Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) - View Single Post

gscraig · 11-11-2009, 01:07 PM

Karen,

I will pm you most of my response to prevent too much "off topic" posting in this area. However, I will indeed respond with some perspectives openly via this thread. Beginning with what you have provided, which does not suffice specifically in terms of what I'm pointing out.

1) Yes, I've read Bill's letters, Kerry's responses, etc. Many of us including myself on this site, to some degree have an appreciation and/or respect for what they do, but they are not flawless and may come under fire regardless of their principles. That is called "discernment", rather it is right or wrong. You, Bill, Kerry, and all Moderators should never defend that right of expression by those whom support this cause. Yes, you can suggest as Kerry has for those whom expressed not liking her interviewing style to go somewhere else (not specifically quoted). Poorly handled, but point taken. There a many who sacrifice and have principles just as they do, but you don't hear about it and they don't write letters to be sure it's understood. You would be surprised by the number of the most irrelevant persons on this forum, could easily be the ones whom know more than the average Joe regarding what's going on.

2) You see, those whom "choose" to pay on this site and donate should have some level of say...Similar to one who owns a percentage of stock in a company. Transparecy is showing people what they are paying for and donating to, if something is sensitive in nature, there are ways around not making it completely exposed. I can see and appreciate what Bill and Kerry do that other sites don't, but there remains a lack of transparency. Be a 100%pure, not 75%.

3) Briefly regarding the interviews. Basically, we are seeing a recycling of information and anything that is "new information" we hear from the interviewees "I rather not discuss". That, I can get from the same government, that they are looking to retrieve the entirety of truth, no? Perhaps "they" would be better served keeping quiet or don't interview those whom are only willing to tell us what we've heard times over. The game has changed, change with it.

I will pm you with more specifics.

11-11-2009, 01:07 PM	#30
gscraig Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 335	Re: THE WATCHER Directional Change Karen, I will pm you most of my response to prevent too much "off topic" posting in this area. However, I will indeed respond with some perspectives openly via this thread. Beginning with what you have provided, which does not suffice specifically in terms of what I'm pointing out. 1) Yes, I've read Bill's letters, Kerry's responses, etc. Many of us including myself on this site, to some degree have an appreciation and/or respect for what they do, but they are not flawless and may come under fire regardless of their principles. That is called "discernment", rather it is right or wrong. You, Bill, Kerry, and all Moderators should never defend that right of expression by those whom support this cause. Yes, you can suggest as Kerry has for those whom expressed not liking her interviewing style to go somewhere else (not specifically quoted). Poorly handled, but point taken. There a many who sacrifice and have principles just as they do, but you don't hear about it and they don't write letters to be sure it's understood. You would be surprised by the number of the most irrelevant persons on this forum, could easily be the ones whom know more than the average Joe regarding what's going on. 2) You see, those whom "choose" to pay on this site and donate should have some level of say...Similar to one who owns a percentage of stock in a company. Transparecy is showing people what they are paying for and donating to, if something is sensitive in nature, there are ways around not making it completely exposed. I can see and appreciate what Bill and Kerry do that other sites don't, but there remains a lack of transparency. Be a 100%pure, not 75%. 3) Briefly regarding the interviews. Basically, we are seeing a recycling of information and anything that is "new information" we hear from the interviewees "I rather not discuss". That, I can get from the same government, that they are looking to retrieve the entirety of truth, no? Perhaps "they" would be better served keeping quiet or don't interview those whom are only willing to tell us what we've heard times over. The game has changed, change with it. I will pm you with more specifics.