[HN Gopher] Garfield Minus Garfield
___________________________________________________________________
Garfield Minus Garfield
Author : mike1o1
Score : 417 points
Date : 2025-04-10 17:21 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (garfieldminusgarfield.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (garfieldminusgarfield.net)
| jsheard wrote:
| Garfield Minus Garfield is good, but Lasagna Cat is on another
| level.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh9oLs67Cw
| bitwize wrote:
| I'm sorry Jon
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N8RDNd92sK0
| fullshark wrote:
| Can't believe those first videos are 17 years old...I remember
| them...man
| jsheard wrote:
| They posted the original series all at once 17 years ago, and
| the second series all at once 8 years ago. Maybe they're due
| to come back...
| distances wrote:
| And in the second series there's a video of Garfield and
| Odie making a home video. They created YouTube channels for
| the in-video characters with actual character relevant
| content, including that home video, 5 years before the
| second series was posted. Absolutely amazing work, hats
| off!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3NLa4ebX4E
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Guy's monologue after the initial opener reminds me of the Log
| Lady from Twin Peaks. The content and delivery, both.
| darepublic wrote:
| I regularly have this on in the background while working. The
| music is good and I can tune in and out of it without losing
| focus
| z0r wrote:
| I'm not the only one sometimes does this... Now where could
| my pipe be?
| noman-land wrote:
| Since I'm too lazy to do this myself, I'm putting it out there
| for the world to make for me.
|
| I want to see Rogan Minus Rogan and Lex Minus Lex podcasts where
| all the host's speaking parts are cut out and you only hear the
| guest's replies.
|
| Thanks in advance.
| fossuser wrote:
| Lex minus lex would be really great
| almosthere wrote:
| I want to see Lex replaced with Rogan and Rogan replaced with
| Lex
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Well that's easy since they talk to a lot of the same people.
| abeppu wrote:
| I think Lex also has recycled some questions / topics across
| several guests. I'd enjoy a virtual panel supercut where we see
| only all the guests' responses to the same prompt.
| randomtoast wrote:
| There was at least one podcast featuring both Rogan and Lex.
| This would result in an hours-long podcast of pure silence.
| rzzzt wrote:
| _Angry John Cage noises_
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Jamie would still pop in once in a while. I like Jamie.
| 9dev wrote:
| Now that sounds like the kind of show where both of them
| finally have something good to contribute!
| itishappy wrote:
| What about Rogan vs Lex where it's just them shooting probing
| questions back and forth and exchanging vaguely related
| anecdotes?
| circles_for-day wrote:
| Tim Ferriss minus Tim has long been a dream of mine
|
| After discovering Dwarkesh, Lex and Rogan have struck me as
| tragic waste. At worst a laundromat for psychopathic
| distortions, and at best a lazy unguided exhibition of the
| guest's choosing.
| eej71 wrote:
| You might enjoy Charlie Rose interviews Charlie Rose.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFE2CCfAP1o
| btucker wrote:
| And then, The Charlie Rose Paradox:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqW9sexNdZg
| PyWoody wrote:
| Paul Rudd Interviews Paul Rudd
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbLcY0XeVY4
| flysand7 wrote:
| Alok Kanojia vs Kok Alonojia (aka Dr.K interviews himself)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXG2h3RWTPE&pp=ygUGI2RrYWl0
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Jordan Peterson vs Peter Jordanson
|
| Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buD2RM0xChM Part
| 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juts9IlrixQ
| codetrotter wrote:
| Rogan minus guest.
|
| "Huhuhuhuhh." "Wow." "You wrote that?" "Who?" "Where is that
| from? What show is that from?"
|
| Very interesting listening material I am sure
| mightybyte wrote:
| In this same vein, Hot Ones minus Sean might be pretty
| entertaining as well.
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| The timings are a bit off, but here's one attempt at it:
|
| https://qlymwesmrj.s3.amazonaws.com/temp/joe_without_joe.mp3
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| Calvin and Hobbes, minus Hobbes:
| https://calvinminushobbes.tumblr.com/
| georgeburdell wrote:
| I mean this one is just reality. I'm not sure Garfield is a
| figment of Jon's imagination
|
| Edit: if you want to ruin your day, check out this C&H fan art
| https://www.reddit.com/r/calvinandhobbes/comments/6vwll2/is_...
| arnarbi wrote:
| Garfield is certainly (meant to be) real, but I've never seen
| a strip that confirms that Jon can actually hear Garfield's
| thoughts. I think that's why Garfield minus Garfield works so
| well.
| the_af wrote:
| > _I mean this one is just reality. I'm not sure Garfield is
| a figment of Jon's imagination_
|
| It's not reality. Hobbes it's not unambiguously stated to be
| a figment of Calvin's imagination either.
|
| That's a fine interpretation but it's not canonical.
| Watterson wanted the ambiguity, as Wikipedia mentions (sorry,
| I don't have the interview with the direct quote where
| Watterson states this):
|
| > _" [Watteron] gave an example of this in discussing his
| opposition to a Hobbes plush toy: that if the essence of
| Hobbes' nature in the strip is that it remain unresolved
| whether he is a real tiger or a stuffed toy, then creating a
| real stuffed toy would only destroy the magic."_
| nickvec wrote:
| > Garfield Minus Garfield is a site dedicated to removing
| Garfield from the Garfield comic strips in order to reveal the
| existential angst of a certain young Mr. Jon Arbuckle. It is a
| journey deep into the mind of an isolated young everyman as he
| fights a losing battle against loneliness and depression in a
| quiet American suburb.
|
| Did not think I would be relating to Jon on a Thursday morning.
| system2 wrote:
| I was about to bash before I read this. Now I feel depressed.
| mrexroad wrote:
| Try zsh instead!
| foobahify wrote:
| Oh my!
| s1mplicissimus wrote:
| grml!
| 0xdeadbeefbabe wrote:
| You'll feel worse if you use tcsh
| gorjusborg wrote:
| It could be worse: csh
| flysand7 wrote:
| Don't cry, I am just a fish
| erk__ wrote:
| Its also pretty interesting given that the original title for
| the comic that would become Garfield was simply "Jon"
|
| There was a small YouTube documentary about finding the old
| comics in libraries and scanning them in. I the description of
| the video there is links to scans of all the ones they were
| able to find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxiwjaUSYJM
| m463 wrote:
| Now it makes me wonder what would happen if you did something
| like removing all the superheroes from a movie.
|
| or took soem movies and made all the villains super-attractive
| and the heroes ugly and dressed in black.
| minikomi wrote:
| One of my favorite additions by subtraction:
|
| https://youtu.be/jKS3MGriZcs?si=RRlSVL0jwi5sDl3f
|
| Removing the laugh track from the big bang theory
| stuckinhell wrote:
| kind of spooky and sad
| jonathaneunice wrote:
| _Way_ , *way* darker than I imagined.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| I think the most surprising thing about it is that it's good.
| Not just good as a curiosity, but _actually_ good, in ways and
| to a degree that would be pretty hard to replicate if you set
| out to create it from scratch, without existing Garfield strips
| to lean on.
| rconti wrote:
| did you follow the "20 darkest" link?
| kayge wrote:
| I did! And it started to make me wonder whether the same
| shenanigans could be applied to make any interesting Calvin
| minus Hobbes strips ... but my guess is it wouldn't turn out
| quite so dark
|
| https://screenrant.com/15-dark-garfield-minus-strips-jon-
| dep...
| whartung wrote:
| Heck, after reading that thing, I'M trying not to jump.
| klaussilveira wrote:
| This is brilliant.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| I love how this turns the comic into psychological horror.
|
| Super Eyepatch Wolf actually did a really interesting analysis
| about how Garfield entered the horror genera
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2C5R3FOWdE. I click on the video
| randomly out of curiosity, but I got really sucked in.
| louwrentius wrote:
| Thanks that was wild
| tdeck wrote:
| This is a combination of entertaining and engaging.
| teach wrote:
| (2008)
| basketbla wrote:
| This is hilarious. Reminds me of this old pete holmes Garfield
| sketch (looks like the original got taken down).
