1749: "Mushrooms"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
thunk
Posts: 440
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:29 am UTC
Location: Arguably Exiled

1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby thunk » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:19 pm UTC

Image

Alt-text: Evolutionarily speaking, mushrooms are technically a type of ghost.

At least what the comic said is true, neither fungi nor animals photosynthesize.
Free markets, free movement, free plops
Blitz on, my friends Quantized, GnomeAnne, and iskinner!
troo dat

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby cellocgw » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:24 pm UTC

Get out of my back yard, Randall!

shroomring.jpg
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2484
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:38 pm UTC

thunk wrote:At least what the comic said is true, neither fungi nor animals photosynthesize.


More than true for that reason.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6109
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Jorpho » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:10 pm UTC

I wonder if this is another one of those cases where Randall uploaded the wrong, incomplete version of the comic.

DanD
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby DanD » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:01 pm UTC

thunk wrote:At least what the comic said is true, neither fungi nor animals photosynthesize.


Neither do a very limited number of plants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotropa_uniflora

There's a reason why similarity in features has fallen out of favor for classifying life.

KarenRei
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 pm UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby KarenRei » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:13 pm UTC

A friend of mine calls fungi "the vampires of the plant world".

Not exactly phylogenically correct, but...

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby pogrmman » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:31 pm UTC

KarenRei wrote:A friend of mine calls fungi "the vampires of the plant world".

Not exactly phylogenically correct, but...



It is kind of true. Fungi in general are absolutely BIZARRE!

A while back, I found a bright pink fungus that grows on weevil droppings inside of seed pods. Fungal reproduction is also strange. They've got more than two sexes and they kind of have an alternation of generations like plants.

Also, how some of them switch between yeast and mycelium forms is strange. Fungi are so diverse!

The way that some have mutual relationships with plants and others with algae and other things is neat.

User avatar
thunk
Posts: 440
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:29 am UTC
Location: Arguably Exiled

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby thunk » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:47 pm UTC

DanD wrote:
thunk wrote:At least what the comic said is true, neither fungi nor animals photosynthesize.


Neither do a very limited number of plants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotropa_uniflora

There's a reason why similarity in features has fallen out of favor for classifying life.

Oh! I figured there was going to be an exception somewhere.
Free markets, free movement, free plops
Blitz on, my friends Quantized, GnomeAnne, and iskinner!
troo dat

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3913
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:38 pm UTC

pogrmman wrote:The way that some have mutual relationships with plants and others with algae and other things is neat.

I really lichen things like that.

(If fungi are the vampires of the plant kingdom, are lichen are the liches?)
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Copper Bezel » Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:47 pm UTC

Lichens are definitely the most interesting things about fungi to me. Not being microscopic helps, of course - it makes the diversity that's there a little easier to appreciate. (Mushrooms are okay, I guess, but there's only so much you can do with a fruiting body, and it's mostly, um, fruiting.)

Mycellium as bioplastic is interesting, though : https://youtu.be/jnMXH5TqqG8
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 807
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby da Doctah » Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:55 pm UTC

My first reaction to the "five kingdoms" thing was all the games of Twenty Questions it was going to throw into a cocked hat ("Is it animal, vegetable or mineral?" "No.")

My second reaction was to wonder whether a strict vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat animal matter, or someone who eats only plant matter. And if it's the latter, does that mean they now have to swear off beer and bread?

User avatar
Heimhenge
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:35 pm UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Heimhenge » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:32 pm UTC

Jorpho wrote:I wonder if this is another one of those cases where Randall uploaded the wrong, incomplete version of the comic.


To be honest, the same thought occurred to me. Like on that last frame, which kinda leaves me hanging, if there were some "double-take head-spin lines" it would be less a non-sequitur. Just my 2¢.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3913
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:41 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:My second reaction was to wonder whether a strict vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat animal matter, or someone who eats only plant matter. And if it's the latter, does that mean they now have to swear off beer and bread?

The conventional use of "vegetarian" I'm familiar with only swears off animal matter (sometimes not even all animal matter, only "meat", which apparently can be restricted only to mammal flesh in some peoples' minds, excluding poultry and fish), but I've met self-described vegans who do refrain from things made by yeast as well.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

strawbearlyjamms
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:56 pm UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby strawbearlyjamms » Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:05 pm UTC

http://www.radiolab.org/story/from-tree ... ning-tree/

Without a doubt the most fascinating and mind blowing "story" i've ever heard. Listened to it on Tuesday, I wonder if Randall did as well, the whole "mushrooms are biologically closer to animals than plants" is part of the story... Either that or just a GOOMHR moment...

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Keyman » Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:06 pm UTC

I think we've just proved Randall reads the forum. The growling mushroom is obviously a direct result of the "Clams got legs" posts in the 1748 thread.

or not... :roll:
A childhood spent walking while reading books has prepared me unexpectedly well for today's world.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Copper Bezel » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:43 am UTC

strawbearlyjamms wrote:http://www.radiolab.org/story/from-tree-to-shining-tree/

Without a doubt the most fascinating and mind blowing "story" i've ever heard. Listened to it on Tuesday, I wonder if Randall did as well, the whole "mushrooms are biologically closer to animals than plants" is part of the story... Either that or just a GOOMHR moment...

While I doubt a connection, I love Radiolab but haven't listened to them in a bit, and I have to confirm that despite my previous comments on mycology in this thread and elsewhere, this is episode really is pretty damn amazing.

Edit: Vascular land plants are a symbiotic relationship between a fungus and a liverwort. That's basically what it comes to, here.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

JDGA
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:13 am UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby JDGA » Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:29 am UTC

Ghost mushrooms? First thing I thought of was Cave Story.
Image

User avatar
RAGBRAIvet
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:50 pm UTC
Location: 43° 53' 03" -91° 14' 06"

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby RAGBRAIvet » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:55 pm UTC

"Evolutionarily"??  Is that even a word?
I guess it is now....

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Sableagle » Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:00 pm UTC

JDGA wrote:Ghost mushrooms? First thing I thought of was Cave Story.

Less scary than the ones that are a kind of angel.



Pretty, pretty, tempting, innocent-looking, lethal little things, just minding their own business, cleaning up the detritus of the deciduous forest, quietly keeping their species going with summer reproductive stages, giving nobody any trouble at all as long as you leave them the heck alone.

I've got mushrooms in the garden. I've got Armillaria mellea. It ate the hedge. It looks a lot like Galerina marginata so I'm not going to eat it right back.

Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 622
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby flicky1991 » Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:57 pm UTC

RAGBRAIvet wrote:"Evolutionarily"??  Is that even a word?
I guess it is now....

Apparently.
any pronouns
----
Discord for Forum Games posters
(Please let me know if the link doesn't work)

Kanonfutter
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:40 am UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Kanonfutter » Sat Oct 22, 2016 5:23 pm UTC

I think he ate the mushrooms?

piratejohn
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:26 am UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby piratejohn » Sat Oct 22, 2016 5:30 pm UTC

RAGBRAIvet wrote:"Evolutionarily"??  Is that even a word?
I guess it is now....

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

piratejohn
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:26 am UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby piratejohn » Sat Oct 22, 2016 5:30 pm UTC

I don't know why the mushroom is so angry. He's normally such a fungi.

jgh
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:04 pm UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby jgh » Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:13 am UTC

The visible bit is just the reproductive organs, so Cueball is fondling the mushroom's... no I don't want to think about it.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Copper Bezel » Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:36 am UTC

It's not really so out of mode. Flowers are sex organs, too. We use them to indicate to others that we would like to have sex with them, but also to decorate dinnerware.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Oct 23, 2016 1:58 pm UTC

RAGBRAIvet wrote:"Evolutionarily"??  Is that even a word?
I guess it is now....
It's become more common since the late 1960s, but it's been around since the 1880s.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... ly%3B%2Cc0
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1200
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Sableagle » Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:47 pm UTC

jgh wrote:The visible bit is just the reproductive organs, so Cueball is fondling the mushroom's...
... pregnant belly.

Flowers, though, are the actual bits that take part in transmission of gametes between individuals. Pictures of flowers are inter-species softcore porn. Pictures of bees on flowers are inter-species hardcore porn. We stick our noses in flowers.

If you're going to avoid thinking about part of that, be okay with mushrooms and the eating thereof and avoid thinking about hay fever.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Dashie
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:47 am UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Dashie » Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:51 am UTC

Interesting fact: if "evolutionarily" were a word (is it?), it would be one of the handful in the English language to have all six vowels!

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:59 am UTC

"Evolutionary" already having an I in it makes that seem a little less special somehow.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
jc
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby jc » Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:24 pm UTC

piratejohn wrote:
RAGBRAIvet wrote:"Evolutionarily"??  Is that even a word?
I guess it is now....

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Yup; it's just a case of a well-known English word with added suffixes that turn it into an adverb. First you take the Latin word "evolutio(n)", which has a complex structure that made sense in Latin but not in English, and was borrowed whole. You first add the "-ary" suffix to get the adjective "evolutionary". Then you add the "-ly" suffix to make it into an adverb, applying a standard spelling change to replace the "y" with "i" (as in "easy" -> "easily"), and you get "evolutionarily".

It's the sort of word that large dictionaries often list, but smaller ones don't, because it's just made from a root word with some standard affixes applied in the usual manner. The interesting puzzle is figuring out why people with an otherwise good command of English will question the validity of such complex words. English, like all other human languages, has a collection of affixes (prefixes, suffixes, and a few infixes) for making big words out of smaller words, and this one is just a straightforward example of the process.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2695
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby orthogon » Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:42 pm UTC

jc wrote:
piratejohn wrote:
RAGBRAIvet wrote:"Evolutionarily"??  Is that even a word?
I guess it is now....

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Yup; it's just a case of a well-known English word with added suffixes that turn it into an adverb. First you take the Latin word "evolutio(n)", which has a complex structure that made sense in Latin but not in English, and was borrowed whole. You first add the "-ary" suffix to get the adjective "evolutionary". Then you add the "-ly" suffix to make it into an adverb, applying a standard spelling change to replace the "y" with "i" (as in "easy" -> "easily"), and you get "evolutionarily".

It's the sort of word that large dictionaries often list, but smaller ones don't, because it's just made from a root word with some standard affixes applied in the usual manner. The interesting puzzle is figuring out why people with an otherwise good command of English will question the validity of such complex words. English, like all other human languages, has a collection of affixes (prefixes, suffixes, and a few infixes) for making big words out of smaller words, and this one is just a straightforward example of the process.

Agreed. This argumentation also implies that there are technically an infinite number of words in any language that has productive affixes and inflections. Pinker points out that claims that, say, antidisestablishmentarianism is the longest word are kind of meaningless, since anybody can come along and point out that there are as many antidisestablishmentarianisms as there are antidisestablishmentarianists, that they all speak antidisestablishmentarianistically in their own way, and so on.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:42 pm UTC

piratejohn wrote:
RAGBRAIvet wrote:"Evolutionarily"??  Is that even a word?
I guess it is now....

It's a perfectly cromulent word.


I love recursive words: in this case, "evolutionarily" developed evolutionarily.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
svenman
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:09 pm UTC
Location: 680 km NNE of the Château d'If

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby svenman » Mon Oct 24, 2016 2:04 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:"Evolutionary" already having an I in it makes that seem a little less special somehow.

But "evolutionarily" having a non-silent I in it makes it just a little more special than "evolutionary" somehow.
Mostly active on the One True Thread.
If you need help understanding what's going on there, the xkcd Time Wiki may help.

Addams didn't die! But will Addams have a place to live? You can help!

Randallspeed to all blitzers on the One True Thread!

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby trpmb6 » Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:53 pm UTC

It's also worth noting that some fungi breath aerobically, like animals (and even some plants apparently), but others, such as yeast, breath anaerobically. I suppose a vegetarian/vegan/<Insert flavor of the day activist> could draw the lines along these points. Thus beer would still be acceptable.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2695
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby orthogon » Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:25 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:It's also worth noting that some fungi breath aerobically, like animals (and even some plants apparently), but others, such as yeast, breath anaerobically. I suppose a vegetarian/vegan/<Insert flavor of the day activist> could draw the lines along these points. Thus beer would still be acceptable.

But not bread?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5652
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Angua » Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:27 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:It's also worth noting that some fungi breath aerobically, like animals (and even some plants apparently), but others, such as yeast, breath anaerobically. I suppose a vegetarian/vegan/<Insert flavor of the day activist> could draw the lines along these points. Thus beer would still be acceptable.

Unless it's got fish in it.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:13 pm UTC

Wait, what? All plants breathe. Yeasts are special, derived fungi that have abandonned oxygen metabolism, but they're nothing to do with ancestrally anaerobic bacteria and archea.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 922
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Liri » Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:40 pm UTC

Yeah, all plants use aerobic respiration, they just happen to make the O2 themselves. They "breathe in" CO2 because it's more efficient than trying to only use the CO2 produced in aerobic respiration (and making the sugars comes before breaking them down).
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2695
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby orthogon » Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:50 pm UTC

Liri wrote:Yeah, all plants use aerobic respiration, they just happen to make the O2 themselves. They "breathe in" CO2 because it's more efficient than trying to only use the CO2 produced in aerobic respiration (and making the sugars comes before breaking them down).

Isn't photosynthesis the reverse reaction to aerobic respiration? It's not so much a question of efficiency as of doing more moles of photosynthesis than of respiration on average, and hence being a net sink of CO2 and source of O2. And laying down sugars and the more complex carbohydrates that you synthesise out of them - in other words, growing.

ETA: also I'd remembered correctly wrongly that yeast does aerobic respiration to make bread and anaerobic relation (fermentation) to make beer. Both are anaerobic, apparently.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1749: "Mushrooms"

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:03 pm UTC

Huh. That's a lovely bit of information very well played. Awesome. Edit: Well, still nice to know in any case.

Liri wrote:Yeah, all plants use aerobic respiration, they just happen to make the O2 themselves. They "breathe in" CO2 because it's more efficient than trying to only use the CO2 produced in aerobic respiration (and making the sugars comes before breaking them down).

orthogon wrote:Isn't photosynthesis the reverse reaction to aerobic respiration? It's not so much a question of efficiency as of doing more moles of photosynthesis than of respiration on average, and hence being a net sink of CO2 and source of O2. And laying down sugars and the more complex carbohydrates that you synthesise out of them - in other words, growing.

Yeah, photosynthesize produces the sugars they store and metabolize aerobically for energy, but they also synthesize the proteins that they use to grow and maintain themselves out of that same stock. So they have to produce much more free carbon and O2 than they'll later metabolize even before considering the many energy losses in the system. But plants can only photosynthesize when the sun is shining and need to breathe all the time, so the oxygen they use to metabolize isn't even necessarily coming directly from their own photosynthesis.
Last edited by Copper Bezel on Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:20 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests