Folks...
Due diligence is a specific legal business term or concept [indicating that] the responsibility to thoroughly research a project, stock, or enterprise rests with the parties to the contract. Due diligence is customarily a critical independent authentication of details and facts pertinent to an event or transaction. In other words, if you don't know what your talking about, do some brain work. Arguing from a position of ignorance is just a waste of time and breath.
Some folks readily accept that BM has squatch visiting his killing ground often in a hail of gunfire. Why is it difficult to accept that rural folks, who respect their visitors and offer sanctuary from thugs with ill will, would have favorable and more frequent activity. It seems likely over time [that] a bond of trust would develop between both parties.
live and let live...
ole bub and the dawgs
Thanks for the reply, and I agree with everything you say--especially the second paragraph. But I still am a little bit uncertain about what you are instructing us to do when you say that we should "do due diligence." Are you indicating that we should just think about it and come to a conclusion like the one you state in your second paragraph? If so, isn't my oft posted statement that "the bigfeet I know wouldn't be caught dead near one of those organized hunts and certainly wouldn't want to have their picture taken at one." In that statement, I was trying to be a little humorous but also to state a quite serious opinion that you aren't likely to see a bigfoot, if they are out there, among all of that commotion. I have also noted, in more than one post, that the most credible reports of sightings/encounters are by people who weren't looking for a bigfoot but engaged in some other activity. That is the opinion that underlies my "Hunting for Bigfoot" thread.
I don't really think that we have a disagreement if you mean by doing due diligence thinking about what you are doing.
