Croc hunter dead???

[foolsbreath]

Lots of negative comments here,

I think a lot of steve's work was aimed at educating kids, and thats why he came accross the way he did, He was a big enough man to make a complete idiot of himself and be totally comfortable with it, if anyone thinks that is a failing and anyone deserves to be rundown because of it then woe is he.

I have met a few of those true conservationists that give everything they own to the cause, very admirable but they have all turned out to be insufferable and a day spent with them is one day to many. Give me Steve anyday.

Personally I am sad my kids won't get to see him at his park and have a bit of his enthusiasm rub off on to them like the other kids I have seen at his park, no other animal/conservation/preservation enthusiast has delivered thier message in such a way, think what you like, but he did good IMO

[muchomundos]

Muchomundos - this isn't about intellectual muscle, this is about some people seeing through the charade and probing a little deeper than the mass media saturated rest of the population. I don't agree with the slagging off on the basis of his annoying manners etc and I certainly don't agree with Ruby's sentiments, but I do think that most of the Steve lovers here would be totally blind to the possibility that he was a sham. I am not saying he is, but none of you would know if he was, cos you are swallowing the media and PR hype hook line and sinker.

i don't even own a tv! i haven't owned 1 for seven years! thats not to say that i don't ever get the chance to watch one, but when i do, i view the experience as being entertaining rather than informative for the most part. that goes especially for news reports!! i, like most others here, form my opinions from a variety of sources and in a variety of ways.

what you and i, and probably the majority in this forum consider to be "the charade", as unfortunate and undigestable as it may be to us, seems to the vast majority of people on this planet to be "the truth" and acted upon as such -fact!

"the charade" is the universal thread on which they reside(at present). if the generators of the "the charade" can be influenced in any way thats raises the base level of awareness(be it self, evironmental, political, social or whatever) for these people, i struggle to see how that can be viewed with anything but praise any admiration.

while steve's methods may have differed from what we would have considered to be ideal i think he was in the white side of the yin-yang.

the us market as we all know, wields enormous clout financially and has a disproprortionate influence on global biodiversity. to not only gain a large(i don't know the figures but i think it's pretty big) audience, but to captivate it for 30mins (with 27mins of pure showmanship and 3mins of passion infused environmenal "information"(and i use the term loosely) has to be of some benefit.

with that considered, i don't think that could be termed a "sham".

[devance]

In Califonoria.

I aproivew

As is the the russian emigrants[ 190,000]

[Pelinster]

I think the reason that so many of us are feeling upset by the negative energy in this thread is because we personally feel the loss so many people are suffering.

I find it very hard to not empathise with the loss of a person, a friend, a father and especially someone who at least cared about this planet. I guess we all deal with these kind of situations in different ways. I personally don't enjoy reading negative remarks being sledged at the people who actually feel the loss. Whether the mass of feelings surrounding this loss is just or not is besides the point as regardless, people are feeling it. I think that these feelings deserve some form of respect.

[wandjina]

Here here Muchos and Pel!

I for one can say the opinion I formed of Steve Irwin until relatively recently was based on what i garnered from the mainstream media...and my opinion was negative. Most especially when i saw footage of him and Terri at the Lodge.

It would seem to me, with consideration to the demographic of these forums, that if anything, members would be sensitive to the cheese factor inherent in the world of televison, and it would be more likely that many will not have been easily swayed by sickly sweet sentiment and propaganda, but would rather react against this and tend more towards an ostensibly 'alternative' view (In essence...Irwin isn't cool, man...with a good dash of intellectual flimflam thrown in for good measure).

I like to think we are an informed bunch....but, on the other hand, it is often the case that people will conform to 'alternative orthodoxies'...in a nutshell, The Croc Hunter is popular, commercial etc etc...and people 'like us' aren't supposed to be into things 'like that'... pfffft

As I have already mentioned, I had little regard for Steve Irwin until relatively recently, when he came up in conversation with an old friend of mine whom I respect and admire, himself an environmentalist (env.remediation and native grass specialist) who had nothing but good things to say about Steve. He got right up my butt about me taking the piss when, truth be told, i knew diddly squat about who he really was.

This made me reconsider my stance....a popular one amongst chardonnay socialists and lefty circles in general.

After this, I found Steve Irwin popping up all over the place, especially with reference to his relationship with his daughter and his buying up of swathes of pristine wilderness....and I kept thinking about the things my mate told me...maybe I can get him to post...he mentioned quite a few things Steve did that haven't been touched on here...including the impressively enviro-friendly/sustainable running of his park.

This can be argued about till the cows come home, but the fact is that someone, in my view a unique and, for all intents and purposes, good person, has died....and I feel its not the right time for vitriol and hyper-critical rhetoric.

With an open heart I thank and honour him.

Vale Steve Irwin.

[devance]

Well put.

And if not, somehing more to the order than a nerd at the high school.

[botanika]

I used to love Harrys program as a kid, and so did ONE other kid in my class.

I was that other kid. I can still hear the Don Burroughs psychedelic flute music used to capture the spirit of the mysterious and permeable australian bush. Awesome.

[in_spirit]

Quote

Muchomundos - this isn't about intellectual muscle, this is about some people seeing through the charade and probing a little deeper than the mass media saturated rest of the population. I don't agree with the slagging off on the basis of his annoying manners etc and I certainly don't agree with Ruby's sentiments, but I do think that most of the Steve lovers here would be totally blind to the possibility that he was a sham. I am not saying he is, but none of you would know if he was, cos you are swallowing the media and PR hype hook line and sinker.

Passive daemon wrote:

Conservation has come a long way and it needs a public face no matter how cheesy or wrong people think that face is or how bad their ideas are.

Wrong! Redefining conservation to suit your Pr and financial needs is NOT helping anyone if it isn't actually conserving anything. I remember bug viewers being sold as conservation tools so that kids can learn about bugs. These days we would not accept that killing bugs at random is actually aiding conservation.

Similarly liberal politicians who claims that logging the tarkine forest is conservation is simply a lie and should be exposed as such.

It brings it into the mainstream and therefore it is noticed and then the problems can be adressed.

This is not enough if the method of conservationpresented to the viewer is the 'prod and see' approach. When I was a kid I was taught to be respectful and quiet, and preferably not to touch animals. That's not the message Steve gives and it means that these days kids don't learn about not touching baby birds, not handling frogs, and not pulling skink tails.

As for what he did with the money he earnt, who really gives a fuck how much he earned doing what and what he did with it.

I agree. I didn't give a fuck about what he did with his money until someone else exhaulted him as the benevolent conservationist (donating all profits to conservation was the term used I think). I am sure the person who said that and the millions who also believe this do not know this 'fact' from any other source than Steve himself, and history tells us that more often than not these thigns turn out to be lies. My point was only that we should get our facts straight before makign such outrageous claims - no matter whether positive or negative.

Arguing about whether the land he bought was a proper conservation reserve or whether it will support animal life is just fucking stupid. He purchased pristine land to protect it, isnt that enough for you?

Well, no. I have donated to two groups who purchased rainforest land for exactly the same reason Steve claimed. Several years later the land was sold to 'cover costs that had arisen by the administration of the fund'. ie, the trustees ran up debts on travel and other lifestyle needs which would then later be paid for by the land. These days I will only invest if I can see the constitution of the trust. People are dishonest - that's a fact of life.

So, to me a piece of land is a piece of potential real estate until it has been locked down somehow such as by trust constitution or by caveat). So, if some sheeple here claim that Steve has bought land as 'national parks' then that is totally ridiculous until the land has actually been protected. I mean, for all we know he might have been planning to open up luxury wildlife resort and zoos in these places.

Or to be good enough must one have every document and paper with all the fucking signatures to prove that they are King conservation.

40 years is a pretty short time in terms of biodiversity or conservation issues, so any one person can only guarantee the use of his land for his own lifetime (ie about 40 years) unless it is under caveat or in a trust. I've been looking into this a lot because of my plans for wandjina. At the moment wandjina gardens is a prime piece of real estate, possibly becoming one of the most desirable properties in Mullumbimby in the next few decades. I personally view it as worthless in monetary terms, because I will never sell it or do anything other than build a botanic garden on it. While my plans might be noble, but they are worthless once I am dead unless the property is protected by caveat or trust. The same applies to Steve's land. We are not criticising him for owning the land, I am criticising the blind followers who automatically assume everything Steve and the media tells them about this land is true.

