1166: "Argument"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby keithl » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:23 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:
Gargravarr wrote:
Klear wrote:
However, toast does not have the ability to right itself.[citation needed]

I thought the Mythbusters proved that toast actually lands on the unbuttered side more often? I guess that's why any attempts to construct this failed - you have to attach the cat to the buttered side.

IIRC, Mythbusters found out that toast usually lands upside down when it falls off a table, but not when you drop it off a roof.
EDIT: link
I think I'll go butter a toast on both sides. In the name of science and breakfast.


Since toast is generally shaped like a flat, semi-rigid slab, when it slides off of (your hand, plate, whatever), its center of mass falls off of the support and begins to descend before the trailing edge of the toast has cleared the thing from which it is falling off. In other words, the trailing edge of the toast gets "caught" on the edge of your hand/plate/whatever. This puts a torque on the toast, causing it to tumble. When falling from a typical height of 50-200 cm (i.e. the kind of height from which we would typically drop it onto the surface that we are standing upon), the toast has enough time to flip over once, so that the side that was formerly facing up will now be facing down. Since we tend to carry the toast butter-side up, this results in the toast landing butter-side down. Dropping the toast from a much greater height (e.g. the roof of a 2-floor building), would allow the toast to flip over more than once, and if it flips over an even number of times, then it will land butter-side up.


I always push dry toast off the table, onto a buttered floor, for maximum repeatability.

I think we are seeing the start of a buttered toast perpetual motion machine.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby keithl » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:26 pm UTC

keithl wrote:
ijuin wrote:
Gargravarr wrote:
Klear wrote:
However, toast does not have the ability to right itself.[citation needed]

I thought the Mythbusters proved that toast actually lands on the unbuttered side more often? I guess that's why any attempts to construct this failed - you have to attach the cat to the buttered side.

IIRC, Mythbusters found out that toast usually lands upside down when it falls off a table, but not when you drop it off a roof.
EDIT: link
I think I'll go butter a toast on both sides. In the name of science and breakfast.


Since toast is generally shaped like a flat, semi-rigid slab, when it slides off of (your hand, plate, whatever), its center of mass falls off of the support and begins to descend before the trailing edge of the toast has cleared the thing from which it is falling off. In other words, the trailing edge of the toast gets "caught" on the edge of your hand/plate/whatever. This puts a torque on the toast, causing it to tumble. When falling from a typical height of 50-200 cm (i.e. the kind of height from which we would typically drop it onto the surface that we are standing upon), the toast has enough time to flip over once, so that the side that was formerly facing up will now be facing down. Since we tend to carry the toast butter-side up, this results in the toast landing butter-side down. Dropping the toast from a much greater height (e.g. the roof of a 2-floor building), would allow the toast to flip over more than once, and if it flips over an even number of times, then it will land butter-side up.


I always push dry toast off the table, onto a buttered floor, for maximum repeatability.

I think we are seeing the start of a buttered toast perpetual motion machine.


Though it may grind to a halt when the inner quote box gets too narrow to display the quote graphic.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:45 pm UTC

keithl wrote:
keithl wrote:I think we are seeing the start of a buttered toast perpetual motion machine.


Though it may grind to a halt when the inner quote box gets too narrow to display the quote graphic.

Or else break the screen width and create a horizontal scrollbar (which may break other aspects of the page formatting)

Gargravarr
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:34 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Gargravarr » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:49 pm UTC

keithl wrote:I always push dry toast off the table, onto a buttered floor, for maximum repeatability.

At what frequency does your house flip over?

User avatar
SpringLoaded12
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:58 am UTC
Location: Guarding the Super Missile
Contact:

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby SpringLoaded12 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:57 pm UTC

Does anyone else think he's poking fun at you guys?
There were a couple of comics that happened to mention certain controversial issues that led to comic discussion threads dozens of pages long, often getting so sidetracked that they forgot what they were originally arguing about.

I hope you haven't forgotten this.
And in my search for that thread I found this, I don't even know what they're going on about.
"It's easy to forget what a sin is in the middle of a battlefield." "Opposite over hypotenuse, dipshit."

wagner
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby wagner » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:15 pm UTC

SpringLoaded12 wrote:Does anyone else think he's poking fun at you guys?
There were a couple of comics that happened to mention certain controversial issues that led to comic discussion threads dozens of pages long, often getting so sidetracked that they forgot what they were originally arguing about.


I don't see any real controversy or argument in this thread. It just looks to be a bunch of people cracking jokes at the expense of those trying to build PMMs.

Gargravarr
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:34 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Gargravarr » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:18 pm UTC

SpringLoaded12 wrote:There were a couple of comics that happened to mention certain controversial issues that led to comic discussion threads dozens of pages long, often getting so sidetracked that they forgot what they were originally arguing about.

Welcome to the Internet.

webgrunt
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:04 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby webgrunt » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:23 pm UTC

...toast doesn't have the ability to right itself


I'm sure many people have thought of this before, but what about gluing two cats together, back-to-back?

rcox1
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:23 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby rcox1 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:29 pm UTC

This is a good test of someone who is trying to talk to you about physics, be it an acceptance, teacher, or whatever. If there is a long complicated explanation of type 1 and type 2 perpetual machines, and how the first is impossible but the second is not, and all that handwaving, be very scared.

I had such a surrealistic experience in a group of alleged physics people. It kind of made me fearful for the future.

Daggoth
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:37 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Daggoth » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:08 pm UTC

am i the only one who noticed the power strip plugged to itself

ctdonath
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby ctdonath » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:09 pm UTC

The 1996 Ig Nobel Prize in PHYSICS: Robert Matthews of Aston University, England, for his studies of Murphy's Law, and especially for demonstrating that toast often falls on the buttered side.
REFERENCE: European Journal of Physics Volume 16 Number 4: Tumbling toast, Murphy's Law and the fundamental constants

Kinny Fear
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:10 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Kinny Fear » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:12 pm UTC

Is it just me, or is the second bit a reference to 'Unsustainable (2nd Law)' by Muse? :lol:

Edit: oh wait, it's a reference to I, Robot. Derp. :oops:
Last edited by Kinny Fear on Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby brenok » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:17 pm UTC

Daggoth wrote:am i the only one who noticed the power strip plugged to itself


Probably not
MeisBarry wrote:I would just like to say that I enjoyed the choice of avatar image for the second poster.


(Unless he was refering to the xkcd forum poster... I can't be 100% sure)

Varriount
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:14 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Varriount » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:55 pm UTC

Um, the board referenced in the comic exists... just do a search for "free energy forum"

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:45 pm UTC

DavidRoss wrote:The cute (I'll not use "ironic" inappropriately) part is ...
I demand you adhere some hyper technical definition of "cute", or a broad use of "irony", or whatever.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Editer
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:17 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Editer » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:12 pm UTC

SpringLoaded12 wrote:Does anyone else think he's poking fun at you guys?
There were a couple of comics that happened to mention certain controversial issues that led to comic discussion threads dozens of pages long, often getting so sidetracked that they forgot what they were originally arguing about.


This all reminds me of the funniest tweet I've seen in a long time, perhaps ever:

(Would Sonic's Dick Be Blue or Tan Like His Tummy Is) Viewing Discussion Page 307 of 1,108. "Fuck You Reagan actually cared about America--"
These days, if you don't have ADD, you not paying close enough attention. -- J.P. Barlow

feldgendler
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:49 pm UTC
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby feldgendler » Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:42 pm UTC

There is a not-quite-perpetual-but-long-enough experiment that's been running for longer than any existing forum thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Klear » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:16 am UTC

webgrunt wrote:
...toast doesn't have the ability to right itself


I'm sure many people have thought of this before, but what about gluing two cats together, back-to-back?


Doesn't work for the same reason why it's not enough to butter the toast from both sides - to the cat it doesn't matter whose legs it lands on, as long as the connected cats land on their legs. Similarly, the toast wants to land on a side with butter, so if you butter both sides, it will happily fall down on either side.

Game_boy
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Game_boy » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:20 am UTC

If the thread it's referring to does not exist (which I assume because no one has been able to find it), then this comic is not funny at all. It's making fun of people that don't exist doing something that didn't happen.

Even Steve Waterman doesn't deny reality as such.
The Reaper wrote:Evolution is a really really really long run-on sentence.

User avatar
dudiobugtron
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:14 am UTC
Location: The Outlier

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby dudiobugtron » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:42 am UTC

Game_boy wrote:If the thread it's referring to does not exist (which I assume because no one has been able to find it), then this comic is not funny at all. It's making fun of people that don't exist doing something that didn't happen.

Even Steve Waterman doesn't deny reality as such.

Actually I understood it to be making fun of people on forums in general. In general, threads like that do exist and posts like that do occur in reality.

Also, the thread does exist, albeit retroactively:
http://freeenergyforum.com/discussion/1 ... odynamics/
(currently only two pages though...)
Image

User avatar
Quicksilver
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:21 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Quicksilver » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:40 am UTC

You can tell it's an old thread because of the word "crackpot." That was probably the last time I heard someone use that term.

