Talk:1687: World War III+ - Revision history

172.69.79.191 at 11:26, 2 July 2024

2024-07-02T11:26:29Z

172.69.33.187 at 17:28, 19 May 2022

2022-05-19T17:28:00Z

162.158.38.76 at 07:52, 28 September 2019

2019-09-28T07:52:04Z

NiceGuy1 at 10:21, 9 June 2017

2017-06-09T10:21:28Z

Tepples: World War IV is ongoing

2016-06-04T13:13:46Z

World War IV is ongoing

108.162.222.130 at 14:39, 1 June 2016

2016-06-01T14:39:20Z

Davidy22 at 07:38, 1 June 2016

2016-06-01T07:38:55Z

108.162.218.77 at 06:03, 1 June 2016

2016-06-01T06:03:00Z

108.162.218.77 at 05:55, 1 June 2016

2016-06-01T05:55:58Z

Phineas81707: /* Quote taken out of context */

2016-06-01T04:00:15Z

‎Quote taken out of context

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:26, 2 July 2024
Line 49:		Line 49:

	'''That did not age well'''. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.187\|172.69.33.187]] 17:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)		'''That did not age well'''. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.187\|172.69.33.187]] 17:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
		+	: '''''Seriously.''''' [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.191\|172.69.79.191]] 11:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 19 May 2022
Line 46:		Line 46:

	Does World War IV as "sticks and stones" prefigure the use of homemade weapons in the war against militant Islamists since the fourth quarter of 2001? In this interpretation, World War III was the Cold War, and [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-op-beinart9dec09-story.html World War IV is the ongoing War on Terror], first against the Taliban and al-Qaeda and then against ISIL. --[[User:Tepples\|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples\|talk]]) 13:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)		Does World War IV as "sticks and stones" prefigure the use of homemade weapons in the war against militant Islamists since the fourth quarter of 2001? In this interpretation, World War III was the Cold War, and [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-op-beinart9dec09-story.html World War IV is the ongoing War on Terror], first against the Taliban and al-Qaeda and then against ISIL. --[[User:Tepples\|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples\|talk]]) 13:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	'''That did not age well'''. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.187\|172.69.33.187]] 17:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:52, 28 September 2019
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Hey, Randall skipped World War XIII. --[[User:XndrK\|XndrK]] ([[User talk:XndrK\|talk]]) 04:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)		Hey, Randall skipped World War XIII. --[[User:XndrK\|XndrK]] ([[User talk:XndrK\|talk]]) 04:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
		+	:Of course! We couldn't have a World War XIII. The customers wouldn't go for it. XIII is an unlucky number.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.76\|162.158.38.76]] 07:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

	Maybe World War XIII is just sticks and stones again, considering XII? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.71\|173.245.56.71]] 05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)		Maybe World War XIII is just sticks and stones again, considering XII? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.71\|173.245.56.71]] 05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Comics released within the United State Memorial Day weekend. The unknown VIII-IX could reference Star Wars movies with their unknown scripts. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.15|141.101.98.15]]
 :I made this misreading too, but it's VIII-XI, and I do not know of that many star wars movies planned.  Could it be a final fantasy reference? --[[User:PsyMar|PsyMar]] ([[User talk:PsyMar|talk]]) 09:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-::When I was a kid in the early/mid 80s, I heard that Star Wars was originally written (before any movies were made) as a trilogy of trilogies. When I noticed Empire and Jedi as Chapter 5 & 6 (and when they were remasterd Star Wars being retitled A New Hope and numbered 4), this seemed confirmed. Then when the prequel trilogy was later made, this seemed doubly confirmed. So I think 9 movies is the most we'll ever see. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.77|108.162.218.77]] 06:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
+::When I was a kid in the early/mid 80s, I heard that Star Wars was originally written (before any movies were made) as a trilogy of trilogies. When I noticed Empire and Jedi as Chapter 5 & 6 (and when they were remasterd Star Wars being retitled A New Hope and numbered 4), this seemed confirmed. Then when the prequel trilogy was later made, this seemed doubly confirmed. So I think 9 movies is the most we'll ever see. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.77|108.162.218.77]] 06:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 10:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 That's how I took it (as Final Fantasy). I think this would be unprecedented for Randall, but hilarious if so - it certainly reads like a riff on the FF series wildly varying levels of technology and war. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.5|108.162.219.5]] 19:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 :I agree, that's what that block of text means, and that's part of the joke. The short, original quote is much stronger than the long version this comic offers, and quotes taken out of context have a different meaning that originally intended ("The end justifies the means", anyone?). You're invited to make it clearer, but I don't see the issue. [[User:Phineas81707|Phineas81707]] ([[User talk:Phineas81707|talk]]) 04:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
-Right now the reasoning of how this explanation is incomplete states "There seems to be more to this comic than so far explained. Maybe a reference to all the Star Wars movies now planned...?". I vehementally disagree. I am completely convinced that there is no reference present or intended to the Star Wars franchise. The closest connections are the Roman numerals (which were being used for the World Wars long before even the first Star Wars existed) and the mention of warring with lasers (when laser weapons have appeared in countless other fictional places, it is far from unique to Star Wars). I actually find the explanation complete as is. PLEASE stop bloating the explanations with a load of unrelated information! Save the over-analysis for the comment section (and don't get me wrong, I LOVE over-analysis, just that the explanations should stick to explaning the comic, nothing more). :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.77|108.162.218.77]] 05:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
+Right now the reasoning of how this explanation is incomplete states "There seems to be more to this comic than so far explained. Maybe a reference to all the Star Wars movies now planned...?". I vehementally disagree. I am completely convinced that there is no reference present or intended to the Star Wars franchise. The closest connections are the Roman numerals (which were being used for the World Wars long before even the first Star Wars existed) and the mention of warring with lasers (when laser weapons have appeared in countless other fictional places, it is far from unique to Star Wars). I actually find the explanation complete as is. PLEASE stop bloating the explanations with a load of unrelated information! Save the over-analysis for the comment section (and don't get me wrong, I LOVE over-analysis, just that the explanations should stick to explaning the comic, nothing more). :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.77|108.162.218.77]] 05:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC) This comment is also mine! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 10:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 One of my friends said that here's a plot hole: the term "LASER" first appears in public in a 1959 paper, but Albert Einstein died in 1955. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.130|108.162.222.130]] 14:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 Does World War IV as "sticks and stones" prefigure the use of homemade weapons in the war against militant Islamists since the fourth quarter of 2001? In this interpretation, World War III was the Cold War, and [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-op-beinart9dec09-story.html World War IV is the ongoing War on Terror], first against the Taliban and al-Qaeda and then against ISIL. --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 13:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 4 June 2016
Line 43:		Line 43:

	One of my friends said that here's a plot hole: the term "LASER" first appears in public in a 1959 paper, but Albert Einstein died in 1955. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.130\|108.162.222.130]] 14:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)		One of my friends said that here's a plot hole: the term "LASER" first appears in public in a 1959 paper, but Albert Einstein died in 1955. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.130\|108.162.222.130]] 14:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	Does World War IV as "sticks and stones" prefigure the use of homemade weapons in the war against militant Islamists since the fourth quarter of 2001? In this interpretation, World War III was the Cold War, and [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-op-beinart9dec09-story.html World War IV is the ongoing War on Terror], first against the Taliban and al-Qaeda and then against ISIL. --[[User:Tepples\|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples\|talk]]) 13:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:39, 1 June 2016
Line 41:		Line 41:

	Right now the reasoning of how this explanation is incomplete states "There seems to be more to this comic than so far explained. Maybe a reference to all the Star Wars movies now planned...?". I vehementally disagree. I am completely convinced that there is no reference present or intended to the Star Wars franchise. The closest connections are the Roman numerals (which were being used for the World Wars long before even the first Star Wars existed) and the mention of warring with lasers (when laser weapons have appeared in countless other fictional places, it is far from unique to Star Wars). I actually find the explanation complete as is. PLEASE stop bloating the explanations with a load of unrelated information! Save the over-analysis for the comment section (and don't get me wrong, I LOVE over-analysis, just that the explanations should stick to explaning the comic, nothing more). :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.77\|108.162.218.77]] 05:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)		Right now the reasoning of how this explanation is incomplete states "There seems to be more to this comic than so far explained. Maybe a reference to all the Star Wars movies now planned...?". I vehementally disagree. I am completely convinced that there is no reference present or intended to the Star Wars franchise. The closest connections are the Roman numerals (which were being used for the World Wars long before even the first Star Wars existed) and the mention of warring with lasers (when laser weapons have appeared in countless other fictional places, it is far from unique to Star Wars). I actually find the explanation complete as is. PLEASE stop bloating the explanations with a load of unrelated information! Save the over-analysis for the comment section (and don't get me wrong, I LOVE over-analysis, just that the explanations should stick to explaning the comic, nothing more). :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.77\|108.162.218.77]] 05:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	One of my friends said that here's a plot hole: the term "LASER" first appears in public in a 1959 paper, but Albert Einstein died in 1955. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.130\|108.162.222.130]] 14:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 :How is it harder to read? It is the standard to let the transcript reflect the comic with colors etc. See for instance: [[1168: tar]], [[1685: Patch]] and [[1684: Rainbow]]. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-== Quote taken out of context ==
+;Quote taken out of context
 The current text says: "He implies that this is actually a full quote by Einstein and that all other occurrences using only the "original" version of this quote are misrepresenting it. In this particular case it is a much stronger quote than the long version from the comic, but it is often the case that quotes taken out of context seem to have an entirely different meaning than originally intended." I completely disagree.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:55, 1 June 2016
Line 38:		Line 38:

	:I agree, that's what that block of text means, and that's part of the joke. The short, original quote is much stronger than the long version this comic offers, and quotes taken out of context have a different meaning that originally intended ("The end justifies the means", anyone?). You're invited to make it clearer, but I don't see the issue. [[User:Phineas81707\|Phineas81707]] ([[User talk:Phineas81707\|talk]]) 04:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)		:I agree, that's what that block of text means, and that's part of the joke. The short, original quote is much stronger than the long version this comic offers, and quotes taken out of context have a different meaning that originally intended ("The end justifies the means", anyone?). You're invited to make it clearer, but I don't see the issue. [[User:Phineas81707\|Phineas81707]] ([[User talk:Phineas81707\|talk]]) 04:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	Right now the reasoning of how this explanation is incomplete states "There seems to be more to this comic than so far explained. Maybe a reference to all the Star Wars movies now planned...?". I vehementally disagree. I am completely convinced that there is no reference present or intended to the Star Wars franchise. The closest connections are the Roman numerals (which were being used for the World Wars long before even the first Star Wars existed) and the mention of warring with lasers (when laser weapons have appeared in countless other fictional places, it is far from unique to Star Wars). I actually find the explanation complete as is. PLEASE stop bloating the explanations with a load of unrelated information! Save the over-analysis for the comment section (and don't get me wrong, I LOVE over-analysis, just that the explanations should stick to explaning the comic, nothing more). :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.77\|108.162.218.77]] 05:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:00, 1 June 2016
Line 36:		Line 36:

	In other words, lengthening the quote ''does'' change it to an entirely different meaning than originally intended. The original meant, "Hey, be careful!" The lengthened quote simply means, "I think I'm Nostradamus!" [[User:Jsharpminor\|Jsharpminor]] ([[User talk:Jsharpminor\|talk]]) 00:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)		In other words, lengthening the quote ''does'' change it to an entirely different meaning than originally intended. The original meant, "Hey, be careful!" The lengthened quote simply means, "I think I'm Nostradamus!" [[User:Jsharpminor\|Jsharpminor]] ([[User talk:Jsharpminor\|talk]]) 00:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I agree, that's what that block of text means, and that's part of the joke. The short, original quote is much stronger than the long version this comic offers, and quotes taken out of context have a different meaning that originally intended ("The end justifies the means", anyone?). You're invited to make it clearer, but I don't see the issue. [[User:Phineas81707\|Phineas81707]] ([[User talk:Phineas81707\|talk]]) 04:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)