By me, that is.

So, apparently some guy [websnark.com] thinks he can review [comixpedia.com] this crazy little thing we call Goats.

And has the gall, without having the balls to participate here, to call us all "Bastards".

Which, granted, in certain technical circles and Australia is a good [ntk.net] thing to be called.

So what do y'all think? Does this guy know what he's talking about?

Personally, I'm still waiting for him to actually be snarky [wikipedia.org]

Well, he's not talking primarily about himself [websnark.com] this time. But he does speak of Phil[l]ip twice before naming Jon. And he's also quite interested in Phillip's ancestry, and is the source of the quote below. I think we can conclude:

1. He likes Goats.
2. He's in love with Phillip.
3. If anybody's going to storm the castle and burn Jon & Phillip, they'll first have to deal with all of us bastards [theregister.com] standing around, drinking beer, and watching. Maybe pointing a little. Sternly.
4. A "Death To Malefactors" shirt (with an illustration of Phillip brandishing a chair, or Diablo and his hammer [goats.com]) may be a necessity.
 

In Response to gtyrrell (#24658):

He's in love with Phillip.

And honestly, who isn't?
 

(Though they are bastards, over at Goats Central -- and pretty proud of it, too.)

No. We're arrogant bastards (like the ale) and pedants.

He doesn't actually mention the forums does he?

I thought he was saying that jon and phillip were the bastards. I don't think we rate very high as a drawcard.

In Response to tor (#24668):

He doesn't actually mention the forums does he?

Not as "Goats: The Forums", no.

I feel it perfectly reasonable to take his usage of "Goats Central" in a broad context.

It may in fact be inaccurate... but as a fan of the Dead who can't spell Bob Weir has been known to say "That never stopped me before."

Hey! I participate! Not often, sure, but Jesus -- I even give them money! Yearly money!

Which, admittedly, neither confirms nor denies your hypothesis. Which is why I'm going back to drinking, now.

In Response to tor (#24668):

Oh, don't sell yourself short!

Er, wait.

In Response to gtyrrell (#24658):

2. He's in love with Phillip.

How could one avoid falling in love with Phillip? He's both dreamy and mighty.

In Response to demiurgent (#24676):

Of course, now you're here, you can't leave. For fear of name-calling, and perhaps the occasional wedgie.

In Response to demiurgent (#24676):

Did I make a hypothesis?

That sounds awfully organized of me.

In Response to zamphir (#24681):

Unless... it was your evil twin Rihpmaz!

In Response to snipergirl (#24687):

Unless... it was your evil twin Rihpmaz!

Why do you think he's the evil one?

In Response to zamphir (#24697):

obviously, because you're the live one.

sometimes, things just have to be said....

In Response to phillip (#24700):

sometimes, things just have to be said....

My wife usually glowers at me when I say this.

But I'm also usually rubbing the back of my head at the same time.

In Response to zamphir (#24697):

Why do you think he's the evil one?

Because I've met you in person, and you don't have a goatee. Goatee = evil twin from a parallel universe.
 

In Response to gtyrrell (#24705):

This horrible misconception has been continued for too long. I mean, just because I prefer a goatee, don't like spending time posting to goats, and love Garfield [garfield.com] with a burning passion that consumes my soul doesn't make me evil. Its just the natural quirks between twins.

In Response to Rihpmaz (#24707):

You know, I never noticed that zamphir backwards basically spells "rip m'ass".

I assume actually capitalizing your name is yet another way that you're the evil counterpart to your twin brother.

/evil twin

In Response to gtyrrell (#24705):

Aha, but in the Goats multiverse, that is not always so...

Exhibit A [goats.com]

In Response to Clan_Hanna (#24770):

I totally did not enter the extended info on that. I would have certainly used the correction character to say the "their" in the first panel.

I reckon it was luvrhino and it was a warning of the impending skull doom.

In Response to tor (#24773):

[Oh, dear. What sort of compulsive, neurotic, masochistic lunatic must i be to fall off the wagon again?]

When you entered the Extended Info for that strip, there was no need to alter anything. The following sentence is perfectly grammatically correct:

So what you're saying is that someone from the evil, alternate dimension has recreated my experiments with the pudding transfer protocol, transporting pudding cups from there to our universe?

In this instance, the word "there" refers to a place; i.e., the evil, alternate dimension. If you change it to the possessive "their", you would be implying that the aforementioned dimension belongs to that someone. This might actually be correct in some theoretical semantic sense, but is not necessarily the intended meaning of the author.

It seems to me that luvrhino has demonstrated that there is absolutely nothing wrong with his cognitive skills, despite any medical issues which might have affected other (physical) capabilities. Lo and forsooth, to suggest otherwise is a heretical affront to the Grand Poobah, and your membership in the ILoP will be in peril if you don't repent of your unorthodoxy. Conform! ;-)

In Response to Teledildonix (#24777):

Ah yes it would appear I read it wrong (thinking it was "from their universe to ours" or somesuch).

Guess that's why I put in the info faq that you should never use the correction character or you will suffer derision, as a deterrent to myself.

On a similar note, T Campbell has a piece on the business of webcomics [comixpedia.com] up at Comixpedia. Commentate!