Talk:1471: Gut Fauna

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 10:44, 12 January 2015 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

I think this comic also contains a pun on macrobiotics. Esp. the wording "out of balance" seems to be a reference to esoteric speech. Knob creek (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In fairy tales (most notably in little red riding hood), the wolf swallows whole its (human) victims. The comic depics an inversion of roles. Do you think it's worth adding this observation in the explanation? (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

That's what I took it to mean too, the two options being he swallows the wolf or the wolf swallows him. 12:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Another pun might be on the name of a restaurant in Seattle: [How to Cook a Wolf] Araucaria (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That's so extremely obscure that thinking it intended is difficult. - Equinox 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Is a citation really needed?

I think that requiring a citation for the lethality of administering a wolf via the mouth or rectum may be going just a bit too far? Reference in the Change history Pmw57 (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume that this is a humorous comment, similar to the citation needed tags in the What-if articles. 12:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Good point, could be a joking reference to xkcd #285 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I know an old lady who swallowed a... 13:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC) --RenniePet (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Ponytail actually a Doctor? If you take the lessone from what can be done in 699 - Trimester, and buy a labcoat... RedHillian (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"animals are never found in the human digestive system; all known cases of animals in a human digestive system are causes of disease.)" Technically, couldn't it also be the result of one's choice of food? Admittedly a temporary state of affairs, but there are certainly dishes involving live food. Squornshellous Beta (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Or for pleasure? 17:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Point(s) taken. I'll make a minor change to fix Djbrasier (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I can't get the wording right. Happy to have someone rewrite it to include temporary residence of live organisms in the case of some foods and (apocryphal) tales of gerbilling, etc. Djbrasier (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Poor dog. 06:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm having a really, really hard time imagining what kind of discussion Randall was involved in that led to his thought processes ending up producing the result we see here. --RenniePet (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny nickname in this context, RenniePet. (btw. Does "inwolved" make any sense here?) 10:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

“However, either way would prove both physically impossible and potentially lethal.” ... Potentially lethal? You mean, there is actually a chance to survive swallowing a wolf? -- 22:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the research of the Grimm Brothers, Randall has it all wrong. Wolves do not live in the stomach of people, people live in the stomachs of Wolves. For example, a big bad wolf might told to take two humans and call the doctor in the morning. ((Dan Loeb - 9:24pm ET, 11 January 2015))