FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Whale moment of a lifetime

Whale moment of a lifetime

(0:29) As if on cue, a fully grown adult humpback whale breached the surface. BeauPilgrim.com

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: pablo (371 days ago)

In so far as the swimmer didn't seem to be hit, the title of thte video should be "Whale breach just misses swimmer", not "Whale breach nearly misses swimmer". If it had nearly missed him, it would have hit him. In the same way, if you nearly miss a train, you don't actually miss it, you catch it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

In so far as the swimmer didn't seem to be hit, the title of thte video should be "Whale breach just misses swimmer", not "Whale breach nearly misses swimmer". If it had nearly missed him, it would have hit him. In the same way, if you nearly miss a train, you don't actually miss it, you catch it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (371 days ago)

The video editor has merely used the compound noun 'near miss' incorrectly as a phrasal verb. Perhaps he meant 'narrowly missed'. Either way, most of us understood the meaning. In a similar way, perhaps you didn't mean to write 'thte', or use a comma splice in your final sentence.

We will all learn to forgive and move on with our lives.

ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment

The video editor has merely used the compound noun 'near miss' incorrectly as a phrasal verb. Perhaps he meant 'narrowly missed'. Either way, most of us understood the meaning. In a similar way, perhaps you didn't mean to write 'thte', or use a comma splice in your final sentence.

We will all learn to forgive and move on with our lives.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pablo (371 days ago)

Dear Ed.,

Looks like nothing gets by you, or should I say "nearly" nothing.

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

Dear Ed.,

Looks like nothing gets by you, or should I say "nearly" nothing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pablo (371 days ago)

By the way, get by is a phrasal verb; 'nearly miss' is not. What's more, the comma splt that you got got hot under the collar about was not one. Neither are ones in the first two sentences of this reply. Contrats on spotting the typo, though!

ReplyVote up (79)down (101)
Original comment

By the way, get by is a phrasal verb; 'nearly miss' is not. What's more, the comma splt that you got got hot under the collar about was not one. Neither are ones in the first two sentences of this reply. Contrats on spotting the typo, though!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (370 days ago)

Thanks for thinking about the suggestions and for getting back to me, albeit in such a defensive way. I appear to have challenged your ego, and now you're flustered and making even sillier mistakes. Have you been drinking?

Note that I didn't say 'nearly miss' was a phrasal verb - only that the video editor had incorrectly used it as such.

I am delighted that you have now discovered the use of the semi-colon to avoid your comma splices. Unfortunately, the final sentence of your earlier comment did indeed make that error: Your first two clauses form a complete conditional sentence. Your final clause however, 'you catch it', is actually independent and contains its own finite verb, and is also an explanation of the single apodosis rather than part of a list. It therefore requires something more than a comma to separate it. Never mind. I just thought you should know.

By the way, it wasn't the case that I "got got hot under the collar" - I merely like to outpedant pedants.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Thanks for thinking about the suggestions and for getting back to me, albeit in such a defensive way. I appear to have challenged your ego, and now you're flustered and making even sillier mistakes. Have you been drinking?

Note that I didn't say 'nearly miss' was a phrasal verb - only that the video editor had incorrectly used it as such.

I am delighted that you have now discovered the use of the semi-colon to avoid your comma splices. Unfortunately, the final sentence of your earlier comment did indeed make that error: Your first two clauses form a complete conditional sentence. Your final clause however, 'you catch it', is actually independent and contains its own finite verb, and is also an explanation of the single apodosis rather than part of a list. It therefore requires something more than a comma to separate it. Never mind. I just thought you should know.

By the way, it wasn't the case that I "got got hot under the collar" - I merely like to outpedant pedants.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pablo (370 days ago)

You said that the editor used ´near miss' as a phrasal verb, which he did not - simply because it cannot be used as one. Your denial simply makes you look like an idiot. Are you Donald in disguise?

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

You said that the editor used ´near miss' as a phrasal verb, which he did not - simply because it cannot be used as one. Your denial simply makes you look like an idiot. Are you Donald in disguise?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (370 days ago)

Oh, apologies. I thought you knew what a phrasal verb is - I can explain. Phrasal verbs usually have a verb and a preposition, and sometimes are formed from compound nouns. For example, a compound noun such as the 'touch down' of an aircraft (a verb and preposition) can be formed into a phrasal verb, e.g. the aircraft 'touched down'. Similarly, a 'near miss' is a compound noun (a preposition and a verb), and the video editor obviously tried used it as a phrasal verb, i.e. the whale 'nearly missed'. However, as I said, this usage was incorrect, because 'near miss' isn't an established phrasal verb, largely because the two components have independent meanings which as you point out can mean the opposite of the intention. Despite what you say though, of course anyone is free to incorrectly use any unit of speech as another, albeit at the risk of being misunderstood. Accordingly, Donald is a noun, but I could incorrectly use it as an adjective, and say 'You're a bit Donald in your hypocrisy and defensive ignorance!' I could even use incorrectly it as a verb - 'Perhaps you would like to Donald your way out of that one too?'

Good. So hopefully today we have learned what phrasal verbs and comma splices are, and how units of speech are sometimes deliberately or accidentally used in the place of other units of speech. You must be exhausted! If you have any questions, let me know.

Anyway, it seems that I have upset you. That wasn't my intention. Perhaps if you are so sensitive about receiving pedantic criticism, you may wish to avoid that kind of behaviour yourself, as it only invites it in return.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Oh, apologies. I thought you knew what a phrasal verb is - I can explain. Phrasal verbs usually have a verb and a preposition, and sometimes are formed from compound nouns. For example, a compound noun such as the 'touch down' of an aircraft (a verb and preposition) can be formed into a phrasal verb, e.g. the aircraft 'touched down'. Similarly, a 'near miss' is a compound noun (a preposition and a verb), and the video editor obviously tried used it as a phrasal verb, i.e. the whale 'nearly missed'. However, as I said, this usage was incorrect, because 'near miss' isn't an established phrasal verb, largely because the two components have independent meanings which as you point out can mean the opposite of the intention. Despite what you say though, of course anyone is free to incorrectly use any unit of speech as another, albeit at the risk of being misunderstood. Accordingly, Donald is a noun, but I could incorrectly use it as an adjective, and say 'You're a bit Donald in your hypocrisy and defensive ignorance!' I could even use incorrectly it as a verb - 'Perhaps you would like to Donald your way out of that one too?'

Good. So hopefully today we have learned what phrasal verbs and comma splices are, and how units of speech are sometimes deliberately or accidentally used in the place of other units of speech. You must be exhausted! If you have any questions, let me know.

Anyway, it seems that I have upset you. That wasn't my intention. Perhaps if you are so sensitive about receiving pedantic criticism, you may wish to avoid that kind of behaviour yourself, as it only invites it in return.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: pablo (370 days ago)

I can't decide if your ignorance or your arrogance is the greater. First you said "he used it as a phrasal verb" and now you have shifted this to "He tried used it as a phrasal verb". Did you mean to say: "He tried using it as a phrasal verb" or did you mean: "He tried to use it as a phrasal verb"? Don't try to worm your way out of talking loosely. If you are going to be an authority, get your own use of Engish correct.

The truth is the editor incorrectly thought that he could transform an idiomatic noun phrase into an idiomatic verb phrase. Not all idiomatic verb phrases are phrasal verbs and vice versa. When I say you "spoke loosely" in your reply, I'm using an idiomatic verb phrase, not a phrasal verb. When I say you "messed up", I am using one. There, Now you have been informed.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

I can't decide if your ignorance or your arrogance is the greater. First you said "he used it as a phrasal verb" and now you have shifted this to "He tried used it as a phrasal verb". Did you mean to say: "He tried using it as a phrasal verb" or did you mean: "He tried to use it as a phrasal verb"? Don't try to worm your way out of talking loosely. If you are going to be an authority, get your own use of Engish correct.

The truth is the editor incorrectly thought that he could transform an idiomatic noun phrase into an idiomatic verb phrase. Not all idiomatic verb phrases are phrasal verbs and vice versa. When I say you "spoke loosely" in your reply, I'm using an idiomatic verb phrase, not a phrasal verb. When I say you "messed up", I am using one. There, Now you have been informed.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (370 days ago)

Oh, Teddy is really out of the pram now, isn't he? For your own benefit, can you explain the literary difference between incorrectly trying to use something as a phrasal verb, and incorrectly using it as a phrasal verb? You are clearly bothered by that dramatic 'shift', so let's hear what you think it signifies. This will be good. But for the record, he used it incorrectly as a phrasal verb. As I have said. Multiple times.

