WE'RE GOING TO NEED A BIGGER STEAK
(The dog is thinking, "Get that thing away from me.")
(Thanks to Claire Martin)
Post a comment
Your Information
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
« Previous | Main | Next »
August 26, 2010
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Nowhere in the article does it even mention the mushroom. WTH?
Posted by: Guin | August 26, 2010 at 01:55 PM
whoa...
Posted by: Siouxie | August 26, 2010 at 02:15 PM
The comment section for that article is a bunch of WTH too.
As for the 'shroom, it's apparently only slightly outside the normal range for size and weight of that species. Go fig.
Posted by: KJP | August 26, 2010 at 02:37 PM
Duuuuuude, shrooooooms.
Posted by: Layzeeboy | August 26, 2010 at 03:05 PM
I agree with KJP. The comments under that article are pathetic.
Posted by: nursecindy | August 26, 2010 at 03:39 PM
Wowsers... I knew they got big, but I've never seen one that size! You wouldn't need a steak to go with that, you could just slice off a nice inch thick piece and saute it.
Posted by: djtonyb | August 26, 2010 at 09:45 PM
I wonder if the commenter who worries about killing the "parent of trillions of new puffballs" refuses to eat fruit because it has seeds? I highly recommend that he eat plenty of the abounding fly agarics (amanita muscaria) instead.
Posted by: Ralph | August 26, 2010 at 11:02 PM
So size matters?
Posted by: bonmot | August 26, 2010 at 11:39 PM