It’s clear they detest all the elements of the medley. But in what way is Chloraseptic going to help?
What then is their gimmick?
Author / EditorM
The popular museum
David Sipress is probably best known as a New Yorker cartoons contributor, but this LOL reached us thru the Counterpoint newsletter.
Conspiracy theory? Just a prank?
There seems to be a point, something cynical or at least skeptical, but hard to pin down. “Recycling is just a fake anyway”?
He ain’t heavy, he’s my Olga!
Pardon my anxiolytic
He’s making some kind of statement, but I don’t get the standpoint. Is there some belief system under which all the heavenly host are taken to be bedeviled with fear and trembling?
Bonus: Theory of mind
…
When this first scrolled up for me, I had just glanced at it when I was called away to do something else, and my inner ear was repeating the final panel but misremembered with the terms reversed. I thought it was making an excellent if subtle point. Can a dog do a trick without *knowing* it? (Can a human?) Does a dog really know anything, or is that just what we say as a courtesy, while meaning the dog has a habit or pattern? But then, how does lack of knowledge not prevent successful performance? We say a person knows how to ride a bicycle when we see they are able to, but chances are they could not articulate what to do — so is it the same courtesy designation?
And I think we could raise some of the same questions from the way the comic actually presents the line!
Who do you mean?
It seems like we will be getting a lesson, about caring or something like that. But who is the “invisible woman”? The strongly drawn character in the foreground, whose story we have no difficulty seeing? Or one of the dimmed-out supernumeraries in the background, whose narrative we see only in chopped-up pieces? And either way, … so what?
“Not Furries, we’re Slimeys!”
Or is either genuinely what the costume suggests?
Not a team sport
Also published as single-panel (under the title Reply All Lite), with revised drawing for another view, but retaining same dialog. Dee Lewis had long been maintaining two versions in parallel, but with the one-panel “Lite” version having a different (not just re-cropped) scene drawn, and a different (not just printed more compactly) dialog and story, with some thematic resemblance but that would be it.
Hopefully, this closer-to-identical protocol makes it easier for her to fulfill the need to provide both footprints. Wayno, on his blog for the daily Bizarro comic, sometimes discusses how he similarly has to rearrange elements to provide both a squareish panel and an elongated strip (tho the strip is not multi-panel).
The two-panel version gives a more complete view of the car in its space, revealing it as somewhat askew. Does the one-panel version still work without this being so clear? Is he there still complaining about her active advisement even if it didn’t so obviously lead to a bad result (in his version of the story!)?
And indeed, is some passenger-seat advisement the main burden of his complaint? I mean, she didn’t hop out and try to flag him into the space, did she?
Maybe this one from a following day can cast some light on this couple’s driving habits.
Rikki don’t block that number
Sent by Stan as a CIDU. While he didn’t specify what aspect seems opaque, the “Block Party” title can yield to your pun-sense, but it may remain dubious why Mr. Wilson’s analogy to microbial resistance would count as an inside joke.
Comics I Don't Understand 