No, the editor did not try to "transform an idiomatic noun phrase into an idiomatic verb phrase". Pay attention:
Firstly, 'near miss' is not an idiomatic phrase- not in the least. The phrase signifies exactly what the constituent parts mean. Is 'idiom' yet another term that you don't understand? In the UK, they literally teach that in primary schools (along with comma splicing). Awkward.
Secondly, 'near miss' is not just a noun phrase - it is a collocation and, as I have already describe it, an established compound noun - that's why you'll find it has its own entry in the dictionary. A 'sad miss' or an 'distant miss' would be noun phrases.

I can understand that having been embarassed about your comma splicing, you now want to be right about something, but pick again. Anyway, don't worry, I have already explained what happened: The editor took a compound noun and used it incorrectly as a phrasal verb. Incorrect in that he used it as a phrasal verb, when it isn't one. Yes, it's a mistake, but not the one you imagine, and not such a simple fix as comma splicing or learning what 'idiom' means.

And Pabs, please don't forget, it was you who first elected yourself as the English expert, in the same comment that you made your own very basic errors. To reiterate the one thing you've said that has (almost) made sense, "If you are going to be an authority, get your own use of Engish correct."

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

Oh, Teddy is really out of the pram now, isn't he? For your own benefit, can you explain the literary difference between incorrectly trying to use something as a phrasal verb, and incorrectly using it as a phrasal verb? You are clearly bothered by that dramatic 'shift', so let's hear what you think it signifies. This will be good. But for the record, he used it incorrectly as a phrasal verb. As I have said. Multiple times.

No, the editor did not try to "transform an idiomatic noun phrase into an idiomatic verb phrase". Pay attention:
Firstly, 'near miss' is not an idiomatic phrase- not in the least. The phrase signifies exactly what the constituent parts mean. Is 'idiom' yet another term that you don't understand? In the UK, they literally teach that in primary schools (along with comma splicing). Awkward.
Secondly, 'near miss' is not just a noun phrase - it is a collocation and, as I have already describe it, an established compound noun - that's why you'll find it has its own entry in the dictionary. A 'sad miss' or an 'distant miss' would be noun phrases.

I can understand that having been embarassed about your comma splicing, you now want to be right about something, but pick again. Anyway, don't worry, I have already explained what happened: The editor took a compound noun and used it incorrectly as a phrasal verb. Incorrect in that he used it as a phrasal verb, when it isn't one. Yes, it's a mistake, but not the one you imagine, and not such a simple fix as comma splicing or learning what 'idiom' means.

And Pabs, please don't forget, it was you who first elected yourself as the English expert, in the same comment that you made your own very basic errors. To reiterate the one thing you've said that has (almost) made sense, "If you are going to be an authority, get your own use of Engish correct."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pavblo (370 days ago)

Let's agree that banana is not a verb. Let's say that I made the following utterance, " You shouldn't banana." You would be perfectly entitled to say that I incorreclty used banana as a verb. The juxtaposition of 'banana' after the verb 'should' would mean that the only logical explanation of this utterance THAT YOU CAN MAKE is that I think banana is a verb when it isn't. Notice, I did not say that banana was a verb, it is a logical conclusion that you came to on the basis of evidence. If you had said that I believed banana was an adverb, your comment would be ill-informed and useless.

When you said that the editor had incorrectly used nearly missed as a phrasal verb, you were making the exact same mistake. It isn't a phrasal verb any more than banana is an adverb. He didn't say he was using a pharasal vebr. That was simply your WRONG interepretation. Presumably becuase you don't know what a pharasal verb is. Look it up and let's put a stop to this stupid conversation!

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Let's agree that banana is not a verb. Let's say that I made the following utterance, " You shouldn't banana." You would be perfectly entitled to say that I incorreclty used banana as a verb. The juxtaposition of 'banana' after the verb 'should' would mean that the only logical explanation of this utterance THAT YOU CAN MAKE is that I think banana is a verb when it isn't. Notice, I did not say that banana was a verb, it is a logical conclusion that you came to on the basis of evidence. If you had said that I believed banana was an adverb, your comment would be ill-informed and useless.

When you said that the editor had incorrectly used nearly missed as a phrasal verb, you were making the exact same mistake. It isn't a phrasal verb any more than banana is an adverb. He didn't say he was using a pharasal vebr. That was simply your WRONG interepretation. Presumably becuase you don't know what a pharasal verb is. Look it up and let's put a stop to this stupid conversation!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (370 days ago)

On the contrary, my irate little hypocrite. I do know what a phrasal verb is - it isn't an 'idiomatic verb phrase', for starters. I also know what a comma splice is, and what a compound noun is, and any number of basic grammatical points that seem to evade you. To be honest you should have learned those things when you were 9, but I admit that’s hardly your fault. It's not a big deal, and most people wouldn't care, but seeing as you started a thread based on what you perceived to be a grammatical error, I thought it was worth flagging up.

Of course, you're wrong in that actually you can make several logical assumptions about a phrase like 'You shouldn't banana', including that it’s a second-person imperative, the subject's name is Banana, and the speaker has dubious punctuation skills. I suppose it's about probability - let me show you:

Using the case in hand, if someone says 'a whale breach nearly missed a diver' to describe a video that shows a whale narrowly missing a diver, there are basically two significant explanations "THAT YOU CAN MAKE";

- Firstly, that the speaker has mistaken the real meanings of the word 'nearly' or 'miss'. Furthermore, that the speaker has an expectation that a whale breach would not miss a diver, and that therefore when a whale doesn’t miss, it would be worth using as a title to your video. In other words, 'Wow, this time a whale breach almost missed a diver, (but in the end hit them).'

- Secondly, that the speaker is using the common collocative compound noun 'near miss' (which happens to mean narrowly miss) incorrectly as a phrasal verb, also to mean narrowly miss. In other words, 'Wow, this time a whale breach narrowly missed a diver, (but in the end missed them).'

So Poirot; which is more likely? They are both mistakes of course (and a true pedant like yourself would find fault in either) but honestly, which is the more probable, especially bearing in mind we have seen the footage? Consequently, which mistake should you have alleged, if you were not just a rash pedant but a knowledgeable and academic doctrinaire?

It's very simple, really. You wanted to sound clever by pedantically nitpicking an innocent mistake in a video's title. Fine - whatever makes you feel better. Unfortunately, you mislabelled that mistake by using terminology that is incorrect and making silly specious assumptions, and Muggins here was on hand to correct you. Most people would move on, but no! You now feel affronted that I should flip your throwaway attempt at schoolish analysis into an thorough exhibition of your ignorance, and now this Master of Pedantry that you originally presented is even resorting to writing deliberate mistakes in the hopes that they will disguise those that are accidental - the grammatical equivalent of playing dead. My, how the mighty have fallen, Pablo.

Hey, I wish you no ill will. I only repeat my sentiment that you ought not attempt attempt pedantic criticism on matters where you are also decidedly vulnerable. My point has been made.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

On the contrary, my irate little hypocrite. I do know what a phrasal verb is - it isn't an 'idiomatic verb phrase', for starters. I also know what a comma splice is, and what a compound noun is, and any number of basic grammatical points that seem to evade you. To be honest you should have learned those things when you were 9, but I admit that’s hardly your fault. It's not a big deal, and most people wouldn't care, but seeing as you started a thread based on what you perceived to be a grammatical error, I thought it was worth flagging up.

Of course, you're wrong in that actually you can make several logical assumptions about a phrase like 'You shouldn't banana', including that it’s a second-person imperative, the subject's name is Banana, and the speaker has dubious punctuation skills. I suppose it's about probability - let me show you:

Using the case in hand, if someone says 'a whale breach nearly missed a diver' to describe a video that shows a whale narrowly missing a diver, there are basically two significant explanations "THAT YOU CAN MAKE";

- Firstly, that the speaker has mistaken the real meanings of the word 'nearly' or 'miss'. Furthermore, that the speaker has an expectation that a whale breach would not miss a diver, and that therefore when a whale doesn’t miss, it would be worth using as a title to your video. In other words, 'Wow, this time a whale breach almost missed a diver, (but in the end hit them).'

- Secondly, that the speaker is using the common collocative compound noun 'near miss' (which happens to mean narrowly miss) incorrectly as a phrasal verb, also to mean narrowly miss. In other words, 'Wow, this time a whale breach narrowly missed a diver, (but in the end missed them).'

So Poirot; which is more likely? They are both mistakes of course (and a true pedant like yourself would find fault in either) but honestly, which is the more probable, especially bearing in mind we have seen the footage? Consequently, which mistake should you have alleged, if you were not just a rash pedant but a knowledgeable and academic doctrinaire?

It's very simple, really. You wanted to sound clever by pedantically nitpicking an innocent mistake in a video's title. Fine - whatever makes you feel better. Unfortunately, you mislabelled that mistake by using terminology that is incorrect and making silly specious assumptions, and Muggins here was on hand to correct you. Most people would move on, but no! You now feel affronted that I should flip your throwaway attempt at schoolish analysis into an thorough exhibition of your ignorance, and now this Master of Pedantry that you originally presented is even resorting to writing deliberate mistakes in the hopes that they will disguise those that are accidental - the grammatical equivalent of playing dead. My, how the mighty have fallen, Pablo.

Hey, I wish you no ill will. I only repeat my sentiment that you ought not attempt attempt pedantic criticism on matters where you are also decidedly vulnerable. My point has been made.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Pablo (370 days ago)

Let me explain to you how to use the phrase "He incorrectly used it as a phrasal verb". That way, hopefully, you will not make the same mistake again.

The traditional and strictest defintion of a phrasal verb is a verb with an adverbial particle: for example, "Look something up in a dictionary." Prepositional verbs such as "Look after something" are not phrasal verbs under the traditional defition. The distinction is important for grammatical reasons. If someone says, "Your dog is sick, you should look it after a bit better," we can say, " He incorrectly used it (a prepositional verb) as a (traditional) phrasal verb ." We wouldn't say he used it as a thermonuclear warhead becuase it isn't one - any more than nearly missed is a phrasal verb. There, that wasn't too difficult, was it?

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Let me explain to you how to use the phrase "He incorrectly used it as a phrasal verb". That way, hopefully, you will not make the same mistake again.

The traditional and strictest defintion of a phrasal verb is a verb with an adverbial particle: for example, "Look something up in a dictionary." Prepositional verbs such as "Look after something" are not phrasal verbs under the traditional defition. The distinction is important for grammatical reasons. If someone says, "Your dog is sick, you should look it after a bit better," we can say, " He incorrectly used it (a prepositional verb) as a (traditional) phrasal verb ." We wouldn't say he used it as a thermonuclear warhead becuase it isn't one - any more than nearly missed is a phrasal verb. There, that wasn't too difficult, was it?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (369 days ago)

Not too difficult at all, well done - it's sweet that you feel comfortable regurgitating moot ' defitions ' for me. Unfortunately for you though, we are not debating whether 'near miss' actually is a phrasal verb or could be correctly used as such with grammatical conventions. We are debating whether it is likely that something was incorrectly used AS a phrasal verb. To help you remember that, I even underlined the word as in pretty much every comment I've made. That obviously wasn't enough to keep you on track.

How can I simplify this for you? 'I put it the sign up', or 'the computer is putting up on me' are examples of incorrectly using a real phrasal verb. 'We fried up for breakfast' or 'I pressed up in the gym' are examples of incorrectly using something else as a phrasal verb. Understand? How about this; 'His brain is cleverly,' is incorrectly using a real adverb, whereas 'He was thinking clever,' is incorrectly using something else as an adverb. Those are deducible from the word placement, whereas the video title above was deducible from the intended meaning - at least to anyone reasonable who doesn't have something to prove.

Obviously, it is impossible to use a word as a real-world nuclear device, because they are different entities. However, using one type of word or phrase as or in place of another happens all the time. This isn't a complicated concept to grasp. The fact is, it is undeniable that the intended meaning of the video's title is derived from the compound noun a 'near miss', because that's precisely what we see in the video - and trying to turn that noun into a meaningful phrasal verb doesn't work.

Ultimately though, your rash attempt to sound intellectual has landed you in a big hole, and you can't stop digging. Comma splicing, a dubious understanding of the conditional mood, no inkling of what 'idiom' means, poor logical deductions, lousy comprehension skills, and spelling mistakes my grandchildren wouldn't make; this thread didn't work out the way you planned. If you're so hostile to criticism yourself, then you really ought to avoid trying to dish it out, or at least choose a subject you have studied since primary school.

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

Not too difficult at all, well done - it's sweet that you feel comfortable regurgitating moot ' defitions ' for me. Unfortunately for you though, we are not debating whether 'near miss' actually is a phrasal verb or could be correctly used as such with grammatical conventions. We are debating whether it is likely that something was incorrectly used AS a phrasal verb. To help you remember that, I even underlined the word as in pretty much every comment I've made. That obviously wasn't enough to keep you on track.

How can I simplify this for you? 'I put it the sign up', or 'the computer is putting up on me' are examples of incorrectly using a real phrasal verb. 'We fried up for breakfast' or 'I pressed up in the gym' are examples of incorrectly using something else as a phrasal verb. Understand? How about this; 'His brain is cleverly,' is incorrectly using a real adverb, whereas 'He was thinking clever,' is incorrectly using something else as an adverb. Those are deducible from the word placement, whereas the video title above was deducible from the intended meaning - at least to anyone reasonable who doesn't have something to prove.

Obviously, it is impossible to use a word as a real-world nuclear device, because they are different entities. However, using one type of word or phrase as or in place of another happens all the time. This isn't a complicated concept to grasp. The fact is, it is undeniable that the intended meaning of the video's title is derived from the compound noun a 'near miss', because that's precisely what we see in the video - and trying to turn that noun into a meaningful phrasal verb doesn't work.

Ultimately though, your rash attempt to sound intellectual has landed you in a big hole, and you can't stop digging. Comma splicing, a dubious understanding of the conditional mood, no inkling of what 'idiom' means, poor logical deductions, lousy comprehension skills, and spelling mistakes my grandchildren wouldn't make; this thread didn't work out the way you planned. If you're so hostile to criticism yourself, then you really ought to avoid trying to dish it out, or at least choose a subject you have studied since primary school.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (370 days ago)

Wake me up when this is over.

ReplyVote up (80)down (101)
Original comment

Wake me up when this is over.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (370 days ago)

OK. Alternatively, you could look at another webpage, or even watch TV. Mix it up a bit.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

OK. Alternatively, you could look at another webpage, or even watch TV. Mix it up a bit.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (369 days ago)
Latest comment:

OK. Done that. Have you and Pablo finally stopped waving your grammatical genitals at each other or do the rest of us need to watch more TV?

ReplyVote up (78)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

OK. Done that. Have you and Pablo finally stopped waving your grammatical genitals at each other or do the rest of us need to watch more TV?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (372 days ago)

but why dont whales get the benz pls

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

but why dont whales get the benz pls

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Emeritus (371 days ago)

Nitrogen is found wherever there is darkness (comes from the same word as night). Whales spend their time in very deep dark water, so their bodies are used to metabolising the nitrogen. Humans however (who live in daytime) can only metabolise oxygen, the common gas in daylight, so the nitrogen forms into bubbles in the blood and that's what we call the benz. Interestingly, humans that live in places more prone to nighttime (Greenland) are unaffected by the benz.

ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment

Nitrogen is found wherever there is darkness (comes from the same word as night). Whales spend their time in very deep dark water, so their bodies are used to metabolising the nitrogen. Humans however (who live in daytime) can only metabolise oxygen, the common gas in daylight, so the nitrogen forms into bubbles in the blood and that's what we call the benz. Interestingly, humans that live in places more prone to nighttime (Greenland) are unaffected by the benz.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Ace7 Ace7 (372 days ago)

Maybe it is because they don't breathe underwater like a diver does. This means their blood does not get a chance to build up desolved nitrogen. Free divers don't get the benz either. Same reason. Or maybe they just prefer BMW's

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

Maybe it is because they don't breathe underwater like a diver does. This means their blood does not get a chance to build up desolved nitrogen. Free divers don't get the benz either. Same reason. Or maybe they just prefer BMW's

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (372 days ago)

Because the breath like we do.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Because the breath like we do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (372 days ago)

oh i hadnt thought of the breath thanks.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

oh i hadnt thought of the breath thanks.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Dog and two ducks
Dog and two ducks
Insect population down by 76%
Insect population down by 76%
The jaw-dropping art of bull-leaping
The jaw-dropping art of bull-leaping
Iguana spotted 4 miles offshore
Iguana spotted 4 miles offshore
What happens when you inbreed?
What happens when you inbreed?