Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. norseman

    norseman

    Steering Committee


    • Points

      627

    • Content Count

      12,664


  2. Huntster

    Huntster

    Sésquac


    • Points

      482

    • Content Count

      18,788


  3. Incorrigible1

    Incorrigible1

    Steering Committee


    • Points

      443

    • Content Count

      10,676


  4. PBeaton

    PBeaton

    Members


    • Points

      411

    • Content Count

      8,027



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/23/2018 in all areas

  1. 9 points
    I missed this earlier. And I will give credit where credit is due. Dmaker is speaking the truth. As for the rest of it? I dont play Dungeons and Dragons. I dont hang out on Dungeons and Dragons forums and tell them how dumb they are wasting their lives playing it. And I dont belong to a anti Dungeons and Dragons forum where we talk about Dungeons and Dragons players and how dumb they are to waste their time playing the game..... Why? Because its an even dumber waste of time....... And I will say this. Anytime your in the back country for any reason? Its not role play.... No matter if I’m scouting for Elk tracks or Bigfoot tracks? The trails are just as narrow, the cliffs are just as tall, and the rivers are just as wide. I dont care if your scouting for pink unicorns and leprachauns? One slip may be the end. No joke. Its no game. I’ve had horses roll over me and crack ribs, Mules upside down in creeks, bucked off, hypothermia at 10,000 feet in the Bighorns of Idaho in late October. This isnt a “game” for pot smoking, cheetos munching, kids rolling fantasy dice in their parents basement. Bgfoot may be a myth. I dont know for myself. But the rest of it? Is stark reality. I dont even know if you dont live in western north America? If you really even comprehend it. And no that one summer trip to Yellowstone doesnt count. And I guess thats why I bristle at the notion that this is just a role playing game. It may be for some? Sitting around the campfire at some state park campsite in Ohio and tell spooky Bigfoot stories while eating smores, do some wood knocks and whoops, listen to forest sounds and get freaked out together and convince each other that Coyote howl isnt really a Coyote at all...... yah I get the comparison. Thats not me. Try rolling out of your bed roll at 2am in the morning 50 miles from the trail head because the Stock are going ape shit on the highline. You know Griz are in the area as well as Blacks, Wolves, Cougars......because you have seen their tracks, or them. Your out there in your long johns with a rifle and a flashlight...... by yourself. I dont care how skeptical you are..... in the back of your mind? Bigfoot may just be a myth to you sleeping in your warm bed. But out there in the vast wilderness, in the pitch black, when you know something is out there? He haunts the recesses of your mind. He does mine. And I dont have any problem admitting it. When I crawl out of that tent I am ready to face anything with a metallic taste in my dry mouth. I can control my fear but I will not lie and tell you its not there. Its always there. Maybe its because of some ancient artifact in my DNA. Maybe its the experience I had as a child. Maybe its because I too ate smores and listened to stories around the campfire as a kid. Illogical or not? Its there. I would be lying otherwise. And I bet you my bottom dollar? That these scofftic JREFers? Deep down, way down inside, in the pitch black on that camping trip when a heavy branch snaps close to camp? Its there as well. Its visceral. And its probably why they hang around here..... Its like a morbid fascination that they just cannot tear themselves away from. Or maybe its just because they like to make fun of us weak minded folks that cannot 86 it like they can!
  2. 7 points
    More likely, given the behavior you've shown here, they simply say what you want to hear so they don't face your ridicule. MIB
  3. 7 points
    I must respond to this remark, because it is a serious under-estimation of the factual conclusions the film provides. It isn’t just that we know for a certainty the film exists. We know for a certainty what kind of film stock was used (Kodachrome II) and what kind of camera was used by Roger (a Kodak K-100 single lens model). These are relevant because Roger had experience filming with both Kodachrome and Ektachrome, so he had some familiarity with processing each, how easily Ektachrome is processed by many labs, vs how few process Kodachrome. And Roger had a good familiarity with various 16mm cameras, as evidenced by his other documentary footage, showing he used a variety of cameras and lenses, including zoom lenses. No experienced filmmaker would have gone to Bluff Creek to try and hoax a film without a plan to do multiple takes. Roger was, in 1967, an experienced filmmaker. So if he was hoaxing a film, with riders on horses for the first part of the reel and then the encounter on the end, but wanted to do multiple tries of the encounter, he would not have chosen a K-100 camera. He needed a magazine camera, like John Green used for McClarin’s walk, so he could set up for the horse and rider segments, film take one with magazine one, load magazine two and shoot the horse and riders, then load magazine three and shoot horse and riders, and