Does he want to be enabled, and is expressing disappointment that she doesn’t provide that? Or do we understand enabling in its largely negative pop-psychology sense, and take it that he’s reassuring her she hasn’t contributed to his problem?
Your editor is not very familiar with the discography of Herman’s Hermits, and needs some help here.
I don’t use webthings that include photo filters, but I’ve seen the results, so I’m willing to believe that they can be used to morph her original picture into that horrific result. And I think I get the #NoFilter tag joke–there’s ONE filter she’s not using. But the progression of images doesn’t seem to support that: if the last one was lacking the flowers, then it would make sense.
Or am I missing something else??
This sequence (two four-panel stories) doesn’t seem to address a more fundamental policy matter than the details of pepper supply. Are they not aware of this patron planning to eat that big sloppy deli sandwich at his desk in the Reading Room?
/
The next episode:
(Yes, I’m aware that the strikeout in the post title doesn’t seem to work in Cell or Tablet display preview. So maybe change it to something about “Burying the <strike>lede</strike> lead.”)
Why?
For those who don’t mind having a CIDU largely spoiled, here is a gift link to the Carolyn Hax advice column which it originally accompanied.
At first I thought it was the cat talking, but maybe the open mouth is just another sign of canine-like behavior?
“Submarines” makes it particularly eerie, since part of deterrent nuclear strategy is that even if all your land-based rockets are lost to an enemy first strike, the subs at sea will make the retaliatory attack.
There’s a Groucho disguise. There’s Pooh. There’s Christopher Robin. How are these linked? Say the secret word and win!
Whut??
