Between Tyler Hicks and John Arvin, it's clearly only a matter of mere minutes before the indefatigable, impenetrable, and illustrious proof is before us.
Amy, just go home. It's over. Mere minutes to go....over...minutes...go home...Amy....
What is the downside for making an unsubstantiated IBWO claim? One can gain status in certain circles by claiming a sighting but is there anything close to a downside - other than getting a nickname with the "crow" suffix?
If there is no penalty then it seems clear why people can keep saying they saw one - there is no face to be lost, no status to be squandered, no honor to have soiled. The benefits of claiming a sighting are clear and with no penalty for lying (or making your delusions public) then aren't all "rediscoveries" suspect until someone gets a photo?
8 comments:
The cameras will be set up on interesting looking woodpecker cavities
There is no established scientific basis for determining what makes one pileated woodpecker cavity more "interesting" than any other.
None. Nada. Zilcho.
"Interesting" is a bogus non-scientific term that IBWO believers throw around to get the rubes' juices flowing.
Between Tyler Hicks and John Arvin, it's clearly only a matter of mere minutes before the indefatigable, impenetrable, and illustrious proof is before us.
Amy, just go home. It's over. Mere minutes to go....over...minutes...go home...Amy....
...you all still here....
Man....the IBWP fiasco looks like a mouth watering, gorgeous, slam dunk of a dissertation for someone.
Science v. Faith Based Ornithology: Similarities between the Piltdown Man Scandal and the Alleged IBWP Sightings in Arkansas and Florida
Seriously.
May I suggest the excellent book 'Eats shoots and leaves
Why would I want to eat somewhere, shoot it up. and then leave?
Oh....and I meant to add "irreplaceable" also.
What is the downside for making an unsubstantiated IBWO claim? One can gain status in certain circles by claiming a sighting but is there anything close to a downside - other than getting a nickname with the "crow" suffix?
If there is no penalty then it seems clear why people can keep saying they saw one - there is no face to be lost, no status to be squandered, no honor to have soiled. The benefits of claiming a sighting are clear and with no penalty for lying (or making your delusions public) then aren't all "rediscoveries" suspect until someone gets a photo?
Can I do it, can I? Has it been done already??? Okay here goes.
Tyler-crow.
Why not Hickscrow?
okay, you're right. Hickscrow it is.
Plus we get Hick into the mix.
Post a Comment