Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 3 pages
Rockies to-do list:
1. Something, something Bullwinkle.
2. Something, something humidor.
I had no idea that the White Sox were pulling in so few fans. I know that the weather has been kind of shitty, but they play in a really major market.
Seattle Mariners todo-list:
1. Shoot Albatross
2. Lose abjectly forever and ever
What if Anne Frank had been killed by a stingray? Would anyone be laughing then?
I don't understand these fake name jokes.
That's what the link is for. :/
Relevancy bonus: Jim Creighton, Ray Chapman, Len Koenecke, and Bo Diaz all made the list.
is a stingray even the same thing as a "devil ray"?
a celebrity stuntman
I think that once you've accepted crucifixion jokes and "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?", it's kind of tough to get too worked up about any joke made about any person's death. Or at least it's hard to formulate a reason for being worked up that's not totally subjective.** I thought the Rays sign was kind of droll myself, but then I had to google the guy's name before I even know what it meant.
He wasn't really killed by a dangerous animal though, stingrays can hurt you but it terms of serious permanent damage are usually pretty harmless. His death was just a fluke, having the stinger pierce his chest.
Not really, no. He was a zookeeper who made TV programs about animals, like an Australian version of Jack Hanna. This isn't one of the guys from "Jackass".
That said, it was also (painfully, at times) obvious that he was into the rush associated with danger,
I remember my reaction to Dale Earnhardt's untimely demise was similar to Irwin's; my only surprise about Earnhardt was that it took him that long to get himself killed in a wreck. Dude was a brilliant driver; he also drove like a lunatic. (Though, remarkably, that's not why he got killed; that was just a freak accident that could have happened to anyone.)
always puzzles me when some lion or tiger is put down after a person gets itself mauled at a zoo
the predator is just doing what nature requires it do. what is the reasoning in having it killed?
I don't know anything about racing so I would never have been able to pick this up on my own, but I recall at the time that commentators said Earnhardt was trying to pull a risky block move or something to box out some racer from another "team" and it went wrong.
Same reason why if a bird turds on my car, I go out and cook a chicken outdoors so that the birds can see what will happen to them if they keep it up. By killing the predator it sends a message to the other predators to not prey on people. :)
In the weeks following Irwin's death, at least ten stingrays were found dead and mutilated on the beaches of Queensland, with their tails cut off, prompting speculation as to whether they might have been killed by fans of Irwin as an act of revenge. Michael Hornby, a friend of Irwin and executive director of his Wildlife Warrior fund, condemned any revenge killings, saying that "We just want to make it very clear that we will not accept and not stand for anyone who's taken a form of retribution. That's the last thing Steve would want."
He was, but the blocking is something everyone did, and does, at superspeedways; it's the nature of racing there. In fact there was a quote from Tony Stewart a few days before Earnhardt's death wherein he complained about superspeedway racing and how dangerous blocking was.
His aggressive driving style earned him the nickname "The Intimidator".
The 1986 season saw Earnhardt win his second career Winston Cup Championship and the first owner's championship for RCR. He won five races and had ten Top 5 and sixteen Top 10 finishes. Earnhardt successfully defended his championship the following year, visiting victory lane eleven times and winning the championship by 489 points over Bill Elliott. In the process, Earnhardt set a NASCAR modern era record of four consecutive wins and won five of the first seven races. In the 1987 season, Earnhardt earned his nickname "The Intimidator" after spinning out Elliott in the final segment of "The Winston", a non-points event now known as the NASCAR Sprint All-Star Race. During this race, Earnhardt was briefly forced into the infield grass, but kept control of his car and returned to the track without giving up his lead — a maneuver now referred to as the "Pass in the Grass" even though Earnhardt actually didn't pass and couldn't have passed anyone for position as he was in the lead at the time.
these are wild animals. they are always dangerous
and while I have not been surrounded by wild tigers or the such I am an outdoorsmen and have been around wild animals all my life. killing an animal because it followed its innate programming makes no sense to me
Evolution, if you kill the predators that harass humans, the ones that don't harass humans will have more offspring than the ones who do, eventually given enough generations the species as a whole will be less human unfriendly.
Of course none of that justifies killing a zoo animal
Granted I don't know exactly what "spinning out Elliot" means.
Everybody hoped that. That is why his show was so popular.
A tiger on a fresh kill, or a wounded tiger, or a tigress with cubs, will occasionally kill human beings who disturb them; but these tigers cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be called man-eaters, though they are often so called. Personally I would give the tiger the benefit of the doubt once, and once again, before classing it as a man-eater.
Everybody hoped that. That is why his show was so popular.
Kind of like NASCAR, where people watch them drive around in circles until one of them (or someone in the stands) dies.
He was filming a documentary called "Ocean's Deadliest" (an all too appropriate name as it turned out), and as part of that he was swimming on top of a stingray, and if he wasn't intentionally effing with it, at best he was bothering it to the point where it felt trapped, and it lashed out.
I disagree. He made a big show (both literally and figuratively) of effing with animals, particularly crocodiles, in order to... well, I don't know why, exactly, since I'm not Irwin. Prove that he could? Make money? Become a celebrity? I just know that he did it.
Hanna doesn't go around screwing with animals.
Philippe Cousteau, with whom Irwin was working on the documentary in question: "...we were looking at these animals that people think of as, you know, dangerous and deadly monsters, and they're not.
Not seeing the connection between this kind of stuff and Irwin purposefully pissing off wild animals for entertainment purposes.
What in the world did Steve teach little kids with his TV shows? The stuff was pure brain candy. This kind of junk doesn't teach anything to anyone.
a) You're acting like "pissing off" the animals was the primary purpose of what he did
I mean, when was the last time a butterfly or hummingbird or salmon killed someone?
Perhaps that's because it was.
P.S. And when Attenborough dies I am going to weep bitter tears. That man has done more to get people interested in animals (and plants!) than just about anyone ever.
Then why did he go to all the trouble of opening a zoo and creating and filming a TV show, if all he wanted to do was wrestle and subdue crocodiles?
Speaking of cable networks that are a shock to anyone who thinks that they have anything to do with the name associated with it, has anyone checked out the schedule of the National Geographic channel lately?
The pepper spraying incident wasn't as a form of entertainment. He was walking through a park when some other hikers were attacked by the bear. He fended off the bear with pepper spray. How is that similar to what Irwin did?
The kid getting his arm ripped off by a lion happened because a young kid wandered away from his parents and they weren't paying close enough attention to their child. It wasn't Jack pulling a lion by its tail in front of a kid.
Irwin purposefully antagonized animals and creatures with the sole intent of getting good film. He had no justifiable reason to grab a snake or wrestle with a crocodile. He did it to make money, plain and simple.
As for baby lions and tigers being thrilled. I'd say probably. But even if they weren't it is still different. Jack didn't go into the wild capture a baby lion and then drag it onto Carson. Those baby lions were generally raised under human control nor did he actively try to piss them off. That wasn't his schtick.
And people watching this were like, "Oh, he's an idiot, one day he'll probably be killed by one of these animals." And so one day he was.
P.S. And when Attenborough dies I am going to weep bitter tears.
What pray tell, is "Wicked Tuna?"
The times that I saw his show, he wasn't just wrestling animals into submission, throwing them down, and saying, "Boom, #####! You just got served!" He gave information on the animal's characteristics, habitat, and behavior. If he snuck up on a crocodile and grabbed it, it was usually because it needed medical care or needed to be relocated or something like that
It was, again, showing that no matter how careful a guy like Jack Hanna might be, there is still always the potential for accidents when wild animals are concerned.
He was killed by a stingray. That's not a referendum on his techniques for handling animals - it's a freak occurrence, like having a toy poodle bite you in the throat and sever your jugular.
It shows that the wilderness is the wilderness, and even someone like Jack Hanna (whom Ray was touting as being careful, in contrast to Irwin) can end up having a near-death experience, regardless of how careful he was being at the time.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.9890 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed