Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[kitakaze]

Well now let's see. You followed me around the various threads here way back when. Even those with nothing to do with sasquatch. You've now shown up on Melissa's board and you copy and paste a post of mine from Cryptomundo so yes, the 'evidence' is all in the favour of my assertion. You have been following me. I haven't copied and pasted any posts of yours from here and argued or ridiculed them on another board. Away from here, you don't exist as far as I'm concerned. The opposite is clearly not so.

Oh, that's how you connect the dots. Yep, definitely paranoid. Say, Lyndon, why haven't I made an effort to engage you at Melissa's board? People with paranoid tendencies often have an inflated view of self-importance.

I've long sinced ceased to see this board as some place where proper debate can materialise. From the moment I first came here all I saw was ridicule, 'funny' name calling, double standards and even downright denialism of bone fide facts. I well remember the alien big cat discussion. Bone fide proof of alien cats being caught or shot but still people wanted to argue against the possibilites/probabilities. It's bloody ridiculous. Even if a sasquatch body were found the uber scoftics on this board would still poo poo another sighting somewhere else saying "well, the one we've got here in Washington is dead and we have it right here in front of us, so it doesn't explain the other sighting in Oregon."

Go figure.

Yes, they even made a seperate thread for your alien cat discussion. Say, you never specified how I qualified as an uber-scoftic complete with examples of me off-handedly dismissing the idea of sasquatch. Want to try or were you flailing again?

Not on JREF.

Your fringe beliefs have severely skewered your judgement IMO.

There's plenty of skeptics posting on Cryptomundo. Perhaps your comments were seen as inappropiate compared to others. I wouldn't be surprised.

Also, I don't even post all that much on Cryptomundo so no need for you to turn this into a rant about Cryptomundo.

My comments and those by others were completely civil and pertinent to the topics at hand. I don't anywhere state that there aren't skeptics there. You say plenty yet I'm thinking of Radford and Loxton who are skeptical writers, know the administration personally, and would be very hard to censor without it quickly being published. Nor do they have time to address many of the logical fallacies that come up there I see Loxton has to spend just as much time encouraging members to stop with the personal attacks as discussing the issues.

Kidda, if I was going to call you a queer, poofter or a shirtlifter I would have done so. Faggot means what it means......faggot...i.e meatball head.

BS. You know full well that most people here would think of a homophobic slur before a meatball. You're dicking around with your insults just like when you space your spelling of swear words to get by the filters. Sad, childish, and pathetic.

...and neither do I like you.

I'd never have guessed. I have no other opinion of you than to be amused by your antics and to have pity for your troubling lack of control over your emotions.

 

[carcharodon]

It was proven that Correa was ridiculing Hunster?

Yup. Knowing full well he couldn't respond. Then he denies he ever did such a thing. Not only did he ridicule Huntster, he ridiculed Huntster over something Huntster didn't literally mean.

No.

No? What do you mean 'no'???

You looked for one of my posts on another forum and you picked it out and copied and pasted it here.

Did I pick out a post of yours here and copy and paste it on another forum and comment on it there????

Why would I even bother to do such a thing??

Like I keep saying, some of you people here are obsessive and just plain crazy.

Sounds like a paranoid assumption.

How is it assumption? Geez, you even namecheck me here when I haven't even posted for ages. You were known to stalk me around other threads here now you follow me to other boards.

That's not assumption. That's fact.

This is more of your 'I said it so it's true' routine. Anyway, how so?Can you articulate and support that statement in any meaningful way or are you just going to continue ignoring many valid points made to you?

Copied and pasted exhibit a:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2631917&postcount=4397

I didn't even come up with the point initially. A poster named Questor made the point at first. I merely agreed with him.

Seems to me you ignored Questor's initial point and chose to pick out mine instead. LOL, can we say OBSESSED with lil' ol' Carchy? Yup, can do.

Let me see, the gist of it is that skeptics with and interest in the bigfoot phenomenom are not rational people?

Sigh, you aren't even reading properly. I said the OBSESSIVE skeptics and scoftics who try and argue against the existance of bigfoot on ALMOST A DAILY BASIS are not rational people. I'm not irrational to argue on a DAILY BASIS against the existance of something I don't believe to be true. I have better and more constructive things to do. I don't believe the footage of the alien autopsy to be true. Nor do I believe in alien abduction. I wouldn't dream of wasting my time arguing almost on a DAILY BASIS with those who do.

Can you support that claim in any meaningful way?

Can you refute it in any meaningful way? You haven't yet.

How about skeptics addressing 9/11 fanatics, psychic mediums, and homeopathy?

Who cares? I'm more concerned with those obsessed with sasquatch. Personally I wouldn't waste my time aguing almost ON A DAILY BASIS any of those other subjects, particularly if I thought they were ridiculous. I think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are ridiculous. I wouldn't waste any of my time arguing almost ON A DAILY BASIS with those who think they aren't ridiculous.

You know, because from where I stand the guy going bat$#!% insane having a complete meltdown tantrum looks pretty irrational and in need of a break from the subject.

I can bet you read and post more on the subject of sasquatch lately than I do.

The guy who copies and pastes a post made on another board from somebody who hasn't even posted to him for ages then transfers it here in order to comment on it doesn't need a break?????

So is that to say that you don't think that I and other skeptics have been censored at cryptomundo

There are skeptics posting there every day. Perhaps your reputation preeceded you??

or that I wouldn't have responded to you there?

Why respond at all? It was a minor post from a minor poster. Why not just leave it? Why not just forget about lil' ol me and move on with your life? You can't do that can you............because you are OBSESSED!!!!

You're really not doing to well with this, Lyndon.

I'm doing 100 times better than you are son. I haven't copied and pasted a post of yours and then posted it over an another forum to try and ridicule it and you.......................have I?????

Tell you what, as I've already suggested why don't you ask Craig about it or even better make some mention of skeptics claiming censorship in any post to any blog at crytptomundo and see what happens? So who's lost it?

Who cares? Why should I ask him? I'm not interested. I'm of the opinion that it might be a good idea if some boards don't allow skeptics to post. Some of us are pissed bored with wading through all the "they don't exist" crappola. I like Bindernagel's attitude. He's moved on from the boring "do they exit? "no they don't" line of thinking. I'm with him.

This is a thread I started on the subject. If you'de like to see the e-mails from Woolheater in which he declines to specify his reasons then I'd be happy to post them for you.

I don't care. None of my interest.

Don't forget, it's not just me being censored and none of us posted in the same appalling manner as you do.

Huh? I don't post in an 'appaling manner' on Cryptomundo. I do it here because bell ends like YOU ask for it and fully deserve it. There are no bell ends on Cryptomundo. There are plenty here.

Blatant censorship, deal with it.

Why don't YOU deal with it? You are the one who has the problem with it. Not me. You are the one crying like a baby over it. If you don't like the rules and attitude on Cryptomundo then don't go there. Simple as that. Ignore the place and don't even think about it. What's the big deal? There are lots of other Crypto sites around for you to play on.

You see? You are obsessed again. If I don't like the attitude of a certain site I won't go there....which is why I stopped coming here until a friend tipped me that a post of mine was copied and pasted from another forum. I won't be here for much longer once again. I am only posting today becuase I have got nothing else to do as I have to sit in all day to accept a delivery.

I certainly don't whinge and moan about JREF over on any other forums. In fact, I don't even mention JREF on any other forums.

Yes, Lyndon. You are but one sad example of true believers who react with extreme beligerence and tantrums to scrutiny of their fringe beliefs.

Don't you mean a 'true believer' (who doesn't actually believe everything to do with bigfoot) who reacts to pathetic obsessive a-list bell ends with extreme beligrance and tantrums.

I don't react like this to nice, thoughtful people. Only a-list bell ends.

Why would we ever shine a light on people like you?

