Incorrigible1 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I do not argue with the question, I argue with the way it is asked sometimes. But, I prefer rude out-and-out questions and arguments over the ambiguous one-liners if that is what you are asking Inc. As far as they forums crack, there is a report button and an ignore button. Feel free to use either if I offend. Sometimes? Not in every thread in every other posting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Sometimes? Not in every thread in every other posting? I guess if sometimes implies mostly under the circumstance of what we are discussing, the yes. Is the point of this exercise coming? Do you really want to look at redundancy of how I post? I tend to see a pattern in yours as well. Do we really need to go there? I see no reason this needs to become a personal battle. Everyone has certain things that set them off; things they react to regularly. I am allowed to have the opinion that I don't like other people's opinions, am I not? Isn't that what makes an argument/discussion/debate? Can you describe how I did anything but this in what I have said? Perhaps you can help me rectify my personal behavior since you seem to have a problem with it. Edited October 22, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Your moderating efforts are duly noted and misplaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 You made a comment directed towards me personally. I responded. I did not tell you how you should act as it applies to the rules of this forum in said response. Could you please explain to me exactly how that is moderating as I seem to be operating under a different definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Oh goody someone with inside knowledge that won't share wants to play games!! Ya got the wrong fish, just spit the hook!!! I'm not sure what you're talking about. The only inconsistency here is the term "several days" in General's post. Your subsequent reply suggested that because Randles didn't mention a hound or General didn't mention digging in the snow that somehow there's a bigger discrepancy in their stories. I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion. I'll put this another way. If General used the word "weeks" instead of "days" there would be no difference at all in their accounts. His subsequent telling(s) of the story line up with Randles time line. If you're unwilling to concede he could have used the wrong word when pounding out a post eight or nine months after the actual event, then you won't be satisfied with his explanation. I'm still waiting for proof on this story like everyone else. If you want to dismiss it out of hand, there are probably better reasons. Edited October 22, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest General Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 That was a lot of reading. Haven't checked in the last few days. I think there was only one question for Derek. I doubt you'll get an answer from him any time soon he probably won't even see it. His local deer season just started and if you know him you know how serious he takes his deer hunting. I don't have much time write now. I'll try an check in later. In short isn't a few weeks several days? don't that mean the same thing? Oooh you guys must be using the new English Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest General Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Oh and slim is spot on. Post away btw...... the only time anything significant was found my hound was there as was driver. This was weeks after shooting on my first return trip sense shooting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 If you have something personal to say to me, by all means PM me and we can discuss it. Otherwise, I would advise you to leave it at what you wrote unless you can back it up since you will just end up looking foolish. I think I was pretty clear and was that a threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Actually, I found your statement quite vague. If you have something to say to me, spit it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I do not argue with the question, I argue with the way it is asked sometimes. But, I prefer rude out-and-out questions and arguments over the ambiguous one-liners if that is what you are asking Inc. The question HG was referencing was "Good gawd, man, whatever happened to "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" And you most certainly do argue the question, over and over. You seem the self-appointed champion of the paranormalists. It's a valid statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I've seen precious little of that in quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Actually, I found your statement quite vague. If you have something to say to me, spit it out. Enough said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Guys, put this thread back on topic now please. Stop the picking at each other or I swear, no recess! ( light hearted attempt at humor ) This type of jabbing at each other serves no purpose and generates reports, which in turn generates warning level increases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Great timing Mark. Right before I can address two public personal attacks. Thanks for jumping in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 That's the whole point of jumping in HG. This way the entire crew gets to post again tomorrow instead of getting put on suspension. This forum is not to be used for public arguements, not theirs, not yours, and not mine. Try not to take things on such a personal level, remember we are supposed to argue the post not attack the poster. Thanks Guys for your cooperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I absolutely agree with you on a couple of points and completely disagree on some others. It absolutely should and would be extraordinary if bigfoot were discovered to be a real live animal. Also, its extraordinary how many reports are made with nothing to come of it. It is comparable in that there is no tangible (as in scientifically verifiable/absolute proof) evidence that my kettle full of gold that orbits Uranus exists. (man that is just fun to say! haha) It can also be said there is no absolute proof my kettle full of gold that orbits Uranus doesn't exist. The same can be said for bigfoot. There are other providential things worth mentioning too. There have been many things "seen" or experienced by humans other than bigfoot with more frequency and more multiple witness accounts with video/photo evidence to back it up. Does this mean it (insert subject of choice that fits that criteria here) absolutely exist? Another point: Which animal has ever wanted to be studied and observed in the wild? Also, Isn't bigfoot observed near and around humans and their dwellings? Is it special pleading to argue that they don't want to be observed, and say in the same breath they are or have been present recent enough to leave hair in states like Oklahoma how far away from the nearest dwelling or human? I'll try to make this simple without being too simple hopefully. Bf either exists as a biological entity or it doesn't. If it does, then the "how" of it's existence without proof until now will have been due to some natural design or function of it's behavior or some disfunction of our reasoning, understanding and interpretation of prior evidence. You can't get around this unless you resort to the supernatural explanations. I think that reasoning and understanding failure is more likely than the paranormal when deeling with proven biological entities. Ultimately, It won't be extraordinary that it exists, what would be extraordinary is that we ignored it's existence, and tried to reason it into extinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts