Talk:Lack of Visible Arms

From Homestar Runner Wiki

The King of Town also doesn't appear to have any visible arms (nor does the Prince of Town in flashback), but no direct reference is made to this.

Contents 1 He just gave me the bird! 2 Pic? 3 Page Title 4 Homestar's perception 5 Sarcasm? 6 Another character with no visible arms 7 Not quite so visible 8 No telekinetic abilities. Just arms. 9 They're not the only ones... 10 Something Worth Knowing 11 The Wheelchair 12 Invisible Hands Only theorem

He just gave me the bird!

Homestar flips Strong Bad off, and Strong Bad reacts as if he can see it.

I think the joke in the bird was that Homestar "flips off" Strong Bad by responding "right back at you" to Strong Bad's Single Deuce, as if he didn't even need to flip a hand. Understand? --Sam Goldfish 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

...Actually, you're right, I think. --DorianGray

Yeah, I was about to make that very same comment before I saw I was beaten to it. If not totally removed, I think the entry should be heavily reworded. --Jay (Gobble) 03:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Nah, it's supposed to be taken straightforward; Homestar really flips him the bird. If somebody merely told me they were flipping me off, I don't think I would take it as badly as Strong Bad does. — It's dot com 04:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I had always seen it as a real, invisible one rather than "it's the thought that counts." I'm not arguing definitely against that. But a little bit of humor in the whole email comes from the fact that none of the flip-offs are visible, since even the characters with visible hands lack independent finger movement. Strong Bad's and Pom Pom's "deuces" are mere hand movements, yet all the characters seem to be perceiving the gesture. —AbdiViklas 04:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

All we know for certain is that Homestar says "right back atcha," which (since it's Homestar) probably means that he either didn't see or didn't understand the gesture. (I mean two different things by that: "didn't see" would be due to the boxing gloves; "didn't understand" would be due to him being Homestar.) We do not know that Homestar really made any "hand gestures" at all, invisible hands or no; he probably just thought Strong Bad was waving, hence the "right back atcha." Since the joke works whether Homestar is actually making an invisible hand gesture or not, time to apply Occham's (sp?) Razor. --Jay (Gobble) 05:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

PS. Abdi makes a good point. The only main characters who could make a visible "bird" would be Strong Mad, Strong Sad, and The Poopsmith, none of whom appeared in that email.

Exactly! Homestar thought Strong Bad was waving! I get it now! As for Strong Bad taking it so bad, I think that's part of the joke: He can dish it out, but he can't take it. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 06:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Though note that Strong Mad would be the only one who could do it properly, as he has five fingers, while Strong Sad and The Poopsmith have four. -- Tom 06:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dot com is right: It is clear that Homestar's gesture or lack thereof was taken by Strong Bad as an actual one-fingered salute. We should take it just as seriously as we take Strong Bad and Pom Pom's deuces. Yes, he may have thought Strong Bad was just "waving", but if he did, it appears that he "waved" back, and therefore, for all practical purposes, Homestar did in fact flip Strong Bad off. I hope that wasn't ridiculouly confusing; I feel like I'm rambling. If it doesn't make sense, let me know; I'll try to clarify. Heimstern Läufer 07:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The quotation marks on waving seem to convey it just right. Couldn't have said it better myself (and I tried to above). — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 18:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I really think you guys are overanalyzing this. The joke was that you can't see either Strong Bad or Pom Pom's gestures - just the suggestion of them given the context. The joke is continued when Strong Bad "flips off" Homestar, and Homestar just reflects it right back. Given the lack of visible evidence, but also given Strong Bad's responses to both Pom Pom ("Pom Pom prefers the single deuce") and Homestar ("He just gave me the bird!"), I think it's safe to assume that the gesture (visible only to Strong Bad) was repeated both times. - KieferSkunk 19:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've always perceived this as exactly how the current wording explains it. Strong Bad flips Homestar off, so Homestar responds by flipping Strong Bad off, and Strong Bad reacts as if he can see it. It doesn't need any more explanation than that. In fact, it's funny precisely because it's ambiguous. Let's not squeeze the poop out of the fly here. — Joey (talk·edits) 20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe that Homestar doesn't actually understand the gesture - he's pretty dim. Say you're from another country, and you've never seen or heard of the middle-finger gesture before. Someone does it to you, and you might interpret it as a friendly gesture and do it right back to them. Of course, the first person might then be offended by it. Since Homestar generally tends to have memory lapses and is otherwise just a dim-witted fellow to begin with, I think it's perfectly reasonable to interpret this as him seeing the flip-off and just not understanding it. - KieferSkunk 20:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As my mother always said: It's the thought that counts. It doesn't metter if they actualy did it or not. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 20:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the joke here is the ambiguity. Is Homestar wittily flashing the bird back, or does he not realize the back of String Bad's boxing glove is actually the finger, making his response a wave? That's what puts the hummor in the situation. I don't think we can take SB's reply as evidence to support either side. Username-talk 20:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hence the original statement: Strong Bad reacts as though he can see (the gesture). - KieferSkunk 20:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Revision: "When Strong Bad flips off Homestar, Homestar apparently returns the gesture, causing Strong Bad's feelings to be hurt." - KieferSkunk 20:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Meh, the feelings hurt part is not that relevant. The key is that Strong Bad says, "He just gave me the bird," something someone wouldn't be expected to say if they hadn't actually been flipped off. This whole page is based on trying to interpret something that doesn't make sense in the real world. Its purpose is to highlight the ambiguity where we find it. I think there's enough support for including the instance found in the bird to put it back on the page, but I suggest my own revision: Strong Bad flips Homestar off, and after Homestar replies "Right back atcha," Strong Bad exclaims, "He just gave me the bird!" — It's dot com 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. That's nice and unambiguous. - KieferSkunk 20:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, very good. It's got no speculation. - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

That sounds re-ZON-able. (Or however you spell that.) Heimstern Läufer 23:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Pic?

Which do you think we should use for this article's picture? I'm for Homestar's "arms" from fingers.-Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

EDIT: Lunar Jesters uploaded[1]. I like it.Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

Page Title

Invisible Arms? I don't think that Homestar, Marzi & KOT have arms at all. I think it's some kind of force field or something. I mean, the fact about time capsule (Homestar holding three things at once) was already declined on STUFF because the majority of people here think it's not clear that Homestar has arms as such. Can we get a better name for this page? And perhaps remove that dubious fact? Homestar Coder 23:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

How about "Ambiguious Arms" or simply "Arms"? Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

I don't like just "arms" because this page is actually about lack of arms. Say, how about "Lack of Arms" ;) Homestar Coder 23:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Lack of Arms" has the same problem that "Invisible Arms" has. Namely, it assumes as fact one of the possible explanations for the situation. (I admit I chose "Invisible Arms" because that's the camp I'm in. Is there something (besides just "Arms") that is more neutral?) — It's dot com 23:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did propose Ambiguous Arms earlier... - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

"Ambiguous Arms" is a step in the right direction, although something about it (maybe the alliteration?) doesn't sound quite right to me. — It's dot com 23:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the alliteration kind of threw me off, too. *looks up synonyms* "ambiguous, cryptic, dark, darkling, deep, enigmatic (also enigmatical), equivocal, inscrutable, murky, mysterious, mystic, nebulous, occult." Not a good list. - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

How about "Vague"? - KieferSkunk 23:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

What about "Extremities"? Homestar uses that term in the DVD commentary in time capsule. :) - KieferSkunk 23:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That has the same problem as just "Arms", though. :P - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

Yeah, "Extremities" doesn't really address the adjective problem. How about "Missing or Invisible Arms"? "The Arm Situation"? "No Visible Arms"? "How the Crap Do They Pick Stuff Up"? — It's dot com 23:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Missing or Invisible Arms" does adress both sides of the problem. - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

"Vague Extremities", then. :) - KieferSkunk 23:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I say "Arms?"—with the question mark. —AbdiViklas 23:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at my most recent list, I like "No Visible Arms." It gets the point across, it's easy to remember, and it works for both completely missing arms and arms that are just invisible. Plus, it can be worked into a fun fact: "This is another reference to Homestar's having no visible arms." — It's dot com 23:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm for "No Visible Arms". Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

Yeah, that's a good solution to all sides. —AbdiViklas 23:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move it in about 5 minutes if there's no objections. Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

Well, now let's give everyone a chance to weigh in. Just to be thorough, here are the choices so far:

• This is another reference to Homestar's missing or invisible arms.
• This is another reference to Homestar's [[Lack of Visible Arms|ambiguous arms]In].
• This is another reference to the arm situation.
• How the crap do they pick stuff up? (just kidding).
• This is another reference to Homestar's having no visible arms.

— It's dot com

Alright, I'll wait. Though, looking at that list, it looks pretty obvious. :) - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

I'll go along with no visible arms. It seems the best of both worlds. --DorianGray

It's a bit awkward, but I'd go with "No Visible Arms." How about "Lack of Visible Arms"? Homestar Coder 23:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The point of "no visible arms" is that it will be linked easily from fun facts pages (see the list above) - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

"This is another reference to Homestar's lack of visible arms." It sounds better, see? Homestar Coder 00:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right. "Lack of Visible Arms" does sound better. We're going to need a clear agreement before we move it. Any way we could have a quick STUFF-style vote, or should we just move it now? - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

I emphatically agree that a negative statement about visible arms is the way to go (it makes no statement about invisible or none), and I enthusiastically agree with H. Coder that "Homestar's lack" is preferable to "Homestar's having." That gerund gamme the gerbblies. (Not to be confused with the gerbilys.) —AbdiViklas 00:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say lack of visible arms is good too. As long as it finally gets a name everyone can agree on, yeah? --DorianGray

Done. — It's dot com 01:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Homestar's perception

Note that just because clearly Strong Bad and Strong Mad are of the opinion he doesn't have arms doesn't prove it for sure; that's their opinion. Homestar seems to think he does. This could be Homestar being delusional, or one could argue that he ought to know best. Seems to me this is similar to the pants issue—he maintains he's wearing pants although others disagree. —AbdiViklas 23:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm?

When Strong Bad notes that Marzipan has "really nice hands" in the Yellow Dello commentary, I think it's possible that he was being sarcastic. His tone (notice his emphasis on the word "hands"), combined with the fact that he seems to have a pretty good handle on just who has arms in Free Country U.S.A, indicates that he may have been making a joke. Of course, that doesn't mean Homestar's agreement wasn't completely earnest... Rocketlex 00:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Another character with no visible arms

The Wheelchair is seen lifting the lid to his pot of burled holiday cabbage in Decemberween Sweet Cuppin' Cakes. Any significance? - KieferSkunk 21:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, add it on. He has definitely got no arms. - Kookykman(t)(c)(r)

Done. Added a note that he actually DOES have visible arms, but they don't move. (You can see the arms, but they obviously aren't designed to pick things up. :)) - KieferSkunk 22:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Good call on adding the wheelchair. But I have to disagree, he does not have arms. I R F 22:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, he means the wheels. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 23:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant the wheels? Actually, I was talking about the arms (the parts that you'd rest your arms on if you were sitting in a wheelchair. I had forgotten that The Wheelchair's arms (in this case) serve as his mouth. - KieferSkunk 23:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. I didn't do any fact checking. I am probably just going crazy...again. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 23:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Not quite so visible

Be it in another page or this page, this might be a good idea! --Stux 04:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, we added the bit about Strong Bad "flicking" Strong Sad's "ears" to the Type-With-Boxing-Gloves page... I see nothing wrong with this. And the coach must have some sort of mouth, as we've seen him blow a whistle AND eat... But it might just be an invisible one. --DorianGray

No telekinetic abilities. Just arms.

This is my opinion on it, taken from the Homestar talk page:

If you want something close to proof, look at the bird. But really, you're just analyzing it too hard. Look at his eyes on the picture in the upper left. They're clearly on the front of his head, with him facing diagonally. Notice that you can see the underside of the hat? Notice the mouth is seen from a diagonal angle? It's like an Egyptian painting. Yes, the puppet has the eyes on the side, but can't you tell that's just to make it work in real life? It's a cartoon, it's like Egyptian paintings, it doesn't have to be exactly like that in real life. There is no real life, in fact, so reality is simply what the creators intended. How can he flip Strong Bad the bird with telepathic abilities? It's like Pom-Pom's voice, they can understand it but we can't. The arms exist but we can't see them. His eyes are just eyes. </rant> Uh...Cwapface 03:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummm..I totally forgot what I wrote on the other page so I'm just gonna wing it- It's just one of those many questions everyone has for TBC, but they have no answer for. Like "How come Marzipan has no legs" or "Why does Bubs' mouth not move when he talks or just barely does"? It's one of those things the world may never know.--Gir007 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• If Homestar had arms, there would be holes in his shirt/skirt for them to come out of. I think this decisively shows that he must be telekinetic.

• How does Strong Bad type with boxing gloves on? --_{NERD42  email  talk   h²g²  pedia  uncyc}  23:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry to post anonymously, but I haven't created an account here yet. I think that the Brothers Chaps may have finally answered the arms vs. telekinesis question with the recent Strong Bad E-mail lady fan. Since Homestar's workout clothes include a leotard/onesie thing, the shoulder straps would fall if he didn't have *something* holding them up.

• • To add to that (still anonymous diffrent poster) in the same E-mail Strong Bad slaps the scoisors out of Marzipan's hands, or the lack thereof. This implys that people with arms can interact with those without, giving play to the "invisble arms" argument.

They're not the only ones...

I happen to know, and I would really appreciate if no one asked me why I know, that the characters from VeggieTales also don't have arms, but can pick stuff up. Who came first, anyways?--Jnelson09 23:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

VeggieTales came first. PurpleKoopa 21:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with liking VeggieTales, Jnelson09. They rock. One of my favorite jokes is in the one about Jericho where someone is giving a speech and everyone applauds. One of the characters leans to another and says, "How are we clapping??" Good stuff. — It's dot com 23:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I like VeggieTales (honestly, I think they're weird, no offense), it's just that I saw it a few times, and the first time I saw Homestar in Experimental Film, it just reminded me of that.--Jnelson09 23:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Something Worth Knowing

There's an article on Homestar's discussion page about the "no arms" mystery, but it discusses the reasoning behind the lack of arms. Anybody care to add to it?

The Wheelchair

The Wheelchair does 'technically' have arms(handles). And even if not so, this isn't a character that should actually be designed to have arms. Shouldn't the title of that section be labeled differently, instead of just listing what abscure characters don't have arms? If your intention is that, then why not add "The Huuuuuudge" and other mentioned characters without libs? Homestramy20|^Talk 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the main point of including the Wheelchair is that it has been seen manipulating an object if it had arms--or, rather, invisible ones. --DorianGray

That's it exactly. The Wheelchair opened a pot of burled cabbage with invisible arms. This page isn't discussing the armrests, but actual manipulative arms we cannot see but have seen evidence of. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth having a closer look at some of the characters on this page: I'm not sure all of them have ever been seen moving objects as though they had invisible arms. It seems to me this page shouuld only feature those characters who have done so, not just any character with no visible arms. I'll check up on this when I have more time. Heimstern Läufer 22:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A list and a check if there is a verified example of proof there are arms that are not invisible, and not just no arms:

• Homestar Runner
• Marzipan
• The King of Town
• Homsar (Homestar Presents: Presents - using paintbrush as bell)
• The Yodeling Man (he holds the horn somehow)
• The Knight (bass drum mallets in Fall Float Parade
• The Little Chef Guy
• The Prince of Town
• The Goblin NO ARMS
• The Sad Kids
• The Homestar Runner (parsnip soup)
• Old-Timey Marzipan
• 1-Up (puuding)
• The Wheelchair (burled cabbage)
• Unnamed Girl
• Homeschool Winner
• The Unguraits

Add checks and confirmations as you find them. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The chef guy seems to be holding a knife somehow, but he doesn't move it at all. The others are all unconfirmed, as far as I know. --DorianGray

Shouldn't we be able to assume that The Prince of Town has invisible arms, as he is the storybook counterpart to The King of Town? — Has Matt? (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Homsar holding a paintbrush in Homestar Presents: Presents? I think that would count... - Saturn 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

He was also holding a magic wand and dropped a bunch of confetti in Halloween Potion-ma-jig. Good call. :) —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I'd also suggest that any character who looks human or vaguely human (The Sad Kids, Unnamed Girl, etc) should also be considered as having invisible arms if they're not actually shown. If you choose to accept that, then this leave The Goblin, Homeschool Winner and the Unguraits. And you can probably assume that Homsar and Homeschool Winner have the same or similar qualities to Homestar Runner, since they are similar creatures. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Prince Of Town: hey, maybe if they aren't arms but are telekinesis, he hadn't yet developed the power at that point. Add to that the PoT is apocryphal, and I see no reason to assume he has arms.
• The Goblin, The Unguraits: possibly no arms. Probably, even, considering we don't know their physiology. By that logic we add Da Huuudge and other such nonsense.
• The Sad Kids, Unnamed Girl, Homeschool: while we might deduce by analogy that they must have arms, there remains no proof, and therefore we don't actually know for sure.

I think The Goblin and The Unguraits should be removed, and the others debated. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  00:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How about if we put them in a separate section? "Debatable/Unproven Characters" or something like that? —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I could see removing the Goblin and the Unguraits (especially the Unguraits), but I think there's enough to assume that the prince, the kids, the girl, and Homeschool meet the criteria for this page, even without explicit proof. — It's dot com 05:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If The Goblin was gonna have arms, that means he doesn't have now. I say confirmed. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 07:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that picture of the Goblin confirms that he has no arms at all. If anything, it confirms for me that he has invisible arms. — It's dot com 15:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved all the questionables to a new subsection: "Debatable Characters". Is that good enough? —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Invisible Hands Only theorem

I consider Strong Bad is a Bad Guy canon, so Homestar (and presumably the rest of the cast) really doesn't have arms, invisible or otherwise. However, Marzipan clearly have hands, so this is how I think things work:

Each armless character has two invisible hands, which are manipulated psychokinetically. These hands are the only things that can be so manipulated. Meneth 06:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)