Why even bother to copy and paste a post of mine from another board and put it here then? Better to just ignore me innit? You know, I went away before you did that. Wasn't it nicer for you here while I went away??

You only have yourself to blame from bringing me back here you brainless bell end.

 

[carcharodon]

Say, Lyndon, why haven't I made an effort to engage you at Melissa's board?

Because I haven't posted there in the time since you joined. I haven't posted there for a while now anyway. I haven't posted a great deal for a month or so and certainly nothing YOU can try to engage in........that's why. One of the members there knows that I won't post there now that you are there because it will only lead to you stalking me around the threads and Melissa and Theresa can do without that crap.

People with paranoid tendencies often have an inflated view of self-importance.

I think YOU have an inflated view of my importance otherwise you wouldn't bother to namecheck me when I'm not even posting here OR copy and paste a post of mine from another board.

Why didn't you just leave it and move on and forget about lil' ol' me? I wasn't causing YOU any harm over on Cryptomundo my poor little bunny wabbit!

BSYou know full well that most people here would think of a homophobic slur before a meatball.

How do you know that then? Are you English? Are you me? Nup. How do you know what I know??

Are you refuting that a meatball is called a faggot in England??

You're dicking around with your insults

No I'm not. I still think you are a sad, pathetic, miserable coward and a bell end on top. Not 'dicking' around there am I?

 

[Belz...]

Ah Gavel. Say old timer, haven't you gotten bored with all this sasquatch stuff yet? Don't you have a life? Nothing else to be getting on with? Still encamped on BFF going "zzzzzzz next please" almost every day??

And you, all the while, seem quite engaged in gathering evidence and presenting it.

No, wait a minute...

There is no point in arguing with a denialist like you.

Translation: "If you don't agree with me from the start, then I won't talk to you." Interesting. Basically, only those who are already on your side deserve convincing ? How does that work ?

Faggot means meatball.

That's a new one.

There is a difference between having a passing 'interest'......and a downright OBSESSION with being skeptical about sasquatch

Still waiting for that evidence.

If I had the opinion they most likely don't exist I wouldn't waste my time arguing the toss on a daily basis for years and years.

Well, that's unfortunate, because that's how ideas move forward. I'm sorry you can't see that.

Try wearing a heavily padded bigfoot costume and huge fake feet, turning your upper body in midstride without breaking out of the gait and without tripping over or slipping.

Betcha can't do that!

Well, that's it. I'm convinced.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, Belz?? Nup, the name doesn't ring a belz. Can't remember who you are. Obviously you didn't make much of an impression on me here.

Now, why would I care about making an impression ? Stop whining and bitching and get to providing evidence, or don't and stop claiming that your silly beliefs are true.

Hang on a minute. Say, you aren't that misguided fool who insisted the 2001 man apes look more real than the P/G subject are you????

I hate that movie.

Was that you? If it wasn't forget it and I'll go back to not remembering who you are again.

Whatever makes you happy, champ.

OBSESSED

Nope. Just having fun shooting down stupid allegations.

 

[carcharodon]

And you, all the while, seem quite engaged in gathering evidence and presenting it.
No, wait a minute...

What's that got to do with people wasting their time with something they don't think even exists???

Translation: "If you don't agree with me from the start, then I won't talk to you." Interesting. Basically, only those who are already on your side deserve convincing ? How does that work ?

No. Translation:

"Accept you played dirty popping at a poster who was banned and knew he couldn't respond and accept he didn't mean what you claimed in the literal sense!"

That's a new one.

New or old, who cares? Faggot means meatball here.

Still waiting for that evidence.

Still wondering what that has got to do with people wasting inordinant amounts of obsessive time on something they don't think exists.

I'm not arguing about sasquatch here. I'm arguing about the people who don't think sasquatch exists..............yet spend bizarre amounts of time trying to tell everyone they are right......almost on a dialy basis.

Weird.

Well, that's it. I'm convinced.

See. Told ya.

Now, why would I care about making an impression ?

Well you cared enough to butt in and post to me with an insult in the first place.

