At last I can comment again on my new HDD after a Win7 rebuild.
I had to change the ‘compatibility view’ setting – after remembering the name!
About Loc-Tite ….
One Sunday morning I decided to top-uo the oil in the SU carburetters of my twin carb car before getting ready for church.
Now my Dad kept a small amount of Q20/50 oil in an old industrial-strength Loc-Tite plastic container with a small tube to apply it.
As he worked at Daimler/Jaguar building Bus gearboxes, he used Loc-Tite a lot so was able to salvage empty applicators for cleaning and reusing with different oils etc. He usually put a strip of masking tape on the container and labelled it with the contents.
In my hurry I had picked up an unlabelled container and, well, you can guess the rest!
I got into the car and went to start it, putting my foot on the throttle to find the pedal was solid!
Yes, I had successfully locked the twin carbs completely!
It took me a week to strip, clean and rebuild the carbs and a trip to a specialist to get the twin carbs balanced!
The good thing was that I bought a ‘Gunson’ balancing kit and learned to balance the carbs myself in the future so svaing a fair bit in garage costs.
Trimuph TR6? I remember that that car had “oil in the carbs” as a dampener for the floats. One of the guys on the college cycling team had one. We’d swap cars (I had a Mercedes 200 sedan, 1968) when he needed more seats for a double date. I used to scare my dates with that TR6, it was quite fast.
No not that tail-happy machine . . . It was an Austin Allegro 1750S. Twin SU carbs gave it good torque at low revs but while the speedo often read ’120mph’ for hours at a stretch on empty motorways (before cameras etc) I don’t suppose it was much over 100 really as the Smith’s meters were notoriously inaccurate (like today’s which are set to read 10% high when calibrated at the factory to avoid lawsuits if anybody gets booked for speeding?) I think it used the same carbs though as SU were generally used in almost all British Leyland cars (Yes – like Austin, Triumph was part of BL, as was Jaguar/Daimler etc!) I dated a ‘delivery driver’ for a long time once. She would collect vehicles from one location and drive them to another, sometimes hitching from place to place etc. She told me a lot of the ‘inside information’ that never gets made public. One was that the TR6 (and it’s fellow, the TR7 etc) had a lot of torque and, as you say, was quiet quick in a straight line but you needed a racing driver’s reactions and skill to drive them fast in bends because they lost the back wheels easily. Just like an AC cobra and the like.
This makes two days in a row that I’d be embarrassed to show the strip to my family or friends. I guess I no longer can count on it to be “family-freindly” and had best “unlike” it on Facebook so it doesn’t show up on my page any longer.
Uh, like we can see anything? Whatever is going on is being discreetly hinted at, and any action is totally in the reader’s mind. It often amazes me how quickly people complain as soon as a strip veers off the level of Saturday morning cartoons (modern PC versions, that is).
You can’t even spell family-friendly correctly. What makes you think you can define it?
My kids laughed at this strip, because I explained human sexuality to them years ago. And these two characters seem to be enjoying a healthy committed relationship. I’m they can appreciate a little ribald humor, without fear.
Human sexuality is part of being HUMAN.
A parent’s responsibility is to provide information in order to protect children from ignorance. Not to promote it, by censoring everything even vaguely sexual.
But perhaps it is best if you DO stop reading this strip. Then stop reading altogether.
My family and friends and I believe that sex is a private matter between husband and wife, and ought to be discussed only rarely (and NEVER practiced) outside that relationship. A sexual relationship between two unmarried people is NOT “healthy” and is not a fitting subject for humor.
Agreed, widsith, and I applaud your morals. But personally I feel sex needs to be discussed outside of just the man-and-wife scenario you mention. Hormones and urges run rampant in young people (or so I’ve been told), and as a parent one needs to always be approachable by your children when they have questions about these urges and how best to deal with them. Telling them to take cold showers or postponing the ‘sex talk’ by telling them “you’ll understand when you get older” just won’t cut it all the time.
And it’s a hard fact of life, but times do change. I too remember back when sex was dirty and air was clean; I also remember when certain people were considered third-class members of society simply because of the amount of melanin in their skin and weren’t even allowed to attend the same school, use the same restroom, or drink from the same water fountain as others. Some changes are good — such as the advancement of civil rights; others are not — think of the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act. But we will neverl find out until the changes have been tried and tested.
