Guest gershake Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 They said they were unable to answer it. To me, either that means they don't KNOW if they have one (no idea how that would be possible though?), or they HAVE one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 They said they were unable to answer it. To me, either that means they don't KNOW if they have one (no idea how that would be possible though?), or they HAVE one. Or, they don't want to legitimize the random comments of a blogger. An answer either way, gives power to the blogger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Does any comment, even a "confirm or deny" statement, give power to the blogger? It seems so. Possibly you are damned if you do comment and damned if you don't when someone starts something like this. Best. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 What I read was that Darkwing was simply stating "we (the MABRC organization) can not confirm nor deny what Ed Smith (the Orig-6 organization) has or does not have." That would be the appropriate response if Ed Smith cannot speak for the MABRC and the MABRC can't speak for Ed Smith. No secret meanings or hidden agendas. Just common courtesy and respect for another research organization. to quoate Bugs Bunny again, "Sheesh...what a bunch af Maroons" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Or, they don't want to legitimize the random comments of a blogger. An answer either way, gives power to the blogger. Is starting a thread with the most provocative title ever and even more provocative content the best way to let "the random comments of a blogger" go away? Sorry, but I don't see how anyone could possibly see this as anything OTHER than using a blogger's sensational claims to draw attention to oneself while stopping just short of validating them. MABRC is a big topic of discussion on this board again, and not because of anything RL did or didn't post. Like many others I'm sure, this thread is the very first I heard of this "rumor". And by the way, regarding the "foot" from a year or so ago, I was the one who naively posted about it on this board before it got to be "properly" announced, and I felt terrible about it and apologized profusely. After a good solid year of BFF cynicism has had a chance to settle in, I now see it a bit more clearly. I only posted about it because I remember a certain MABRC member talking about it in the chat for the world to see. There was no hush hush, there was no "please don't say anything", there was only excited chatter about a foot who's picture would be forthcoming. Me being a fresh noob to the BFF, I made a post about it a few days later asking what ever happened with that, and I as promptly dressed down and scolded for being so RUDE as to post it without allowing so-and-so to post it first. I apologized profusely through PMs and asked that the thread be taken down, but not before the people involved threw their hands up and said "well now the cat's out of the bag, guess we better talk about it now!", and promptly gave instructions on how to register on their site to see the pictures. I now know that I was used as a catalyst to cause a stir and getting everyone talking about it, so that the people involved would not look like they had perpetuated it themselves. Being the naive noob in the chat that day, I was the one who thought it would be okay to post it, but if it hadn't been me, it would have been some other noob. The thing that really pisses me off is that I felt really bad about it, and really felt as though I had done something wrong. However, now I know this is a pretty common tactic in the Bigfoot Community, and I am embarrassed that I ever allowed myself to be used in that way. Fast forward to this current thread, and we are once again talking about the MABRC because of some controversy they didn't DIRECTLY start, but they are happy to perpetuate. If there is no body, then say there is no body and RL is full of it. If there is a body, then let us know when and how we can see it. This "can neither confirm or deny" bs is getting old, and I know I'm not the only one who is sick of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Does any comment, even a "confirm or deny" statement, give power to the blogger? It seems so. Possibly you are damned if you do comment and damned if you don't when someone starts something like this. Best. Lee Never truer words spoken or written in this case. +2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Geez, I didn't really realize that DW started the thread. Strike my last comment please. This is a straight up stunt, is there a Bigfoot conference coming up in Oklahoma or sumthing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I guess that's why the statement is subjective, therealsuperdave, because not everyone read it like that. Best. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 What I read was that Darkwing was simply stating "we (the MABRC organization) can not confirm nor deny what Ed Smith (the Orig-6 organization) has or does not have." That would be the appropriate response if Ed Smith cannot speak for the MABRC and the MABRC can't speak for Ed Smith. No secret meanings or hidden agendas. Just common courtesy and respect for another research organization. to quoate Bugs Bunny again, "Sheesh...what a bunch af Maroons" Oh heck +2 for that one as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Integrity is lost in ambiguous statements. You say yes or you say no. The way it was answered was totally silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Plussed both NiceGuyJon and therealsuperdave. What can I say, I'm schizophrenic and also terrible at choosing sides... EDIT: Heck, and why not also Woodswalker. Edited October 18, 2012 by gershake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Why? you support hypocrisy? No, I just finally agreed with something he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baboonpete Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Never truer words spoken or written in this case. +2 so you have the body or you dont? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 so you have the body or you dont? Is it any of your business or consern? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 why? Because he was outed by name in Premium, and such information cannot be repeated in the General Public section of the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts