|
|
Post by Steam Engine on May 16, 2013 17:05:47 GMT
Did shippers SOSNOOLEY (beg my pardon for my French)? Or there is still hope?
Also, what do those valentines mean in Europe and America? Are they considered to be something more or less serious or they are just pieces of paper? I mean, if I get "Happy birthday" in social network, it wouldn mean in most cases that a person just clicked on an automatically generated link "It's X Y's birthday today, click here to send him felicitation". Do valentines mean "oh you're cutie I like you I get a boner when I see you" or "I love you"?
|
|
crank
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by crank on May 16, 2013 19:15:29 GMT
My guess is that Bobby didn't actually write the letter.... Possibly Kat thinks that Robot wrote it, and wants to ask her other robot friend (Bobby) if he knows anything about it.
I doubt Paz wrote it. Considering she specifically turned down Kat's "advances", I see no reason that she would all of a sudden decide she was in love with Kat.
So far Robot has shown a creepy attachment to Kat. As far as I know, Kat's only other robot friend is Bobby. Sure she knows of others, but she hasn't really been friendly with any others.
|
|
|
|
Post by SpitefulFox on May 16, 2013 23:44:20 GMT
Letter fact list: 1. It's computer written 2. Kat 'has a good idea who's it's from' and tells Annie not to get her hopes up 3. It's very eloquently written 4. It was addressed to Antimony's room but written to Kat 5. The envelope is decorated with a very angular heart. Which makes it seem like something a robot would draw, but if a robot could print onto an envelope, why're they bothering with oldschool printer paper? >_> |
|
|
|
Post by Marnath on May 17, 2013 1:40:04 GMT
You know what people do when they're not comfortable with admitting something? They lie. People lie, and they do it for many reasons. The only way we will know is by the characters actions. Right. And the characters actions are as follows: 1) Deny any interest in girls 2) Become uncomfortable that their friendship was interpreted as advances. If you think that Paz/Kat is a cute pairing and need a reason to justify it for Head-Canon or whatever then fine, but theres literally zero evidence of it in the comic itself, infact there's heap of evidence of the exact opposite. eg If Kat was lying about not being into girls, why was she so shocked about Paz misunderstanding her? She clearly didn't even think that it was possible for her actions to come across as advances. If Paz isn't straight why would she be so embarassed about the whole concept, why wouldn't she just tell Kat she wasn't interested? Oh I get it, "But she didn't want to hurt Kat's feelings! She is secretly a lesbian, and now she's decided she does want Kat!" Right? Yeah Again, no evidence of it. The characters specifically state the exact opposite. There's zero indication of anything along those lines, and again, we've just seen 5 pages of Paz being super forward hitting on a guy... You can justify anything by saying "The characters were just lying about it, we just haven't seen any proof that they were lying yet. But we will. Probably" Hell; It justifies my Winsbury/Bud slash fantasy! Winsbury is just lying about being straight, he's secretly doing it to get close to Bud so he can work up the courage to admit his feelings! It's got the same amount of in comic proof as Paz/Kat, hell, it's got more proof! Winsbury never denies being homosexual and attracted to Crustaceans! It's practically fact! TL;DR: Saying "They're just lying!" is a cop out and you know it. There's no indication they're lying and no indication otherwise of any feelings. You know, that was really kind of condescending and rude considering that the only evidence you have for your argument is that Paz hit on a boy. It couldn't possibly be the case that she's Bisexual. It couldn't possibly be the case that she denied interest because it was sudden and her self-preservation instinct kicked in. I don't know if you've noticed but there are a lot of people out there who love to make life hell for gay people. Is it so hard to believe that she said she's not like that simply because she doesn't want to be judged? Heck, have you considered that maybe the reason she thought Kat was making a pass at her at all is that she was thinking along those lines? A guilty conscience so to say? And as for there being no evidence for Kat, did you miss the story arc with the Hairband of +5 straightness? Or where Reynardine implied that she was staring at Parley? Which was immediately followed by her getting embarrassed that Annie was touching her? It's far from a sure thing but to say there is no evidence is frankly mistaken. |
|
|
|
Post by starburst98 on May 17, 2013 2:35:04 GMT
what if kat is sure bobby ISN'T the sender of the letter and is asking for advise about how to deal with a robot crush?
|
|
|
|
Post by download on May 17, 2013 4:07:03 GMT
what if kat is sure bobby ISN'T the sender of the letter and is asking for advise about how to deal with a robot crush? She's asking Bobby if Paz sent it  I've given up guessing, I'll just go with what happens |
|
|
|
Post by arf on May 17, 2013 4:44:26 GMT
Plenty of guesses. Nothing left to do but stay tuned...
|
|
|
|
Post by jasmijn on May 17, 2013 7:52:07 GMT
And I think it possibly would be obvious if a letter was written by a robot given the Courtbots quirks. So Annie wouldn't ask if the author was in the cafeteria with them. Annie is pretty clueless, though. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 17, 2013 21:55:27 GMT
I honestly don't get anyone shipping Paz or Kat. I mean if you think they're a cute couple, great but it seems like you're only setting yourself up for dissapointment if you're expecting something to actually happen. I have never thought it likely that the letter was from Paz, and even if it was from Paz I have at least three easy explanations that do not involve it actually being a love letter (up until chapter 42 page 5, nobody who has *actually read* the letter has said or done anything to indicate that it's a love letter). Nonetheless... ... or she's trying to force herself to be interested in guys, so that she can tell herself she isn't gay. ... or she's interested in both guys and girls. And regardless of what Paz's motivation was, the fact is she was pretty blatant, everyone obviously recognized what she was doing, and she was publicly shot down. Humiliating, particularly at that age - that alone is plenty to explain her slinking off. And young-teenagers understand (and publicly acknowledge) their own sexuality SO well... There is much more evidence for Kat being straight than for Paz being straight - but previous comment still applies to Kat as well. (There is also very close to zero evidence for either of them being gay or bi. Which is also true of most people that age who later turn out to be gay or bi. Along with, of course, most people who turn out to be straight.) I don't consider that a stretch. Probably an incorrect argument, but not a stretch at all. Not confirmed. Probability increased, but not to 100.000%. |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on May 17, 2013 23:44:11 GMT
I honestly don't get anyone shipping Paz or Kat. I mean if you think they're a cute couple, great but it seems like you're only setting yourself up for dissapointment if you're expecting something to actually happen. I'm glad that somebody else on this forum realizes this.  You're sadly mistaken if you think you're going to get the shippers to listen to reason, though...  . . . ...Ah, I can't help it: You're entire argument there is a giant strawman And yours isn't?  You know, that was really kind of condescending and rude considering that the only evidence you have for your argument is that Paz hit on a boy. It's really condescending and rude how you ignore all the other evidence he's given, and refuse to present a single shred of in-comic evidence yourself. (At least, none that doesn't take some shoehorning.)  And young-teenagers understand (and publicly acknowledge) their own sexuality SO well... As well as you acknowledge the evidence, at least.  ...Hm, that was a series of unusually snide, perhaps vicious remarks from me. I may be too frustrated with this topic. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 18, 2013 4:46:56 GMT
As well as you acknowledge the evidence, at least. Oh, I acknowledge the evidence. I just don't rush to take the first hint of evidence as proof - particularly not to the point of saying that anyone who doesn't agree it is proof is ignoring it. GCK is one of the best webcomics I read for twisting the readers' expectations around and then coming in from a completely different direction that, in retrospect, makes lots of sense. So, even more than with most webcomics, I'm reluctant to say anything is implausible, and willing to defend the plausibility of theories I think are unlikely. |
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on May 18, 2013 5:27:14 GMT
Speculating about future plot developments is all well and good, but when the GC narrative is setting something up to be a mystery, trying to definitively prove that any one theory is more plausible than the alternative is a fool's errand.
|
|
