Talk:154: Beliefs

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 19:58, 17 August 2021 by Nitpicking (talk | contribs) (Yep, Science Girl)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Doesn't the girl have too long hair to be Megan? The official transcript just calls them 'girl' and 'professor'. –St.nerol (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually she looks more like Danish to me. -- BruceJohnJennerLawso (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
They're just generic humans, stop trying to say "her hair is wrong for [character]". It's really dumb. -Pennpenn 04:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The girls is definately not Danish. Danish has some special personality traits (being mean and clever and not caring a thing about other). The hair is just a small thing. Also children are neither Megan nor Cueball as these are adults. I have removed reference to Danish. Actually it is the professor that looks like Megan! --Kynde (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Randall definitely uses a specific cast of characters, each of which repeat characteristic behaviors & are recognizable primarily by consistent depiction of individual hairstyles. I encourage everyone to continue attempting to identify & thereby more fully understand each character, based upon their relative hairstyles & attitudes. (... "~ how are they connected? Hairstyles & attitudes, how do they relate? How well do we use our freedom to choose, the illusions we create?" - Timbuk 3) 18:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, my question is whether the girl on the left is Science Girl. Hdjensofjfnen (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Almost has to be Science Girl, or a prototype of her at least. Nitpicking (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

What needs to be pointed out more is that science is a system of working toward finding the truth, that requires its adherents to remember that they never actually know for certain. A lot of modern "scientists" follow the same bad methodology as adherents of the geocentric model and astrology once did. Cosmology and quantum mechanics are full of epicycles, deferents, positivism, and static projection. Einstein and Schrodinger were correct to be horrified by that. —Kazvorpal (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)