1190: "Time"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

cout
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:55 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby cout » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:02 am UTC

I don't understand why Cueball hasn't grown any facial hair and we haven't seen him shave in weeks.

User avatar
Kieryn
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:40 pm UTC
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Kieryn » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:03 am UTC

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.
Image- Kieryn

Director, Time Foundation Data Analysis Department
http://its-all-related.org

BlandSauce
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:25 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby BlandSauce » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:04 am UTC

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.

User avatar
KarMann
As far as the hats go, I think it's safe to say that I'm pretty well set. Unless my hat, pre-dating Time itself, needs a hat of its own??
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:38 am UTC
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA, far from river and sea
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby KarMann » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:04 am UTC

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?
P.S. I am Randall, but not that Randall.
We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We can make it better than it was. Better … stronger … well, maybe not faster.
Well, BlitzGirl is experiencing a bit of a title wave.
Magdiragdag wrote:I wait for it, therefore I am.
Illud expecto, ergo sum.

User avatar
patzer
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:48 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby patzer » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:05 am UTC

Okay, so it was a river before, and now it's the sea?
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. –Douglas Adams

User avatar
Kieryn
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:40 pm UTC
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Kieryn » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:05 am UTC

Around 73 Posts before 10k! I will be comaed. Dammit.
Image- Kieryn

Director, Time Foundation Data Analysis Department
http://its-all-related.org

User avatar
Kieryn
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:40 pm UTC
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Kieryn » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:07 am UTC

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.
Image- Kieryn

Director, Time Foundation Data Analysis Department
http://its-all-related.org

squonk
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 12:25 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby squonk » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:11 am UTC

They are the last two people left in the world, and they're building an elaborate device to tell time.

TheRic
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:12 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby TheRic » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:15 am UTC

I know there are currents in water, is there a river in a sea?

Elmach
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:47 am UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Elmach » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:17 am UTC

Thë seä ïs thë thïng tö thë right, änd thë rivër ïs thë thïng tö thë left.

robhagopian
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:11 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby robhagopian » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:23 am UTC

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! :-)

User avatar
LoneMarauder
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:35 am UTC
Location: Birmingham, AL US

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby LoneMarauder » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:37 am UTC

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:

User avatar
Exodies
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:36 pm UTC
Location: Blackwaterside

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Exodies » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:40 am UTC

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
Ware2 guv? The Book of Dave

Jellyfish-derp
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:19 pm UTC
Location: The sandcastle beach

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Jellyfish-derp » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:41 am UTC

So since the dialogue about the sea, the number of users on this forum has doubled
All hail the magnificient Lord Randall
The Author of the One True Comic
The Illustrator of Sandcastles
The Keeper of the Newpix
The Creator of Time
We have seen the Castles
We reject the Outside
We do not Sleep
We watch Time
We wait for It

User avatar
htom
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:13 am UTC
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby htom » Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:51 am UTC

And coma calls.
cmyk wrote:How can I be so riveted to the Internet equivalent of watching grass grow?

Questions? Spoilers! TimeWiki, geekwagon, The Book of Aubron, ExplainXKCD
mscha wrote:We can ignore reality; in fact, we'll have to, since only Randall knows what it is.

User avatar
ChronosDragon
Posts: 1848
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: [~]

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby ChronosDragon » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:02 am UTC

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. :)
Image

User avatar
Shepherdess
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:58 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Shepherdess » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:13 am UTC

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?
Dear Blitzgirl,

I don't know if you got my previous message and I just missed your reply, but I got tired of reading the same message so I decided it was time for a new one.

Your Eternal Servant And Companion Through Time,
Dame Not-Bob
Temporal Defender Of The One True Comic

User avatar
NotThatHatGuy
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:55 am UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby NotThatHatGuy » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:14 am UTC

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".

User avatar
Shepherdess
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:58 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Shepherdess » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:17 am UTC

Speaking of the Creator of Time, how do I convert? Whom must I sacrifice, and at what phase of the moon?
Dear Blitzgirl,

I don't know if you got my previous message and I just missed your reply, but I got tired of reading the same message so I decided it was time for a new one.

Your Eternal Servant And Companion Through Time,
Dame Not-Bob
Temporal Defender Of The One True Comic

thelonghalloween
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:18 am UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby thelonghalloween » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:25 am UTC

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...

User avatar
Valarya
Posts: 975
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Nashville

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Valarya » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:33 am UTC

Guess that kills every Ice/Coffee/Semenated idea there ever was.
Caridnal of Cupcakes | Friaress of Frosting | Pope of Pocket Pastries
Occasional basement dweller.

Image

User avatar
ChronosDragon
Posts: 1848
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: [~]

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby ChronosDragon » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:35 am UTC

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.
Image

User avatar
spamjam
Posts: 376
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:06 pm UTC
Location: greenlake seawash

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby spamjam » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:37 am UTC

INEIGTDI
Image

JCPenney
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby JCPenney » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:40 am UTC

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?
blowfishhootie wrote:Incidentally, "semen castle" is what I'm going to call my girlfriend if I ever break up with her.


Time Time Time
See what's become of me
As I looked around
For my possibility

User avatar
KarMann
As far as the hats go, I think it's safe to say that I'm pretty well set. Unless my hat, pre-dating Time itself, needs a hat of its own??
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:38 am UTC
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA, far from river and sea
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby KarMann » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:49 am UTC

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!
P.S. I am Randall, but not that Randall.
We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We can make it better than it was. Better … stronger … well, maybe not faster.
Well, BlitzGirl is experiencing a bit of a title wave.
Magdiragdag wrote:I wait for it, therefore I am.
Illud expecto, ergo sum.

User avatar
spamjam
Posts: 376
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:06 pm UTC
Location: greenlake seawash

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby spamjam » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:00 am UTC

Image

User avatar
Shepherdess
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:58 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Shepherdess » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:04 am UTC

Not much change then.
Dear Blitzgirl,

I don't know if you got my previous message and I just missed your reply, but I got tired of reading the same message so I decided it was time for a new one.

Your Eternal Servant And Companion Through Time,
Dame Not-Bob
Temporal Defender Of The One True Comic

User avatar
diego5wh
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:43 am UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby diego5wh » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:07 am UTC

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...
Helper wrote:Dear god, even the recursion is recursing.

ubscdt
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:45 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby ubscdt » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:09 am UTC

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.

User avatar
Valarya
Posts: 975
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Nashville

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Valarya » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:13 am UTC

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.
Caridnal of Cupcakes | Friaress of Frosting | Pope of Pocket Pastries
Occasional basement dweller.

Image

User avatar
NotThatHatGuy
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:55 am UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby NotThatHatGuy » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:33 am UTC

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.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2112
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby azule » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:44 am UTC

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.
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
mybrainhurts
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 7:09 am UTC
Location: Baltic Sea, Germany

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby mybrainhurts » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:47 am UTC

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!

User avatar
Kabuthunk
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:13 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Kabuthunk » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:56 am UTC

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.

User avatar
tman2nd
Posts: 419
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:56 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere south of the North Poll

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby tman2nd » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:01 am UTC

Image
Sir Tristram, Guardian of the Time Cats, Defender of the One True Comic, Landsknecht von der Zeit.

Wspi kfp gd...
Wait for it...

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3504
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:04 am UTC

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.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Elmach
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:47 am UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Elmach » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:12 am UTC

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.

User avatar
ChronosDragon
Posts: 1848
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: [~]

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby ChronosDragon » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:13 am UTC

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.
Image

User avatar
Helper
Duly Elected Pope of the One True Comic
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:21 am UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Helper » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:15 am UTC

I'ma coma. G'night.
NoEdge wrote:Outside? Is that like Mesopotamia? Isn't Mesopotamia gone? Has Outside been destroyed without our noticing?!
Oh well. At least we still have our sandcastle.


NoEdge wrote:Maybe it's fire. The world is burning. It's dark behind me. Maybe the fires have been put out. Maybe it's all gone.

User avatar
Reka
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Reka » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:40 am UTC

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".)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GnomeAnne, PM 2Ring and 37 guests