La Cucaracha by Lalo Alcaraz for November 06, 2014

Come again?

Also, it’s best to avoid driving around Dallas in a convertible;brain matter is difficult to get off the upholstery

took me a second to get it, but definitely funny.

Yes, but now that the election is over, there’s no need for Ebola panic to try to sway ignorant voters. They’ll need to come up with a new panic to control us.

Find an obscure, out-of-date reference that has to be looked up and try to make it into a joke that sounds as though a kid made it up, and hope it flies because it’s part of a week-long series of the same.

Trouble for your argument is, many of us got it, even if we had to think for a second.

ebola is old news

First, you need to think back two weeks. Was Ebola old news then? That’s when these strips have to be filed.

Second, it’s obviously not old news. Just put “Ebola Dallas” into the ol’ search engine and you’ll come up with news stories posted in mainstream sources today. Not to mention that Obama’s just called for over $6 billion in funding to fight the disease.

And what this strip is addressing is not the disease itself, but the ongoing panic about this disease, which has even been demonstrated right here in this strip’s forums.

Long story short, you’re wrong on just about everything you’ve written today.

And I’ll bet, if she were honest, she had to look it up, not just “think” about it for a second.

You’d lose that bet. So, how much? $5? $10?

—Well, which is it?

It’s both. Two arguments, both of which are valid.

The New Agrestic would have written something like, I take issue with your comments today.

Nope. If your comments are wrong, I’ll still tell you they’re wrong. If you said 2+2=5, I wouldn’t “take issue,” I’d say your math is wrong.

_And according to her argument, does Obama want $6 billion to fight the ongoing panic about the disease? _

You’ve read what I’ve written in a very twisted way, and then used your rhetorical tool of posing a question to get around saying what you actually think. So, again, two different arguments, both of which are valid. Obama has indeed called for <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/obama-seeks-6-billion-ebola-fight-n242181>$6 billion to fight the disease. (Though it’s also possible to argue that by containing the disease you also help to contain the panic.) And the fact that Ebola is still in the news, and that people are still panicking about it, means that both your original points are invalid. It’s not old news, and this strip is addressing the panic.

Here’s a shorter story – It is against her nature to change.

I’m getting the sense you miss the “old agrestic.” I’m also curious whether you have the capacity to change, yourself. You of course never said you would. I’m simply curious whether you’d be able to. What do you think? Yes, you’d be able to? No, you wouldn’t?

I’m curious as to what you characterize as “lashing out.” The fact that I said what you wrote was wrong? The fact that I said you’d lose a bet you proposed? I’ve not written anything out of anger, so really, I’m very curious.

What I read is you getting angry and agitated that someone would write in disagreement with you. And then projecting that anger onto, in this case, me. You use words like minions, desperately, dirty work, ranting. How would you back that (inflammatory) language up? Are you simply using it to try to push buttons? I’m also curious what you find particularly inflammatory about today’s strip.

OMG! yes very funny!

Mm-hm, mm-hm. In terms of right/wrong: I gave hard evidence that showed you were wrong. That’s what happens during rational debate. And if the facts don’t fall on your side, well, that’s generally a signal you might need to amend your views.

As far as asking questions, that’s how folks tend to find things out, gather further evidence, etc. To be right about one thing, or even about a whole series of things, does not mean that one knows everything. And thus, a person who would like to learn more about their world, their fellow human beings, etc., will ask questions that they generally would like to know more about. Do you really think that, say, scientists become successful by deciding since they were right about some hypothesis or other, they’ll just stop asking more questions?

And thus I’ve been asking you questions that I’d generally be interested to hear your answers to. You’re obviously not obligated to answer them, but I’ll still ask them.

And in that spirit I ask, why use language such as “minions”, “desperately”, “dirty work”, “ranting”, and “lash out”, if you don’t in some way feel agitated by the discussion here? What’s the thinking behind it? I’m also curious what you’re generally curious about. Even as you said you’re curious, you didn’t pose any questions that you’d actually like to know about. So, what might those be?

Here’s a comment -Brevity is the soul of commenting.

Why is that? Me, I disagree with that comment. (I know, big surprise there.) Sometimes a brief comment is great, and sometimes what’s called for is more than a soundbite. But if you really do value brevity in commenting, how does that make you feel about your own long posts?

So are you now saying I do make you angry, or agitated, or something similar? And maybe that Lalo does too? It’s interesting to me that you think I write the same thing over and over. Where’s your evidence for that? And what would you say to the many people who don’t think Lalo’s product is poor? Are you saying we’re wrong and you’re right? If so, how would you back that up?

Somewhere along the line my early comment got deleted…makes one wonder why…