But this is just markings on paper (OK, markings on a computer screen), and is small potatoes compared to what I can find just by clicking on any entertainment/celebrity website like people.com or etonline.com, or checking up on the latest escapades of the Kardashians or Lady Goo-Goo. Besides, we are all adults here. The way I see it — no harm, no foul.
I agree that children need to have their questions answered, and that’s why I said it should be discussed outside the marriage relationship “rarely,” rather than “not at all.” My oldest son was about six when he started asking questions, and I explained as much as he was able to understand right then, with more details as he became older. My youngest son took a year or two longer to start asking, and I addressed his questions as they arose. But in none of our discussions was sex ever treated lightly or as anything other than a beautiful, sacred expression of love between a husband and wife. Now that they’re adults, I’m sure they will teach their own children the same way.
As for times changing, that’s true, they do. But some things don’t change. My personal moral code is based on teachings codified about 2,000 years ago and which embody principles far older. I believe the ultimate source of those principles is eternal.
It’s true that there is a lot worse on TV, in movies and in other forms of “entertainment.” That’s why it was so refreshing to be able to come here and be entertained without any appearance of sexual topics at all. Unfortunately, that seems to be changing lately, which I see as both unnecessary and unpleasant.
And now that I’ve make my own position clear, I’ll get off my soapbox and not spend the whole day discussing it.
You mean it’s not healthy within the narrow confines of your man-made religion.
I’m sure that the first humans (the real ones, not that Adam and Eve crap) made sure they were married before they bumped uglies. But where to find a preacher before the invention of Xianity?
What you call my “man-made religion” I call “the most accurate description of reality that exists.” But that’s a discussion I will not get into here as this is not the appropriate place for it. For anyone who’s interested in the philosophical underpinnings of my beliefs, they’re explained very well in “The Abolition of Man” and “Mere Christianity,” both written by C.S. Lewis. That’s all I have to say about it here.
Well, the husband and wife senario isn’t reality anymore. And, if my girfriend and i could get married, than we wouldn’t live in sin. But, hey, if you don’t agree with the message of the comic, that’s cool too. It’s yours to read or not.
Do you (or anyone else) seriously maintain that this (or yesterday’s strip) was not intended to imply that Idle and Yehuda are in bed together and that they have a sexual relationship? I can understand if some people don’t agree that it’s immoral, but to pretend that isn’t what was being depicted is disingenuous at best.
Yes – it’s a comic strip aimed at adults. That’s why I read it. That, and it’s funny. You are correct that it is certainly an intimate relationship – no denying it – just like the one desired by Yehuda with a pipe-smoking nun (Sister Sprocket). But what about the love triangle in Peanuts? The one between Charlie Brown, Peppermint Patty and Marci? (Patty lusting after Chuck, Marci lusting after Patty, and Charlie Brown looking to escape from it all). To me, that is far more disturbing.
Inteded to imply a sexual relationship? I don’t know. I have personally had MANY conversations similar to yesterday’s strip (different objects and many different replies) with people I have not had sexual relations with. I have also been in today’s situation (minus the oil/degreaser mixup) with women I have not been in a sexual relationship with.
CONSISTENT with a sexual relationship? Sure. But it could also be consistent with a non-sexual (albiet romantic) relationship.
If you ask me, the fact that
a) they are two adults who do not seem religious or socially conservative, and
b) are talking about moving in together
is FAR more of an indication that they are having sex than yesterday’s flirtatious joke or a massage.
If you ask me, the circumstances of their dating relationship are a much stronger indicator of their sexual status than these two strips.
on the surface, the strip simply shows a man giving his lady friend a massage in the dark. He (mistakenly) uses bicycle lubricant instead of a massage oil. Any sexual innuendo is inferred by the reader, through the artist’s clever use of double entendre, and even then, that was only in the previous strip (“is that a bicycle pump…”). If you think today’s strip implies that Yehuda and his lady friend were planning to fornicate, it is because the “impure” thoughts were already in your head. Furthermore, if you are offended by that implication, it is because you are a close-minded, judgemental prude. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson (poorly), “what other people do in their private time doesn’t affect you, so shut the hell up about it already.”
The crude, vulgar name you chose for yourself (this time) showed me how little credence your words merit even ere I read them, Mr. “JaySherman5000″ or “John Dorian” or “Hedonismbot9000″ or whatever you’re calling yourself now. How unfortunate that you haven’t the courage or integrity to choose a single name and stand behind it.
