Difference between revisions of "Talk:451: Impostor"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 13: Line 13:
 
:*The '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view neutrality] of this article is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute disputed]'''.  (''February 2014'')
 
:*The '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view neutrality] of this article is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute disputed]'''.  (''February 2014'')
 
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.5|199.27.133.5]] 20:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.5|199.27.133.5]] 20:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 +
::I'm wondering how anyone can make enough sense of that article to notice bias. :) [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 17:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  
 
I think that, on the literary criticism explanation, Randall wrote "Eight papers and two books and they haven't caught on" to mean that he ''talked'' about eight papers and two books, not that he has already had a literary criticism writing career consisting of eight written papers and two books and no one has noticed. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.53|199.27.133.53]] 04:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 
I think that, on the literary criticism explanation, Randall wrote "Eight papers and two books and they haven't caught on" to mean that he ''talked'' about eight papers and two books, not that he has already had a literary criticism writing career consisting of eight written papers and two books and no one has noticed. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.53|199.27.133.53]] 04:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 
:I disagree. A 'paper' usually means an academic paper, not literary work. Then, the books part follows suit. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 06:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 
:I disagree. A 'paper' usually means an academic paper, not literary work. Then, the books part follows suit. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 06:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:24, 31 January 2015

It could be that no one understands the literary criticism, even if they read it. The panel shows a student listening to Cueball. A fun, alternative explanation is that Cueball has found his real niche! A natural genius in literary criticism! (I know that's not what he's driving at. Stick with my first explanation.)Theo (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I know this is easy to find, but the wikipedia article on deconstruction is very relevant. There should be a link in the explanation. 108.162.219.7 01:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the multiple issues listed in the Deconstruction Wikipedia article speak for themselves:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

199.27.133.5 20:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering how anyone can make enough sense of that article to notice bias. :) NealCruco (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that, on the literary criticism explanation, Randall wrote "Eight papers and two books and they haven't caught on" to mean that he talked about eight papers and two books, not that he has already had a literary criticism writing career consisting of eight written papers and two books and no one has noticed. 199.27.133.53 04:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. A 'paper' usually means an academic paper, not literary work. Then, the books part follows suit. --NeatNit (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)