maybe load magazine four and shoot horse and riders. Then he could go to Bluff Creek and suit up his talent, and shoot take one of the encounter with magazine one, shoot a second encounter try with magazine two, and so on, so he had four magazines with four tries of the encounter following horse and rider stuff. He could not have done so with a K-100 camera, to a factual certainty. There is simply no way you can shoot a partial roll, then pull it out, load another roll of film to shoot a partial roll, and later put the first roll back in to shoot more, and not have a glaring overlap or a big gaping dead spot of black film, using a K-100. However, you can do it easily and undetectably with a magazine camera. Now you have several rolls with several tries of the encounter, and you don’t know which one is the good one, so you need to process them all. But if they are all Kodachrome, then they’ll all likely go to the same lab, and a lab technician will likely see the multiple tries, so as soon as you go public claiming a single real encounter, the lab people know it’s a lie, and maybe a fraud. Not good. better to send each single roll to a different lab, but to do so, having a choice of several labs, you should shoot Ektachrome, because more labs process it. So each lab gets one roll, and never sees the others. Then when the event is publicized, no lab people can claim they saw multiple takes, meaning it was staged. But to pull this off, you need a magazine camera, and Ektachrome film stock, and Roger used neither. These are facts. The camera and film Roger used was the worst possible combination for hoaxing a film, and Roger had enough knowledge of films and cameras to choose the right ones if he was hoaxing the film. Then you have the facts, irrefutable facts, of the six segments of starts and stops, the camera first frame light overexposures intact, and a copy process that together certifies to a factual certainty that the film was never edited before the initial copying. Then you have the issue of Roger starting his camera while walking forward, which one would do only in a spontaneous and frenzied situation. A person filming with calm deliberation would start the camera and then start walking. You have the Third segment with only two frames, and a strange rotational motion blur (irrefutable facts) that requires a camera operator to do something that is nearly impossible to do deliberately, and can only be done by someone accidentally holding the camera while slipping and trying to regain his balance. You have segment four, where Roger Starts the camera while still climbing up the creek bank incline, which can only be described as an act of desperation to get footage, something a person in control of the situation would not do. You have the issue where segment five, the lookback, has Roger planted and holding the camera as steady as a hand held camera can be, so he gets the clearest shot of his subject, no shaking, no motion blur, and no obstacles blocking his view, so we can examine the subject body meticulously. This defeats the argument Roger deliberately shook the camera to hide any flaws of his costume. He did everything perfectly to insure we can examine it splendidly. The film has no errors of time or continuity, which people deliberately filming always make. The film has no errors which modern analysis could find and a filmmaker in 1967 could never anticipate would be used. The facts of this film are many and are absolute in their certainty. The evidence for a hoax never rises to a similar level of factual certainty.
  4. 6 points
    True, but that might be primarily because of the military role they expected the apes to play. Dogs have been weaponized since before recorded human history and they remain in use for multiple roles. We’ve used chimps as human-like guinea pigs in the space race and other scientific experiments. Dolphins are in use currently in several naval roles. Frankly, I don’t see a role for apes or sasquatches that humans can’t do better primarily due to reliability. Dogs and dolphins want to please. Even humans are iffy on that account. Mature apes and sasquatches would as soon blow you off as a bear would, especially males. Even R&R time with the local women doesn’t seem to improve their attitudes and cooperation. They’re like our own Incorrigible1: completely incorrigible..........especially with the local women..........
  5. 6 points
    Two weeks elk archery hunting no luck but still a great time. Skamania County WA, right in the heart of BF country. Squirrels made some great knocks with those big fir cones. My partner ran into a big black bear that was chowing down on huckleberries. He left the area because all he was carrying was a bow. Took his revolver with him after that. I followed a cougar this morning that was tracking a deer last night. Hope he got it so he wasn't looking for something else for dinner.
  6. 6 points
    Isn't that the whole purpose of this thread? Trying to step up to the plate? Despite the cat calls? Lets get some things straight people. 1) This is a Bigfoot Forum. We discuss things pertaining to Bigfoot...yes? 2) Hiflier has the right as a tax payer to petition his government and his academia who recieves government funding to answer questions he has asked. No matter how ridiculous any person deems them to be. 3) Hiflier does not deserve to be called a “nutjob” or any other names on our forum, just because he is trying to share his findings with us, or defend himself from the caterwauling. 4) If you dont like Hiflier or what he is doing? Don't participate in his thread. Go start your own thread about “Dumb footies asking dumb questions to science” or “I got first place at the science fair in junior high, I am awesome!” Or whatever turns your crank..... 5) Please, please put scofftics on ignore if they bother you. They are trolling you! If it was up to them.....this forum would die a quick death because the Smithsonian says nothing is out there. We are just a bunch of dumb rubes....and they must continue to tell themselves this to inflate their egos. 6) Just because we do not have dead body doesnt mean we cannot analyze and pursue the evidence we do have. I personally do not hold much hope. But I think its great someone is..... Some scientists such as Krantz, Bindernagel, Meldrum and Mionczynski believed the PGF showed a real animal. Maybe there are others....and maybe that scares some people.
  7. 6 points
    Oh c'mon! You're selling yourself short! You get mocked for a bunch of other reasons too!
  8. 5 points
    Haven't been here in ages, but this thread has been entertaining to say the least. Due entirely to my contrarian nature - to the OP - I'll make a few observations. First, I don't think they're migratory or perpetually wandering. Any canny man living in wild country that gets cold knows to set aside food supplies gathered in Summer and Fall. They also know to range and hunt far from their winter quarters - leaving the nearby game alone - as it's hard to hunt in the winter, and the closer game is to your winter quarters - the easier your life will be. Meaning - I think they're largely territorial - they may make a three or four day loop hunting - hitting some areas only once every three to four days - however large that territory would be - it would depend on terrain. Their Summer hunting areas will probably be just a bit different than their Winter quarters - maybe they'll hunt in the next valley over - even at higher elevations - and leave the game alone in the next valley over where they have Winter quarters. Normally, I'd never postulate one way or the other on whether these things are some kind of apes or something else - but I know they're not apes. No guessing, I know. Which would be why they're so adept at avoiding those whom they wish to avoid. They're smart. They have tactical excellence. They're finely attuned to their environment. They also have the ability to hide in plain sight. And have the patience of Job. They don't panic. The ape-believing crowd will go ape-**** at that concept - but none of them ever got a really close-up look at their faces. And it's not just me. Native Americans often refer to them as forest people, or forest men, or wild men - and through the ages in multiple cultures - they're often called variations of a wild man. The popular belief in these things being apes - is pushed by scientists - who by their own fabricated "science" and faulty history of man - they cannot allow for any type of cave man to still exist. They dug their hole, deep, and now they're stuck in it. I'd further suggest that if a person sees one, or if that one is making a racket - you're already flanked by others you don't see and aren't aware of - and you should really keep checking your six o'clock position. And while they may be spotted singly most often - I am firmly convinced that they live in family groups, or clans - and they can and do work with others from neighboring families or clans. Which also assists in maintaining a healthy breeding population - which must be really significant. We humans 'own' the day - they've apparently adapted and certainly 'own' the night.
  9. 5 points
    Welllll ... as of September 9th, still existed. How 'bout "know"? It's a good, and fitting, word. MIB
  10. 5 points
    I don't recall where I got this .. well, I do, it was a member of a group I used to camp with, but I don't recall where he got it. MIB
  11. 5 points
    Great questions James. I've been a wildlife biologist for 30 years. The one thing that can be stated with a very high degree of confidence is that nature takes perverse pleasure in making fools of human understanding. With that in mind, every species archetype requires a specific number of individuals for a healthy population. The more complex the organism, the greater number of individuals are needed to avoid species collapse at the genetic level. The smaller the gene pool, the harder long-term survival becomes. There are a large number of factors that have to be considered when calculating the minimum viable population for a species. In humans, the MVP can be as low as 15 individuals or as high as 4000 individuals depending on the variables used, conditions considered and potential morbidity and fecundity rates. We simply don't have enough information regarding bigfoot to make any realistic guesses as to whether the species is growing, stable or in collapse. What they eat will depend on what they are and that hasn't been answered yet. There is a lot of anecdotal information that indicates it's a largish mammal. Popular conjecture is that it is a primate. A strict vegetarian mammal requires a long gut to break down the plant materials