Hate Mail! A History of Nonsense

On Super Bowl Sunday, while everyone else was enjoying the company of friends, family, and barbecue, someone was crafting an email.

But before I get to that, I have to take you back four years. In January of 2007, I received an email from a gentleman (we'll call him Norman) pointing out a discrepancy in this comic: Norman said:
"If the guy has 75 cents and only three coins, the only possible combination would be three quarters. Therefore, all three coins in his hand should have at least to be the same size..."

I replied:
"Are you making the assumption that this is American currency they are dealing with?"

Norman- "Are you telling me that it's not?"

Tony- "Anything's possible! Plus there could be some smaller coins hidden beneath those larger visible coins in his hand. Or they could be small stones made of some valuable mineral, with a black market value totaling 75 cents. The sad thing is that we may never know the truth...
Thanks for reading F Minus!"

Norman- "If your editor made the same observation, would you give him the same line of B.S.?"

Tony- "I dunno, they don't usually make pointless observations... but yes, I guess I would!"

Norman- "I guess a "pointless" observation is only fitting, given the equally pointless nature of your strip."

At this point, the conversation ended. I can't remember why I didn't reply again, or why I neglected to post this exchange for you to read.

It doesn't really matter, because I got a reminder on Super Bowl Sunday, 2011. This email refers to this comic from a few days earlier: "I've let a lot of your strips pass by without comment since pointing out how the coins in a character's hand, based upon relative sizes, did not conform to the aggregate amount that was supposed to be represented thereby. (Your response to this was pretty dismissive, so I'm not expecting much more in ths case.) However, Your panel of January 31st, while very funny on its face, contains yet another jarring inconguity that detracted from the intended humorous effect.
The panel plays off the fact that the word "dolly" has multiple definitions, one of which is a girl's plaything and another is a piece of hardware most typically employed by movers. The problem is that the hardware pictured in the panel isn't a "dolly," but a "hand truck."
But I don't blame you exclusively (now or previously), because I know that cartoonists also work with editors, who, in my opinion, bear the greater responsibility for ensuring some measure of accuracy or verisimiltude (where appropriate). So feel free to forward this to him or her."

I set down my potato salad and registered my reply:
"Good to hear from you again, Norman. First of all, please do not hesitate to point out any incongruity you come across in my comic. I value your input. As to the matter at hand, it's true, the hardware pictured is most commonly known as a hand truck. However, it is known by several other terms, including dolly, two wheeler, stack truck, trolley, trolley truck, sack barrow, sack truck, tea-bagger, bag barrow, dung porter, goat roller, and a "poopsie". These terms vary based on region and time period. For instance, "poopsie" is a seventeenth century term.
Clearly the character in this comic is from a region and era in which referring to this tool as a dolly is common. It is likely the daughter learned this from her father. I'm not sure where the father learned it. To be honest, I haven't developed the character enough to be certain, but I'm thinking he may have got it from his uncle.
Incidentally, I did forward your email to my editors, per your instructions, and they asked that I let you know that you misspelled "incongruity", "verisimilitude", and "this". Don't feel bad, this is what they do.
Stay vigilant, -Tony Carrillo"

This morning he wrote back:
"Clearly, you have WAY too much free time!"

No arguments there, Norman.