I choose my SN based on the sentiment of the comment I want to leave, my mood, or just to be funny. Your personal attacks against me take nothing away from the truth of the comment I posted using T_f_J as a pseudonym. Funny how you choose to question my character rather than defend your own position, isn’t it? And judging by your obvious level of annoynance, it sounds like someone found the lemonparty! Now why don’t you make like a tree and get the heck out of here!
You also forgot to mention the times when I posted as “Wolf O’Donnel” and “Peppy Hare”. Those were two classic comments, and thanks to the Herculean efforts of this comic’s owners, they’ll be preserved forever!
Seriously? Implying that these two might be up to adult hijinks by innuendo qualifies as indecent? You better just switch off the internet and join a commune, man, because the world is way too wicked for your tender sensibilities.
Strange, isn’t it that clearly articulated attempted homicide makes it through the censors but vague sexual references are cause for great alarm.
Really, friends, think about it. If your child already identifies massage oil with sexual activity how is this strip a threat? If your children does not identify massage oil with sexual activity how is this strip a threat? If the reference had been to baby oil would the offense be larger or smaller.
I’m not sure how the discussion veered onto kids, but my original point was that I would be embarrassed to show some of the most recent strips (including today’s) to my ADULT friends and ADULT children.
Well, since the reference from yesterday was to a famous quote from a less famous Mae West/Cary Grant movie (the movie, Widsith, would be G-rated today), I give you some more of Mae West in response to the biggest controversy in YehudaLand since the Great Helmet Debate – the last 2 are particularly apt for this conversation:
“When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I’ve never tried before.”"Too much of a good thing is wonderful.”"To err is human but it feels divine.”"He who hesitates is last.”"Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often.”"It’s hard to be funny when you have to be clean.”
Widsith, that is the most pants-on-head retarded statement I have ever heard about this comic. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable at a website where wholesome entertainment still exists. Somewhere where they celebrate pure things like homemade lemonade. Try lemonparty.org to find that nice, wholesome place.
Massage oil on chain? could even work well. In case it didn’t, the chain-degreaser is always at (Yehuda’s) hand.
// By the way, regarding the “family-(un)-friendly content” – did you (anyone) notice who actually brought (not only) the word “sex” to this page, as the first to mention it?
As it is, this strip could be read with all innocence – Yehuda was perhaps just massaging Idle’s lower legs (calves, in the most extreme case) after a demanding bicycle ride…!(? Well, he also removed his shirt – maybe to keep it clean and away from the massage oil. What more “content” really IS there, apart from what we can only speculate about…? The question is perhaps not What could be actually objectionable about the whole situation, but more importantly, Where does such information really come from…?
As it should. I’m chasing this girl at the moment, if i succeed, wonder if she’d do that for me? I would of course, return the favor. Perfect girl for me, she has almost as many bikes as me stashed around the place!
As I mentioned before, the new WordPress site has all the same features as this website, and we were successfully able to port over all the comments. A few new features: random comics, rate a comic, new way to browse archives, etc.
But it’s going to be awhile before we can launch: I have to rebuild the membership section since the code is completely different in WordPress. Our deadline is October 1, 2012 (the date the old comment system is turned off).
OK, since people are complaining about this series being marginally appropriate, I’ll go ahead and get this off my chest before I post something really inappropriate:
I’ve got a hundred bad jokes going through my head involving Reynolds 531 Hardened Steel.
(“personal moral code is based on teachings codified about 2,000 years ago” – just a note that triggered an association, that’s all. I’m not arguing with it in any way).
There is a certain “set of ideas” (call it religion (not a good term in this case, IMHO), or philosophy… whatever you want) that does have its “prophet”… YET it also states that he isn’t “(the) one” – as he wasn’t the first of his kind, and he isn’t/won’t be the last either. The reason? – put plainly, this “set of ideas” also contains a notion that its most basic, underlying “truth” surely IS still the same, but the message CAN NOT be conveyed in the same way for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years…
(again, just saying. I agree that this is not the best place for such discussions).
I’m much more willing to discuss sex, and sexuality in public than I am religion. Religion is – or should be – a very private, personal matter between a person and their Gods. Not something one shouts from the rooftops like a monotheist.