He obviously did things his way and by crikey he got things done, so who knows what the crazy fu**er was gonna do with that land.

Exactly! But that works both ways. Again, I don't care what he does with it, but I get the shit when people are so gullible for good PR.

He has brought animals into the homes of people that may have been watching shite like Big Brother and educated them to the fact that out past that shopping centre there are things called animals that are amazing.

I must admit that I really can't comment much on that side of his achievements because until 5 years ago I didn't even know who he was and until a couple of years ago I had never watch a single show of his. I don't watch free to air channels and I really don't like dickheads, so the whole Steve Irwin thing had kinda passed me by. I didn't get interested in him until I heard about the wildlife hospital because I sued to work with WIRES and FAWNA, so the whole thing really appealed to me. But much of what I found out good about his work was marred by his political comments and associations. Overall I agree he has brought nature closer to the legions of couchpotatoes, but the value of this will be seen in years to come whether we will end up with a generation of real conservationists or a generation of anthropocentric prodders.

bijanto - Steve's kids will come across all sorts of responses in their lives. Steve made sure of that by becoming a celebrity. Are you saying that dead people who have kids should never be discussed? I think a rational and open discussion is always appropriate. Not so comments like that from Ruby obviously, but I am sure the kids will get other comments like that too.

jono- what's a child's comment got to do with anything? most kids love their parents unconditionally - at least until a certain age. It's not like she would hav any understanding of the issues that are discussed here. I also think that the only reaosn Steve will be remembered for long is because he is a TV celeb. As a conservationist I don't think his memory will fare well, but that depends on what happens with his trust. I'd expect him to be as popular as any '15 years of fame' TV star.

Jono, I would have never even commented on this issue if it wasn't for the outrageous and unsubstantiated claims people were making about Steve. If people had just mentioned the things they actually KNOW about him then this thread would have probably been a simple tribute. It's the 'PR as fact' attitude that gave me the shits.

end quote

The Claims may be unsubstantiated by you that does not make them unsubstantiated it is not our role to provide a burden of proof for Steve - why cant he have just been what he was and good on him for playing the media to his advantage both in business and for conservation - why dont you prove otherwise to the millions you claim are blind!!!

Putting land into trust is not 100% look at what happened with Lane Cove National Park and Aboriginal Land Claims!

There are no Guarantees in life All one can do is their best and this is one man who without doubt has done this. Anyone can give bits and peices as donations Steve Irwin gave his life to what he beleived in, yes there are others who do the same but they are few and far. So what if his methods were socially unacceptable it doesn't mean they didn't work, look back through history and this is a repeated sequence ie someone with a beleif that rocks the standard loses their life in that beleif and years down the track...........

OOOOH SHIT THE WORLD REALLY IS ROUND.. What does it matter how far down the track the good comes from the action so long as it happens, I recall reading here that it will be future gens that benefit from this site, what diff???

This stinks - it is un Australian - you people attack a dead person and will not open your eyes to the fact that maybe you are wrong - just maybe there is no sham and just maybe this guy was the good guy. I smell jealousy I smell a lot of other nasties but ultimately they are your demons. To those who would beleive otherwise hold your heads high,

I hope no-one here gets that big, that they will be dogged upon their final day.

Edited September 6, 2006 by evil

[occidentalis]

This stinks - it is un Australian - you people attack a dead person and will not open your eyes to the fact that maybe you are wrong - just maybe there is no sham and just maybe this guy was the good guy. I smell jealousy I smell a lot of other nasties but ultimately they are your demons. To those who would beleive otherwise hold your heads high,

I hope no-one here gets that big, that they will be dogged upon their final day.

I'll admit my first post was pretty inappropriate.

But after that I think you're confused. I'm very open to the possibility of being wrong - I always am. But you need to bring the evidence. From what I've seen, I'll back down a little and say that he may have made some positive contributions to conservation. I really haven't looked closely enough to know.

What is very clear to me though, is that abusing animals as TV entertainment posing as education is not in any way a positive contribution to the human relationship with the rest of nature.

[devance]

'While my plans might be noble, but they are worthless once I am dead unless the property is protected by caveat or trust. The same applies to Steve's land. We are not criticising him for owning the land, I am criticising the blind followers who automatically assume everything Steve and the media tells them about this land is true.'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whats ' my plans' 'We are not criticising him' 'blind followers '

-------------------------------------------

[Torsten]

Lap it up folks. You're only getting what you ask for.....

devance - Whats:

' my plans' - irrelevant in this topic. I was just making the point that I have done my research on how to best (although not 100%) lock up land from future development for at least 99 years.

'We are not criticising him' - I have no problem with Steve Irwin. I keep saying that. When he comes on TV I have the option to change channels, so I don't really care who or what he is. I just can't stand people who believe everything the media and PR people tell them. It's a pet-peeve of mine, and I believe is a major root cause of the problems in modern society. There is nothing more destructive than apathy and blind consumerism , but the world currently runs on it.

My criticism is not of Steve, but of the people who accept everything the media tells them without questioning. In this thread it was the unquestioning position people had about Steve's generosity etc. I couldn't care less if he was generous or not, but I do get the shits when people exhalt someone for something that person did not do. The point here is that no one seems to have the foggiest about most of the things that Steve has ACTUALLY done. The best supporting evidence we have heard so far is that a friend of a friend who is roolly trustworthy said Steve is alright. geez, get real folks. Let's stick to the facts.

'blind followers ' - see the picture above. also see my last comment about apathy, blind consumerism and checking your sources & facts.

[teonanacatl]

Fuck i logged in on tuesday and couldnt believe how negative people here were so i left it, same on wednesday but i gotta say somthing.

People deserve some respect when they die, when Bush or Saddam dies I will still tip my hat and say peace, I dont care who it is. My grandmother died recently and whilst following the herse to the grave site we passed some road workers, one of the older ones saw the herse and stopped work and took of his hat, he showed respect to somone he didnt know, for all he knew the person could have been a murderer, i was touched by his respect. As for having lunch with Bush or Howard fuck Id do it if i was asked, Id have lunch with anyone if they asked me, dont shoot a guy if he is friendly. And about all his land, if he earnt the money then he has all the right to keep it in his name and keep the land as he wishes, I suppose some people just cant trust others without a frickin legal document and its unlikely that his family would disprespect him by destroying or selling it. Its easier the criticise then to actually do it.

As for his approach to picking up wildlife, you can look at animals all you want but you dont learn a thing about them till you interact with them or pick them up. Take for example plants, I walk along and touch the leaves, pull them off taste and smell them, smell the flowers feel the bark, that is how you learn about nature.

I guess you dont havta show respect if thats your choice but hey if you dont believe in " do to others as you would have others do to you" or karma.

oh yeah as for zero tollerence on drugs, if i was hiring people i wouldnt want them on drugs at work especially if they had to operate machinery or their life and others depended on them.

Edited September 7, 2006 by teonanacatl

[Torsten]

The Claims may be unsubstantiated by you that does not make them unsubstantiated it is not our role to provide a burden of proof for Steve - why cant he have just been what he was and good on him for playing the media to his advantage both in business and for conservation - why dont you prove otherwise to the millions you claim are blind!!!

You are missing the point. I don't care about who or what Steve was or did.

Interesting point you raise about who is responsible for substantiating things. Under your concept the Bjelke Peterson government was honest, guantanamo is a friendly prison, Cheryl Kernot really did love the labor party (not gareth Evans), Skase was a victim rather than scammer, Bond was gullible rather than conniving, the salvation army general did not embezzle 3 million dollars of donations, and yes, the earth is flat.

Putting land into trust is not 100% look at what happened with Lane Cove National Park and Aboriginal Land Claims!

It can't be done 100%, but you can at least create some hurdles.

So what if his methods were socially unacceptable it doesn't mean they didn't work, look back through history and this is a repeated sequence ie someone with a beleif that rocks the standard loses their life in that beleif and years down the track........... OOOOH SHIT THE WORLD REALLY IS ROUND.

Interesting point, because I am trying to make EXACTLY the same one. I find discussion on his methods etc is healthy and who knows, maybe his methods will turn out to be better. However, most of this discussion is not about what we know, but what we have been told and blindly accepted. Just like people blindly accepted that the earth is flat, until someone questioned the acccepted standard. In an evidence based society we need to look beyond the PR and entertainment to look at the facts. And facts appear to be very thin on the ground in this issue.

What does it matter how far down the track the good comes from the action so long as it happens, I recall reading here that it will be future gens that benefit from this site, what diff???

I don't think the pooint was 'how far in the future', but rather 'if ever'. And surely even you must agree that giving credit where there is no benefit is a bit silly.

This stinks - it is un Australian - you people attack a dead person and will not open your eyes to the fact that maybe you are wrong - just maybe there is no sham and just maybe this guy was the good guy.

I am not attacking a dead person, I am attacking the live sheeple who make hyped up claims about a dead person. Is that un Australian too? Are you saying to be australian we need to all fall in line in believe the hype? Maybe you are right. It certainly seems so in this case.

In every post I have made I have stated that I may be wrong and that all I am trying to do is for folks to consider other possibilities. In contrast, the true believers appear to have no such room for other opinions and other considerations. So, once again I agree with your statement about how it stinks that people "won't open their eyes to the fact that they may be wrong", but your projectionism is aiming that statement at the wrong person(s).

I smell jealousy

LOL. So you DO have a sense of humour after all.

Seriously, there are many people I look up to and who I might be jealous of, but Steve Irwin is not one of them. Other than his attempts at conservation he stood for almost everything I dislike.

To those who would beleive otherwise hold your heads high,

Yeah, that's what happens. They are also the ones who crawl under rocks in disbelief when they find out they've been embarrassingly gullible. It happens all the time.

Again, (as it doesn't seem to sink in), I am not saying this is the case here, but the refusal to accept that other options exist is the best way to get caught out.

I hope no-one here gets that big, that they will be dogged upon their final day.

Most folks here would dodge the superficial celebrity thing if they have a choice I think. So while we might have a future David Attenborough amonst us, I am pretty certain we won't have a future Steve Irwin.

[Torsten]

People deserve some respect when they die, when Bush or Saddam dies I will still tip my hat and say peace

I guess that's the crux of it then. I could not EVER find respect for a person like Saddam, no matter how live or dead he was. But that is irrelevant here. I do actually have some respect for Steve Irwin and I am not happy about some of the nasty comments made here and you will see that my comments are not about Steve, but about the community that blindly follows him.

As I do not believe i life after death, I also do not believe in anything associated with that belief. However, I do believe in courtesy to the ones left behind. And if I thought there was any likelyhood of Steve's family reading this forum at this time then I would ask folks to post with that in mind. I have been keeping an eye on google to make sure this thread doesn't pop up high in the Steve Irwin searches to prevent this, so do accept that this consideration is not taken lightly.

[occidentalis]

As for his approach to picking up wildlife, you can look at animals all you want but you dont learn a thing about them till you interact with them or pick them up.

This is just not true. You can learn different things about an animal if you pick it up, but if you are really interested in their behaviour then scaring the shit out of it is probably the last thing you want to do.

I have done field work with researchers studying marsupials which involved trapping and handling them, and they didn't act like Steve Irwin when they did it. They acted with respect and care for them, even though some of their techniques were quite invasive, because they recognised them as subjects with their own experience rather than just objects to be displayed for entertainment on TV.

Take for example plants, I walk along and touch the leaves, pull them off taste and smell them, smell the flowers feel the bark, that is how you learn about nature.

Sure. But there is a big difference between plants and animals - plants don't usually mind if you touch them. Animals do. As said I have only watched one episode of Irwin's show but it was quite clear that many of the animals he was interacting with were not impressed about it. Environmentalism is about fostering respect for nature, and the fact that Irwin was killed by an animal that almost never kills people doesn't suggest he had very much.

If you touch a person without their permission, they can charge you with assault. If you jump on a persons back and wrestle with them without their permission, you will almost definitely be charged with assault. The reasons why humans don't like being touched by strangers are the same reasons why animals don't like it. What makes it OK to do it to animals then?

Edited September 7, 2006 by creach

[PD.]

I am not attacking a dead person,

Thats all i wanted to hear.

