0859: "("

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby SirMustapha » Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:43 am UTC

Platypodes wrote:Other criticism makes sense to me. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that a comic wasn't funny or didn't make sense or could have been executed better. When people look at art, they talk about whether they like it or not, regardless of whether they paid for it. But there's a difference between evaluating the quality of a comic and taking offense at how much or little time the person chooses to spend on it. Why does he owe us anything?


Why is it a matter of "owing" anything? If he owes effort to anyone, it's to the fans who are buying his merchandise and therefore paying him to come up with those "brilliant displays of genius". If anything, his laziness is a display that he doesn't give a damn, he doesn't care about his quality standards. It's like the only thing he cares about is whether he still has fans gullible enough to eat whatever he puts out.

Retsam
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:29 am UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby Retsam » Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:52 am UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
Platypodes wrote:Other criticism makes sense to me. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that a comic wasn't funny or didn't make sense or could have been executed better. When people look at art, they talk about whether they like it or not, regardless of whether they paid for it. But there's a difference between evaluating the quality of a comic and taking offense at how much or little time the person chooses to spend on it. Why does he owe us anything?


Why is it a matter of "owing" anything? If he owes effort to anyone, it's to the fans who are buying his merchandise and therefore paying him to come up with those "brilliant displays of genius". If anything, his laziness is a display that he doesn't give a damn, he doesn't care about his quality standards. It's like the only thing he cares about is whether he still has fans gullible enough to eat whatever he puts out.


Yes. Enjoying a comic that is much to simple and "lazy" for higher beings like you is "gullible". This is why people take offense to your comments here. Not because Randall isn't man enough to take the criticism of some random person on the internet, but because your comments are generally direct insults to people who -do- like his comics. Just look at this post: you're directly attacking the discernment of people who like whatever particular comic you happen to personally find below your standard of excellence.
If you wanted to come on here and say: "I don't think this comic was well done", fine. You're welcome to have your own opinion. But you keep coming on here and saying the equivalent of "I don't think this comic (or virtually any other) was well done, and everyone here who likes it is gullible or stupid." Can you tell where you take it one step too far?

User avatar
RebeccaRGB
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:36 am UTC
Location: Lesbians Love Bluetooth
Contact:

Re: 0859: "("

Postby RebeccaRGB » Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:02 am UTC

danix wrote:The grammar requirement that all punctuation must go inside a paren (even when it actually should go outside, according to parsing rules.) :evil:

That one's news to me. I was taught that parentheses should go inside or outside, depending (like this, for a parenthetical that is part of a sentence). (Or like this, for a parenthetical that is its own sentence.) It's quotation marks that always go after all punctuation, no matter how nonsensical it is, "like this."

At least in U.S. English. U.K. English has the quotation marks either inside or outside, where it actually makes sense. So does U.K. English put parentheses after all other punctuation? Did the two dialects trade rules on quotes and parentheses at some point?

It would be nice to have a variant of English that put both in the logical place, but I guess it's not to be.
Stephen Hawking: Great. The entire universe was destroyed.
Fry: Destroyed? Then where are we now?
Al Gore: I don't know. But I can darn well tell you where we're not—the universe!

SpudTater
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:35 am UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby SpudTater » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:27 pm UTC

Werner von Urslingen wrote:Guys, seriously: You have never thought about unfinished paranthesises before, and you certainly don't harbour a smouldering phobia about them.

Errr... I think about unfinished parentheses whenever I see unfinished parentheses. Which, on the internet, is fairly frequently.

If misused punctuation never irked anyone, then this poster would never sell:
http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html

Paully
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:05 pm UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby Paully » Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:15 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:HERE'S SOME EXTRA

AGHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHH


))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



Thank you. Dear God, I needed those.

Aic
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:57 am UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby Aic » Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:14 pm UTC

philip1201 wrote:Because it effectively governs the impression you leave on the world?
Both the terms "barbaric" and "asshole" are subjective, so what you are seen as is what you will become after you die. As for your underlying multi-layer thought processes, few people actually care about them even when you're alive. Most people have some sense of care for what the faceless masses think of them.
But why would one care about the impression one leaves to a mass that, as you say, doesn't even give a damn about you as a person, anyway? Why would one have a personal interest to please those who are like that? Especially if it's really just about what one is being remembered as. Not being remembered as a barbaric asshole doesn't make much sense to me when at that time (which would be after my death) I don't face the consequences of their assumed idiocy of thinking I'm a barbaric asshole (...because I'm dead, after my death).
But I'm not dead yet, so I clearly don't really know and don't make a valid statement, I guess.
I wish, though, not so many people would have a sense of care for what the faceless masses think of them, maybe then I wouldn't always stumble upon so many mendacious dastards.

SirMustapha wrote:If he owes effort to anyone, it's to the fans who are buying his merchandise and therefore paying him to come up with those "brilliant displays of genius".
They're paying for something that doesn't exist (yet)? I thought if you buy merch you're paying for the exact merch you chose. I don't buy merch though, so what do I know, again! :/
I do gud englisch. Also, yes, I'm a girl. Sorry.

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby webgiant » Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:38 pm UTC

Fixblor wrote:((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

Does anyone else see an optical illusion in a long stream of parentheses?

