Boise Ed sent this in, and says “We have sometimes chatted about colorists, and this A&J blog is the best illustration of that that I have ever seen. (See the text at https://arloandjanis.com/colorful-explanation .)”
Go to that link for Jimmy Johnson’s full account. But we could stand some explication of his closing remark: “And, no, it was not intended to be dirty in the least.” Does anyone else have some surprise reconciling that claim with the Jack Spratt saying?
More on the Sad-LOL bandwagon!
Trying for diversity in the writers room.
And from the The Cartoonist knows more than the Character Department:
And circling back to where we began, another Mannequin:
Okay, if it were a candle, which we could figure gets lit to accompany special moments, the age correlation might start to make sense. But how or why with a lamp?
I can accept that they find Tiger Woods interesting (or more specifically, found him interesting in 2002). But why is that supposed to be funny?
From chemgal
We don’t really know how to follow the sequence, or what is both a Yes! and a No!
Now that we’ve re-instituted the Arlo Award, who should come along needing that classification but Arlo and Janis themselves. (But of course the Award is named for Arlo Guthrie — and we’re sticking to that story!)
But this is also a bit of a CIDU, in need of a little explication.
Thanks to Andréa for this contribution.
From chemgal.
From chemgal.
(Not a mirage! You are seeing two copies of the comic. Temporarily there really are two posted. This is a tech experiment. Viewers who have a difference in how easy the two are to display on your device, or in how easy they are to read, please feel free to put in comments — particularly if your device is a phone. Thanks!)
Let’s try another comparison, to avoid confounding factors.
OMG that is terrible! Well, I guess I learned something, even if not real clear what …
Comics I Don't Understand 