https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=108.162.225.134&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T06:52:58ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1028:_Communication&diff=920791028: Communication2015-05-02T10:49:51Z<p>108.162.225.134: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1028<br />
| date = March 12, 2012<br />
| title = Communication<br />
| image = communication.png<br />
| titletext = Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic is divided into two parts, the first two rows of panels and then the third one.<br />
<br />
The first part demonstrates a failed attempt at communication:<br />
<br />
*[[White Hat]] notices a dangerous hole, and thinks he should warn people about it.<br />
**The symbol of the triangle with the exclamation mark in it is widely used on {{w|warning sign}} and it means "{{w|Warning_sign#General_caution|General caution}}".<br />
*White Hat encounters [[Hairy]] and tries to warn him about the hole, while Hairy is wondering what White Hat is pointing at not understanding what he says.<br />
*Hairy doesn't understand the warning, he continues to think without speaking. Now he thinks of a frustrated White Hat.<br />
*Hairy continues to only think of what he can see, and now this is the fact that White Hat is leaving. As White Hat leaves he is thinking about Hairy's lack of understanding and about his silence. <br />
*White Hat encounters [[Megan]] and is now so annoyed about Hairy that he rather talks about his lack of communication than about the dangerous hole. Megan on the other hand tries to tell White Hat about another dangerous hole if he continues to walk along.<br />
*White Hat and Megan pass each other. White Hat now thinks about both the silent Hairy and the talking Megan who both failed to understand him. Megan is just frustrated by the outcome of her encounter and thinks about White Hat talking.<br />
*Megan then meets Hairy while they are both still thinking about White Hat<br />
*They now share their common experience of seeing White Hat. Finally Hairy talks.<br />
*They both continue towards the first hole, unaware of it, talking about White Hat. (Hairy is drawn without hair both here and in the next panel - see [[#Trivia|Trivia]] below.)<br />
*Megan and Hairy fall into the first hole since it wasn't properly communicated to them.<br />
*White Hat falls into the second hole since it wasn't properly communicated to him.<br />
<br />
The holes in the sidewalk are fairly deep, about one person deep; unaware and careless people don't notice them when they come upon them, which makes them symbolic of any problem or danger one can encounter in life, and could avoid if properly warned or careful.<br />
<br />
The second part demonstrates a much more successful attempt at communication:<br />
<br />
*[[Beret Guy]] notices a dangerous hole, and thinks he should warn people about it.<br />
*He even runs out of the picture to warn people (as can be interpreted by the fact that he has reached further in the next panel than White Hat).<br />
*Beret Guy finds [[Cueball]], and tells him to come along. Cueball only sees Beret Guy stretching out his hand.<br />
*Beret Guy takes Cueball's hand and leads him towards the hole. Cueball doesn't understand why (as shown by the question marks in his thought bubble surrounding his thought of Beret Guy. But follows Beret Guy anyway.<br />
*Beret Guy leads Cueball to the hole and points it out for him.<br />
*Finally both Beret Guy and Cueball leaves the hole thinking about the danger of it. Beret Guy has managed to properly warn Cueball about the hole.<br />
<br />
It is very typical for the character Beret Guy to succeed, especially with something difficult, where White Hat fails.<br />
<br />
The title text references the requirement that "communication" is a two-sided process, and just because you think you have made your point clear this does not mean that you have "communicated" the information to them: if they failed to understand, then it may as well mean that ''you'' failed to communicate, and not necessarily that ''they'' are bad at listening. And if you always encounter this, then it is you who is confused about how communication works<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[White Hat looks down at a large gap in the walkway; a thought bubble with a warning symbol and an image of the gap appears above his head.]<br />
<br />
:[White Hat walks to the right, away from the gap, and encounters Hairy, to which he speaks (in iconographic speech bubble form) while pointing toward the gap, attempting to inform him about the gap. A thought bubble appears above Hairy's head with an image of White Hat pointing.]<br />
<br />
:[White Hat continues, waving his arms, still talking about the gap. Hairy's thought bubble continues to contain images of White Hat, now gesturing frantically.]<br />
<br />
:[Hairy shrugs in a nonplussed manner, and White Hat leaves off the right side of the frame. Both have thought bubbles displaying the other's reaction.]<br />
<br />
:[White Hat continues to the right and comes across Megan. He tells her about the reaction of Hairy (still all in iconographic form); she simultaneously tries to tell him about a gap and gestures off to the right of the frame.]<br />
<br />
:[White Hat and Megan both leave the frame. Megan exits left thinking of White Hats reactions; White Hat exits to the right while thinking about both Hairy and Megan's reactions.]<br />