As for being a sheep, well dude, i have alot better things to with my time than sit infront of a fuckin television. It bores me shitless and usually makes me angry at the shit spewed forth.

I dont really think many people here are the sheep you talk of because if they were controlled as easy as you think they would have no interest in things here

I admit what i posted was out of anger that even though "the Steve" was dead, the way he lived was being questioned. Now, i have no first hand knowledge or tv and radio info about his efforts in conservation (and yes iam using that term very loosely for all you purists), but the simple fact is he was passionate about animals and he had the funds to do something worthwhile regardless of the way he chose to do it.

If you dont think he did anything worthwhile and you didnt like his persona, well, that is your opinion, but calling people sheep for voicing their opinion is just plain childish. I think i remeber you saying something along those lines once.......

[Torsten]

Thats all i wanted to hear.

I am glad we are starting to agree on a few things

If you dont think he did anything worthwhile and you didnt like his persona, well, that is your opinion, but calling people sheep for voicing their opinion is just plain childish. I think i remeber you saying something along those lines once.......

I quite probably did say that once, because that is in fact my opinion. However, I wasn't calling people sheep for voicing their opinions. I was calling them sheep for presenting PR and hype as fact. And yes, I am quite disturbed that the usually openminded and questioning folks who make up the membership of this forum would fall for this. I can only assume that even the most open minded have weak spots where we/they lose their ability or desire to question. Obviously Steve Irwin did not reach that threshold with me, even though he obviously has with many others.

So yeah, there is a big difference between calling people sheep for voicing opinions or for making unsubstantiated factual statements. And I don't even know whether you did or not, but I know that some people did earlier in the thread, which is what got me so wound up.

I think one of the main problems with this thread is that there seems in most people's minds to be a clear division between Steve lovers and Steve haters. So, when I make a questioning remark about Steve's investments then this is lumped in with creach's remarks about Steve's questionable conservation methods, which is lumped in with the rather unhelpful comments by Ruby, and we are all just labelled as Steve haters. In reality it seems creach really only has a perspective on Steve's technical aspects, while I really only have a perspective on Steve's PR machine and the society's response to it.

I have spent writing more posts defending things I did NOT actually say than discussing the things I did say. How pointless is that? Freud might have a few things to say about that.... or maybe I should not mention anymore names of any dead people

[occidentalis]

In reality it seems creach really only has a perspective on Steve's technical aspects, while I really only have a perspective on Steve's PR machine and the society's response to it.

LOL, well actually my points all led to questions about the PR regarding what a good conservationist he was - I was trying to question the PR and people's acceptance of it by questioning the conservation methods.

I think you just communicated that much more clearly than me .

[Maturin]

People deserve some respect when they die, when Bush or Saddam dies I will still tip my hat and say peace, I dont care who it is. My grandmother died recently and whilst following the herse to the grave site we passed some road workers, one of the older ones saw the herse and stopped work and took of his hat, he showed respect to somone he didnt know, for all he knew the person could have been a murderer, i was touched by his respect.

Sorry about your grandmother. But I too was touched just by reading that. Maybe it's 'cos I've had a really shit day and I have lost a friend, not through death, but through people changing and not respecting one another's differences. There is too much negativity in this world, sometimes I feel like I want to be a hermit or something...but then I hear about something small, seemingly non-consequential which restores faith in the decency of some humans that makes me happier.

Thanks for sharing that Teo.

[teonanacatl]

Fair point about the harrasing of animals creach, but ive never seen him tackle a kangaroo or any mammal. The only animals ive seen him chase are reptiles and the best way to catch goanna's and lizards is to chase them in a sprint as they go anaerobic quickly and must stop therefore a quick 30m sprint and you catch them, thats how my zoo lecturers used to catch them also. Ive never seen a snake that was happy to be caught. The only animals ive seen him tackle are crocs and thats the only way, other then drugging, that ive seen them caught.

Also yes you can learn stuff about animals by watching but there is also a side you learn from handling, interacting with them etc, if this wasnt the case then researchers wouldnt have to catch them.

T i guess all i was meaning was everyone has played their part in the game and deserves a bit of respect for being part of it all. Not everyone will respect everyone elses part but it cant hurt to try.

Edited September 7, 2006 by teonanacatl

[PD.]

The only animals ive seen him chase are reptiles and the best way to catch goanna's and lizards is to chase them in a sprint as they go anaerobic quickly and must stop therefore a quick 30m sprint and you catch them, thats how my zoo lecturers used to catch them also.

The same as Harry "chase, catch, poke and prod" Butler.

[Pelinster]

I think one of the main problems with this thread is that there seems in most people's minds to be a clear division between Steve lovers and Steve haters.

This is the confusing part of all this. I don't understand when/where that line was drawn. I also find the constant reference to people being sheepish offensive and unnecessary. The debate I see here is more surrounding the fact that people have expressed their sadness at the loss of Steve Irwin, and then some other members have engaged these people with sarcasm, negativity and basically an attitude that suggests that their feelings are unjust.

I was calling them sheep for presenting PR and hype as fact. And yes, I am quite disturbed that the usually openminded and questioning folks who make up the membership of this forum would fall for this. I can only assume that even the most open minded have weak spots where we/they lose their ability or desire to question.

I don't personally see this massive PR campaign that is stealing the free choice from anyone who happens to feel sad at the loss of Steve Irwin. I think suggesting that the only way someone could possibly have a positive opinion of Steve is due to some kind of weak spot or flaw is really a bit unnecessary and may even be considered by some to be degrading (not me of course ). I guess this could be more useful if you referenced to the actual remarks that you think are without substance so the people involved can have an opportunity to explain better why they feel that way.

[Torsten]

I don't personally see this massive PR campaign that is stealing the free choice from anyone

If it was a massive and visible PR campaign then it wuld not be a good one now would it? The problem is that most people live their lives as part of one campaign or another and the only way to break out of that is to endlessly question why things are the way they are. Whether these campaigns are political, religious, or consumerist, it makes little difference. Very few people really look beyond the hype. Just look at issues such as WMDs or chidren overboard. They are the obvious ones which somehow failed. but every day we live through the ones that work.

I think suggesting that the only way someone could possibly have a positive opinion of Steve is due to some kind of weak spot or flaw is really a bit unnecessary and may even be considered by some to be degrading (not me of course ).

You are twisting my words again. I did not say any of that!! I never claimed that you must have proof or have a weak spot to like Steve Irwin. You can love him for al the things he claims to have done regardless of whether he has done them or not. But if you claim unsubstantiated hype and PR as fact then that is different to simply expressing affection.

I guess this could be more useful if you referenced to the actual remarks that you think are without substance so the people involved can have an opportunity to explain better why they feel that way.

I don't think I will because that's what got me into trouble in the first place

Seriously, my remarks are pretty clear and in clear reference to certain posts.

Anyway, what I have said doesn't just apply to one post here and one post there, it applies to the whole broohaha that surrounds this event. When stuff like this happens I always wonder how other important people must feel. For example, we have a scientists who revolutionised the doctrine on stomach ulcers which is helping millions of people every year and he will likely not be offered a state funeral on the basis of this important work, but he is media shy and doesn't like to have lunch with the PM who has nearly destroyed australian scientific research institutions. That's the sort of media crap I am talking about.

[sobriquet]

It seems that Germaine Greer who has been panned by the Aus media also gets it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1865124,00.html

'That sort of self-delusion is what it takes to be a real Aussie larrikin'

Germaine Greer

Tuesday September 5, 2006

The Guardian

The world mourns. World-famous wildlife warrior Steve Irwin has died a hero, doing the thing he loved, filming a sequence for a new TV series. He was supposed to have been making a new documentary to have been called Ocean's Deadliest, but, when filming was held up by bad weather, he decided to "go off and shoot a few segments" for his eight-year-old daughter's upcoming TV series, "just stuff on the reef and little animals". His manager John Stainton "just said fine, anything that would keep him moving and keep his adrenaline going". Evidently it's Stainton's job to keep Irwin pumped larger than life, shouting "Crikey!" and punching the air.

Irwin was the real Crocodile Dundee, a great Australian, an ambassador for wildlife, a global phenomenon, a superhuman generator of merchandise, books, interactive video-games and action figures. The only creatures he couldn't dominate were parrots. A parrot once did its best to rip his nose off his face. Parrots are a lot smarter than crocodiles.

