Editing Talk:1881: Drone Training
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
I always though that it was to be taken away because it didn’t have a collar on, to which Black Hat will explain that it’s white hat’s fault. | I always though that it was to be taken away because it didn’t have a collar on, to which Black Hat will explain that it’s white hat’s fault. | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
== Mitchell and Webb == | == Mitchell and Webb == | ||
I feel strongly that the comic is a reference to the "The Mitchell and Webb look" episode "Poison" (can be found on YouTube) in which a man comes into a series of stores increasingly unlikely to find things that can kill, hurt or maim people, yet still persists in trying to attain such a thing from the store's owner. It is implied that he wants to use what he buys in order to get rid of his wife, with whom he seems to have had a falling-out. Should I include the possibility of a reference in the comic's explanation? | I feel strongly that the comic is a reference to the "The Mitchell and Webb look" episode "Poison" (can be found on YouTube) in which a man comes into a series of stores increasingly unlikely to find things that can kill, hurt or maim people, yet still persists in trying to attain such a thing from the store's owner. It is implied that he wants to use what he buys in order to get rid of his wife, with whom he seems to have had a falling-out. Should I include the possibility of a reference in the comic's explanation? | ||
− | |||
− |