...But with the level of underworld involved, we probably warrant a Charon and a Persephone, at the least.

Anyone else read Eric McSnark's bit?

Yeah.
Seems obsessed with finding a name or definition with which to pigeonhole each ... um, transition a webcomic might make, which was expecially interesting when juxtaposed with a portion of the more recent post, re it not being necessary or desirable to succinctly define deconstructionism.

Is it necessary or desirable to succinctly define Goats?

Normally I don't read Mr. Burns' stuff because he prefers New Criticism, while I am a card-carrying Foucaultian/Ecoian semioticist (semiotician? semiologist?) with a Lacan-as-filtered-through-Zizek streak.

Impressed yet?

Slightly more seriously, I don't read him regularly for a variety of reasons, none of which are worth elaborating. However, since you bring it up, I just read the bit. It's OK as a response to his own readership, but not a piece that stands on its own.

What I find more disturbing is that if I want to read active discussions of the Goats comic or of the current storyline, I would be better off looking at his site than here.

In Response to mkinyon (#29924):

What I find more disturbing is that if I want to read active discussions of the Goats comic or of the current storyline, I would be better off looking at his site than here.


Have you considered starting a new thread or two?

In Response to zamphir (#29927):

I'm slowly working up the courage. I'm still kicking myself about not starting one last Thursday. I wanted to do a poll about who the Editor in Chief would be. The answers I came up with: cut-and-paste photos of real-life Jon, a bigger chimp, Rob Reiner. And then I blanked out and couldn't come up with more. Thinking three options wasn't enough, I chickened out.

Of course in hindsight, I can think of plenty of others. Oh, curse my lack of resolve!

No, really, go ahead, curse it.

I'm concerned about the part where Dave Sims went "batshit insane" and the April 22 poll [goats.com] which had the same batshit-insane option.

In Response to mkinyon (#29930):

You seriously need to start posting more on The Pubic forum.

In Response to mkinyon (#29930):

Thinking three options wasn't enough, I chickened out.

You can never go wrong with a smoked meat (usually in tube / casing form) option. They're pretty popular.

In Response to jettaboy20 (#29969):

Yeah, I thought of that, but I had also read N comment(s) (where N >= 1) expressing annoyance with the ubiquity of that option. C'est l'saucisse.

In Response to mkinyon (#29974):

Viva le minestrone!

In Response to zamphir (#29976):

Oh, so that's how it is then, is it?

Liberte, egalite, vichy soisse.

In Response to mkinyon (#29978):

vichy soisse.
Vichy soisse est mort, vivent longtemps bouillabaisse!

In Response to zamphir (#29979):

Peasant.

Il n'y a pas de hors gazpacho.

In Response to mkinyon (#29981):

hors gazpacho

You're supposed to use pony, not horse.

But I agree, a light sprinkling of ground pony is excellent on a gazpacho.

In Response to zamphir (#29982):

OK, I'll try it: Il n'y a pas de pony gazpacho.

According to Babelfish: There is no pony gazpacho.

When I searched for the exact Derrida quotation to modify for my last sortie, I found the following to be the most commonly cited version: Il n'y a pas de hors-texte. Babelfish says this means: There is no inset plate.

I think that tells us a lot about deconstruction.

In Response to mkinyon (#29983):

ceci n'est pas un zombie.

In Response to zamphir (#29982):

Be careful that it's not the uncookable variation.

In Response to Deathalicious (#29992):

Uncookable pony soup tends to be a little gamey.