Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) I can't imagine HOW you can have a common name for something that IF it can be found around the entire world, IS the same kind of creature. Sasquatch works fine for me. That's what I'm going to keep using. I would hope people do retain the names given currently, tis why I was asking if there could be another name for the world wide group. If you look through discussions on this forum, in a BF thread people have discussed their sighting of a little hairy person due to the fact the thread concerned their input but didnt present a name to cover their particular encounter. Sasquatch may cover the little and big hairy homids but an Aussie answering about an encounter with a similar looking being couldnt really say they saw a Sasquatch as this is really relegated to the US and Canada. Still people from other countries will try to join in discussion but have some problems in reply to a thread on BF and Sasquatch. The idea Im presenting is that we retain all our names to date for these creatures and also have a group name to more entail the encounters already being discussed. There are benefits for the world wide discussion of these creatures (as I wrote in the OP). May I also note that the name Yowie, Sasquatch, Abominable Snowman etc are actually quite recent and there are a multitude of names in various cultures indigenous to the region of such sightings not used on the forum. Creating a new name to meant to cover the broad discussion of hairy wild hominids of all statures across the world would be highly beneficial but wouldnt discount the names given so far used more specifically in terms of region and size. Edited January 8, 2012 by Encounter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) To be fair there was this Leperchaun report down in my neck of the woods not too long ago, but I think it was either an optical illusion or a crack head based on the eye witness reports. Edited January 8, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 8, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 8, 2012 I vote crack head who had his head cracked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 There are a number of benefits to having a word which by definition means those in the group of hairy hominids such as yeti, yeren, yowie, sasquatch of all sizes throughout the world. One benefit is that it immediately tells a new comer to the discussion on these beings, that there are many sizes and they are reported throughout the world. Only if said newcomer is aware of the new definition. If someone is unaware of the meaning of 'sasquatch' or 'yowie', using a new word isn't going to clear up the confusion. Instead of spending time defining and then disseminating a unique word to encompass all reported BHM's(Big Hairy Monsters) no matter how varied the description, why not just educate people about their local creatures and how those creatures may or may not be related to others around the globe? Of course there are problems in giving one label to a whole group and this includes boxing all into one type. In general in fact I’m not one to try to label anything as I’m sure one day will not see such divisions between species or divisions in the way we may currently perceive. I imagine in time the group label will change in its definition in various ways. Ironic, then, that someone who avoids labeling things advocates lumping all types under one label which you admit will likely be inadequate without further refinement. Admittedly, I'm not sure I fully understand your second sentence in this quote. Still on the whole for now I think a group name may be beneficial, bring more people into the discussion , and educate people from the definition of the name in itself (so more people know there are recorded in sightings across the world in various sizes etc) . A group name would direct people to seek more differentiated detail as well. Whaaa...? Seems self-contradictory. You want to group different creatures under one name so people will better understand how they're the same yet different? The whole idea seems like a solution looking for a problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Only if said newcomer is aware of the new definition. If someone is unaware of the meaning of 'sasquatch' or 'yowie', using a new word isn't going to clear up the confusion. Instead of spending time defining and then disseminating a unique word to encompass all reported BHM's(Big Hairy Monsters) no matter how varied the description, why not just educate people about their local creatures and how those creatures may or may not be related to others around the globe? Ironic, then, that someone who avoids labeling things advocates lumping all types under one label which you admit will likely be inadequate without further refinement. Admittedly, I'm not sure I fully understand your second sentence in this quote. Whaaa...? Seems self-contradictory. You want to group different creatures under one name so people will better understand how they're the same yet different? The whole idea seems like a solution looking for a problem. I agree with your analysis that some of what I have said seems contradictory, perhaps I could have given more time to explaining my concept and its pro's and con's. I should say I usually find myself arguing against group labelling but that is not to say group labelling doesnt have its uses. In this case, I am an Australian member who has found some problems with discussing yowie encounters under the term sasquatch or little hairy hominid information under threads about Big Foot. I see others will discuss the little hairy ones in a Bigfoot discussion as they either take BF to mean all types or they find nowhere else to put their relevant information. The Bigfoot Forum is one of the largest on these hairy hominids around and I find a wealth of information here. I believe others from other countries outside USA also come here as there are like encounters to the ones they have in their country to be discussed. I have noted though that there is a lack of a word that clearly embraces these encounters with little and tall hairy wild hominids from countries throughout the world. I suggest a general word and that it be clearly defined as being a very broad term. This is only for use when one wants a discussion incorporating sightings from around the world related to hairy wild hominids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) BUFF , plural BUFF'S or BAFF, BAFF'S BUFF- Big Ugly Furry Friend BAFF Big *ss Fury Friend for the PG rated or use the F----r,for the R rated version "I saw a BUFF out by the barn !" or "Those BAFF's smelled really bad !" Edited January 9, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I agree with your analysis that some of what I have said seems contradictory, perhaps I could have given more time to explaining my concept and its pro's and con's. I should say I usually find myself arguing against group labelling but that is not to say group labelling doesnt have its uses. In this case, I am an Australian member who has found some problems with discussing yowie encounters under the term sasquatch or little hairy hominid information under threads about Big Foot. I see others will discuss the little hairy ones in a Bigfoot discussion as they either take BF to mean all types or they find nowhere else to put their relevant information. The Bigfoot Forum is one of the largest on these hairy hominids around and I find a wealth of information here. I believe others from other countries outside USA also come here as there are like encounters to the ones they have in their country to be discussed. I have noted though that there is a lack of a word that clearly embraces these encounters with little and tall hairy wild hominids from countries throughout the world. I suggest a general word and that it be clearly defined as being a very broad term. This is only for use when one wants a discussion incorporating sightings from around the world related to hairy wild hominids. I'm not trying to bust your chops, Encounter. I'm just trying to understand what exactly you're trying to achieve. I'll have to think on it some more, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 BUFF , plural BUFF'S or BAFF, BAFF'S BUFF- Big Ugly Furry Friend BAFF Big *ss Fury Friend for the PG rated or use the F----r,for the R rated version "I saw a BUFF out by the barn !" or "Those BAFF's smelled really bad !" Ok, this one got my vote hands down, BUFF it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I guess that'd work. They would be hard to confuse with a B-52. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Once they have been proven to exist then they can be given a scientific name. Until then the names from legends will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 9, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 9, 2012 Why so optimistic?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 The Russian term, Protohominid, seems the most appropriate but, given the perhaps 11 to 14 different global species and subspecies suggested by Ivan T. Sanderson, not knowing which bipedals will fall on the Homo side and which will fall on the pongid side tends to somewhat moot the objective. - Dudlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Protohominid doesn't seem appropriate since they (theoretically) exist contemporaneously with hominids. Until we examine one we don't know how much or little they've evolved, or if they are even descended from known hominids. Edited January 9, 2012 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Off topic but can you what is a site so I can watch finding bigfoot online or on xbox, don't have cable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Why not blend the words...Cryptominids:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts