# Blackfish is a Lie



## Tom (Oct 9, 2017)

We've discussed this film and the horrible actions of animal rights groups here many times. This film was lauded by many as an exposure of terrible animal abuse. Turns out much of it was a lie. A manipulation. A tool to play upon people's emotions. Many people fell for it, I'm sad to say. Here is a glimpse of the truth of it:





The animal rights movement is the enemy of those who love animals. Don't be fooled.


----------



## Blakem (Oct 9, 2017)

Interesting, it’s too bad that it hasn’t been advertised that it was not real.


----------



## Tom (Oct 9, 2017)

Blake m said:


> Interesting, it’s too bad that it hasn’t been advertised that it was not real.



Seems to be the trend with the news media lately, doesn't it?


----------



## Cowboy_Ken (Oct 10, 2017)

Tom said:


> lately,


Lately?????
Networks all have bills that need to be paid and going for flashy stories, real or otherwise, bring in sponsorship to pay those bills. Always remember, “The Martian’s are Coming”. most all the country fell for that one.


----------



## theguy67 (Oct 14, 2017)

Very interesting. It's all about sensationalism in media. Animal Planet did it with their mermaid "documentary", and Discovery followed with their Megaladon "program" during shark week. 

I'll admit, although I was aware Black Fish was slanted, I kinda fell for it. And although I think there's still a lot that needs to be discussed about keeping cetaceans in captivity, I don't think many who express their opinion about marine parks (and zoos in general) are qualified to do so. 

The really interesting point of view would be the consensus among biologists.


----------



## Cowboy_Ken (Oct 14, 2017)

theguy67 said:


> And although I think there's still a lot that needs to be discussed about keeping cetaceans in captivity, I don't think many who express their opinion about marine parks (and zoos in general) are qualified to do so.
> The really interesting point of view would be the consensus among biologists.


Im betting Dr. John C. Lilly (Dr. John Cunningham Lilly (January 6, 1915 – September 30, 2001) was an American physician, neuroscientist, psychoanalyst, psychonaut, philosopher, writer and inventor.)
Would have had plenty of valuable input regarding cetaceans in general and their intelligence specifically.


----------



## theguy67 (Oct 14, 2017)

Cowboy_Ken said:


> Im betting Dr. John C. Lilly (Dr. John Cunningham Lilly (January 6, 1915 – September 30, 2001) was an American physician, neuroscientist, psychoanalyst, psychonaut, philosopher, writer and inventor.)
> Would have had plenty of valuable input regarding cetaceans in general and their intelligence specifically.



I'm not super familiar with his work, but I know it was controversial for some. 

My main issue is with people who have zero scientific training, but a large audience, spouting their opinions on subjects such as these. Whoopi Goldberg is a fine example, from the video in Tom's original post.


----------



## wellington (Oct 14, 2017)

I'd like to see a totally independent do research on what is real and what isn't. 
So far you have PETA making it look like sea world is bad.
Now you have sea world saying/showing they aren't. 
Of course they aren't going to make themselves look bad.
Just saying, it's both sides claiming their right. 
Now I have no idea who is right and who isn't. So far I just see two sides justifying their own agenda.


----------



## theguy67 (Oct 14, 2017)

wellington said:


> I'd like to see a totally independent do research on what is real and what isn't.
> So far you have PETA making it look like sea world is bad.
> Now you have sea world saying/showing they aren't.
> Of course they aren't going to make themselves look bad.
> ...



I think you just summed up the problem with the world...Someone says something, a group believes it, the other side tries to offer a rebuttal, people begin responding with their emotions, etc. It's something I like to call the "Fan Syndrome". I've first observed this at sporting events. People come to a...lets say, high school foot ball game. The ref makes a call some parents don't like. The other side sees them acting like animals. A rivalry is born. Humans are very social creatures, and this syndrome as I call it, is summarized by the desire of people to surround themselves by those with a like mind, especially in the presence of a common enemy. You can see it everywhere: sports, politics, clubs, forums, and even with comic books. 

I'm getting off topic there, so I'm going to return back to the subject lol. 

Either way, I think we can all agree that Sea World does a lot of good. Without zoos and parks, many kids would never see a whale, or elephant. There wouldn't be as much interest in preservation of the environment, just like the video states. 

