Yowiehunters Forum

Obviously everyone has an opinion , we all know that .

As seen in the recent post in the Yowie/Bigfoot Discussion Board there is obviously a problem between the F&B camp and the Paranormal camp .

As a group of people interested in the same subject , can anyone offer a fair solution to both groups without banning anyone ?

Let's keep it civil please ! Any suggestions ?

Yes everyone stop being offended by opinions and stop trying to offend each other. Keep an open mind.

Also stick to the paranormal section for paranormal stuff unless you have some research or evidence you want to share its easier to discuss on this section anyway.

Post your OWN evidence on the main section and not others speculations from youtube.

We are all in this together whether your a paranormal or f&b.

Hey Rusty

I am glad you brought this subject up as its been playing on my mind recently as well.

I am not sure there is anyway of fixing this argumentative behavior, as you would know the world is going a bit crazy at the moment.

People are being enraged and offended by the slightest of things.

As long as there is a right and left, an up and down, a black and white, a positive and opposite, the science vs the paranormal debate will continue.

Polite debate without people being offensive or offended is the only way forward.

Hi Rusty, i dont care who is on the flesh and blood side or paranormal. I for one has never bagged people on there opinions. I have always stated my belief and have always said "They can only believe the paranormal side when they observe it themselves". I know if i didnt see it i would struggle believing it too. But when members start saying words like Unbelievable, and saying our opinions are rubbish and selective and ignorant, incorrect and rubbish, i find that extremely offensive.
The solution for me is to stick with the paranormal section from now on and share my evidence and research there. Thanks matey.

I agree with Dion, Yowie bait and adventurer.
Yowie bait says ''
Also stick to the paranormal section for paranormal stuff unless you have some research or evidence you want to share its easier to discuss on this section anyway.

Agree Yowie Paranormal researchers stick to the AYR - Yowie Controversial, Conjecture and Fringe Subject Matter Discussion however the flesh and blood believers stay on the Yowie/Bigfoot Discussion Board they are not welcome in the Paranormal section. In that way, everyone gets along amicably without any interference.

The other topics on the discussion boards where you have questions about ghosts, spirits, orbs. Extraterrestrials/UFOs they will receive my full-on response which I'm sure will upset the apple cart with many.

My topic Evidence Pertaining to The Origins of Bigfoot/Yowie/Yeti is closing on 55,000 views. Even though this was on the paranormal section my comments which were researched from Biblical texts and others came under constant attack from the flesh and blood proponents and the unbelievers with their negative, unresearched posts I can name them all this is the main reason I retaliated on the flesh and blood comments. I said some time ago that my posts were not solely intended for forum members but the wider viewing public but this didn't stop them from interfering.

I think this advocates well for the removal of these types from the AYR - Yowie Controversial, Conjecture and Fringe Subject Matter Discussion stay on the Yowie/Bigfoot Discussion Board.

Thanks for the feedback everyone !
I know it isn't easy sometimes and I'm guilty of it too .
So , can we please be mindful of each other and try be a little more diplomatic , if you don't believe in the Paranormal yowie then don't go to the Controversial page and vice versa In the end we're all in this together ……….

We fix the problem by being adults.

Rusty2 wrote: Fri Dec 20, 2019 8:19 am As a group of people interested in the same subject , can anyone offer a fair solution to both groups without banning anyone ?

Being not only one that goes back and forth on this subject regularly, but someone that also has to moderate such subjects (at another place located in the US), I know all to well that one's difference of opinion can swell up and overtake one's rational-means of sharing their own thoughts without spiraling down an emotional blackhole (or the.. "That person is wrong and I'm not going down without a fight").

The unfortunate side to this is that the internet doesn't help as it gives off the illusion that there's not a 'real person' on the other side of the Monitor and so tends to eliminate that human aspect in a conversation. We too prefer not to ban and work hard so we can salvage the member and allow him/her to remain and share their voice (in hopefully a civil manner). I used to use the analogy that if you wouldn't or couldn't say or explain something in a nice way to your GrandMother, then don't bother posting up the same on the 'board'.

The solution we discovered over 10 years ago was to moderate heavily and remove posts that went against the T&C's (terms and conditions). If they repeated the violation, they receive a post ban of 2 weeks. Continued abuse of the T&C's results in a banning that has to be approved by all of staff. Prior to signing up, they have to check/click that they've read the T&C's and understand them before they can become members. This plays well for the Owners/Staff as it's hard to say they 'didn't know' if they checked the

The downside is that it requires our Moderators to be ever vigilant on all posts, is very time-consuming, quite frustrating because in a way you develop a sort of Internet-friendship with many of the members and it's disheartening when they break the rules. For some, alcohol/drugs/mentality may play a part in why 'someone' went off the civil-way to post/discuss a subject. Some might just not be open-minded enough to understand that they don't have all the answers of the Universe.. and by hook and crook they'll fight for that with all their might (religion and other may play a role in this). Other's just take delight in getting things blown out of proportion, (and then there's the trolls).

Just sharing what we do at our site in regards to the subject matter... We have numerous Mods, Super-Mods and Administrators and we treat serious infractions (that might require banning) with a round-table staff discussion that's voted on.

Johnny

JohnnyAnonymous wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 9:42 am Being not only one that goes back and forth on this subject regularly, but someone that also has to moderate such subjects (at another place located in the US), I know all to well that one's difference of opinion can swell up and overtake one's rational-means of sharing their own thoughts without spiraling down an emotional blackhole (or the.. "That person is wrong and I'm not going down without a fight").

The unfortunate side to this is that the internet doesn't help as it gives off the illusion that there's not a 'real person' on the other side of the Monitor and so tends to eliminate that human aspect in a conversation. We too prefer not to ban and work hard so we can salvage the member and allow him/her to remain and share their voice (in hopefully a civil manner). I used to use the analogy that if you wouldn't or couldn't say or explain something in a nice way to your GrandMother, then don't bother posting up the same on the 'board'.

The solution we discovered over 10 years ago was to moderate heavily and remove posts that went against the T&C's (terms and conditions). If they repeated the violation, they receive a post ban of 2 weeks. Continued abuse of the T&C's results in a banning that has to be approved by all of staff. Prior to signing up, they have to check/click that they've read the T&C's and understand them before they can become members. This plays well for the Owners/Staff as it's hard to say they 'didn't know' if they checked the

The downside is that it requires our Moderators to be ever vigilant on all posts, is very time-consuming, quite frustrating because in a way you develop a sort of Internet-friendship with many of the members and it's disheartening when they break the rules. For some, alcohol/drugs/mentality may play a part in why 'someone' went off the civil-way to post/discuss a subject. Some might just not be open-minded enough to understand that they don't have all the answers of the Universe.. and by hook and crook they'll fight for that with all their might (religion and other may play a role in this). Other's just take delight in getting things blown out of proportion, (and then there's the trolls).

Just sharing what we do at our site in regards to the subject matter... We have numerous Mods, Super-Mods and Administrators and we treat serious infractions (that might require banning) with a round-table staff discussion that's voted on.

Johnny

Very well said JA

As a former admin here I agree with much of what you have written. The round table of mods and super mods who have a round table discussion in regards to infractions no longer applies here, something that did in the past, I may take up with the current admin, this forum certainly needs some type of moderation and it not happening at the moment.

Regards

I don't see a problem with animated discussion.

Nobody is ever going to fix this problem, because the yowie presents as both a flesh and blood creature and a paranormal creature, and people don't tend to look deeper than the superficial information in the witness reports.

There is a contradiction occurring which drives people at some stage to lean more one way than the other. That's where difference in opinion occurs, and this site in the manner it fence sits, will never ever cure it.

I propose, this difference be embraced, and serious research be done with a few willing witnesses, to see if there are any common denominators worth considering.

If this were done, and something interesting started revealing itself, someone here could take that data and apply for a government grant for a proper study to be conducted.

Black wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:26 pm I don't see a problem with animated discussion.

Nobody is ever going to fix this problem, because the yowie presents as both a flesh and blood creature and a paranormal creature, and people don't tend to look deeper than the superficial information in the witness reports.

There is a contradiction occurring which drives people at some stage to lean more one way than the other. That's where difference in opinion occurs, and this site in the manner it fence sits, will never ever cure it.

I propose, this difference be embraced, and serious research be done with a few willing witnesses, to see if there are any common denominators worth considering.

If this were done, and something interesting started revealing itself, someone here could take that data and apply for a government grant for a proper study to be conducted.

Great analysis Black.

I'll add 3 questions that ought to be considered by everyone interested in this contradiction:

1. What is the best objective evidence thus far for the yowie being flesh and blood?

2. What is the best objective evidence thus far for the yowie being paranormal?

3. How is the objectivity for each, established, and rated?

If a general consensus can be reached honestly on these 3 questions, the problem at hand would certainly be brought into sharper focus.

Any physical evidence from either witness or researcher, in this field is rare as hens teeth to begin with. It has to be acknowledged that the bread and butter of the bulk of all yowie reports is the evidence is subjective and the reports anecdotal.

Dion wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:29 pm "...... this forum certainly needs some type of moderation and it not happening at the moment. "

Wanted to add that an unfortunate thing we figured out a long time ago is that you can't trust and let the forum 'self-moderate or police' one another as you end up with no resolutions or solutions. It actually incite's (we discovered) more problems as the old 'give an inch, take a mile' becomes more a reality when members figure they can get away with saying whatever they wish with no thought of the other repercussions and harm it does to not just the poster they've got their sights on, but indeed the forum as a whole. The old "lets see how far over the line we can push it" effect.

Even now, many are wanting to offer suggestions of fixing the problem with a 'this party needs to think like this'..... problem solved. Where in truth were all trying to figure out how we can just communicate with each other without wanting to jump up and down (because that person is obviously just wrong and I can fix him/her). It's all in the delivery of one's ideas/thoughts/etc.

People (for the most part) are going to hear what they want, rather than really read the post/thoughts of the original poster and base their answer on the topic. But generally, they'll flip it around to something they've been pushing since they signed up, so then the thread takes a nose-dive away from the original topic of conversation.

Hence again.. can't let the member's decide how to fix the forum problem's, the need for Moderation is a reality regardless of the forum or topic matter. And it doestakes a special type of person to put themselves in a neutral stance, setting their own thoughts/theories aside, and then attempt to moderate a forum for the sake of the forum's civility and decorum.

I know that the hope was probably with a separate forum area/arena where people could focus on Paranormal would be the golden answer. Unfortunately, people are short-minded when it comes to instructions/suggestions. And to be honest.. in this subject matter we end up with a fairly equal amount of Flesh and Blood and Paranormal posts as the subject matter itself can have both. So them the Member is do I post it here... or do I post it there... or do I want to post at all?

It's not an easy task, this I know and certainly don't relish these decision needed to be made by Admin/Owners. If it makes any difference in the world... in comparison to many 'sites' that I go to and observe, YowieHunters has a very good group of members and truth-seekers so I hope some sort of solution can be found and wish good success with whatever avenue you pursue.

Just tossing 15 years of internet observation from (mostly) behind the curtain,
Johnny

As The Saker so succinctly phrased it recently... "People today place more emphasis on the right to hold an opinion than on the ability to form one."
... this does not mean one should dismiss out of hand another's opinion because one feels they have more of an ability to form one. In the end, nobody knows who is right nor who is wrong, so why invest so much energy into one's own opinion that it becomes necessary to shut down others that may contradict it?
Only a true fool believes he knows all.

To quote Yoda... "Patience with people one must have."

People have a right to air and share their opinions. Is this not the whole point in having a forum?

If you invest time and energy into something, in this case, yowie research, it is only natural you will form an opinion based upon your own point of view. If your experiences are strong, chances are you will develop a strong opinion.

You can't stop people being human, wolf. We aren't robots, as the saker would like to think humans are, and thus, it is difficult to remove emotions from the equation. People are allowed to be passionate.

Even though it might end up being the case, nobody wants to be 96 years old, still visiting this site, like groundhog day, still debating whether the yowie is flesh or paranormal. Honestly, the same debates on this site today are what were transpiring on this site, twenty years ago.

Thousands of hours of field research have collectively been conducted. I propose, if there are no breakthroughs, no progress, and expected results are not forthcoming, a new research approach is in order.

The target needs to move from the locations back to the Witnesses. That's the key.

Perhaps one day, the yowie will lead us to re-examine what it means to be human?

Black wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:24 pm People have a right to air and share their opinions. Is this not the whole point in having a forum?

...

You can't stop people being human, wolf. We aren't robots, as the saker would like to think humans are, and thus, it is difficult to remove emotions from the equation. People are allowed to be passionate.

???

As usual Black you seem to misinterpret my words, taking them to mean something other than their obvious intent... miss the point completely, and resultantly arrive at apparently illogical conclusions.

For someone trained in word use (legal studies) you seem to make illogical assumptions I simply do not comprehend... for example: how is it you come to the conclusion the Saker "likes to think humans are robots (sic)"? [INSERT SCRATCHING HEAD IN CONFUSION EMOTICON HERE]

Are you sure you aren't a police prosecutor? You seem to display the bizarre reasoning abilities I have experienced in ones I have known?

Misinterpretation. Oh, you mean like misinterpreting a magistrate as telling you the onus is on you to prove yourself innocent? Or coming up against a law abiding citizen who isn't a police prosecutor?

The quote from the saker doesn't take into consideration the way emotional investment can lead people to be less critical and rational, thus he'd might as well be referring to robots.

Actual yowie research and not just research for a lopsided piece of fictional trash, can become emotional.

Just think of the emotional investment you had in your journey of fighting and losing those contested traffic tickets wolf, and the way it lead to your illconceived opinion, the system is broken. At least you have your fellow cronies to tell you you were right.

So, how are your book sales for "A dangerous world" going? I see the same copies in my local bookstore are still on the shelf after twelve months.

Even with all the clues, you couldn't investigate your way out of a paper bag, could you wolf?

Black wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:56 am Misinterpretation. Oh, you mean like misinterpreting a magistrate as telling you the onus is on you to prove yourself innocent?

His exact words were: "Under the legislation your are Guilty until you prove yourself innocent"


No misinterpretation there...

Black wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:56 am Just think of the emotional investment you had in your journey of fighting and losing those contested traffic tickets wolf,

I won three of those matter Black.

Black wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:56 am So, how are your book sales for "A dangerous world" going? I see the same copies in my local bookstore are still on the shelf after twelve months.

Even with all the clues, you couldn't investigate your way out of a paper bag, could you wolf?

I have no book called 'A Dangerous World'... yet another example of your lack of comprehension

My investigative skills are enough to have discovered very early you are the user formerly known as Scarts

Come on guys , it's Christmas .

Rusty2 wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:49 am Come on guys , it's Christmas .

No, it's not! It's "Boxing" Day (sorry, couldn't resist) , so apparently "gloves are on" . . .

Wolf wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:48 am

Black wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:56 am Misinterpretation. Oh, you mean like misinterpreting a magistrate as telling you the onus is on you to prove yourself innocent?

His exact words were: "Under the legislation your are Guilty until you prove yourself innocent"


No misinterpretation there...

Black wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:56 am Just think of the emotional investment you had in your journey of fighting and losing those contested traffic tickets wolf,

I won three of those matter Black.

Black wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:56 am So, how are your book sales for "A dangerous world" going? I see the same copies in my local bookstore are still on the shelf after twelve months.

Even with all the clues, you couldn't investigate your way out of a paper bag, could you wolf?

I have no book called 'A Dangerous World'... yet another example of your lack of comprehension

Yes, it's boxing day!

Bravo, wolf! Thanks for demonstrating how the saker quote is wrong by posting your irrational emotional responses! Let's see if you'll continue your demonstration......

Words from a magistrate which rocked your world to it's very core, yet you wouldn't pay the small fee to get a copy of the transcript to easily prove those words were said, and you conveniently forgot to illegally audio record that conversation after illegally recording hours of other court sessions. Tell us another one, wolf!

You had an emotional investment, Wildwood. That's the point. If you wanna call repeated Court appearances where you spent more money in fuel to get to and from court than to pay a well deserved fine a win, go ahead. Not to mention the hundreds of hours you spent researching law and appealing court decisions, which you tried and failed to get compensated for. But you go ahead and call them wins.

A dangerous world, a violent world - what's the difference? It's the book you wrote. No lack of comprehension there. I mixed a word up in the book title, because anything more than a mere glance at the cover makes me physically ill. And what's with, "Wildwood"? Seriously? You were sober when you chose that as a pen name??????

(sigh) ... false accusation and misrepresentation of the truth after false accusation and misrepresentation of the truth is all I ever get from you Scarts... sorry, Black. (Gonna change your username again after your words and strawman attacks expose your immaturity yet again I wonder?)

I have told you in great detail my court events, including the 3 times judges found in my favour and dismissed the matters which you still fail to acknowledge or try to misinterpret.
I have repeatedly told you the truth of what that particular judge said. If you think I am going to spend the hundreds of dollars it takes to get a transcript just for you, you're even nuttier than I thought.

I initially posted in reply to you only to clarify how you misread/misinterpreted my words in reference to people's opinions ALL having value... and you go off on some tangent stating falsehoods about my court appearances? Seriously mate, what is wrong with you? (The very definition of a Strawman attack )

Is it to distract from the fact you failed to comprehend what I originally said?
...Typical behaviour from one 'trained' by the 'policey' enforcement system... an honourable man would simply acknowledge they had misread my words and move on. A dishonourable man (such as those trained/brainwashed to rob from their fellow citizenry) tries to divert away from the facts with unrelated falsehoods, accusations and immature attempts to belittle... "anything more than a mere glance at the cover makes me physically ill" Seriously?

Here is a suggestion, if your ego will allow you to take it... read my original post sloooowly. Perhaps then you will see how far off your following comment was... dunno why I bothered to react to your diversionary tactics. I guess they temporarily worked

BTW... raining in Gympie?
We're getting nice rain here, haven't had to water my garden for days.

Wolf, have a good look at yourself. This isn't about the saker quote being misinterpreted (which it wasn't). This was about you seeing an opportunity to launch a personal attack against me, and to voice your own immaturity with your disdain and disregard for the legal system. You couldn't help yourself.

Now. This is why you and I are going to continue to clash:

Not only do you condone white man law-breaking, but you condone cultural law-breaking. For you to have the staggering arrogance to think you have the right to voice on behalf of a yowie, a story from a yowie's perspective, beggars belief.

You proudly project disrespect to all forms of authority. Unless you are an indigenous person who channels the yowie, or who has lived with the yowie, what right do you have to even attempt such a story?

All I see is someone who has taken something from our indigenous people without their permission, and that is robbery.

Correct me if I'm wrong, wolf. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Back to the topic at hand. As wolf and I have both eloquently proven, you can't fix the problem between opinions because you can't remove emotions from emotionally invested topics. Flesh and blood versus paranormal is emotionally invested.

What this site should do is acknowledge the issue exists and exercise higher tolerance than ordinarily, to members when threads go off the rails. It's not really anybody's fault. As I pointed out earlier, a shift in focus when it comes to research, back upon the witness would be a positive development, and reduce the in-fighting.

That argument is truly hilarious.

Well done.

Well i wish i had both your intelligence quotient of what 180 ?? Have a happy new years guys! You could always shapeshift into a turkey Wolf and sneak up on Black lol. Dee

Wolf regularly shapeshifts into a turkey and sneaks up on me, on this board, adventurer. But, thanks for stating the obvious! Hey, it's not very nice to imply wolf has an IQ of less than 5, unless you have you read his b grade Hollywood horror movie script, oh, I mean, book? Have a happy new year and keep squatchin!

Gavin said it pretty well.

Any discussion will have facts (hopefully) or topics most people can contribute to, and this is the meat of a good forum.

It's when discussion turns into name-calling, personal attacks and glib tossed-off sarcasm that things get heated.

If everyone would restrict their commenting to the topic instead of the above, people wouldn't be offended. BUT being offended at people trying to help suggest ways of improving the getting of 'evidence' or the ephemeral things we experience as crypto-enthusiasts that can only be shared by retelling of our experiences, is NOT trolling (or whatever you may like to call it).

We need to leave our egos at the door to the forum, and come here with an intent to genuinely share, without having to be defensive about being mocked or attacked personally.

There are things I do not believe that are posted here, yet I choose to simply not respond. If your comment does not promote further learning, or add value to the thread, it becomes distracting noise and can provoke retaliation from others who disagree. The thread is de-railed and emotions come into it when they should not perhaps take such a front seat. Emotion will always play a part, though, as we are discussing and opening ourselves up to ridicule at many a turn, so it behooves us to remember why we are here and to put ourselves in the place of others who may be putting themselves out there to a degree that we would not. You can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Arguing with people rarely changes their minds, but if you want to add a thinking point for consideration, how respectfully you do it, and how in turn, you are respectfully treated, will make or break a thread.

Cheers
Shazz, the wordy

Hilarious it is indeed how some people double down when called out rather than correct their misplaced assumptions.

For the record, I have not applied a single ad hominem attack in any of my comments have I? ... merely questioned your comprehension abilities due to how you interpreted my words in my original post.

Yet it is YOU, Black who applies ad hominem liberally in EVERY post, is it not?
... even going so far as to accuse me of cultural appropriation and "daring" to "know what a Yowie is thinking".
... by that argument Jack London should have never written White Fang nor Call Of The Wild, and thousands of animal stories should never have been written nor made into movies... let alone literally EVERY novel ever written, animal-based or otherwise, for EVERY writer 'assumes' to know what their characters are thinking do they not?

But keep on with the Strawman/ad hominem tactics Black, they expose you for what you are.

(sigh)... better get back to my cultural appropriation by writing fiction about an unproven animal.