WSA Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 ^^^Well, I give them all pretty much equal credit, for reasons argumentum ad nauseam here . I only cite this as one hedge used on occasion, and which is not present for this particular account. It just bears noting, I think.
WSA Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) ^^ Because I'm assuming some would agree it is a salient point. You don't, obviously. Edited June 23, 2014 by WSA
dmaker Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Everything from NAWAC has not been anonymous from day one, years ago. Why is this lack of anonymity ( in the face of what some feel to be a pretty tenuous claim) suddenly so salient and noteworthy? It seems to me that you are now choosing to highlight this in an attempt to distract from how unbelievable the claim in question really is. Oh, but at least it's not anonymous. Glad you cleared that up WSA. Edited June 23, 2014 by dmaker
WSA Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 You know who Bipto is dmaker, which is my point. YOUR point often is, well, these reports are just ANONYMOUS postings, etc., etc. Well, this isn't. If that doesn't matter to you now, it should not have mattered to you before now. Just sayin'.
dmaker Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) My point regarding anonymity in the past was always in reference to report databases, if not exclusively the BFRO database. My point was, and always will be, that anecdotes are weak evidence. Particularly anonymous anecdotes reported and "investigated" by biased BFRO folks. I don't know how you try to take that observation regarding report databases and apply it here other than to simply try to obfuscate. Just sayin'. Edited June 23, 2014 by dmaker
WSA Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Because, as I said, I believe it bears noting. The reason being: When a non-anonymous anecdote (like Bipto's) is related, it gets just as little credit from you. If that is incorrect, just tell me so. If it is true, what is the point of remarking as to anonymity in the first place?
dmaker Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 The point of remarking on anonymity in the first place is because DWA incorrectly states that anecdotes can be falsified scientifically. First of all, they cannot. But how can you even begin to imagine they could even be investigated, much less falsified, when you don't even have a name in the first place? That was the point of mentioning anonymity in regards to report databases. You are bringing comments from a different discussion out of context over here in an attempt to somehow buoy the most recent claim from NAWAC. All I can see this serving is to derail this discussion into something off topic.
Yuchi1 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Wouldn't a simple picture of the broken tree remedy ~2/3 of this discussion?
WSA Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) I hear you to say, dmaker. I also hear the sound of rapid tap dancing! :-) Edited June 23, 2014 by WSA
dmaker Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Wouldn't a simple picture of the broken tree remedy ~2/3 of this discussion? That is very optimistic. First of all no one here could know 100% that it is even the tree in question, that simply is an objective fact and not an attack on anyone. It may help if qualified persons here could identify potential signs of preexisting weakening in the tree. But again, it's just a picture of a tree. Maybe it's the wrong one? I don't think a picture of a snapped tree is going to provide much here, but it might help a little bit. Trees snapping due to natural causes is not an uncommon event. A picture of that, and only that, is not going to help the idea that the snap was caused by a wood ape. A picture of the alleged unclassified ape that caused the break? Now THAT is what you should be asking for. " I also hear the sound of rapid tap dancing! :-) " WSA Then sit down and put your feet up. Edited June 23, 2014 by dmaker
Guest Squatchologist Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Hey Bipto i have a question for you: Also being from Minnesota i am just curious how you became part of a group out of Texas or OK? Have you done any researching here in MN or have any experiences here? They didnt just pull your name out of a hat and say, This guy lets have this guy join our group. Just curious
WSA Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 I'd say it would be fair to argue any plausible scenario that fits the facts as related, sure. As for any claims that other reports are less creditable because they are attributed to anonymous witnesses...it seems that matters less and less to some, depending. And some here on the board continues to shimmy and shake-that-thang, and to ignore the $64k question: Assuming Bipto related the event accurately, who amongst our opponent delegation is willing to agree with me that we don't know what that was? That is all I'm saying. We'll still respect you in the morning.
dmaker Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) It seems bears do throw rocks at times: " Assuming Bipto related the event accurately, who amongst our opponent delegation is willing to agree with me that we don't know what that was?" Uhm, every opponent? Based on the available evidence, i.e. none, I don't see how anyone can claim to know exactly what happened, be they proponent or "opponent" What gave you any idea otherwise? Not knowing does not equal "wood ape". Edited June 23, 2014 by dmaker 1
Recommended Posts