Talk:Ferret legging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on
  1. 27 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
  2. 29 August 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] I believe it

After all, we are humans, we do all kinds of stuff. HighInBC 00:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't believe everything- Katz made the mistake of believing the carnival barkers when they spun stories of how vicious and dangerous these animals are. His description of the animals as "pirannas with feet...fur bearing evil...the only animal that kills just for kicks" were lies that came straight from the people selling the event. This was hype to make the event more crowd pleasing. What ferret owners (including the ferret-leggers) know, but the spectators did not, is that properly raised ferrets are gentle playful animals that rarely bite, but that love exploring dark enclosed spaces. In other words the performers were simply playing with their pets and creating the illusion of doing something dangerous. It was a trick and Katz fell for it.JeffStickney 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Present Tense?

This article and the sentence in the Ferret article that links to it are written in the present tense, but the only source of information is a fairly old (and unreliable) article. Is ferret legging still practiced or does this need to be changed to the past tense?JeffStickney 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This seems suspicious

Does this actually still exist (hopefully not)? I cannot discount the possibility of its continued existence entirely however it sounds quite vile and therefore many questions about its present status arise.Nizhny 02:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The source article is over 20 years old, and what few google sources I can find that don't come directly from that article say its popularity has plummeted since, but I can't find any definitive source that says it's gone.JeffStickney 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Come on

The cite is a spoof article. Did anyone read it before removing the last deletion recommendation?

I have, and while elements of it are clearly nonsense, as Jeff Stickney says above, I don't think it's a spoof; it's just badly researched. Daibhid C 23:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not just badly researched, it's obviously a joke. "A baby was killed and eaten in 1978..." should be all you need, but indeed it goes on. It's a clear narrative with obvious caricatures and tons of clearly incredulous statements throughout. -bjc (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)