Talk:1368: One Of The

There's a set of golden arches at Jefferson and Russell, Arguably more identifiable. 173.245.54.36 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

If you are talking about the McDonald's arches, then well played, sir, well played. Definitely more identifiable. --Dangerkeith3000 (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, any specific set of McDonald's arches isn't very identifiable. One tends to look like any other. --Aaron of Mpls (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Reporters on television and in other media try to only make statements they can verify in fact" Seriously??? Maybe once, but not now. The point of this cartoon is largely that reporters are hedging their bets on what's a fact. When you have prominent reporters like Chuck Todd (one of the most prominent reporters on TV) saying "not his job" to report factual information but merely to repeat what politicians have said, or everyone on Fox "News" basically ignoring facts in favor of ideology, claiming reporters try to speak only facts is not supported by demonstrable facts. 199.27.128.84 16:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe it's because of the liability reporters face for reporting even errors made by the police. | Keith Todd or Todd Keith. Pallas (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"In the complaint, Todd alleges that Eastpointe Police "incorrectly researched" databases and sent the wrong photo, name and information to the network." Sounds like the blame is really with the police, not the network. 199.27.128.84 16:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In a lawsuit filed last week in Wayne County Circuit Court, Todd said a snafu incorrectly naming him as the suspect in the “Caught on Camera” program has caused him humiliation, loss of employment and other misery. He’s asking NBC Universal, the Eastpointe Police Department and A One Limousine, to pay an unspecified amount of damages. Pallas (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That's generalising. How about: "Seriously??? Maybe once, but not now. The point of this cartoon is largely that US reporters are hedging their bets on what's a fact. When you have prominent US reporters like Chuck Todd (one of the most prominent reporters on US TV) saying "not his job" to report factual information but merely to repeat what US politicians have said, or everyone on US branch of Fox "News" basically ignoring facts in favor of ideology, claiming US reporters try to speak only facts is not supported by demonstrable facts.

I know it's not really part of the joke, but should the explanation say who the reporter is talking about? Who designed the Gateway arch? I'm curious now.108.162.219.7 02:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Gateway Arch was designed by Finnish-American architect Eero Saarinen and German-American structural engineer Hannskarl Bandel in 1947. As stated on the wikipedia page already linked from explanation. -- Hkmaly (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that the UK celebrates Mothering Sunday on the fourth Sunday in Lent as if it was Mother's Day. --141.101.89.217 10:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The explanation text misses the fact that stating "one of the world's greatest moms" is hardly perceived as an actual compliment by the recipient. Ralfoide (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Done - also added an explain and a wiki link to pet peeve - something not explained so far. Kynde (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Randall misunderstands the practice - he's just pretending that to make a joke. -- Hkmaly (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That is for sure true. I did not write it like that and have now corrected it acordingly Kynde (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you really think "Randall does not misunderstand anything" (from the history-edit explanation) and so any inaccuracy must be understood as a deliberate part of the joke? Even if the inaccuracy is about a matter outside of his field of expertise and is unnecessary to the joke? Maybe you're right in this case, but I doubt Randall himself would claim to be infallible. Cs7 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No so much a real discussion item, but this is "One of the most useful Explain XKCDs out there"... 199.27.128.121 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)