Interesting. All of you who disagree with me are bonkers because you are offended at something I am not. Nice logic. As far as the teaching your kid’s about sex argument, I don’t want or need a comic to teach my kids thank you very much. Two, life is precious and the ability to create it should be respected to some extent, what’s wrong with folks wanting to respect that? For better or worse the strip has established itself as more of an adult comic at this point which some folks will not have a problem showing their kids and others might now. Some folks have no issues with kid’s in ‘R’ and ‘X’ rated movies (not that this went into that territory by any means). What’s wrong with just telling someone you respect they’re opinion but you differ instead of implying their stupid or somehow not as good as you because of what they believe? Do we really have to insult people or degrade their religion when they disagree with us? Can’t we just get back to loving bicycles and sharing in that passion? My kid’s don’t read the strip anyway so why am I even commenting? I’ll shut up now. All of you folks who are more logical and of superior intellect can flame on now.
It wouldn’t be such a hot button topic if monotheists didn’t shout their their beleifs from the rooftops at EVERY possible opportunity instead of keeping it to themselves as they (and everyone) should. People are *tired* of the topic being shoved ndown their throats by monotheists and their thrice-damned BOOKs!
I’ve read just about everything Lewis ever wrote. There’s NO way he could have written Narnia without an unbderlying knowledge of polytheism (and many other things). His non-fiction is simply well written mainline Churchianity apologism – and doesn’t jive with what he (and Tolkien, et al) knew to be true.
Of course he had a very thorough knowledge of polytheism. He was an expert on classical Greece and Rome, as well as Germanic cultures such as the Anglo-Saxons and the Norsemen. He knew their mytholgies inside and out. In fact, he considered Christianity to be a myth also–but with the crucial difference that of all the world’s mytholgies, Christianity was the one– the *only* one–that was *true*. He believed it was the only myth that actually occurred as a real, historical fact. If you’ve read “just about everything Lewis ever wrote” then I don’t see how you could have missed that; he was very clear about it.
It wouldn’t be such a hot button topic if monotheists didn’t shout their their beleifs from the rooftops at EVERY possible opportunity instead of keeping it to themselves as they (and everyone) should. People are *tired* of the topic being shoved ndown their throats by monotheists and their thrice-damned BOOKs!
Wasn’t flaming or particularly judging – more of a social comment on cultural differences. It really is just a bit of a surprise to see a comment on something as normal as two adults shacking up being commented on, and also that so many people believe in god! I don’t think I know anyone over here who does (apart from my mum…)
Widsmith might be “off his soap box”, but he just can’t shut up. That’s how the moral “majority” suplants their bullshit for actual morality – by din of the noise.
I notice you seem to be interested in keeping the “noise” going yourself. Also, for someone who cares so much about spelling, you don’t seem to be able to spell either “supplants” or “Widsith” correctly.
Thanks, everyone, I really enjoyed the posts today. Everyone spoke their opinions while keeping their humor, and the discussions never spiraled out of control (unless they did, and a hidden comments moderator kept us appearing civil : ) It’s kind of an amazing dynamic in this group, and as Calvin likes to say, “What a great club!”
This won’t even fly on the radar since it’s four days late, but I can’t help but think if they had been having sex on a recumbent while bashing helmets, this could go on for 500 comments more.
Is Yehuda ever going to get a break? Does he really want one?
Nice one Slick…
Just so long as he doesn’t mix up the Slippery Stuff and the Loc-Tite…..although knowing Yehuda, he’d probably reach for the tube of Phil Wood grease.
He’ll probably use Tenacious Oil next.
At last I can comment again on my new HDD after a Win7 rebuild.
I had to change the ‘compatibility view’ setting – after remembering the name!
About Loc-Tite ….
One Sunday morning I decided to top-uo the oil in the SU carburetters of my twin carb car before getting ready for church.
Now my Dad kept a small amount of Q20/50 oil in an old industrial-strength Loc-Tite plastic container with a small tube to apply it.
As he worked at Daimler/Jaguar building Bus gearboxes, he used Loc-Tite a lot so was able to salvage empty applicators for cleaning and reusing with different oils etc. He usually put a strip of masking tape on the container and labelled it with the contents.
In my hurry I had picked up an unlabelled container and, well, you can guess the rest!
I got into the car and went to start it, putting my foot on the throttle to find the pedal was solid!
Yes, I had successfully locked the twin carbs completely!
It took me a week to strip, clean and rebuild the carbs and a trip to a specialist to get the twin carbs balanced!
The good thing was that I bought a ‘Gunson’ balancing kit and learned to balance the carbs myself in the future so svaing a fair bit in garage costs.
Trimuph TR6? I remember that that car had “oil in the carbs” as a dampener for the floats. One of the guys on the college cycling team had one. We’d swap cars (I had a Mercedes 200 sedan, 1968) when he needed more seats for a double date. I used to scare my dates with that TR6, it was quite fast.
No not that tail-happy machine . . . It was an Austin Allegro 1750S. Twin SU carbs gave it good torque at low revs but while the speedo often read ’120mph’ for hours at a stretch on empty motorways (before cameras etc) I don’t suppose it was much over 100 really as the Smith’s meters were notoriously inaccurate (like today’s which are set to read 10% high when calibrated at the factory to avoid lawsuits if anybody gets booked for speeding?) I think it used the same carbs though as SU were generally used in almost all British Leyland cars (Yes – like Austin, Triumph was part of BL, as was Jaguar/Daimler etc!)
I dated a ‘delivery driver’ for a long time once. She would collect vehicles from one location and drive them to another, sometimes hitching from place to place etc. She told me a lot of the ‘inside information’ that never gets made public. One was that the TR6 (and it’s fellow, the TR7 etc) had a lot of torque and, as you say, was quiet quick in a straight line but you needed a racing driver’s reactions and skill to drive them fast in bends because they lost the back wheels easily. Just like an AC cobra and the like.
I still can’t decide if your post isn’t from an ad-bot.
This makes two days in a row that I’d be embarrassed to show the strip to my family or friends. I guess I no longer can count on it to be “family-freindly” and had best “unlike” it on Facebook so it doesn’t show up on my page any longer.
Uh, like we can see anything? Whatever is going on is being discreetly hinted at, and any action is totally in the reader’s mind. It often amazes me how quickly people complain as soon as a strip veers off the level of Saturday morning cartoons (modern PC versions, that is).
You can’t even spell family-friendly correctly. What makes you think you can define it?
My kids laughed at this strip, because I explained human sexuality to them years ago. And these two characters seem to be enjoying a healthy committed relationship. I’m they can appreciate a little ribald humor, without fear.
Human sexuality is part of being HUMAN.
A parent’s responsibility is to provide information in order to protect children from ignorance. Not to promote it, by censoring everything even vaguely sexual.
But perhaps it is best if you DO stop reading this strip. Then stop reading altogether.
My family and friends and I believe that sex is a private matter between husband and wife, and ought to be discussed only rarely (and NEVER practiced) outside that relationship. A sexual relationship between two unmarried people is NOT “healthy” and is not a fitting subject for humor.
Agreed, widsith, and I applaud your morals. But personally I feel sex needs to be discussed outside of just the man-and-wife scenario you mention. Hormones and urges run rampant in young people (or so I’ve been told), and as a parent one needs to always be approachable by your children when they have questions about these urges and how best to deal with them. Telling them to take cold showers or postponing the ‘sex talk’ by telling them “you’ll understand when you get older” just won’t cut it all the time.
And it’s a hard fact of life, but times do change. I too remember back when sex was dirty and air was clean; I also remember when certain people were considered third-class members of society simply because of the amount of melanin in their skin and weren’t even allowed to attend the same school, use the same restroom, or drink from the same water fountain as others. Some changes are good — such as the advancement of civil rights; others are not — think of the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act. But we will neverl find out until the changes have been tried and tested.
But this is just markings on paper (OK, markings on a computer screen), and is small potatoes compared to what I can find just by clicking on any entertainment/celebrity website like people.com or etonline.com, or checking up on the latest escapades of the Kardashians or Lady Goo-Goo. Besides, we are all adults here. The way I see it — no harm, no foul.
I agree that children need to have their questions answered, and that’s why I said it should be discussed outside the marriage relationship “rarely,” rather than “not at all.” My oldest son was about six when he started asking questions, and I explained as much as he was able to understand right then, with more details as he became older. My youngest son took a year or two longer to start asking, and I addressed his questions as they arose. But in none of our discussions was sex ever treated lightly or as anything other than a beautiful, sacred expression of love between a husband and wife. Now that they’re adults, I’m sure they will teach their own children the same way.
As for times changing, that’s true, they do. But some things don’t change. My personal moral code is based on teachings codified about 2,000 years ago and which embody principles far older. I believe the ultimate source of those principles is eternal.
It’s true that there is a lot worse on TV, in movies and in other forms of “entertainment.” That’s why it was so refreshing to be able to come here and be entertained without any appearance of sexual topics at all. Unfortunately, that seems to be changing lately, which I see as both unnecessary and unpleasant.
