Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[robot_roll_call]

Why do I need to start all the map threads around here?

Also, I don't see The Smoke on the listing there. Hmm.

[V-Adore]

You know, I looked for the teppanyaki place? And it was there. I've never felt so smug and so geekly before, at least not at this time in the morning.

Also, the "no dogs" thing is more clearly enunciated here. Is there any particular reason why dogs appear to be the only non-sentient wee fuzzy animals? One wonders.

EDIT: I suspect the Smoke is underground even by Underground standards. This also only appears to be the "suburby" bits of it; there's probably further grottiness deeper down.

And does Philippe ever go to school? I mean, there's a K-8. He's five. It was mentioned he was starting. Does he? OH SNAP, A DANGLING PLOT THREAD

[jough]

Oh man, the legend makes the earlier map worthwhile.

Onstad shows me again how much I'm missing out on - with SCIENCE.

Nicely played, old friend, nicely played.

[arkabee]

Also, the "no dogs" thing is more clearly enunciated here. Is there any particular reason why dogs appear to be the only non-sentient wee fuzzy animals? One wonders.

As much as i love most dogs, i've never met another domesticated animal type that eats its own poop.

[Franz.]

Also, the "no dogs" thing is more clearly enunciated here. Is there any particular reason why dogs appear to be the only non-sentient wee fuzzy animals? One wonders.

I'll bet that they actually are sentient, but there's a massive prejudice against them among the Underground community. In the Underground future, I envision a civil rights movement, with dogs marching on the Underground manhole covers &c. I think we are in the early days of canine integration.

[ Franz. ]

[AugustWest]

Dachshunds!

[PinkStainlessTail]

Cute. I still think The Underground concept is stupid though.

HEY IN BLOOM COUNTY WHY COULD THE ANIMALS TALK AND RUN FOR PRESDINT IN THE HUMAN WORLD THEY SHOULD HALF TO GO TO SPECIAL ANIMAL WORLD AND RUN FOR ANIMAL PRESDINT!!!1!!

[Golfhaus]

I don't know... I like the concept of the Underground. It explains the lack of a lot of non-Onstad human interaction, while at the same time making it less like Garfield.

I still don't understand how the cats can live in houses above ground. It's obvious that the animals are trying to keep their culture - nay, their sentience - hidden, and yet they appear to live (in an earlier map) in houses that belong to them.

Unless... unless Ray is squatting in some billionaire's mansion that the old guy forgot he even had?

[CortJstr]

Unless... unless Ray is squatting in some billionaire's mansion that the old guy forgot he even had?

I know at one point Ray was "missing" and there were fliers up for him from human owners but that's the last we heard from them.

And the map makers need to get with the program, don't they know BankOne was bought by Chase? But at least Under##### Time is still open. Otherwise Beef would be even more depressed.

[Gimpson]

I would also like to point out that it is lunchtime, I am hungry, and I really wish I could eat lunch at the Chili Pepper Lunch Company.

[V-Adore]

Unless... unless Ray is squatting in some billionaire's mansion that the old guy forgot he even had?

I know at one point Ray was "missing" and there were fliers up for him from human owners but that's the last we heard from them.

Yeah, there seems to have been a gradual change -- Ray originally had human owners, and the main house's crew had to jump through hoops in human society to get anything done. (Remember the old strips about attempting to order pizza and failing? Hell, remember the "attempting to steal the pizza guy's car" strip?) But gradually things have become more alive-stuffed-animal- and cat-friendly, apparently; note that a gonzo porn outfit friendly to alive stuffed animals moved in across from the Onstads, for example.

I think this may be Onstad's way of telling us that introspection and universe analysis is desperately overrated. But hey -- if massive incongruities and shifting continuity didn't dissuade Doctor Who fans, it won't dissuade me.

[miles]

Also, the "no dogs" thing is more clearly enunciated here. Is there any particular reason why dogs appear to be the only non-sentient wee fuzzy animals? One wonders.

It's obvious that the animals are trying to keep their culture - nay, their sentience - hidden, and yet they appear to live (in an earlier map) in houses that belong to them.

Wait a minute--it seems that the idea of consciousness in non-human animals has been denied here.  Do both of you really believe that non-human animals aren't sentient beings?  You're in good company, I guess, with Descartes, but it seems that most people today accept the idea of sentience in at least some animals (cats, dogs and other mammals, at least).

Unless you were just referring to the alive stuffed animals, who indeed have tried to hide their sentience from early on.

This is what happens when you are reading the message board and a paper on environmental ethics at the same time.  I apologize.

[jough]

I like it when the animals in the pictures do funny things.

[V-Adore]

Also, the "no dogs" thing is more clearly enunciated here. Is there any particular reason why dogs appear to be the only non-sentient wee fuzzy animals? One wonders.

It's obvious that the animals are trying to keep their culture - nay, their sentience - hidden, and yet they appear to live (in an earlier map) in houses that belong to them.

Wait a minute--it seems that the idea of consciousness in non-human animals has been denied here.  Do both of you really believe that non-human animals aren't sentient beings?  You're in good company, I guess, with Descartes, but it seems that most people today accept the idea of sentience in at least some animals (cats, dogs and other mammals, at least).

Unless you were just referring to the alive stuffed animals, who indeed have tried to hide their sentience from early on.

This is what happens when you are reading the message board and a paper on environmental ethics at the same time.  I apologize.

Well, uh... that really depends what you mean by "sentience." I was referring to it in terms of "human-like": i.e., capable of speech, wearing clothes, bipedalism, eating a hamburger properly, etc. I mean, even the rabbits have a public health system, but Achewood dogs don't appear capable of that. (Although, admittedly, Scrambles could talk...)

I don't want to get into a semantics war, but you appear to be using "sentience" in the way that most ethologists would use "consciousness" and other similar terms. There are certainly claims that animals (from pigs to octopi) are conscious, but it's hard to prove experimentally... but sentient is another question entirely. Anyway. Enough of this.

[wombat]

Who is Vincent J. Lemoni?