Comments on: No Shirt, Sherlock

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:48:58 +0000

TO ask a stupid question here. Couldn’t you be arrested for being naked in public?

By: Andie

Andie — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:09:40 +0000

If you read the strip regularly, you’d know that Dewey isn’t big on rules. He doesn’t care that the guy is breaking the rule — he’s just surprised that the woman isn’t being a little more careful to avoid seeing something she’d rather not see (or at least, that Dewey’d rather not see if he were standing where she is).

By: Jeff S.

Jeff S. — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:36:12 +0000

Apparently the patron thinks the rule is “No shirt AND no shoes, no service”. She was informing Dewey he wasn’t wearing any shoes EITHER, therefore he should have been denied service. Since he was served, she assumed not wearing a shirt wasn’t enough.

By: Annie Benson

Annie Benson — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:25:50 +0000

I think that the joke is she was looking at his lower portions. To see he had no shoes, she had to have seen him in his entirity (entierity? Enter… his whole self.) Dewey’s saying that since he isn’t gay, he would have noticed the guy wasn’t wearing a shirt, and then made a decision to not look down any further and risk having to see the weirdo’s junk.

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:51:16 +0000

Yeah, Miss Appropriate, but that isn’t really the sort of social commentary the strip goes for.

As for the patron, he is a well established anti-authoritarian lawyer, who isn’t cowed by “the man”’s insistence on clothing.

By: David A. Rooney

David A. Rooney — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:40:16 +0000

I think Dewey is commenting on the fact the woman looked the guy over from head to toe and only upon noting he had no shoes did she refuse service, when in fact she could have/should have stopped at noticing he had no shirt. In other words, she missed the obvious. The comment “a little higher” is sarcasm.

Lot of work for not so much funny.

By: Keera

Keera — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:56:32 +0000

…and one should have said rule.

Now I’m done.

By: Keera

Keera — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:55:04 +0000

Maybe the library has no “no shoes, no shirt, no service” rule at all. So the problem is that the guy is barefoot all the way up his legs.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:32:30 +0000

I am afraid that I don’t get this one. The man isn’t wearing a shirt; thus, he should have received no service, shoes or no shoes. The whole joke seems not to work particularly well.

By: FadedC

FadedC — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:56:57 +0000

Well without knowing he was gay I would say he was trying to avoid looking at the guys junk. Knowing he is gay doesn’t really change that perception for me too much. The guy walking out doesn’t exactly look like he’s supposed to be all that attractive.