N A W A C - Field Study Discussion (2)

[Cotter]

What remains in the thread I wouldn't consider harassment either.

 

However, I would probably term it something like incessant and repetitive insinuative questioning (in some cases).

 

Which, as you put it, isn't against any rules.

Edit - I was curious if any of the Area X Exposure Crusaders were over on FB where an umbrella of rules and regs wouldn't stop them from upping the attack pressure.

[Guest]

There must have been some serious posts deletions, because I honestly didn't there was any real aggression or even intensity to the entire tree situation. The questions and debate seemed fair.

[Cotter]

I'm not sure if it was as much a debate as a discussion.

 

And I agree about the aggression.....I didn't see much.  Perhaps my choice of words allowed for an improper inference as I was not implying that he was being harassed here, but rather that FB opened the door for continuing on with the 'discussion' without as many rules.

Anyway, was just curious if it was worthwhile to follow the circus over there.

[WSA]

Norseman...I hesitate to draw any conclusion about anything to do with this episode, because there is so much we don't know (and it sounds like we won't ever), but...

 

Oaks are notorious for cross-pollinating, and you can find many of these hybrids in the forests. At the foot of my driveway I have a tremendous "whitish" oak, probably 60'+, but with a diameter of maybe only 18". It has a shaggy/shingled bark, all the world like a hickory, and leaves that indicate some whit oak in its lineage. You would not find its photograph in any field guide though, and believe me, I looked and looked.

 

I would agree that white oaks (and their hybrids) have amazing strength along their stems.  This characteristic is exploited in the wood's use in "splits", used for weaving baskets and chair seats. Breaking a white oak across its diameter would be more difficult than some of the more brittle varieties.

Dmaker, I've had enough trips down the evidence/not-evidence bunny hole to last me a lifetime, thanks. Since this was my post, I get to say it was evidence to me. 

Edited July 8, 2014 by WSA

[MIB]

As defined by the forum rules? No.

 

As defined by his supporters? I'm sure the answer would be "yes."

 

I'm not one of his supporters, but IMHO, yes.   Within the rules?  Probably, else you'd have taken care of it.  Within the boundaries of polite company and conversation?  Not even close.   It's possible to question someone without conducting an inquisition.   Some folks around here don't know the difference.   I don't really see any point in challenging him or anyone else, just ask enough questions to get whatever information you need to make up your own mind, do so, and move on.  It's really not necessary to try to change anyone else's mind.   Attempted brow beating isn't a way to do that anyway, it just gets their dander up.   And, in this case, it chases away someone who was sharing info of use to people doing research in the field whether the armchair / internet researchers liked what they heard or not.

 

MIB 

[See-Te-Cah NC]

So, I suppose that questioning claims and statements is dependent on one's definition(s) of browbeating now?

 

Bottom line - If you don't want anyone to say anything that might possibly be perceived as negative and contrary to what you're presenting, don't put it out there.

 

It seems to me that asking multiple questions would be a good thing. There's no limit on the number of questions allowed.

 

If multiple questions were asked by those that support him, would there need to be a limit on those, or would it be OK to not move on in that case?

[WSA]

It really was/is very transparent to me what the agenda was with some here with Bipto, as it was/is for a lot of us. I think the guy shows (hopeful present-tense usage intentional) remarkable class in having to field the same tired assertions over and over, veiled as questions.  In my book, that qualifies as harassment. It was/is certainly not coming from a genuine quest for more information, but a need to play gotcha with his research findings.

 

There is a mode of civil discourse and inquiry that doesn't require that tone or level of insinuation. Did it violate forum guidelines? Probably not. Was it disagreeable and  counter-productive to arriving at answers? I think a lot of us here know it is never about arriving at answers for some, only about putting their markers down as oh-so "real." It does get tiring, in the extreme, to even just wade through all that dross to get to real information, and I can only imagine what I'd feel if it were my data, motives and abilities being questioned (but not really). 

 

It is a lot to ask of a body.

[Guest]

he said he didn't even read the posts after he left for his vacation though. But that need to catch each other on mistakes goes both ways. Check outthe back and forth in the PGF section. It's not just the nonbelievers.

For the record, I enjoy his show and posts. I hope he des return.

Edited July 8, 2014 by mbh

[dmaker]

It really was/is very transparent to me what the agenda was with some here with Bipto, as it was/is for a lot of us. I think the guy shows (hopeful present-tense usage intentional) remarkable class in having to field the same tired assertions over and over, veiled as questions.  In my book, that qualifies as harassment. It was/is certainly not coming from a genuine quest for more information, but a need to play gotcha with his research findings.

 

There is a mode of civil discourse and inquiry that doesn't require that tone or level of insinuation. Did it violate forum guidelines? Probably not. Was it disagreeable and  counter-productive to arriving at answers? I think a lot of us here know it is never about arriving at answers for some, only about putting their markers down as oh-so "real." It does get tiring, in the extreme, to even just wade through all that dross to get to real information, and I can only imagine what I'd feel if it were my data, motives and abilities being questioned (but not really). 

 

It is a lot to ask of a body.

Well, in your book hearsay qualifies as impressive evidence. 

 

Questions and claims come hand in hand. It is neither remarkable, noble, classy, heroic or whatever you wish to dress it up as that Bipto had to face questioning. Especially in the face of absurd claims. 

[See-Te-Cah NC]

It really was/is very transparent to me what the agenda was with some here with Bipto, as it was/is for a lot of us. I think the guy shows (hopeful present-tense usage intentional) remarkable class in having to field the same tired assertions over and over, veiled as questions.  In my book, that qualifies as harassment. It was/is certainly not coming from a genuine quest for more information, but a need to play gotcha with his research findings.

 

There is a mode of civil discourse and inquiry that doesn't require that tone or level of insinuation. Did it violate forum guidelines? Probably not. Was it disagreeable and  counter-productive to arriving at answers? I think a lot of us here know it is never about arriving at answers for some, only about putting their markers down as oh-so "real." It does get tiring, in the extreme, to even just wade through all that dross to get to real information, and I can only imagine what I'd feel if it were my data, motives and abilities being questioned (but not really). 

 

It is a lot to ask of a body.

 

What data did he present? That would be the evidence everyone's been asking to see. Evidence would be real information. What you and others seem to be calling data is really dross, IMO.

 

Now, if he had data that he wanted to share, that's different. Photos (even of the tree in question), video, audio, a log of events - something other than opinion.

 

Nobody's coming down on the guy. Everyone, proponent and skeptic alike, just want to see evidence. Claims are not enough for some, and unsubstantiated claims shouldn't be enough for anyone.

[norseman]

I thought the witness said the beast was 45' up in the tree.

If the tree is only 50' tall, for example, the physics of breaking it off at the trunk become even more ridiculous.

Not at all. Because your stick tree looks like a bushy pine tree with the animal hugging the bole of the tree. Oaks don't look like that, they have big gnarly branches that are very horizontal to the ground and grow out a long ways. This is why kids have a lot more fun climbing hardwood trees than evergreens. So 30 ft up the tree and 20 ft away from the bole of the tree is a lot of leverage against the tree. And unlike a evergreen where the branch will just give way first? The oak with it's very large limbs is transferring much more of the weight directly to the ground.

Despite the eye witness account the numbers don't jive for that species of tree

.

Edited July 8, 2014 by norseman

[norseman]

Norseman...I hesitate to draw any conclusion about anything to do with this episode, because there is so much we don't know (and it sounds like we won't ever), but...

 

Oaks are notorious for cross-pollinating, and you can find many of these hybrids in the forests. At the foot of my driveway I have a tremendous "whitish" oak, probably 60'+, but with a diameter of maybe only 18". It has a shaggy/shingled bark, all the world like a hickory, and leaves that indicate some whit oak in its lineage. You would not find its photograph in any field guide though, and believe me, I looked and looked.

 

I would agree that white oaks (and their hybrids) have amazing strength along their stems.  This characteristic is exploited in the wood's use in "splits", used for weaving baskets and chair seats. Breaking a white oak across its diameter would be more difficult than some of the more brittle varieties.

Dmaker, I've had enough trips down the evidence/not-evidence bunny hole to last me a lifetime, thanks. Since this was my post, I get to say it was evidence to me.

Right. But if we are drawing stick figures? Then they should be accurate!

Have you ever seen a 90-100 ft white oak with a 24" base?

Evergreen trees are a different animal, same species of tree such as a Douglas fir, one growing in Seattle and one growing in Spokane? Despite the same size base the taper will be much worse with the Spokane tree making the Seattle tree up to twice as tall.

[Doc Holliday]

You know, I'm tired of others being blamed for Bipto's exit. He didn't mind sharing his info and observations when members were in agreement or otherwise enamored with his conclusions, yet when someone wanted to question some of those observations, he left.

fair point +1...... perhaps "the strain was more than he could bear"

[Guest]

Let's all take a deep breath and look at the realities here. The state of Bigfootery is beyond stagnant at this point and many are just gasping for air to find anything to discuss. We can't even get a clear picture or credible video at this point but we are now obsessed with DNA? We live in a world where Melba Ketchum threads gain the most attention on this forum. Bigfoot, or real progress towards proving the existence has hit a severe brick wall.

[MIB]

So, I suppose that questioning claims and statements is dependent on one's definition(s) of browbeating now?

 

Bottom line - If you don't want anyone to say anything that might possibly be perceived as negative and contrary to what you're presenting, don't put it out there.

 

It seems to me that asking multiple questions would be a good thing. There's no limit on the number of questions allowed.

 

If multiple questions were asked by those that support him, would there need to be a limit on those, or would it be OK to not move on in that case?

 

My personal opinion?  I don't see it as an issue of number but of intent.  Straightforward questions to gain additional detail are great.  (Well, unless the same question is asked over and over and over ... I think the questioner should take the time to review what has already been put on the table.)   Questions intended only to badger the witness or disparage their character are not.    

 

All I need, personally, is the details of their claim.   I don't need to argue them, I just need to know what they are.  Once I have a clear enough picture of the substance of the claim, I can make up my mind whether to believe or not.   There's nothing in there that requires or justifies rude behavior.   I don't have to prove how proper a disbeliever I am to my disbeliever clique by being putting my "jerkness" on public display..  To me that's a sign of insecurity.  I just don't happen to be that insecure. 

 

I'm not disparaging the forum staff, ya'll are enforcing the letter of the rules which is really all you can do. I think the problem is built into the rules, maybe even deeper than the steering committee has control over, it might be a CFZ-level forum charter issue.  However, we can individually "police" our own behavior and require a higher standard of ourselves that just whatever the "law" allows.

 

MIB

Edited July 9, 2014 by MIB