Harry Voyager
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:55 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Harry Voyager » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:36 am UTC

Gargravarr wrote:Personally I like the buttered cat school of perpetual motion.

And this design, probably inspired by all YouTube videos of perpetual machines that have to be pushed by hand.


Clearly the people who developed the buttered cat experiment have never actually seen a real cat in action. The cat will land on its feet, and then roll on its back. Thus, both the cat's rule of orientational flexibility, and Murphy's law of the toast getting ruined in the process will both be satisfied without paradox.

When predicting an effect under contradictory impulses, you must always go to the true root causes of the effect before declaring paradox.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:37 am UTC

At first glance, the thread in the strip looked more like a Reddit page to me.

orthogon wrote:
asdfzxc wrote:... is akin to literally ...

I like the way you found a formulation that lets you use the word "literally" in a figurative sense with impunity.

The question is, can it be done without making the word syntactically superfluous? (I was going to say "redundant" but that's not quite the right word in this case.)

dudiobugtron wrote:Also, the thread does exist, albeit retroactively:
http://freeenergyforum.com/discussion/1 ... odynamics/
(currently only two pages though...)

Normally I don't approve of Xkcd fans messing with real things to make them more like the strip. This time, though, I wholeheartedly approve.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

***
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:47 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby *** » Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:15 am UTC

I got tied up in one of these arguments last week. And then there were links to chem-trail videos. As an aerospace engineering student, I couldnt help myself.
Belief and Seeing: They're both often Wrong.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Fire Brns » Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:48 am UTC

*** wrote:I got tied up in one of these arguments last week. And then there were links to chem-trail videos. As an aerospace engineering student, I couldnt help myself.

Did you insist that planes had not in fact been invented and chem trails were a hoax to hide the fact that the population control chemicals are being put in the water?
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

DavidRoss
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:04 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby DavidRoss » Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:55 am UTC

feldgendler wrote:There is a not-quite-perpetual-but-long-enough experiment that's been running for longer than any existing forum thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell


That's for the info. I'll definitely have to stop by and see that bell if I go through Oxford. Interesting that a 170 year old pair of batteries in continuous use last longer than the batteries with the bunny and drum.

mishka
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:47 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby mishka » Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:16 am UTC

We actually live in a perpetual motion machine.

The universe will never stop moving, not even on a quantum scale.

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

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Max™ » Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:44 am UTC

mishka wrote:We actually live in a perpetual motion machine.

The universe will never stop moving, not even on a quantum scale.

Over a long enough period entropy will increase to a maximum, and time will lose any sort of meaning.
keithl wrote:I always push dry toast off the table, onto a buttered floor, for maximum repeatability.

I think we are seeing the start of a buttered toast perpetual motion machine.

I heart u
mu

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3103
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby orthogon » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:30 am UTC

mishka wrote:We actually live in a perpetual motion machine.

Does anybody else hear this to the tune of the Beatles' Yellow Submarine?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
trueger
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:57 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby trueger » Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:59 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
mishka wrote:We actually live in a perpetual motion machine.

Does anybody else hear this to the tune of the Beatles' Yellow Submarine?


At MIT they sing:

We all live in recursive subroutines
Recursive subroutines
Recursive subroutines

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby addams » Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:28 pm UTC

Buttered Cats. Funny.
Be nice. Put the butter on its belly.

Really? We can break it?

Recursive Subroutine.
Recursive Subroutine.

keithl wrote:
keithl wrote:
ijuin wrote:
Gargravarr wrote:
Klear wrote:
However, toast does not have the ability to right itself.[citation needed]

I thought the Mythbusters proved that toast actually lands on the unbuttered side more often? I guess that's why any attempts to construct this failed - you have to attach the cat to the buttered side.

IIRC, Mythbusters found out that toast usually lands upside down when it falls off a table, but not when you drop it off a roof.
EDIT: link
I think I'll go butter a toast on both sides. In the name of science and breakfast.


Since toast is generally shaped like a flat, semi-rigid slab, when it slides off of (your hand, plate, whatever), its center of mass falls off of the support and begins to descend before the trailing edge of the toast has cleared the thing from which it is falling off. In other words, the trailing edge of the toast gets "caught" on the edge of your hand/plate/whatever. This puts a torque on the toast, causing it to tumble. When falling from a typical height of 50-200 cm (i.e. the kind of height from which we would typically drop it onto the surface that we are standing upon), the toast has enough time to flip over once, so that the side that was formerly facing up will now be facing down. Since we tend to carry the toast butter-side up, this results in the toast landing butter-side down. Dropping the toast from a much greater height (e.g. the roof of a 2-floor building), would allow the toast to flip over more than once, and if it flips over an even number of times, then it will land butter-side up.


I always push dry toast off the table, onto a buttered floor, for maximum repeatability.

I think we are seeing the start of a buttered toast perpetual motion machine.


Though it may grind to a halt when the inner quote box gets too narrow to display the quote graphic.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

gobux5
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:52 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby gobux5 » Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:03 pm UTC

To believe, you only need to suspend your current understanding of thermodynamics, like after the Big Bang, when thermodynamics went on holiday and the universe reordered itself...naturally.

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

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby webgiant » Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:49 pm UTC

San Fran Sam wrote:Ooh! Ooh! Can we argue as to whether Randall used the word "ironically" correctly or not? :twisted:

Its correct usage. "Irony" implies a reversal. Setting out to end the discussion and getting a perpetual discussion is ironic. Of course, one could also argue that trolling on a pseudoscience forum is an attempt to create a perpetual discussion, so it all depends on his original intent.

Its like the song "Ironic" by Alanis Morissette: she set out to write a song about irony, and included no examples of irony, and thus the song "Ironic" is ironic without actually including any examples of irony. Of course, like Randall's possible intent, she may have set out to write a truly ironic song, ironic only in that it contained no examples of irony, in which case Ms. Morissette's efforts were not ironic at all.

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

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby webgiant » Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:59 pm UTC

slhuang wrote:When I was at MIT, I would get the occasional random message from some very earnest person detailing a perpetual motion machine idea that would REALLY WORK NO REALLY, if someone would just recognize the BRILLIANCE of it (hence email blasting every single @mit.edu address the person could find). It was kind of hilarious.

I took an applied science class last semester, "Generators, Transformers, and Motors", in which the teacher and one of the students were convinced that a solar cell capable of producing enough energy to power a light bulb could be powered by that same light bulb to produce the energy needed to make the light bulb generate enough power in the solar cell to power the light bulb. The teacher was not an unintelligent man, and understood basic principles of electricity and induction, but refused to accept that a solar cell only capable of converting 15% of the light striking it into electricity was not able to power a light bulb producing 100% of the light striking the solar cell in a continuous perpetual motion-like process.

I think this goes to show why most climate-change deniers are in science fields completely unrelated to climate change: you can be an incredibly smart expert in one science field, and still believe pseudoscience about another scientific field.

Invertin
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Invertin » Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:18 pm UTC

the best part about a perpetual motion machine is that, say it is possible, and you get one working, somehow bypassing the laws of friction and thermodynamics and science- it still wouldn't be perpetual motion

because eventually you have to turn it off to clean it :P

feldgendler
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:49 pm UTC
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby feldgendler » Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:48 pm UTC

webgiant wrote:Its like the song "Ironic" by Alanis Morissette: she set out to write a song about irony, and included no examples of irony, and thus the song "Ironic" is ironic without actually including any examples of irony. Of course, like Randall's possible intent, she may have set out to write a truly ironic song, ironic only in that it contained no examples of irony, in which case Ms. Morissette's efforts were not ironic at all.


This sentence is ironic.

Gargravarr
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:34 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Gargravarr » Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:38 pm UTC

The thread at freeenergyforum.com is a bit disappointing. No resistence at all. Where are all the wild-eyed defenders of crank physics?

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby da Doctah » Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:12 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:The First Law of Thermodynamics is you don't talk about thermodynamics.
(Somebody had to say it).

Rule Two: NO POOFTERS!
Spoiler:
(Rule Three: Profit.)

Dryhad
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:31 am UTC

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Dryhad » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:20 pm UTC

hicksbw wrote:
Dryhad wrote: ... to maintain an active argument for nine years? ...

An arbitrarily long sequence of unrelated assertions is not an argument.

I used that word because that's the title of the strip. The point is people continue posting in the thread, when in reality they wouldn't. They would start new threads with the same topic.

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

Re: 1166: "Argument"

Postby Max™ » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:39 am UTC

feldgendler wrote:
webgiant wrote:Its like the song "Ironic" by Alanis Morissette: she set out to write a song about irony, and included no examples of irony, and thus the song "Ironic" is ironic without actually including any examples of irony. Of course, like Randall's possible intent, she may have set out to write a truly ironic song, ironic only in that it contained no examples of irony, in which case Ms. Morissette's efforts were not ironic at all.


This sentence is ironic.

This sentence is not ironic, yet the one above it is.
mu


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: casanunda and 96 guests