What I’m saying is, he may be technically correct in IDing an insult. No way, though, that he actually finds it to be “insulting.”
Does Frazz seem like the type to let the comments of an inert anti-fitness lard bucket “insult” him?
And come on, you call a dumb guy a dummy, that’s insulting. You call a fitness obsessive “foolish,” do you think for a minute that he believes that, or let’s it hurt his feelings?
Could happen. Easier for me, though, to picture the opposite. This strip has its quirks but I’ve always thought it totally bizarre that we sometimes see Olsen and Spaetzle actively discouraging Frazz’s training. It’s not enough that they’re inert loads? They have to be against exercise?!
Hmmm. Guessing she doesn’t want people to know about the walking because then they’ll go all out, bothering her with advice and encouragement. And she doesn’t want to hear it because she’s a fat, lazy, sedentary tub of goo. And she wants to stay that way.
Which is different, maybe, from the imperative, “No complaining.”
In brief, it’s people not being able to express in words the “right term” for the visual in their heads. No agreement. I’ve cooked ribeyes to my ideal medium rare of 128°, only to have one guest call it medium well and another call it raw.
Oh, I use one! A Thermapen Mk IV. The problem is the visual, and the way people associate the pink or red appearance of cooked beef with various descriptors. It’s what they SEE, not the actual temp.
I really believe that part of it is pride. Lots of people like their beef overcooked because they’re squeamish about any hint of a “warm red center.” BUT they think it’s supposed to be “cooler” to like medium rare because that’s what food experts say is best. So they feel dumb, asking for well done, even though that’s what they want. And they ask for medium, you give them medium and they FREAK OUT.
I will admit that I didn’t read it that way and now that you’ve put it that way, I see your point. Guessing, though, that no one would write it that way, and that Mallett’s got a different cheat going. So the headline writer is the imbecile.
Lots of nonsense on the internet, but this is a joke about bad copy editing, not bad science. How did the kid genius land on a story with such a preposterously written headline? A convenient, inane contrivance. Which is no better than my initial reading of it.
“Less likely to die . . . “? You’re gonna die. That’s not a “likely” event or a “less likely” event, that is happening for sure.