consumed. In primates, this normally results in a pot belly physique. Lowland Gorillas are a good example. As protein intake increases, the body shape changes and gets slimmer in the middle. Most reports indicate bigfoot has a high protein diet based on general body description. Another indication of a high protein diet is intelligence. Bigfoot is reported to be very intelligent. If true, then protein is likely present in their diet. There are a number of primate studies that conclude that primates with diets containing 20-50% protein exhibit higher intelligence than strict vegetarian primates. Lowland Gorillas vs. Chimpanzees. You also have to consider brain size. Elephants are fairly intelligent for being herbivores, but their brains are 11-13 pounds compared to humans that have 3 pound brains. However, these musings are all guesses based on what "should" happen. It's inductive reasoning and suffers a few ad ignorantiam fallacies, but fun to consider. That brings us to how much a bigfoot eats. That depends on diet, metabolism, activity, and standard environmental conditions. That requires subjects for study and they seem to be difficult to locate reliably. Until someone figures out how to observe bigfoot for days at a time without them knowing, speculation will be the only information you will find. The same goes for where they sleep. It might be in caves, ground nests, up in trees, in abandoned mines, abandoned structures, or gullies. There is no consensus on this subject, but bigfoot seems to be as opportunistic about its sleeping arrangements. It if is as intelligent as the pundits believe, then it will take whatever the most advantageous accommodations are at the time.
  12. 5 points
    Folks, I don't know about you but this SSR effort is just hands-down a monumental achievement. The concept and subsequent execution of such a task has not been only about classifying the source data- it has also been about working out the bugs in the program and system along the way to which GIGANTOR (and the name SHOULD BE in all caps ) can take the credit as he patiently took in all of the notifications of glitches in the SSR and worked through them in order to have the data perform as desired. BobbyO, who worked diligently in every spare moment he could muster, and RedBone who has been nothing short of a juggernaut who has been unstoppable on getting report after report pigeon holed into the dataset. We owe these people a immense tip of the hat and I personally thank them for what they have done though my thanks falls way short of what they deserve, Thank you guys for staying with your goals when I fell behind, and for doing it all so incredibly well.
  13. 5 points
    I went backpacking into the Siskiyou Wilderness (in northern CA) the first week of July. Spent 3 nights in the mid-section of the wilderness; backpacked from end of northern portion of the GO-road (Boundary Trailhead) down to Elk Valley. This trail is north of the Blue Creek drainage. Elk Valley is where we camped and is the beginning of Blue Creek. After exiting, we drove to the northern end of the Siskiyou Wilderness and spent another 3 nights. One night at Sanger Lake and then we backpacked into Youngs Valley. Youngs Valley is where Clear Creek starts and drains south. We saw plenty of deer on the meadows. We did not see or hear any bear or bigfoot. The wild berries were not out yet. We did find what appeared to be 2 footprints on the Boundary Trail on the way back. They looked like old footprints that were imprinted when the terrain was wet and muddy. One print is human size but could be a double print from a bear or just random formation. The other print is small (like from a toddler) and gives the appearance of showing the toes pushing the mud out. They were not very good and I am not claiming they are from BF but I took pictures anyway in order to document. I doubt that children will walk barefoot where we were. The map below shows where the footprints were found relative to TH entrance and other key places in Siskiyous (like PGF site and Louse camp). First photo is a view of Youngs Valley. Second photo is a view of Blue Creek drainage on the backpack along the ridgeline. Third photo is of what appears to be a small footprint Fourth photo is of what appears to be a footprint
  14. 5 points
    norseman, I'm Native...I consider sasquatch to be a real animal. I've also talked to quite a few Natives who believe they are real, an I've talked to Natives who claimed to have seen one, as well as talking to a few Natives who told me of other Natives who have seen them. I spoke with one Native guy who didn't like talkin' about his sightin', it simply bothered him. He was out huntin' one mornin', heard somethin' movin' on the hill parallel to him, in the mornin' mist he found himself lookin' at a sasquatch carrying a large stick. He seen it clear as, no mistakes, he froze, it froze, he stepped, it stepped, it scared the s out of him so he turned an left, not lookin' back. Only reason he told me was because of my sister-in-law knowin' him well, she told him I was honest in my interest in the subject. I know a Native Elder, a Chief, who told me of knowing Charlie Mack an his brothers, he told me of a sightin' in a creek where the elders were campin' durin' a huntin' trip. Talked to another Native who told me of his friend or relative(it's