ICYMI “tuna fish” is looked down on by some language peevers as an example of eliminable redundancy.
If the joke is that only someone as dim as Zero would make this error, what side of the dispute does this come down on?
Okay, if it were a candle, which we could figure gets lit to accompany special moments, the age correlation might start to make sense. But how or why with a lamp?
Huh? Two-way hostage?
The cartoon, like most of the Nick and Zuzu panels, was published to accompany a Carolyn Hax advice article at WaPo. (Hope you are not over your free-view limit!) In this case, while it doesn’t fully explain that phrase, it does give away the situation that could lead Nick to think of it that way.
Since the Lockhorns are who they are, we know Loretta disapproves of Leroy’s habit. But isn’t it just normal?
I’m familiar with inflation, and I’m familiar with the idiom of “two cents’ worth” but don’t see what they mean when you stick them together like this.
I can accept that they find Tiger Woods interesting (or more specifically, found him interesting in 2002). But why is that supposed to be funny?
From Andréa, who sent it in as both a Geezer and a CIDU, and asks “Why is the coroner referring to him at all if he’s still alive???”
Going fast makes them miss messages?