Talk:Very, Very Little Girl

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 5: Line 5:
::Yeah. Add to that the fact that the baby even looks like Mike, and you've got yourself a very logical rationale. =) {{User:The Paper/sig}} 00:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah. Add to that the fact that the baby even looks like Mike, and you've got yourself a very logical rationale. =) {{User:The Paper/sig}} 00:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Pretty good thinking. Now that I look at the baby, the baby does resemble Mike, just without the beard.--{{User:H*bad/sig}} 00:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Pretty good thinking. Now that I look at the baby, the baby does resemble Mike, just without the beard.--{{User:H*bad/sig}} 00:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 +
::::Aww... yeah, she does look like him! They are probably just ajusting to the change. {{User:Cutepetsrus/sig}} 02:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:30, 27 July 2006

Rationale for Mike/Missy child

The "announcement" (more like an off-hand remark that fit the conversation) was made on February 28, 2006. The first website appearance was made on July 24, 2006, so the filming was likely roughly 4-5 months afterwards. It typically takes anywhere from 1-3 months for a woman to find out that she is pregnant. Add to that the unknown time between the personal announcements and the public remark, and there is plenty of time in there to carry a baby to full term, 9 months. The baby appears to be about a month old in the toon, so the baby was likely born in late May or early June, possibly one of the reasons for the June 2006 update drought. However, it is also possible that the baby was born in March or April, as no indication of how far along Missy was in February was revealed. Given that this is the first child born among the Matt-Jackie and Mike-Missy families, it's very plausible that much attention was given to it, and that could be the case for the drought/vacation. Also, who else's baby could it be, that they'd dress it up so cute and proudly stick it on the wedsite shortly after their own child was born? —BazookaJoe and reasoning from forumers 06:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC) modified 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me, man.--Jnelson09 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Add to that the fact that the baby even looks like Mike, and you've got yourself a very logical rationale. =) —THE PAPER PREEEOW 00:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Pretty good thinking. Now that I look at the baby, the baby does resemble Mike, just without the beard.--H*Bad 00:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Aww... yeah, she does look like him! They are probably just ajusting to the change. » c u t e p e t s r u s « T/C 02:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools