As strange as it may seem to people who have known me, I routinely go to a gym. When you've got an ICD, or, to be more exact, a CRT-D implanted in your chest you have to do what you can to stay heart-healthy. And in my case that has meant using equipment that includes heart-rate monitoring so I don't rev my heart up too high.
Being a modern gym trying to attract a younger clientele, they have installed a number of wide-screen monitors above and in front of the various aerobic machines. At any moment of the day you can usually see a dozen or more folks huffing and puffing on treadmills, stair steppers, various forms of exercise bikes, and rowing machines. They're all focused on being thin and trim, unlike the folks on the TV monitors.
Now, I don't own or particularly want a huge monitor in my home. There's no place to put one, and when I do watch a DVD I use a nice, wide monitor on the family computer that cost way less than its bigger kin. Between it and the speakers, I do OK.
So, forgive me, those of you with thicker wallets and wider TV monitors, when I ask why people are watching a standard-size TV broadcast (1.33:1 aspect ratio) stretched out sideways on monitor built for watching wide-screen (16:9 or more!) images?
I'm tired of seeing cars with apparently oval tires. I wonder, just how much weight a woman would have to take off before her face would look human? We're not all related to Jabba the Hutt, right?
Or should I drop my standards and accept that before long most people will think I've of a normal width?
No comments:
Post a Comment