Editing room? Who said any such thing anywhere ever? What experience do you think you have that is even remotely applicable to this situation? Please tell us what you know about the multiple pieces of video, the status of the production of the documentary, and the status of the entire project or admit you know nothing about it apart from what you have already demonstrated misreading here.

What do you know, I know that there has been no release, and am looking at the range of likely scenarios. I do actually have a bit of experience with doco making Have you never seen an editing room before?

Why do you think this doco hasn't yet been released, you seem to allude to the fact your knowledge is correct or better than ours? Knock me out!

You must have missed it. I repeat.

I'd prefer not to speculate on the authenticity and quality of the footage, so I remain cautiously optimistic. I think at this point we should just take Bindernagel at his word and wait until the footage is released (if ever) to pass judgment.

After a few hundred scenarios like this, none of which produce anything but embarrassment, it's not unreasonable to speculate that whatever they have is, well, nothing.

I repeat, do you have any information that makes your speculation any more likely than mine, I am guessing you don't know anymore than I do about the reason it hasn't been released. What I do know, from my experience with docos is that you generally edit AFTER you shoot footage, and editing is the thing that is often reworked and causes hold ups.

Marketing and distribution issues may be holding them up now. A cynic might suggest that blobsquatch docos aren't big sellers.

Believe me TB, I definitely understand the desire to speculate, but we never know which one will be legit so I like to remain patient and let things play out.

You should just forget about it and not get too optomistic unless something just happens to come out to prove otherwise

Yeah I'm certainly not going to raise my hopes again, which I made the mistake of doing during the GA fiasco.

It's not even about hope. If someone EVER had anything substantial, it would be worth something. There would be NO four month delay, and probably no advertising before hand. Every time there is a delay and buildup, it's because there is no there, there.

Alright, I'll indulge in a little speculation.

Why would Bindernagel make these false claims? Another blobsquatch or a failure to produce the footage would jeopardize his credibility, so is he pulling a BScardi on us?

That question is the only reason I pay attention to this thread at all.

My guess is that he thinks they are genuine (if he indeed said that) and from what I have read from him his standards are pretty low, so he would take a lot less convincing that something is real. I can only go on what he has written himself, but I find his work and assumptions rather sloppy. I wouldn't pass an honours student thesis on his work.

There is no evidence that Bindernagel is making any false claims regarding this episode. Period.
He may have seen what he believes is good evidence. What others see when looking at the same evidence may not be as positive.

I think what gorillagirl is posting is pretty reasonable. Getting the financing to put together a documentary is not easy if you do not have the goods. It is also not easy to get it on any network that will recoup the financing.






That is what I have been saying for years...

We are pimping around some ideas for one project we have coming up and it's not easy to get interest unless they are pretty sure their investment will pay off, so far so good, just working out the details before signing the bit of paper.

Accident or not, he made the claim to the public. Do I believe the man? At the moment, I am not sure. His track record is pretty good. For whatever its worth, I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and wait for whatever evidence he has to be brought forth. I try to do so with every claim (unless it is a clear hoax or joke), until it is proven otherwise.



Even if it proves to be nothing more than a blobsquatch, I see no reason to bash or flame the man. Others may do so, but I will not be grabbing my pitchfork and torch, and joining in with the mob. I also have to agree, he does not appear to be even a close comparison with the type of people involved in the latest hoax out of Georgia.



But nor I do think it is "sacreligious". He made a claim, and folks are calling him on it. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as they remain rational and do not resort to mud-slinging and name-calling.


I am neutral on this one. Sitting on the fence.



*edited to fix quote*

What speculation? I am challenging unfounded, unjustified and illogical dismissals. Did you catch the part about it being an on-going project? Think about it. Of course you edit after you obtain. Are you clever or patronizing? What makes you think there are any hold-ups? Maybe they are just continuing in progress.
And if it is good, marketing and distribution will not be a problem. So what? Your cynicism speaks only of you and your prejudice, not the project and its results.

Claiming I am being illogical might work if what I was saying was based on something that had a high probability of being untrue. History has shown us that all footage except PGF has been inconclusive and not capable of revealing anything about BF. There is also an established pattern of footage/photos being presented either as part of a hoax attempt or documentary. Documentary footage has not been compelling and is not released publicly because that would ruin the marekting hype they need to sell copies. Therefore, it is perfectly logical to conclude that there is a high possibility that this doco will follow the previous ones, as the same set of circumstances are emerging.

Bindernagel blabbed in January, still no Earth shattering footage released. If you has something amazing you would release it straight away, just after you consulted your lawyer to work out how to get the royalties from the worldwide interest that this convincing and amazing video evidence.

I am cynical because it seems to be the same old same old. I live in hope however that one day something will emerge that doesn't take a clever script to be convincing.

*sigh*

Did I say you were being illogical? Did you scientifically observe that I have been dancing with others in this thread too?

Although now I will. It is illogical to say that because other footage may be inconclusive that that has any bearing on what may be coming with these pieces of footage. If this documentary is stunning and is the event that changes the general public perception of this subject, including cynical, arrogant and presumptuous academics, are you then going to say "Yeah, well.. what about those inconclusive pictures? Huh, what about them? Huh?" and think that's a good point?

Who promised "Earth-shattering"? Would you build false expectations just to attempt to minimize what we get if it is not quite that dramatic? Do you think that helps your case now somehow?

You are hardly being objective or waiting to draw conclusions based on observations. For whatever reason, you are set against in a predetermined conclusion. Maybe you think that gets you some hard-ass merit badge here or something. Science shouldn't do that. This is an inadvertant but typical demonstration of what has been playing out on more than a few threads around here lately. The problems are not with "Science" but with the biases, prejudices, preconceptions, agendas and orthodoxies of mere people who happen to be called "scientists."

Releasing it right away has already been discussed here earlier. Did you see that part? Are none of the possible or probable reasons I suggested reasonable or logical to you? Please go back a few pages, look, and then tell me if none are acceptable.

Fortunately - none of those have been part of this discussion.

This is a round and round discussion and going nowhere. As I have said in other threads, I have no bias one way or the other, you are presuming I do because I am a working scientist. I am making a prediction of what the highest probability outcome is based on previous experience, sure there is a chance it is genuine, but so far the pattern of events doesn't support that.

I would say that someone who is considered to be a BF "expert" researcher claiming that the footage is good would be pretty damn Earth shattering to a die hard believer who thought that researcher could do no wrong.

I would LOVE it if this time the video wasn't the same as every other blobsquatch footage, but experience tells me that when footage is not immediately forthcoming it is for a reason. Experience also tells me not to go out with men who say they love me in the first week and write sorry assed poetry, always ends in tears

hey gorillagirl & everyone your above comments are great but like i said before once we see this new filmfootage i hope we are professnals with john bindernagel. im sure we will see this new filmfootage soon i hope but im patient. thanks bill

I like Bindernagel and am anxious to hear more from him. I have always respected him and his courage for putting his reputation on the line(professional reputation that is). I guess its just wait and see.....

I concur; in my experience, the academicians posting here have been anything but cynical, arrogant and presumptuous.

I don't think, especially in light of recent events, it is unreasonable to expect that the keepers of this seemingly compelling video evidence "show the public the money," sooner, rather than later. Every month that passes suggests that the evidence is either A) completely UNcompelling or B) hoaxed.

It sounds like Dr Bindernagel is a lovely man. It sounds like Dr. Bindernagel believes in what he saw. It sounds like Dr. Bindernagel is much beloved by many in the Bigfoot community. None of this means that what he saw was a Bigfoot, a unicorn, an alien or any other unknown creature, not does it mean that the purported video clips have any validity whatsoever.

All we can do is wait and see... but as time goes, I personally grow increasingly skeptical.

hey squatchfoot im glad you agree also indeed. bill

That is all we can do. I have to agree I too become increasingly skeptical but I would have to say the delay is probably because the video isn't standing up to Bingernagel's study. That is my two cents.

SeanV, you weren't supposed to quote me, I was drunk, seriously! Bindy? Now I would like to know where you got your information GorillaGirl that DR. Bindernagel's standards are quite low. Any proof will suffice. Thank You.

I read what he wrote, evaluated it as any peer would in his field and found flaws. I am moving house among the other major things and don't have time right now to detail it specifically. Once again I have to point out that possessing a PhD does not automatically make one a good scientist.

what kind of flaws?

I just can't believe that no one in this forum knows anything. Not even Daniel Perez knew about it, when I asked him.

I'm sure these films exist. The question is why haven't they published them yet or made an announcement?

We have to find out who shot the films and where exactly...

This statement...



...is the answer to this question.

Well I didn't know much about Bindernagel so I always assumed based on what people wrote about him here that he was a serious, level-headed academic. Then I saw him on Monsterquest and out the window went my credibility in the man as a scientist. Apparently, traveling to Whitehall, NY and walking around outside with Steve Kulls was enough to "convince" him that all the activity reported there is authentic. Sorry Doctor, we've got to do a bit better than that.

If Bindernagel is truly a careful scientist, and if there's anything to actually analyze, and if he has access to the material to analyze it, and any "ifs" I've overlooked come into play . . . then I would hope that he's using this time to prepare some kind of a manuscript that demonstrates that whatever they have on film is a real, live, non-human creature. I'm trying to cut him slack, give him the benefit of the doubt, etc., but it ain't easy. I'm struggling to understand why, other than the PhD, he's anything other than a man who is somehow linked to some people claiming they have some quality bigfoot footage that they can't show us yet.

lets all please be very patient with our friend & researcher john bindernagel im sure he will show us the filmfootage all in good time.. updates as they continue. thanks bill

First of all, just so you guys and gals know, I am not talking about the footage that he unfortunately got himself mixed up with. Ok gorillagirl, so I take it you read his book "Sasquatch: North America's Great Ape" and that's where you found these flaws. I will patiently await you to find out what these so called flaws are and why you think his standards are so low.  Also Saskeptic, you say after watching MQ you lost all faith in the man and Bindernagel lost all credibility with you based on what he said on the show.  I think you have to remember that this show is partially staged, edited, etc and that much of what we don't see ends up on the cutting room floor.  It's easy to make someone look like they said this or that and totally skew what really happened.  Just like all the crap Meldrum has taken for appearing on that show and writing a book.  It just seems to me that any scientist that enters this field and comes to the conclusion that these animals may be real is setting themselves up for a royal flaming from any of the other so called PHD's in this field, who happen to be non believers or skeptics.  I guess it comes down to their personal beliefs in these animals without any "solid" evidence.  So really any PHD that says these things are real without seeing or providing a body is to be lambasted or ignored by the rest of the scientific community. If I was a scientist that happened to have my own sighting or found evidence that suggested to me these things were real I would just stay the hell away from it because I don't need to be criticized and made to look like a fool. It just seems to me that any scientist that gets involved in this subject, especially if they are "believers" is setting themselves up for professional suicide to put it bluntly. That's just my non scientific two cents, and believe me, I know you guys are much smarter then me. I just want some answers as to why Dr. Bindernagel is such a shoddy scientist now in so many of your eyes.

>>>That's just my non scientific two cents, and believe me, I know you guys are much smarter then me. I just want some answers as to why Dr. Bindernagel is such a shoddy scientist now in so many of your eyes.

"smart" has nothing to do with it. The short simple answer is simply this.

When one attains the degree of PhD or title of SME (Subject Matter Expert)- that individual is supposedly at the top of their respective food chain. By virtue of degree and precedent, that rank is by design to be the MOST disciplined, scrutinizing and meticulous in and of itself. UNCOMPROMISING quality, professionalism and adherence to established protocols is the STANDARD at that level. ( not the goal)

Anything short of those standards is guaranteed to bring the harshest of peer critique. ( and rightfully as well as deservingly so because 1 quack makes all look the same in the eyes of the masses)

>>>I will patiently await you to find out what these so called flaws are and why you think his standards are so low.

Speaking beyond what his data will support or trying to fit such data by cherrypicking or stretching it to support a personal belief rather than examining all possible scenarios.

>>> It's easy to make someone look like they said this or that and totally skew what really happened. Just like all the crap Meldrum has taken for appearing on that show and writing a book.

Theres enough of their own personal words out there and their own work is what convicts them. ( not what was edited out)

>>>I guess it comes down to their personal beliefs in these animals without any "solid" evidence. So really any PHD that says these things are real without seeing or providing a body is to be lambasted or ignored by the rest of the scientific community.

