676: Good Effort

link:
http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2009/12/comic-676-wasted-effort.html

The xkcd sucks comic was hilarious. More of this!

661: Learning from xkcd sucks

link:
http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2009/11/well-once-again-we-learn-that-xkcd-is.html

Kudos to xkcd sucks for this one. They point out the true flaws in the strip, suggest an alternative thats far superior. And on top of that they point out the curious fact that all the smarter / better characters in xkcd are women. And the whole editing post was great too. This is what I come to the site for.

619: What the hell is this

link:
http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2009/08/comic-619-rob-has-abandoned-me.html

I don't care about all this. Just write about the comics, ok? Maybe there is something about the comic somewhere, but Im sure as hell not reading all that confusing stuff to find out.

616: Get a head, Carl

link:
http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2009/07/comic-616-get-out-of-my-head-batman.html

This comic was quite funny. I don't care if you can't identify with this personally, the punchline is still a joke. xkcd sucks sucks.

450: Penis, lame

link:
http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2008/07/comic-450.html

Once, again you fail as a critic. You fail to point out the completely obvious, and very artistically relevant criticism: Randall has a small penis.

As evidenced by:

1. He wants people to shut up about his penis size: http://xkcd.com/194/

2. He thinks the average penis is a mere 14 cm long. http://xkcd.com/526/

3. He is obsessed with giving oral sex. Obvious compensation.

4. Well, this comic.

Why I pick on Carl

link:
http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-i-pick-on-randall.html

This post was just lame. You pick on Randall because his comic is not so good anymore, but people still think it is. And this makes him keep writing comics 3 days a week, even though he doesn't have that many ideas. Who cares if he has no thematical limits. Im not sure if that is even an advantage at all.

561: We've seen this shitty critique before

link:
http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2009/03/comic-561-weve-seen-this-shit-before.html

Ok, this just has all the sucky things of xkcd sucks.

1. Not acknowledging that the comic was quite funny, and especially had a cool concept.

2. Complaining about that we have seen a similar theme a lot in xkcd. Yes, we have, and so? Doesn't mean that theme can't be interesting anymore. Or more to the point: "I have seen this critique on your blog before. Lame!"

3. Complaining about the alt text. The alt text doesn't have to be funny, it's just a bonus if it is. Your blog itself suggested at one time, that he could use it to explain things. Which is what he does here.

4. Criticizing Firefly references, just because they exist. Actually, here, he makes an interesting point about it, and something that certainly is an uncomfortable truth for us who adore the internal consistency of that series. But you wouldn't know, because you still haven't seen it! All the time you've spent complaining about Randall mentioning Firefly, you could have instead watched at least the pilot of this awesome series. Jesus.

542: Bloody hell, Carl

link:
http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2009/02/comic-542-bloody-hell.html

This is another example of an unrecognised amusing comic. It destroys your credibility, when you can't even acknowledge the good ones.

"Mildly clever, I suppose. A far better joke based on the "gullible on the ceiling" idea is when people actually write it on the ceiling"

Ehm... no