The first word he says and the last one together form, “When Davis?”. This is not a question, nor an example of rethoric. This is a statement, a statement that tells us about an event that the speaker is well aware of. He is making use of the same tool pronouns use, context. What is the context? With the context we can decypher the truth, the meaning of future, what is about to occur in the space and time of the universe, more specifically where the earth is found. But what is the content of the context he uses? After weeks of research, I think I’ve concluded with the perfect answer, the perfection of all the perfections, the deepest of all answers that belittle the responses to questions that even god is unable to answer, such as “What is the meaning of life?”. You see, as already made known by the speaker, he has stated an analysis of Garfield. But not an analysis of a single comic strip, but the whole concept of Garfield. He indeed uses only one physical manifestation of the comic, but only because the limitations of the human being to analyse the whole existence of an entity that holds thousands of manifestations, millions if you wish. You see where I am going with this? When will we be able to achieve the nirvana of Garfield, the highest state of understanding, the absolute truth of the whole concept of Garfield, fitting nicely into our small consciousness inside of our brains. When Davis? When will we understand the meaning of Garfield, Davis? I mean, do we even have all the physical manifestations of the comic? Aha! Can we analyse something that is yet to exist? Well, yes and no. But only Davis knows the answer to this. Wait. What if the speaker is wrong? What if, Garfield and John are the embodiment of two opposing things in nature into one unique object of harmony and peace, a Ying and Yang may I say? What if, this union is the manifestation of the bipolarity of Davis? What if, Davis is the comic? Mindblown? This is just the start. When Davis? I tricked you into thinking that this is a statement, but it really is a statement that requires a small piece block to answer the equation in a neat way. Therefore it is by definition a question. But do we really need to seek the answer? Why not treat the unknown answer as a result, and therefore the missing information as an incognito variable? Treat the whole question as a mathematical problem of a first degree equation? I firmly belive we can compute the answer. But the problem now lies in two things that make the search for an answer difficult. How do we approach the equation? What are the individual numbers and arithmetical symbols found within the syntax of the equation? And what would be the requirements for such computation? Can it even happen through our human minds? A computer with a lot of RAM? Cortex proccesors? Maybe. But I think I have the solution for the second one. If the mathematics are correct, and the probability is indeed fullfilled, we live in a simulation. I’m not going to rant much about it, but here’s the idea. In a simulation everything you see is generated immediatelly when it is withing your senses’ range, right? That opens the possibility for the fact that our minds are not limited by our physical manifestations of our brains, but by the limitations of the simulating computer, which are undoubtetly garguantuanly minuscule. But wait, that would then mean that nothing can exist as a physical manifestation. Right? Eitherway, I end this comment here. I hope someone can use this information I did on my own for the benefit of humanity on the quest for the Holy Grail of Garfield. This was М.Б, signing off.