant time.
The fact that some of them are redundant is part of the point of the comic, I think.

Also it's possible that "no one can win without the popular majority" and "no one can lose with the popular majority" are not equivalent, if there is no popular majority.

katanna
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:34 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby katanna » Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:36 am UTC

...No democrat has been elected when the election fell on November 6th (which just happens to be my birthday)...

Matthew

sictransit
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:18 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby sictransit » Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:46 am UTC

President Reagan, as best I can tell, was not left-handed. Wikipedia lists him as ambidextrous, but the evidence for this is a little thin. I Googled images of Reagan signing bills, and in all the photos I could find, he was signing things right-handed. The evidence for Reagan being ambidextrous appears to be unsourced rumor and the fact that he slapped Angie Dickinson with his left hand in the movie The Killers (which, for all I know, he might have done because the director wanted to frame the scene a certain way).

The handedness of presidents before President Hoover, per Wikipedia, is difficult to ascertain because of the stigma surrounding left-handedness, so when a left-handed president was first re-elected may be lost to history. The first (and only) unambiguously and openly left-handed president to be re-elected was President Clinton in 1996; if President Obama wins next month's election, he'll be the second.

Even Hoover's left-handedness is disputed. In every image I could find (in an admittedly cursory Google Images search) of Hoover signing something or writing with a pen, he was doing so right-handed.

David McCullough's biography of President Truman asserts he was naturally left-handed, but instructed to use his right hand by teachers. So the first unambiguously, openly left-handed president, barring evidence to the contrary, was President Ford.

Kryigerofe
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:58 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Kryigerofe » Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:55 am UTC

AvatarIII wrote:I don't think "No challenger has beaten a incumbent", and "No incumbent has beaten a challenger" are contradictory, because they are both true at the relevant time.
The fact that some of them are redundant is part of the point of the comic, I think.

Also it's possible that "no one can win without the popular majority" and "no one can lose with the popular majority" are not equivalent, if there is no popular majority.


Is popular majority in the US system something other than "more than half of the ones who voted voted for candidate X"? Because if not, "no popular majority" is a rather unlikely event.

Edit: I just realized people voting for third parties could make it more likely.

User avatar
libra
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:50 am UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby libra » Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:58 am UTC

Just out of curiosity as a UK subject of the Queen ... that was a comprehensive list of US Presidents and their succession, wasn't it?

That makes this issue particularly invaluable in committing the names of past (and present) US Presidents to memory, should the circumstance arise where that would become necessary.

XKCD. Fulfilling the educational component of "Educational and Informative."

Ekaros
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:37 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Ekaros » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:06 pm UTC

libra wrote:Just out of curiosity as a UK subject of the Queen ... that was a comprehensive list of US Presidents and their succession, wasn't it?

That makes this issue particularly invaluable in committing the names of past (and present) US Presidents to memory, should the circumstance arise where that would become necessary.

XKCD. Fulfilling the educational component of "Educational and Informative."


Where would it be useful to commit US presidents to memory? I do think that in some trivia contest they might be valid trivia to know, but general usefulness is quite limited.

Socks
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:43 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Socks » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:12 pm UTC

Wow, this was a truly hilarious strip (at least for those of us in the US).
Avatar is correct that the incumbent/challenger bits are not contradictory, but there is a mistake at the beginning
1788: No incumbent, so no comparison can be made about incumbent vs challenger
1792: Washington ran unopposed
1796: No incumbent, so no comparison can be made about incumbent vs challenger
1800: Challenger beats incumbent (Jefferson won, though, not Adams. That is a mistake). (First challenger beating incumbent)
1804: Jefferson wins again, as an incumbent, beating the challenger. (First incumbent beating challenger)

Nichlemn
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:38 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Nichlemn » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:16 pm UTC

Awesome. I'm bookmarking this to post whenever I encounter one of these silly precedent arguments online.

Though 1952 is wrong - when Eisenhower won, Republicans did win the House and Senate.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby AvatarIII » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:24 pm UTC

libra wrote:Just out of curiosity as a UK subject of the Queen ... that was a comprehensive list of US Presidents and their succession, wasn't it?

That makes this issue particularly invaluable in committing the names of past (and present) US Presidents to memory, should the circumstance arise where that would become necessary.

XKCD. Fulfilling the educational component of "Educational and Informative."


not necessarily, some of the names listed are the names of the losers.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby mathmannix » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:25 pm UTC

1960's "Republicans without facial hair are unbeatable" - False:

1932 - Republican Herbert Hoover, no facial hair, lost
1936 - Republican Alf Landon, no facial hair, lost
1940 - Republican Wendell Willkie, no facial hair, lost

(The Republican losers did have facial hair in 1884 (Blaine), 1892 (Harrison), 1912 (Taft), 1916 (Hughes), and 1944 and 1948 (Dewey twice).)

A better "rule" for 1960: "A Roman Catholic cannot be elected" (citing one previous example, Al Smith in 1928, when it was also made into a big issue)
Last edited by mathmannix on Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:37 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

OP Tipping
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:23 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby OP Tipping » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:30 pm UTC

Alliterative tickets are undefeated

A friend of mine who knows everything tells me that Stevenson/Sparkman were defeated in 1952.
Last edited by OP Tipping on Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
a) Please explain the specific MEDICAL reason for ordering this MEDICATION !
b) Please state the nature of your ailment or injury.
c) One a scale of one to ten, how would you rate your pain?
d) Please state the nature of the medical emergency.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3652
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:34 pm UTC

No President has been elected while being a woman.

ender516
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:47 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby ender516 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:36 pm UTC

This comic made me think of all the "statistics" that are spouted by sports commentators, and in particular, baseball commentators. I don't follow sports, but there is a TV in the YMCA change room where I am exposed (no pun intended) to all such facts.
rmsgrey wrote:No President has been elected while being a woman.

True, but that streak is in no danger of being broken this year.

JetstreamGW
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:22 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby JetstreamGW » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:37 pm UTC

Kryigerofe wrote:
AvatarIII wrote:I don't think "No challenger has beaten a incumbent", and "No incumbent has beaten a challenger" are contradictory, because they are both true at the relevant time.
The fact that some of them are redundant is part of the point of the comic, I think.

Also it's possible that "no one can win without the popular majority" and "no one can lose with the popular majority" are not equivalent, if there is no popular majority.


Is popular majority in the US system something other than "more than half of the ones who voted voted for candidate X"? Because if not, "no popular majority" is a rather unlikely event.

Edit: I just realized people voting for third parties could make it more likely.


It's not terribly unlikely thanks to the Electoral College. Each state has a number of Electoral Votes based upon its population. That makes some states more important than others.

ALSO, these things are determined by district, not by whole-state vote total (though most states are winner-take-all, so most districts won wins the whole state). Thus someone could have enough discrete votes to get themselves a popular majority of the vote, but NOT have enough ELECTORAL VOTES to get themselves elected. It's happened... three times as I recall. Bush (2000 or 2004, I forget which) was the most recent.

User avatar
EpicanicusStrikes
Random Boners = True Attraction
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:36 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby EpicanicusStrikes » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:41 pm UTC

Ekaros wrote:Where would it be useful to commit US presidents to memory? I do think that in some trivia contest they might be valid trivia to know, but general usefulness is quite limited.

Just being able to rattle them off like letters of the alphabet seems limited, yes. But actually knowing who each of them were, the policies their offices were responsible for enacting , the circumestances under which they were elected and the legacy each left behind is part of the nation's history.

Having a firm grasp of your native country's polictical history is nothing to be ashamed of. Any person with said firm grasp should be able to name the presidents simply because they have an understanding of each office holder's importance.

That being said, I have an easier time reciting the secret identities of various superheroes than I do the presidents of the United States.

zifmia
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:50 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby zifmia » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:44 pm UTC

For anyone who is confused by wording they think is contradictory, you might try Wikipedia first, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... tion,_1876 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... tion,_1824

1824, Four candidates all won at least two states. John Q Adams had 31% of the popular vote to Jackson's 41%, but no candidate had a majority of electoral votes, so the election was decided by the House of Representatives. Adams won, helped by support from Henry Clay (the 4th place candidate by electoral votes, and shut out of the House voting who only looked at the top 3 candidates). So JQA became president without a majority of the popular vote, but nobody had a majority of the popular vote.

In 1876, Tilden had 51.0% of the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college by 185 to 184. So he was the first candidate to win a majority of votes but lose the election.

---
Tangential tidbit I got from an old Asimov story: FDR won the popular vote (and the election) four times. Cleveland is the only other candidate to win the popular vote 3 times (although he didn't have an outright majority in any of the 3 elections).

Tanglebones
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:42 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Tanglebones » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:44 pm UTC

One more correction: Washington did not wear a wig, so the 1816/Monroe panel doesn't apply.

Cite:
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/faq/index.html

OP Tipping
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:23 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby OP Tipping » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:49 pm UTC

I'll tell you one thing for free: I've had it with USA claiming that Obama is the 44th president. There have been 44 Presidential administrations but god damn it there have only been 43 presidents. Grover Cleveland is but one man. He didn't die as Cleveland the grey and come back as Cleveland the white or some shit like that.
a) Please explain the specific MEDICAL reason for ordering this MEDICATION !
b) Please state the nature of your ailment or injury.
c) One a scale of one to ten, how would you rate your pain?
d) Please state the nature of the medical emergency.

User avatar
ModestMouse
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:26 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby ModestMouse » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:50 pm UTC

Pretty funny cartoon :D

Did you know that no team has ever lost the Super Bowl which scored a 70 yard touch down, while on 3rd down, 4yds to 1st down, 10min:15ec into the 2nd quarter? Fascinating!

A little European trivia. No team has ever lost the World Cup which scored first 10min:15ec into the 2nd quarter, whilst having one man down, 20 yards from the goal, whilst wearing their jersey backwards.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby mathmannix » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:55 pm UTC

As mentioned above, the 2012 alliterative ticket rule is false - the two tickets I found before 2012 were "Buchanan/Breckinridge" in 1856 (which won), and "Stevenson/Sparkman" in 1952 (which lost). But the other 2012 rule, "No nominee whose first name contains a 'K' has lost"? The only people that applies to are Franklin Pierce, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dick Cheney (real name Richard), and Barack Obama. But FDR lost as a vice-presidential nominee in 1920.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby dp2 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:07 pm UTC

ender516 wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:No President has been elected while being a woman.

True, but that streak is in no danger of being broken this year.

Don't tell Jill Stein that.

mythicfox
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:15 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby mythicfox » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:08 pm UTC

This strip reminds me of back in 2008, when someone on the news was saying with the utmost sincerity that they didn't like Obama's chances because "No Democrat who lost West Virginia in the primaries has won the election."

(They specifically cited JFK as an example, because his primary win in WV is what got him the nomination. Of course, that primary was rigged by the mob, but why let details stop a news anchor from delivering a meaningless statement?)

IWX
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:48 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby IWX » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:14 pm UTC

During the campaign before Clinton's first term, a classmate of mine was trying to sound knowledgeable about the outcome. Sure, she ended up being right about Clinton beating Bush, but she cited that no Republican with a 4 letter last name had ever been re-elected. That was her biggest reason to believe Bush would lose.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby Klear » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:16 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:As mentioned above, the 2012 alliterative ticket rule is false - the two tickets I found before 2012 were "Buchanan/Breckinridge" in 1856 (which won), and "Stevenson/Sparkman" in 1952 (which lost). But the other 2012 rule, "No nominee whose first name contains a 'K' has lost"? The only people that applies to are Franklin Pierce, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dick Cheney (real name Richard), and Barack Obama. But FDR lost as a vice-presidential nominee in 1920.


So I guess that means Obama will win. Some streak HAS to be broken, right? =)

BTW, shouldn't some of the lines be different, such as 1796: "No one without false teeth has become a president" "...but Adams has."? I don't want to be a grammar nazi, especially since English isn't my first language, but it bugs me a little. Maybe I'm just missing something, or am being "more correct than necessary".

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby cellocgw » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:26 pm UTC

MindSpy wrote:Maybe Im just confused but aren't a couple of these redundant or contradictory? For example theres "No challenger has beaten a incumbent", and then immediately there's "No incumbent has beaten a challenger". And he has "No challenger can win without getting the popular majority" (or an equivalent phrase) for both 1824 and 1876. That kind of ruined it for me, especially cause that first mix up is right at the start.

You're not thinking clearly enough. There's no rule that there has to be a challenger.
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby cellocgw » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:27 pm UTC

How about the best streak of all, screwed up by Shrub: Senior Circuit wins Series IFF (if and only if) Republican wins election.
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
timrem
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:02 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby timrem » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:50 pm UTC

Klear wrote:BTW, shouldn't some of the lines be different, such as 1796: "No one without false teeth has become a president" "...but Adams has."? I don't want to be a grammar nazi, especially since English isn't my first language, but it bugs me a little. Maybe I'm just missing something, or am being "more correct than necessary".

Nope. The text in the box is meant to be said before the election, and the text under the box uses the outcome to show how the election upset the precedent. It's not: "No one without false teeth has become a president...but Adams did." It's: "No one without false teeth has become a president" ...but [then] Adams did.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 1122: "Electoral Precedent"

Postby omgryebread » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:17 pm UTC

libra wrote:Just out of curiosity as a UK subject of the Queen ... that was a comprehensive list of US Presidents and their succession, wasn't it?

That makes this issue particularly invaluable in committing the names of past (and present) US Presidents to memory, should the circumstance arise where that would become necessary.

XKCD. Fulfilling the educational component of "Educational and Informative."
Nah, it's missing some. Don't really feel like looking it up, but it's at least missing Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Herbert Hoover and George H.W. Bush, because it named their opponents instead. Tilden, Blaine, Bryan, Smith, and Dukakis are all mentioned, but were never presidents. (Bob Dole is also mentioned, but along with Bill Clinton, who won.)

While the comic is accurate, especially with regards to stupid stuff like combat experience or being named James, it does somewhat mislead regarding states, because of the nature of the electoral college. For example, try drawing a Mitt Romney victory in which he loses Ohio. It's hard to do, it involves him winning states he's much less likely to win.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, xtifr and 54 guests