# Aggressive or Defensive?



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

This is a subject that crops up nearly every single day on this forum. Many people who have kept tarantulas over a period of time will no doubt want to own a tarantula that is somewhat more _defensive_ than the usual starter tarantula that is recommended for a beginner.

Although these tarantulas are not as easy going or laid back as such species in the families _Avicularia, Brachypelma, Euathlus _or_ Grammostola*_ for example, that does not mean that they are in fact_ aggressive. _ 

*Aggressive* as a trait would be defined as -

• Characterised by or tending toward unprovoked offensives or attacks.
• Making an all-out effort to win, succeed or to be competitive. 
• Boldly assertive and forward or pushy.

*Defensive* as a trait would be defined as -

• Intended or appropriate for defending, protecting oneself.
• Intended to withstand or deter aggression or attack.
• Performed so as to avoid risk or danger.

So we all know (well most of us) that there are species of tarantula, mainly Old World species. That will readily display a threat posture or strike more willingly than other New World species. But that in turn does not, in no means, make them _aggressive._ They are _defensive, _and their actions by showing such characteristics is not that they are being _aggressive_ towards the disturbance, but actually trying to defend themselves. 




*There are always exceptions to the rule.... haha


----------



## pirez (May 3, 2009)

:notworthy:


----------



## kingbsa (Mar 21, 2008)

i agree, but im inclined to add if i may and this is my opinion of aggresive and defensive. while most aggresive behaviour is shown when not been defensive a mistaken food source is the catalyst so many aggresive species are actually aggresive hunters so looks urprovoked. Also aggression itself is a defensive trait where the catalyst is a will to protect ones self can turn to aggression in which the provocative is removed and a 'way out' given can continue to attack although may be classed as persistant.

p.s i have a way of talking :censor:


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

and more often than not species of brachypelma, euathlus, grammostola and avicularia are way more defencive than most "old world" species.


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Baldpoodle said:


> and more often than not species of brachypelma, euathlus, grammostola and avicularia are way more defencive than most "old world" species.


 
:2thumb::no1:

this is perfecto, aggressive is a delibrate act, and i cant stress this enough, a tarantula does not delibrately come hunting us down, to kick the living :censor: out of us...

A phyco killer on the other hand is an aggressive element in society, aggresively destroying a life, that does NOT apply to a tarantula.

also applys to an aggressive movement, such as protests.

It aint hard to see the diffrence between the 2, 

the way i explain it to people is... How would you like it if some tit came into your home, destroyed it, put you at high risk off death. Therefore this person is a threat and you WILL act according to it.

Why does a tarantula/spider/scorp and so on bite/sting... Same reason we punch and kick and bite, to defend them selfs and there home, they dont know that we are going to be nice, even if they did, im sure that they would have known about the carnage for these animals is HUGE, and with that being said, they would relise they cant trust anything anyway. Thankfully they dont know this..

The facts are, an invert in the wild, is a 50/50 split life or death situation, they are so vunerable yet they survive, because of there ways of defending them selfs, how they feel for movement, and so on... amazing id say..


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

Its a little annoying when people get touchy about the term 'aggressive'. Genuine aggression does exist in certain T's although its more of a reflection of their individual personality than the species as a whole. I have a Cobalt Blue that will travel 20-25inches for no other reason but to strike at me for doing simple maintenance. To begin with i am nowhere near her, she comes to me. Im not poking/harrassing her in anyway so she has no real reason to feel like she must 'defend' herself. She's basically a huffy little biatch who has no tolerance for anyone/anything in her personal space & she's prepared to travel the length of her enclosure just to start a fight. How anyone can say this isnt aggression is beyond me


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

I believe that there is a line that can be crossed where defensive behaviour becomes aggressive behaviour.
-P


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> Its a little annoying when people get touchy about the term 'aggressive'.


I am merely trying to educate, the correct terminology regarding this behaviour in tarantulas is defensive. That is all....



Nick Masson said:


> Genuine aggression does exist in certain T's although its more of a reflection of their individual personality than the species as a whole. I have a Cobalt Blue that will travel 20-25inches for no other reason but to strike at me for doing simple maintenance. To begin with i am nowhere near her, she comes to me. Im not poking/harrassing her in anyway so she has no real reason to feel like she must 'defend' herself.


You opening the enclosure to do maintenance is clearly enough for the tarantula to feel threatened and therefore become defensive. It is not a human, it doesn't know that your only cleaning bolus or filling the water dish etc. 



Nick Masson said:


> She's basically a huffy little biatch who has no tolerance for anyone/anything in her personal space & she's prepared to travel the length of her enclosure just to start a fight. How anyone can say this isnt aggression is beyond me


She isn't looking to start a fight, the tarantula is displaying to you that it isn't happy and that it will readily defend itself.


----------



## Lucky Eddie (Oct 7, 2009)

mcluskyisms said:


> that in turn does not, in no means, make them _aggressive._


Selenocosmia dichromata maybe????????


----------



## becky89 (Nov 24, 2009)

Nick Masson said:


> Its a little annoying when people get touchy about the term 'aggressive'. Genuine aggression does exist in certain T's although its more of a reflection of their individual personality than the species as a whole. I have a Cobalt Blue that will travel 20-25inches for no other reason but to strike at me for doing simple maintenance. To begin with i am nowhere near her, she comes to me. Im not poking/harrassing her in anyway so she has no real reason to feel like she must 'defend' herself. She's basically a huffy little biatch who has no tolerance for anyone/anything in her personal space & she's prepared to travel the length of her enclosure just to start a fight. How anyone can say this isnt aggression is beyond me


You say you're not harassing her, which is true  But she doesn't know that, like you say it's her personal space, she's defending that. She's probably just trying to chase you off so you don't come any closer. I don't think that's aggression tbh, seems like defensiveness.

Good points in this thread though, very true :no1:


----------



## Corsetts (Dec 8, 2008)

Well put. I always try to describe the behaviour as defensive, although it is a little tricky when my phormictopus sprints over and strikes at the glass simply because I've had the cheek to wander past lol


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Lucky Eddie said:


> Selenocosmia dichromata maybe????????


Tarantulas from the genus _Selenocosmia_ are known to be highly defensive, although that in turn isn't aggressive. As mentioned by Paul, there can be a thin line between defensive behaviour & aggression. Although I believe that former is primarily the initial intent.


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Corsetts said:


> Well put. I always try to describe the behaviour as defensive, although it is a little tricky when my phormictopus sprints over and strikes at the glass simply because I've had the cheek to wander past lol


:no1::lol2: haha dont walk in her room then :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

If you were walking down the street and someone started messing with you, you would defend yourself. If you were walking down the street and you saw someone in the distance & you didnt like what they were doing would you approach them, lash out at them & still maintain you were defending yourself? Now, of coarse human and tarantula behaviour is very different but you see the point im making. Unless an animal is being physically antagonised (or worse) by another animal then it lashing out of its own accord is undesputable aggression. Whether or not fear is involved is another matter, but dont blur the lines between the two


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> <snip> Now, of coarse human and tarantula behaviour is very different <snip>


I think you'll find you just answered your own argument...

Tarantulas are not humans.


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

No, not human. I think the real question now is - Do they have the ability to make another animal species forget some of the descriptive terms & meanings of the words in their advanced language? It would appear so


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

It doesn't really matter though does it? Defensive, aggressive or how ever you coin it I'm still not gonna put my fingers near them, lol. Besides, you can defend yourself aggressively or passively so it isn't a case of one of the other.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> I think the real question now is - Do they have the ability to make another animal species forget some of the descriptive terms & meanings of the words in their advanced language?


No, not at all. 

I think you will find that I am merely using the correct terminology for a tarantulas behaviour when feeling threatened. Where as some humans would feel the need to try witty shots or comebacks as a defence upon having there argument flawed on an internet forum. Tarantulas also dont experience such behavioural traits.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Craig Mackay said:


> It doesn't really matter though does it? Defensive, aggressive or how ever you coin it I'm still not gonna put my fingers near them, lol. Besides, you can defend yourself aggressively or passively so it isn't a case of one of the other.


I get what you're saying Craig, although I just really believe that its defence before offence so to speak.


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

mcluskyisms said:


> I get what you're saying Craig, although I just really believe that its defence before offence so to speak.


I know and your right, I'm just stirring, lol. : victory:


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> No, not at all.
> 
> I think you will find that I am merely using the correct terminology for a tarantulas behaviour when feeling threatened. Where as some humans would feel the need to try witty shots or comebacks as a defence upon having there argument flawed on an internet forum. Tarantulas also dont experience such behavioural traits.


Hahahaha you think my argument is flawed? Let me ask you something then...How do you actually know that a tarantula feels threatened EVERYTIME it charges towards you? How could you possibly know? Ask it? Read its mind? Are you so opinionated that you would deny there is even the slightest possibility that a tarantula could have an inbuilt 'attitude' problem. I dont see why thats beyond the realms of possibility? You only need to keep multiple specimens of a particular T species to notice they all have their own individual traits. To me it seems your arguement is based on simple presumptions.


----------



## Lucky Eddie (Oct 7, 2009)

mcluskyisms said:


> I think you'll find you just answered your own argument...
> 
> Tarantulas are not humans.


 
I bet they still have a s****** on the way back to their pet hole.


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

Lucky Eddie said:


> I bet they still have a s****** on the way back to their pet hole.



Hahahaha pretty sure my H. Lividum does! :lol2:


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> Hahahaha you think my argument is flawed? Let me ask you something then...How do you actually know that a tarantula feels threatened EVERYTIME it charges towards you?


Yes I do believe your argument is flawed. And they "charge towards you" as a deterrent because they feel threatened by your interaction. Its a well observed primary defence tactic with many animals. 



Nick Masson said:


> How could you possibly know? Ask it? Read its mind? Are you so opinionated that you would deny there is even the slightest possibility that a tarantula could have an inbuilt 'attitude' problem.


No one can communicate with tarantulas unless you're the tarantula whisperer or whatever... And yes from time to time some may seem to have "attitude" although yet again this is a defence tactic.



Nick Masson said:


> I dont see why thats beyond the realms of possibility? You only need to keep multiple specimens of a particular T species to notice they all have their own individual traits. To me it seems your arguement is based on simple presumptions.


Many people have keep and have kept multiple specimens of the same species, and it is very true that some will differ in personality from each other. They are, themselves individual tarantulas. Sometimes I have found that a fairly easy going tarantula will become more defensive after a moult for instance. Although that being said, has nothing to do with the fact that some tarantulas are more defensive than other tarantulas...


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

Surely it's possible that a spider down its burrow may charge towards you initially because it's detected the vibrations you make and mistakes them for food. And wouldn't that then be "aggression" as a response to possible prey? My robustum does that all the time. If I pick up her tank she barrels out of her burrow fangs bared, but as soon as I open the lid she runs back down her hole like the coward she is.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

garlicpickle said:


> Surely it's possible that a spider down its burrow may charge towards you initially because it's detected the vibrations you make and mistakes them for food. And wouldn't that then be "aggression" as a response to possible prey? My robustum does that all the time. If I pick up her tank she barrels out of her burrow fangs bared, but as soon as I open the lid she runs back down her hole like the coward she is.


Certainly, although as you mentioned once she realises its not food and you open the lid, she then retreats to her burrow which therefore IMO isnt aggressive behaviour.

Of course if there was a nice big cricket sat at the top of the burrow, she may attack and eat it. Although I also dont see that as aggressive either as that is how tarantula's eat, they cant just pop in the kitchen and microwave themselves a ready meal...


----------



## Corsetts (Dec 8, 2008)

TCBT said:


> :no1::lol2: haha dont walk in her room then :Na_Na_Na_Na:


You're quite right mate :2thumb:
I may just be strolling past to make a cupper when this ball of rage launches an attack for no reason, but from the spiders point of view, it's sitting outside, enjoying some warmth from the heatmat when it suddenly becomes aware of an impossibly large mammal passing uncomfortably close by.
Hell, I'd launch an attack :lol2:

To take it a little further, I don't believe that _any_ animal ever acts aggressively, I believe it's purely a human trait in it's rawest form.
Even "dangerous" dogs that have been ill treated may _act_ aggressively, but it's born purely from fear IMO and is defensive behaviour. Or, of course, acting on a supressed instinct, but deliberate aggression is only found in humans, again, purely IMO.


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

Corsetts said:


> You're quite right mate :2thumb:
> I may just be strolling past to make a cupper when this ball of rage launches an attack for no reason, but from the spiders point of view, it's sitting outside, enjoying some warmth from the heatmat when it suddenly becomes aware of an impossibly large mammal passing uncomfortably close by.
> Hell, I'd launch an attack :lol2:
> 
> ...


Why do dolphins kill Porpoises then? Why do some cats kill things for play?
Why did I see a swan kill a baby duckiling?
You have a funny view of nature.


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

When i said 'Charge at me' i was only using it as a figure of speech, but i know what you mean. For example, a mother Elephant charging at someone in defence of her calf etc. 
Kinda dodged my question a little tho & once again presumed that a show of attitude is somehow always a 'tactic' for defence. There is absolutely no way you can prove that that is indeed the case. Its perfectly plausible that a tarantula might just have an aggressive disposition by nature. Thats the only point i was trying to make.


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

Baldpoodle said:


> and more often than not species of brachypelma, euathlus, grammostola and avicularia are way more defencive than most "old world" species.


 

This is very true


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

Baldpoodle said:


> and more often than not species of brachypelma, euathlus, grammostola and avicularia are way more defencive than most "old world" species.


Linking back to what Baldpoodle said earlier (and maybe this is what he was getting at) I'd argue that most new world species are the most defensive. When this whole defensive or aggressive topic comes up the main focus is almost entirely on old worlds and threat displays etc and the flicking of urticating hairs is overlooked. This is just as much a defense mechanism as anything else (although, admittedly not as effective at putting of humans). I probably have a fairly even balance between new worlds and old worlds in my collection and I certainly get flicked at more than I get threat postures, charging, striking etc.


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

Craig Mackay said:


> Linking back to what Baldpoodle said earlier (and maybe this is what he was getting at) I'd argue that most new world species are the most defensive. When this whole defensive or aggressive topic comes up the main focus is almost entirely on old worlds and threat displays etc and the flicking of urticating hairs is overlooked. This is just as much a defense mechanism as anything else (although, admittedly not as effective at putting of humans). I probably have a fairly even balance between new worlds and old worlds in my collection and I certainly get flicked at more than I get threat postures, charging, striking etc.


 
I agree but still maintain individual character, temps and humidity and even the stage of life the Tarantula is at play a part in its defensive or aggressive nature. Thats on old or new world...


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Craig Mackay said:


> <snip>I'd argue that most new world species are the most defensive. When this whole defensive or aggressive topic comes up the main focus is almost entirely on old worlds and threat displays etc and the flicking of urticating hairs is overlooked. This is just as much a defense mechanism as anything else <snip>


I also agree, although the whole point of this thread was to get my point across that tarantula's, be they Old World or New World are not aggressive but in fact defensive.

This is my personal opinion and nothing will change that. Haha


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> I also agree, although the whole point of this thread was to get my point across that tarantula's, be they Old World or New World are not aggressive but in fact defensive.
> 
> This is my personal opinion and nothing will change that. Haha


Incorrect. Lol! Just messing


----------



## Corsetts (Dec 8, 2008)

Stelios said:


> Why do dolphins kill Porpoises then? Why do some cats kill things for play?
> Why did I see a swan kill a baby duckiling?
> You have a funny view of nature.


We'll ignore the cats, as they're not natural, but the others are doing it to reduce the competition for food, not out of maliciousness.

In the end it's all arguing about definitions, bottom line is the same though, if your spider is aggressive/defensive then watch your fingers


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

just nicked this snippet from wiki...

The most apparent type of aggression is that seen in the interaction between a predator and its prey. An animal defending itself against a predator becomes aggressive in order to survive and to ensure the survival of its offspring..

just to mix it up a bit Chris lol


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

mcluskyisms said:


> I also agree, although the whole point of this thread was to get my point across that tarantula's, be they Old World or New World are not aggressive but in fact defensive.
> 
> This is my personal opinion and nothing will change that. Haha


Haha!
Generally speaking I agree although though few things in life are black & white and as I said earlier you can defend aggressively or passively e.g. fight or flight. The problem here is that the two words aren't opposites but in this context are often dealt with as such. Defence can manifest itself through aggression.

Taken from www.dictionary.com:

aggression
*–noun *1. the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: _The__army__ is prepared to stop any foreign aggression. _

2. *any offensive action, attack, or **procedure*; an inroad or encroachment: _an aggression upon one's rights. _

3. the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general. 

and

From Collins dictionary:

aggression
N
1. *Violent and hostile behaviour.*
2. An unprovoked attack.
Latin _aggredi_ to attack.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Dr3d said:


> <snip>The most apparent type of aggression is that seen in the interaction between a predator and its prey. An animal defending itself against a predator becomes aggressive in order to survive and to ensure the survival of its offspring..<snip>





Craig Mackay said:


> <snip>I said earlier you can defend aggressively or passively e.g. fight or flight<snip>


Yeah doods, I know that defence can lead to offence (mentioned earlier in the thread) although the former is the actual initial reaction. The tarantula is being defensive of it's own well-being and if that means kicking hair, threat posturing or striking at you it is all defensive tactics.


----------



## spicewwfc (Aug 26, 2009)

mcluskyisms said:


> This is a subject that crops up nearly every single day on this forum. Many people who have kept tarantulas over a period of time will no doubt want to own a tarantula that is somewhat more _defensive_ than the usual starter tarantula that is recommended for a beginner.
> 
> Although these tarantulas are not as easy going or laid back as such species in the families _Avicularia, Brachypelma, Euathlus _or_ Grammostola*_ for example, that does not mean that they are in fact_ aggressive. _
> 
> ...



That sounds like one of my p cancerides. 
Most T's are defense minded, but running out of you hide and attacking the side of the tub, just because the rep room door opened is all out offense in my opinion. 
She could stay out of sight in her hole, and no one would know she was there, that is defensive behavior. If I poked her and she attacked, or even if I opened the tub, and she threated, that would be defensive.
But footsteps 10 feet away is not provocation.

If you broke into my house, and I attacked you, I would be defending myself.
If you walked past my house, and I ran outside, and started beating your head in, then I would be being aggressive.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

spicewwfc said:


> That sounds like one of my p cancerides.
> Most T's are defense minded, but running out of you hide and attacking the side of the tub, just because the rep room door opened is all out offense in my opinion.
> 
> She could stay out of sight in her hole, and no one would know she was there, that is defensive behavior. If I poked her and she attacked, or even if I opened the tub, and she threated, that would be defensive.
> But footsteps 10 feet away is not provocation.


By you opening the door you have made her aware of your presence therefore, it may be highly defensive although I still believe the reaction isnt aggression.

As for the whole defence leads to aggression topic, yes its true. Although you have to note, that with tarantulas defence comes before offence, they cant ask you to leave them alone, shout at you or flip you the bird. 

Even though defence and aggression aren't two polar opposites of behaviour there is still a vast difference in something being aggressive than something being defensive. Aggression in its raw state is unprovoked, where as defence is an act of self preservation. So therefore when talking about tarantulas, defence is the primary instinct and therefore tarantulas are defensive rather than aggressive. 

Haha


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

....(yawn).... 
Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself?


----------



## Mez (Feb 19, 2007)

Not read the rest, but..


Nick Masson said:


> If you were walking down the street and someone started messing with you, you would defend yourself. If you were walking down the street and you saw someone in the distance & you didnt like what they were doing would you approach them, lash out at them & still maintain you were defending yourself? Now, of coarse human and tarantula behaviour is very different but you see the point im making. Unless an animal is being physically antagonised (or worse) by another animal then it lashing out of its own accord is undesputable aggression. Whether or not fear is involved is another matter, but dont blur the lines between the two


Youre not 'down the street' from your tarantula. 
A better way to put it, from the tarantulas point of view, might be:

_ If you were *at home in bed* and you *heard* someone in the *living room* & you didnt like what they were doing would you approach them, lash out at them & still maintain you were defending yourself?_


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

mcluskyisms said:


> Yeah doods, I know that defence can lead to offence (mentioned earlier in the thread) although the former is the actual initial reaction. The tarantula is being defensive of it's own well-being and if that means kicking hair, threat posturing or striking at you it is all defensive tactics.


It's all good man, _I am_ in agreement with the general priniciple behind your thread. I just think it's important to point out that they're not necesarily at opposite ends of the spectrum.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> ....(yawn)....
> Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself?


If you have nothing of any worth to add to this discussion (not as though anything you mentioned in your initial posts on the topic were) then why bother revisiting this thread?



Mez said:


> Youre not 'down the street' from your tarantula.
> A better way to put it, from the tarantulas point of view, might be:
> 
> _ If you were *at home in bed* and you *heard* someone in the *living room* & you didnt like what they were doing would you approach them, lash out at them & still maintain you were defending yourself?_


No point trying with him afraid pal, he seems to think that tarantulas have the same characteristics as humans...



Craig Mackay said:


> It's all good man, _I am_ in agreement with the general priniciple behind your thread. I just think it's important to point out that they're not necesarily at opposite ends of the spectrum.


Yeah man, I know you are and if you have a quick look at the end of page 4 I acknowledge that fact.


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> If you have nothing of any worth to add to this discussion (not as though anything you mentioned in your initial posts on the topic were) then why bother revisiting this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dont get aggressive now Chris hehehe or was it defensive:mf_dribble:


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Dr3d said:


> Dont get aggressive now Chris hehehe or was it defensive:mf_dribble:


That was defence that led to very mild aggression... :whip:

Haha

Although, that being said. As I mentioned earlier I know what I believe and unless someone comes up with a viable reason as to why my beliefs on the subject are wrong, I shall remain the same.


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> That was defence that led to very mild aggression... :whip:
> 
> Haha
> 
> Although, that being said. As I mentioned earlier I know what I believe and unless someone comes up with a viable reason as to why my beliefs on the subject are wrong, I shall remain the same.


:Na_Na_Na_Na: nothing wrong with being *defensive* in your beliefs Bruv :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

In terminology speak I think they are being defensive, I mean they don't attack anything in their tank, it's only when we go in and prod about they get angry. Can't blame them if I'm honest, I wouldn't be too impressed if someone came into my house unannounced and started moving stuff about and taking stuff out. :whistling2: But when having a general discussion it's easy just to say aggressive because in general terms... It's pretty much the same thing?


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

C'mon, seriously, the smiley face at the end of my last post shouldve made it obvious that it was joke & a bit of a breezy post, so why so touchy? And there is the matter of you side stepping my question....twice. But i guess its best just best to forget about that. Heaven forbid somebody might actually have a difference of opinion huh?


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> <snip>But when having a general discussion it's easy just to say aggressive because in general terms... It's pretty much the same thing?


Did you actually read the thread???


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Did you actually read the thread???


I didn't. :blush: I'll go do that now. :whistling2:

Edit: Yeah I think my comment still stands. But like I said if we're going to talk technically then yeah defensive but if it's a general discussion like some wanting an 'aggressive' T then it's pretty much the same thing? It's referring to the same thing... If you get what I mean? I think I've confused myself, god knows what anyone else will think...


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> C'mon, seriously, the smiley face at the end of my last post shouldve made it obvious that it was joke & a bit of a breezy post, so why so touchy? And there is the matter of you side stepping my question....twice. But i guess its best just best to forget about that. Heaven forbid somebody might actually have a difference of opinion huh?


I didn't side step any of your questions? Im not holding anything personal against anyone (including yourself) who doesn't believe what I do. I just like to discuss why people have these beliefs and try to understand where they stem from. And there is nothing wrong with having a difference of opinion at all. 

So no hard feelings huh? eace:


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> <snip>Yeah I think my comment still stands. But like I said if we're going to talk technically then yeah defensive but if it's a general discussion like some wanting an 'aggressive' T then it's pretty much the same thing? It's referring to the same thing... If you get what I mean?<snip>


I disagree, I believe that tarantulas are defensive. 

That defensiveness can lead to aggression although defence is the primary objective. I'm not saying that aggression and defensiveness are polar opposites, although they certainly are not the same otherwise they wouldn't be separate words with separate meanings.


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> I disagree, I believe that tarantulas are defensive.
> 
> That defensiveness can lead to aggression although defence is the primary objective. I'm not saying that aggression and defensiveness are polar opposites, although they certainly are not the same otherwise they wouldn't be separate words with separate meanings.


You didn't read my post. I said they are defensive... 

I just said in general discussion(e.g new keeper wanting a defensive T) there is a fine line between the two, I'm not about to get stroppy with someone because they used the word aggressive instead of defensive.


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

The one im referring to is....How can you say, beyond all reasonable doubt, that if a tarantula comes at you all guns blazing it MUST be through a 'defensive' reaction? Surely theres a good chance that some individuals might just have an aggressive disposition that manifests itself naturally?

Anyways....besides the point now....hate when threads get choked up by a couple of people banging heads lol  I think theres a lot of good points of discussion been made here from everyone who's contributed so fair play. And likewise i can honestly i dont have any hard feelings towards anyone here, it'd be boring if we all had the exact same views on things!  So im away to get my T! See ya.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> You didn't read my post. I said they are defensive...


I did read your post... 

Just didn't get how you come from "yeah they're defensive technically" to "but we like to call them aggressive" 

Why not call something what it is? 



vivalabam said:


> I just said in general discussion(e.g new keeper wanting a defensive T) there is a fine line between the two, I'm not about to get stroppy with someone because they used the word aggressive instead of defensive.


I'm not getting stroppy, I'm discussing my point of view...


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> I did read your post...
> 
> Just didn't get how you come from "yeah they're defensive technically" to "but we like to call them aggressive"
> 
> ...


No I didn't exactly mean it like that, I just think it doesn't really matter... I tend not to think about every little specific word I use to make sure it's the correct terminology. I probably should but I like to think of the forum as a relaxed place rather than everything needs to be like a homework session, getting marked. 

I didn't call you stroppy either, I just said I'm going to get stroppy. :lol2:


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> No I didn't exactly mean it like that, I just think it doesn't really matter... I tend not to think about every little specific word I use to make sure it's the correct terminology. I probably should but I like to think of the forum as a relaxed place rather than everything needs to be like a homework session, getting marked.


It does matter though, you dont go to fill the car up and put petrol into your diesel and think "Ohh it doesn't matter, they're both fuel" etc. And this forum is a relaxed place where people come to talk about the hobby, discuss things and share experiences. That's all I'm doing IMO its all about learning and that was the reason behind this thread.



vivalabam said:


> I didn't call you stroppy either, I just said I'm going to get stroppy. :lol2:


I may have read it wrong and got slightly defensive....


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> The one im referring to is....How can you say, beyond all reasonable doubt, that if a tarantula comes at you all guns blazing it MUST be through a 'defensive' reaction? Surely theres a good chance that some individuals might just have an aggressive disposition that manifests itself naturally?


Well I dont see it as that, the way I see it is. The tarantula feels threatened and has become defensive.

So I'm afraid that is where we're going to have to agree to disagree.

: victory:


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> It does matter though, you dont go to fill the car up and put petrol into your diesel and think "Ohh it doesn't matter, they're both fuel" etc. And this forum is a relaxed place where people come to talk about the hobby, discuss things and share experiences. That's all I'm doing IMO its all about learning and that was the reason behind this thread.
> 
> I may have read it wrong and got slightly defensive....


Haha that's a little different, that will ruin your car. Saying it's defensive or aggressive ultimately leads to the same thing, if you stick your hand in, you'll get bit.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> Haha that's a little different, that will ruin your car. Saying it's defensive or aggressive ultimately leads to the same thing, if you stick your hand in, you'll get bit.


TBH I just think that certain members will not be able to grasp what I am actually trying to get across. Those that understand me understand my point and those who dont, well, just dont get it.


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

OK kinell Chris I have a Chrodatus here... lives in a 18" long 12" exo faunarium you know the black lid ones with the grills on the tops sides an lid....

I dont open the enclosure I mearly touch the grills on the side..... the spider calmly walks to the grills and pokes her fangs out and sits there riding them up and down up an down. So now she is aware i am here.... open its enclosure and it will come for you not tongs not anything in the enclosure... any movement in or around the enclosure the spider will goto and simply attack.... would you still class this as defensive... I think i may video this to explain myself better....


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Dr3d said:


> I dont open the enclosure I mearly touch the grills on the side..... the spider calmly walks to the grills and pokes his fangs out and sits there riding them up and down up an down. So now he is aware i am here.... open its enclosure and it will come for you not tongs not anything in the enclosure... any movement in or around the enclosure the spider will goto and simply attack.... would you still class this as defensive... I think i may video this to explain myself better....


You touch the grills, that is provocation enough for such a highly defensive species. I used open the lid of my _P.murinus_ enclosure and it would stay bent over backwards in the threat posture for over an hour afterwards. That is defensive behaviour too....


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> You touch the grills, that is provocation enough for such a highly defensive species. I used open the lid of my _P.murinus_ enclosure and it would stay bent over backwards in the threat posture for over an hour afterwards. That is defensive behaviour too....


 
Murinus jumping on its back is defensive..... as for the rest I will agree to differ, personally I have witnessed pure aggression whether this is brought on by hunger or defence non the less its aggression... :lol2:


----------



## harvestmoon (Oct 1, 2010)

Tarantulas may display behavior that to some could be deemed aggressive but it's origin and motive lies in a defensive instinct of self preservation. To act in self defense or purely to vent aggression may have a similar result but their motivation is distinctly different. *Their defensive action may seem aggressive but it stems from a defensive reaction of self preservation*. To prove this here's a simple example: Put a human and tarantula in an average sized room, not near each other, is that little tarantula gonna come chasing down the human with blood lust to vent its aggression.... or is it gonna go it's own merry way until someone comes near it and then when feeling threatened act "defensively" make itself look big, bad and scarey and if really worried about being hurt bite.... In summary on average a tarantula is defensive in its reactions to a potential threat, it does not seek out a fight, merely is ready for one if it has to survive... :whistling2:


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Craig Mackay said:


> It doesn't really matter though does it? Defensive, aggressive or how ever you coin it I'm still not gonna put my fingers near them, lol. Besides, you can defend yourself aggressively or passively so it isn't a case of one of the other.





mcluskyisms said:


> I get what you're saying Craig, although I just really believe that its defence before offence so to speak.


This is off page 2 dood... haha



Dr3d said:


> Murinus jumping on its back is defensive..... as for the rest I will agree to differ, personally I have witnessed pure aggression whether this is brought on by hunger or defence non the less its aggression... :lol2:


Defence can lead to aggression... : victory:


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

No t is aggressive but will be aggressive to different levels in defense.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Stelios said:


> No t is aggressive but will be aggressive to different levels in defense.


My point exactly!!!


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

harvestmoon said:


> Tarantulas may display behavior that to some could be deemed aggressive but it's origin and motive lies in a defensive instinct of self preservation. To act in self defense or purely to vent aggression may have a similar result but their motivation is distinctly different. *Their defensive action may seem aggressive but it stems from a defensive reaction of self preservation*. To prove this here's a simple example: Put a human and tarantula in an average sized room, not near each other, is that little tarantula gonna come chasing down the human with blood lust to vent its aggression.... or is it gonna go it's own merry way until someone comes near it and then when feeling threatened act "defensively" make itself look big, bad and scarey and if really worried about being hurt bite.... In summary on average a tarantula is defensive in its reactions to a potential threat, it does not seek out a fight, merely is ready for one if it has to survive... :whistling2:


Ermmm is all this based on a Tarantula being aggressive/defensive to Man!!!! because Generally I talk about spiders aggression with regard to its genral behavour not how it acts when interacting with me. I dont keep my species for how they interact with me or humans I have them to watch there behavioral patterns and diversity... E. sp red very defensive spider wont bite hardly at all..... P. chrodatus Aggressive natured spider who will enjoy chasing food all over in a frenzy to attack...


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

Stelios said:


> No t is aggressive but will be aggressive to different levels in defense.


So a Tarantula is not Aggressive when eating food but indeed Defensive lol 

:no1:


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

I have spider that is put away each night but when I wake up in the morning it is chewing on my balls is it defensive/aggresive or does it just like the taste of a sweaty scrotum?

In truth you can use both terms to describe your spiders behaviour and argueing if they are either one or the other is not only a waste of a good arguement but also abit like weeweeing into the wind.

That said I am enjoying the idiotness of the posts in this thread so carry on please.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Baldpoodle said:


> In truth you can use both terms to describe your spiders behaviour and argueing if they are either one or the other is not only a waste of a good arguement but also abit like weeweeing into the wind.
> 
> That said I am enjoying the idiotness of the posts in this thread so carry on please.


Mr. Poodle, which would you say is the correct term?

Defensive or aggressive?


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

Baldpoodle said:


> *I have spider that is put away each night but when I wake up in the morning it is chewing on my balls is it defensive/aggresive or does it just like the taste of a sweaty scrotum?*
> 
> In truth you can use both terms to describe your spiders behaviour and argueing if they are either one or the other is not only a waste of a good arguement but also abit like weeweeing into the wind.
> 
> That said I am enjoying the idiotness of the posts in this thread so carry on please.


Priceless :lol2:
-P


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

mcluskyisms said:


> Mr. Poodle, which would you say is the correct term?
> 
> Defensive or aggressive?


read what I wrote both can be used to describe you spider behaviour.


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

Baldpoodle said:


> I have spider that is put away each night but when I wake up in the morning it is chewing on my balls is it defensive/aggresive or does it just like the taste of a sweaty scrotum?


Admit it, you enjoy it when it does that.


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

garlicpickle said:


> Admit it, you enjoy it when it does that.


 yep it makes my spider sence tingle.:2thumb:


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Baldpoodle said:


> I have spider that is put away each night but when I wake up in the morning it is chewing on my balls is it defensive/aggresive or does it just like the taste of a sweaty scrotum?
> 
> In truth you can use both terms to describe your spiders behaviour and argueing if they are either one or the other is not only a waste of a good arguement but also abit like weeweeing into the wind.
> 
> That said I am enjoying the idiotness of the posts in this thread so carry on please.


This is pretty much what I was getting at, except you can explain it in one quick sentence and I end up making masses of posts and it still doesn't make sense. :blush:


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

Just one word - semantics.

IMO you can call a spider which reacts negatively to your presence aggressive, defensive, misunderstood or just plain nasty. Whatever you call it, the result is the same.

Seeing as we have no idea what a spider "feels" I don't see how we can definitively assign particular emotions to them.


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

garlicpickle said:


> Just one word - semantics.
> 
> IMO you can call a spider which reacts negatively to your presence aggressive, defensive, misunderstood or just plain nasty. Whatever you call it, the result is the same.
> 
> Seeing as we have no idea what a spider "feels" I don't see how we can definitively assign particular emotions to them.


Again a perfect example of how my posts should have gone. :blush: I have no idea how I always get myself in a muddle. :bash:


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

garlicpickle said:


> Seeing as we have no idea what a spider "feels" I don't see how we can definitively assign particular emotions to them.


we do actually have quite a good idea about this as it happens and the answer is sweet fa due to the fact that the part of a brain that governs things like emotions etc does not exsist in spiders.


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

Baldpoodle said:


> we do actually have quite a good idea about this as it happens and the answer is sweet fa due to the fact that the part of a brain that governs things like emotions etc does not exsist in spiders.


I meant feel as in emotionally feel (and agree it's likely to be pretty much sweet fa) but I also meant physically feel/sense. 

But on the emotional side of things it's pointless to attribute human emotions such as aggression, anger etc, to a creature which does not have the capacity to experience any kind of emotion and whose actions are governed purely by its instinct to survive.


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

garlicpickle said:


> I meant feel as in emotionally feel (and agree it's likely to be pretty much sweet fa) but I also meant physically feel/sense.


we also have quite a good understanding about what they physically feel also and but are still discovering new types of sensory hairs that pose more questions.


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

Baldpoodle said:


> we also have quite a good understanding about what they physically feel also and but are still discovering new types of sensory hairs that pose more questions.


you got a reference to an article BP? Link me up please :flrt:


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> Again a perfect example of how my posts should have gone. :blush: I have no idea how I always get myself in a muddle. :bash:





vivalabam said:


> This is pretty much what I was getting at, except you can explain it in one quick sentence and I end up making masses of posts and it still doesn't make sense. :blush:


Is it maybe because you dont actually think for yourself and wait for other people to reply to threads and follow on like a sheep?



garlicpickle said:


> Just one word - semantics.
> 
> IMO you can call a spider which reacts negatively to your presence aggressive, defensive, misunderstood or just plain nasty. Whatever you call it, the result is the same.


But why would the tarantula act negatively towards our presence Lisa?



garlicpickle said:


> But on the emotional side of things it's pointless to attribute human emotions such as aggression, anger etc, to a creature which does not have the capacity to experience any kind of emotion and whose actions are governed purely by its instinct to survive.


Isn't an instinct to survive a natural defence? Also its a well known fact that tarantulas brains (Ganglion) cant experience emotion as Mr. Poodle mentioned. A tarantula is like a living machine as are many other inverts, they dont recognise us or have reason, all they know is to live, eat, & procreate (much like most of the people on Jeremy Kyle) So therefore how can they be show emotions such as anger or aggression? All they have is a natural characteristic inbuilt into them which is self defence.


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

garlicpickle said:


> you got a reference to an article BP? Link me up please :flrt:


 The Biology of spider is a good book and explains much. their is a new edidtion coming out soon also.


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

mcluskyisms said:


> Is it maybe because you dont actually think for yourself and wait for other people to reply to threads and follow on like a sheep?


or maybe she just finds it hard to express things in writeing. I myself am the same yet I am able to think for myself very well indeed.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Baldpoodle said:


> or maybe she just finds it hard to express things in writeing. I myself am the same yet I am able to think for myself very well indeed.


Thing is Mr. Poodle, your very knowledgeable on Theraphosids and get your point over clearly even though you have dyslexia, and you dont feel the need to play the dumb blonde gag to suit.


----------



## jaykickboxer (Feb 11, 2008)

That babbon dreds got that runs at the tank edge when u go near it even without entering the tank is defanatly aggresive


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

jaykickboxer said:


> That babbon dreds got that runs at the tank edge when u go near it even without entering the tank is defanatly aggresive


Have you actually read this thread Jay??? :hmm:

I think you will find that issue was covered about 4 pages ago....


----------



## jaykickboxer (Feb 11, 2008)

mcluskyisms said:


> Have you actually read this thread Jay??? :hmm:
> 
> I think you will find that issue was covered about 4 pages ago....


read 4 pages


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

mcluskyisms said:


> A tarantula is like a living machine as are many other inverts, they dont recognise us or have reason, all they know is to live, eat, & procreate (much like most of the people on *RFUK*) So therefore how can they be show emotions such as anger or aggression? All they have is a natural characteristic inbuilt into them which is self defence.


fixed for you 

This thread has gone round in circles several times now. I don't dispute that tarantulas are exhibiting defensive behaviour when disturbed, rather than secretly plotting to attack us in our sleep and take over the world.

I was trying (maybe not very successfully) to draw attention to the anthropomorphisation which some of us as "pet" tarantula keepers indulge in, hence my comment about calling it what you like but the end result being the same.

There's threads on here every day about "my tarantula is evil, it hates me, it has attitude "etc etc and it's tempting to think that way, because we as humans are emotional creatures and it's impossible to see the world from the viewpoint of a creature which is not.

There are tarantulas which are less reponsive to stimuli. My G. pulchripes will ignore me completely unless I disturb her repeatedly, at which point she will shuffle off into her hide. My C. andersoni will rear up and slap the ground repeatedly if I even touch her tank. I guess you can see how it would be tempting to say one of those tarantulas was "nice" or "friendly" and the other was aggressive, when really they just have a different threshold of what is acceptable disturbance.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

garlicpickle said:


> <snip>There are tarantulas which are less reponsive to stimuli. My G. pulchripes will ignore me completely unless I disturb her repeatedly, at which point she will shuffle off into her hide. My C. andersoni will rear up and slap the ground repeatedly if I even touch her tank. I guess you can see how it would be tempting to say one of those tarantulas was "nice" or "friendly" and the other was aggressive, when really they just have a different threshold of what is acceptable disturbance.


Yaaaasssssssss!!!

: victory:


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

mcluskyisms said:


> Yaaaasssssssss!!!
> 
> : victory:


but of course the question is, why is there that difference between individuals?


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

garlicpickle said:


> but of course the question is, why is there that difference between individuals?


That's one of the many wonderful things that we may find out in time...


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Is it maybe because you dont actually think for yourself and wait for other people to reply to threads and follow on like a sheep?


Wow that was a bit harsh wasn't it? Thought we established I didn't even read the thread... 

I'm in no way a sheep, I have my own opinions thanks. : victory:


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> Wow that was a bit harsh wasn't it? Thought we established I didn't even read the thread...
> 
> I'm in no way a sheep, I have my own opinions thanks. : victory:


You have your own opinions? On a McCluskyisms thread? Are you mad!?!?:lol2:


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> You have your own opinions? On a McCluskyisms thread? Are you mad!?!?:lol2:


Well yeah, you either agree with him or you're wrong, or a sheep apparently. :lol2: Funny stuff.


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

Tooooo funny. Playground stuff


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> Tooooo funny. Playground stuff


Exactly, Who'd have known real life is just like being back in school. :whistling2:


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

Ahhhhh its all harmless enough i guess. Funny to see how touchy people can get over a little disagreement lolol


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> Ahhhhh its all harmless enough i guess. Funny to see how touchy people can get over a little disagreement lolol


Tell me about it! A normal conversation turns argumentative when things don't go their way, no idea why... I thought I got on with everyone on the section, clearly not. :blush:


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

That happens a lot in life unfortunately & not just on here. A mans insecurities are his own worst enemy. Not very endearing at all. 

Whoa......went all deep & Yoda'ish there for some reason!? Dont know why


----------



## JurassicParking (Nov 20, 2010)

Y'all stupid. My opinion is right.


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

My opinion is left.


----------



## Brandan Smith (Nov 17, 2010)

every tarantula is defensive they dont look for us we look for them


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> Tell me about it! A normal conversation turns argumentative when things don't go their way, no idea why... I thought I got on with everyone on the section, clearly not. :blush:


Clearly aggression Vivalabam ignore em hehehe


----------



## Corsetts (Dec 8, 2008)

Dr3d said:


> just nicked this snippet from wiki...
> 
> The most apparent type of aggression is that seen in the interaction between a predator and its prey. An animal defending itself against a predator becomes aggressive in order to survive and to ensure the survival of its offspring..
> 
> just to mix it up a bit Chris lol


Hmmmm, interesting, I don't agree though. I'll log in to Wiki later and ammend that :lol2:



Baldpoodle said:


> we do actually have quite a good idea about this as it happens and the answer is sweet fa due to the fact that the part of a brain that governs things like emotions etc does not exsist in spiders.


So endeth the thread. They're neither aggressive nor defensive, just acting on preprogrammed responses to stimuli.

Phew.

Interesting thread though, nice to see a bit of debate


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

garlicpickle said:


> but of course the question is, why is there that difference between individuals?


 
hehehe you sound like the oracle out the matrix hehehe


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> That happens a lot in life unfortunately & not just on here. A mans insecurities are his own worst enemy. Not very endearing at all.
> 
> Whoa......went all deep & Yoda'ish there for some reason!? F*ck knows why


Haha nothing wrong with that. :whistling2:



Dr3d said:


> Clearly aggression Vivalabam ignore em hehehe


:lol2: Yeah, I do.


----------



## MAB90 (Dec 27, 2010)

If this was an argument in the snake section, there would be death threats :lol2:


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

MAB90 said:


> If this was an argument in the snake section, there would be death threats :lol2:


Chris an I are good mates lol We was having a laugh is all, you should see us in BTS chat most nights lol


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> Wow that was a bit harsh wasn't it? Thought we established I didn't even read the thread...
> 
> I'm in no way a sheep, I have my own opinions thanks. : victory:





vivalabam said:


> Well yeah, you either agree with him or you're wrong, or a sheep apparently. :lol2: Funny stuff.


Most certainly not. 

You see there are different kinds of people in this forum. There's the kind who stand back and absorb information and only comment when they themselves feel that they have an opinion, and have thought through their responses. Then you get the people who learn a little bit and feel that its their duty to inform the world that they know their banana's even though they apparently dont, and once questioned on their beliefs cant back it up with reason or fact. Then you get the people like me, people who are like "Catchphrase" I just say what I see and wont blow smoke up y'all. 



Nick Masson said:


> You have your own opinions? On a McCluskyisms thread? Are you mad!?!?:lol2:





Nick Masson said:


> Ahhhhh its all harmless enough i guess. Funny to see how touchy people can get over a little disagreement lolol


I like it when people have their own opinions Nick, I just like to hear their fact and reason so as I can discuss with them how they cant be correct....

:2thumb:


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Dr3d said:


> Chris an I are good mates lol We was having a laugh is all, you should see us in BTS chat most nights lol


Doood, there is most certainly nothing wrong with having a good old heated debate on the RF to the UK invertzzz innit???

:welcomerfuk:


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Doood, there is most certainly nothing wrong with having a good old heated debate on the RF to the UK invertzzz innit???
> 
> :welcomerfuk:


LoL you know it, mate, so whats the next debate me old mucker!!!


----------



## MAB90 (Dec 27, 2010)

Dr3d said:


> Chris an I are good mates lol We was having a laugh is all, you should see us in BTS chat most nights lol


Aw a know its all just fun and games in here with the rants but if it was in the snake section it would be a diffrent story is all im saying :lol2:


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

mcluskyisms said:


> Most certainly not.
> 
> You see there are different kinds of people in this forum. There's the kind who stand back and absorb information and only comment when they themselves feel that they have an opinion, and have thought through their responses. Then you get the people who learn a little bit and feel that its their duty to inform the world that they know their banana's even though they apparently dont, and once questioned on their beliefs cant back it up with reason or fact. Then you get the people like me, people who are like "Catchphrase" I just say what I see and wont blow smoke up y'all.
> 
> :2thumb:


Loving it!
-P


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

MAB90 said:


> Aw a know its all just fun and games in here with the rants but if it was in the snake section it would be a diffrent story is all im saying :lol2:


Yeah I read a few posts in there but to be honest had my fill of snakes 22 years ago working with Dave Feldmar in Sussex...


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Most certainly not.
> 
> You see there are different kinds of people in this forum. There's the kind who stand back and absorb information and only comment when they themselves feel that they have an opinion, and have thought through their responses. Then you get the people who learn a little bit and feel that its their duty to inform the world that they know their banana's even though they apparently dont, and once questioned on their beliefs cant back it up with reason or fact. Then you get the people like me, people who are like "Catchphrase" I just say what I see and wont blow smoke up y'all.
> 
> ...


"Then you get the people who learn a little bit and feel that its their duty to inform the world that they know their banana's even though they apparently dont, and once questioned on their beliefs cant back it up with reason or fact"

Surely then this is the catagory that you fall into seeing as it was you that kicked off the whole thread in the first place:lol2:
And i gave you a very solid answer for my dissagreement, remember? One that you evidently had very little to say about. Hmmmm...: victory:


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

Great thread on the whole. A lot of good points made & as long as people dont genuinely start falling out you cant beat a good discussion!


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> Surely then this is the catagory that you fall into seeing as it was you that kicked off the whole thread in the first place:lol2:
> And i gave you a very solid answer for my dissagreement, remember? One that you evidently had very little to say about. Hmmmm...: victory:


No, because I told you my reasons.... (re-read the thread)

If this thread goes around for the eighth time I'm gonna have to join Bugnation or somethin' 

Haha


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

Indeed you gave me your reasons. Facts however? Hmmmm.....
Yeah this thread is done so lets call it a day lol!


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Most certainly not.
> 
> You see there are different kinds of people in this forum. There's the kind who stand back and absorb information and only comment when they themselves feel that they have an opinion, and have thought through their responses. Then you get the people who learn a little bit and feel that its their duty to inform the world that they know their banana's even though they apparently dont, and once questioned on their beliefs cant back it up with reason or fact. Then you get the people like me, people who are like "Catchphrase" I just say what I see and wont blow smoke up y'all.


I never said it was my duty, I just thought I'd post my thoughts into the thread. I'll know to avoid yours in future. : victory:


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Heres an argument:

Who considers a paper written up by a scientist as proof ? i sure do not, a peice of paper is not observation, it is simply what that person wrote down after watching the thing for 10 mins, not good enough, or even a "test" if you would, Proof to me has to be done infront of me, and done several times with the same out come everytime, not 3 times was diffrent but 4 times was exactly the same therefore it must be that ... which seems to be the highlights of science these days ...

Second thing, If we all had the same brain, i could understand why science belives the things they say, but we dont, and we do *NOT* know what anouther would think/feel or what ever unless we had the exact *cells*, *chromosome, *and so forth as that particular animal.

If it sais *Fact* in any paper, so what if it does, doesnt mean it is, i want real proof, not some 40% to 60% ratio, or 100% ratio documented, i want to see the test, and funny enough, test results do change funny that aint it.

If the spider indeed has no sence of pain, because of no nerve endings, what exactly were they looking for, an actual nerve ending ? or an phenomenon at the near entry of the skin ? How about (and im just throwing it out there) if the nerve endings were in the blood it self ?, Its a theory, and yet to be proven wrong, is it impossible before some one sais, by what standard, us humans ? its a possibility, to me that seems more reasonable than half the theorys science tells us.

The brain, really, again we cant be 110% sure, no matter what tests are given, what because the spider reacts diffrent to every thing else on this planet, means it doesnt feel nothing ? again anouther theory.

This is all because i keep an open mind, so i will question it, and back up with reasoning as to why i would.

Because yet there are so many theorys, and not enough proof, we go by everything we know, therefore nothing that does NOT screem at us or react in an informal manner does not feel pain. Science should have an open mind, they might learn other possibilities, funny thing is, the bible seems to be more accurate than science at times, at that was written when we did NOT have the gear we have today, and science seems to forever be proving it self wrong.

Think about it :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> I never said it was my duty, I just thought I'd post my thoughts into the thread. I'll know to avoid yours in future. : victory:


You dont have to avoid them, just make sure that you have a reason behind your reasoning before you post. Don't just have a go at saying "Ohh, I dont agree" without a reason, then when someone comes back at your theory go quiet till other members come on with good valid points and give it the old "That's what I was trying to say but I couldn't word it out right :blush:" It just gets boring, y'know?


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

Science seems to be always proving itself wrong? I disagree im afraid. I cant think of any other institution that never sets any of its findings in stone? Science is forever evolving & on a constant quest for new answers to not only new questions but old ones aswell. Science is never stagnant & it never stands still so i really dont know where youre coming from with that one?


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> Science seems to be always proving itself wrong? I disagree im afraid. I cant think of any other institution that never sets any of its findings in stone? Science is forever evolving & on a constant quest for new answers to not only new questions but old ones aswell. Science is never stagnant & it never stands still so i really dont know where youre coming from with that one?


i began to notice it when i were body building (at the start) science was constantly proving it self wrong, then i went and looked into dietry and so on, again it was one minuite saying, this is the way forward, to then say STOP it does not work :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

Hahahahaha the 'science' of body building? You mean all those creatine & whey protein 'specialists' who are seemingly never far away from the next big break through? That aint science mate, thats business built on a foundation of bull.
But also....theres a million & 1 other forms of genuine science out there. To merely have a bad experience with one doesnt really warrant you dismissing all the rest surely?


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

You're so wrong I'm not sure weather to laugh or cry... When I get home ill reply properly and quote each of my posts and explain exactly what I meant and how it relates to those other posts as you clearly need each individual little detail explained... I never said I disagreed with you I said I did agree, which is why I was shocked you started attacking me like you did. Try reading what I actually put before saying I've not got my own arguments. Although I may just leave it as all you seem to want is to fight with me, depends if I'm still in a bad mood


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> You're so wrong I'm not sure weather to laugh or cry... When I get home ill reply properly and quote each of my posts and explain exactly what I meant and how it relates to those other posts as you clearly need each individual little detail explained... I never said I disagreed with you I said I did agree, which is why I was shocked you started attacking me like you did. Try reading what I actually put before saying I've not got my own arguments. Although I may just leave it as all you seem to want is to fight with me, depends if I'm still in a bad mood


Hee hee! MEOWWW!!! :devil: :lol2:


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> Hahahahaha the 'science' of body building? You mean all those creatine & whey protein 'specialists' who are seemingly never far away from the next big break through? That aint science mate, thats business built on a foundation of bull.
> But also....theres a million & 1 other forms of genuine science out there. To merely have a bad experience with one doesnt really warrant you dismissing all the rest surely?


 
well no it doesnt then it does, the medication i was on, proved to make individuals that was in the same boat worse rather than stable, and thats medicen, i refused the medication, and stopped taking it, im a hell of alot better now, and again medication does not work, according to high specalists in the industry of the issue i have. it began at body building, and it wernt so much on the whey protein i was on, nor the creatine pills. it was the BS behind the exercise they started to state was not working when infact it was, then the next it was working lol.

But again its hapend in health n medicen, the thing is, i dought science ALOT, because of a few peices of equipment and the way they do not consider a possibility of other routes, they take the routes they no, then they make up a couple. Just because they took these routes, does not mean that is how it is, its just my opinion, and a very arguble one at that, but either way, it cant be proven unless both sides were tested a thousand times over, with the right attitude and equipment, i just do not belive in science, because as of yet, the only thing science has done for me is made me more unwell, and more at risk, not proven anything other than how to kill the patients off :lol2:


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

as for the lost sheep comment, we all are. 

we all follow somthing and keep following it, and back it up with what we follow, so to say the least, we all are lost sheeps


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

To add to what me said, and i do have a wittness of this event,

i was showing a guy some starter T's

And my G.Sp "North" was on the roof of her enclosure, i didnt realise and i was in a hurry so i took the lid of with some force, and she went flying across the room..


She stood there shaking, and i mean shaking. She would not let me pick her up and put her back, she kept biting and going nuts, it took an hour for her to calm down. She was fine not a single scratch, But unless this shaking can be proven either way, i still to this day belive she was scared beyond her wits, and the tremor was because she was scared, 

the story ends with me getting her back, her still alive today, me missing an important appointment, and a seriouse gutted me for what i did.


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

TCBT said:


> Heres an argument:
> 
> Who considers a paper written up by a scientist as proof ?


A paper is writen up to explain the theroy and give the evidence to back up that theroy to prove that the theroy is correct to the best understanding at the time. So yes it is proof to show that research was done and a certain finding was found.




TCBT said:


> i sure do not, a peice of paper is not observation,


But it is the to comunicate the observations that were made to a third or more party.


TCBT said:


> it is simply what that person wrote down after watching the thing for 10 mins, not good enough, or even a "test" if you would,


What papers have you been reading?


TCBT said:


> Proof to me has to be done infront of me, and done several times with the same out come everytime, not 3 times was diffrent but 4 times was exactly the same therefore it must be that


not going to happen, but if you get the paper you could read it do the same experiment and see what your findings are.


TCBT said:


> ... which seems to be the highlights of science these days ...


examples? 



TCBT said:


> Second thing, If we all had the same brain, i could understand why science belives the things they say, but we dont, and we do *NOT* know what anouther would think/feel or what ever unless we had the exact *cells*, *chromosome, *and so forth as that particular animal.


So tell us all what your oppinion is based on?




TCBT said:


> If it sais *Fact* in any paper, so what if it does, doesnt mean it is, i want real proof, not some 40% to 60% ratio, or 100% ratio documented, i want to see the test, and funny enough, test results do change funny that aint it..


See above comments



TCBT said:


> If the spider indeed has no sence of pain, because of no nerve endings, what exactly were they looking for, an actual nerve ending ? or an phenomenon at the near entry of the skin ? How about (and im just throwing it out there) if the nerve endings were in the blood it self ?, Its a theory, and yet to be proven wrong,


But this is a theroy also based on nothing but a whim. You have back up the theroy with some form of fact. 


TCBT said:


> is it impossible before some one sais, by what standard, us humans ? its a possibility, to me that seems more reasonable than half the theorys science tells us.,


again why is is possible for the nerve endings to be in the blood?





TCBT said:


> The brain, really, again we cant be 110% sure, no matter what tests are given, what because the spider reacts diffrent to every thing else on this planet, means it doesnt feel nothing ? again anouther theory.


but it doesn't react different to everything else on this planet. It acts much the same as all land based inverts.




TCBT said:


> This is all because i keep an open mind,.


It is good to keep an open mind, I am the same which is why I can except many new theroies that come along. 


TCBT said:


> so i will question it, and back up with reasoning as to why i would.


Please do so then because as yet you haven't. 


