Shipping

(Updated version.)

Selected Tedd+Grace reference links:

2002-04-01 (so what if this is an AF’02 joke? it could still be foreshadowing #WishfulThinking)
NP-2004-06-19 (triggers Tedd-senses)
2012-04-20 (the face of Tedd (strictly Tedd->Grace) in panel 8 is a picture)
2012-04-23 (especially when xref’d to 2006-01-09, 2011-01-10, 2014-05-19, this also true with previous listed)
2012-07-12 (just leaving this here. awww.)
2014-02-06
2014-04-21
2014-07-08
NP-2014-09-29

2002-06-14 (Sarah rather dramatically affected by the pheromones of the original FV5 of Elliot)
2002-06-30 (original) (girls who have been kissed by Sarah count=1)
2002-06-30 (retcon) (girls who have been kissed by Sarah count=0)
2002-10-05 (girls who have kissed Sarah count=1)
2003-11-19 (“insert graphic adult images here” of Grace, see also Grace correctly realising this.) (Note: it has now been pointed out to me on the forum that Sarah may be picturing Grace ... erm ... taking care of country matters with Tedd - presumably due to the innocent-innuendo device - but in the which case, hmm...)
2005-06-24 (girls who have kissed Sarah count=2)
2006-02-22 (Sarah more intensely attracted to Elliot when she is male-transformed and Elliot is female-transformed)
2006-05-31 (girls who have kissed Sarah count=3)
2014-03-07 (girls who have kissed Sarah count=ambiguous)
2014-05-19 (Sarah and Vampire Sarah)
2014-08-06 (at most a 2...)
NP-2015-12-21 (incidental, right, incidental...)

2010-05-05 (Susan should indeed refrain from so doing, until she has more information. Like here, for instance.)

2003-11-19
2005-06-24
2005-07-21 (hmmm....)
2005-10-24 (well, ish, could be taken both ways)
2007-01-17 (and what reasons might they be?)
NP-2008-09-22
2010-05-17 (especially when xref’d to 2007-11-16, 2007-11-24, SB2010-11-09)
2010-06-11 (no comment, as if any were required)
2010-06-28 (whether Jerry is referring to Elliot (where his statement clearly describes the actual situation correctly but his information discernment is very freaky) or Grace (whom he has just been talking to/about and of whom he is more likely to have discerned) is left as an exercise to the reader)
2012-03-28 (you what?)
2012-07-05 (well, possibly)
2012-10-22 (hmm...why?)
2013-03-18 (especially when xref’d to 2007-11-16, 2007-11-24, SB2010-11-09)
2013-03-19 (whether in context or not, but is more exaggerated when out of context, also xref 2014-05-19)
2013-10-03
2013-10-09
2014-03-24 (you what? no... just...no.)
2014-07-09
NP-2014-10-01
SB-2014-12-08, #17/17 (would be sheer oversight not to include this, canon or no)
2015-01-27 (yeah.)
NP-2015-11-06 (no comment)
NP-2015-12-04 (amazing...)