ah've always thought it was integral to the character, and assumed that the early reference to his neutering was canonical and accepted
but apparently lots of people here figure that it's just one of those typical onstad discarded plot elements, like basically the entire first few months of the strip
ah s'pose it could be something that's deliberately left ambiguous, sort of like hobbes' real/unreal nature in C&H except less ontological and more bozackological or whatever, i dunno. is there a clear consensus here on the question? lahk, definitely the strip in question (
http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=01212002) can be seen different ways, esp. w/ the alt-text
anyway, ah always thought that it was part of the point of the character - it adds poignance to ray, what with the compensatory boning and all that
so, enlahten me - what exactly is the deal here
should this be in the FAQ or something
*rocks sweetly*