
Total mystery. But yields immediately to getting a definition .

Total mystery. But yields immediately to getting a definition .


A choreography that some of us are very familiar with! But what is that remark at the end?
Our first A&J is from Mark M, who asks “Why does she feel that way at 3 o’clock? Is this an example of an overreaction as CIDU Bill used to talk about?”
Possibly the discussion of overreaction Mark is thinking of included this thread.

(For a quick factual overview of “sleeping pills”, here is a web excerpt from a book by Wallace B. Mendelson, MD.)
And Jack Applin sent in another puzzling A&J. He says: “I do not understand this Arlo & Janis. Arlo speaks of the expression bone in her teeth, explaining how it comes from the bow wave of a fast-moving boat. OK, sure. However, the way the he says it implies that this is a standard expression, used in other contexts. “
“I might say Do you know where the expression ‘read the riot act’ came from?, because people use that without reference to the 1714 act of the Parliament of Great Britain, e.g., when their mother caught them coming home late.. Who says bone in her teeth without referring to a bow wave?”

From Le Vieux Lapin, who says: I’m not a sports guy, so I looked “Cupcake Week” up on the web, and I still don’t get it.
I didn’t know what “cupcake week” means either, but did have a plausible guess. The comments (yeah, I had to look) gave a more complete explanation, however, that I would not have arrived at by guesswork and reasoning from the guesses… So I’d call that a legit CIDU!

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?