been a bit), who was countin' salmon, they float down the rivers, he saw one on all fours on the shore, it was lookin at him as he looked at it while he floated downstream. The guy showed me how the guy showed him how it was movin', which was like bein' in the middle of a push up, an then you start walkin away on all fours kinda low, arse up, hands an toes. Talked to another Native, a carver, asked him if he'd heard stories, said he had a friend seen one jump out of a tree, wasn't much to the story, besides his friend bein' freaked out. Reckon there's a few more I could recall. An for the record...I've talked to a few white folks who also consider them to be real animals. I always smile thinkin' of a elderly couple near Whiskey Creek if I recall, one of the local store owners had mentioned they had claimed a sightin'. So I went an said hi, the gentleman said he an his wife were drivin' home, seen a grey or brown big upright somethin' walk across the highway. I recall the wife slappin' his arm, said it was the other colour(brown or grey) as her husband was colour blind. I can't recall the colour she'd confirmed, one or the other. I asked her if she recalled what she saw, she said, big, upright, hairy, said it all happened quick. They mentioned it like you'd mention a neighbours dog barkin' all night, like it just happened is all. I can't confirm their sightin's...but I can state I know Natives who consider these animals to be real based on their own sightin's. An...like I said...this Native considers sasquatch/bigfoot a real thing...a as yet unclassified primate. Pat...
  15. 5 points
    I was just informed that grizzly and black bear have not been tested for hearing. I guess that no one is brave enough to try to get a grizzly to wear the headphones.
  16. 5 points
    I half-way think it would be best if the Forum appended these disclaimers to the Rules. (At least it might somewhat render even more unnecessary the redundant comments from the trollers): 1. YES, we know to date there has been no widely accepted confirmation of a BF bone, tissue or body part. 2. YES, we know that any photographic and/or film, and/or video depiction purporting to show a BF doesn't confirm the species. 3. YES, we know some people hoax BF evidence, including tracks. 4. YES, we realize that no matter how many people report an encounter with a BF, those never will confirm the species. 5. YES, we have access to a calendar, and we know how many years have elapsed since the P/G film was made. 6. YES, we know to date there is no widely accepted analysis of a unique DNA sequence tending to confirm the species. 7. YES, we know our telling others about our own encounters will not confirm the species. 8. AND if you are not willing to let these axioms go unsaid, and you still find it necessary to repeat them at every opportunity, we will ignore you as you do not contribute anything substantive or new to the discussion.
  17. 4 points
    And it failed right? And I never understood the premise anyhow. Your crossing a human with a chimp....to gain what exactly? The invention of the rifle negates the need for super strength. And humans are hard enough to control in lawless combat conditions, let alone a giant mob of ape men, who would indulge every conceivable primitive impulse that entered their brain. The enemy could just airdrop pallets of bananas into your combat formations and watch as they destroyed themselves competing for the right to be first up to bat.
  18. 4 points
    I ran across this website that claims to be the largest repository of declassified government information on the web. Maybe we could pin this? I did a Sasquatch search and pages and pages came up. Including the 1975 Atlas! I bet we could poke around this website for a long while! http://www.theblackvault.com/community/ Enjoy!
  19. 4 points
    Hello hiflier-- I was able to attend the conference, and heard Dr. Disotell's talk. I did a post about the first day of the conference on my Strange Maine blog, and will hopefully get the 2nd day typed up and posted this weekend. Basically, what he had to say was tremendously exciting. I'll cut and paste that part of the post and tweak it a little for all you guys here (and add a few details that I know you'll be interested in too): His talk focused on the potential for researchers to utilize the recent advances in DNA technology to accomplish species surveys. Using environmental DNA drawn from topsoil, local bodies of water, etc, labs can now determine what species are in a given area, and how long ago they were there in the case of past or transient populations. Of course we leave traces of our DNA everywhere we go, and so does every other species on earth. This new methodology, environmental DNA metabarcoding, is transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. With this and other tools, Disotell urges us: "Those of us in the cryptozoology field need to do way better than we have done up to now." Up until now, he states, he has seen "zero data to convince [him] of the existence of legendary cryptids," but he is hopeful that access to new DNA technology will advance efforts, especially as the cost has plummeted now. (in answer to your question, hiflier, it sounds like either they haven't crunched the samples you refer to yet, or the data turned out not to be anything indicating an unknown hominid. He was aware of why people were asking about his results up to now.) In other words -- work hard, learn well, and use new tools -- and always keep in mind that DNA is the keystone of species identification. The process involves utilizing either local water samples or local dirt samples, and filtering them to separate all the trace DNA types present or having passed through a given area. In the case of dirt or physical debris from the topsoil, etc, the material is pulverized for analysis. He mentioned that rather than doing footprint casts, it would be more useful to cull the topsoil from the area of the print and submit that for testing, as it would undoubtedly contain trace DNA from whatever had left the print. He said that he is willing to do analysis for people, but "don't just mail me material." Initiating contact with him (his lab) to find out parameters and costs in advance would be the way to go. He said that the process costs a couple grand, but out of that you get hundreds of results, whereas the old systems cost even more and then only gave you results for a single physical specimen sample. You get a full picture of all wildlife, etc, that traverses or inhabits that region now and in the past (depending on how deep the sample digs). I hope that's helpful! I had a chance to give my own talk about what I've learned about Bigfoot in Maine from the eyewitnesses I've spoken to for the first time, which was an interesting exercise in summarizing a diverse quantity of reports in a wide range of eras into a digestible whole. Cheers from Portland, Michelle Souliere
  20. 4 points
    Hello Folks, I finally decided to publish my first book that is a first person collection of my early field experiences that had a profound effect on my way of thinking about who and what these elusive subjects of the forest are. I'm not offering proof of their existence, just sharing some of my material with interested folks. I have been blessed with many close encounters and I feel it is the result of my respectful attitude towards them and the fact that I do not intend any harm upon them. The book's title is how I personally feel about them. The preview link to it is listed below: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1719996768?ref_=pe_870760_150889320
  21. 4 points
    Personally, I am very convinced that Bigfoot Exists, especially after the experience gigantor and myself had a few years ago. No other explanation. But, seeing one would be the difference between believing and knowing.
  22. 4 points
    haha ! Let's "see", so far sounds like he can do it all pretty much...build a suit, replicate the trackway depth, an walk over similar terrain without lookin'...haha ! I can't help wonderin' the excuses he'd come up with when asked to prove all this.
  23. 4 points
    I totally get that. My mind races at night in the woods if I hear a footfall or a snapped twig, etc. No doubt about that. But how many people in that moment even speculate it could be a sasquatch? I think that number would be pretty small. I only started thinking about bigfoot as an adult in the last 5 or 6 years. Prior to that, a noise in the woods at night was always worst case scenario a bear (if I was in, or north of, Algonquin). Now in the same scenarios bigfoot does enter mind, but only in the sense of an opportunity to try to perceive that moment as a believer would. I cannot convince my mind to truly fear something that I know does not exist. I fear sharks when I swim in salt water, not man eating mermen. I fear bears when I'm in the woods, not bigfoots. I can almost get the fear of the boogeyman in the dark moment you describe, Norse, but what I don't understand is how that brief moment of fear driven irrationality can persist way beyond that moment and remain in someone's thoughts in the bright light of the day. I guess that is where we differ greatly.
  24. 4 points
    Why? I don't believe bigfoot exists either? Would it be because I'm open to the possibility it does and willing to discuss it? Willing to listen to what others have to say and what they've experienced and not belittle them for what they say? Would it be because I wouldn't come here to troll and run back there to make fun of the silly bigfooters? I know making sport of the bleevers is a requisite there. Not lately. I've looked a few times but all I saw was "silly bigfooters, yuk, yuk, derp, derp".
  25. 4 points
    Why should anyone care to answer someone who doesn't care and has a consistent history of stating so? And for the record, writing like a twelve year old girl should not be construed as some kind of slam. There are more intelligent, well written, and unbelievably smart 12 year old girls out there who would challenge your holding them up as some kind of inferior mentality. Talk about immature, you take the cake. In other words, I don't care about your opinions. The 12 year old girl remark really sucked and just proves you're incapable of engaging any adult in anything close to an adult dialogue by stooping that low in such a callous and thoughtless fashion. And if you thought it was somehow a demeaning thing to compare someone's writing to a 12 year old girl you have really lost your grip and your edge. Clean it up or get lost. And if you don't care to agree it would be typical of you.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×