<br />
:[Megan (still thinking about White Hat) encounters Hairy (who is also still thinking about White Hat).]<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Hairy talk about White Hat.]<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Hairy (now without his hair) continue talking about White Hat as they exit the frame to the left.]<br />
<br />
:[A commotion is heard from the left.]<br />
:Explosion to the right: !!! ** !!<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Hairy (still without his hair) have fallen into the gap in the walkway. A commotion is then also heard from the right.]<br />
:Explosion to the right: !!! ** *<br />
<br />
:[White Hat has fallen into another gap.]<br />
<br />
:[Beret Guy looks down at a large gap in the walkway; a thought bubble with a warning symbol and an image of the gap appears above his head.]<br />
<br />
:[Beret Guy runs off the frame to the right.]<br />
<br />
:[Beret Guy meets Cueball and reaches out to him. He tells him (still in iconographic form) that Cueball should take Beret Guys hand. Cueball has a thought bubble of Beret Guy with his arm stretched out.]<br />
<br />
:[Beret Guy takes Cueball's hand and leads him along to the left. Cueball's thought bubble has two question marks around Beret Guy.]<br />
:Cueball: ? ?<br />
<br />
:[Beret Guy leads Cueball to the gap and points it out to him.]<br />
<br />
:[Beret Guy and Cueball walk away from the gap to the right, now both thinking about the gap with a warning symbol above it.]<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*[[Randall]] made a mistake in this comic:<br />
**Hairy seems to "lose" his hair in the last two frames he is in with Megan, but it's still the same person.<br />
**The Cueball that appears in the last four frames is not Hairy without hair.<br />
**This is clearly evidenced by Randall's [http://xkcd.com/1028/info.0.json transcript of the comic].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]</div>108.162.225.134https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=701:_Science_Valentine&diff=92053701: Science Valentine2015-05-01T17:49:48Z<p>108.162.225.134: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 701 <br />
| date = February 12, 2010<br />
| title = Science Valentine<br />
| image = science_valentine.png<br />
| titletext = You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]] is taking a scientific approach to creating a valentine card. Based on the first chart, the recipient is his fiancée since he noted major events (first meeting and engaged, thus they are not married yet, or it should have been noted on the graph). The labels of a heart and smiley represent Cueball's feelings for her and happiness accordingly. This implies that Cueball had love and feelings for someone else before he first met the love he is breaking up with. While they were dating, the feelings and happiness levels were very unstable, as is expected for any new relationship. That later dropped to current levels, probably due to Cueball's lack of love towards her.<br />
<br />
In the second panel, there are variables r<sub>0</sub>,r<sub>1</sub>,r<sub>2</sub>, each value at 0.20, -0.61, -0.83 accordingly. This is probably his love at different chronological points in his relationship, r<sub>0</sub> being the start. This contradicts the data in the first panel's chart, as is contains no negative values, assuming a {{w|cartesian plane}}.<br />
<br />
The text in the space between 2nd and 3rd panels show that [[Randall Munroe]] is against {{w|scientific misconduct}}. It also shows that Cueball's rigorous approach makes him realize that the happiness he derives from the relationship is declining, which presents him with a choice. Will he be a true scientist by accepting data that he doesn't like, or will he be romantic and just make a cute card? <br />
<br />
The last panel is an obvious parody of an "arrow through a heart", a common symbol used to represent people falling in love. In this case, it is the opposite, representing breaking up.<br />
<br />
He decides that he is a scientist and so presents his significant other with a breakup valentine. The card has a heart on it crossed by a graph with a negative trend, forming the stereotypical torn heart and showing the decline of his feelings. <br />
<br />
The comic may be intended as a cautionary tale to new scientists; while the graph in the leftmost panel shows an apparent correlation between Cueball's love and his happiness, and it shows his happiness is lower than it might be expected to be without his partner, it fails to show that the falling love effects falling happiness-- it may be the case that falling happiness effects falling love, or that both happiness and love are affected by an unidentified factor. For example, temporary external crises may be weighing on Cueball's relationship as well as his happiness.<br />
<br />
The title text seems to be him trying to console himself that he did the right thing. You should not use science to prove that your theory is right, but to find out which theory is the right one!<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:I wanted to make you a science valentine<br />
:with charts and graphs of my feelings for you.<br />
:[A graph shows romance and happiness. Romance cuts off, indicating a breakup before the meeting of Cueball and his current significant other, and happiness dips accordingly.<br />
:A line indicates where the couple first met; romance is jagged thereafter, initially upwards but later down.<br />
:Happiness climbs slightly more steadily and then dips again.<br />
:More lines indicate a period of dating and then one of engagement.]<br />
:and the happiness you've brought me.<br />
<br />
:But the more I analyzed<br />
:[Cueball works at a computer.]<br />
:r<sub>0</sub> = 0.20<br />
:r<sub>1</sub> = -0.61<br />
:r<sub>2</sub> = -0.83<br />
:the harder it became to defend my hypothesis.<br />
<br />
:In science, you can't publish results you know are wrong<br />
:and you can't withhold them because they're not the ones you wanted.<br />
<br />
:So I was left with a question: do I make graphs because they're cute and funny,<br />
:[Cueball sits, looking at a sheet of paper.]<br />
:or am I a ''scientist?''<br />
<br />
:Enclosed are my results.<br />
:I hope you can find somebody else<br />
:[A jagged, declining graph is superimposed over a red heart.]<br />
:to be your valentine.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Valentines]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Statistics]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Charts]]</div>108.162.225.134https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=701:_Science_Valentine&diff=92052701: Science Valentine2015-05-01T17:48:12Z<p>108.162.225.134: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 701 <br />
| date = February 12, 2010<br />
| title = Science Valentine<br />
| image = science_valentine.png<br />
| titletext = You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]] is taking a scientific approach to creating a valentine card. Based on the first chart, the recipient is his fiancée since he noted major events (first meeting and engaged, thus they are not married yet, or it should have been noted on the graph). The labels of a heart and smiley represent Cueball's feelings for her and happiness accordingly. This implies that Cueball had love and feelings for someone else before he first met the love he is breaking up with. While they were dating, the feelings and happiness levels were very unstable, as is expected for any new relationship. That later dropped to current levels, probably due to Cueball's lack of love towards her.<br />
<br />
In the second panel, there are variables r<sub>0</sub>,r<sub>1</sub>,r<sub>2</sub>, each value at 0.20, -0.61, -0.83 accordingly. This is probably his love at different chronological points in his relationship, r<sub>0</sub> being the start. This contradicts the data in the first panel's chart, as is contains no negative values, assuming a {{w|cartesian plane}}.<br />
<br />
The text in the space between 2nd and 3rd panels show that [[Randall Munroe]] is against {{w|scifentific misconduct}}. It also shows that Cueball's rigorous approach makes him realize that the happiness he derives from the relationship is declining, which presents him with a choice. Will he be a true scientist by accepting data that he doesn't like, or will he be romantic and just make a cute card? <br />
<br />
The last panel is an obvious parody of an "arrow through a heart", a common symbol used to represent people falling in love. In this case, it is the opposite, representing breaking up.<br />
<br />
He decides that he is a scientist and so presents his significant other with a breakup valentine. The card has a heart on it crossed by a graph with a negative trend, forming the stereotypical torn heart and showing the decline of his feelings. <br />
<br />
The comic may be intended as a cautionary tale to new scientists; while the graph in the leftmost panel shows an apparent correlation between Cueball's love and his happiness, and it shows his happiness is lower than it might be expected to be without his partner, it fails to show that the falling love effects falling happiness-- it may be the case that falling happiness effects falling love, or that both happiness and love are affected by an unidentified factor. For example, temporary external crises may be weighing on Cueball's relationship as well as his happiness.<br />
<br />
The title text seems to be him trying to console himself that he did the right thing. You should not use science to prove that your theory is right, but to find out which theory is the right one!<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:I wanted to make you a science valentine<br />
:with charts and graphs of my feelings for you.<br />
:[A graph shows romance and happiness. Romance cuts off, indicating a breakup before the meeting of Cueball and his current significant other, and happiness dips accordingly.<br />
:A line indicates where the couple first met; romance is jagged thereafter, initially upwards but later down.<br />
:Happiness climbs slightly more steadily and then dips again.<br />
:More lines indicate a period of dating and then one of engagement.]<br />
:and the happiness you've brought me.<br />
<br />
:But the more I analyzed<br />
:[Cueball works at a computer.]<br />
:r<sub>0</sub> = 0.20<br />
:r<sub>1</sub> = -0.61<br />
:r<sub>2</sub> = -0.83<br />
:the harder it became to defend my hypothesis.<br />
<br />
:In science, you can't publish results you know are wrong<br />
:and you can't withhold them because they're not the ones you wanted.<br />
<br />
:So I was left with a question: do I make graphs because they're cute and funny,<br />
:[Cueball sits, looking at a sheet of paper.]<br />