TCBT said:


> Because yet there are so many theorys, and not enough proof, we go by everything we know,.


Thats how it works though. Theroies are made based on the proof to hand. They are not just dreamed up out of the pages of science fiction and a copy of the sun newspaper. 


TCBT said:


> therefore nothing that does NOT screem at us or react in an informal manner does not feel pain.


correct look at the octopus. but besides this I really do not think this is where the conclustions are drawn.


TCBT said:


> Science should have an open mind, they might learn other possibilities, funny thing is,


It does have an open mind though which is why new theroies are made proved and disproved every day.



TCBT said:


> the bible seems to be more accurate than science at times, at that was written when we did NOT have the gear we have today, and science seems to forever be proving it self wrong.
> 
> Think about it :Na_Na_Na_Na:


as a non believer I am not going to even go down that road as I do not want to seem to insulting your's or anybody eles beliefs.

edit so much has happened on this thread since I started this reply lol.


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

I think some people have a funny idea of how science works.

I will agree however, that some of the work varies in quality and you should question the findings and interpretation - there have been published mistakes and especially with some statsy type things, some pretty big goofs. Not everything gets spotted in peer reveiw or by the editors.


----------



## Biffy (May 23, 2010)

:gasp:............:lol2:


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> You're so wrong I'm not sure weather to laugh or cry... When I get home ill reply properly and quote each of my posts and explain exactly what I meant and how it relates to those other posts as you clearly need each individual little detail explained... I never said I disagreed with you I said I did agree, which is why I was shocked you started attacking me like you did. Try reading what I actually put before saying I've not got my own arguments. Although I may just leave it as all you seem to want is to fight with me, depends if I'm still in a bad mood


Your argument was that "well they more or less mean the same thing" although they dont. If you actually _read_ my underlying argument in this entire thread I say that *defence is the primary reaction which can lead to aggression.* So therefore they are not the same thing otherwise why would they be two different words with two different meanings? 

And as for your claim of me attacking you, I wasn't. I was merely pointing out the facts of your forum activity on a whole in my eyes. Which is my point of view, and I think we're all entitled to have our _own_ point of view, yeah?

As many have already mentioned, this thread has went round and round so many times that every angle has pretty much been covered on the situation. I only started this thread to show my point of view on a subject that I feel strongly about. I dont care if people take on board my point of view or not, its just the internet. At the end of the day I wont lose any sleep over it, and nor should anyone else. I just think there has been some interesting points in this thread, obviously there has also been slight derailment here and there. But overall I think there has been some pretty good information discussed on the way. And hopefully some people may feel the same as me on the subject of the thread and if they dont, I couldn't really care less. 

Haha


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Baldpoodle said:


> *A paper is writen up to explain the theroy and give the evidence to back up that theroy to prove that the theroy is correct to the best understanding at the time. So yes it is proof to show that research was done and a certain finding was found.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I gave a paper in court a while back showing that i aint been paid for the work i did, i got compensation even though it was my fault ... See just a peice of paper does not mean anything to me, it just means theyve had ago but the "whole" weather its truth or not means nothing, because i havent seen it my self in person, the actual experiment. 

Its proof to those who belive what they read, it aint proof to those who need more than a peice of paper that may aswell be in the news.

A government spokesman commented on the UFO seen in the area of cromer a couple of nights ago, but no actual footage of the thing, again why dont i belive it, even though these are apparinatly "Trusted bodies". Because i cannot see it, i havent seen it, because there is no footage of it, same goes here, i will not belive any peice of paper without footage backing it up, Anyone could easily miss-lead somone if that somone can is trusted by that person, tell me the care sheets on the net, on here even. Avics im aiming at here mainly, why is there such thing as many losing an avic so easily ? yet since i changed how i care for the avics (from sling to adult hood) iv never lost a spiderling yet. I have lost alot of faith in science because of the whole Paper article thing, and nothing else backing it up, then to turn round and say there was errors in the finding (rare occurence but does happen) yea ill cut science a break, anyday .... BUT until i actually see footage of the experiments done several times over, with 110% accuracy, a peice of paper is as good as the sun newspaper. BS, thats just me though, i wont be convinced that easily until there is video footage of that finding

as for backing up my reasoning for it, iv stated oready as to why science to me, is non belivable, and again i will say it for you mate...

Paper is nothing to me, Video footage of the conducted experiments is proof, and until i see it i will not belive it....

Again im not here to tell you what to belive, its just my opinion, and rightly argued out, by you... Everyone see's things diffrent, or been educated diffrent, yet it comes a huge cofuffle when coming down to the nitty gritty, its good to have several points of view, if we were all the same it would be boooooooooooooooooooooooring


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

Man you are so hard to understand even if what you were saying wasn't all goobledigook.
I wouldn't believe you if you told me my name was Mark, after struggling to read your post on the birth certificate in the dock.
Some one should write a paper on you being a mentalist!:crazy:


----------



## Corsetts (Dec 8, 2008)

TCBT said:


> I gave a paper in court a while back showing that i aint been paid for the work i did, i got compensation even though it was my fault ... See just a peice of paper does not mean anything to me, it just means theyve had ago but the "whole" weather its truth or not means nothing, because i havent seen it my self in person, the actual experiment.
> 
> Its proof to those who belive what they read, it aint proof to those who need more than a peice of paper that may aswell be in the news.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I'm missing the point here but are you saying that scientific papers hold no credibility in your eyes unless the findings are backed up by video footage?


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Stelios said:


> Man you are so hard to understand even if what you were saying wasn't all goobledigook.
> I wouldn't believe you if you told me my name was Mark, after struggling to read your post on the birth certificate in the dock.
> Some one should write a paper on you being a mentalist!:crazy:


i can tell here oready you live in the past. And yes i have video footage of proof and sound recordings of it to go with it, and also if im so fake and mentalist, then you all in this forum are to, as were i get my evidence from are from well respected people in that area, so therefore we are all idiots if somone who has more than you on there shoulder, is false then so is every person out there, including you


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Corsetts said:


> Sorry if I'm missing the point here but are you saying that scientific papers hold no credibility in your eyes unless the findings are backed up by video footage?


 
yes, thats exactly what im saying


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

TCBT said:


> yes, thats exactly what im saying


Any reason??


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

selina20 said:


> Any reason??


 
yes actually lol.

1, my medication 3 years ago was proven to help recover people in the same shoes as me, it almost killed many, and made me personaly worse, then was proven it was wrong.

2, Im open minded to hear anything, but unless backed up with hardcore evidence, inocent until proven guilty 

3,If i belived everything i read in these papers, id belive

a, tarantulas can kill you in 1 bite :lol2: (love that one) Go turbo with dr weird name (ill look that up in abit) my sis brought it back

b, every tarantula bite feels like a bee sting to begin with (again mentioned book oready) studied and revised aparinatly

c, in recent books handed out to children in my local high school, i now have to argue out thet envenomation is not poisoning, poisoning is ingested bla bla bla all that  

all in all, i wont belive anything i read, until i see it for my self, same as ghosts, you can read it but do you belive it ? some wont until theyve seen it for them selfs, im just skeptic in general all round science :Na_Na_Na_Na:

and this is from scienctists :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

YouTube - Big Spider Attacks Daddy sorry had to


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

LOL I didn't say you were fake?
I said you were a card holding nutter!
I am cynical, being cynical is good.
You go way past cynical infact they should make a new word to describe you.
Metacynical? Perhaps ultimacynical, TCBTCYINICAL?


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

I hear a lot of people believe the Moon landings were fake, despite video footage :whistling2:


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Stelios said:


> LOL I didn't say you were fake?
> I said you were a card holding nutter!
> I am cynical, being cynical is good.
> You go way past cynical infact they should make a new word to describe you.
> Metacynical? Perhaps ultimacynical, TCBTCYINICAL?


no you tit :lol2:

my point being is that, if given a chance, and spoken to polightly i will follow through, or if spoken to in a formal matter, i will supply what you are asking for, i am not past cynical, my point all round is...

If you belive everything you hear, then you are just the biggest mug on this planet, again i cant tell you what to belive or what to hold up, but you should consider it as a possibility, everything i read i consider it as a possibility, then i search for proof, and if nothing comes up then in my eyes, its BS. It takes alot to convince me of such things, and unless iv had first hand or video footage (like the law iv had both first hand and video footage) then i simply wont belive it :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

I would rather believe what was written in papers with the figures etc in black and white than what is found on you tube as evidence lmao. Papers do change through the years and become outdated so some arent as accurate than others. I wouldnt be able to pass my degree without using papers to back up what i wrote in reports.


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

garlicpickle said:


> I hear a lot of people believe the Moon landings were fake, despite video footage :whistling2:


 
i cant prove that either way, as far as i can see it was real. video and voice recordings and so forth, unless they have the equipment to prove its fake, then who's to say it aint. Theres a vid


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

TCBT said:


> i cant prove that either way, as far as i can see it was real. video and voice recordings and so forth, unless they have the equipment to prove its fake, then who's to say it aint. Theres a vid


I also believe it's real but not because I saw a video of it. I believe the Moon landings are real because there is other evidence to back it up. I've seen videos of people being sawn in half by magicians, but I'm still not surprised when they step out of the box afterwards back in one piece. :lol2:


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

selina20 said:


> I would rather believe what was written in papers with the figures etc in black and white than what is found on you tube as evidence lmao. Papers do change through the years and become outdated so some arent as accurate than others. I wouldnt be able to pass my degree without using papers to back up what i wrote in reports.


 
yes i agree here lol, youtube is just for entertainment perposes, it would have to litterally come from the source it self :Na_Na_Na_Na:

well that is really my point i was making, they outdate, they prove it diffrent or it stays the same until further evidence is found, but even at that, i just dont trust some random person with a peice of paper, no matter how respected he may be and what not, i just wont have it as that being the full evaluation, the full evidence, it takes what 20 seconds to press a button, upload the vid and waheeey, itll put skeptics such as my self in place, aslong as the video is backed up with voices, and facing the guy/girl and what there working on , im fussy like that lol


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

garlicpickle said:


> I also believe it's real but not because I saw a video of it. I believe the Moon landings are real because there is other evidence to back it up. I've seen videos of people being sawn in half by magicians, but I'm still not surprised when they step out of the box afterwards back in one piece. :lol2:


:lol2: well, i will also need more than just the video footage lol, i should have cleared this up lol, but footage backed up with more is good enough for me, but just 1 paper, and nothing to back it up with apart from a scientist who conducted the experiment, and maybe a couple of witnesses, just doesnt hold with me im afraid


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

TCBT said:


> :lol2: well, i will also need more than just the video footage lol, i should have cleared this up lol, but footage backed up with more is good enough for me, but just 1 paper, and nothing to back it up with apart from a scientist who conducted the experiment, and maybe a couple of witnesses, just doesnt hold with me im afraid


So how do geologists back up their findings in a rock outcrop using a video camera?? Its not like they can record how it was formed lol


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

selina20 said:


> So how do geologists back up their findings in a rock outcrop using a video camera?? Its not like they can record how it was formed lol


 
lol nooo, but its there, and video imagery will prove that its there, i can take a rock and mess about with it and bang, done dusted, i will call this finding "gerbil man" :lol2:, but like on the news, youll see this big arse rock with a HUGE skeliton and landscape and so on, yes ok im kinda contradicting my self here, but its good enough for me, in that respect.. but to provide evidence for here and now, experiments conducted for the now and today, what 10 mins of the experiment a day at its best, allow us public to follow the conducting experiments, then we can see for our selfs, what was done, not read how it was done, and weather it was done to the exact detail that was printed


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

What we have here is one persons ill-informed view on science versus......sanity. He's so in the dark that i honestly feel kinda bad for him.


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> What we have here is one persons ill-informed view on science versus......sanity. He's so in the dark that i honestly feel kinda bad for him.


 
and what we have here, is somone who belives everything he reads, so whats happening in the sun newspaper ?

Im sorry to spoil your day but am i not allowed to question it ?, am i not allowed to be skeptic, you are not reading well, or your miss understanding, im saying a peice of paper is not hard evidence to me and a video is needed as part of that .. i dont know how much clearer to put it, i feel sorry for you for miss understanding that phraze


----------



## snowgoose (May 5, 2009)

TCBT said:


> lol nooo, but its there, and video imagery will prove that its there, i can take a rock and mess about with it and bang, done dusted, i will call this finding "gerbil man" :lol2:, but like on the news, youll see this big arse rock with a HUGE skeliton and landscape and so on, yes ok im kinda contradicting my self here, but its good enough for me, in that respect.. but to provide evidence for here and now, experiments conducted for the now and today, what 10 mins of the experiment a day at its best, allow us public to follow the conducting experiments, then we can see for our selfs, what was done, not read how it was done, and weather it was done to the exact detail that was printed


I'm just gonna jump on that wagon with the people playing the music 

Take your "rock" for example.

If a skeleton or remains or whatever was found. A paper would be written, documenting this find. 

Fair enough, you can take a photo or video footage or whatever, but that is no more proof than a paper. Something amazing could have said to have been seen and video footage taken. So, that to you is proof? 

So basically UFOs, aliens, loch ness monster and everything else that there is supposedly " video" footage of, actually exists?


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

What have I started.... :gasp:


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

mcluskyisms said:


> What have I started.... :gasp:


you've unleashed a monster :devil:


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

snowgoose said:


> I'm just gonna jump on that wagon with the people playing the music
> 
> Take your "rock" for example.
> 
> ...


 
No, itr haqs to be backed up with more, what im saying is, just a peice of paper by it self is not good enough, it has to have more for me to see it as evidence, if we all went by heres a peice of paper and a scientist who said he killed this person because he found mud on his shoe, half of the population would be sent to the shoe house


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

TCBT said:


> lol nooo, but its there, and video imagery will prove that its there, i can take a rock and mess about with it and bang, done dusted, i will call this finding "gerbil man" :lol2:, but like on the news, youll see this big arse rock with a HUGE skeliton and landscape and so on, yes ok im kinda contradicting my self here, but its good enough for me, in that respect.. but to provide evidence for here and now, experiments conducted for the now and today, what 10 mins of the experiment a day at its best, allow us public to follow the conducting experiments, then we can see for our selfs, what was done, not read how it was done, and weather it was done to the exact detail that was printed


But what if its just a rock face that can only show any variations in it using geochemistry.

Also you honestly think i scientist only spends 10 mins a day studying and the rest writing up lol


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

snowgoose said:


> I'm just gonna jump on that wagon with the people playing the music
> 
> Take your "rock" for example.
> 
> ...


Spot on... I think you've hit the nail right on the head there.
-P


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

selina20 said:


> But what if its just a rock face that can only show any variations in it using geochemistry.
> 
> *Also you honestly think i scientist only spends 10 mins a day studying and the rest writing up lol*


example lol

well macro, god my £40 camera can pick up in macro the small pin prick of the fang were venom comes out, if i can do that then some guy with thousands of quid equipment, im sure he can pick up somthing lol


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

I honestly dont see the big who har about it, 

i just dont take a peice of paper and say yes that is true, i have to have more with it :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

TCBT said:


> example lol
> 
> well macro, god my £40 camera can pick up in macro the small pin prick of the fang were venom comes out, if i can do that then some guy with thousands of quid equipment, im sure he can pick up somthing lol


Changing back to geology again. In order for us to produce a paper we have to document loads of data if that took me just 10 mins then god knows what iv been doing for the past 5 years. Cameras arent always the best option and at the end of the day a photo is only as good as how the person looking at it interprets it. If no one wrote down their findings whether they be accurate or not then science would just be a sham with no one knowing whats coming or going.


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

TCBT said:


> I gave a paper in court a while back showing that i aint been paid for the work i did, i got compensation even though it was my fault ... See just a peice of paper does not mean anything to me, it just means theyve had ago but the "whole" weather its truth or not means nothing, because i havent seen it my self in person, the actual experiment.


a court case envolveing a non scientiffic paper as an example of a scientiffic paper that is not valid?? honestly??


TCBT said:


> Its proof to those who belive what they read, it aint proof to those who need more than a peice of paper that may aswell be in the news.


But it is not just a piece of paper saying thats that. It also stating why the conclusion has been made and the evidence for the conclusion. Off course like GRB says not all scientiffic papers are correct and most if not all are open to further research since science is an on going business but to dissmiss it oout of hand based solely on the grounds of no video and it may be proved otherwise somewhere in the distant future is quite honestly ridiculous.


TCBT said:


> A government spokesman commented on the UFO seen in the area of cromer a couple of nights ago, but no actual footage of the thing, again why dont i belive it, even though these are apparinatly "Trusted bodies". Because i cannot see it, i havent seen it, because there is no footage of it, same goes here, i will not belive any peice of paper without footage backing it up, Anyone could easily miss-lead somone if that somone can is trusted by that person, tell me the care sheets on the net, on here even. Avics im aiming at here mainly, why is there such thing as many losing an avic so easily ? yet since i changed how i care for the avics (from sling to adult hood) iv never lost a spiderling yet. I have lost alot of faith in science because of the whole Paper article thing, and nothing else backing it up, then to turn round and say there was errors in the finding (rare occurence but does happen) yea ill cut science a break, anyday .... BUT until i actually see footage of the experiments done several times over, with 110% accuracy, a peice of paper is as good as the sun newspaper. BS, thats just me though, i wont be convinced that easily until there is video footage of that finding..


your examples are just way off the mark and show an even less uderstanding of science than even I have.



TCBT said:


> as for backing up my reasoning for it, iv stated oready as to why science to me, is non belivable, and again i will say it for you mate...
> 
> Paper is nothing to me, Video footage of the conducted experiments is proof, and until i see it i will not belive it......


so how are you going to video something like the findings in taxomical scientiffic paper? And BTW video footage is also very easy to fake, just ask stephen speilberg.



TCBT said:


> Again im not here to tell you what to belive, its just my opinion, and rightly argued out, by you... Everyone see's things diffrent, or been educated diffrent, yet it comes a huge cofuffle when coming down to the nitty gritty, its good to have several points of view, if we were all the same it would be boooooooooooooooooooooooring


It certainly would be yes.


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

selina20 said:


> Changing back to geology again. In order for us to produce a paper we have to document loads of data if that took me just 10 mins then god knows what iv been doing for the past 5 years. Cameras arent always the best option and at the end of the day a photo is only as good as how the person looking at it interprets it. If no one wrote down their findings whether they be accurate or not then science would just be a sham with no one knowing whats coming or going.


 
yea, im not saying it shouldnt be wrote down, but all in all, i just cant be easily convinced with science anymore, i mean i recently read an article about a dog comming back from the dead after being pumped full of that crap that kills the dog, i dont belive it, but if it is true then science has some explaining to do, 

Same as somone i knew who had a stroke, she wernt ment to walk again, she is now walking. We as humans dont get enough credit at how amazing our bodys really are, same as animals, if we cant understand our selfs 110%, how can science tell us all this stuff when they cant even get us right, im not saying its all wrong and there stupid, some things are proven to me to be correct, with video footage and paper, documents and so forth to back it up, but this stuff on T's and so on, yea i know how to care for them, i know there insides and out, i know there requirements, but i dont go by science, i go by there natural habbitats, i go by what that spider is...

Dam everyone is treated the same, agree ??? but everyone reacts diffrent, scientists havent sussed illnesses out, never mind animals illnesses, if they had there would be cures, yes ?, so how can science tell us how to do things when in reality it is simple eqation, such as weight loss, it takes respected people to tell us what to do before anyone does it, jeez easy eat a mixed diet, and exercise lol

To me science, i just wont have it as a skeptic towards it, unless there is more than just a peice of paper, there has to be documents of times, when it happend all that stuff they right down, with 10 mins of video footage a day of them conducting it, it wont be the whole experiment, but it showing more to me than just a peice of paper, you know even when i was diognosed with ma ickle issue, i asked for blood test results, documents of history health of me, jabs iv had, vertially everything to back up the diognoses, from start to finish ... And its because i just simply wont belive what i hear or read, i have to have more than that :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

TCBT said:


> and what we have here, is somone who belives everything he reads, so whats happening in the sun newspaper ?
> 
> Im sorry to spoil your day but am i not allowed to question it ?, am i not allowed to be skeptic, you are not reading well, or your miss understanding, im saying a peice of paper is not hard evidence to me and a video is needed as part of that .. i dont know how much clearer to put it, i feel sorry for you for miss understanding that phraze


Please....reduce your levels of bull and at least try to remain within the boundries of intelligent conversation. Who the hell mentioned The Sun newspaper? Certainly not me? I have lost count of the amount of times ive been to the natural history museum in London, and ive been to the natural history museum in LA twice. Ive spent countless hours reading University papers/findings & god knows how many hours worth of factual documentaries etc. Have you any clue about how much research has gone into what our species currently knows about whats real and what isnt? This idea of yours that scientists merely stand around observing stuff for 10mins, 30mins etc is a complete joke. And for some reason it seems that this dislike of science of yours has all stemmed from scientific medicine 'failing' you? Did it ever cross your mind that your incompetent Dr might of had something to do with that? This is an extremely dense subject with many layers & one that i would never presume to fully understand. But one thing is for sure....you aint even close pal. See ya


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

Got ask but after reading the new stuff that has appeared since I was writting but are you TCBT talking about newspapers or scientiffic papers? because you seem to say things about scientiffic papers and then give out newpaper examples. 

For the record I am just talking about scientiffic papers here and not-
newspapers
leagal papers
tobaco papers
the beano
or viz comic
just so you know


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Baldpoodle said:


> Got ask but after reading the new stuff that has appeared since I was writting but are you TCBT talking about newspapers or scientiffic papers? because you seem to say things about scientiffic papers and then give out newpaper examples.
> 
> For the record I am just talking about scientiffic papers here and not-
> newspapers
> ...


Rizlas do come with some interesting facts written on them now XD


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

lol I wouldn't know I dont smoke .:lol2:


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Baldpoodle said:


> a court case envolveing a non scientiffic paper as an example of a scientiffic paper that is not valid?? honestly??
> 
> But it is not just a piece of paper saying thats that. It also stating why the conclusion has been made and the evidence for the conclusion. Off course like GRB says not all scientiffic papers are correct and most if not all are open to further research since science is an on going business but to dissmiss it oout of hand based solely on the grounds of no video and it may be proved otherwise somewhere in the distant future is quite honestly ridiculous.
> 
> ...


ok ill clear this up AGAIN

Paper work by it self is not good enough for me, i need more than just a peice of paper going through it, i need documentation on everything, and visual proof, not of the whole thing, just some of it, because i simply do not belive everything i hear or see, its as simple as that.

I think some here have a problem with this, my question to it is why, i use simple examples, not what i belive.

What i belive is diffrent to an example, my hands are hurting and i really dont want to put "Example" beside the things that are "Examples"

i dont belive half the shite iv wrote, infact there are examples, but some of it is true, such as books iv seen, 

im simply a skeptic of science, kinda like your no dought a skeptic of the locness (same as me) its the same concept, just diffrent buisness
I wont belive what i read, thats how iv been brought up, now unless you can forward me thousands of documents, of every nitty gritty detail of every movement made in conducted experiments, backed up by footage. I simply wont have it, ill take it as a 50/50 chance of being either way


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

Come on lets all lay off him, there has been loads of us taking it in turns to have a go at him, like an evil tag team.:whip::devil:
We are not going to change his view.


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

Baldpoodle said:


> Got ask but after reading the new stuff that has appeared since I was writting but are you TCBT talking about newspapers or scientiffic papers? because you seem to say things about scientiffic papers and then give out newpaper examples.
> 
> For the record I am just talking about scientiffic papers here and not-
> newspapers
> ...


Hahahahaha!


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

I'm actually getting a headache now *reaches for valium bottle*


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Baldpoodle said:


> lol I wouldn't know I dont smoke .:lol2:


I shall enlighten you. This is what is written on a pack i just found.

The phrase "wear your heart on your sleeve" comes from medieval times when it was customary for a knight to wear the name of his lady on his sleeve during a tournament.


----------



## snowgoose (May 5, 2009)

TCBT said:


> No, itr haqs to be backed up with more, what im saying is, just a peice of paper by it self is not good enough, it has to have more for me to see it as evidence, if we all went by heres a peice of paper and a scientist who said he killed this person because he found mud on his shoe, half of the population would be sent to the sh*t house


Ok. Lets go off topic a bit but still on topic 

Take the bible and Jesus.

People believe in jesus yet no video or photo all they have is words on paper ( The Bible )

For all we know, if Jesus did exist, he could be some middle aged balding piss head with a beer belly

But instead people believe he was this wonderful being with long flowing hair and a long beard.

Why do they believe this?

Because, they believe this "paper" is true, yet no photo / video footage.


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> Please....


 
keep your knickers on pal, hey examples, youll be suprized how they work re-search that, is that it, a few museums ... good one, see again you are taking it out of context, so dont get to touchy, you aint even close to understanding your own race, never mind science. Swearing, wow good one, brilliant, why not try i duno say not !!. So again for the last time

I use examples as such, same as we all do, yet you cant see that even after me stating it, again i dont belive even 95% of the stuff iv put as examples, why because there examples, so before throwing the dummy out of the pram, people are more inteligent than you think, and tend to use examples because going through the real thing and typing it would take hours of reading it, so no i dont belive you have studyied in these places because you would realise that. So anything else you would like to add, like yes you are correct, talking though it would take hours ?? so examples come into play Yes examples, Do you know what that is, i suppose you could even say its a way of lieing, a quick and easy way to explain ??

You want science and inteligence, then start a thread on, what do you know about science, then i will use proper usage, but beings this is just an discussion on me being skeptic, and you losing your dummy, i spose examples are in order wouldnt you say ?


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

selina20 said:


> I shall enlighten you. This is what is written on a pack i just found.
> 
> The phrase "wear your heart on your sleeve" comes from medieval times when it was customary for a knight to wear the name of his lady on his sleeve during a tournament.


What like a tattoo?
Or did they wear a token or their lady like a ribbon or a symbol or crest etc?


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Stelios said:


> What like a tattoo?
> Or did they wear a token or their lady like a ribbon or a symbol or crest etc?


I duno thats all it says lmao. Theres no photo to prove it either


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

snowgoose said:


> Ok. Lets go off topic a bit but still on topic
> 
> Take the bible and Jesus.
> 
> ...


Yes, but now what your saying is people cant be skeptic of things ?, and need more than just one thing on it ? i dont see that as a problem, yet people do... Why ? whats the issue ?

Again here is an example from snowgoose, i can see it is an example, why cant others ???

anyway im just saying for me, science to me is about as belivable as the forementioned "locness" to me, UNLESS backed up with a ton of original documents, footage of some sort, re-wrote docets, papers revised, and so forth, not just a re-wrote paper revised/non revised withg detailing documentation of what went on and found, i need every nitty gritty detail, what routes they took and everything

again its a skeptic thing


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

TCBT said:


> ok ill clear this up AGAIN
> 
> Paper work by it self is not good enough for me, i need more than just a peice of paper going through it, i need documentation on everything, and visual proof, not of the whole thing, just some of it, because i simply do not belive everything i hear or see, its as simple as that.


But thats the point of a scientific paper to tell you the evidence. In many cases there will also be video evidence made where it is deemed nessery, as well as physical evidence. Most will also have a list of other publications and scientific papers that it has drawn its evidence from. 



TCBT said:


> I think some here have a problem with this, my question to it is why, i use simple examples, not what i belive..
> 
> What i belive is diffrent to an example, my hands are hurting and i really dont want to put "Example" beside the things that are "Examples"
> 
> i dont belive half the shite iv wrote, infact there are examples, but some of it is true, such as books iv seen, .


??????????????????? I can honestly say for me this is the most confusing few sentences I have ever tried to read! i can not make head nor tail as to what you mean!



TCBT said:


> im simply a skeptic of science, kinda like your no dought a skeptic of the locness (same as me) its the same concept, just diffrent buisness


no because I am a skeptic of loc ness because I do not believe that such a small loc could support such a large animal (infact it would have to be a family of animals) not because I don't have it on video. In otherwords there is a logic behind my skepticizm.



TCBT said:


> I wont belive what i read, thats how iv been brought up, now unless you can forward me thousands of documents, of every nitty gritty detail of every movement made in conducted experiments, backed up by footage. I simply wont have it, ill take it as a 50/50 chance of being either way


there most likely is a good few thousand documents out there for single areas of science where there is no video data and where there is video data but it would be wasted on anyone who has a no video = no proof view of things, and where a videos does exsist I would not expect you to understand it if you can not understand the basic concept of a written paper.


----------



## snowgoose (May 5, 2009)

OK. Lets try again without skeptics 

If we found something like a cure for cancer ( just an example ), which was so small with was not photograph-able. and an Image was not possible to get. How would you know it was real?

Yet if something like this was found and not able to be photo'd a paper would be written. Which would ( more or less ) be read by everyone involved in medicine.

Also, this "cure" would be proven only by a paper detailing it, and would be used with patients.


Now the above cure" would have been proven with a paper.

---------------

Taxonimic drawings? opinions?

These are not usually photographs / video but a drawing ( which would be known as a paper ). We only have this to tell us which body parts are where yet for all we know they could be all wrong. 

But why arent they?

Because we have papers detailing this.


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

selina20 said:


> I shall enlighten you. This is what is written on a pack i just found.
> 
> The phrase "wear your heart on your sleeve" comes from medieval times when it was customary for a knight to wear the name of his lady on his sleeve during a tournament.


cool. if thats not reason to smoke 40 a day I don't what is, Im now off to buy some fine grade shag!:lol2:


----------



## Mez (Feb 19, 2007)

If we're talking tarantula papers for description of new species etc, im sure they take photographs, but they certainly take live animals to be preserved as examples of the species. Pretty sure thats good enough for them. Remember a lot of Ts arent actually recently discovered, but the original collection for identification probably still exists, although i know the only other Pelinobius (previously Citharischius) species other than muticus was preserved, but that specimen was lost during the WWII bombings and now nobody knows what it looks like! Pretty sure they werent going round with their Canons and Nikons taking fantastic pictures to publish at that time.
If youre unwilling to believe any scientific paper, then you're not going to believe the caresheets people provide for specific species? Or you are because they put a photo up on their site?
Im a bit of a skeptic, but have no problem believing well written documentation of first hand experience of tarantulas from collectors that match up with other documents from other scientists etc.


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> Please....


 
Bet that made you feel real big using all that profanity on a public forum.... you need to eat your own words there.... minus the expletives and you were in with a chance!!!


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Ok so iv had enough of this thread

Science, came from the name "*scientia*" which means knowledge, a simple scientific experiment can range from such times of 5 - 10 mins, such as water and instant reactions. 

Were as a full blown experiment can take years, to accomplish the rates needed, such as truth

A tarantula (as science tells us) cant feel pain, does not have emotions, does not have the ability to lets use the "simple word" feel anything, other than movements and all the additional instincts to survive, which are, taste, smell, movement, instinct, the ability to feel moving objects so amplified its like us feeling a rain drop a mile away.

So to say the least, that is simple science, 

Now we will go onto how a computer can pick up such results

A computer running on code such as bool arguments integers and strings, all needed to run the experiments correctly, an experiment at high heats, low heats will need such items as built in and coded equipment such as thermometers hygrometers and other temputure controls, which will all be read by string and boolean arguments, cross into an integer giving of results such as the temps, the humidity, and numbers at ther rate that item is heating up/cooling off, how humidid enviroments are effecting that in integer forms aaand so forth.

So say if i really wanted to find out how this would work, it would take more than just me putting this object into an enclosure for a few weeks, it would take close encounters of the object, slides, scrapings, cut offs, and so on, in live stock case it would be the demonstration of advanced science, at its best.* But results will differ with diffrent objects or the same animal, diffrent individual* ... so therefore science has a right to also have a skeptic, because what i just explained in the highlighted area


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

I don't even know where to begin! lol
I would've written something contructive but I can't be bothered.

I've seen plenty hoaxed/fake videos but are you now telling us that we should ignore the evidence suggesting so and doubt they're hoaxes until we see a real video showing us that the hoax video is a hoax? lol

I know you'll vehemently disagree but it just seems that you have difficulty comprehending complex ideas without some kind of tangible experience to go with it. To write off some very clever people's days/weeks/months and years worth of research because you can't see it with your own eyes is just ...well, I'm just lost for words to be honest.


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

snowgoose said:


> OK. Lets try again without skeptics
> 
> If we found something like a cure for cancer ( just an example ), which was so small with was not photograph-able. and an Image was not possible to get. How would you know it was real?
> 
> ...


 
but what im saying is, taht i am skeptic, so i cant forget the skeptic part, because i am one for science. Thats what im saying, im using examples as a quick way of putting things, its not the case, and it aint true, but its quick and easy, im skeptic of science, and to be honest science wouldnt be no were today with out a skeptic or 2, to force it upon science to try harder :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## TCBT (Jul 11, 2010)

Craig Mackay said:


> I don't even know where to begin! lol
> I would've written something contructive but I can't be bothered.
> 
> I've seen plenty hoaxed/fake videos but are you now telling us that we should ignore the evidence suggesting so and doubt they're hoaxes until we see a real video showing us that the hoax video is a hoax? lol
> ...


Again you havent read what iv said, I need more than a few peices of paper, i need it written, i need video footage, i need original document, i need more than just 1 paper, i need basically the hundreds of documents, which can be proccessed. so to say the least, it aint just the video footage, i need to belive it, 

I need every single detail


----------



## snowgoose (May 5, 2009)

TCBT said:


> but what im saying is, taht i am skeptic, so i cant forget the skeptic part, because i am one for science. Thats what im saying, im using examples as a quick way of putting things, its not the case, and it aint true, but its quick and easy, im skeptic of science, and to be honest science wouldnt be no were today with out a skeptic or 2, to force it upon science to try harder :Na_Na_Na_Na:


So are you saying you are also a skeptic of photos / videos which "claim" to prove something, when these are more likely to be fakes?

Yet you take these visuals as evidence and proof?


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

GRB where for art thou?
Come on Lisa do it you know you want to!


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Mcluskyisms: 



vivalabam said:


> *In terminology speak I think they are being defensive, I mean they don't attack anything in their tank, it's only when we go in and prod about they get angry. *_Can't blame them if I'm honest, I wouldn't be too impressed if someone came into my house unannounced and started moving stuff about and taking stuff out. :whistling2:_ *But when having a general discussion it's easy just to say aggressive because in general terms... It's pretty much the same thing?*





vivalabam said:


> You didn't read my post. I said they are defensive...
> 
> I just said in general discussion(e.g new keeper wanting a defensive T) there is a fine line between the two, *I'm not about to get stroppy with someone because they used the word aggressive instead of defensive.*





vivalabam said:


> No I didn't exactly mean it like that, *I just think it doesn't really matter*... I tend not to think about every little specific word I use to make sure it's the correct terminology. I probably should but I like to think of the forum as a relaxed place rather than everything needs to be like a homework session, getting marked.
> 
> I didn't call you stroppy either, I just said I'm going to get stroppy. :lol2:


Summing up my posts I was basically trying to say it doesn't matter what we call it, the behaviour they do can either be seen as aggressive or defensive which ever really, it doesn't matter. 



Baldpoodle said:


> *In truth you can use both terms to describe your spiders behaviour and argueing if they are either one or the other is not only a waste of a good arguement* but also abit like weeweeing into the wind.
> 
> That said I am enjoying the idiotness of the posts in this thread so carry on please.


Pretty much what I said but he says it better. 



garlicpickle said:


> Just one word - semantics.
> 
> *IMO you can call a spider which reacts negatively to your presence aggressive, defensive, misunderstood or just plain nasty. Whatever you call it, the result is the same.*
> 
> Seeing as we have no idea what a spider "feels" I don't see how we can definitively assign particular emotions to them.


Again pretty much what I said, but again she says it better than me. 

I even agreed with you saying yeah technically it's defensive behaviour, but still you go on the attack? If I was a normal person it would have been left after the 1st post, but I'm not. :whistling2:

I believe I actually gave a reason, pointed out in italics, and I've given as much of a reason as anyone else has. 

Now I have no idea where you got this sheep thing from because I said pretty much the same thing, just a bit worse because I struggle with English as my school was awful, I have no structure to what I say and taught myself grammar as I never learnt it at school. (It's why it's so bad) Seeing as you asked for my life story I'll give it to you: 

I've always struggled with the writing side of things, I started off in primary school pretty average, English and Maths pretty equal at a level 4. Until I went into secondary school. This school was ok, not brilliant until I got to year 9 where our school got taken over by some stupid woman who changed it into a church of England school (lol it was in the middle of a council estate). Then my English started to disintegrate as the lessons turned to people throwing chairs at each other and not actually learning any off the stuff that was there. Mock exams come up and because of the lack of teaching I got an F, nothing to do with me as my Maths grade was a top B (highest you can get at Intermediate level). So in turn, I have learnt nothing in English since I was like 13 so I have the learning capacity for any kind of grammar, structure and spelling of a year 9, which is why I can never get my point across the way it is meant to. Although I have all the ideas, they don't come out right, it's a learning process, and seeing as you seemed concerned it is starting to improve but I got a long way to go. My lecturers keep asking me if I have something wrong with me which is always nice, I get marked down on structure but my ideas are always under excellent. : :Na_Na_Na_Na: All isn't bad though, the school is now closed down after it reached the worst in the country. 

I think I have made my point. I'm not going to post in this thread any more because I can guess the response, more attacks and you'll bring up something totally irrelevant again.


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

vivalabam said:


> Mcluskyisms:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wa Da Fa are you doing? Get back OFF TOPIC we are TCP bashing now.


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Stelios said:


> Wa Da Fa are you doing? Get back OFF TOPIC we are TCP bashing now.


Na he's a friend, I wouldn't say anything bad about him. :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

Stelios said:


> GRB where for art thou?
> Come on Lisa do it you know you want to!


I can't do anything, I relinquished my mod powers. Anyway, I'm enjoying this thread


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

TCBT sorry my friend I am just going to have to quit on this now as your examples are just bloody silly. I have absolutly no problem at all of you bing a skeptic of science, hell Im a skeptic of a lot of things including some science off course, but I am also happy to accept the experiments and findings of those who are much, much, much better informed than me also. I am also willing to change an oppinion if good evidence is presented forward even if based on the oppinion of others. I may only be a builders merchent with no degree or and scientific background but even I can see that your skepticzim is completly baseless, its like if you do not fully understand something then it can not be true.
Thats fair enough and I certainly do not wish to perswade you otherwise if you are happy with this, but this is not as you claim being open minded it is quite the oppersite.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

What happened here???

:gasp:



vivalabam said:


> Mcluskyisms: <snip>


http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/foru...8619-aggressive-defensive-14.html#post7894194

: victory:


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

"I may only be a builders merchent with no degree or and scientific background"

We gleen a little bit here and a little bit there.

Lisa you didn't live long in the fast lane? What happened?


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

Stelios said:


> Lisa you didn't live long in the fast lane? What happened?


when they asked me I said I would give it a trial as I wasn't sure. I gave it a month and decided I wasn't keen.


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

garlicpickle said:


> when they asked me I said I would give it a trial as I wasn't sure. I gave it a month and decided I wasn't keen.


 but but but garlicpickle you were my protector againts the bullies in the internet gang that all too often strike me and make me cry.:gasp:


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

Well at least you gave it a go.


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

Baldpoodle said:


> but but but garlicpickle you were my protector againts the bullies in the internet gang that all too often strike me and make me cry.:gasp:


I know, I couldn't cope with the fact that I wasn't allowed to strike you and make you cry myself :flrt:


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

I must say this thread has been one of the best in a long time ..... purely for the entertainment value... 

Keep it flowing guys!
-P


----------



## Corsetts (Dec 8, 2008)

Paul c 1 said:


> I must say this thread has been one of the best in a long time ..... purely for the entertainment value...
> 
> Keep it flowing guys!
> -P


No, close it, I think we're done here


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

TCBT said:


> Again you havent read what iv said, I need more than a few peices of paper, i need it written, i need video footage, i need original document, i need more than just 1 paper, i need basically the hundreds of documents, which can be proccessed. so to say the least, it aint just the video footage, i need to belive it,
> 
> I need every single detail


No, I read it all carefully. You've contradicted yourself from start to finish and even admitted


TCBT said:


> i dont belive half the sh**e iv wrote


 to the point we're I'm not sure if you know what your trying to say anymore. There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to gather as much evidence as possible but how will you know when you've reached the point where you've read/heard/felt/seen etc enough evidence to satisfy yourself that something is a plausible theory? One individual can never gather and comprehend every single detail so why not take what evidence there is and try to understand why it makes sense or come up with an alternative idea based on evidence rather than plucking theories from thin air like:


TCBT said:


> How about (and im just throwing it out there) if the nerve endings were in the blood it self ?, Its a theory, and yet to be proven wrong, is it impossible before some one sais, by what standard, us humans ? its a possibility, to me that seems more reasonable than half the theorys science tells us.


You have a very naive and illinformed view of Science unfortunately.


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

TCBT said:


> keep your knickers on pal, hey examples, youll be suprized how they work re-search that, is that it, a few museums ... good one, see again you are taking it out of context, so dont get to touchy, you aint even close to understanding your own race, never mind science. Swearing, wow good one, brilliant, why not try i duno say not !!. So again for the last time
> 
> I use examples as such, same as we all do, yet you cant see that even after me stating it, again i dont belive even 95% of the stuff iv put as examples, why because there examples, so before throwing the dummy out of the pram, people are more inteligent than you think, and tend to use examples because going through the real thing and typing it would take hours of reading it, so no i dont belive you have studyied in these places because you would realise that. So anything else you would like to add, like yes you are correct, talking though it would take hours ?? so examples come into play Yes examples, Do you know what that is, i suppose you could even say its a way of lieing, a quick and easy way to explain ??
> 
> You want science and inteligence, then start a thread on, what do you know about science, then i will use proper usage, but beings this is just an discussion on me being skeptic, and you losing your dummy, i spose examples are in order wouldnt you say ?


Hahahahaha. Im pretty sure that if someone was to somehow sit a chimp down in front of a keyboard, give it a dictionary & a 30% increase in brain activity it would be able to make a much more valid point than yourself. This could go on forever & you would be none the wiser. So im done with ya :2thumb:


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

I just think most of you are complete idiots who give the hobby a bad name! And this section is now a terrible section with to much of a clique culture still thriving.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> I just think most of you are complete idiots who give the hobby a bad name! And this section is now a terrible section with to much of a clique culture still thriving.


Why not join Arachnophiles then? :hmm:


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

mcluskyisms said:


> Why not join Arachnophiles then? :hmm:


Because the same idiots reside there also. Plus i'm banned because i'm me.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> Because the same idiots reside there also. Plus i'm banned because i'm me.


Nevermind.

What about Arachnoboards?


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

mcluskyisms said:


> Nevermind.
> 
> What about Arachnoboards?


I shouldn't have to use other sites. The idiots that make the section a warzone should be dealt with, not allowed to push other members to other sites.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> I shouldn't have to use other sites. The idiots that make the section a warzone should be dealt with, not allowed to push other members to other sites.


So who's your top five hit list Timothy?


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

mcluskyisms said:


> So who's your top five hit list Timothy?


Oh that would be telling. And no one is on a hit list, i just dislike people in this section. There are a few members that are fine, but as a whole this section is getting more and more unfriendly.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> Oh that would be telling. And no one is on a hit list, i just dislike people in this section. There are a few members that are fine, but as a whole this section is getting more and more unfriendly.


What do you suggest we do to combat such evils? :hmm:


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

mcluskyisms said:


> What do you suggest we do to combat such evils? :hmm:


Just do as i do, and don't post in here that much! One day someone will see sense and sort it out


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> Just do as i do, and don't post in here that much! One day someone will see sense and sort it out


We can but hope, we can but hope...


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> Just do as i do, and don't post in here that much! One day someone will see sense and sort it out


They did but you begged to come back


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> I just think most of you are complete idiots who give the hobby a bad name! And this section is now a terrible section with to much of a clique culture still thriving.


 
I don't think the section is that bad and i've met one or two genuinely good folk on here.... but I do understand what you mean Tim regarding these "cliques", I appreciate people can be friends but it's when people will only pass comment on a thread if one of their gang members is on there or they will ignore others and only speak to each other,.. or on the same lines they will all chime in if one doesn't seem to be winning the battle etc etc .... just gets a bit sad and tedious and I admit i'm starting to see it more and more often.... the thing is i'm actually friends and get on with 'some' of these guys on a one to one level... it's just when they're out in the pack hunting when I just switch off from it.

-P


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Yeah I hear y'all, I blame David Cameron.


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

selina20 said:


> They did but you begged to come back


It's not me that's killing this section. 



Paul c 1 said:


> I don't think the section is that bad and i've met one or two genuinely good folk on here.... but I do understand what you mean Tim regarding these "cliques", I appreciate people can be friends but it's when people will only pass comment on a thread if one of their gang members is on there or they will ignore others and only speak to each other,.. or on the same lines they will all chime in if one doesn't seem to be winning the battle etc etc .... just gets a bit sad and tedious and I admit i'm starting to see it more and more often.... the thing is i'm actually friends and get on with 'some' of these guys on a one to one level... it's just when they're out in the pack hunting when I just switch off from it.
> 
> -P


As i said some people are actually ok on here, but there are to many people that treat it like a friends meeting place. That's ok but when new members join they normally feel to outside of things to continue posting here. Not many people stay here that long


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> As i said some people are actually ok on here, but there are to many people that treat it like a friends meeting place. That's ok but when new members join they normally feel to outside of things to continue posting here. Not many people stay here that long


Very true, I'm on the outskirts and when I post I normally get ignored or argued with. :devil: I have nothing else to do though so here I am. :whistling2:


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

vivalabam said:


> Very true, I'm on the outskirts and when I post I normally get ignored or argued with. :devil: I have nothing else to do though so here I am. :whistling2:


Awww Viva that seriously actually hurts my heart a little... you can tell your a good egg though and you mean well!
-P


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

_TiMiSdRuNk_ said:


> As i said some people are actually ok on here, but there are to many people that treat it like a friends meeting place. That's ok but when new members join they normally feel to outside of things to continue posting here. Not many people stay here that long


not sure if you mean me or not now because Im not actually ok and I don't have any friends to have a meeting place with. I would disagree and argue with you and anyone else as soon as look at you if I felt I needed to. Also if you or anyone else don't like me then I think I can live with that just fine! Even if you like me or think me ok I couldn't care less either because I post for my sick and twisted pleasure and not anybody elses.


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Paul c 1 said:


> Awww Viva that seriously actually hurts my heart a little... you can tell your a good egg though and you mean well!
> -P


I do mean well.  I just want to make friends... I don't have many. I'm a bit of a sad case really. :blush:


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

Baldpoodle said:


> not sure if you mean me or not now because Im not actually ok and I don't have any friends to have a meeting place with. I would disagree and argue with you and anyone else as soon as look at you if I felt I needed to. Also if you or anyone else don't like me then I think I can live with that just fine! Even if you like me or think me ok I couldn't care less either because I post for my sick and twisted pleasure and not anybody elses.


I honestly don't for one minute believe that was directed at you BP.
-P


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

Paul c 1 said:


> I honestly don't for one minute believe that was directed at you BP.
> -P


thank god for that I almost pictured myself with chav like friends for a moment there.:gasp:


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

Baldpoodle said:


> thank god for that I almost pictured myself with chav like friends for a moment there.:gasp:


No way you don't need that image BP.... it's not cool to have friends LOL

-P


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

problem is Timisdrunk , is that people (unlike me) who know each other on the net in such a smallish hobby like this will often meet up at shows etc and become firm bum chums and so off course save some of their well earned dosh by talking on here rather than the phone. so in effect it is a friends meeting place I i'm the little sod across the road who throws dogs turds at them wraped in burning news paper.:Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

Baldpoodle said:


> problem is Timisdrunk , is that people (unlike me) who know each other on the net in such a smallish hobby like this will often meet up at shows etc and become firm bum chums and so off course save some of their well earned dosh by talking on here rather than the phone. so in effect it is a friends meeting place I i'm the little sod across the road who throws dogs turds at them wraped in burning news paper.:Na_Na_Na_Na:


Haha I love the expression there... "firm bum chums".... superb!.....tis true though when I can occasionaly be arsed to go to a show I keep myself to myself buy some inverts and then generally get the hell out of there... but I am quite an unsociable beast at the best of times... I have a few decent pals in the hobby who I sometimes have a chat with... but it's generally just to take the p**s and have a laugh over certain things... never been one for kisses, cuddles and high fives... but hey that's just me.
-P


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Paul c 1 said:


> Haha I love the expression there... "firm bum chums".... superb!.....tis true though when I can occasionaly be arsed to go to a show I keep myself to myself buy some inverts and then generally get the hell out of there... but I am quite an unsociable beast at the best of times... I have a few decent pals in the hobby who I sometimes have a chat with... but it's generally just to take the p**s and have a laugh over certain things... never been one for kisses, cuddles and high fives... but hey that's just me.
> -P


I only went to Kempton last year and didn't actually meet anyone, I'd only posted on here a couple of times though. :lol2: I hope people come and say hello when I go to BTS, would be nice to put a face to the name. :lol2:


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

vivalabam said:


> I only went to Kempton last year and didn't actually meet anyone, I'd only posted on here a couple of times though. :lol2: I hope people come and say hello when I go to BTS, would be nice to put a face to the name. :lol2:


You will easily be able to spot me lol


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

selina20 said:


> You will easily be able to spot me lol


I hope so.  I think I'll be the easiest to spot though. :whistling2:


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> I do mean well.  I just want to make friends... I don't have many. I'm a bit of a sad case really. :blush:


C'mon? Surely you dont really mean that lol? : victory:


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

vivalabam said:


> I only went to Kempton last year and didn't actually meet anyone, I'd only posted on here a couple of times though. :lol2: I hope people come and say hello when I go to BTS, would be nice to put a face to the name. :lol2:


 
I don't mind saying hello to anybody if they want to come over and speak to me LOL.... i'm going to the BTS this year but will have my little boy with me he's only four and wanted to come with me this year so I will have my work cut out keeping an eye on him LOL.... 
-P


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> C'mon? Surely you dont really mean that lol? : victory:


No it's true.  I'm not very social, I spend most of the time indoors ignoring people. :blush:


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

selina20 said:


> You will easily be able to spot me lol


 why? have you got an bottom for a head?:mf_dribble:


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Paul c 1 said:


> I don't mind saying hello to anybody if they want to come over and speak to me LOL.... i'm going to the BTS this year but will have my little boy with me he's only four and wanted to come with me this year so I will have my work cut out keeping an eye on him LOL....
> -P


Ill have my almost 2 year old and a newborn. Shows are always fun with kids XD



Baldpoodle said:


> why? :mf_dribble:


Oh how i wish lmao. Naaaaa ill be the one with the baby looking sorry for myself lmao.


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> No it's true.  I'm not very social, I spend most of the time indoors ignoring people. :blush:


Can i ask why? You seem like a pretty normal person? Social/chatty/funny etc so it seems a little strange to me :hmm:lolol.


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Paul c 1 said:


> I don't mind saying hello to anybody if they want to come over and speak to me LOL.... i'm going to the BTS this year but will have my little boy with me he's only four and wanted to come with me this year so I will have my work cut out keeping an eye on him LOL....
> -P


See, I won't recognise anyone. :blush: All the people on facebook have tarantula pictures and none of them self. :devil: Also I'm shy so will probably not talk to anyone unless they talk to me. :blush: Haha that's awesome.  No idea who I'll be with yet. Have to see if they have a hotel near.


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> Can i ask why? You seem like a pretty normal person? Social/chatty/funny etc so it seems a little strange to me :hmm:lolol.


I do have friends and I do go out, just not a lot really. I'm an only child so have always been used to being alone, people just annoy me after a while. :lol2:


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

I haven't noticed any cliques, but then again I am not the most observant when it comes to things like that?
:gasp:


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Stelios said:


> I haven't noticed any cliques, but then again I am not the most observant when it comes to things like that?
> :gasp:


You and me are a clique innit Mark? : victory:


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

selina20 said:


> Ill have my almost 2 year old and a newborn. Shows are always fun with kids XD


 
Yeah bet your baby is just about baked now eh?.... me and my GF are expecting our second in a weeks time.... she is booked in for a caesarian section next Monday morning .... scary times.... don't know if i'm ready for all this baby carry on again LOL


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

A clique is only a clique if you aren't in it. 



Paul c 1 said:


> Yeah bet your baby is just about baked now eh?.... me and my GF are expecting our second in a weeks time.... she is booked in for a caesarian section next Monday morning .... scary times.... don't know if i'm ready for all this baby carry on again LOL


everyone is breeding, what is it with you lot


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

No, but seriously. We're all friends here aren't we? 

:war:


:grouphug:


:spam1:


:blah:


:thumb:


:zzz:


----------



## Nick Masson (Nov 8, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> I do have friends and I do go out, just not a lot really. I'm an only child so have always been used to being alone, people just annoy me after a while. :lol2:


Hahahahaha i can understand the only child scenario :roll2:


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

Have we made up:grouphug: now then?


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Stelios said:


> Have we made up:grouphug: now then?


We are all friends


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

garlicpickle said:


> A clique is only a clique if you aren't in it.
> 
> *everyone is breeding, what is it with you lot*


Well for me it's just my girlfriend is so attracted to me that these things happen from time to time 
-P


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

Paul c 1 said:


> Well for me it's just my girlfriend is so attracted to me that these things happen from time to time
> -P


Mummy and Daddy loved each other very much and then you came along........


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

garlicpickle said:


> Mummy and Daddy loved each other very much and then you came along........


 
Yep ... this is sooo true! LOL
-P


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Nick Masson said:


> Hahahahaha i can understand the only child scenario :roll2:


Yeah, it works for me. :lol2:



mcluskyisms said:


> We are all friends


Speak for yourself. :whip:


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

*Can we please watch the language in here and think before we post.*

*healthy debate in encouraged, but lets keep it civil*.


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

I concor;, saying bottom using the A word is not only extremely offencive to everyone and anything, but is also very naughty indeed!


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Well I just booked a hotel for the 21st of May, looks like I'm definitely coming to BTS

*Waits for it's the wrong day comments*


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

Baldpoodle said:


> I concor;, saying bottom using the A word is not only extremely offencive to everyone and anything, but is also very naughty indeed!


To be fair Nick did get a bit OTT:censor:


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Lets keep on topic dooooods

Here is a picture of a tarantula. Its called Fluffy, say hello to Fluffy.










Fluffy can be defensive from time to time.


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Lets keep on topic dooooods
> 
> Here is a picture of a tarantula. Its called Fluffy, say hello to Fluffy.
> 
> ...


Hello fluffy. 

My names Kerry and I'm an addict.


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

Hello fluffy why do you get so huffy?


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Stelios said:


> Hello fluffy why do you get so huffy?


Fluffy says "<nothing>" < its a tarantula innit?


----------



## _TiMiSdRuNk_ (Aug 27, 2008)

Stelios said:


> Hello fluffy why do you get so huffy?


Look at her face. She can get however she likes  <3


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

Stelios said:


> To be fair Nick did get a bit OTT:censor:


no I did this.:whistling2:


----------



## Stelios (Aug 28, 2009)

Well let that be a lesson to you, are you suitable chastised?:whip:


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Totally off topic here but I thought I should just inform y'all...
*
Killing Joke Rock!!!*

Just in case y'all never knew.....


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Totally off topic here but I thought I should just inform y'all...
> *
> Killing Joke Rock!!!*
> 
> Just in case y'all never knew.....


What's that, a band?


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

vivalabam said:


> What's that, a band?


Aye


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Aye


*youtubes*


----------



## vivalabam (Aug 8, 2010)

Hmmm... I'm more of a Tinie Tempah girl myself. :whistling2:


----------



## Oderus (Nov 24, 2009)

Can't be arsed to read all the thread atm, but Killing Joke are indeed the doggys nuts I had the self title and "W's.T.F" on jolly old cassette as a lad, not given any of those tunes a airing in years but they are still stuck in my head.


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

mcluskyisms said:


> Totally off topic here but I thought I should just inform y'all...
> 
> *Killing Joke Rock!!!*
> 
> Just in case y'all never knew.....


Haha, random!
Well hopefully thats something we can all agree on for once! :lol2:


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

you're all living in the Eighties!


----------



## garlicpickle (Jan 16, 2009)

Poxicator said:


> you're all living in the Eighties!


we all follow your lead Pete :lol2:


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

that would be pandamonium!


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Poxicator said:


> that would be pandamonium!


Or Unspeakable....


----------



## GRB (Jan 24, 2008)

Jeez, I've been away for like a day or something, come back and this went from page 16 to page 28! 

:lol2:


----------