Your guess is 100% correct. A "layman" or dedicated amatuer who performed the exact same way would probably be commended . A PhD who is considered the fields "top" SME ( or one of them) doesnt have such a luxury. ( those expectations come with the degree and position- thats simply the way it is in every discipline)

Science ( especially at the PhD level) isnt about "belief' or "opinion" its about facts and data, analyzed in depth to reach the BEST conclusion shored up by FACT established by verifiable testing. Anything else is somewhere between rainmaking and snake oil. You have a "theory" fine- promote it as such- you try to call a "theory" a "fact' without independantly verifiable EVIDENCE to back it up- prepare to have your professional head handed to you.

>>>If I was a scientist that happened to have my own sighting or found evidence that suggested to me these things were real I would just stay the hell away from it because I don't need to be criticized and made to look like a fool. It just seems to me that any scientist that gets involved in this subject, especially if they are "believers" is setting themselves up for professional suicide to put it bluntly.

You would be correct again. In order to claim the "rights and priviledges" of the position- you simply have no option but to accept and conduct yourself accordingly to the STANDARDS,ETHICS, PROFESSIONALISM and other criteria of the position.

( When one attains the degree of PhD or title of SME (Subject Matter Expert)- that individual is supposedly at the top of their respective food chain. By virtue of degree and precedent, that rank is by design to be the MOST disciplined, scrutinizing and meticulous in and of itself. UNCOMPROMISING quality, professionalism and adherence to established protocols is the STANDARD at that level. ( not the goal)

Anything short of those standards is guaranteed to bring the harshest of peer critique. ( and rightfully as well as deservingly so because 1 quack makes all look the same in the eyes of the masses )



Hi LT

One of the things that i see possibly flawed with that kind of squeeze and pressure is people are only human and will do what they need to do, To try and control one from moving forward kinda throws out any individual thinking and making progress with out of the box ideas, If everything is being scrutinized and suppressed there will not be very many to take up a challenge, Seems to slow up progress to me with all the nay say, From what i have learned over my yrs growing up it is the folks with the best ideas and willingness to be different that seem to thrive, Cause there using perseverance and drive no matter what the obstacle

Peace
Tim

I can understand that from a layman's perspective but it doesnt alter the truth of the matter

>>>is people are only human and will do what they need to do,

Thats part of the PhD process- a PhD not only knows this going in but is trained to do it and how to deal with it- they get no free rides when they buck the process

>>> To try and control one from moving forward kinda throws out any individual thinking and making progress with out of the box ideas,

PhDs arent "controlled"- they know they are the leaders and as such ARE the ones who must "move forward" with facts/data and the highest standards

>>>If everything is being scrutinized and suppressed there will not be very many to take up a challenge, Seems to slow up progress to me with all the nay say,

Thats not it- just being a PhD means you will be put under a microscope ( welcome to the club)- it doesnt "slow" the process- it provides checks and balances for the process

>>>From what i have learned over my yrs growing up it is the folks with the best ideas and willingness to be different that seem to thrive, Cause there using perseverance and drive no matter what the obstacle

Thats fine- just dont go beyond what your data supports

Well LT, once again you have provided me with some great answers. But I am still waiting on GG's idea that Bindernagel's book was full of flaws and that his standards are quite low. We will give her time as she is in the middle of moving though. Thanks again LT for trying to straighten out this amateur, I do seem to get a better understanding of where your coming from and the facts that you present help me out a great deal.

Glad to help you. What I wrote doesnt just apply to him- but everyone of us in our respective disciplines.

I havent read his book but I have read his website and if the book is anything like his methods/conclusions on his site, GG isnt going to have a very difficult task in making her points.

Again, I'm not trying to "flame" Bindernagel, and I'm prepared to just chill out on this video story because he apparently has little or no access to the alleged material to analyze it. I'm not anxiously awaiting this video/documentary release because I strongly suspect it will amount to nothing. My suspicion on that one is based not on Bindernagel, but on the fact that none of these things ever amount to anything in my past experience.

But a bit more on academics now.

Folks need to understand that the kind of criticism I may level at someone on the BFF that you perceive as a "vicious attack" is part of the daily experience for a research scientist. We can't get our work in the journals unless it first passes the hyper-critical eye of (typically) 3–5 anonymous peer referees who have experience in a relevant field and are frequently in competition with us for grant money, journal space, elite graduate students, etc. My promotion and tenure package will be reviewed by a committee of 10–15 people in my own department - the people I see every day at work - who will decide if I get to keep my job this year. It's not necessarily my "boss" who would fire me, it's the critical evaluation of my peers who are charged with evaluating my performance solely for the benefit of the department and the university. Whether or not they "like" me has rather little to do with it. If I don't meet the objective standards in place for performance at my level, I will be made to leave.

