1101: "Sketchiness"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Lode
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 5:16 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Lode » Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:09 pm UTC

I love XKCD, a lot of the comics are extremely good, funny, interesting or true.

I'm going to be so honest to say that this was one of the weakest XKCD's in a while.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby jpk » Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:30 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:
sonalita wrote:
ShuRugal wrote:
Ok, pet peeve time: I'm okay with people born in the US being called "americans", since there seems to be no better options. But c'mon guys, America is a frickin' continent, with 40-something countries. And guess what, most of them speak Spanish :wink:


Totally off topic, but hear, hear. I like the term "USonian", which I've heard attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright. He supposedly used it to characterize the native architecture of the USA, but it works as a drop-in replacement for the incorrect use of "American".

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby jpk » Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:33 pm UTC

JeromeWest wrote:
jpk wrote:I think if someone asked me back to their "sex cottage" I'd be okay with that. Other than that, I think "do you want to come back to my sex ____" is pretty much a "no". Unless they're cute.


Sooo... anyone non-cute inviting you back to their sex cottage is an automatic acceptance?


That doesn't follow, but yeah, I'd probably go along to see what a "sex cottage" looks like.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 904
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby da Doctah » Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:34 pm UTC

jonadab wrote:Other words that should not be in this sentence include "chamber", "temple", "gallows", "coffin", "furnace", "mortuary", "crucible", "rack", and "nursery". Actually, come to think of it, there are not terribly many words that should be used in this sentence.

Actually, I was just thinking "temple" would actually be non-sketchy. Kind of tantric and spiritual.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4884
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:Well, it's one huge piece of land, America. But if we are going to subdivide it, it can be done in more than one way. If you choose the geografical one, you got 3 continents: South, North and Central America. If you go the cultural one, we have Latin America (everithing south from the USA) and Anglo-Saxonic America (USA and Canada). Or you can even have just North and South America, if you consider the central region as being part of North America.

There is no geographical region to divide the Americas into three; what is the geographical divider between North and Central America? The imaginary US-Mexico border? The only sane geographical division is the Panama Canal, the narrowest point of connection. And continents are fundamentally a geographical thing, so there are two continents there: North America and South America.

This is kinda crazy, there are various interpretations to how many continents exist, ranging from 4 to 7.

And most of them are stupid and culturally biased instead of just running with geography. Of course we have to make some arbitrary calls about how big a body of land has to be to count as a continent and now narrow the connection between two bodies of land can be before they count as two continents, but if we plug in "Australia" and "strait of Suez" for those values you get a geographically sane division that mostly matches general usage: Australia, Antarctica, North and South America, Africa, and Eurasia. Sure, there's no split between Europe and Asia, but calling Europe a separate continent is as stupid as calling Central America one.

Alternately we could say that any connection between two bodies of land makes them one continent, in which case there are four: Australia, Antarctica, the Americas, and Afro-Eurasia. We could also say that there is no size limit, but then every dry rock jutting out of every ocean in the world counts as its own continent. Neither of these tracks anything close to anybody's ordinary usage, and so are nonsense.
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)

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1251
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:10 pm UTC

jpk wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:
sonalita wrote:
ShuRugal wrote:
Ok, pet peeve time: I'm okay with people born in the US being called "americans", since there seems to be no better options. But c'mon guys, America is a frickin' continent, with 40-something countries. And guess what, most of them speak Spanish :wink:


Totally off topic, but hear, hear. I like the term "USonian", which I've heard attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright. He supposedly used it to characterize the native architecture of the USA, but it works as a drop-in replacement for the incorrect use of "American".

But then, how do you know it's not referring to people from the United States of Mexico?

CharlieBing
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby CharlieBing » Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:17 pm UTC

So many possibilities. Tower, Catacomb, Ship, Construct, Haus, Rocket, pretty much any noun. Can anyone think of any that are awesome Instead of creepy? Sex Hovercraft maybe?


No, no, NOT Hovercraft! My hovercraft is full of eels.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1810
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:19 pm UTC

CharlieBing wrote:
So many possibilities. Tower, Catacomb, Ship, Construct, Haus, Rocket, pretty much any noun. Can anyone think of any that are awesome Instead of creepy? Sex Hovercraft maybe?


No, no, NOT Hovercraft! My hovercraft is full of eels.


I will not by this tobacconist. It is scratched.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

xGeovanni
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:03 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby xGeovanni » Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:40 pm UTC

International ring
Grotto
Theme park
Abyss
Matrix
-y mother for a threesome
Rhapsody
Drawer
Livestream
Therapy
Showdown

and my personal favourate: "offender trial".

User avatar
eviloatmeal
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:39 am UTC
Location: Upside down in space!
Contact:

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby eviloatmeal » Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:55 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:When I read that comic I wonder if I could make it sound as less "sketchy" as possible.... so here goes.

Hey baby, want to come back to my sex ____?

- store
- protest
- seminar
- therapy

"Hey baby, want to come back to my sextuplets?"

Harmless, although not a good pick-up line.
*** FREE SHIPPING ENABLED ***
Image
Riddles are abound tonightImage

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby jpk » Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:46 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:
jpk wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:
sonalita wrote:
ShuRugal wrote:
Ok, pet peeve time: I'm okay with people born in the US being called "americans", since there seems to be no better options. But c'mon guys, America is a frickin' continent, with 40-something countries. And guess what, most of them speak Spanish :wink:


Totally off topic, but hear, hear. I like the term "USonian", which I've heard attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright. He supposedly used it to characterize the native architecture of the USA, but it works as a drop-in replacement for the incorrect use of "American".

But then, how do you know it's not referring to people from the United States of Mexico?



I'd think the use of the English acronym would tend to give it away.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby PolakoVoador » Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:52 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:Well, it's one huge piece of land, America. But if we are going to subdivide it, it can be done in more than one way. If you choose the geografical one, you got 3 continents: South, North and Central America. If you go the cultural one, we have Latin America (everithing south from the USA) and Anglo-Saxonic America (USA and Canada). Or you can even have just North and South America, if you consider the central region as being part of North America.

There is no geographical region to divide the Americas into three; what is the geographical divider between North and Central America? The imaginary US-Mexico border? The only sane geographical division is the Panama Canal, the narrowest point of connection. And continents are fundamentally a geographical thing, so there are two continents there: North America and South America.

This is kinda crazy, there are various interpretations to how many continents exist, ranging from 4 to 7.

And most of them are stupid and culturally biased instead of just running with geography. Of course we have to make some arbitrary calls about how big a body of land has to be to count as a continent and now narrow the connection between two bodies of land can be before they count as two continents, but if we plug in "Australia" and "strait of Suez" for those values you get a geographically sane division that mostly matches general usage: Australia, Antarctica, North and South America, Africa, and Eurasia. Sure, there's no split between Europe and Asia, but calling Europe a separate continent is as stupid as calling Central America one.

Alternately we could say that any connection between two bodies of land makes them one continent, in which case there are four: Australia, Antarctica, the Americas, and Afro-Eurasia. We could also say that there is no size limit, but then every dry rock jutting out of every ocean in the world counts as its own continent. Neither of these tracks anything close to anybody's ordinary usage, and so are nonsense.


I agree that all of the definitions are really usable or sane. I was just pointing out that depending where one was raised, he will say "three continents", while you will say "two" and someone else will pop up and say "actually only one".

Particularly, in Brazil, we're usually teached considering 3 Americas: North (Canada, USA and Mexico), Central (the Caribbean countries) and South America. So, yeah, I guess at least in one thing we can all agree upon: America is not a country. :D

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Whizbang » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:09 pm UTC

You people have it all wrong. The emphasis is on the "can". You're supposed to pronounce it "Ameri-CAN", for our can-do attitude. Everyone else is either Ameri-Can't or Other.

Stars upon thars.

sotanaht
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:14 am UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby sotanaht » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:13 pm UTC

SchighSchagh wrote:Ok, so we all clearly agree this is a very sketchy comic. But what would it take to complete the sentence non-sketch-like?

"Hey baby, wanna come back to my sex ed class?"
^^^ still sketchy


I'm pretty sure it would be sketchy even if you removed the "sex" part, no matter what word you finished the sentence with. "Hey baby, wanna come back to my _____" is bad enough even without explicitly referring to sex.

User avatar
flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 742
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby flicky1991 » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:14 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:So, yeah, I guess at least in one thing we can all agree upon: America is not a country. :D

I think enough people call the USA "America" to just consider it general usage, especially considering there's already another term for that whole area: "the Americas".

Also: wanna come back to my sex universe?

...Yes, it's a universe made entirely of sex. So what?
any pronouns
----
Forum Games Discord
(tell me if link doesn't work)
----
NiteSciFi, sci-fi forum that needs more members

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:25 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
CharlieBing wrote:
So many possibilities. Tower, Catacomb, Ship, Construct, Haus, Rocket, pretty much any noun. Can anyone think of any that are awesome Instead of creepy? Sex Hovercraft maybe?


No, no, NOT Hovercraft! My hovercraft is full of eels.


I will not by buy this tobacconist record. It is scratched.


Image

You great poof. If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me? I...I am no longer infected.

Drop your panties, Sir William; I cannot wait 'til lunchtime.

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Jackpot777 » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:26 pm UTC

flicky1991 wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:So, yeah, I guess at least in one thing we can all agree upon: America is not a country. :D

I think enough people call the USA "America" to just consider it general usage, especially considering there's already another term for that whole area: "the Americas".

Also: wanna come back to my sex universe?

...Yes, it's a universe made entirely of sex. So what?


♪ I can show you the world ♪
♪ Shining, shimmering, splendid ♪
♪ Tell me, princess, now when did ♪
♪ You last let your heart decide? ♪

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Max™ » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:03 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:Well, it's one huge piece of land, America. But if we are going to subdivide it, it can be done in more than one way. If you choose the geografical one, you got 3 continents: South, North and Central America. If you go the cultural one, we have Latin America (everithing south from the USA) and Anglo-Saxonic America (USA and Canada). Or you can even have just North and South America, if you consider the central region as being part of North America.

There is no geographical region to divide the Americas into three; what is the geographical divider between North and Central America? The imaginary US-Mexico border? The only sane geographical division is the Panama Canal, the narrowest point of connection. And continents are fundamentally a geographical thing, so there are two continents there: North America and South America.

This is kinda crazy, there are various interpretations to how many continents exist, ranging from 4 to 7.

And most of them are stupid and culturally biased instead of just running with geography. Of course we have to make some arbitrary calls about how big a body of land has to be to count as a continent and now narrow the connection between two bodies of land can be before they count as two continents, but if we plug in "Australia" and "strait of Suez" for those values you get a geographically sane division that mostly matches general usage: Australia, Antarctica, North and South America, Africa, and Eurasia. Sure, there's no split between Europe and Asia, but calling Europe a separate continent is as stupid as calling Central America one.

Alternately we could say that any connection between two bodies of land makes them one continent, in which case there are four: Australia, Antarctica, the Americas, and Afro-Eurasia. We could also say that there is no size limit, but then every dry rock jutting out of every ocean in the world counts as its own continent. Neither of these tracks anything close to anybody's ordinary usage, and so are nonsense.

I'd be ok with 10: Eurasian, North American, South American, Caribbean, African, Arabian, Indian, Australian, Antarctic.

Image

None of the smaller plates remaining have enough landmass above water to qualify under "contiguous region of land exposed above water on a distinct continental plate", but I could work with Afro-Eurasia, America, Australia, Antarctica just as well. The Panama and Suez are laughable justifications to declare North/South America and Africa/Eurasia as distinct continents.

Plus they would all start and end with the letter 'a', neat!
mu

rotopenguin
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:07 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby rotopenguin » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:09 pm UTC

..ual harassment trial. Hey wait, come back! We could have a threesome with the plantiff!

acd
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:02 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby acd » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:10 pm UTC

"examination", "verification", "change"

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4884
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:24 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:I guess at least in one thing we can all agree upon: America is not a country. :D

In the context of countries (and things and people from countries), I will accept and use "America" and "American" in reference to the United States of America, as there are no other countries with "America" in their name, and no other good name for things from that country. (There are other countries with "United States" in their name, albeit not in English, so "US" in the context of countries can refer to the United States of America too; USian is just an ugly ungrammatical abomination, though).

In other contexts, "American" can refer to things from the greater Americas, too. The Vikings and Christopher Columbus were early European visitors to America, despite there being no United States of America at the time (and the places they visited not being in what became the US anyway). Native or indigenous Americans don't have to be from the US. Likewise American flora and fauna don't have to mean those found in the US.

Of course this is all in reference to English. What other people call things in their languages may differ greatly. Germans don't call themselves "Germans" after all, that's just what we call them in English. (Though now I wonder how Germans and Dutch refer to each other; certainly not both "Deutch"?).
Last edited by Pfhorrest on Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:38 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
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)

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:34 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Of course this is all in reference to English. What other people call things in their languages may differ greatly. Germans don't call themselves "Germans" after all, that's just what we call them in English. (Though now I wonder how Germans and Dutch refer to each other; certainly not both "Deutch"?).


Google Translate suggests the Dutch refer to Germans by "Duitser", whereas the Germans refer to the Dutch as "Hollander" (with an umlaut on the 'a'), though I know we have German and Dutch representatives here that can say whether this is correct with much more certainty than I can. Unless you're kidding, of course, in which case I appear foolish.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby AvatarIII » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:37 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Of course this is all in reference to English. What other people call things in their languages may differ greatly. Germans don't call themselves "Germans" after all, that's just what we call them in English. (Though now I wonder how Germans and Dutch refer to each other; certainly not both "Deutch"?).


Google Translate suggests the Dutch refer to Germans by "Duitser", whereas the Germans refer to the Dutch as "Hollander" (with an umlaut on the 'a'), though I know we have German and Dutch representatives here that can say whether this is correct with much more certainty than I can. Unless you're kidding, of course, in which case I appear foolish.


I thought Holland was only (an admittedly heavily populated) province of the Netherlands, :| how do germans refer to non-Hollander Dutch?

jpers36
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby jpers36 » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:40 pm UTC

According to a former co-worker from the Netherlands, the Dutch don't call themselves Dutch. They call themselves Nederlanders.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:42 pm UTC

AvatarIII wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Of course this is all in reference to English. What other people call things in their languages may differ greatly. Germans don't call themselves "Germans" after all, that's just what we call them in English. (Though now I wonder how Germans and Dutch refer to each other; certainly not both "Deutch"?).


Google Translate suggests the Dutch refer to Germans by "Duitser", whereas the Germans refer to the Dutch as "Hollander" (with an umlaut on the 'a'), though I know we have German and Dutch representatives here that can say whether this is correct with much more certainty than I can. Unless you're kidding, of course, in which case I appear foolish.


I thought Holland was only (an admittedly heavily populated) province of the Netherlands, :| how do germans refer to non-Hollander Dutch?

I'm not sure. There are a few other places like that, where a dominant political or geographic entity becomes the example for everyone in that country, but on the whole, it might get a little confusing.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4884
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:50 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Of course this is all in reference to English. What other people call things in their languages may differ greatly. Germans don't call themselves "Germans" after all, that's just what we call them in English. (Though now I wonder how Germans and Dutch refer to each other; certainly not both "Deutch"?).

Google Translate suggests the Dutch refer to Germans by "Duitser", whereas the Germans refer to the Dutch as "Hollander" (with an umlaut on the 'a'), though I know we have German and Dutch representatives here that can say whether this is correct with much more certainty than I can. Unless you're kidding, of course, in which case I appear foolish.

I was genuinely curious, though it appears I was mistaken in my underlying assumption that both Germans and Dutch would refer to themselves as "Deutsch" or something similar. The Dutch, it appears (from Google Translate), refer to themselves as Nederlanders. Makes me curious how "Dutch" in English came to apply just to Netherlanders while the Romantic "German" came to refer to modern-day Germans. Probably something to do with Norman classist language differences. (In the alternate history of my fictional universe, a powerful pan-Germanic empire is known in that world's equivalent of English, which never had a Norman invasion, as the Dutch.)
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
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4884
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:58 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:I'd be ok with 10: Eurasian, North American, South American, Caribbean, African, Arabian, Indian, Australian, Antarctic.

