Immortal Platypus

yep, red cross certified. and no. hot.

imagine. I got so tan, and I keep it well, and now I'm an oreo

no. it is soooooooooooooo hot, especially when I was lifeguarding. I could not tell you the last time that I got badly or even moderately burned by the sun

The sun makes me way too hot. it's uncomfortable and unfortunate.

yes! my fellow platypus, you have chosen the correct position False. It will only naturally occur in multiples. However, through the power of SCIENCE we have actually isolated a single water molecule. source and same source farther down oh, don't give up so fast. no, it's not. It is impossible for it to occur naturally. That doesn't mean that it can't happen. Please see the earlier source. I have no idea what anit-wet is, just like I don't know exactly what anti-matter is. Also, they contradict each other, not counteract. Also, maybe through some weird Schrodinger's cat thing, maybe they could. remember to cite which book you're spoiling. I mean, a) how do you know it would have no phase, and b) even so, why would that make it not water? The source I read didn't mention that.

if that's the only reason, Imma unfollow ya'll

that sounds like something he'd do

neither do I, but i've seen him around

nah, that would be better fitting to Treamayne. I would not be great at it

why do I follow you people?

again. water is not necessarily billions of bonded H2O molecules. One molecule of H2O is a water molecule, meaning that, by your own logic, one molecule of water is not wet. Therefore, we can conclude that water is indeed not inherently wet, and instead is capable of becoming wet. also, you're wrong about the opposite of wet being dry. Dry is the absence of wet. Just like a lack of matter is not the opposite of matter (that being anti-matter), dry is not the opposite of wet (that being anti-wet).

have you finished yet? Also, when using spoilers, make sure you say what book it spoils.

ah! a fridge inside the plushes!

you're not a connoisseur of transporting bodies? shame. underground railroad was far more risky. If they could smuggle people out in giant plushes, it would've been a lot easier. just sayin.

yeah, but are there more efficient, transportable, stealthy ways of hiding them? I think not

big enough I can a body in it? for no particular reason...

I agree

I come to answer the ultimate question. I am a Platypus, a semi-aquatic mammal. I am the ultimate arbiter. and no. a single molecule of water is not wet. However, it could become wet. if one molecule of water joined another, then both would be wet. So is wetness a property of water? no. But is the capability of wetness a property of water? yes. I am Platypus and I have spoken. the singular of dice is die. also, technically, in reality, water will almost always be wet. however, by the definition of wet I've always thought of (to be covered in water), then a single molecule (unrealistic as it is, it is possible) would be dry until joined by others.

you're welcome!

fair enough you can do that normally?

royal? Nvm, I don't want to know

i'm going to shoot something

they're in a different place

I mean... i assumed that was the reason... but still people that asked about it?

cause the PM. I don't know why it has to be a PM