Difference between revisions of "Talk:1261: Shake That"
(I hope so...) |
|||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
This explanation makes me so happy. Make an account, anonymous user at IP 220.224.246.97 and come collect your praise for such a great explanation! --[[User:Jeff|<b><font color="orange">Jeff</font></b>]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC) | This explanation makes me so happy. Make an account, anonymous user at IP 220.224.246.97 and come collect your praise for such a great explanation! --[[User:Jeff|<b><font color="orange">Jeff</font></b>]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
− | Perhaps the XKCD website was hacked? | + | Perhaps the XKCD website was hacked? {{unsigned ip|88.174.225.205}} |
Revision as of 18:34, 6 September 2013
Worst xkcd Ever! 78.55.145.25 08:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, it's not the worst xkcd ever. What about the early xkcd strips, where most of them were just sketches or drawings? GameZone (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Surely "Worst. xkcd. Ever!" No? Turning to the explanation, I like the phase lag explanation. Never thought of sexual exhibitionism in those terms before.--203.166.249.26 08:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hugely impressed by the explanation. I would never have thought you could write so much about such a dry comic. --Mynotoar (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This explanation makes me so happy. Make an account, anonymous user at IP 220.224.246.97 and come collect your praise for such a great explanation! --Jeff (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the XKCD website was hacked? 88.174.225.205 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)