NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

Or the Loch Ness monster

Maybe because I have an active imagination, but I felt it could be read as saying that "bigfoot" has a "Physical" presence (in other words a flesh and blood animal) and given the fact it is a "government" "law/bill" it gives it even more clout.

I wonder if this has implications for "bigfoot" hunters in Washington, because the way I see it: if Bigfoot is now a "federal" asset, then interfering with or harassing one (let alone killing one) should be treated as a "federal" crime, and would therefore have more severe penalties compared to a "normal" crime.

I might have used some words incorrectly, when I say federal I mean as in: a crime against the state.

<blockquote data-quote="Han" data-source="post: 254368" data-attributes="member: 2432">Or the Loch Ness monster <img src="/forum/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/smile.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" data-shortname=":)" /> Maybe because I have an active imagination, but I felt it could be read as saying that &quot;bigfoot&quot; has a &quot;Physical&quot; presence (in other words a flesh and blood animal) and given the fact it is a &quot;government&quot; &quot;law/bill&quot; it gives it even more clout. I wonder if this has implications for &quot;bigfoot&quot; hunters in Washington, because the way I see it: if Bigfoot is now a &quot;federal&quot; asset, then interfering with or harassing one (let alone killing one) should be treated as a &quot;federal&quot; crime, and would therefore have more severe penalties compared to a &quot;normal&quot; crime. I might have used some words incorrectly, when I say federal I mean as in: a crime against the state.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Han, post: 254368, member: 2432"] Or the Loch Ness monster :) Maybe because I have an active imagination, but I felt it could be read as saying that "bigfoot" has a "Physical" presence (in other words a flesh and blood animal) and given the fact it is a "government" "law/bill" it gives it even more clout. I wonder if this has implications for "bigfoot" hunters in Washington, because the way I see it: if Bigfoot is now a "federal" asset, then interfering with or harassing one (let alone killing one) should be treated as a "federal" crime, and would therefore have more severe penalties compared to a "normal" crime. I might have used some words incorrectly, when I say federal I mean as in: a crime against the state. [/QUOTE]

Verification