| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | I think this comic also contains a pun on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobiotic_diet macrobiotics]. Esp. the wording "out of balance" seems to be a reference to esoteric speech. [[User:Knob creek|Knob creek]] ([[User talk:Knob creek|talk]]) 09:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC) | | I think this comic also contains a pun on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobiotic_diet macrobiotics]. Esp. the wording "out of balance" seems to be a reference to esoteric speech. [[User:Knob creek|Knob creek]] ([[User talk:Knob creek|talk]]) 09:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | In fairy tales (most notably in little red riding hood), the wolf swallows whole its (human) victims. The comic depics an inversion of roles. Do you think it's worth adding this observation in the explanation? {{unsigned ip|188.114.99.18}}
| + | == Is a citation really needed? == |
| | | | |
| − | :That's what I took it to mean too, the two options being he swallows the wolf or the wolf swallows him. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.159|141.101.98.159]] 12:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
| + | I think that requiring a citation for the lethality of administering a wolf via the mouth or rectum may be going just a bit too far? |
| − | | |
| − | Another pun might be on the name of a restaurant in Seattle: [[http://www.ethanstowellrestaurants.com/locations/how-to-cook-a-wolf/ How to Cook a Wolf]] [[User:Araucaria|Araucaria]] ([[User talk:Araucaria|talk]]) 15:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | :That's so extremely obscure that thinking it intended is difficult. - Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ;Is a citation really needed?
| |
| − | | |
| − | I think that requiring a citation for the lethality of administering a wolf via the mouth or rectum may be going just a bit too far? Reference in the [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1471:_Gut_Fauna&diff=82345&oldid=82344 Change history] [[User:Pmw57|Pmw57]] ([[User talk:Pmw57|talk]]) 10:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC) | |
| − | | |
| − | : I assume that this is a humorous comment, similar to the citation needed tags in the What-if articles. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.237|141.101.98.237]] 12:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::Good point, could be a joking reference to [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=285 xkcd #285] {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.138}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | I know an old lady who swallowed a... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.237|108.162.249.237]] 13:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiESiO6tLM8 --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | : The strange thing is, I am absolutely certain their is an old Chinese fairy tale but I can't google it at all! It's about a man who swallows a fly and then he has to swallow a frog and then a snake and eventually a (human) hunter. But the latter doesn't kick up a fuss so there the problem ends. What's weird is that I couldn't google that fairy tale at all.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.64.5|141.101.64.5]] 10:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Is Ponytail ''actually'' a Doctor? If you take the lessone from what can be done in [https://xkcd.com/699/ 699 - Trimester], and buy a labcoat... [[User:RedHillian|RedHillian]] ([[User talk:RedHillian|talk]]) 01:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | "animals are never found in the human digestive system; all known cases of animals in a human digestive system are causes of disease.)" Technically, couldn't it also be the result of one's choice of food? Admittedly a temporary state of affairs, but there are certainly dishes involving live food. [[User:Squornshellous Beta|Squornshellous Beta]] ([[User talk:Squornshellous Beta|talk]]) 07:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | : Or for pleasure? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.191|108.162.238.191]] 17:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | :: Point(s) taken. I'll make a minor change to fix [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 00:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | :: Actually, I can't get the wording right. Happy to have someone rewrite it to include temporary residence of live organisms in the case of some foods and (apocryphal) tales of gerbilling, etc. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 00:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Poor dog. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.231|108.162.246.231]] 06:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | I'm having a really, really hard time imagining what kind of discussion Randall was involved in that led to his thought processes ending up producing the result we see here. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 02:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | : Funny nickname in this context, RenniePet. (btw. Does "inwolved" make any sense here?) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.22|141.101.104.22]] 10:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | : ...My take is that the lycan (spelled this way: a werewolf) would probably also eat fawns (deer) - helping to balance forest overpopulation. If we take "gut" and "fawna" back through German/English, we might have "good" and "to make or be glad" another sense of fawning (perhaps alluding here to self-care, but also especially when applied to dogs). The werewolf is historically described as a shapeshifter so it seems appropriate to shift then to lichen (same pronunciation) which is a symbiotic organism (yet another thematic connection) consisting of an alga and fungus; blue-green algae is often taken to balance out the gut. A dry lichen (the etymology of this word means 'to lick', appropriate for the canine, which is also likely to be dry) will absorb many, many times its weight in water, and lichens (which are often found in forests) are important for soil (a word sometimes used to refer to fecal matter). A final connection is in a medical condition known as "guttate" (having drops, as in a glass of water) lichen"...though I might have chased this rabbit a bit far. [[User:Elvenivle|Elvenivle]] ([[User talk:Elvenivle|talk]])
| |
| − | | |
| − | “However, either way would prove both physically impossible and potentially lethal.” ... Potentially lethal? You mean, there is actually a chance to survive swallowing a wolf? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.94|108.162.215.94]] 22:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | According to the research of the Grimm Brothers, Randall has it all wrong. Wolves do not live in the stomach of people, people live in the stomachs of Wolves. For example, a big bad wolf might told to take two humans and call the doctor in the morning. ((Dan Loeb - 9:24pm ET, 11 January 2015))
| |
| − | | |
| − | how about "hungry like a wolf" and a reference to him missing a good appetite ? transfer of the wolf could thus mean re-vigorating his appetite.((SK - 16:01 CET, Jan 16 January 2015))
| |
| − | | |
| − | "normal humans shouldn't have large animals living inside them with the exception of some parasites such as Helminths or Cestoda" -- was that intended to mean what it says? Normal humans shouldn't have helminths or cestoda in them either! I know people can become infected with parasites, and there are anecdotes of jockeys swallowing a tapeworm egg in order to lose weight for an important race, but I would not have thought you should be recommending the practice. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.154|162.158.38.154]] 22:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
| |
| − | : On a similar note, "all known cases of [...] are causes of disease" isn't completely true ''if'' you take into account experimental helminthic therapy. The gist is that there are worms that don't cause significant disease, and you get them intentionally to, uh, (hand wringing) calm down the immune system. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.210.206|172.71.210.206]] 16:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | The wolf would obvously have to be declawed and possibley detoothed to avoid shredding the persons throat and stomach.(I love how serous this disscusion about this imaginary sinario thats purpously ridiculous, I love it. This is the kind of things people should be arguing about - like if the worlds bannanas can fit in the worlds churches - :) ) [[User:Apollo11|Apollo11]] ([[User talk:Apollo11|talk]]) 15:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Hmmm... A year's-worth of bananas? 105 million tonnes, apparently. Cavendish are 1.19 g/cm3 (call it 1, for trivial conversion or allowing imperfect packing), so 105 million litres of space needed. Some random person off the internet says 38 ''million'' churches (really, well, I'll take it for now), so that'd be about 2.75 litres of bananas averaged out so... can you fit a cube 14cm per side in each church? Easily!.
| |
| − | :But not sure about the church number's reality. How about assuming 2.38 billion Christians (another claimed figure, but seems not actually unreasonable and is slightly under other estimates), they ''each'' might get 44 millilitres of boxed-banana and take the box (roughly an inch cubed) in with them. Easy enough.
| |
| − | :Might be marginally more difficult if 'active churchgoers' are a fraction of the presumed christians. I'm not sure if I'm counted as one (I don't think I'm down as a Jedi... or Omnian), but I really haven't been in a church for ''any'' reason for years... probably was someone's wedding. But there seems to generally be room in any church that I would recognise to have the active congregation bring along multiple (even tens of?) 'banana-boxes' chuck 'em in a corner, then still do all the stuff any given congregation would do ''without'' the jumble of boxed bananas sitting over between the font and the door to the vestry, or wherever
| |
| − | :Yes, I would say (if I haven't messed it up any more badly than I initially did) it ''can'' be done. It ''shall'' be done! ...spread the word, someone with access to both bananas and bishops can get it organised, and I might even check out how my local church deals with it. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.60|172.69.194.60]] 16:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
| |
