actually dictionary definition of chicken out is "to decide not to do something because you are too frightened", similar words are listed as afraid/scared. so people are correct to equal chicken out to being afraid.
none of these excerpts are in the book. so it's just a people magazine article.
Ivy First of all the comment was that
terrified means basically chicken out and not that
afraid is basically chicken out. You changed it.^^ Second the conclusion you made is wrong. You are doing the same thing the person did you are using a cause and saying it is the same as an effect.
Let's look at this:
-Someone said terrifed means basically chicken out.
-You find a dictionary definition that says you chicken out because you are too frightened.
-You then come to the conclusion-- so chicken out = afraid because the dictionary gives other words for frightened like afraid & scared. Do you see your logic there when you focused on something that explained
why someone would chicken out?
Where in the dictionary it says the only time you chicken out is because you are too frightened. There are other reasons to chicken out. Even if I go by your sole definition, afraid does not mean terrified. Terrified has more intensity in it. A dictionary may give various words like big/large/gigantic but these are not the same since they differ in degree. So an afraid person and a terrified person are not the same. Where did it say Chicken out and terrified means the same thing?
You give a reason
why someone chicken out, so in that reason why, "frightened" is the cause and "Chicken out" is the effect, but where in the dictionary it says they are the same? Where did it say the action of chickening out equal the cause of too frightened. The reason someone did something is not the same as What they did. Still, we were not talking about afraid in the thread but "Terrified."
You remind me of being in elementary school when the teacher sent us to look up a word from a story, and we came back with the easiest meaning and she would say, go back and get another meaning. If I go by your logic, if I am given an explanation that a person scratches because they itch, it would mean scratch and itch means basically the same thing. Which is incorrect. Also, based on that conclusion ^^ every terrified person we could say it means they chicken out. I would be terrified of snakes and it would mean I chicken out. I would chicken out due to not wanting to be seen and it would mean I am terrified because both words mean the same thing.
What you wrote here:
So added all together I couldn't give a rats ass about what media or haters think. If you wonder what I think: there was a virgin woman and there was a religious man. I'm not surprised that their relationship was sexless and they were just friends and platonic towards each other. I have no problem with that woman telling her experience as it is. The religious man later got married and his wife on national TV declared that they have sex. That's more than enough for me.
^^I like this part. However, the time to say no no we are not dating was in the 80's when she was young so Michael would not be going around back then saying they were dating.
Snow your comment
Then why on earth did she say such remarks if she wasn't interested in him romantically and/or sexually? It's uncalled for, to be honest. If she just has stick to we were friends, there wouldn't be any issue, trust me.
This is a problem I have too. You were not in a relationship with him, so you did not have to do anything to him for him to chicken out. You get what I am saying here. If me and Santa Claus went out, we are just "out together" for publicity. Why would Santa or me try to do anything that would lead someone to chicken out? Santa is not there for romantic reasons; remember we are only out for publicity. That is why I don't believe all she is saying. The relationship could not be all platonic. If it was just a publicity stunt then no need to go into the terrified comment to make Michael look so abnormal. However, that will not bother most here since they have the same view of Michael that Brooke has.
Personally, and yes I have no proof. I think Michael liked Brooke and her beauty. I think she was interested in him for a time but not seriously. I don't care about who had sex or didn't or who was a virgin or not. I think they went their own way.