I think this is the stupidest thing I've ever herd of. It really doesn't deserve much comment from me except that it just gives the anti's a little more ammo against the real "Outdoorsman".

Yeah, I hear you. If consenting adults want to strip down, run around, and shoot each other with paintballs and PAY for it.... well.... its a free country.

However it should not for a minute be called hunting or the paintballers "outdoorsmen".

For the life of me I can't understand why such a thing would cost $10K. The equipment is cheap, and there's women of ill repute in Nevada who'll let guys hurt them for a lot less. When you get down to it, that's what this is -- sadomasachism. The only difference is that he's beating her with paintballs instead of a whip. I'm certainly no expert on the price of hookers in Nevada, but I seriously doubt the going rate is anywhere near $10K. That makes me wonder whether they're actually trying to run a business or whether they're trying to make some sort of point about hunters.

The whole concept is quite disturbing, though. I've been shot with paintballs before, and they're pretty painful on bare skin at close range. They leave significant welts, too, that may even bleed. Calling this perversion "hunting" and trying to drag us into it is positively offensive. Unfortunately, there's a lot of people out there who will think less of legitimate hunters because they saw this in the news.

[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2003-07-24 00:49 ]

Hey guys this was a hoax, http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/bambi.asp for verification, if you do not belive me. I think it gave hunters a bad name, and that was the intention I think, no matter what , it will be a urban legend for years.

[ This Message was edited by: chechatonga on 2003-07-24 06:40 ]

Thanks, Chechatonga. Really makes you wonder if this is something as innocent as a hoax, or an effort to smear hunting.

It does say a lot about the ethical standards of today's media. In today's fast-paced, electronic world the first one with the story wins. That's long been the case in the media, but with today's mass communications the audience is bigger, the reward is higher, and the time available for checking the facts is shorter. Of course, that also increases the damage in terms of how many people get the wrong idea if the story is untrue. Yet the risk to the media outlet is low. The sensational story hits millions, but how many see the retraction? The American public doesn't have a long enough attention span to care, anyway. So even if they're wrong, the cost is relatively low. Is it any wonder we're seeing more and more cases involving journalistic ethics breaches?

[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2003-07-24 23:14 ]

Good call Chechatonga. Should have checked it out more before posting. Although it was on ABC's website....

After doing a bit more searching it looks like the objective is to sell more of these paintball videos (which apparently is a real business).

Here is at least one journalist who did some ground work....

Sex, lies and videotape in Las Vegas