-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never had a contest here before... better late than never! (hopefully there will be contestants!?)...
Here's what I've got in mind:
You have ideas, conclusions, or a take on the whole Ivory-bill story that maybe hasn't been adequately expressed yet? Or something's just buggin' you that needs said. This is your chance...
Write a potential blog post, MAXimum 1000 words (minimum, 47 words :-)), about any aspect of the Ivory-bill search, or possibilities of extinction or existence, that you like; this can be from either a skeptical or a 'believer' standpoint. Send it to me by Jan. 2 upcoming, and I'll pick the entry I like best to run as a blog post that first week in January (if there are multiple ones that I like enough, might choose honorable mentions to also run as posts). Sorry, no $$$, no door prizes, no Caribbean cruises, just the recognition of being the first-ever guest blogger here at 'Ivory-bills LiVE.'
(BTW, don't necessarily try to mimic views I espouse here myself, that won't help you; I'll be looking for entries that thoughtfully, or creatively, or convincingly present some significant point-of-view whatever that view may be --- could be on a very narrow aspect or a broad, general theme regarding IBWO; could be highly empirical, or experiential, or just commonsensical (...and multiple entries from 1 person are okay also).
Please email to me at: cyberthrush[AT]gmail.com (by midnight, Jan. 2, 2010)
I prefer entries to have real names attached to them, or if you are better known across the Web under some given pseudonym that is ok (if you feel you can only enter anonymously, explain why that is the case and I'll consider "Anonymous" entries).
Ready... Set... Commence writing. . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 comment:
Okay, I'll probably "play" if I find sufficent motivation; I remain, however, far more a student of human nature than of rare woodpeckers.
As I type this, the so-called "History Channel" just ran yet another piece on Bigfoot; that one's kind of personal because a career I contemplated in science was sidetracked by a looney tune biology teacher here; this was back in '67, and we spent several classes on the subject, including looking at pictures from the Patterson Hoax, which first apeared in Argosy magazine that year or possibly in early '68.
That background--and years of following the story which resulted in my current state of near absolute disbelief--was what fueled my remarks about "Bigfoot Believers' Syndrome" in my last commentary here.
Perceptual psychology and the role of beliefs in cognition is an area of addictions counseling I have a background in.
I have no qualms about suggesting the BF crowd consists mostly of self-deluded crazies; fortunately I don't think there are many of these sorts who are pursuing the IBWO...
In watching things unfold for a few years, I do believe there are some overly rigid "demanding" types whose standards of proof are perhaps inordinately high.
I sympathize with them, however; one area of research and reporting I'm pursuing right now involves the migration of Native Americans into the New World (knowing something about primate evolution is what makes me certain Sasquatch is a myth), and I've found myself siding with the ultra-conservatives (the "probably nothing much before Clovis" crowd) who have, of late, been pushed aside by what I see as much more politics than science.
And it doesn't take much of a student of human nature to realize that when poltics appear, emotions are likely to run high...
Post a Comment