What seems to have happened on Batt Reef is that Irwin and a cameraman went off in a little dinghy to see what they could find. What they found were stingrays. You can just imagine Irwin yelling: "Just look at these beauties! Crikey! With those barbs a stingray can kill a horse!" (Yes, Steve, but a stingray doesn't want to kill a horse. It eats crustaceans, for God's sake.) All Australian children know about stingrays. We are now being told that only three people have ever been killed by Australian stingrays. One of them must have been the chap who bought it 60 years ago in Brighton Baths where my school used to go on swimming days. Port Philip Bay was famous for stingrays, which are fine as long as you can see them, but they do what most Dasyatidae do, which is bury themselves in the sand or mud with only their eyes sticking out. What you don't want to do with a stingray is stand on it. The lashing response of the tail is automatic; the barb is coated with a bacterial slime as deadly as rotten oyster toxin.

As a Melbourne boy, Irwin should have had a healthy respect for stingrays, which are actually commoner, and bigger, in southern waters than they are near Port Douglas, where he was killed. The film-makers maintain that the ray that took Irwin out was a "bull ray", or Dasyatis brevicaudata, but this is not usually found as far north as Port Douglas. Marine biologist Dr Meredith Peach has been quoted as saying, "It's really quite unusual for divers to be stung unless they are grappling with the animal and, knowing Steve Irwin, perhaps that may have been the case." Not much sympathy there then.

The only time Irwin ever seemed less than entirely lovable to his fans (as distinct from zoologists) was when he went into the Australia Zoo crocodile enclosure with his month-old baby son in one hand and a dead chicken in the other. For a second you didn't know which one he meant to feed to the crocodile. If the crocodile had been less depressed it might have made the decision for him. As the catatonic beast obediently downed its tiny snack, Irwin walked his baby on the grass, not something that paediatricians recommend for rubbery baby legs even when there isn't a stir-crazy carnivore a few feet away. The adoring world was momentarily appalled. They called it child abuse. The whole spectacle was revolting. The crocodile would rather have been anywhere else and the chicken had had a grim life too, but that's entertainment at Australia Zoo.

Irwin's response to the sudden outburst of criticism was bizarre. He believed that he had the crocodile under control. But he could have fallen over, suggested an interviewer. He admitted that was possible, but only if a meteor had hit the earth and caused an earthquake of 6.6 on the Richter scale. That sort of self-delusion is what it takes to be a "real Aussie larrikin".

What Irwin never seemed to understand was that animals need space. The one lesson any conservationist must labour to drive home is that habitat loss is the principal cause of species loss. There was no habitat, no matter how fragile or finely balanced, that Irwin hesitated to barge into, trumpeting his wonder and amazement to the skies. There was not an animal he was not prepared to manhandle. Every creature he brandished at the camera was in distress. Every snake badgered by Irwin was at a huge disadvantage, with only a single possible reaction to its terrifying situation, which was to strike. Easy enough to avoid, if you know what's coming. Even my cat knew that much. Those of us who live with snakes, as I do with no fewer than 12 front-fanged venomous snake species in my bit of Queensland rainforest, know that they will get out of our way if we leave them a choice. Some snakes are described as aggressive, but, if you're a snake, unprovoked aggression doesn't make sense. Snakes on a plane only want to get off. But Irwin was an entertainer, a 21st-century version of a lion-tamer, with crocodiles instead of lions.

In 2004, Irwin was accused of illegally encroaching on the space of penguins, seals and humpback whales in Antarctica, where he was filming a documentary called Ice Breaker. An investigation by the Australian Environmental Department resulted in no action being taken, which is not surprising seeing that John Howard, the prime minister, made sure that Irwin was one of the guests invited to a "gala barbecue" for George Bush a few months before. Howard is now Irwin's chief mourner, which is only fair, seeing that Irwin announced that Howard is the greatest leader the world has ever seen.

The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin, but probably not before a whole generation of kids in shorts seven sizes too small has learned to shout in the ears of animals with hearing 10 times more acute than theirs, determined to become millionaire animal-loving zoo-owners in their turn.

[sobriquet]

And here's something the New York magazine "Steppin' Out" has published.....