Page 1 of 1

[2014-05-04] Sad Baby

Posted: Mon May 05, 2014 6:36 pm
by Quentin

Re: [2014-05-04] Sad Baby

Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:25 am
by Guest
Eh... unless that's just a sig, I don't really see it. The ones linked to below are both similar to each other in that they both have to do with object permanence. This one is about a baby waxing philosophical. It's kind of a theme, but I wouldn't call it the same. The baby's thoughts don't even have anything to do with the game the Dad's playing this time (unless I missed something). Like I said, you can group it into a them of babies having deep thoughts or something like that, but it's not the same exact joke. Unless you read the joke in all 3 cases as "ha! ha! babies can't have grown up thoughts!" Come to think of it... that may not be an invalid interpretation.... :(

Re: [2014-05-04] Sad Baby

Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 8:57 am
by Epoch Four
Quentin is actually a baby and is offended by Zach's representation of babies.

Re: [2014-05-04] Sad Baby

Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 12:01 pm
by Kimra
It's only because they're homobabies and not aimed at him.

Re: [2014-05-04] Sad Baby

Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 12:39 pm
by Matt
I wouldn't call this so much a "joke" as a "crippling realization of existential horror".

Re: [2014-05-04] Sad Baby

Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 3:06 pm
by Quentin
Kimra wrote:It's only because they're homobabies and not aimed at him.
why are you so obsessed with me?

Re: [2014-05-04] Sad Baby

Posted: Tue May 06, 2014 4:33 pm
by Michele-Michel
Kimra wrote:homobabies
Is that like Muppet Babies? I remember when that cartoon was on the air.

Re: [2014-05-04] Sad Baby

Posted: Thu May 08, 2014 4:06 pm
by niahinti
He's not a baby though, he's clearly a banjo.
It's even stated right there in the comic. did you not read it?