Image

The problem is that tectonic plates don't define continents. A continuous body of land (literally a "continent", terra continens) can span several tectonic plates, and worse still discontinuous parts of land can rest on the same tectonic plate. Even if some people would be OK with calling India or Arabia separate continents, I don't think claiming half of Japan is in America is going to fly.
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)

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby J Thomas » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:36 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:In the context of countries (and things and people from countries), I will accept and use "America" and "American" in reference to the United States of America, as there are no other countries with "America" in their name, and no other good name for things from that country. (There are other countries with "United States" in their name, albeit not in English, so "US" in the context of countries can refer to the United States of America too; USian is just an ugly ungrammatical abomination, though).


Something kind of similar might work, though. We could call the United States of America, USA. American becomes Usan. American citizens become Users. It all fits together.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby bmonk » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:39 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
cptjeff wrote:You would think a guy who writes so many grammar comics would realize that "sex orgy" is redundant.


If you invite someone to an orgy without further context or qualification, sex is generally implied, but making it explicit means it works even in contexts where "orgy" is ambiguous


For example, an orgy at a Classical toga club might involve more eating and purging than sex.

justalurkr wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:Ok, pet peeve time: I'm okay with people born in the US being called "americans", since there seems to be no better options. But c'mon guys, America is a frickin' continent, with 40-something countries. And guess what, most of them speak Spanish :wink:


And the Spanish speaking population has a great name for what English speakers call Americans: estadounidense. I'd like to bring that, siestas and tapas into mainstream United Statesian culture.

mmmmtapas


The Latin Americans used to call the USAns + Canadians "Norte Americanos"
Last edited by bmonk on Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

Korbl
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:41 am UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Korbl » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:41 pm UTC

Sketchy: - Cow"

Less Sketchy: - Cow cover performance."

Boingo
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:19 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby Boingo » Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:46 pm UTC

Dammit!

factory --- spire --- onslaught --- extractor --- judge

Randall exposed my password again!

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby brenok » Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:58 pm UTC

justalurkr wrote:
PolakoVoador wrote:Ok, pet peeve time: I'm okay with people born in the US being called "americans", since there seems to be no better options. But c'mon guys, America is a frickin' continent, with 40-something countries. And guess what, most of them speak Spanish :wink:
And the Spanish speaking population has a great name for what English speakers call Americans: estadounidense. I'd like to bring that, siestas and tapas into mainstream United Statesian culture.

mmmmtapas


Well, I don't know where are you all from, but here in Brazil, we usually refer to the country by its first two names ("Estados Unidos", United States) and to the people as "americanos". I hardly ever hear someone using "America" meaning USA. Nor calling the people from there "estadunidenses".

User avatar
San Fran Sam
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby San Fran Sam » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:08 am UTC

None of the smaller plates remaining have enough landmass above water to qualify under "contiguous region of land exposed above water on a distinct continental plate", but I could work with Afro-Eurasia, America, Australia, Antarctica just as well. The Panama and Suez are laughable justifications to declare North/South America and Africa/Eurasia as distinct continents.

Plus they would all start and end with the letter 'a', neat!


Yeah, but what if those smaller plates had nachos on them? Yum.

clockworkbookreader
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:11 am UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby clockworkbookreader » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:18 am UTC

When it comes to American vs. USian or U. S. Citizen, I prefer "yankee" or "arrogant bastard."
In the event of pneumothorax, stab me with an 18g angiocath just above the second rib in the midclavicular line.
Thank you.

KarenRei
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:48 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby KarenRei » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:29 am UTC

As sketchy as almost anything that begins with, "Hey baby, want to come back to my sex ____" is sketchy, IMHO it's better than the amazing variety of variants on "Want to see my penis?" that I get up here in Iceland.

BTW, on the other topic, you could always adopt the Icelandic word for an American - "Bandaríkjamaður". ;) Of course, I prefer "burger-eating invasion monkey".

chenille
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby chenille » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:58 am UTC

Max™ wrote:The Panama and Suez are laughable justifications to declare North/South America and Africa/Eurasia as distinct continents.

If you're willing to consider plates, you might also consider geological history. Yes, there is a meager connection between North and South America now, but it definitely has been stable over the last few dozen million years. It makes a lot more sense to look at them as separate stable blocks, only transiently connected, then a single long-term unit. Likewise Africa and Eurasia - although from this perspective, I suppose you might still consider India on its own.
Last edited by chenille on Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:07 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

chris857
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:04 pm UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby chris857 » Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:59 am UTC

akaski wrote:Where does "bunker" fit in? I say somewhere between "palace" and "house".


