Originally published at: Attempting to create viral fever Oregon Reporter misidentifies pants as wild | Boing Boing
…
1 Like
That scared the “pants” right off of me.
4 Likes
They look like “Herb’s” – No, not that herb, WKRP’s Herb Tarlek.
1 Like
I’ve read this headline and article five times and I still don’t understand what it’s saying. Where does the reporter misidentify the pants as wild? What are they really? I’m so confused.
5 Likes
A modest, medicinal libation is in order, I believe.
2 Likes
“Although golf was originally restricted to wealthy, overweight Protestants, today it’s open to anybody who owns hideous clothing.”
– Dave Barry
3 Likes
The headline of the linked article includes the term “wildest pants ever.”
But I think they’re feral, at best. They don’t have the true rush of the jungle flowing through their threads. At least 3 generations removed.
They are the barn cats of pants. 
1 Like
I think the point the reporter from Golf Digest (who one would presume to know a thing or two about golf attire) is making is that the plus fours shown further down are normal golf pants and wouldn’t be labelled wild in context, while the Oregon man’s pajama pants, possibly worn to imitate classic tartan golf wear, are “wild” to a golfer, if less wild than golf pants to a normal person.
Or in other words, if you don’t want to parse the above one-sentence comment: nobody would bat an eye if a cycling reporter labelled it “wild” if a cyclist broke a record wearing a business suit even though in other contexts there’s nothing wild about wearing a suit.
To me they look like pajama bottoms. Pajama bottoms would be the antithesis of wild, wouldn’t they? That would be like the macaroni and cheese of “wild” garb. They could also be scrubs, I guess, too.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