So we PhDs deal with criticism every day. It is no skin off Bindernagel's nose if some hack like me isn't impressed with his critical evaluation of evidence for bigfoot.

Those real world scientists who have weighed in with conclusions for real flesh and blood bigfoots do need to be carefully scrutinized. It can be a very dicey deal for an academic to enter a field in which there is such a heavy involvement of non-academics. By virtue of his PhD, if Bindernagel says "bigfoot is real", then there are legions of people who will glom on to that statement, repeat it over and over, and perhaps base their belief on it. He can write a book ($), appear on documentaries ($), get invited to speak at conferences ($). I'm not saying that Bindernagel is lying about his conclusions to make money or win adoring fans, I'm just pointing out that there is a great sense of responsibility for an academic to attach his name to a hot-button issue like this. If my mailman says the same thing, nobody cares - he's just another guy who believes in bigfoot.

In contrast, if I go to one of my ornithological society conferences and tell my peers that "wood thrushes occasionally prey on fawns" or something wacky like that, I would expect to be completely raked over the coals unless I could put up the corroborating evidence to back my claim.

Dr. Bindernagel has apparently concluded that bigfoots are real based on the evidence he has evaluated. That's fine. But the evidence he has evaluated has so far not met the standard for analysis that appears in our top, peer-reviewed journals. That's the standard Longtabber is talking about, and it's the standard to which all other science is (should be) held.

Thinking "outside the box" and all that is absolutely an essential part of scientific advancement. But an important part of that kind of creative scientific inquiry should be the construction of a new box. That comes from critical evaluation, analysis, publication, etc. That's what I don't see happening.

Well I would totally have to agree with you here Saskeptic! Also I'm not claiming anyone is throwing viscous attacks at Bindernagel either, really I just wanted to know why everyone's opinion of him seems to be going down the drain. But after reading both yours and LT's explanations I can totally understand where you both are coming from. Because he is a PHD, standards are much different for him than as you say some amateur or your mailman. I can understand this. What it comes down to for me, is my admiration for someone like him, Meldrum, Krantz, or anyone else who happens to be a PHD or scientist that comes to believe in these animals even though a body isn't thrown at their feet. I just respect these men a great deal for putting their academic life on the line by getting involved with something like this. I guess I have to learn to let feelings and my own personal beliefs about these animals go and look at it from a strictly scientific point of view. Does this make any sense?

>>>Does this make any sense?

It makes perfect sense actually.

Hell, I'm a PhD who "believes" in BF ( and have never stated otherwise based on personal experience) but I'm not about to commit professional suicide by writing a check with my mouth that I cannot cash with my a$$ when it comes to the evidence.

One thing tho- they didnt put their academic life "on the line" by becoming involved in this subject ( the concept that BF is somehow a career "death sentence" in science is more of a believer's excuse to explain away failure to produce evidence that survives objective scrutiny than it is fact)- they put their academic "life" on the line by sloppy,careless work leading to "conclusions" that a first semester freshman majoring in underwater basket weaving could shoot holes in because they allowed their personal feelings to override the standards of professionalism of their career and they show obvious bias in their work when it comes to BF.

Heres how you can tell. Both he and Meldrum have done outstanding professonal work in their career fields ( they wouldnt have the status they have if they didnt and that proves they both know their jobs, the in's and outs, how to conduct good and proper research etc)

You cant be a part time " professional"- you either are or are not. As sas stated, those who "are not" are weeded out so both of these men "are".

Now look at the conduct in BF. They KNOW their evidence is anecdotal. They KNOW their conclusions are "questionable" etc ( because as stated above- they have proven they know the CORRECT way)

We ( peers) see that for what it is. Its called throwing science out the window and agenda pushing.

Nice rationale from the academic perspective, saskeptic... Something we should all keep in mind...

If you end up creating a new box, all I ask is please make sure it has fractals...

Hi

>>>From what i have learned over my yrs growing up it is the folks with the best ideas and willingness to be different that seem to thrive, Cause there using perseverance and drive no matter what the obstacle



I really think in my mind that if your good at your job and please most of the people most of the time you should be able to stick you neck out once in a while and not get it chopped off

Thanks for answering my post LT

Peace
Tim

Tim, with all due respect ( and i mean that sincerely) the rules DO change at the professional level.

We are NOT accorded or given the "luxury" of voicing "opinion" because people will "act" on those words. ( comes with the territory)

For example, in the SOS thread, "I" am mentioned and I am apparently the reason for some discord and doubt. That was never my intent or purpose. I just believe that BF will be proven by proper application of science and adhering to accepted standards. ( rather than blind luck) and I advise several individuals here and groups ( so much for me being "anti BF")

I'm just not going to compromise the tenets of legitimate science for a fan following. BF is NOT going to be proven by a "believers club"- it will be proven by facts and data

Same, read what he wrote on his website and decided there is no point wasting my time reading a book of more of the same. I won't be providing a critical analysis of his book anytime soon because it will be too time consuming. A synopsis of his thoughts and methodological standards are provided by his on his website, and I will pull some of those things out later and discuss them.

Just have to point out an interesting observation though. Some people implicitly trust some BF scientists (PhDs) and use the fact they have a higher degree to validate their faith in them. But they don't afford the same level of respect to the PhDs who have different views to the BF PhD, even though they both have the same level of education. It seems having a PhD only gives you carte blanche if you are saying BF definitely exists. By the standards of some here my word and that of others should be automatically accepted without question, just because we have PhDs (mine technically coming soon!). Mr Spock would be having conniptions at the lack of logic

Hi

LT:

I see nothing wrong with sticking to what you believe in and have worked at, And i have to admire that you have been since coming here, Guess for me just being a middle class high school grad i will never understand your side of it all, My questions are not so much BF related as there are just trying to figure out why things are what they are in the higher education world,
As far as BF go's, I am happy there are folks out there like Bindernagel, I don't except everything that is said but i do use it as food for thought and to keep my personal belief going until the next sighting or meager evidence comes along

Peace
Tim

I wouldn't quite say that you're "the reason for [my] discord and doubt."

What I would say is that, for a "believer", you often articulate many of the reasons my own discord and doubt (which existed before you came along) have increased...fairly exponentially, since I became interested in the subject.

You haven't changed my mind; you just seem to speak it sometimes ...especially when it comes to the lack of transparency in investigations and/or the drawing of conclusions that DO NOT FOLLOW from evidence.

This sighting of Dr. Bindernagel's, so far, is a good example of the former, although I am willing to let a lapse in judgment on his part go should the actual report (if/when it surfaces) is well-documented and not overarching in its conclusions.

Edited to add a word that needed to be added...whether it wanted to be added or not.

I wish I never stumbled onto this thread. WHERE IS THE VIDEO? Sorry for yelling. Anyone with a PhD would know that there is money to be made. If it's being made into a documentary, it's taking waaaaay too long. This is an important subject It's not a documentary about the production of yarn. Get it done already. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was produced faster. Again.... sorry for yelling.

A pin-worthy observation gorillagirl.

This is the same psychological phenomenon that comes into play in other walks of life as well. The National Academy of Science says "global warming is real and we're causing it." A select number of other scientists say "not so fast." In America, it's that smaller group who touch our sensibilities of independence and "sticking up for the little guy" and attract a huge following. Our nation was founded on a bunch of farmers thumbing their collective nose at the British Empire - it's in our blood not to trust the establishment. So if thousands of scientists say "global warming is real and we're causing it," that actually makes a lot of Americans more dubious of the claim! I'm sure this operates in other cultures as well, but it's really well developed here.

Note to Americans: Although there are exceptions, this is not always a logical way to view the world! The modern scientific establishment has become established because science works. Testing evidence, peer evaluation, replication, predictive power - these tenets of science have been tremendously valuable in our understanding of the natural world and the development of new technologies.

So if 100 scientists examine the bigfoot evidence and 98 conclude that it's lousy, you really should ask yourself why the opinion of the 2 who find the evidence convincing is the one you share.

Here, here! Well said, GorillaGirl. It's interesting/funny that some of the same folks who lambaste scientists here are the same ones who place so much faith in Dr. Bindernagel because he has a doctorate... hmmm.... can't have it both ways, folks....