Sunday Funnies: LOL-May 9
Cidu Bill on May 9th 2010
Morris Keesan:
mitch4: I don’t find this at all offensive … but only because I’m neither a dwarf nor a flamingo.
David Wallace: …reminds me of software salesmen…
Filed in Bill Bickel, Brevity, Dave Blazek, Dave Coverly, Dave Whamond, F-Minus, Garfield, Guy & Rodd, Jim Davis, Loose Parts, Mark Parisi, Off the Mark, Reality Check, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, Speed Bump, Star Trek, Tony Carrillo, Zach Weiner, comic strips, comics, comics that made us laugh out loud, humor, lol | 25 responses so far
Chuck May 9th 2010 at 02:06 am 1
Isn’t the baby an observer?
mitch4 May 9th 2010 at 02:24 am 2
I’m tickled by several of these, but particularly the tractor beam, which I’m glad to see is not being called a CIDU.
[And belatedly I realize the term in the garden ornaments one should be ‘gnome’ not ‘dwarf’.]
Chuck May 9th 2010 at 02:58 am 3
My boyfriend and I got a kick out of mentally animating the Kool Aid comic. The tractor was was delightful as well.
someone else May 9th 2010 at 03:48 am 4
But wait wait!
I’m getting all sorts of deja vu vibe from the Kool Aid one. I recall being bewildered then someone posting an explanation about a TV commercial with a pitcher running thru walls then someone posting a link to a clip of that. Is there some other comics explication site I read but have forgotten? Something like that must have happened, to explain why I wasn’t totally at a loss to understand the cartoon this time ’round.
And as a confirming detail, I seem to recall some discussion of variant versions of the picture, maybe depending on presence or absence of the cat. Or the dog?
Molly J May 9th 2010 at 04:15 am 5
Yeah, I think we talked about Kool Aid ads here before. Just FYI, here’s a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6xC8KM-jk Oh yeah!!!
I, too, loved the tractor beam one. And the Off the Mark. Mark Parisi and I always seem to have the same sense of humor.
Keera May 9th 2010 at 04:43 am 6
I, too, loved the tractor beam one. Made me LOL. I also enjoyed the quantum mechanics one because I’m currently watching “What the Bleep Do We Know?” - extended DVD-set, no less.
Dave May 9th 2010 at 06:50 am 7
thanks for the utube link Molly… we don’t drink the kool aid down here in Aus so I had no idea what the joke was. I knew they were Kool Aid, but i didn’t know they ran through walls!
Soup Dragon May 9th 2010 at 07:11 am 8
By some strange coincidence, this was lying at the printer down the corridor last friday, a simple google image search found it:
http://www.freethunk.net/nickkim/tractorbeam.jpg
Not sure if it qualifies as a synchronicity.
Tullia May 9th 2010 at 07:12 am 9
@someone else #4 — I kind of remember a similar strip. I think it was more along the lines of “The Kool-Aid Man’s house” or something with a big Kool-Aid-Man-shaped “doorway” busted out on the front of the house. Or maybe I’m hallucinating.
I just like the cat and the dog. They’re not totally freaked out, they’re not trying to escape, they’re just wary — and, in the case of the dog, horrified. I like the idea of the dog thinking, “Why would a merciful god permit such a thing?” and then going on to develop some kind of Manichean dog religious philosophy.
Daniel J. Drazen May 9th 2010 at 09:11 am 10
I thnk the “offensive” lawn ornament WRT gnomes and flamingoes has to do with the question of whether the old school lawn jockey ornaments were or weren’t racist.
John DiFool May 9th 2010 at 11:18 am 11
I’ve seen the “pull my finger” gag used with that painting before.
“Isn’t the baby an observer?”
Yep-which means she’s immortal, at least from her perspective. [Search for Quantum Immortality]
Morris Keesan May 9th 2010 at 11:25 am 12
Soup Dragon (#8), I think that’s close enough at least to be almost-synchronicity. I find the Loose Parts version funnier, because it makes the reader have to think about it. Implied punchlines are almost always funnier then explicit ones [BTW: If the words “imply” and “implicit” are related, why isn’t there a verb “exply”?]
Chuck (#1), that’s one of the problems with the Schrödinger’s cat: the cat is an observer. But the baby doesn’t know that, which is why Daddy gets to feel superior. And Zach obviously isn’t very familiar with kids, because there’s no way that’s a two year old.
Mark M May 9th 2010 at 11:42 am 13
There is this one related to the Kool Aid guy.
http://www.basketcasecomix.com/?p=1167
CIDU BIll May 9th 2010 at 11:46 am 14
I seem to remember that Kool Aid comic being a LOL, which could explain someone else’s feeling of deja vu.
djembe1 May 9th 2010 at 12:16 pm 15
The Kool-Aid comic was within the last week or two, and it had the Big Bad Wolf paying the Kool-Aid guy, while in the background, three little pigs were looking out the window of their brick house.
MellowCake May 9th 2010 at 01:27 pm 16
Another Kool-Aid comic:
http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF143-Kids_Are_Thirsty.gif
Dave in Boston May 9th 2010 at 06:51 pm 17
Morris Keesan: there is, it’s “explain”. More or less.
mitch4 May 9th 2010 at 06:55 pm 18
Or else “explicate” for make explicit.
Morris Keesan May 9th 2010 at 07:02 pm 19
And yet “implicate” feels like it has a much different relation to “implicit” than “explicate” has to “explicit”.
Bob in Nashville May 10th 2010 at 07:31 am 20
Actually a comics site, rather than an explanation site, but a kool-aid comic with a canine in it got picked apart in the comments at http://www.gocomics.com/theargylesweater/2010/05/04/ .
bookworm May 10th 2010 at 12:04 pm 21
Keera, I watched that version of “What the Bleep Do We Know?”, too. Interesting ideas, although I can’t say I agree with, or even understand, everything in it. I did read that one of the guys interviewed — can’t remember names right now — was duped into thinking it was going to be a documentary, and when he saw the finished product and how they had edited his interview, he was extremely upset.
Keera May 10th 2010 at 12:22 pm 22
Bookworm, Dr. David Albert was the one who found his interview edited beyond recognition. I do like the tone of it, the positive self-empowering thoughts in it, but it is sad that some of the stuff they state as fact has been shown to be unverifiable or outright humbug. I would have liked the whole thing to be utterly reliable.
Darren S. A. George May 10th 2010 at 06:46 pm 23
Keera- “some” of the stuff has been shown to be unverifiable? I thought the whole thing was an ad for the “Ramtha” cult, i.e., garbage from beginning to end.
Nathaniel May 10th 2010 at 09:01 pm 24
If anyone wants to learn about quantum mechanics for real, you can see Nobel laureate Richard Feynman explaining it here. Don’t worry, there’s no math.
Keera May 11th 2010 at 01:20 am 25
Darren, so I’ve been told, but I honestly didn’t find anything in the movie that I hadn’t already read/heard about elsewhere (and I have never read anything by Ramtha/J.Z. Knight because I never believed Ramtha was real) - except for the quantum physics. I have only now learned that the movie was heavily sponsored by some Ramtha organization. But again, the movie’s not saying anything I haven’t already heard from other sources. This stuff’s been floating around for ages. (Unverifialbe/unreproducable: Indians not recognizing European ships; ice crystals reacting to words; quantum mechanics acting on things bigger than than atoms.)
Thanks for the quantum link, Nathaniel!