Recent Comments

1. about 5 years ago on Luann

   The period of English which is purportedly represented is neither Old English nor Middle English. It is Early Modern English. And as addressed above, it is not accurate Early Modern English. It is, however, a spot on representation of the pseudo archaic English used by many people who attend Ren Fairs. At least the nonexistent article ‘ye’ has not yet made an appearance.

2. almost 7 years ago on Luann

   “I recall that day’s strip….he was walking away, ostensibly taking out the trash, whistling. With a smug, knowing look on his smug face! While the lunch truck goes up in flames.”

   Your recollection is accurate regarding the events but faulty as to TJ’s expressions and reaction. Here is the strip in question: http://www.gocomics.com/luann/2014/08/01?ct=v&cti=2008715

   TJ looks more tired than smug, and he certainly is not whistling. Further, he appears to be surprised by the explosion. Even the next day’s strip, when a bystander expressed the hope that he has insurance, does not show TJ with his characteristics grin in full force (it appears more strained than his normal look). It is not until the following Monday, when he is talking to Brad, that he looks his normal self.

3. over 7 years ago on Luann

   The notion of ‘proper’ with respect to language usage is every bit as intellectually bankrupt as the notion of ‘slang’. The better measure is appropriateness for the given audience, and even that is a matter of tendency rather than rule.

4. over 7 years ago on Luann

   ‘Slang’ is an intellectually bankrupt concept.

5. over 7 years ago on Luann

   Well, I will be the linguistics cop and point out that language change is an inexorable force, one not lessened by such as force of law, literacy rates, the rise of so-called usage experts, or even the pedantry of online commentators. The notions of what usages are considered ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ are nebulous vagaries that solidify into supposed rule for naught but fleeting moments in time, more fleeting even than the span of one’s years in this world, then reform into new, different, but equally transient, usage trends. The meaningful measure of language usage is communicative efficacy, and as the usage of ‘nauseous’ so unnecessarily decried above is not only fully understandable, but of appropriate stylistic measure for this forum (the use of ‘nauseated’ in its stead likely would have seemed overly formal), said usage is appropriate.

   Or put another way, shift happens. ;-)

6. over 7 years ago on Luann

   The bowling alley is not responsible for Jack’s behavior (no action or inaction of the business is the legal or proximate cause of the injury), so their liability insurance would only cover the actions or the unreasonable inaction of the bowling alley or its employees. Jack might be liable if his acts were negligent (which is dubious with regard to the act that caused the injury, although it is likely some of his prior acts would be had they caused injury), but he alone would be liable.

7. over 7 years ago on Luann

   I saw several comments about insurance yesterday and now this one today. These comments have made me curious about something — what type of insurance do you all think that Jack would have that would cover Luann’s injuries? Personal medical insurance does not provide liability coverage for the injury of other parties. For most individuals, the only types of personal liability insurance carried are automobile and homeowners/renters insurance (which may or may not cover injuries to others). And even if Jack had either of these types of personal liability insurance, they certainly would not cover liability in this situation.

   The second aspect of this particular comment that I find fascinating is the misunderstanding that the family of a person of the age of majority would have a cause of action for medical expenses against someone who injured that person. Even if parents provide health insurance for their qualifying adult offspring, such parents would not have a cause of action for medical expenses against someone who injured that adult offspring. The adult offspring might have a cause of action, and the insurance company might have a cause of action, but the parents would not in such a situation. Parents may have a cause of action for medical expenses if minor children are injured, but this is because parents are responsible for providing payment for medical expenses for their minor children. The parents of an adult, even one covered under the parents’ insurance plan, are not responsible for the medical expenses (copay, co-insurance, etc.) of that adult offspring unless they agree to be responsible parties. As such, they would have no viable cause of action for recovering such expenses, even if they paid them, as they were under no legal obligation to do so absent their own consent.

8. over 8 years ago on [Deleted]

   “It is interesting, isn’t it, to think of the skill that goes into getting the wording and appearances so that they can have multiple interpretations with each a valid one, depending on the perceiver?”

   I agree. That is one of the reasons I have always loved discussing literature.

9. over 8 years ago on [Deleted]

   “I saw that second panel more as Gunther pulling a face about Tiffany since that was the question he was answering…”I did not interpret his look that way at all. I interpreted it as a reaction to Bernice asking about Tiffany rather than a reaction toward Tiffany as the person being discussed. As such, he is showing his annoyance with Bernice – the person at whom he is looking – for once again brining up Tiffany when Gunther was hoping to focus on Bernice and himself. Further, I see it as growth (albeit not much) that he is just looking annoyed instead of becoming angry, as he did on the prior two occasions. I did go back and try to look at the second panel the way you did, but I just do not see it as a slight on Tiffany. At most, it may be a callous disregard, but I think it is more just that he is unhappy that Bernice has brought up the subject.

10. over 8 years ago on Luann

    “Gunther’s comment suggests that he knows something Bernice doesn’t… some trick on Tiff’s part to create low turnout.”

    Alternatively, it could be Gunther being sympathetic following Bernice’s prior comment about waiting, which he may have correctly interpreted as evincing disappointment (even if he is not aware of the specific reason for her disappointment). As this explanation fits the actual textual evidence from the strip more than the idea that he is in on a plot, it is the better interpretation unless/until additional evidence becomes available.