:or am I a ''scientist?''<br />
<br />
:Enclosed are my results.<br />
:I hope you can find somebody else<br />
:[A jagged, declining graph is superimposed over a red heart.]<br />
:to be your valentine.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Valentines]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Statistics]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Charts]]</div>108.162.225.134https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1238:_Enlightenment&diff=90928Talk:1238: Enlightenment2015-04-25T05:29:25Z<p>108.162.225.134: </p>
<hr />
<div>I can't help but feel he toadaly missed out on "herd"!<br />
Should this make me feel icky? Please help!<br />
Monteletourneau [[User:Monteletourneau|Monteletourneau]] ([[User talk:Monteletourneau|talk]]) 05:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Did anyone else notice the (most likely intentional) typos in that sentence they told her to type? "... and THEIR DEFINATELY good" (they're definitely) {{unsigned ip|115.30.33.36}}<br />
<br />
Didn't you notice "you're" and "idea's" as well. I would assume it is highly improbable that these were not intentional. [[Special:Contributions/74.125.16.2|74.125.16.2]] 04:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)GusGold<br />
<br />
Of course those were intentional. That was the joke. The exercise for INTERNET enlightenment and getting rid of insecurities is to make typos and grammatical errors freely. You may also notice them saying on the last panel "wasnt" and "its", instead of "wasn't" and "it's".<br />
Megan just wasn't able to do this task of making intentional mistakes, which would result in people online thinking she's dumb (insecurities), so she broke the laptop and left. [[Special:Contributions/95.35.58.179|95.35.58.179]] 05:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Why do we think she broke the laptop and left? What's the circle on the ground for? (Looks like a StarTrek Transporter pad. And the pedestal just appeared as needed, must be virtual. Rather, I think she got UN-enlightened and zapped away into nothing-ness. [[Special:Contributions/12.234.99.131|12.234.99.131]] 16:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Zake<br />
<br />
There's a huge difference between accepting others' misspellings and repeating them yourself...not commenting on someone typing "definately" is completely different than being told to spell it that way yourself. [[User:Wotpsycho|Wotpsycho]] ([[User talk:Wotpsycho|talk]])<br />
<br />
I read you're explanation's and their definately helpful! --[[Special:Contributions/129.187.90.96|129.187.90.96]] 09:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Having your ideas "approved" by someone who can't even spell might feel much worse than having them simply shot down.{{unsigned ip|89.31.118.161}}<br />
<br />
Does anyone else think Ponytail appears to be levitating? --[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 16:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Someone deleted my edit, so I'm bringing it up here on the discussion page. The sentence contains more than just common misspellings; it also contains a common grammatical error. "I read your ideas and they're definitely good" is a run-on sentence. Joining two independent clauses requires BOTH a comma and a coordinating conjunction ("I read your ideas, and they're definitely good"). The sentence omits the comma. While certain style guides allow the comma to be left out when the two clauses are short enough, Megan's obstinate grammar-nazism is the entire point of the comic. It is unlikely she would let it slide. [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 16:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
:"they're" refers to "ideas", the sentences are not independent.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
::That's not what an independent clause means. Can they be separated into two sentences? "I read your ideas. They're definitely good." Yes - it still makes sense as two sentences, thus the two clauses are independent. (An example of a dependent clause would be "I read your ideas while I was driving home." "While I was driving home" cannot stand on its own as a sentence, so it is not an independent clause.)[[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 18:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I'm not a native English speaker, and I have learned only British English at school. But your statement makes sense. My first sentence is correct?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Yep, your first sentence is fine. I'm going to add the note about run-on sentences back into the Explanation; I hope nobody has any more objections. [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 19:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::"...''whilst'' I was driving home"? ;) (And bear in mind as well that "while" can more commonly mean "until", instead of "during", in certain English-speaking dialects. Ok, I'm being picky, now.) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.50.23|178.98.50.23]] 05:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Gr8 example of Internet forum tangental one-upmanship! [[Special:Contributions/12.234.99.131|12.234.99.131]] 16:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Zake<br />
