At the risk perpetuating this topic further, I cannot resist but respond
to those who bring everything down to a personal level either with Bear Grylls or the people who watch his show. "Sycophants", "acolytes", people who aren't active in the woods or comfortable being there ? What a bunch of garbage labels created by the self righteous.
Virtually every post in support of the show or Bear concedes that some of his stunts are over the top. The difference is the level of seriousness that you take with someone portraying your hobby on a television show. I'm actually fairly active and spend alot of in the woods, although I don't presume to know more than the others here as a result of it. And, I like watching this show- sometimes I even like to laugh and say "bullshit!" at the TV when I see something on MvW I don't believe. But I don't take it personally or attack
B Grylls- I don't know him. I do know he was a SAS guy and climbed Mt Everest and has done some cool charity work, so maybe that garners more respect from me than the average Joe with a bandana and a backpack.
The stunts don't bother me either. I don't believe people are so dumb they will dive head first into a freezing whitewater river just because Bear Grylls did it. If I watched a program or documentary where I hated the host, thought he was a liar and without integrity, or the content made me pissed, then I wouldn't watch it. You may consider doing the same.
But thanks for the expose'. I'm sure when Les Stroud comes on and you examine the shows frame by frame you may learn that he also is a television
personality, and that corners are cut by him or the production team for the sake of the show. Hope you aren't disappointed.
(Fire at will)
Here, here. Well said.
The problem, as I see it, is that if you are a fair person, you try to treat everyone the way you'd like to be treated. So really if you call someone a liar, and you are a fair person you have to explain why you think he or she is a liar, especially if they cannot defend themselves. You can't just say well, it's obvious. You can't just say, "The lies don't have to be proven." Yes they do. Of course they do. That is not a substantive argument of fact. That is an insubstantial and gratuitously insulting statement of opinion. It is, in other words, unfair and worse yet, unpersuasive. It hurts the cause of truth.
What you can say, if you want to be fair and persuasive, is to offer evidence. For example: the boat has thick green grass under it, yet it has supposedly been abandoned for quite a while, presumably weeks or months. That is substantive, rather than merely argumentative and perjorative.
You can say that Bear's shirt seemingly gets dirty then clean then dirty then clean all while he is simply walking across the african savannah. That is checkable and persuasive.
Or you can look a fireboard supposedly made by a man with only a raggedly little rock flake and see the undeniably clean cut of either a knife or axe. You can't just say you can see it with your own eyes and let it go at that. You have to say, specifically what is wrong with the picture.
And if you are going to insult someone who legitimately questions your fairness or asks for facts to support your statement, and you aren't articulate enough to defend your position, then you're better off keeping your opinions to yourself in the first place. Otherwise, you could just wind up looking like a ridiculous blow hard with a major chip on your shoulder.
Even if you're basically right, you wind up alienating people who just want to find out whether or not someone is BS'ing them. And you risk creating undue sympathy for the liar/deceiver by making it look like he is being unfairly railroaded (i.e. being Nifonged).
I say let's give the bastard a fair trial BEFORE we take him out back and hang him, not after.
Chris
