I stole that from a Republican, and if all Republicans thought that way I’d be nicer to them.
It’s a fish roundup for Good Friday here on the ol’ raincoaster blog; my Catholic ancestors must be recrudescent this weekend (is some chippy Brit going to get up my nose about using big words again? I love that: fresh prey).
The fearsome, toothy Tiger fish from the Congo; why would the Congo have tiger fish if Africa has no tigers? Eh? Can you answer me that?
This Thai Mekong catfish at 2.7 meters long (9 feet, give or take) may be the biggest freshwater fish ever caught. Gallery of giant Thai catfish photos here, array of giant Thai catfish breaded filets TBA.
Just a side note: the fish was alive when caught, and was injected with fertility drugs so it could be used in a breeding program. Whatever was in the drugs, it died that day, and uh, well, uh, one doesn’t want to make pointed remarks about the intelligence or lack thereof of Thai people, but they ate it. That same day.
This Alaskan Rockfish is estimated between 90 and 120 years old, which would put its birth back in the pre-Information-or-Otherwise-Superhighway days, indeed, back before horseless carriages. It, too, has ended up as fish sticks. Bon appetit!
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
WOW! That has to be the biggest Tiger Fish I have ever seen! Incredible! We catch loads of them around here, but that one is absolutely HUGE!
-Val
[...] Source: Via Raincoaster [...]
But…why DOES Africa have tiger fish if it has no tigers? Eh? Answer me that.
[...] her cruel, ice-cold lover Meryl Streep decided to throw this poor fish back into the cold, uncaring ocean? The Way They Were For those of you who tuned into this soap [...]
recrudescent=”breaking out afresh or into renewed activity; revival or reappearance in active existence.” dictionary.com
Uh, yes. I’m not quite getting the point of that comment, if there is one. I don’t generally use words on my blog if I don’t know what they mean; are you saying that you’re not one of those people who has to sound out difficult words, but rather one of those people who must google difficult words, look them up on Dictionary.com, and then go back to the site that confused you and paste the definition in there, in case you should swing by again and become disoriented?
No. He most likely has a large vocabulary. He was trying to reference a word not commonly used in internet vernacular. I understood what he was saying. And I used a big word. And I didn’t have to look it up. My 8th grade education allowed me to understand it’s meaning. I also understood how recrudescent was being used to explain why a particular species is now being spotted in an area less likely to produce that particular specimen. But that’s just me. From a school teacher’s standpoint (I’m a teacher). he was accurate in citing Dictionary.com. I’d give him points off for not paying homage to his source.
Oh, and should I “swing” by this site again (highly unlikely…I stumbled upon it out of sheer boredom), I’ll most likely chuckle at my witty retort. I just don’t know how to be offended by people :)
Oh and I’m not trying to ignite WWIII (yet here I am, posting a third time. Did I say I’m bored?) I see both your points. Sorry. Grumpy night. Ugly fish.
Thanks for the multiple hits, however bored you may have been. I tend to assume my readers know what words mean when I use them, but that’s just me.