:This explanation makes a lot of sense. It helped me to stop being angry at the sentence they wanted her to type, and to pay attention to the bigger picture, especially when combined with the alt-text. Randall, I heard you're idea's and their definately good. (Also, I'm assuming that Internet Enlightenment allows me to be disgusted with myself for writing that, as long as I was willing to do so.) [[Special:Contributions/68.231.138.149|68.231.138.149]] 04:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
::It is perfectly correct to join two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction and no comma. In fact it is often considered bad style (if not actually incorrect) to include both a comma and a conjunction when joining only two clauses.[[Special:Contributions/129.22.117.158|129.22.117.158]] 17:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::I'm not native English, as I explained before, but please give some more background information and not only a statement of your mind. And consider: This is American English, there are some odd commas. I'm still not sure what's correct.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I'm not native either. What I've found on several sites [http://pages.uoregon.edu/munno/Writing/ClausesandCommas.html], [http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/writing/comma?09] is ''two independent clauses connected by "and" or "but" are separated by a comma''&mdash;basically, because you would make a little pause at that point when used in speech. Contradicting this on {{w|simple:Run-on sentence}} I currently see ''"I looked over the hill and I saw the bear." is a complete sentence.'' (not two independent clauses&mdash;although grammatically possible), so simple-wikipedia could be wrong, or there is some tolerance, when two clauses are actually connected. In the end, I'd say this comma is not really worth that discussion, and I would suggest making some kind of neutral statement, e.g. ''and there might be a {{w|Run-on sentence|comma}} missing''. --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 22:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::It is not perfectly correct to omit the comma. Chtz cited two sources above, here are a few more: [http://www.towson.edu/ows/conjunctions.htm], [http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm], [http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/020204WhenCommaBfAnd.htm]. There is a little leeway for stylistic reasons, but as I mentioned above, the entire point of the comic is that Megan does not give leeway when it comes to grammar nazism. The corrected sentence in the explanation should be actually correct, not mostly-correct-but-given-a-little-stylistic-leeway.[[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 18:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::I (poster from 129.22.117.158 above) have looked into things more and stand corrected. I heard all you're ideas, and their definately good.[[Special:Contributions/209.152.196.210|209.152.196.210]] 13:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I wonder if there's an additional level of meaning here. To me, the <i>most</i> striking thing about the sentence Megan won't type is not the bad spelling, but the fact that it involves agreeing with someone. On the Internet, people are always arguing with other (as in, for example, http://xkcd.com/386/). Maybe what Megan had to do to become "enlightened" was not just to ignore the rules of spelling, but actually to agree with someone for a change?{{unsigned ip|134.226.254.178}}<br />
:Well, that's why I wrote the third paragraph, about how important agreement can be. Do you have any suggestions as to how we could emphasize this point more? [[User:PinkAmpersand|PinkAmpersand]] ([[User talk:PinkAmpersand|talk]]) 22:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Be associated with bad grammar, Yoda would not. [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 08:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
;Incomplete or not?<br />
I did add the tag again because there are too many edits at this page and also the discussion is still not clear. I would like to see the grammar issue solved by more explain, even when it's not easy.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning any more comparisons, but I'd put it don't here at least: It reminds me of Schindler's List when Schindler tries to convince Amon Goeth, a commander of a Nazi concentration camp, that true power is when you have the power (and justification) to kill someone, but you spare them. This is an attempt to change the behaviour of Amon, who has a habit of killing random camp internees (and _believes_ he has the right to do so).{{unsigned ip|Svend}}<br />
:Hey, you compared something to the Nazis! I invoke Godwin's Law! http://xkcd.com/261/{{unsigned ip|134.226.254.178}}<br />
<br />
Note I have removed a misguided rant from Dgbrt regarding Svend's thoughtful post. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.88|199.27.128.88]] 09:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This xkcd is all about how hard it is not to be a grammar nazi. --[[Special:Contributions/84.60.134.161|84.60.134.161]] 02:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Ah! So sweet and succinct! That line should be in the explanation. Perhaps with the words "for some people" added, but yeah. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.134|108.162.225.134]] 05:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)</div>108.162.225.134