And now that I’ve make my own position clear, I’ll get off my soapbox and not spend the whole day discussing it.
You mean it’s not healthy within the narrow confines of your man-made religion.
I’m sure that the first humans (the real ones, not that Adam and Eve crap) made sure they were married before they bumped uglies. But where to find a preacher before the invention of Xianity?
What you call my “man-made religion” I call “the most accurate description of reality that exists.” But that’s a discussion I will not get into here as this is not the appropriate place for it. For anyone who’s interested in the philosophical underpinnings of my beliefs, they’re explained very well in “The Abolition of Man” and “Mere Christianity,” both written by C.S. Lewis. That’s all I have to say about it here.
Well, the husband and wife senario isn’t reality anymore. And, if my girfriend and i could get married, than we wouldn’t live in sin. But, hey, if you don’t agree with the message of the comic, that’s cool too. It’s yours to read or not.
“A sexual relationship between two unmarried people is NOT “healthy”
That’s just your opinion, nothing more.
“I call “the most accurate description of reality that exists.”
Seriously? Please go back to your cave then. Religion is a man made fairy tale for people who can’t accept and explain reality on their own.
Seriously Widsith?
The turn under the sheets is not needed. The lines could have been done above board with good impact. Normally the strip shows more creativity.
Wow, all these Shakers commenting…
This isn’t The Family Circus. Yehuda cusses at drivers, buildings burn down, and a woman smokes a pipe.
Widsith: This strip makes no reference to the act of having sex. Get your mind out of the gutter!!
Do you (or anyone else) seriously maintain that this (or yesterday’s strip) was not intended to imply that Idle and Yehuda are in bed together and that they have a sexual relationship? I can understand if some people don’t agree that it’s immoral, but to pretend that isn’t what was being depicted is disingenuous at best.
Yes – it’s a comic strip aimed at adults. That’s why I read it. That, and it’s funny. You are correct that it is certainly an intimate relationship – no denying it – just like the one desired by Yehuda with a pipe-smoking nun (Sister Sprocket). But what about the love triangle in Peanuts? The one between Charlie Brown, Peppermint Patty and Marci? (Patty lusting after Chuck, Marci lusting after Patty, and Charlie Brown looking to escape from it all). To me, that is far more disturbing.
Inteded to imply a sexual relationship? I don’t know. I have personally had MANY conversations similar to yesterday’s strip (different objects and many different replies) with people I have not had sexual relations with. I have also been in today’s situation (minus the oil/degreaser mixup) with women I have not been in a sexual relationship with.
CONSISTENT with a sexual relationship? Sure. But it could also be consistent with a non-sexual (albiet romantic) relationship.
If you ask me, the fact that
a) they are two adults who do not seem religious or socially conservative, and
b) are talking about moving in together
is FAR more of an indication that they are having sex than yesterday’s flirtatious joke or a massage.
If you ask me, the circumstances of their dating relationship are a much stronger indicator of their sexual status than these two strips.
on the surface, the strip simply shows a man giving his lady friend a massage in the dark. He (mistakenly) uses bicycle lubricant instead of a massage oil. Any sexual innuendo is inferred by the reader, through the artist’s clever use of double entendre, and even then, that was only in the previous strip (“is that a bicycle pump…”). If you think today’s strip implies that Yehuda and his lady friend were planning to fornicate, it is because the “impure” thoughts were already in your head. Furthermore, if you are offended by that implication, it is because you are a close-minded, judgemental prude. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson (poorly), “what other people do in their private time doesn’t affect you, so shut the hell up about it already.”
The crude, vulgar name you chose for yourself (this time) showed me how little credence your words merit even ere I read them, Mr. “JaySherman5000″ or “John Dorian” or “Hedonismbot9000″ or whatever you’re calling yourself now. How unfortunate that you haven’t the courage or integrity to choose a single name and stand behind it.
I choose my SN based on the sentiment of the comment I want to leave, my mood, or just to be funny. Your personal attacks against me take nothing away from the truth of the comment I posted using T_f_J as a pseudonym. Funny how you choose to question my character rather than defend your own position, isn’t it? And judging by your obvious level of annoynance, it sounds like someone found the lemonparty! Now why don’t you make like a tree and get the heck out of here!
You also forgot to mention the times when I posted as “Wolf O’Donnel” and “Peppy Hare”. Those were two classic comments, and thanks to the Herculean efforts of this comic’s owners, they’ll be preserved forever!
Seriously? Implying that these two might be up to adult hijinks by innuendo qualifies as indecent? You better just switch off the internet and join a commune, man, because the world is way too wicked for your tender sensibilities.
Strange, isn’t it that clearly articulated attempted homicide makes it through the censors but vague sexual references are cause for great alarm.
Really, friends, think about it. If your child already identifies massage oil with sexual activity how is this strip a threat? If your children does not identify massage oil with sexual activity how is this strip a threat? If the reference had been to baby oil would the offense be larger or smaller.
I think it would just go over the heads of my kids. And if not, better we answer the questions than some half baked answers from the playground.
I’m not sure how the discussion veered onto kids, but my original point was that I would be embarrassed to show some of the most recent strips (including today’s) to my ADULT friends and ADULT children.
Well, since the reference from yesterday was to a famous quote from a less famous Mae West/Cary Grant movie (the movie, Widsith, would be G-rated today), I give you some more of Mae West in response to the biggest controversy in YehudaLand since the Great Helmet Debate – the last 2 are particularly apt for this conversation:
“When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I’ve never tried before.”"Too much of a good thing is wonderful.”"To err is human but it feels divine.”"He who hesitates is last.”"Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often.”"It’s hard to be funny when you have to be clean.”
“I would be embarrassed to show some of the most recent strips (including today’s) to my ADULT friends and ADULT children.”
Sounds like they’re overly sensitive.
Widsith, that is the most pants-on-head retarded statement I have ever heard about this comic. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable at a website where wholesome entertainment still exists. Somewhere where they celebrate pure things like homemade lemonade. Try lemonparty.org to find that nice, wholesome place.
Umm… wow. Where’s the usual helmet debate?
I don’t know about the rest of you people, but I like bicycles.
Um, no they couldn’t, Yehuda.
Yehuda… better check the chains at the shop.
Massage oil on chain? could even work well.
In case it didn’t, the chain-degreaser is always at (Yehuda’s) hand.
// By the way, regarding the “family-(un)-friendly content” – did you (anyone) notice who actually brought (not only) the word “sex” to this page, as the first to mention it?
As it is, this strip could be read with all innocence – Yehuda was perhaps just massaging Idle’s lower legs (calves, in the most extreme case) after a demanding bicycle ride…!(? Well, he also removed his shirt – maybe to keep it clean and away from the massage oil. What more “content” really IS there, apart from what we can only speculate about…? The question is perhaps not What could be actually objectionable about the whole situation, but more importantly, Where does such information really come from…?
I had a college girlfriend shave my legs in the shower. This made me a legend at the school.
As it should. I’m chasing this girl at the moment, if i succeed, wonder if she’d do that for me? I would of course, return the favor. Perfect girl for me, she has almost as many bikes as me stashed around the place!
Update on the new website:
As I mentioned before, the new WordPress site has all the same features as this website, and we were successfully able to port over all the comments. A few new features: random comics, rate a comic, new way to browse archives, etc.
But it’s going to be awhile before we can launch: I have to rebuild the membership section since the code is completely different in WordPress. Our deadline is October 1, 2012 (the date the old comment system is turned off).
I wonder how many Kickstand customers are wondering why their chains smell like coconut oil?
OK, since people are complaining about this series being marginally appropriate, I’ll go ahead and get this off my chest before I post something really inappropriate:
I’ve got a hundred bad jokes going through my head involving Reynolds 531 Hardened Steel.
Ah, there. I got it out without being banned.
Chris
(“personal moral code is based on teachings codified about 2,000 years ago” – just a note that triggered an association, that’s all. I’m not arguing with it in any way).
There is a certain “set of ideas” (call it religion (not a good term in this case, IMHO), or philosophy… whatever you want) that does have its “prophet”… YET it also states that he isn’t “(the) one” – as he wasn’t the first of his kind, and he isn’t/won’t be the last either. The reason? – put plainly, this “set of ideas” also contains a notion that its most basic, underlying “truth” surely IS still the same, but the message CAN NOT be conveyed in the same way for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years…
(again, just saying. I agree that this is not the best place for such discussions).
LUBRICATION.. that is all needed not to get rusty …………………. ( bikes and cyclists! )
I’m much more willing to discuss sex, and sexuality in public than I am religion. Religion is – or should be – a very private, personal matter between a person and their Gods. Not something one shouts from the rooftops like a monotheist.
