posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:57 PM
I don't regard being told not to forget a specific date a "dire prognostication," though it could certainly be construed as such. My interpretation
was that the OP seemed concerned with some information - information he or she has still not explained the nature of - that may or may not have
portended some event or scenario unfolding on April 9th. He or she never said that they believed (or that they didn't believe, to be fair) that
anything - let alone anything specific - would happen that day. There was never anything to debunk, because Qwenn never offered anything specific.
I am a skeptic, or rather I try to be. That means that I try my best not to make assertions without proof, including the assertion that what someone
else asserts is false or incorrect. Particularly in this case, when the person in question didn't assert anything, and merely requested information,
asked questions, and promised to post on the 9th; the only thing that could be debunked or denied is that very promise. That said, I'd still be very
interested to know what this was all about and what the information he or she was so concerned with was pertaining to.
I don't think a posture of having proved them to be a hoaxer or liar or anything of the sort is beneficial, warranted, or frankly (in my opinion,)
justified. The only untrue things that were said, as far as we know, were the statements that they would post again on the 9th in reference to all of
this, and that they would leave ATS on the 9th (not that I want anyone to leave ATS unless banned.) No other assertions were made one way or another.
I'd really like to know what this was all about, why Byrd was so inclined to believe Qwenn had been pranked, etc. Moreover, if Qwenn was indeed the
subject of a prank, then there is even less reason to cast aspersions on his or her credibility.
There is an utter lack of transparency and situational awareness here on the part of we, the readers, as it pertains to the threads in question. I’m
just a very curious person who loathes not having things explained to me clearly. At the same time, however, I seek to avoid insulting, offending, or
trying to debunk anyone, particularly in this case, as there was never anything to disprove in the first place. I’m keeping an open mind and giving
everyone involved the benefit of the doubt.
At the very least, I'd appreciate it if Qwenn and Byrd could state for the record that they have no intention of further clarifying the matter, and
that we should drop it, in which case obviously I will have no reason to remain curious.