

Never gets old!





Never gets old!




Mark H. sends this in. “An explanation of sorts for the timeline juggling that has been part of 9CL for the last few months. Lately, we seem to have skipped about 12 or 14 years, to where Polly and Lolly are now late teenagers.”

Mark H. notes: If you study the cartoon carefully, you’ll notice that it is impossible in a clinch like that for the glasses to be in that position on Edda’s nose. The bend of the temples would be up, not down.
Unless the clinch was significantly more complex than we were shown…

Well we’re all familiar with that pun (sez Mitch), but not usually from this perspective, nor presented so starkly.




When I (zbicyclist) saw this on social media, I thought it was probably altered. I don’t think of Charles Schulz using a lot of groaner puns. But it’s legit: it appeared February 9, 1982, as I found out using the Peanuts search engine, https://peanuts-search.com/?q=bush%20pilot



How nice, when you can know just what’s coming, but the joke works fine anyhow!

A pair from Maggiethecartoonist, who liked the recent Farcus and noted that it reminded her of the older Far Side.


… And Maggie asked the question which also reminded the editors of at least the title of They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? (1969), a film which made quite a splash in its time but isn’t much mentioned these days.



Speaking of Farcus, Targuman sent in this one, and asks “do you think he has written in the dust on the windshields or used a paint pen?”



Names given in first panel are maybe necessary, since we won’t see a face.



Some content on this page was disabled on February 22, 2024 as a result of a DMCA takedown notice from David Waisglass and Gordon Coulthart. You can learn more about the DMCA here: https://wordpress.com/support/copyright-and-the-dmca/
McEldowney’s meaning for gink must be quite different from the one I am most familiar with!

The Urban Dictionary of course gives some dozen unrelated entries of varying plausibility, some of which could work in this cartoon context. (But none of which are exactly mine.) The slang section of dictionary.com is more sober, but the main American entry could work with the cartoon:
noun Slang: Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive.
a person; fellow.
Is that all there is to it? Or do you see a better fit for one of the other definitions?
Sent by Dirk the Daring, who asks “Is this about Twitter? Or about nothing? Damned if I know.”

Yeah, you GOTTA suppose it is somehow about Twitter — even though the repeated “twit” never becomes “Twitter” or “tweet”, and that bird is not the blue Twitter icon bird.

Why did the piano run away? (If that’s what happened.)
Thanks to Brian in STL for also sending this in, and also providing this other pianistic scene:

Brian’s remarks on this one were “I’m not entirely sure what’s going on here, and there are no comments on the strip to help. Amos often serves as her page-turner, but seems to have flung the music book across the room. Did he have some sort of convulsion or horrible miscalculation?”
Hey, maybe the piano remembers this or similar scenes, and has fled once he sees who the approaching performer is…
Thursday’s strip looks like it might be intended as something of a follow-up.

Now that she’s caught up with it, she prepares to attack … and plays a single note, as quietly as possible — marked 5p and with the visual correlative of the miniaturized staff.








Gotta wonder what Grawlix will make of all that punctuation …








The last few weeks I’ve felt that Wrong Hands has been a bit off their best form. But this one seems a good case of returning to their former standard.
So here is another Wrong Hands, sent in by Philip, who notes that as an Oy it would be tripartite. (Have we seen this one before?)



I have never sat down on a cat …. that did not immediately make the situation known! :-)



(Also adding in another Condron as he was unfamiliar to me.)






