In a word: No.
I like the way the artist draws, but not the way the artist humors.
They’re ok. Cutesy, yes but slightly amusing. I probably won’t look at them again but I don’t feel like I wasted those 2 minutes either…
Too warm and fuzzy for my jaded soul.
More cute than funny. I tend to like cute better than funny and most funny doesn’t work for me, so that’s fine. I used to read “For Better or Worse” and “Stone Soup” more because they were cute than due to them being funny.
Hate the artwork.
They seem like they were all done by some kid in high school who just got his/her first girlfriend/boyfriend. Meaning, that’s all they can talk about.
Bleh.
Yep. I feel like a better man than I woulda liked them.
He should have listened to his girlfriend.
And they should have a warning for diabetics.
Pretty much this. That was the only one I found amusing.
Didn’t get beyond the first couple comics on each page - was there an arc I missed? Anyway, what I did read, I did not like at all.
Nowhere close to funny. Quite juvenile.
(I’m okay with basic artwork. Look at XKCD* for example. Usually very funny but only stick figures.)
But these aren’t funny. Don’t appear to be intended to be funny. Just trying to be “cute” but failing at that.
- There’s a lot of exceptions, of course.
Beat me to it. Ick on both counts.
I laughed harder at the news story about the terminally ill kid dying in Santa’s arms.
Maybe not “funny haha”, but I liked almost all of them. Could see why they wouldn’t be to everybody’s taste.
Now THAT’S funny! 
(I had to walk away from my desk!)
Sent from my adequate mobile device using Tapatalk.
Would appeal to 14-year-old girls. Which I am not. I also immediately noticed the similarity to those awful Love Is strips.
I found most of them amusing and a couple brought a chuckle.
I saw what you did there.
The writing is fun.
The art is vomit inducing.