This comment feels oddly meta. One of a small chain of comments pointing out the art in this strip is exactly the same with only the dialogue changing. Feels like the comment is stating the answer to its own questions, but unintentionally? But just this comment. All the others (this one included) show basic understanding of art theory and the concept of irony, proving this one redundant. Why would the commenter underline the deviation from Watterson's regular art style whilst discussing how said deviation lines up with the narrative of the piece, when literally any other C&H strip proves Watterson chooses his dialogue and art very deliberately? I know the whole point is not too take it too seriously, but the juxtaposition between understanding the message and not the art just left me itching to respond. I could not resist adding my own spin to weird you out more.