Bill Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Jerry: However, your comments always carry a patina of skeptic bashing. Can we get over that and let folks say what they want to say? To be clear, I do think that generally your posts are a good example of reasonable discourse. So please drop the crudges. You are above that, I believe. What skeptic bashing? What crudge? Seriously, man, where do you see that in my post? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billgreen2010 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 all im going say for now about this ongoing situation WOW,,,,,,, to be continued Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGrimore Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I'll gladly add another + 1 for Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 There is "skeptic-bashing" and "believer-bashing" and then there is "blow-hard, thread-puking, page-gobbling, insufferably arrogant jackwagon-bashing". I'd like to see more of one of those. It'd be more entertaining, and, dare I say, educational, than guessing if/when a peer-review happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Jerry.. Skeptic bashing ? Really? are you serious? The skeptics on this forum get a pass far too regularly. Most of the believers I see on this forum are big enough to admit that some videos are hoax's, and often times they go out of their way to accomodate or compromise when it comes to arguing points. There's far too many non-believer/skeptic types on here who wont budge AN INCH in their position, even when the guidelines of the forum specifically say that A ) they are welcome, but B ) "You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered"... Yeah right... how often does that happen exactly...?? So PLEASE.. give me a break about how skeptics are "bashed" on here.. it couldnt be further from the truth. Art No offense, please. But you are blind to the skeptic bashing that is commonplace here. This is not a controversial statement on my part. You are offering your imagined open mindedness of TBers and your imagined closed-mindedness of skeptics and ignoring actual disrespectful comments aimed at skeptics posting here. Just look at Jodie's post above, where she basically calls me a butt kisser because I gave kudos to Parn. Really? Please reconsider you post. Again, I say, you are wrong. Shall we compare negative comments at BFF? Do you really want to go there? But this should not be about skeptics, or anti-skeptics. It should be about the cogency of the forthcoming DNA report. We perhaps should say nothing about it until it is produced. But that would be boring, would it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 How exactly were you or Parn "bashed" Jerry ? Do you count my "back slapping" post as bashing? Because I found it hilarious that he jumped the gun with his "I told you so" posts- when it wasnt even the actual report ?? Yea I did, and still do find that pretty funny, and it has nothing even to do with bigfoot- but proves a point about certain attitudes of members on here. Oh, and I am sorry, you werent patting your own back... you were too busy patting Parn's.... My mistake.... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 "Stay tuned, 2012 will be the biggest year in the history of bigfoot since 1967." I doubt it. We've already had... 2000 (Skookum Cast; Dr. Johnson's sighting)... 2001 (supposed Orang-Pendek hair found, and then analyzed at Oxford; Myakka photos from Florida)... 2002 (explorers on the verge of proving the existence of the Orang-Pendek) 2003 (Forensic Expert Says Bigfoot is Real -- National Geographic; supposed Yeti hair gathered)... 2004 (discovery of Homo floresiensis; Bili Ape; Teslin, Yukon Bigfoot)... 2005 (Bobby Clarke's Manitoba bigfoot video; Bigfoot photo contest; Kentucky pancake video)... 2006 (Johor Bigfoot; Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science is published; Dr. Meldrum appears on National Public Radio; Pine Ridge; Bigfoot hand in a jar)... 2007 (Jacobs creature; 'Destination Truth' Yeti tracks; Monsterquest -- Snelgrove Lake bigfoot DNA; Dr. Meldrum's Ichnotaxonomy of Giant Hominid Tracks in North America getting published)... 2008 (Georgia Bigfoot in a freezer; Japanese Yeti expedition in the Himalayas claim to find Yeti footprints; M.K. Davis presents bigfoot massacre theory)... 2009 (Bigfoot toenail; cryptolinguist gives presentation at bigfoot conference; Russian bigfoot documentary; Mike Greene thermal bigfoot video)... and 2011 (Finding Bigfoot; multiple DNA samples submitted for testing; bigfoot shot and killed; Dr. Meldrum creates journal/newsletter, calling it The Relict Hominoid Inquiry) It will have to be something mighty big. Bigfoot himself perhaps. Now THAT would be newsworthy. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) There is "skeptic-bashing" and "believer-bashing" and then there is "blow-hard, thread-puking, page-gobbling, insufferably arrogant jackwagon-bashing". I'd like to see more of one of those. It'd be more entertaining, and, dare I say, educational, than guessing if/when a peer-review happens. In other words, 'Haters gonna hate'. Edited January 25, 2012 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Jerry: However, your comments always carry a patina of skeptic bashing. Can we get over that and let folks say what they want to say? To be clear, I do think that generally your posts are a good example of reasonable discourse. So please drop the crudges. You are above that, I believe. What skeptic bashing? What crudge? Seriously, man, where do you see that in my post? Bill You asked. "Maybe we should just dial down .... the rush to declare ourselves winners of the betting pool." This is a direct reference to Parn's post. Given your previous post opening trying to refute a comment by Parn considering the attributes of sasquatch, you seem to have a special interest in, if not attacking skeptics generally, then at least directly or indirectly settling some previous score with Parn, based probably on skirmishes at Randi's site. This is my impression and if you say I am wrong, then I consider myself wrong. (Just don't protest too much). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 25, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted January 25, 2012 As is always the case, I find your comments valuable. However, your comments always carry a patina of skeptic bashing. Can we get over that and let folks say what they want to say? To be clear, I do think that generally your posts are a good example of reasonable discourse. So please drop the crudges. You are above that, I believe. I think you're seeing things that are not there Jerry.. & we all know what is thought about that when that happens form a skeptical point of view don't we ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Has anyone else noticed how many of us post into the wee hours? Good golly, I've got to get up at 4:00 am! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 25, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted January 25, 2012 Has anyone else noticed how many of us post into the wee hours? Good golly, I've got to get up at 4:00 am! It depends where you are in the world doesn't it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I think you're seeing things that are not there Jerry.. & we all know what is thought about that when that happens form a skeptical point of view don't we ?? I'll accept your first sentence, if you say so. Second sentence, more skeptic bashing. You don't see that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) Has anyone else noticed how many of us post into the wee hours? Good golly, I've got to get up at 4:00 am! What is wrong with us, anyway? I have to get up in 4 hours myself. I'm gonna hate myself in the morning. Edited January 25, 2012 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 It depends where you are in the world doesn't it.. Almost 12:30am here. You're overseas, right? What time is it there? What is wrong with us, anyway? I have to get up in 4 hours myself. I'm gonna hate myself in the morning. Amen brother. How exactly were you or Parn "bashed" Jerry ? Do you count my "back slapping" post as bashing? Because I found it hilarious that he jumped the gun with his "I told you so" posts- when it wasnt even the actual report ?? Yea I did, and still do find that pretty funny, and it has nothing even to do with bigfoot- but proves a point about certain attitudes of members on here. Oh, and I am sorry, you werent patting your own back... you were too busy patting Parn's.... My mistake.... Art We shall see what we shall see, right? What is your point of view? Is Parn wrong? Am I wrong? Let's cut the BS. I would like your definitive position and on the record. Care to give it? Or, will you equivocate? Inquiring minds want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts