| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| | This is an odd one, because Emily presented two alternatives, both of the same length. Both choices would have retained the pattern.--[[Special:Contributions/46.142.61.98|46.142.61.98]] 09:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)madd | | This is an odd one, because Emily presented two alternatives, both of the same length. Both choices would have retained the pattern.--[[Special:Contributions/46.142.61.98|46.142.61.98]] 09:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)madd |
| | | | |
| − | :No it isn't - 'rob' is two characters shorter than 'emily', so his answers have two be two characters longer. So Emily's answers won't do. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
| + | No it isn't - 'rob' is two characters shorter than 'emily', so his answers have two be two characters longer. So Emily's answers won't do. [[User:Kaa-ching|Kaa-ching]] ([[User talk:Kaa-ching|talk]]) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC) |
| | | | |
| − | ::Nope. 'for real' and 'just sex' (assuming the use of a monospace font, which appears to be the case) are the same length. As 'definitely just sex' allows the lines to match up, 'definitely for real' should also. -- 22:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
| + | Nope. 'for real' and 'just sex' (assuming the use of a monospace font, which appears to be the case) are the same length. As 'definitely just sex' allows the lines to match up, 'definitely for real' should also. -- 22:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC) |
| − | | |
| − | :::This is because 'for real' and 'just sex' are both being said by Rob to complete his 19-character message. All of Emily's messages are 17 characters long, because her name is two shorter. [[Special:Contributions/101.162.138.9|101.162.138.9]] 17:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :...other alternatives:
| |
| − | Just sex?Ridiculous
| |
| − | Justsex?Ridiculous!
| |
| − | Just sex? No way!!!
| |
| − | This isn't just sex
| |
| − | This is for serious
| |
| − | I want to marry you
| |
| − | This is not for sex
| |
| − | :[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | I don't understand this statement: "Rob then attempts to justify what he said which, possibly by design, is the normal text alignment for making text being even on both the left and right sides of a page." Does it need clarifying, or am I just confused? [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 22:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::He's referring to the implied pun on the word "justified", which can mean "done for a good or legitimate reason" or "having been adjusted so that print forms a straight line on one or both margins." I'll clarify it. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 13:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | The "alternative replies" suggested above are hilarious because they betray that their suggesters probably can't relate to compulsions well. To begin with, they begin with capital letters, while the comic lines don't! This is inconsistency. And then, they include trailing punctuation, repeated punctuation, spacing mistakes... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.225|141.101.89.225]] 18:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Maybe it's not worth mentioning, Rob doesn't start the conversation intending to synch line-lengths. His first comment "<rob> hi" is the same length as "<emily> ", so she can't possibly reply with the same length. His second comment is conversational too, but his third is probably lined up on purpose. I figure it's also worth noting to alternative-seekers, especially if he was compulsively making the line lengths match, he probably didn't give himself very much time to reply, and "definitely just sex" was the first thing that came to mind. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 17:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Here a few ways that could've worked out well, or at least better (all appended together to make easier to see the alignment) :
| |
| − | <rob> hi
| |
| − | <emily> hey you
| |
| − | <rob> last night was nice
| |
| − | <emily> the best i've had
| |
| − | <rob> yeah it was AMAZING
| |
| − | <emily> ok, i have to ask
| |
| − | <emily> is this for real?
| |
| − | <emily> or is it just sex
| |
| − | <rob> em, it is for real!
| |
| − | <rob> as real as it gets!
| |
| − | <rob> it is more than sex
| |
| − | <rob> i think i'm in love
| |
| − | <rob> definitely in love!
| |
| − | <rob> love is undeniable!
| |
| − | <rob> i heart you verily!
| |
| − | <rob> i want you forever!
| |
| − | <rob> i want your babies!
| |
| − | <rob> please don't leave!
| |
| − | <rob> love is in the air!
| |
| − | <rob> you and me, wedding
| |
| − | <rob> sex good, love more
| |
| − | <rob> justifiably in love
| |
| − | | |
| − | I could think of more, but I got bored. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.213|108.162.212.213]] 05:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | This is a parody of the game Emily is away[[Special:Contributions/141.101.66.59|141.101.66.59]] 13:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
| |
| − | :It was released THREE YEARS after the comic. [[User:Sobsz|Sobsz]] ([[User talk:Sobsz|talk]]) 16:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::In which case, I suggest that the reverse is true instead. "Emily is away", is a parody or an extension of the idea in this comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.107|162.158.74.107]] 17:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
| |
| − | :"141.101.66.59 is away" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.55|162.158.187.55]] 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
| |
