At Tipping Point Of Bf Acceptance Culturally?

[Guest]

BBF members- legally, anything you talk about with your workers can be referenced in your employers personal file. It was in my case, and when my x-employer cut me loose I found out that I had discussed the possibility of BF, my experiences and one other co-worker. The odd thing is was I had only talked about BF at the lunch break, so from what I understand is that your employer has a right to keep tract of your outside interests and keep them in your file.

[Guest]

incredible,

 

what an employer can legally rest on (or keep file of) depends on their size, what industry, and where, among other things..a solo has tremendous discretion....makes sense - you shouldn't have to work with someone you don't like if you own the company?  to a point...

 in Cali recently they passed a law (or regulation.. I didn't follow closely) to prevent potential employers from insisting on "friend" status and passwords for social networks accounts. It's unfortunate that the lowest denominator thinking can perpetuate this societal taboo and there are many eager to stand with the snickering status quo. 

Edited May 2, 2013 by apehuman

[WSA]

BBF members- legally, anything you talk about with your workers can be referenced in your employers personal file. It was in my case, and when my x-employer cut me loose I found out that I had discussed the possibility of BF, my experiences and one other co-worker. The odd thing is was I had only talked about BF at the lunch break, so from what I understand is that your employer has a right to keep tract of your outside interests and keep them in your file.

 

Well, not exactly. And if you suspect you were terminated for anything related to your cryptozoological interests, I would seek out a competent employment lawyer and discuss it.  

[Guest]

BBF members- legally, anything you talk about with your workers can be referenced in your employers personal file. It was in my case, and when my x-employer cut me loose I found out that I had discussed the possibility of BF, my experiences and one other co-worker. The odd thing is was I had only talked about BF at the lunch break, so from what I understand is that your employer has a right to keep tract of your outside interests and keep them in your file.

That's actually a bit of a grey area. I know some employers do this, BUT your private conversations (not having to do with work) and even some arguably work-related conversations (organizing activity for a union, for example) are not any of their business and/or legally protected.

Those protections are being eroded bit by bit, however, and today it's not uncommon for an applicant to be forced to surrender the password to his Facebook/other social media account, for example, or for a full credit history to be run, or any of a half dozen things that frankly are not any boss' dang business. Given the "pro business" nature of most courts at the present, they get away with it too.

[dmaker]

Actually Mulder, there is no evidence that can be conclusively attributed to a Bigfoot. There is plenty of evidence with claims attached that it came from a Bigfoot, but those remain just claims. Some of them have in fact been proven to have come from humans, i.e. hoaxed tracks. Samples have been proven to come from everything but a Bigfoot it seems. So technically speaking there is NO evidence of Bigfoot right now. There is evidence that is claimed to be from a Bigfoot, but to date none of that can be substantiated because right now there is no proof of Bigfoot to validate the claim. See how that works?

[Doc Holliday]

Yes dmaker , but see how this works....yes the BF arena is filled with credibility problems thanks to hoaxers & all you mention.

However, even if 99% of it all is pure BS ( most of it seems to be) it still leaves a lot of unexplained reports from credible,everyday folks with nothing to gain & a rep to lose that still come forward .

Funny thing is some still come forward or seek answers anonomously ..... I'd wager the odds of mass hallucinations or a conspiracy of hoaxing for decades are about as slim as an undiscovered hominid being out there.

So while not proof, it is evidence people see something out there that defies common explanations.

[dmaker]

People see things all the time that are not what they think they are. Bigfoot is no different.

[southernyahoo]

There is evidence that is claimed to be from a Bigfoot, but to date none of that can be substantiated because right now there is no proof of Bigfoot to validate the claim. See how that works?

 

This has always seemed circular to me, since proof is defined as a cogency of evidence that compells acceptance of the mind of a truth or a fact. So one has to atleast understand the cogency part to accept it as proof. Then there is the perception that all the evidence can be hoaxed, which falls on it's face once you are dealing with physical biological evidence, which you don't need a body for, to prove what it's from. 

[dmaker]

What physical biological evidence of Bigfoot do you have? Prove it came from a Bigfoot. That should be easy to do if Bigfoot is real. So far, that has never been done.

[southernyahoo]

Depends on what you call proof, since it would be your mind that has to accept it. Should we even consider that bigfoot is a human of some type ? That would explain much of the evidence and it would be easier to see the cogency. Does bigfoot have to be some type of monster and nonhuman to be proven to you?

[Guest]

I do think we are at a tipping point with the public in the fact that many more people are open to the possibility that bigfoot exists. The media saturation with bigfoot shows, no matter the quality, are a good thing in my opinion. Back in the day, if a person was interested in the topic, it would require a trip to the library, or the occasional B-movie. Today one is just a few key strokes away from unlimited information. We now have 300 million field reporters with cameras at the ready. If bigfoot exists, which I firmly believe, we must be closer to the proof. If this proof does not come in the near future, we must accept that thousands of people are delusional or mistaken, or accept that something really weird is going on.

[dmaker]

 

Depends on what you call proof, since it would be your mind that has to accept it. Should we even consider that bigfoot is a human of some type ? That would explain much of the evidence and it would be easier to see the cogency. Does bigfoot have to be some type of monster and nonhuman to be proven to you?

 

No Bigfoot has to be present to be proven to me. As in show me one, or a body of one. Not some dog hair, or carpet, or hoaxed video or tracks, but an actual specimen. That is what is meant by proven.

[WSA]

In the meanwhile dmaker, I wouldn't look at any other evidence if I were you...just muddies the mind and diverts you from your true mission, eh? 

[dmaker]

^^ I will not drink watered down beer while I wait for my Guiness.

Though to address you a little more seriously WSA. I think it is this fascination with weak evidence that Footers enjoy. They cannot collect hard evidence, so let's exalt the weak crap that we do have seems to be the alternative. Footers will never accept that Bigfoot is not real, so instead they wallow around in the muck pit of weak evidence beaming about how much of it there is. Well it's still just a big pile of crap. The bigger the pile gets does not change its substance one bit.

[WSA]

And one would think you'd tire of the exercise. Strange, that.