I Think We Are Seeing The Dawning Of A New Type Of Dishonesty In The Bigfoot World...

[AaronD]

Some times it's best to let the facts speak for themselves; everyone gets the point, and no one gets he blame

[Guest]

This is like the old town square where ideas, thoughts, stories, and claims can be laid out for all the forum to digest. Does this type of openness allow craziness, oh yea. However that's what makes the forum readable throughout the day. Something new has to put out there daily or the square goes silent. Yes it can be frustrating but it wasn't that long ago that if you wanted bigfoot news you waited for a newsletter by mail or the next book. Keep the conversation going.

[Guest]

Thank you, AaronD.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

This is like the old town square where ideas, thoughts, stories, and claims can be laid out for all the forum to digest. Does this type of openness allow craziness, oh yea. However that's what makes the forum readable throughout the day. Something new has to put out there daily or the square goes silent. Yes it can be frustrating but it wasn't that long ago that if you wanted bigfoot news you waited for a newsletter by mail or the next book. Keep the conversation going.

That's what it is all about ~ 1 up

Tim

[ThePhaige]

There is no way to conclude if someone is a "gamer" without becoming a "judger".

no truer words have been spoken...

[TimB]

What's the difference between a judger and someone who evaluates the evidence at hand?

Tim B.

[Oonjerah]

There is no way to conclude if someone is a "gamer" without becoming a "judger".

Gamer: "Hi! How are you today?"

Mark: "I'm fine. How are you?"

Gamer: "Well, that's none of your business, is it?"

Game = a bait and switch transaction.

Gamer's simple objective above is to injure/insult Mark with a sneak attack.

The classic hoax is a longer version of the bait and switch transaction. Gamer may have

larger objectives than a simple insult; but the insult is a necessary spice.

One doesn't have to be a Judger to be aware of games. An Observer might conclude

that someone is a Gamer.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Oonjerah

[Guest]

Judge not that ye be not judged........ anyone can be labeled a hoaxer in bigfootery because of the lack of evidence.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Judge not that ye be not judged........ anyone can be labeled a hoaxer in bigfootery because of the lack of evidence.

If ye evidence be lacking, thou should post as non factual as not to render themselves as a hoaxer. Tim

[Guest]

Interesting topic, TimB. But, please tread carefully not to name or allude enough information about a certain person to call them a "gamer" as it will soon be added to our list of bad words due to your derogatory definition Having said all that, I do agree there is a lot of non-transparency going on out there--to the point of making bigfootery boring. But, just to play devil's advocate; say you had a tribe of squatches living in the woods near you. You and them have become friends. You trade favors and even have meals together.....maybe you'd like to share this with other footers, but don't want to risk a.) sounding like a fantasy seeker, and b. ) your friendship with the squatches cuz you know everyone's gonna wanna have a look see. Just a thought.

This is too easy. I wouldn't say a word and I'd probably stop even coming to this site to reduce the temptation. I would surreptitiously (spelling?) take photos and keep them in my memory box where I keep all the things that are valuable to me but are probably not worth a dime. Maybe some hair samples if I could get them. Then a hundred years from now when I finally die (I plan on resisting) my children will discover all of this when they clean all the cat and dog stuff out of the house. They'll open up the box and find blurry photos and a collection of fur going to dust and noone will ever know but me.

[AaronD]

Judge not that ye be not judged........ anyone can be labeled a hoaxer in bigfootery because of the lack of evidence.

If ye evidence be lacking, thou should post as non factual as not to render themselves as a hoaxer. Tim

If total slam dunk evidence were required for posting, I dare say we would not have a forum....or should we further define "evidence" ?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

If total slam dunk evidence were required for posting, I dare say we would not have a forum....or should we further define "evidence" ?

Our job is to just keep talking and keep the forum buzzing.

Tim

[Guest]

If total slam dunk evidence were required for posting, I dare say we would not have a forum....or should we further define "evidence" ?

I was simply rethinking my pro stance for labeling hoaxers, logically everyone would be a hoaxer without slam dunk evidence i.e. DNA or a body.

[Oonjerah]

http://rationalwiki....ay:CP_on_Deceit

"Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth with an intent to trick or fool another."

Where there is dishonest intent, I tend to assume Malice.

The Piltdown man is a good example. But I suspect Charles Dawson did it for fame,

recognition, not in a malicious way. Still, it was an immoral act if not an illegal one for

which he could have been arrested.

I believe in Bigfoot "without slam dunk evidence i.e. DNA or a body." I see myself as

an honest person who does not act on malice nor practice deceit. If there is no bigfoot,

then I've made an honest mistake in judgement, but am not a hoaxer.

A hoaxer has the intent to fool others and goes to great lengths to do so.

One of my earliest learnings as a child was to distinguish between intentional harm and honest error.

If there are people here who truly are not aware of the difference ... That - Blows - Me - Away!!

It's as if they are missing a sensitivity chip and their morality chip is on the blink.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Oonjerah

[Guest]

Welcome to bigfootery, there are a lot those types here. It is not always easy to distinguish between the two if your only contact with these folks is via the internet and hearsay.