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayjz18d8Kpo
| rfarley04 wrote:
| Obligatory tangent of Friends without the laugh track:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgKgXehYnnw
|
| Similarly creep and unsettling.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| MASH is available without the laugh track.
|
| Really changes the tone, though in that case it doesn't ruin
| it, just makes it different.
| chuckadams wrote:
| Alan Alda has mentioned in interviews that he prefers it that
| way.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| I feel like removing it removes some noise, but doesn't
| affect the tone. Story is, the MASH showrunners didn't want a
| laugh track, but the network insisted, so they used the
| lowest-fidelity one they could get away with.
| dingaling wrote:
| Thankfully it was broadcast in the UK without the laugh
| track.
|
| Obviously it still wasn't as darkly observant as the movie,
| but it did have a edge.
| triceratops wrote:
| They filmed in front of a live audience in a theater and those
| are real people laughing. It's unsettling because the actors
| pause between lines until the laughter stops.
|
| Reflexive dismissals of shows with laugh tracks are lazy.
| rfarley04 wrote:
| To each their own! When I watch Ross ask how to beat up a
| woman in the street with eyes bugging out of his head there's
| a pretty big difference between a laugh track and no laugh
| track. Just like Garfield comics hit very different when you
| realize that John is actually talking to himself.
|
| I don't "reflexively dismiss" all shows with a laugh track.
| Some of Friends is genuinely hilarious. But a lot of it is
| only funny, to me, when surrounded by others laughing.
| almosthere wrote:
| Is this done with a GAN or manual?
| alabastervlog wrote:
| The earliest ones are from 2008.
|
| So, at least for the vast majority of these: manual.
| itishappy wrote:
| Pretty sure it's being done the hard way. The site's been
| running since 2008, so it'd be one of the earliest examples of
| a GAN in the wild if so!
| grepLeigh wrote:
| I found this years ago, during the "Stumbleupon" era of the
| Internet (does anyone remember this time sink?). I'm so glad it's
| still alive!
| dingnuts wrote:
| yes, I wasted hours of my life using it until one day I landed
| on some site called Reddit
|
| Kagi has brought it back (kind of): https://kagi.com/smallweb
| has a random button (Next Post in the top left corner)
| tomrod wrote:
| I love small web!
| shikshake wrote:
| Setting it to the new tab page is a neat idea, I will follow
| your lead
| echelon wrote:
| Slashdot, StumbleUpon, Everything2, del.icio.us, Digg
| natebc wrote:
| FWIW Digg is in the process of reinventing itself which ...
| is hopeful? We'll see!
|
| https://reboot.digg.com/
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I'm ready to be hurt again. I gave my email address. It
| would have to be better than the current version of Reddit.
| natebc wrote:
| I signed up a while back and got an invite today so
| things are happening. It'll be interesting to see what a
| Digg looks like on today's internet. Things are much less
| innocent these days.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I was unaware this had happened so I'm kind of hopeful it
| could be something good.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/05/kevin-rose-and-alexis-
| ohan...
| natebc wrote:
| I think that being posted a few weeks ago on HN was what
| lead me to go chuck in my email. Exciting to see where it
| goes!
| rectang wrote:
| When Garfield Minus Garfield was being published regularly, I
| was a regular. I couldn't get enough of its dark, sardonic
| undermining of the comic aesthetic.
| accrual wrote:
| I loved Stumbleupon. It was a fun way to just explore the
| internet and truly find many gems I otherwise would have never
| noticed.
|
| Pretty interesting timeline of events in their Wikipedia
| article:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StumbleUpon
| el_benhameen wrote:
| I think (worry?) that stumbleupon rearranged my brain much like
| drugs or alcohol rearrange the brain of an addict. Once you've
| been there, you can't go back to being able to have "just one"
| beer or, in my case, "just one click" on a link aggregator. I
| think the novelty-seeking part of my brain was always there,
| but SU helped pathologize it. I found some cool stuff, but I
| kind of wish it had never existed.
|
| HN has a gentle enough design that I can enjoy it without it
| sucking me in, but I make a conscious choice to avoid Reddit,
| twitter, et al.
| grepLeigh wrote:
| Eh, if you hadn't found Stumbleupon then you would have
| experienced the same effect from one of the zillion other
| competitors in the attention economy.
|
| You're right that this kind of novelty-seeking content has a
| profound impact on the brain. It's really interesting to see
| finally see longitudinal research, plus research on
| screens/novelty on child development (search for $thing +
| "psychosocial development").
|
| One of the most encouraging thing I've taken away is that
| neutral pathways are still quite plastic well into adulthood.
|
| For example, here's an experiment to try if you wake up and
| scroll in bed. After you do your morning routine, jot down a
| mood score (-1 feeling crummy, 0 meh neutral, +1 feeling
| good). You can do this for a week or two if you want to
| collect control data. Then, force yourself to get out of bed
| without looking at your phone (buy an alarm if you have too).
| You should see changes in your mood log within a week. Sleep
| regulates/replenishes dopamine levels, and scrolling through
| a dopamine wonderland first thing in the AM can result in
| dopamine dysregulation for the rest of the day. Try it!
| dcsan wrote:
| I so fondly remember StumbleUpin, but I'm trying to recall what
| was so amazing about it. Was it just something of a novelty at
| the time or the autocuration of the decentralized web would
| still be relevant?
|
| it seems like a few social media sites took over from the
| random delight of finding someone's little weblog or side
| project.
|
| I hear they're trying to buy it back and restart with their
| uber gains
| chneu wrote:
| There's a site called cloudhiker that kinda does the same
| thing. The idea is the same but there was something special
| about early days Stumbleupon. Idk if we'll ever recapture that.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Loved stumbleupon! I think when I realized that I was no longer
| stumbling upon anything interesting was the leading indicator
| of the long downhill trend of interesting content on the web.
| dfabulich wrote:
| It's so strange that StumbleUpon died but TikTok thrives today.
|
| TikTok's algorithm is based entirely on when you click the Like
| button and when you linger on a video, exactly like
| StumbleUpon's algorithm. StumbleUpon even had a video product,
| StumbleVideo, that was basically just TikTok.
|
| But, in 2018, when StumbleUpon shut down and sold their assets
| to Mix, the prevailing wisdom was that people didn't want to
| use StumbleUpon because they wanted to use Reddit and Facebook,
| to follow curated feeds of links, instead of random links that
| other people like.
|
| If that wisdom were true, TikTok should have failed too,
| because TikTok just gives you "random stuff that similar people
| like," just like StumbleUpon.
|
| I guess it just goes to show that there's no accounting for the
| rise and fall of social media apps/networks.
| dylan604 wrote:
| TikTok was mobile device centric, and the people that glommed
| onto it quickest were young mobile users. StumbleUpon was
| just a website that the "olds" used. Maybe I'm wrong, but did
| SU have a mobile app? If so, they did a very bad job of
| getting it into the hands of those that TikTok did.
| junek wrote:
| Garfield Minus Garfield has the same bleak sense of desolation as
| Goya's "The Dog". Just wonderful.
| nizarmah wrote:
| I am always fascinated how people get ideas as creative as this.
|
| I didn't know I needed this, but now that you shared it--I NEEDED
| IT!
| gnfedhjmm2 wrote:
| I wonder how such a rare article was discovered.
| checker wrote:
| I wonder why this is on HN and not Reddit.
| jf wrote:
| Something that I find delightful about this project is that Jim
| Davis approves of it!
|
| From Wikipedia: "Jim Davis, the creator of Garfield, approved of
| the project, and an official Garfield book (also called Garfield
| Minus Garfield) was published by his company. It was mainly
| edited comics by Walsh, with some comics contributed by Davis."
| omoikane wrote:
| See also "What Jim Davis thinks of G-G" (linked from the bottom
| of the page):
|
| https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/private/61669516/fSymsOGXO...
| jf wrote:
| This is the link that I had in mind when I was writing my
| comment, thanks so much for posting it here!
| m463 wrote:
| Also makes me wonder if people talk to their cats...
| xivzgrev wrote:
| Jim created Garfield for money[1]. It's not surprising that he
| likes anything that can make him more money, he isn't
| personally tied to the character.
|
| [1] Garfield was originally created by Davis with the intention
| to come up with a 'good, marketable character'
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield
| KerrAvon wrote:
| It's still notable that Jim Davis has that level of chill
| about it. Someone with a mercenary capitalist attitude toward
| their work can be just as much a control freak as Bill
| Watterson. (Not being judgmental; Watterson's position is
| completely valid too.)
| cogman10 wrote:
| It honestly seems a little silly to worry about the purity
| of the intent of an artist.
|
| That Davis did it for the money is just "meh". Most people
| work for money.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| we at hacker news work for first principles instead
| standyro wrote:
| I wish there was a hacker news minus hacker news
| wlonkly wrote:
| I can give you hacker news minus hackers?
| the_af wrote:
| I don't think the concern is that Davis "did it for the
| money", and that's not a fair representation of why some
| of us mock Jim Davis.
|
| I don't think anybody is arguing comic authors shouldn't
| make money out of their work.
|
| The concern is that Garfield is the product of conscious
| market research and not whatever we imagine a comic
| artist goes through when creating their comics. You can
| dismiss this as some ridiculous search for "purity", but
| wouldn't you say most people imagine Watterson, Schultz,
| etc. went through a process more or less "I liked these
| other cartoons, and wouldn't it be cool to make something
| about <idea>/<childhood memories>/<something that
| inspired me>/<something that worries me>" vs "hey, let's
| make money, what kind of character would make me the most
| money?".
|
| Davis is not the only one, of course.
| weard_beard wrote:
| Art without money is madness. Money without art dies on
| the vine in obscurity or pays its dues in criticism
| through time.
|
| 99% of everything commercially produced is somewhere
| between these and, if made by a person, part of a cannon,
| a body of work that grows and changes as the person does.
|
| Just because an artist invites us into their mind does
| not mean we don't owe them the respect we'd give a
| stranger. At least that's how I look at it.
| lanna wrote:
| The concept would be more interesting and realistic if they
| removed only Garfield's thought bubbles (after all, Jon can't
| hear Garfield's thoughts anyway) but still left Garfield in the
| comic.
| losvedir wrote:
| I agree! I've always wanted this, since seeing Garfield minus
| Garfield back in the day.
| rikthevik wrote:
| That was a thing! Boingboing had an article about it, but it
| looks like the original tumblr is no longer around.
|
| https://boingboing.net/2014/03/09/garfield-without-garfields...
| seeEllArr wrote:
| The somethingawful forums started this with garfield in the
| comic before "Garfield minus Garfield" was a thing. I agree
| that the original gag is much better.
| WorldPeas wrote:
| [obligatory "garfield where is my pipe" joke here]
| throwme0827349 wrote:
| Love GMG, glad to see it at number one here. It's really quite
| amazing how much funnier and yet more profound it is without
| Garfield. If you like this, you might also enjoy Nietzsche Family
| Circus: https://www.nietzschefamilycircus.com/
|
| I used to have one stuck to the door of my doom room. No one
| laughed. :(
| rikthevik wrote:
| I'd like to submit Time is a Flat Circus as well
|
| https://www.tumblr.com/timeisaflatcircus
| mcbuilder wrote:
| Funny I was just thinking about this yesterday! Now it's on the
| top of HN.
| astura wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield_Minus_Garfield
| trhway wrote:
| They should have removed the human instead. Garfield only
| Garfield.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| This is better than the original.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Clicking on the image on this post leads to a wild NSFW 404 page.
| Not sure I was expecting to get an extremely sus, probably
| illegal, asian porn site. Wth
|
| https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/post/19400379301/i-made-a-...
| acureau wrote:
| Just did the same thing at the office. Nice!
| Levitating wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/garfieldminusgarfield/
| checker wrote:
| This is where this belongs.
| fideloper wrote:
| May I recommend a follow up fun Garfield themed thing:
| /r/imsorryjon (research its history, it's kinda fun)
|
| And if you like "garfield minus garfield" then perhaps I can also
| introduce you to Chief O'Brien at Work
| https://chiefobrienatwork.com/
| chuckadams wrote:
| I used to have a small bookmark collection of "anti-comics", and
| this was on the list. Others included Dinosaur Comics, Partially
| Clips, and Pokey the Penguin.
| roland35 wrote:
| If you want another Garfield related internet horror binge, I'm
| sorry Jon on Reddit has some great comics
| https://www.reddit.com/r/imsorryjon/
| tmountain wrote:
| Came here to say this. Excellent content there if it's your
| sort of thing.
| snissn wrote:
| I'm impressed with how easy it is to recreate this effect using
| AI tools. I made this on my iPhone in the photos app by circling
| Garfield a few times: https://i.imgur.com/YVOZlj8.jpeg based on
| https://www.gocomics.com/garfield/2025/04/10
| Delk wrote:
| The physical act of removing the Garfield figure from the
| frames is the least interesting part.
|
| (It probably also isn't particularly difficult in many cases,
| considering the monochrome backgrounds.)
| dimal wrote:
| Remember when the internet was all goofy shit like this instead
| of algorithmically optimized social media angst?
| lanfeust6 wrote:
| All the big social media platforms were around when this
| started. The dominance wasn't in full swing yet but it only
| took a few years for vbulletin and everything else to dwindle.
| eestrada wrote:
| I miss the old internet. I'm pretty sure anyone old enough to
| have experienced it misses it.
| Loughla wrote:
| And the people who were there before the old Internet missed
| that too. Something something eternal September.
| standyro wrote:
| there was still angst then, it just was more targeted in single
| directions, not like now where the angst is aimlessly directed
| at society, sponsored by squarespace
| weard_beard wrote:
| Sounds like a cologne.
|
| Angst, by Squarespace
| nimish wrote:
| excellent blast from the past
| HeliumHydride wrote:
| Also check out the square root of minus Garfield:
| https://www.mezzacotta.net/garfield/
| nvader wrote:
| I definitely recommend this one, it has greater longevity due
| to the wider number of schticks the author is able to engage in
| over the different comics.
|
| E.g. here's a quirky image effect:
| https://www.mezzacotta.net/garfield/?comic=13
| russellbeattie wrote:
| My favorite type of humor is the absurd non-sequitur. The more
| incongruous the better. Like when out of no where someone asks,
| "If you could trade your shadow for a parrot, would you do it?"
| Or, "What's your opinion on invisible bicycles?"
|
| So to me, G-G is absolute gold.
| lqstuart wrote:
| This is really old
| b3lvedere wrote:
| I liked Gramfel more : https://www.boredpanda.com/garfield-
| comics-gramfel-cycle-nel...
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| What's missed from the popular take on GMG is that it's not
| always depressing. Sometimes Jon finds joy in mundane things that
| Garfield isn't there to damper.
|
| https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/post/27763465
| windowshopping wrote:
| I find the dating on this website confusing. It says Jan 27 AND
| Nov 03, and when I click previous comic, in order it goes: Feb 04
| / Jun 14, May 31, Oct 13, Aug 02, Jan 08.....I'm so confused.
|
| A. Why are there 2 comics per day? B. Why are the dates seemingly
| random?
| qingcharles wrote:
| Also good:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/GarfieldMinusJon/
|
| And if you want to get weird:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/AlzheimersGroup/top/?t=year
|
| Full list:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/garfieldminusgarfield/comments/gxl2...
| analog31 wrote:
| A similar take on "Peanuts" where the last frame of each strip is
| removed.
|
| https://3eanuts.com/
| msarnoff wrote:
| I always liked Realfield better.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/7zfbr3/realfield/
| dailydetour123 wrote:
| This is great to see on the front page! I include it as part of
| the newsletter I run on the best/nostalgic side of the internet
| so it's cool to see it resonating with people here for that
| reason.
| schlauerfox wrote:
| There's also a bot account on mastodon replacing garfield word
| bubbles with song lyrics. sometimes it's pretty substantial.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| Now where could my pipe be?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-10 23:00 UTC)