Talk:302: Names

The explanation of the title text doesn't appear to be about the title text, more like the second paragraph seems to be the title-text-explanation (a very good one at that). Anybody thinks so too? 141.101.97.215 10:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes.--199.27.130.222 14:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. I've removed the line explaining the title text. Codefreak5 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that the comic is a reference to the season 4 finale of the tv show Friends, where the groom accidentally calls his fiancé Rachel during the wedding, instead of her actual name, Emily. 108.162.219.188 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Name "Rachel" could just be a coincidence. I myself was reminded of the plot line in "The Junior Mint" episode of Seinfeld where Jerry forgets his girlfriend's name (Mulva/Dolores) and tries to find it out without letting on he forgot it. 108.162.237.190 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

This is perfect; I know exactly how he feels! To busy trying to think of what to say to actually catch the persons name, then by the time I realize, it's too late to ask without embarrassment! 108.162.218.118 05:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I had sex for the first time with a regular at the Waffle House where I was cooking. I had just gotten off shift (thus syntactically avoiding a pun), and she was like "so, wanna have sex?" and I was like "hey sure, sounds fun". I knew her name started with a Pa-, so it was probably either Pam or Pat. I called her Pa[mumble] for some time. Turned out her name was Pam. So I would give her the label off the diner's non-stick spray when she stopped in for eating. — Kazvorpal (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed that this SMBC from four years before the above comic has the same joke, albeit not executed quite as well. It seems possible that Randall had read this at some point and forgotten about it, but also fairly likely that they each arrived at the joke independently. 172.68.132.203 06:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The Transcript says: "[Next to Cueball's foot is an unknown object.]", but looking at the last panel, I thin we can safely assume that it's the wedding dress, so I'll be changing it. -- R3TRI8UTI0N (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2024 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I modified it back a bit to how it was. Viewers (and therefore readers of the Transcript, by extension) are clearly not expected to know what will be revealed, before they properly focus upon the next panel('s Transcripted description). This seems a key part of the composition (otherwise, it could have been just not fractionally drawn in at this point), so it hurts the faithfulness of the Transcript to have too much information in such a case, ironically... It already is clarified in the continuing description, to reflect how the comic image clarifies it 'later' (and I have no reason to doubt that it is the dress, once retrospectively comprehending the scene), so it's not like there was even a lack of visuality-to-prose in this regard.

I would have been compelled to remove the blatant restating, to some degree, otherwise. e.g. "An object, that is a wedding gown, can be partly seen", say, then "...at the altar with the woman in the gown". It is a clumsy and repeating description, otherwise. 172.70.85.162 05:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)