The above, a heading on the BBC’s news page.

The lengthy story accompanied by many photographs, detailed how the BBC sent a reporter to Ghana to investigate a report that the world’s tallest man was living in a village.

The substance of the article was how the BBC dummie failed in his efforts to measure the chap’s height despite standing on boxes and also lack of a high enough wall, plus his inadequate tape measure.

I could have measured him inside a minute by having him lie on the ground.

Is this another example of brain rot through cell-phone dependency or instead, am I a genius?


There’s no doubt that you are approaching genius Sir Bob, but there is a worldwide dependency on cell-phones for so many things for many people. Should some drastic event affect the worlds power system, they’ll not only lose communication and their brains may have turned off the access to common sense and memory of such things as Pythagoras theorem, if they ever learnt it, which can be used to measure heights of buildings, trees and tall men.

Whenever a newspaper headline asks a question that can be answered Yes or No – and more and more of them do these days – the answer is always No.

I’ve noticed a trend towards newspaper headlines being posed as questions like this. This means you can either propose something ridiculous, to which the answer is a resounding no, but it makes an attention grabbing headline. Or, as in this case, it just means the writer can’t be bothered to ascertain whether this person was in fact the world’s tallest man.

I’m surprised that the BBC guy didn’t follow the “subtraction method”: get a shorter chap, measure HIS height, then get the two men to lie lengthwise on the ground, head-to-feet. Measure the combined length, then subtract the first shorter length from the combined figure.
Voila! In algebraic terms, (a+b)-b = a.

Nah mate. It’s an example of media dishonesty. The reporter obviously realised that the bloke isn’t the world’s tallest man, so decided not to let the truth spoil a sensationalist opportunity. Better not to.measure his height and ruin the pretence.

The article I read clearly stated that the man’s height was 7 foot 4 inches , nearly a full foot shorter than the known tallest man , one Sultan Kosen at 8 foot 2.8 inches . Basically , the headline and the story were a dishonest media beat up . No surprises there .

How about this bit of illiteracy:

Repeatedly mooing about a “brow” on the ship. For the love of God, it is “bow”. Morons.

    A brow is what used to be referred to as the gangway. The sailor was negotiating her way up the brow – i.e. the connection between the wharf and the ship.

A lengthy article. A tall story, indeed.

Like the old joke Bob. No good we want the height not the length!

Actually, the brow, on a naval ship, is the top of the gang-plank where a sailor will stop and salute the ensign and the quarter-deck when coming aboard. The bow is the pointy-end and is used to show when the boat is moving forwards.

I believe John Johnston gave the best answer out of 10

I admit to receiving a New Zealand education.

If you measured the man by getting him to lie down (based on photographs I’ve seen) his height would be not much more than 18 inches.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: