Leaderboard

^I'd love to see you at the next US Presidential Debate dmaker!! You'd go hoarse. I think there is a line that can be drawn here. I think that some like minded folks should be able to discuss stuff that may be a bit more hard to swallow without the near constant interruption that can occur. And I think there is a politeness factor involved to let those folks discuss with relative peace. I think that most critical thinkers can go in a thread, read what's posted and come away with some valuable info (good or bad), without needing to pick apart every questionable comment or statement. There are plenty of threads (or threads you can start) to discuss comments and what-not that are being thrown about in those threads. I mean, here's an example: There a Habituation Thread on the BFF. Designed for those that have what they feel are habituation scenarios going on to discuss their experiences as well as designed for those that may want to read about potential habituations. One could start a thread I suppose titled something like "Comments/criticisms of posts in the habituation thread" or something like that where specific comments made by folks could be analyzed and other suggestions offered, or perhaps the person that made the comment could come in and defend it, provide evidence, etc. Leaving the original thread alone for those that just want to discuss. On an aside, it astonishes me that the folks that are complaining about other certain folks constantly interrupting with what they feel is nonsensical proof/evidence demanding haven't long since put the offenders on their ignore list. But that's just me.

Would love to speak frankly with a habituator or two, but they seem reluctant to support the forum or face frank talk. Ah, well.

I think you give them too much credit. I think they just like to hear themselves talk and stir the pot. I think it gives them some sort of perverse thrill, and in some cases a badge of honor to the skeptic friends.

Then you can also do what I do. When I see certain names being the poster, I just simply skip over their post, knowing they have nothing of interest to offer me or in my opinion, the topic at hand. I refuse to give their comment any traction, and seldom respond to their comment to me unless I find it particularly insightful, but that seldom happens.

WSA brought up a interesting point for me. If this forum is for people who believe in "imaginary animals", why do people who don't believe in them even bother to come and read this? Even more, why do they bother to comment on the posts, unless it is to just harass the people posting here? Seems that if I thought so little of the subject and the people, I wouldn't be spending my time in such a manner, and would find more constructive ways to occupy my self. They may claim it is to "enlighten" those folks to the real truth of the subject, but do they really think they are going to change peoples point of view, any more than their own view will be changed? I really find it hard to understand why such people come here. There are forums for just about anything you can think of, there must be a forum for those who steadfastly do not believe in the animal just as there are for those that do. Why are they not there communing with their own? Anyone who can give me a real, honest and logical answer, I would really love to hear it.

What would be the result of me calling the soapbox snake oil salesman a hoaxer? Well, in your analogy my last intention is to befriend the villain, so who cares what conflict might arise between myself and that individual? The upside might be that one or two folks in the crowd might still have enough common sense left to be dissuaded from buying into whatever bull turd is on offer. And, no, I do not have a problem with the civility rules. They can be tricky to navigate and still make your point sometimes, but not impossible. And I have seen BF blogs/forums with little to no moderation, they are tedious, sophomoric places that are fun to visit for a shot of bawdy humour in the middle of your day, but you don't want to linger too long ere the gray matter starts to leak out of your ears. One area of the civility rules that gets irksome is the whole membership confers diplomatic immunity. For example, you are prevented from giving even a mildly candid opinion on someone if they are a member. Even if they haven't posted since they signed up. Examples would be Jeff Meldrum, perhaps Ketchum, maybe even Derek Randles for a more recent example. I cannot say, even in polite words, what I think of their activities without running afoul of the rules because they are members here. And like DWA mentioned ( once, twice..one hundred times) in his last few posts, this is a Bigfoot House. So if I am going to come here and denounce the very raison d'etre du Chateau Bigfoot, then I should at least be polite about it. Equally tiresome is being lectured at over and over again about how one should be interpreting the evidence. Being told constantly that you are incapable of proper reading comprehension if you don't see Bigfoot at the end of the evidence chain is tiresome in the extreme. Hey now, don't put Bipto's threats of leaving on me. I almost never participate in that thread. As if you wouldn't just follow him wherever he went anyway.

Why is it the polite thing to do? If I saw someone on the street standing on a soapbox spreading, what I perceive to be nonsense and made up stories as facts, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would go over and share my opinion. To do less is to do a disservice to critically thinking people everywhere. Your approach, while certainly in line with the rules here, does very little to improve society as a whole. In fact, quite the opposite. In your view, everyone gets a free pass. Including the obvious hoaxers.

If I saw a for sure, no question, couldn't be anything else but a bf, I would shout it to the world. I wouldn't care about the skeptics and I would understand completely their skepticism. My mission would be to have them believe me and if they didn't I would understand and move on to the people who would. Saying you walk among bf and their children, giving them names and then say you're not going to post any more because people don't believe you is an old ploy among the folks who think we're stupid. These folks have been feeding us the same lines for years and they will continue to come out of the woodwork unfortunately. We've seen it here lately and we'll see it again. Man up and convince the skeptics that what you're saying is the real deal no matter what the response is. Stop acting like oh woe is me, no one believes me. I'm tired of people who think everyone will believe their outlandish claims and then take their ball and go home when we question or take them to task. If you want me to believe bf animals cloak, are from another dimension, disappear, speak a language, send you mind messages, have orbs as pets, only appear to some folks and not others, wave hello and say they'll help chase your escaped bull home...discuss it in a respectful way with the skeptics and not just the folks who believe every word you post. That being said, I love you all. Terry

Urkelbot... if you read the thread, you must have seen the links to the Bigfoot Show episodes? I'd give those a listen. But as Bipto has said, you can choose to believe it, or not. To say that you don't believe the evidence is one thing, to say it is not evidence is entirely another. (I don't know about you, but all the photos of the aftermath of Fat Man and Little Boy are fuzzy to me, and could have obviously been hoaxed. I wasn't there. The stories of the events are also just anecdotal and can't be relied on by science. I've never met anyone with radiation sickness symptoms, so obviously I can't consider those claims as true. Most of all, I just can't imagine a detonation on the scale of an atomic bomb, so I'm holding out for extraordinary proof...something like somebody exploding one in my town might convince me, maybe. Until then, I'm thinking of sarcastically taunting Hiroshima survivors on their forum website) Cheers!

Well, I'm a "true skeptic", and I realize BF might exist. BUT, it has nothing to do with beliefs. It is all about FACTS. Again, you focus on beliefs, which are subjective and a "true skeptic" does not deal in perceived truths, we evaluate FACTS and reach an educated conclusion from them. So, I would say your analysis of "skeptics" is a hasty generalization of our intellectual stand, which omits many valid points. I'm sure many of us would be willing to engage in a detailed discussion of your perceived points of truth. p.s. I'm gonna have the guys over and we'll be watching football all day Sunday, so I wont respond 'til monday....