Something of an Ewww-Oy, as well as inspiring the tag misapplied-tech-talk!


(Mannequin on the Moon)


Something of an Ewww-Oy, as well as inspiring the tag misapplied-tech-talk!


(Mannequin on the Moon)



Hovertext: “It’s definitely not the time to try drinking beer before liquor.”
Clearly there’s some sort of reference to “leaves of three; let it be” for poison ivy, but it’s still a CIDU for me.
I suggest that it’s more fun if we avoid peeking at explainxkcd until the discussion here has run its course.
From RR.

Thanks to Chemgal for sending this in, and identifying two areas of doubt: 1) Though not a public designated observance, the 7-Eleven company, at least in Canada, has traditionally marked the 7/11 date with promotional giveaways. Is Mallett just unaware of this? 2) Wot th’heck do the last two panels mean? A mystery, in themselves and in their relationship to the first nine panellettes.
P.S. A Geezer identification question — Do you remember when 7 AM to 11 PM were in actual fact the hours for 7-Eleven stores?

Is there some sort of pun or cleverness associated with thinking of fixing a car like a medical operation? Or is the humor in that a woman might change a tire, rather than a man?
From mdbrownmd.

Does it help that the guy in the purple, speaking, seems to be Bliss’s usual p.o.v. representative character? So maybe his question is meant to be sarcastic or witty, not merely inept or dumb?











From Andréa, as a kind of Arlo-OY:


Also Andréa:


This is not a full-fledged Sunday comic, but the intro and the two “throwaway” panels. Yet here is where the funny bit was!


From Mark Jackson:



Of course people have always thought “Ira Roth” could be someone’s name.


Oh wait! Just noticed that Arnold Zwicky’s blog goes into linguistic and referential detail about this one.


From Stan: “Have humans evolved into lizards? Is this a suggestion that Godzilla wrecked the Colosseum? It was an earthquake that led to the destruction, so what do their “ancestors” have to do with this?”

From Philip, who asks “Are they going to tickle her? Why?”

P.S. For anyone who may have difficulty reading upside down, here is the “solution” text flipped up:

Am I missing something, or did he just rule out suspect #1 because women aren’t strong enough to murder? Not sure if this is a CIDU (because I’ve overlooked something) or just a gripe.
I don’t think I’m missing something when I complain that the Inspector rules out suspect #3, just because suspect #3 isn’t eating chicken at the very moment he’s being questioned. How does that make sense? Suspect #2 isn’t eating chicken when he’s questioned either.