Stop whining and bitching and get to providing evidence,

Why should I? I'm not here to do that. People like you don't accept anything unless it's there in front of you. After my experience on the alien big cat subject here I realised there are so many people with their heads up their arses who can't and won't accept what's hitting them right in the face.

and stop claiming that your silly beliefs are true.

Are they not true then? Is my belief in the existance of an animal known as sasquatch not true then? Am I making up my belief??? Is it not true that I have this belief??

By the way, if sasquatch is silly why keep on and on trying to argue it then? I don't argue about faires. I find it silly to. How 'bout that?

Haven't you got anything better to do than argue against 'silly' subjects???

Nope. Just having fun shooting down stupid allegations.

What's 'stupid' about the obsessed allegation? You don't think people who argue against sasquatch on a daily basis aren't obsessed with doing that? Not even a teeny weeny little bit???
◊◊◊◊ me. There are more denialists here than I ever even thought.

 

[kitakaze]

Yup. Knowing full well he couldn't respond. Then he denies he ever did such a thing. Not only did he ridicule Huntster, he ridiculed Huntster over something Huntster didn't literally mean.

Paranoid people such as yourself often have such warped perceptions and are quick to see ridicule. I for one don't think Correa was ridiculing Huntster and definitely not in any personal way.

No? What do you mean 'no'???

kaze: Are you actually too far gone to think that I'm scouring the net looking for silly Lyndon posts?

Lyndon: Well you DID didn't you?

kaze: No.

Lyndon: No? What do you mean 'no'???

I mean that I do not look around the net for your activity in any way shape or form. For you to continue to assert that is pure paranoia.

You looked for one of my posts on another forum and you picked it out and copied and pasted it here.

Willful self-delusion. There was an exchange between you and DWA that I found to be typical of willful fringe belief ignorance. I'm not able to address it there so I address it here. DWA's soap-box routine in particular is what I wanted to address.

How is it assumption? Geez, you even namecheck me here when I haven't even posted for ages. You were known to stalk me around other threads here now you follow me to other boards.

That's not assumption. That's fact.

It's an assumption because you claim that I'm actively seeking out your activity on the internet when there is nothing to support that claim. What's the namecheck thing about? I've appealed to you not to act like such a dick in the past. One thing I have never done is to check any board for your posts (other than this one in reviewing what you've posted) or join another board because of your presence. You're totally stroking yourself. If I wanted to follow you around then how come I never joined the BFF? You're really too far gone.

I didn't even come up with the point initially. A poster named Questor made the point at first. I merely agreed with him.

Seems to me you ignored Questor's initial point and chose to pick out mine instead. LOL, can we say OBSESSED with lil' ol' Carchy? Yup, can do.

I missed Questor's statement. Nevertheless, in addressing an exchange between you and DWA I was highlighting some very lame techniques believers use to deflect scrutiny.

Sigh, you aren't even reading properly. I said the OBSESSIVE skeptics and scoftics who try and argue against the existance of bigfoot on ALMOST A DAILY BASIS are not rational people. I'm not irrational to argue on a DAILY BASIS against the existance of something I don't believe to be true. I have better and more constructive things to do. I don't believe the footage of the alien autopsy to be true. Nor do I believe in alien abduction. I wouldn't dream of wasting my time arguing almost on a DAILY BASIS with those who do.

I don't argue bigfoot's existence on a daily basis. I don't receive arguments for bigfoot's existence on a daily basis. I certainly don't have to proove anything to a foul-mouthed proponent. I've been into the bigfoot phenomenom for most of my life. Even if I'm skeptical of a living species I don't have to lose interest in the subject just because some believer can handle scrutiny and doesn't want my participation. Really, get over yourself.

Can you refute it in any meaningful way? You haven't yet.

I already have many times, you're either being ignorant or dishonest. I'll do it again. A skeptic discussing the bigfoot phenomenom in a civil manner is being rational. The believer who is manically hurling insults and personal attacks at such a person is being irrational. Done. Next.

Who cares? I'm more concerned with those obsessed with sasquatch. Personally I wouldn't waste my time aguing almost ON A DAILY BASIS any of those other subjects, particularly if I thought they were ridiculous. I think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are ridiculous. I wouldn't waste any of my time arguing almost ON A DAILY BASIS with those who think they aren't ridiculous.

What about the people who don't think 9/11 CT's are ridiculous? You're reasoning is very flawed.

I can bet you read and post more on the subject of sasquatch lately than I do.

Maybe. Who cares? It's not hard to check. Hey, I'm even reading Meldrum's book now.

The guy who copies and pastes a post made on another board from somebody who hasn't even posted to him for ages then transfers it here in order to comment on it doesn't need a break?????

I've already clearly explained the reason for doing that. Yes, I think the one who can't control his emotions, has total fits and temper tantrums, and hurls insults like a monkey does poo needs to take a walk.

There are skeptics posting there every day. Perhaps your reputation preeceded you??

Already covered.

Why respond at all? It was a minor post from a minor poster. Why not just leave it? Why not just forget about lil' ol me and move on with your life? You can't do that can you............because you are OBSESSED!!!!

Shouting doesn't support your claim. Why respond at all? Because people with emotional issues shouldn't alone be allowed to comment on the skeptic's perspective.

I'm doing 100 times better than you are son.

Son, old-timer... you know, Lyndon, your need for a sense of superiority is painfully transparent.

Who cares? Why should I ask him? I'm not interested. I'm of the opinion that it might be a good idea if some boards don't allow skeptics to post.

Yes, let's not let the facts muddle up beliefs.

Some of us are pissed bored with wading through all the "they don't exist" crappola. I like Bindernagel's attitude. He's moved on from the boring "do they exit? "no they don't" line of thinking. I'm with him.

I guess he's aware of some reliable evidence that would other scientists to follow suit? Trust me, if Bindernagel ever saw the way you post the last thing he'd say is 'I'm with him'.

Huh? I don't post in an 'appaling manner' on Cryptomundo. I do it here because bell ends like YOU ask for it and fully deserve it. There are no bell ends on Cryptomundo. There are plenty here.

Are you trying to justify your emotional problems? Ditto for the rest.

 

[drapier]

Why do you scoftics ridicule our beautiful, beautiful belief in the majestic man-ape? Don't you have better things to do like curing cancer and feeding the poor?

And besides, I defy you denialists to deny that the fourth definition of faggot in the Oxford English Dictionary is "A bundle of iron or steel rods bound together."

 

[kitakaze]

How do you know that then? Are you English? Are you me? Nup. How do you know what I know??

Are you refuting that a meatball is called a faggot in England??

No I'm not. I still think you are a sad, pathetic, miserable coward and a bell end on top. Not 'dicking' around there am I?

Actually, I'm third generation English and a proud Canadian, not that it's relevant. Faggot as meatball is news to me but faggot as homophobic slur is not news to you. I don't refute that it means meatball in England but I do refute that someone from there using the word to someone they are assuming is not British wouldn't expect it to be taken in it's far more widely recognized meaning. Especially when they don't clarify it as such at the time of it's use. Nice try, though. Any which way you can. Tomorrow I'll ask a few English friends of mine if I call them faggot which meaning they would take. How about spacing profanity to get it by the filters?

 

[Correa Neto]

Carcharodon, ranting will not hide the fact that once again you are not presenting the truth. Your behavior is demeaning for all those who defend the cause you seem to embrace. You lie, you make mischeivous claims and accusations about other people and never present anything to back what you said. It seems you are completely incapable of debating, of countering skeptical arguments, relying on lies, distortions and ad homs.

You claim I ridiculed Huntster. You are lying. Here are your claims:

Correa denied ridiculing Huntster AFTER Huntster was banned and couldn't respond.
Correa ridiculed Huntster AFTER HE WAS BANNED..............THAT IS A FACT............ and I called him/her on that, but he/she still refuses to admit he/she did that.

