Guest Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 On no, two more posts until 100. Must....resist the urge.... Just do it and get it over with. You know you want to.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Who me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Yes you...who else??? C'mon. C'mon!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Yeah you. Here is one to get you over 100. Particle nouns exist in Japanese and Korean. I'll bet you speak one of those languages or another language with particle nouns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Ole RL says tomorrow is the big day folks. Lets see how much more speculation we can get out of this one before then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 -.- she's really asking for it "FYI, I visited OK and AR this past weekend and took pictures of some interesting things including the stick formation that has created such a fervor. I cannot believe that there is so much hoopla associated with the innocent posting of a stick structure which I made no claims about other than an apology for the poor photography with my cell phone. I guess folks would lose it completely if I posted everything I have. " later on: "I have a lot of samples and yes I have evidence. I can't imagine how this is going to go..... What an uproar there will be, no doubt." &comment_id=5024503&offset=0&total_comments=29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Bananasquatch what happened to your avatar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Jerry, I was willing to believe you were "respectful and curious" about my question and assertion to Parn, even though your hypo was simple and slanted. I am less willing to believe your sincerity now, as you claim you are insulted by my response. Is it the reference to "not listening?" Your follow up response reveals that again in your fixation on how a witness ought to respond. You also drag up hoaxes, etc. To me a witness is someone who witnessed a Bigfoot, neither hoax or a misidentification, but a Bigfoot witness. But, you also ignore again the other two elements I suggest to Parn. Your use of trivializing/colorful language is another indicator to me that you aren't sincere in trying to understand the impact to a witness. Your inquiry and responses fall into that second category of "fall-out" I refer to, an unbelieving public. I am wondering if it has occurred to you your repetitive stances as a skeptic are often perceived as insuting to witnesses? You might be insulted b/c I "endure the less informed?" Jerry I can't really help you there, the fact is Bigfoots do exist, people do witness them, and then must endure skeptics (often close loved ones) who feel clever enough to wave away the reality, in their lives and this world. I don't think I can help you out here Jerry. I suggest you reread my post to Parn. And the response to your interjection. That about covers it, unless you start a thread on this topic. But given your response I doubt I will join that thread. Those discussions are very personal, and rely on trust and respect to get past the mundane to what is important to the witness and our understanding of Bigfoots. I am not feeling it with you, so I tend to clam up in the presence of such. It is one of those "consequences." I often don't feel free to discuss my experiences openly, not something I am accustomed to, even now.. I don't have on my glasses this am, and a busy day ahead.so please forgive typos. I didn't want to leave you thinking I am impressed, or dissapointed, with your response. It is typical. But, I won't engage with you again, I no longer try to convince anyone, expecially the unwilling, and am here for different reasons., apehuman, The irony: empathy with condescension. For the record. I doubt Bigfoot exists. I do not know Bigfoot is non-existent. I do not claim Bigfoot is impossible to exist. Since I claim no special knowledge I try to keep an open mind. I understand I may be mistaken in my doubt. As to eyewitnesses. First, I understand the anecdotal nature of witness testimony and realize I am not obliged to accept such evidence at face value. I may or may not put weight in witness statements. Such statements are not conclusive as evidence. Second, I have had extensive talks with people who have had sightings of anomalous creatures, from a centaur-like sighting to a griffin-like sighting to various ghost sightings. Ask the folks I talked to and they will tell you I listened and did not mock them or treat them derisively. I did not think they were lying, but I did not think they saw what they said they did. I found alternative solutions to some that satisfied me, to other sightings I was more provisional in my own mind. Some witnesses agreed my solutions were possible explanations while one person was insistent that she saw a griffin-like creature (doggish, with fully developed wings) and wouldn’t entertain a mundane explanation. I, myself, have had a fleeting sighting of an enormous spider only a few feet away, a spider that does not exist according to zoological knowledge. I do not think I saw what I thought I saw. As to your remarks replying to mine, if you are saying only that people who claim to have seen Bigfoot should not be ridiculed or treated badly, I agree. I may doubt they saw Bigfoot, but I cannot know with certainty that they did not. But I think you are saying something different in your reply. I was trying to convey this idea: Somewhere in the history of Bigfoot phenomena, via a minority of sighting reports, sighting occurrences have started to move from sightings of an anomalous ape or a wild human to a virtually metaphysical event, imbued with an existential depth that reflects the hopes and fears of the witness rather than the reality of the cryptic animal sighted or believed to have been sighted. Granted, this small point is esoteric. But perhaps this will prove to be a trend where more and more sightings will be given some sort of “deep meaning†unlike any other encounter in nature. (This is what I was getting at with reference to UFO/alien sightings or religious visions, where sightings are considered sometimes as life-changing events weighted with existential longings). I repeat my main contention: this type of sighting tells us more about the witness than it does about what is being witnessed. Your reply seems to me to be embracing this trend. You seem to want to religionize Bigfoot encounters. Look at your language: witness discussions are to be “very personal†and must rely on “trust and respect†in order to “get past the mundane to what is important to the witness and our understanding of Bigfoots.†In almost evangelical language you lament “I no longer try to convince anyone, especially the unwilling…†The unbeliever is “unwilling,†it is all a matter of willingness and not of evidence or critical thought. Aren’t you weighing down the phenomena with metaphysical baggage beyond the mundane of a natural encounter? Of course you are entitled to your beliefs and I’m glad you air them here. But, what you want to do also, it seems, is stifle any dissent because of its alleged harm to the “very personal†aspect of Bigfoot sightings. This too is the echo of a religious point of view, in my humble opinion. I don’t expect a reply from you. That’s o.k. I don’t think we can convince each other of anything. If, however, I’ve misunderstood you, please reply. You will have the last word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Ole RL says tomorrow is the big day folks. Lets see how much more speculation we can get out of this one before then. Well, he wonders whether tomorrow will be the day. He also speculates about much of May (with May 3rd being of interest). I'd expect a completely different tone on FB if release were imminent. That said, I'm not a psychologist nor do I play one on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 I'd expect a completely different tone on FB if release were imminent. yep, agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Yeah, it's not coming tomorrow... Oh, hey, 100 posts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Bananasquatch what happened to your avatar? I don't know!!! I will have to fix it. Maybe it's been submitted and is currently waiting peer review. Sorry, couldn't resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 I don't know!!! I will have to fix it. Maybe it's been submitted and is currently waiting peer review. Sorry, couldn't resist. lol that made me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 It's not 2pm yet. (Which is the time to watch, according to Sally Ramey) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted April 26, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted April 26, 2012 Am i missing something, has she ever said that it was coming out on a Thursday then Hoosierfoot ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts