Comments on: “Texas Chupacabras” Goes on Exhibit

By: ctinn

ctinn — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:34:04 +0000

This is just pitiful. Has this person ever read reports about the chupacabras? This thing is reportedly terrifying and near demonic. What he has is ugly,deformed and gross, alright. As most DOGS would be after living in the wild. I hope he isn’t planning on charging a fee for this exibit. Is there some law aganst misleading the public?

By: BunniesLair

BunniesLair — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:35:33 +0000

I have to agree with alkaline217. I will use a personal experience to make my point.

I used to work with a little girl named Selena when I worked in the Migrant Head Start Program. Her name was spelled Selena. Yet her parents called her Selenas. I wanted to make sure the child’s name was correct, so I asked to double check her documents. I explained why. The parents smiled and told me it was a cultural thing to add the ‘s’ in company or in public; but I still checked and her name was Selena.

So after your post about the misspelling of it, I tried to find an authentic definition of the word. I have found it both with an s and without. More often without. Even some hispanic sites without the ‘s’. So I would say it is acceptable to spell it either way.

By: Fhqwhgads

Fhqwhgads — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:26:10 +0000

I just realized you folks are talking about the chewpoohcabrass.

By: norman-uk

norman-uk — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:07:45 +0000

There is a good film about what I think is the same animal as above. Clearly not the chupacabras of evil repute but still interesting in its own right. Does needs another name, like maybe 'The Graidog'. The very well reported and informative film is not for the sqeamish!

By: alkaline217

alkaline217 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:39:20 +0000

I’m going to go against the grain here and argue for the use of Chupacabra. If you compare languages of groups of people that interact, you are bound to find many words that have slightly different spellings to fit with the form of the rest of the language. Chupacabra is more in line with the English pluralization rules, so it makes more sense to Americans to call the cryptid by that name. I think it’s fair that we allow the terminology to develop naturally. Time to shut down my computadora, so I’ll leave it at that.

By: TheHighlandTiger

TheHighlandTiger — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:16:29 +0000

Just when did the upright, two legged, red eyed, blood sucking creature with spines running down its back, turn into a hairless canine.

It’s not as though there are any similarities between the two animals.

But whatever it is, it ain’t the chupacabras of legend

By: eireman

eireman — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:50:32 +0000

I’m not sure you can call it xenophobic. It’s common place among hispanohablantes to use “chupacabra” as well, be it from an aspirated “s” as one finds in Puerto Rico or some other cause. Want proof? Google this phrase “Creo en el Chupacabra” and see how many hits you get from message boards, blogs, and the like where native speakers are using this spelling.

By: JMonkey

JMonkey — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:29:58 +0000

I misspelled your name while talking about misspellings. What a dummy I am.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:20:55 +0000

The main thing that has always bothered me about claiming a candid is El Chupacabras is basically that there is a body left to investigate. I have the happiest, tamest “puppy” (5 years old and still thinks she is a puppy) in the world, but if she ever began attacking other animals there would only be parts of the victim left. It is not in dog programming to just drink the blood or to leave its prize right in the open, let alone leave all for everyone to see. Whether descendants of wolves, coyotes or foxes all candids eat the meat. El Chupacabras must be something else. Would the chicken tarantula be big enough?

By: steele79

steele79 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:18:10 +0000

this is pretty pathetic this is like finding a dead black bear with mange and calling it Bigfoot