That would be a he. Aniway, here's my original post (the emboldenings are new):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2395979&postcount=2947

Hairy Man, could you do me a great favor?
Please tell Huntster that there are indeed scientists doing fieldwork at "bigfoot country". One of our countless discussions was regarding this topic. He claimed more than once scientists are not "out there". Maybe he will hear you...

I brought this on because it is one of the most outrageous false claims I ever heard. Please forgive me the argument from authority, but I know a lot of biologists, I am married with one and and more than once helped them doing field work, so I am pretty aware of their work. Maybe he will hear someone he does not considers a close-minded denialist (those are the kind words).

It would be nice to see one less lame argument being repeated elsewhere... It would actually avoid embarassments for those who defend the position that bigfeet are real animals.

I'm not sure, but I think LAL also once made a similar claim. But I may be wrong in this case.

Have you noticed that the attacks were against Huntster's arguments? Where am I ridiculing Huntster innthat post?
By the way, have you noticed Hairy Man apparently saw no problems with the post. H.M., if the former sentence is wrong , please correct me ASAP.
Have you also noticed Huntster could answer, be it by asking HM to send me a message or personally by e-mail?
At post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2396006&postcount=2948
You claimed I distorted his sentences, that I took them out of context and attacked him.
At post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2396148&postcount=2949 I asked you to prove your claims.
Your reply at
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2448116&postcount=3373

You think I've got time to go back through every post he made? Good luck with that thought process. I hardly post here or read these threads as it is.

In other words, you make claims and accusations about other people and don't bother backing them. That is disgusting.

You spend more time here than me. Why don't you present links where he says what you claim and without taking what he said out of context. ...snip...And yet you didn't. I'm sure you can. And I'm sure you would be taking them out of context.

The rest of your post contains nothing but rants and pseudomoralistic lessons regarding ethics and honor that you demonstrated not to have, at least here at this forum.
You are sure of nothing.
At http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2448489&postcount=3379, in case you haven't noticed, I presented the links. No quotes, just links. Exactly the opposite if what you inferred I would do. Exactly the opposite of what you accused me of doing. For some reason, you ignored this. Maybe because it was inconvenient and proved you are wrong?
And then you come back with nothing but more empty rethoric, accusations and flase claims. Your evasion attempts using ad hom attacks and diversion are transparent. There's no content. The best defense is the attack only if you have firepower. You don't.

You can't prove your accusations, your lies. You are a liar. You are a troll. You have no honor to admit you were wrong. Ranting will not correct or hide this fact.

Reliable evidence for bigfoot to present us, would you happen to have some?
Sound reasonings to present us, would you happen to have some?
Lies and rants I already know you have.

 

[kitakaze]

Why do you scoftics ridicule our beautiful, beautiful belief in the majestic man-ape? Don't you have better things to do like curing cancer and feeding the poor?

And besides, I defy you denialists to deny that the fourth definition of faggot in the Oxford English Dictionary is "A bundle of iron or steel rods bound together."

That made me gay.

 

[kitakaze]

Well you cared enough to butt in and post to me with an insult in the first place.

Yes, how insulting. Commenting on your Tourette's flurry as childish. That's just wrong. Lyndon, you're a paragon of morality. A pillar, a rock. Where do I get this ownership of my own behaviour deflecting stealth that you have? Clearly being civil is for faggots.

 

[TjW]

What's that got to do with people wasting their time with something they don't think even exists???
<snippage by TjW>

Consider some examples from fields that you may not have quite the same emotional attachment to:

Gravy (Mark Roberts) spends a fair amount of time debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories he thinks don't exist. Is he rational?

Robert Lancaster spends a fair amount of time debunking Sylvia Browne's psychic powers, which he thinks don't exist. Is he rational?

James Randi spends a great deal of time debunking any number of odd beliefs he thinks don't exist.

I use "debunks" here in the sense of using established fact and methodologies to show why the belief under consideration is not the most likely explanation.

My personal opinion is that, yes, all three men are rational.

 

[kitakaze]

Again, Lyndon, this behaviour of yours is a total deflection of an issue that should concern you and damages bigfoot proponency far more than my skepticism does.

And why should my opinions and attitude reflect anyone else's? I don't even pretend to represent anybody other than little ol' me.

Carcharodon, ranting will not hide the fact that once again you are not presenting the truth. Your behavior is demeaning for all those who defend the cause you seem to embrace. You lie, you make mischeivous claims and accusations about other people and never present anything to back what you said. It seems you are completely incapable of debating, of countering skeptical arguments, relying on lies, distortions and ad homs.

Lyndon, I hope your package has come so that you don't have to tax your blood pressure with this forum any longer. Make no mistake, you embarrassed yourself here today and made many proponents all over groan. Not the first collective proponent groan caused by you. Ever noticed that huge view number beside this thread title that keeps shooting up so fast? You think those are all skeptics reading this? Without a doubt there's more then a few good proponents out there holding their foreheads and muttering some manner of expletive at the screen while reading the things you have said here.

You are a scoftic's dream. You make proponents look very bad. Fortunately, there are those of us who know that you don't represent all proponents and that there are a lot of very bright people who share your interests and beliefs. However, those like you are not in short supply either. Maybe the next time the tantrum urge hits you you can spare proponents the grief by taking a nice long walk before posting here.

 

[RayG]

Ah Gavel. Say old timer, haven't you gotten bored with all this sasquatch stuff yet?

Nah, after 30+ years, emotional meltdowns like yours keep me entertained between the long periods of cricket chirping.

Don't you have a life?

No. Lots of times I sit around obsessing about myself or people who disagree with my opinion. I'm sure if it weren't for computers and the internet I'd be an alcoholic or a druggie.

Nothing else to be getting on with? Still encamped on BFF going "zzzzzzz next please" almost every day??

Hey, it's still only a side interest to me, nothing I'm going to have a temper tantrum over. No need to ask you about temper tantrums, you seem quite practiced.

Hmmmmm, how do you feel about obsessive stalkers who follow people to other boards and COPY AND PASTE a post from ANOTHER board and then post it HERE to comment on it??

Holy crap!!! Someone actually copied and pasted something you said on one message board to another???? The noive of them! The horror of it all! Alert the press! Scramble the jets! Obviously they're obsessed with you. I'd probably go all ballistic, become an irrational, emotional basket case, and do a tap-dance of anger on their heads if I were you.

Stalked? Well, someone within the bigfoot community has had police show up at my door on false accusations, sent me threatening letters, harassed my parish priest by phone and fax, harassed my wife and children by phone, sent me hundreds of unsolicited emails, and set up a webpage about me filled with lies, distortions, and misinformation... um... that IS the kind of stalking YOU mean, right?

LOL, couldn't make it up can you???

No, unlike some folks I prefer to deal with the truth.

Oh and as for blowing a gasket, check out tube's recent attack on LAL here.

Well, he didn't rant and rave and have a complete loss of emotional composure like you did, and LAL does sometimes toss out assumptions as though they were facts, so your analogy falls flat on its unsubstantiated face.

Seems he's just been warned to quit the personal attacks. I thought Snitch said Crowley doesn't get aggressive.

LMAO!!!!

He's still allowed to post, so obviously the mods here don't consider it that terrible. Personally, I'm a firm believer in free speech, so it's disappointing to see the mods at Cryptomundo engage in censorship like they have. I think as long as people can present an argument in a rational, calm, unemotional manner, debate should ensue. Having witnessed your emotional tirade, and the behavior of some other bigfoot proponents, it's no wonder bigfoot research is stuck in a 40-year rut.

RayG

 

[Belz...]

What's that got to do with people wasting their time with something they don't think even exists???

Like Star Wars, for example ?

There are many reasons why someone would "waste" time on something they think doesn't exist: entertainment, mental exercice, educating the masses, etc. You seem to think that only proponents of a given theory help it progress. That simply isn't true.

"Accept you played dirty popping at a poster who was banned and knew he couldn't respond and accept he didn't mean what you claimed in the literal sense!"

So it's "dirty" to talk about people who aren't there ?

New or old, who cares? Faggot means meatball here.

That's a new one.

I'm not arguing about sasquatch here. I'm arguing about the people who don't think sasquatch exists..............yet spend bizarre amounts of time trying to tell everyone they are right......almost on a dialy basis.

Weird.

No it's not. You're just cornered, that's all. It's okay, though.

See. Told ya.

I see your irony meter is inoperative.

Well you cared enough to butt in and post to me with an insult in the first place.

You were out of line. I just pointed that out. It's unfortunate you prefer to see what you want to see rather than the point being made. Otherwise you'd have stopped whining.

Why should I? I'm not here to do that.

Troll it is.

People like you don't accept anything unless it's there in front of you.

That can't be right. I don't see atoms yet I accept that they exist. Certainly you don't think that.

After my experience on the alien big cat subject here I realised there are so many people with their heads up their arses who can't and won't accept what's hitting them right in the face.

For the record, I'd be quite happy if Bigfoot turned out to exist. It would certainly be an exciting new field of research. However, before we reach that happy zone, I'd like to see some evidence that the Big hairy man exists. So far all we have is eyewitness reports and poor evidence. Got anything new ?

Are they not true then? Is my belief in the existance of an animal known as sasquatch not true then? Am I making up my belief??? Is it not true that I have this belief??

Okay, now you're just being silly.

By the way, if sasquatch is silly why keep on and on trying to argue it then? I don't argue about faires. I find it silly to. How 'bout that?

No matter how silly the belief, someone will believe it. That's why there are people like me, slapping some sense into those folks.

Haven't you got anything better to do than argue against 'silly' subjects???

Oh, I've got lots of "better" things to do. I just have lots of time to spare afterwards.

What's 'stupid' about the obsessed allegation?

It's false and you know it. That's stupid.

You don't think people who argue against sasquatch on a daily basis aren't obsessed with doing that? Not even a teeny weeny little bit???

Nope. There are lots of things I do on a daily basis without being obsessed by them.

◊◊◊◊ me. There are more denialists here than I ever even thought.

Yes, I'm talking to one, right now.

 

[Correa Neto]

Might be handy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonazepam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenobarbital
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diazepam

Remember to consult you doctor... Self-medication is bad.

 

[kitakaze]

I see your irony meter is inoperative.

Lyndon's irony meter is terminal, I'm afraid. See here (bolding at the bottom mine):

LOL, no a denialist is somebody who doesn't admit he ridiculed the opinion of another poster AFTER that poster was banned and knowing full well the poster who was banned wasn't able to respond...............then denies he ever did such a thing.

THAT'S a denialist.......not accepting that he ridiculed a poster unable to reply. He denied this more than once. What's more, the ridicule stemmed from the denialist deliberately twisting and misrepresenting the banned poster's original points and the banned poster was not able to respond to correct the twisted and manipulated allegations. That's where I stepped in. I had to. Huntster wasn't around anymore.

Lyndon is viciously angry with Correa because he believe's Correa was misrepresenting that proponent's assertion and personally ridiculing him and laughing at him (as opposed to ridiculing the assertion that person made). He feels it's his duty to step in, that he 'had to do it'.

Elsewhere, Lyndon has a complete meltdown at me because I included a post of his from another board in which he and others misrepresent skeptics. He knows from reading my post with his quote in it that in being censored at the board where he made the comment left me the option of posting it on a board where I'm not censored.

Irony meter inoperative indeed.

 

[Belz...]

Lyndon has a complete meltdown at me

No, really ? I find that hard to believe.

Let's see if his irony meter works, now.

 

[Correa Neto]

He's also angry because we discuss (or study, why not?) bigfoot without thinking its real...

Reductio ad absurdum, greek mythology (as well mythologies from other ancient cultures) should no longer be studied according to such a faulty reasoning.