@russell-2-2
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Knobby, I wish we could sit down across a table and discuss this face to face. I believe a lot of the miscommunications could be cleared up that way. This is a ridiculous way to try to resolve differences. I have never disrespected you, ever. I may have disagreed, but never have I called you a liar, or said anything that was demeaning to you. I make it a point NOT to do this to anyone. Disagree, yes. Speak up if I think something is not right, yes. But never have I ever said anything against you personally, nor would I.
Do I respect mods? I do. Do I think they are perfect? I don’t. None of us are. It is against my nature to not speak up if I perceive something is not fair. You think it’s tough being a mod? Try being a cop for 25 years. And even as a cop you make mistakes. I did, you will. Nothing against you, it’s just part of being human.
My goal here was not to pile on Knobby. I have to be honest, you never even popped into my mind until after my post was deleted, honest! The key is mutual respect, even if you disagree with someone.
I don’t claim to have all knowledge, but I’m not ignorant either. I have plenty of experience in the woods and have had my own experience with Sasquatch. I have my own thoughts on the topic, and I know others do too.
If I disagree with someone, it’s because of what experience has taught me. They don’t have to agree with me, just like I don’t have to agree with them. That’s fine!
The problem we have in this type of communication, you can’t see the face of the other in the communication. You can’t hear the in flexion of the voice. The only thing we can do is give the other person the benefit of the doubt.
You and I will probably never see things eye to eye, but open honest dialogue can solve many misunderstandings, and that’s what I have been attempting to do here. I hope that came out in a way that doesn’t seem condescending, because that’s not how it is meant. I’m being totally honest here.
I forgot this, I thought this was a thread to talk openly about this stuff. I’m sorry if I misunderstood.
Knobby, you erased to my first post on this thread! You’ve called me a troll, a liar, said I was deceiving people here, I dare you to show where in the past posts I disrespected you, or mistreated you. The most I have done is disagreed with some of your posts, or perhaps spoke up when I felt you were unfair. You made the accusations, prove them.
.
.
.
MOD NOTE
I had to clarify the way you worded your comment, which could carry an accusation. You talked about how in the past sometimes we didn’t agree with each others posts, but the only problem was as a mod I could erase the other person. The innuendo is if I’m having a discussion with someone I disagree with I remove their content, and as I said I only remove content as a moderator action, which is why I deleted that reply of yours and wrote a mod note.Knobby, I don’t dislike you. I don’t have anything against you. I have not always agreed with what you have posted, and I know you felt the same way about some of my posts. My only issue is that being a mod, you can choose to erase or override something you don’t like. No discussion, nothing. We will never agree on everything. That’s human nature. I can live with that. The question is, can you?
.
.
.
MOD NOTE
I can live with not being someone like you. You just made up this erasing/overriding things I don’t like during a discussion. That only happens when I take moderator actions against someone in violation of rules. You’re showing yourself to be someone who deceptively makes stuff up. People aren’t as stupid as you hope for.Okay, Knobby, Show me where and how I have “trolled” you? Show me how I disrespected you? If I have, I’ll apologize. You stated that it happened like that, I would like to see the evidence.
.
.
.
MOD NOTE
You’re playing the “poor me” for an audience. You haven’t forgotten those exchanges, what a liar, the reply I just deleted repeated your statement of how you’ll ignore the rule about not moderating the moderators, like you used to repeat to me back then.DELETED By MOD Steve E.
Russell: Knobby left your attack on him, but I removed it, please do not attack the Mods here, keep your focus on the topic of sasquatch and the entire forum will be a better and happier place.. thank you
.
.
.
MOD NOTEYou’re being deceptive. You know how many times you refused my orders not to moderate the moderators, and you popped in here to state again how you would not follow that rule. You didn’t use my name but it was aimed at me. And in your typical deceptive manner you try to spin it into something else.
.
.
.
MOD NOTEReply deleted. I was anticipating I might get one of the trolls whom I’ve had to moderate multiple times join themselves here to get their stuff in.
Here are two sites that disagree that the dating methods are accurate. I have heard this information some years ago. If you take something to be dated, you will be asked, Where did you find it? How deep did you have to dig for it? etc. Why/ It helps them to deduce (guess) how to interpret the data they are getting from the dating method used.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-carbon_dating_radiometric_decay_rates
http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe in creation, but I’m not necessarily sold on everything being done in a literal 6 days. But for someone to say this is (for example) 65,000,000 years old, where’s the observer that it is that old? or, where is the known test material that can be 100% quantifiable through observation? They have none. Science is what is learned through observation. Something 65,000,000, or 6,000,000, or even 60,000 years old could not have been observed and documented to insure the equipment is giving the correct readings.
Many here believe that there is a government cover up of Sasquatch’s existence. That may be. But I submit that this is nothing compared the the scientific cover up that has been going on for the last 100 years.
Dating methods are very precise. Really? According to who? Oh, you and your fellow scientists? Do you have any skin in the game as a scientist? Only your livelyhood, through grants that pay your salary? I see.
Now, I’ve been a little facetious here to make a point. Science is a great thing. We need science. It’s useful. But science does not have all the answers either. They are just like you and I, only better paid.
That’s all I have to say.
Hey Linda, Chris and others,
No matter what happens, as I have stated earlier, we’ll not all agree on everything, and that’s okay. I for one, rather than giving the alternate explanation to what I see in these posts will opt out of the discussions. I will still read them, but I believe I’ll just become an observer. I have expressed that I prefer not to get into philosophical/theological discussions, but I am not able to let things go that I may not agree with, unless I can also share my beliefs.
On Sasquatch, until proven otherwise, is simply an animal. If I am proven wrong, so be it. But for now, I will bow out and simply read posts, not involve myself with them! It’s been great having these discussions with you!
Chris,
I never felt you were attacking me. LOL! I don’t agree with Roman Catholicism either! My last post above is how I see that discussion can be made without entering into a discussion concerning spiritual issues!Believe me when I say that having a spiritual discussion is not why I come here. I prefer to be like Sgt Friday on Dragnet when he tells the woman/witness, “Just the facts, Maam.”
I Think what happens is that everyone has their own theory on what Sasquatch is, and to make sense of it, people seek out the answer from what they believe to be true.
The reason discussions such as this end up in a philosophical/spiritual realm, is that we tend to look the the beginnings of where Sasquatch came from, instead of new information on what they are now, and what we have found to be true in the way they behave.
Another area that tends to draw the discussion into the spiritual realm is when people start discussing that Sasquatch are telepathic, etc. If someone truly believes this they will take the discussion in that direction. Those who do not will speak up and say why.
Because of the nature of the human mind, an interaction with something that we were told does not exist tends to stay with us for the rest of our lives. These things aren’t supposed to exist, at least, that’s what we’ve been told. So when we see them, it changes us, and our view of the world. We try to make sense of it. That’s why I believe so many people who have had encounters continue to try to see them again. To prove to others (and themselves) that they are not crazy, or at least they didn’t just imagine it.
So this is a subject that those who have had experiences that is intensely personal. Their views are built upon their experience, and what they have learned on the topic. No one has all the answers.
But I submit that rather than focus on where they came from, or what may be, we focus on what we know, and what research has actually documented. This would alleviate much of the discussion of things that are simply opinion, unless that is the goal of the thread. And if that’s the case, then there should be no hindering of those with differing opinion on that thread. Otherwise it becomes a situation of only wanting someone’s opinion if it agrees with your own. And I think we can agree that to only want to hear from those who share is not a discussion. It’s a travesty.
Anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth.
Hey Donald!
I concur! That’s why I come here. The only reason I covered what I did was as an explanation. Think about this, why do those who don’t believe in The tenets if Christianity continue to say what Christianity is, isn’t, on this site? If I don’t reply, then others may think what is being stated is fact, or that I agree with it.
One more thing on this topic, Chris, You want to know the difference between those who call themselves Christian from the real deal?
Those who call themselves Christian and are not have the attitude, how much can I get away with?
True Christians have the attitude, how can I serve my God, and my fellow man?
It’s not what you say, it’s what you do, and the attitude of your heart. It’s not a religion, so much as a relationship with the Lord Jesus. I only bring this up because of the quote you had about Christians, and what to believe.
Hey Chris,
There are many who call themselves Christian who refuse to live according to the word of God and do their own thing. It’s like claiming to be English royalty because you occasionally drink the same kind of tea.If the scriptures teach that you should not be involved in other spiritual pursuits, and the scripture is the word of God, then as a Christian you would be in rebellion with God.
If you built a house with your own two hands, and fixed it up to be your dream home, you’d have a real problem if someone came in and started walking across the carpet with muddy shoes, or began tearing down the walls because they didn’t like your floor plan without your permission. In such a case, wouldn’t you hold the right to say, If you’re going to come into my house, you need to follow my rules? If not I’m going to insist you leave?
wouldn’t God, being the creator of the universe and the giver of life have a right to say what the requirements are for His people to live with Him for eternity? We still choose whether we want to believe in Him, or not, but once that choice is made shouldn’t we abide by His word on how to conduct ourselves to be His children?
Just some thoughts to clarify the idea of being a Christian verses calling ourselves one.
