Leaderboard

Yes, Darrell - I was posting as a moderator. That would be why there's a red, underlined "Moderator Statement" above my comments. I have read the initial post in this topic. In no way did I find it to be in any violation of our rules. In fact, it was pretty well worded. In the event that I might have missed something, feel free to PM me and advise me of my error. All the member did was post his opinion concerning skeptics and varying degrees of skepticism. Is that blasting skeptics for not being reasonable? You evidently feel the need to get personal with others. I'm afraid that works from both ends of the spectrum, but since you saw a need to call me out for my post, I'm addressing your particular quandary. You have read the rules by now, I'd think. In those rules, you've got a pretty straightforward statement about what's allowed here and what isn't. You agreed to those rules, as did everyone on here, skeptic, denialist, proponent, habber, and non-believer alike. Therefore, I can only assume that you feel that the rules are wrong. Since this may or may not be the case, perhaps you feel the need to be able to post according to your rules. Personally, I'm all for you being able to express yourself in any manner you see fit, but it's not up to me. I enforce the rules in question. I didn't make them, nor do I agree with all of them. In fact, I don't. If you'll notice in my Mod Statement, I addressed both sides of the subject, proponents and the skeptical alike. For some reason, you seem to think I was attempting to limit your ability to "call the kook a kook." While it's true that I was attempting to quell the back and forth name calling in the thread(s), it was nothing personally directed at you. You obviously feel that I was picking on skeptics. If this is the case, perhaps you should dust off our rules and guidelines and report my actions to the Director of the BFF. With that said, let's discuss being "insulted." Funny, but the skeptical appear to have no issue whatsoever insulting people that claim to have had sightings, those that have supposedly habituated with the creature, and any and every other proponent angle. When they fail to present evidence, or the evidence they do provide is deemed as inadequate, they're "kooks, crazy, drunks, uneducated," and any other claim you may care to put out there. You seem to believe that since they cannot substantiate their claims that allows you to belittle them. Well, it doesn't. I know it's a dangerous position to take, but I make the assumption that everyone on this forum is fairly intelligent, of a fairly sound mind and has a genuine concern for following the forum rules. Apparently, some of our members don't meet at least one of the assumptions I've made. The only assumption I'm actually concerned with is that they follow the rules. It's no skin off of my nose if they're not intelligent enough to state that they disagree or don't believe the claims others make according to the rules, nor do I personally care if they're of a fairly sound mind. All I care about is posting according to the rules. Personally, I don't care if someone makes a claim that Bigfoot is an alien from Jupiter with a red balloon up their rear, nor do I care who thinks they're a kook. You are perfectly free to state that you disagree or that you don't believe the claims of others. But, you must be smart enough to do so according to the rules. Others do it, and I'll bet that you and others can, too. You've got to be smarter than the keys on your keyboard. I know that you are, which is why I find it so baffling as to why you'd feel the need to call others names, which is getting personal, which is against the rules. With that said, you choose to be here, but you don't get to choose to post as you wish. Oh, you can, but remember the rules? That's what will potentially bite you and others that choose to post outside of them. If you can't debate and discuss with others without being condescending or insulting, that's not my problem or the forum's problem, it's your problem.

If I'd captured a "blobsquatch" image, I'd not whine that others can't make out the bigfoot captured within, but rather double down on my personal efforts to improve the image captured. I'd not blame those failing to see the supposed subject in the marginal proffered image, but would attempt to improve the images captured. But that's me, sorry if my personal standards don't meet with yours.

"And according to Sasfooty, some people have the ability to see Bigfoot, and some people just don't..." Dmaker...that seems remarkable to you I take it? Spend some time with different people out of doors in different situations and you'll find this is the norm. Some can spot arrowheads in a plowed field. To others they are invisible. Some can see a 175 lb deer standing in the middle distance, and some will swear you are seeing things for saying it is there. If you are standing on a rock ledge at the top of a N. Ga. mountain, and there is a pygymy rattler coiled at your feet, don't be surprises if somebody has to literally point it out to others...who still won't see it. In this life, some are better smellers. Some are better listeners, and some have access to the 6th sense you **** well better appreciate and listen to. Only most of us silly modern humans have the belief everybody has a standard software package that is not upgradeable. To some of us though, we appreciate there are some who have enhanced talents and we don't all of us stand on an equal footing in that regard. This used to be common knowledge because so much depended on the abilities of your company. Consult any combat infantry veteran you know if you think I'm making this up.