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

They seem to me to be taller in some areas and shorter in others depending on where you look.

To me this is a slightly more annoying problem than the subject of the comic: in the comic, you can see exactly one parentheses is needed to fix it. In your "optical illusion" above, one has to count the parentheses to make certain that no end parentheses were left out.

Side thought: in the same way that leprechauns/fairies have to stop and count every one of, say, a bag of poppy seeds spilled on the ground, are there Internet-based leprechauns/fairies which have to stop and count all begin-end pairs of parentheses before they can get back to their daily lives?

xepher
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:42 am UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby xepher » Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:53 pm UTC

SpudTater wrote:
Werner von Urslingen wrote:Guys, seriously: You have never thought about unfinished paranthesises before, and you certainly don't harbour a smouldering phobia about them.

Errr... I think about unfinished parentheses whenever I see unfinished parentheses. Which, on the internet, is fairly frequently.

If misused punctuation never irked anyone, then this poster would never sell:
http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html

The apostrophe is more commonly (mis)used, so obviously it deserves a bit more attention.

That being said, I have a feeling most of the people posting aren't particularly worried about not having a closed parentheses, and are just doing that to seem geeky and thus intelligent.

Noodles
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:53 am UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby Noodles » Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:39 pm UTC

WHY did I have to read this half an hour before I have a test on OO AS3...? :(

zAlbee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby zAlbee » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:16 pm UTC

Retsam wrote:
SirMustapha wrote:Why is it a matter of "owing" anything? If he owes effort to anyone, it's to the fans who are buying his merchandise and therefore paying him to come up with those "brilliant displays of genius". If anything, his laziness is a display that he doesn't give a damn, he doesn't care about his quality standards. It's like the only thing he cares about is whether he still has fans gullible enough to eat whatever he puts out.


Yes. Enjoying a comic that is much to simple and "lazy" for higher beings like you is "gullible". This is why people take offense to your comments here. Not because Randall isn't man enough to take the criticism of some random person on the internet, but because your comments are generally direct insults to people who -do- like his comics. Just look at this post: you're directly attacking the discernment of people who like whatever particular comic you happen to personally find below your standard of excellence.
If you wanted to come on here and say: "I don't think this comic was well done", fine. You're welcome to have your own opinion. But you keep coming on here and saying the equivalent of "I don't think this comic (or virtually any other) was well done, and everyone here who likes it is gullible or stupid." Can you tell where you take it one step too far?


I know right? People who criticize the people who like the comic have no class. I bet they're bad in bed too!

nazgand
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:43 pm UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby nazgand » Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:34 pm UTC

[This haiku starts when?
We are able to decide.
(This haiku ends when?]
We are unable to guide.
Two Haiku Conjoined)

Squirm in pain ...
...as you try to figure out which haiku the third line belongs to and whether the brackets or the parentheses own it.

PS. ')' is more annoying than '(' because prepending is less available an option than appending.

User avatar
Bruce Springsteen
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:34 pm UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby Bruce Springsteen » Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:19 am UTC

I just wanted to finally come out of the closet and admit I like xkcd. Ashamed, yes, but hopefully my significant other won't dump me like Megan did.
sup
Image

CreepingTurnip
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:35 pm UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby CreepingTurnip » Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:37 pm UTC

I hate to do this, but I had to register for this. I needed an outlet. I really don't have many OCD tendencies, just two actually.

One, I need both of my socks on before I can put a shoe on.

Two....
)
)

Ahhhhh.

Gefrierbrand
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:04 am UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby Gefrierbrand » Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:54 am UTC

Randall actually saved the universe from ending in a segfault by opening this brace now.

http://www.xkcd.com/312/

But this may render everything wich happend from now on as a strange subroutine which probably defaults to false ;)

AlexanderRM
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:45 pm UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby AlexanderRM » Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:23 am UTC

Lukeonia1 wrote:I hate it when people do that, but this would have been more effective if he had preceded it with something, so the parenthetical statement actually flowed from a line of thought.

For example:

Code: Select all

Punctuation is a vital part of written language. From the humble comma to the stately ampersand, punctuation makes writing easy to read and simple to understand. However, it must be used with care; failure to use it properly can have very unpleasant consequences for your readers (an unmatched left parenthesis creates an unresolved tension that will stay with you all day.


I'll tell you what's worse though: an asterexasper. Every once in a while* I'll see one, and it'll bother me for hours.

*more often than you'd think


I like your idea there. Just having it out there like this is a bit... odd. I certainly had the effect somewhat blunted on me, since I saw the title for awhile before seeing the comic, and thought for a moment that the comic was talking about the title.

makc
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:26 pm UTC

Re: 0859: "("

Postby makc » Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:51 pm UTC

tehol wrote:Alt text: Brains aside, I wonder how many poorly-written xkcd.com-parsing scripts will break on this title (or this mouseover text"

my regexp did not get it right either
my regexp wrote:Brains aside, I wonder how many poorly-written xkcd.com-parsing scripts will break on this title (or ;;\

Code: Select all

            re = /alt":\s+"([^"]+)"/;
            var alt:String = String (e.target.data).match (re) [1];

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: 0859: "("

Postby Tass » Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:17 am UTC

I had to go in here to say that while browsing random comments I got this one, but the very next one I got was 297. It was a great cure.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests