Breaking News:
The claims that Big Foot has been discovered are just a hoax. The search goes on, I guess.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Breaking News:
The claims that Big Foot has been discovered are just a hoax. The search goes on, I guess.
|
ContactSubscribe
FeaturesStuff from usAcademic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates Sources on the Second Amendment BlogrollArchivesThe Volokh Conspiracy uses and recommends: |
Ummmm.... all 2 people who didn't know it was a fake from the beginning? Seriously, how dim did one have to be to actually believe that these guys had really found "bigfoot"?
"Global Warming to Threaten Bigfoot Habitats."
Pseudo-science meets psuedo-science, but I think Bigfoot is more likely to exist than warming, I mean climate change, I mean hedging our bets.
huevos... er, I mean "cabra"?I was joking, of course.
Because the ignorant masses eat this stuff up. The real newspapers don't want to lose readers to the tabloids so they cover it too. Furthermore, a lot of reporters and editors are too ignorant to distinguish real science from junk.
Women and minorities hardest hit?
I have seen no evidence of that, unless by "ignorant masses" you mean "media elites."
Sure.
Still, assuming a law professor is in touch with reality is risky business.
what!!!!
Nick
Candidate Turns Out to be Empty Suit
I think you don't look at the newspapers in the supermarket enough.
No, he just thinks the media elites read The Weekly World News, and the ignorant masses read The Star.
It is a plot to reinforce the depression of Those Who Are Perpetually Aggrieved At The Declining Quality Of Posts.
Don't you people watch those History Channel "documentaries" that describe how the Air Force covers up the UFOs?
Now I won't be able to sleep at night.
As evidenced by Yetisburg, an army of Bigfoots will only spur one's enemies to build their own Bigfoot armies. The resulting cycle of Bigfoot escalation eventually results in a state of Sasquatch detente, where the dire consequences of utilizing these armies acts as a deterrent to any Bigfoot deployment.
It's CNN. Need I say more?
Colbert, back when he was on the daily show, did a report, and his comment was, "well, clearly they are endangered. That's why you never see them."
Kafka, call your office.
The "evidence" boiled down to claims of rocks being rolled down the mountain toward their camp, strange "grunts" at night, and to top it off, footfalls (from a running, bipedal organism) in their camp one night.
At the talk's conclusion, a world-reknowned specialist on mammals raised his hand, and stated:
"There are many possible explanations for the sounds you heard, deliria being one of the foremost."
The crowd roared, and the speaker was undaunted.
Hmm-m...
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.