Recent Comments

1. about 5 hours ago on Peanuts

   You should have played with her instead of Molly Volley, Snoop.

2. about 5 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Grand Avenue has a similar conceit here.

3. about 24 hours ago on FoxTrot Classics

   Yeah. I doubt Peter is a regular viewer of Bill Nye, but it’s possible he tuned in to help prepare for his exam. He could certainly do worse.

4. about 24 hours ago on For Better or For Worse

   Gordon may not have prosperity, success and happiness in hand but he’s figured out how to get them, and has invited Tracy to join him in that pursuit. He’s not saying “What say we meander through life together and hope we stumble onto something that is mutually appealing down the road?” That is not the recipe for happiness. You’ve got to figure yourself out before you decide who if anyone is compatible.

5. 1 day ago on For Better or For Worse

   I’ve noticed that both yesterday and today, Gordon’s bright red uniform really stands out against the color palate. Everything in the background is either desaturated of color altogether or in a soft light blue, and everyone other than Gordon is wearing that same blue shade. Is this supposed to be telling us that Gordon’s standing out from the pack and forging his own path?

6. 1 day ago on FoxTrot Classics

   This is actually a very good way to learn science and make it fun (though the idea that the kids would be interested in these particular songs is certainly dated). I’m surprised it’s coming from Peter and not Jason.

7. 2 days ago on Pearls Before Swine

   If old_geek wanted to widen the scope of the conversation for his or her own purposes (and notice that the first old_geek comment in this thread is also the last), something much more specific was needed. As it was, all we knew is that old_geek wanted a wider scope. Taking that seriously would mean either incrementally widening the scope of the conversation and repeatedly asking whether old_geek was satisfied, or widening it to the extreme in the first go. Hence my second comment in the thread.

   Old_geek then abandoned the field and left things in your capable hands. Forgive me if I’m misrepresenting what you’ve done since then but you seem to have extrapolated that old_geek was accusing me of a double standard. If so the burden of proof would be finding another instance where somebody claimed that a situation was likely to provoke a flavor of rage other than right wing, somebody else responded in a way analogous to the now-deleted first reply to Croc, and I explicitly said that the second party was not proving the first party’s point. Outside of that, my first comment in this thread gives no insight that can justify an accusation of unfairness.

   Assuming that was old_geek’s intention at all. Since we have to make that assumption, I feel justified in calling that comment off-topic. Perhaps old_geek’s point could have been made relevant in the context of a lengthier response that tied it into what Croc and/or I had originally said. But without that context I consider it unhelpful and, yes, irrelevant.

8. 2 days ago on Pearls Before Swine

   Thank you for your thoroughness and how seriously you’re taking this. I will do my best to address the most salient points, or at least those on which I have strong feelings. I apologize for not going point by point as you’ve done for me, but I feel that, once multi-part comments become necessary, we’ve reached a critical mass where this particular format becomes unwieldy.

   While the first paragraph of my most recent post is addressing your tongue in cheek suggestion of my having been called an a-hole, I do feel the other two can be applied more broadly. Let’s apply it to the specific situation above. Croc recognizes that this strip is provoking right wing rage. A since deleted comment expresses a right winger’s rage. Croc takes the bait (a comment which is also now gone I see) and I point out that the first responder validated Croc even while trying to dispute the point. At least that’s how I remember it; both those comments are now gone. I might have taken greater care to remember them if I’d known the discussion would last days.

   Notice I didn’t just say that I agreed with Croc. An expression of agreement that is both unqualified (I agree, and here’s why; or, I agree, and consider X as well) and unsolicited (either by an open invitation to others to express agreement or by Croc asking for my view specifically) isn’t irrelevant, but it is pretty unhelpful, especially since we can always just upvote each other instead.

   Old_geek then says I’m being too narrow in scope, but this is a meaningless statement on its own. It leaves what old_geek considers to be an appropriate width of the scope of my statement undefined. My intention was to point out that the first response to Croc’s original comment was an example of right wing rage. If I do say so myself, I achieved that. Making that point did not require acknowledging that rage exists outside of right wing circles. I think that’s obvious, but it had nothing to do with the point I was making. (cont’d)

9. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Who would happen to have the serial number of their TV? These days it just might be possible to find the SN for a big-ticket item that you purchased through a reputable online retailer, but when this strip was running, no way.

10. 2 days ago on For Better or For Worse

    He did just say he didn’t want to change the name. . . .