I don't know, people who aren't rubbing their better taste in someone's face? People who don't want people to be part of a discussion until they "educate" themselves?

And extremely condescending and pretentious.

That's not taxidermy.

For someone who claims to appreciate The Silence of the Lambs, you seem to be playing loose with the story. Buffalo Bill does not "basically" taxidermy his victims. He does absolutely nothing that can be considered taxidermy. The conclusions you draw about catharsis are baffling. "The opposite happened in the scene…

That seems contrary to the first comic.

You sound upset.

The Silence of the Lambs ultimately has nothing to do with the couple being scared of the wife dying. They're both completely superfluous to the other. At least the first one had a setup that complimented the plot.

His intention is to tell a story, and I think the story is using cancer as a plot device to add more depth to what otherwise would have been just a comic about two old people watching Netflix. The first comic treated her cancer as a setup for a Breaking Bad punchline, which works in a comic about parents trying to…

So are you aware of how criticism works or.

What are you doing? Mutt? Johnny McBackpedal? I thought the conversation was about the comic, not you trying to "own" me.

You mean why didn't I say the comic was bad when I said that the cancer element doesn't make the comic better of more profound?

The point of my point is that having your story deal with cancer doesn't make your story good, nor does it give extra weight. It's a bad comic with clumsy writing and awkward moments of seriousness. The art is not very good, the perspective is a mess, and details seem to be an afterthought. So thank you for telling me…

If you remove panels 7-10, does the comic change in any way?

Throwing in random cancer melodrama doesn't make your comic better or more profound.

Who called Mark Fuhrman to the stand?

That's a statement that needs a little more substance.

Ah, I got you now. My bad.

Okay but in that case you're just stating how a trial works.

Your posts?

Right, but the defense was never allowed to say it. That's the problem here. It's up to a jury to decide based on the evidence given to them, and they were not given all the evidence available.