Larry S said...
I propose a new name for this obvious sub-speices of the IBWO.
This new sub-species is
"Campephilus nonphotographibus"
Friday
3 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction6 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought6 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係10 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To11 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
11 comments:
I knew the Birdchick would reenter the scene before too long. Cool!
Did she have any comments on the huge cavities that the Auburn team found?
I propose two new varieties of the new subspecies:
nonphotographibus var. fitzcrowi from the Big Woods of Arkansas
and nonphotographibus var. hillcrowi from Florida
Easily distinguished by their dialects
Not sure where to place var. fishcrowi from the Pearl?
Just another example of the power of the Ivy Leagues and the fact that southern universities still suck the hind teet.
Methinks
Youthinks
Wethinks
What difference does it makes
If this is all it takes
Then we all deserve breaks
When next I report rare birds
I’ll say “if Auburn can polish turds”
Then so can Methinks
And Youthinks
And Wethinks.
"Did she have any comments on the huge cavities that the Auburn team found?"
The A-holes, right?
I think "Campephilus nonphotographibus" is great if this is an entirely new species, which it definitely has the feel of. If it's a sub-species shouldn't it be:
Campephilus principalis nonphotographibus
I guess we'll have to wait until they have some DNA to determine the species/sub-species thang. Of course if we are actually dealing with:
Campephilus nonsamplibus
that could be a very long wait.
Not sure where to place var. fishcrowi from the Pearl?
Aves ORDER? FAMILY? GENUS? cryptophotgraphibus var. fishcrowi
Amy Lester wrote: "Why not simply rebut the straightforward points I am making with a compelling argument?"
Sorry, Amy, but methinks it's hard to figure out just what those "straightforward points" are when I have to read through these comments you made yesterday:
"Holy.Freaking.Idiots."
"lying sacks of fraud-peddling garbage"
"This isn't science. This is buffoonery and/or hackery."
"these morons were home-schooled by religious fundamentalists and either do not know the difference between actual evidence and rhetorical horseshxt, or they simply do not care."
"these self-styled "knowledgeable" birders were basing their arguments on baloney they had been fed by the sloppy scientists who were making the bogus claims to begin with! i.e., the "distinctive" nature of the double-knocks and "wingbeat frequencies" and other post hoc horseshxt."
"I knew the American public was being taken for a ride by opportunists and deluded hacks."
"He [Brian Rolek] must have used up a whole box of kleenex drying his tears."
"those double-knock sound files are a laugh and a half."
"I suggest that the NUMBER ONE REASON that Hill and Mennill do not want people "intruding" on their little adventure is so they aren't caught manufacturing data."
"Maybe the Auburn website is a big practical joke"
"There's nothing at all "strident" about this. It's the website that is "strident." It's downright absurd. It's a joke."
"It's just really really bad taste when the so-called "science" is half-assed and crappy, and the rhetoric associated with the presentation seems really loaded."
"It's the inanity of jumping from the boring mundane "data" to the extraordinary conclusion that is pathetic and somewhat revolting in 2006."
"The real problem (and how many times does this need to be repeated? dozens? hundreds?) is PRETENDING that unbelievably crap videos, "double knocks," "tree scaling," "significantly larger roost holes," unverifiable "sightings," and/or "fantastic parking jobs" amount to evidence which suggests that IBWOs are more likely alive than not." [uh, who was it that claimed "fantastic parking jobs" amounted to evidence?]
"Those scientists suck, to put it nicely."
And methought Mike Collins was self destructing.
METHINKS II
"Maybe the Auburn website is a big practical joke"
Now that would explain everything!
Campephilus nonphotographibus
OK Auburn, you deserve the backofthebus
Can this reach any more sillyness
With one fellow obsessed with airporticus
No wonder U S Fish is not supporting us
Maybe it’s just me
But this is getting f_cking ridiculous
If the species is just photographingless
Then maybe Lord God is pulling a jokeonus
Reminds me of those cussed machines
Rube Goldberg contraptions enough for allofus
The ball turns around and around amongus
Finally, turns on a light that is rightbesideus
This story is the same with it’s white variations
When it’s done, we are left with Pileated sensations
Two universities down the tube
Is there a third willing to be Rube?
Hey Methinks II -- those are my conclusions and snarky comments, not my arguments.
It's an important difference.
But go ahead and eat up Hill et al.'s strange "data" and ponder its "significance." As you know, you're free to believe anything you want.
But the ivory billed woodpecker is just as extinct today as it was two years ago.
Methinks Hill et al. may be on to something or maybe not, because methinks the pecker may be alive or it may be dead. Methinks it wisest not to bet a penny either way.
METHINKS II
Post a Comment