Wow – you must all be American, we Brits kind of just take it for granted that shagging’s part of life. Stop taking it so seriously!
C.S. Lewis was British (Irish, actually), yet I think he would have taken exception to your assertion.
Then . . . where do Brits come from?
Why is C.S, Lewis even relevant here?
Sarah made a blanket statement about the opinions of British citizens; I provided a counterexample of a British citizen who would not have agreed.
C.S. Lewis had been dead for half a century.
Interesting. All of you who disagree with me are bonkers because you are offended at something I am not. Nice logic. As far as the teaching your kid’s about sex argument, I don’t want or need a comic to teach my kids thank you very much. Two, life is precious and the ability to create it should be respected to some extent, what’s wrong with folks wanting to respect that? For better or worse the strip has established itself as more of an adult comic at this point which some folks will not have a problem showing their kids and others might now. Some folks have no issues with kid’s in ‘R’ and ‘X’ rated movies (not that this went into that territory by any means). What’s wrong with just telling someone you respect they’re opinion but you differ instead of implying their stupid or somehow not as good as you because of what they believe? Do we really have to insult people or degrade their religion when they disagree with us? Can’t we just get back to loving bicycles and sharing in that passion? My kid’s don’t read the strip anyway so why am I even commenting? I’ll shut up now. All of you folks who are more logical and of superior intellect can flame on now.
It wouldn’t be such a hot button topic if monotheists didn’t shout their their beleifs from the rooftops at EVERY possible opportunity instead of keeping it to themselves as they (and everyone) should. People are *tired* of the topic being shoved ndown their throats by monotheists and their thrice-damned BOOKs!
CS Lewis, BTW, was a polytheist. Read “Narnia”.
Read his non-fiction, not his fantasy, and you’ll see that he most definitely did NOT believe in polytheism.
I’ve read just about everything Lewis ever wrote. There’s NO way he could have written Narnia without an unbderlying knowledge of polytheism (and many other things). His non-fiction is simply well written mainline Churchianity apologism – and doesn’t jive with what he (and Tolkien, et al) knew to be true.
Of course he had a very thorough knowledge of polytheism. He was an expert on classical Greece and Rome, as well as Germanic cultures such as the Anglo-Saxons and the Norsemen. He knew their mytholgies inside and out. In fact, he considered Christianity to be a myth also–but with the crucial difference that of all the world’s mytholgies, Christianity was the one– the *only* one–that was *true*. He believed it was the only myth that actually occurred as a real, historical fact. If you’ve read “just about everything Lewis ever wrote” then I don’t see how you could have missed that; he was very clear about it.
It wouldn’t be such a hot button topic if monotheists didn’t shout their their beleifs from the rooftops at EVERY possible opportunity instead of keeping it to themselves as they (and everyone) should. People are *tired* of the topic being shoved ndown their throats by monotheists and their thrice-damned BOOKs!
CS Lewis, BTW, was a polytheist. Read “Narnia”.
Wasn’t flaming or particularly judging – more of a social comment on cultural differences. It really is just a bit of a surprise to see a comment on something as normal as two adults shacking up being commented on, and also that so many people believe in god! I don’t think I know anyone over here who does (apart from my mum…)
“…. I don’t think I know anyone over here who does (apart from my mum…)”
Believe in god, or shack up? .. 8^)
Nearly everyone I know believes in God, and the majority of them are regular churchgoers.
You should get out of that village and meet some folks you’re not related to.
Yes, it’s a small place; according to the 2000 census there were only 1,052,238 inhabitants.
….that’s an impressive number of cousins you have there
What’s the fuss about? Massage isn’t sex.
Well that could happen to anyone that lived in a bike store, and slept in the shop.
Widsmith might be “off his soap box”, but he just can’t shut up. That’s how the moral “majority” suplants their bullshit for actual morality – by din of the noise.
I notice you seem to be interested in keeping the “noise” going yourself. Also, for someone who cares so much about spelling, you don’t seem to be able to spell either “supplants” or “Widsith” correctly.
Thanks, everyone, I really enjoyed the posts today. Everyone spoke their opinions while keeping their humor, and the discussions never spiraled out of control (unless they did, and a hidden comments moderator kept us appearing civil : ) It’s kind of an amazing dynamic in this group, and as Calvin likes to say, “What a great club!”
This won’t even fly on the radar since it’s four days late, but I can’t help but think if they had been having sex on a recumbent while bashing helmets, this could go on for 500 comments more.