Talk:1783: Emails

Added the starting point of the explanation. Please add onto my work. --JayRulesXKCD ^{what's up?} 12:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

(BTW, Rob, if the offer's still on the table, I'll go with you to WALL-E if Cueball's not around. 😉 ) --JayRulesXKCD ^{what's up?} 12:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, another Time Ghost! 162.158.222.10 13:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Another thing to point out: for a long time (since 276: Fixed Width) there has been a little side debate of "should a single cueball be referred to as Rob?" (and should a single ponytail be referred to as Joanne). The title text of 1783: Emails I think officially confirms that we should not. Yosho27 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean this? That's right, Jacky720 just signed this (talk | contribs) 14:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes that discussion is also relevant but the Joanne part must have been discussed elsewhere... Completely agree though that there is no doubt that any generic character does not only go by one name. Only the three with hats are clearly meant to have specific traits. But even White Hat can appear very different from comic to comic. leaving only Black Hat and Beret Guy to (mainly) stay true to their general behavior. Randall uses names when he find that would be most useful in a given comic. Apart from Megan and Rob, he has hardly used any name more than a few times. And in this comic it is clear that Cueball is not Rob. On the other hand there is no reason to believe this Rob is the same as Rob from the early cartons. But still relevant that he used this name again after so long without it being used. --Kynde (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

this story is surely related to: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/606:_Cutting_Edge 108.162.250.35 19:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Email bankruptcy

This is related to Email bankruptcy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_bankruptcy ) --ElfQrin (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the emphasized "productive people" bit because I find it somewhat insulting. A person doesn't have to set aside special times for reading/replying to emails in order to qualify as a "productive person". A farmer or factory worker "produces" plenty, and for office workers, they can work inefficiently and still get things done. This implication that only well-organized people who manage their time well count as "productive people" (especially with that emphasis-added; without that it would just be a fact: productive people [often] use this technique", not "productive people check their email in batches, unlike non-productive people (cough, cough Jim!)" 172.68.54.34 06:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)