Monday, January 08, 2007

The Ivory-bill Chronicles, Chap. 5

Here.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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....

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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?

Anonymous said...

Can I do it, can I? Has it been done already??? Okay here goes.

Tyler-crow.

Anonymous said...

Why not Hickscrow?

Anonymous said...

okay, you're right. Hickscrow it is.

Plus we get Hick into the mix.