I'd say ... Albania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunkers_in_Albania)

webdude
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:11 am UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby webdude » Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:28 am UTC

J Thomas wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:In the context of countries (and things and people from countries), I will accept and use "America" and "American" in reference to the United States of America, as there are no other countries with "America" in their name, and no other good name for things from that country. (There are other countries with "United States" in their name, albeit not in English, so "US" in the context of countries can refer to the United States of America too; USian is just an ugly ungrammatical abomination, though).


Something kind of similar might work, though. We could call the United States of America, USA. American becomes Usan. American citizens become Users. It all fits together.


I like it, except I would use "USers" for residents (citizens and non-citizens alike) - at least until the USers (about 4% of the world's population) stop using approx. 25% of the world's resources every year. Of course, many low-end consumers would like to be American-style consumers - hence the rise in quality of life (measured by American standards) in many parts of Asia and S. America, with a concomitant rise in pollution and other ills. If everyone tries to live an American-style life, fueled by non-sustainable over-use of resource shares, we are screwed. We're getting there fast.

Meanwhile, no one has bothered to point out that a few decades ago, the three countries which at that time were thought to have the richest mineral deposits were all "U.S" - USA, USSR, USA. Two USAs? Yep - the RSA used to be called the USA - Union of South Africa. Reminds me of how I liked to tell people who asked how good my college team was that we beat the crap out of USC. Of course, it wasn't that USC (University of Southern California), nor that USC (University of South Carolina), but another USC (University of Santa Clara).


SIDE NOTES
To clockworkbookreader:
"When it comes to American vs. USian or U. S. Citizen, I prefer "yankee" or "arrogant bastard."

>> I prefer the last. Being one, I'm wondering why you would slap a pendant
(95% of all pendants will need to be slapped in the next week. 2% have been slapped and learned their lesson.
A pedant, maybe, but a "pendant?" Rather ironic.

To KarenRei :
...you could always adopt the Icelandic word for an American - "Bandaríkjamaður". ;) Of course, I prefer "burger-eating invasion monkey.

>> That made me laugh - thanks! I'm picturing the flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz eating burgers in flight. The Wicked Witch would have to be a bloated amalgam of the MIWS (Military-Industrial-Wall Street) complex. A bit difficult to represent pictorially. Hey Randall, is there a cartoonist in the house who could do that?

webdude
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:11 am UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby webdude » Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:50 am UTC

Back on topic, only one person thought of "temple," which is where my mind went first, along with church, altar, pew, and wherever else the clergy, Catholic and otherwise, have had sex w/parishioners. Next time you're in church, think about that. Nave, narthex, sanctuary, vestibule, aisle, pillar, pulpit, font, transept and the sacristy. If you actually try it, think about your friends, paying guests or clergy watching through the squints.

For trailer park and apartment people, why not take significant others, or people you just met, back to your "triple-xxxs" - much catchier than "triple-wide" or "tri-plex." Of course, some of those people might be called triple-wide.

If you're going to live in joined units (there's a euphemism waiting to happen), why not live in a "sexplex." A linear sexplex would be boring. If I was a developer, I'd build a series of aromatic sexplexes.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 904
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1101: "Sketchiness"

Postby da Doctah » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:46 am UTC

chenille wrote:
Max™ wrote:The Panama and Suez are laughable justifications to declare North/South America and Africa/Eurasia as distinct continents.

If you're willing to consider plates, you might also consider geological history. Yes, there is a meager connection between North and South America now, but it definitely has been stable over the last few dozen million years. It makes a lot more sense to look at them as separate stable blocks, only transiently connected, then a single long-term unit. Likewise Africa and Eurasia - although from this perspective, I suppose you might still consider India on its own.

I prefer an old-fashioned, practical, ground-level definition: if you can walk from point A to point B without your hat floating, A and B are on the same continent. Disregard man-made waterways like Panama and Suez, and you're left with four continents: Antarctica, Australia, America, and Eurafrasia. Offshore islands are not permitted to consider themselves part of a continent, although they're perfectly welcome to express their fellow-being kinship with the nearest big chunk of continguous land: the British Isles are not Europe, Tasmania is not Australia, Japan is not Asia, and Cuba is not America.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests