Guest fenris Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I saw it coming. Mods and Admin protecting people whom they wish... chastising those in dis-favor. How is this any different than "the old" BFF? C'est le guerre: far be it for me to attempt at being a voice of reason: THIS DEBATE IS SO YESTERDAY. Never did anything then.... will now really be any different?
Guest fenris Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Again, who cares if it's illegal or not? Matt DID NOT obtain his material from Gifford Pinchot National Forest, or any other National Forest for that matter, which he was accused of. Here is a link with pictures and receipts. Orgone research This is ridiculous, it's like arguing with someone who has their fingers in their ears yelling, " I CAN"T HEAR YOU." Theres some deja vu indeedely.
Guest Spazmo Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I saw it coming. Mods and Admin protecting people whom they wish... chastising those in dis-favor. How is this any different than "the old" BFF? Ouch. But thanks for pointing this out, Guy. As I read this thread, I see that this whole thing started when casting issues were brought up. From what I can see, everyone who chimed in once the Melissa/Matt feud was mentioned is guilty of bringing an old grudge here. I don't see any exceptions. But what's even more troubling to me is the perception that this is "ops normal" here, and represents the same way of doing things as the "old" BFF. That hurts because there are a lot of Staff members working hard to be rid of that perception. And frankly, as soon as this thread devolved into the current argument between certain members, it was reminiscent of the old BFF. Accusations, including accusations about accusations, no longer have a place here. Neither do old grudges. Please do not criticize the Staff, either. They are doing their best. If you have an issue with the way the thread is moderated, please take it to PM. It doesn't help anything if Mods are criticized in a thread. It sounds as if the topic of dermal ridges vs. casting artifacts deserves a thread of its own. Wolftrax, Blackdog, Melissa, would you be willing to start a thread for discussion? Hopefully the old stuff can be left out and the rest of the members here can benefit from what all of you have found? I suppose things will get ugly from time to time, and sometimes it takes one post to bring it all into focus. For me, it was Guy's quoted post above. I want everyone to know that I'm doing my best to "steer" the forum away from that kind of issue. I can use any help the members want to give me by not dragging up old grudges. Thanks people, S.
Guest Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Nope. I have nothing to say anymore on this topic in the public. Sorry, but once bitten twice shy. People can call me whatever names they want for not agreeing to this, but I am sick and tired of the accusations and having to defend myself against things I have not done or said. I wont do this anymore. I appreciate the offer and I know you have the best of intentions Spazmo, but I am done. Maybe if things had been handled differently a few years ago, my attitude might be different, but it appears nothing has changed and I am willing to bet it won't and I haven't been wrong so far. I have wasted enough of my life and time on this topic. Thanks, but I am gonna pass.
Guest BitterMonk Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I'd be happy to engage in any discussion regarding casting, casting artifacts, print making, or anything related to the subject. As I said above, the work that has been done to date should be moving the conversation forward.
Guest BitterMonk Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 What a great thing John. Happy New Year. There's a reason he's WGBH.
wolftrax Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I would like to see the discussion of casting artifacts continue in this thread because this thread is "Debunk the debunking" and the whole casting artifacts/dermal ridges debunking is probably the most prominent of all. The whole thing of legality of volcanic ash is an old argument and really is a distraction from the discussion of casting artifacts, and was meant to be from the beginning by the person who initiated it. Both Matt Crowley and Melissa Hovey have both shown their receipts showing they purchased their volcanic ash from Seattle Pottery, they sell it and ship it and this has been known from the beginning. The problem isn't the discussion of casting artifacts, the problem is the distraction of the whole legal thing, long ago resolved, and even more than that the problem is that the person who initiated the whole silly thing keeps bringing it up. In these articles you can read what I have and have not said - and if I were to question the legality of anyones actions I would most certainly do so on my blog and in these articles. You will find nothing in reference to any legal jabs thrown at anyone. Frankly I am sick and tired of this lie being told, over and over again. It's like if I started a fire, then we all agreed not to talk about it anymore, then come into a discussion and start saying "I never started a fire!". If people really want to let things go, they shouldn't bring it up.
Guest Spazmo Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I would like to see the discussion of casting artifacts continue in this thread because this thread is "Debunk the debunking" and the whole casting artifacts/dermal ridges debunking is probably the most prominent of all. The whole thing of legality of volcanic ash is an old argument and really is a distraction from the discussion of casting artifacts, and was meant to be from the beginning by the person who initiated it. Both Matt Crowley and Melissa Hovey have both shown their receipts showing they purchased their volcanic ash from Seattle Pottery, they sell it and ship it and this has been known from the beginning. The problem isn't the discussion of casting artifacts, the problem is the distraction of the whole legal thing, long ago resolved, and even more than that the problem is that the person who initiated the whole silly thing keeps bringing it up. It's like if I started a fire, then we all agreed not to talk about it anymore, then come into a discussion and start saying "I never started a fire!". If people really want to let things go, they shouldn't bring it up. The receipts showing "who got materials where" have little or nothing to do with the discussion of casting artifacts. It's like I just put out a fire that was started inadvertently, and then you came back with a cup full of gasoline to throw onto the embers. If you want to refute someone's methods or results, fine. But stop dragging up an old fight. It's not welcome here.
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I saw it coming. Mods and Admin protecting people whom they wish... chastising those in dis-favor. How is this any different than "the old" BFF? GuyInIndiana, you have just as much "protection" as the next member. I don't think anyone here has been "chastised" by any of the admins or moderators on the new BFF. It boils down to one simple request, everyone must please be civil and follow the rules. There seems to be an ongoing attempt to violate rule 6. If you have grievances against others from the past, leave them in the past and do not bring them here. The old BFF was all about grievances and feuds dragged in from elsewhere and that's not going to happen here. It doesn't matter "who" you are, or "who" you know here, "you", and that means all members, must follow the rules. That's how this forum is different from the old. Chris B. This thread will be closed for a cooling off period and for review of multiple reported posts. There will likely be some warning level increases for those who have violated forum rules.
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 In an effort to salvage this thread, I have removed the offending posts. The posts were made by multiple members and were in violation of the following forum rules: 1. BFF has one rule above all else - Behave like adults! What do we mean by this? Imagine the forum is run by a bunch of people who have invited you over for dinner - we expect sensible, well thought out conversation. If you start getting personal with other diners, you are likely to be ejected. This not your house after all, you don't have a right to sit at someone else's table and disrupt things. 2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer. 3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything. 4. Respect other members and their right to their opinion. 5. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here. Additionally, calling someone's opinion ‘silly’, ‘ridiculous’, or any other derogatory term is not acceptable, as this is essentially calling that person's way of thinking into question. Opinions concerning content are welcome, opinions about members or their way of thinking are not. If you feel the urge to begin a post or a part of a post with phrases such as “How can anyone think…†or “I can’t believe anyone would feel…â€, then take a step back with a deep breath and read these Guidelines and Rules again before posting. 6. If you have grievances against others from the past, leave them in the past and do not bring them here. This thread had degenerated largely into grievances from the past. There seemed to be a few members that promoted or encouraged the conflict. Interestingly enough, one member whom I had originally commended for staying out of the argument, eventually made an offending post as well. Upon further review I noticed there were several comments made comparing the ongoing offending posts/drama to the "old" forum. I agree, that type of behavior was certainly seen there. But, this is the new BFF, and that's why the thread was locked the minute the offending posts were discovered by staff. It was determined that this thread was out of control. For those that reported the offending posts, my hat is off to you. You've proven that you also wish to keep the new BFF a civil community free from past conflicts and drama. Thank you for your support. In an effort to promote a positive atmosphere I would suggest those members with grievances study the general guidelines carefully, especially #6. Chris B.
Guest Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 Thanks to the Mods for cooling off this thread vs. closing it. As a reminder, my desire is to focus on debunking specific debunking tactics and arguments and to not be about personalities. A lot of good stuff has been provided so I hope we can continue in the spirit intended.
Guest Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 As a reminder, my desire is to focus on debunking specific debunking tactics and arguments and to not be about personalities. A lot of good stuff has been provided so I hope we can continue in the spirit intended. informan, This has turned into an interesting thread, but it is rather diverse and difficult to follow. I recommend that you multifurcate it -- establish a separate thread for each interesting topic raised herein. Keep this thread open to cast for new ideas? Pteronarcyd
Guest fenris Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 informan, This has turned into an interesting thread, but it is rather diverse and difficult to follow. I recommend that you multifurcate it -- establish a separate thread for each interesting topic raised herein. Keep this thread open to cast for new ideas? Pteronarcyd Glad its open again, lets keep it to the facts and subject at hand, leave the past exactly there.
masterbarber Posted December 31, 2010 Admin Posted December 31, 2010 It seems quite elitist to insist that one cannot learn and share information from a book that one has read but does not own. Are patrons of libraries second-class citizens? Then you clearly did not understand what I wrote.
Guest Posted December 31, 2010 Posted December 31, 2010 Going back to fossils, I was reading an interesting article about birds and there is no fossil record for a transition species. This seems to be true for a lot of different types of animals. I'm not up on this subject which was why I was reading about it so this is a genuine question. How would this relate to the supposed absent fossil record for bigfoot? Any correlation, thoughts, or theories? Any research out there that I might have overlooked? I do know they traced the chicken back to T-rex.......
Recommended Posts