Moon Minion Posted March 18, 2009 #101 Share Posted March 18, 2009 el chupacabra? chupa was just a short form. Or if he means what is a Chupacabra? Just do a Google search mate. Put simply it's supposedly a bloodsucking creature that feeds on livestock usually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent. Mulder Posted March 18, 2009 #102 Share Posted March 18, 2009 What - getting caught out on Wikipedia? You told me? (religion wasn't it?) You said you would never trust it again? I will look up the post, although looking at your profile, it does not seem to be working ATM I get - - according to this you have never posted. Sorry if I have you mixed up with someone else. with religion? wiki had nothing to do with me not believing it anymore. im curious as to what this example is. i just stopped trusting wiki after a few years when i realized how anything could be posted on there, and people who edit it may not know if its correct or not, and just leave it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted March 18, 2009 #103 Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) with religion? wiki had nothing to do with me not believing it anymore. im curious as to what this example is. i just stopped trusting wiki after a few years when i realized how anything could be posted on there, and people who edit it may not know if its correct or not, and just leave it. No, not religion - Wikipedia. I thought you said it was a debate in religion that had Wiki make you look bad. I knew I was not crazy, well this does not prove that LOL Here - Mulders Post. Where you said ehhh, i use to refer to wiki alot, until it gave me some wrong info and i looked like an idiot. so somewhat skeptical of it now. just because anyone can post (despite its people editing it after) Bah, knew you had said that to me. You always seem to have a negative comment where Wikipedia is mentioned LOL. Damn that took some searching, bloody heck you made me work for that one! Methinks you owe a beer for that - seems only fair Geez you talk alot!!!!!! I had no idea you were so busy with religion, I had assumed your absence from UFO's and crypto meant you did not visit as often - how wrong was I on that!!! What is this, do we smell or something!! Now you know about it! You are in on the secret!! Edited March 18, 2009 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeRadio Posted March 18, 2009 #104 Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) Vampires don't exist....... At least not in these days of modern chemical embalming. <g> Edited March 18, 2009 by OldTimeRadio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuronin Posted March 18, 2009 #105 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Still, Vampires don't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoneWolf Posted March 18, 2009 #106 Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) nope, just saying how these dont resemble any chupa "attacks" that have been reported. theyre missing organs, which doesnt seem to happen in chupa "attacks". Ok, maybe I "stretched out" the typical chupa attack, but I think that some mutilation cases have been linked to chupas as they also left cattle bloodless... Again, I may be wrong, of course, this could all just be my speculation... lol no no no. but i dont believe in vampires (well, unless youre talking about people pretending to be them). however, im cautious when it comes to the chupa sightings and "attacks". This is exactly what I've been trying to say... While there are no proofs of vampires and werewolves whatsoever (no furry skin sheds, no people with their blood sucked out, etc.), something is happening to cattle, the only question is what. Maybe it's little green men doing experiments and maybe it's vampires getting desperate. Maybe it's a disease coupled with unusualy fast body decay. Or maybe it's something we came to call El Chupacabra... Returning to Wikipedia for just a moment... Yes, I know almost anything can be posted there by anyone, but while this makes it untrustworthy, it also makes it at least as trustworthy as any other written source, which I was going to explain through one basic rule of statistics, but I guess it doesn't really matter. Bottom line, one can only trust his or her own eyes, and even that is not always to be trusted 100%... Edited March 18, 2009 by TheLoneWolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now