I use Pocket to save articles to read later. It is helpful but also a crutch with its own faults, or, I should say, a crutch for my own faults to lean on. Which is to say, I put stuff in my to-do basket, and there it sits, not getting done.

So here's a blog post from last November that I knew I'd want to comment on, and now I will confuse the writer by dredging it up from the long past.

Michelle, whose nom d'blog is fatnutritionist, wrote about stuff she believes, as opposed to what people think she believes. I'm not sure what response I had in mind then, but this is what I have now:

One misconception is probably a problem of infer, rather than imply — what a reader is taking, rather than what a writer is giving. But package them together and they're far more likely a reflection of what the writer is casting out. Here are Michelle's:

• That the food industry is AWESOME.
• That there are no health risks associated with being fat.
• That people should and must eat junk food.
• That weight loss is always bad, and never happens anyway.

She's mocking her commenters a litlte bit, using all those absolutes ("no health risks," "must," "always,""never"), but also,  that's often how internet commenters perceive.  Another acknowledgement: What's the point of blogging if you just want to go along with the crowd?

Even so, these are a questionable lot! Michelle apparently tends toward supporting Big Food and junk food (same thing?), and poo poos weight loss. That's some contrarian shit, no?

I'm curious  how my readers would overstate my themes, and maybe I'd have plenty to answer for, too. But I sure hope, and I'm fairly sure, that this quartet would be nothing like mine.

For the record:

• Big Food: Bad.
• Being fat: Not preferred.
• Junk food: Avoid.
• Weight loss: Better, quite possible.