The reason why I'm curious of the scientific consensus is because I remember sitting in on a lecture for marine mammals, and the speaker would not answer questions about Sea World. I'm pretty sure she was against whales in captivity. So I guess I'm wanting the same thing as you, Wellington. Just from a specific perspective. If there is controversy, even in the scientific community, why is it there? What side is right? A big problem we run into is ethics, and everyone's differing views and beliefs on what suffering is and isn't. You can't really define what is specifically ethical. It's more of a general consensus.


----------



## kevantheman35 (Oct 15, 2017)

I’ve worked in the zoo and Aquarium world for the last 10 years until recently. Among the industry this documentary is thought of as a joke.


----------



## Tom (Oct 15, 2017)

kevantheman35 said:


> I’ve worked in the zoo and Aquarium world for the last 10 years until recently. Among the industry this documentary is thought of as a joke.



Yeah, A joke that is turning the tide of public opinion (Completely emotional based unfounded public opinion..) against a lot of good people doing good work with animals for the betterment of people and animals.

BTW, your pic isn't showing. Jus that little meter diagram from photo bucket.


----------



## ZEROPILOT (Oct 15, 2017)

Tom said:


> Seems to be the trend with the news media lately, doesn't it?


You said a mouthful there.


----------



## Tom (Oct 15, 2017)

theguy67 said:


> My main issue is with people who have zero scientific training, but a large audience, spouting their opinions on subjects such as these. Whoopi Goldberg is a fine example, from the video in Tom's original post.



Seems to be the trend lately. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even when they have zero experience or knowledge to base it on, while the people who actually have their hands in the work, are shouted down or ignored. Troubled times we live in...


----------



## theguy67 (Oct 15, 2017)

Tom said:


> Seems to be the trend lately. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even when they have zero experience or knowledge to base it on, while the people who actually have their hands in the work, are shouted down or ignored. Troubled times we live in...



True. However, I will say opinions are not all equal. What our teachers taught us in elementary school that opinions are neither right or wrong, to me, is not entirely accurate. An opinion supported by fact and experience trumps that with out. BUT actors and celebrities get more time in front of the camera. People enjoy them in their movies, so they enjoy seeing them on talk shows. Unfortunately many people do not enjoy science, so they do not take the time to try and understand the subject before formulating an opinion.


----------



## Tom (Oct 15, 2017)

theguy67 said:


> True. However, I will say opinions are not all equal. What our teachers taught us in elementary school that opinions are neither right or wrong, to me, is not entirely accurate. An opinion supported by fact and experience trumps that with out. BUT actors and celebrities get more time in front of the camera. People enjoy them in their movies, so they enjoy seeing them on talk shows. Unfortunately many people do not enjoy science, so they do not take the time to try and understand the subject before formulating an opinion.


I agree.

Some people formulate their opinions with emotions and feelings, in the absence, ignorance of facts. Unfortunately, these people too often have a lofty platform from which to share their unfounded and often incorrect opinions.


----------



## Cowboy_Ken (Oct 15, 2017)

Tom said:


> I agree.
> 
> Some people formulate their opinions with emotions and feelings, in the absence, ignorance of facts. Unfortunately, these people too often have a lofty platform from which to share their unfounded and often incorrect opinions.



Hold on a spell here Mr. Tom. Isn’t the very essence of your post as well as the post that you yourself are in fact quote-posting overall an opinion? ; ) (Disclaimer; for those unaware, Tom and myself are good, goofy friends that have a tendency to flick each other SH__T and this should be read under that it should please be read with this in mind.)


----------



## Tom (Oct 15, 2017)

Cowboy_Ken said:


> Hold on a spell here Mr. Tom. Isn’t the very essence of your post as well as the post that you yourself are in fact quote-posting overall an opinion? ; ) (Disclaimer; for those unaware, Tom and myself are good, goofy friends that have a tendency to flick each other SH__T and this should be read under that it should please be read with this in mind.)



No Sir. I am reporting the _fact_ the this character assassinating film is a pack of lies intended to manipulate people's emotions and hurt the people the film makers don't like.

It is my _opinion _that SeaWorld is a wonderful place, though no more perfect than any other place, and that they do amazing work there. My opinion is based on facts that I have witnessed first hand and also upon facts gathered from former and current employees of the facility in question.


----------



## wellington (Oct 15, 2017)

Tom said:


> No Sir. I am reporting the _fact_ the this character assassinating film is a pack of lies intended to manipulate people's emotions and hurt the people the film makers don't like.
> 
> It is my _opinion _that SeaWorld is a wonderful place, though no more perfect than any other place, and that they do amazing work there. My opinion is based on facts that I have witnessed first hand and also upon facts gathered from former and current employees of the facility in question.


Tom, isn't Sea World just doing the same thing the film did? Defending their side? 
Of course Sea World is going to say it's fake, made up, blah, blah, blah and the same with the makers of the film. 
In these kinds of situations, a side would be more believable with an independent proving what really is the truth.
Btw, I love Zoos and Aquariums. I do think they are a good place to educate, inform, and to grab people's emotions to care more about the animals. I also wish faster and better improvements were made on a lot of them. I also hope Sea World is telling the truth. However, it's just their word against the others word. An independent could really work
miracles.


----------



## Tom (Oct 15, 2017)

wellington said:


> Tom, isn't Sea World just doing the same thing the film did? Defending their side?
> Of course Sea World is going to say it's fake, made up, blah, blah, blah and the same with the makers of the film.
> In these kinds of situations, a side would be more believable with an independent proving what really is the truth.
> Btw, I love Zoos and Aquariums. I do think they are a good place to educate, inform, and to grab people's emotions to care more about the animals. I also wish faster and better improvements were made on a lot of them. I also hope Sea World is telling the truth. However, it's just their word against the others word. An independent could really work
> miracles.



No. Not the same thing at all. Sea World is pointing out facts. Did you not watch the video I posted? The phony film says the mother is crying and soooooo sad about her baby being taken away, and the commenters are just devastated… The whale they show: 1. Isn't the mother of the baby, 2. Is at an entirely different facility, and 3. Killer Whales don't even make the fake sounds the film inserted to play upon people's emotional sympathy for the poor bereft mama whale.

Simply telling the truth and pointing out the facts when you've been falsely accused and slandered is NOT the same thing as falsely accusing and slandering someone. 

If I accused a family member of yours of rape and murder and made a fake film all about it full of lies, distortions, and slander, would you consider it my side against your side doing the same thing when you tried to tell people it wasn't true? When you told people I was a liar, the whole thing was phony, and the film I made was a fake, would that just be you "defending your side"?

Another example: What If I stole your TV. The police find it in my house and you claim its yours. I simply tell the police that its my TV and you are lying. Are we just two people defending our sides? Or is one of us a crooked lying thief, and the other a victim of theft?

This isn't about two innocent parties each telling their side of the same story. This is about one group who is extremely dedicated to conservation, education, and the preservation of the oceans realm, who and employees thousands of people that devote their entire lives to these amazing animals and the ocean environment being viciously, fraudulently and wrongfully attacked by a left wing whacko group who will lie, cheat, steal, vandalize, burn down buildings, and more to accomplish the goal of furthering their agenda, and they do it with $80 million in donations from people who have been deceived and had their money hustled out from under them by these phonies.

Its the job of Animal Rights groups to destroy the lives of people who work with animals. The people who work with animals just want to go to work and earn an honest living doing what they love. Its a one sided fight. No one is fighting back on the side of the animal people. We have jobs. We aren't lying to people to cheat them out of millions of dollars so we can spend every day with our team of lawyers thinking of new and creative ways to slander and bankrupt animal rights groups. Many people realize what is going on, but no one seems to want to do anything about it. So we suffer wave after wave of attacks, like this horrid movie, and we do what we can to fight back. The truth is on our side, but the money and time sure isn't.


----------



## wellington (Oct 15, 2017)

I did watch your video. I don't see proof that it's fake. I see Sea World saying it's fake. Where's the proof, other then Sea World's words? 
Sea Worlds words won't change minds/opinions, but proof will, an independents, with no stake in the game proof. 
If you stole my tv and you told the police it was yours, when I'm saying it's mine, the police are going to want proof to determine who is telling the truth. Receipt, serial number, a picture of it in the house from the past, something. Small matter, so not a lot at stake really compared to the Blackfish story. The Blackfish story has bigger stakes up for grabs. Bigger stacks makes one or both sides pull out every trick possible to be the winner. With technology today, just about anything can be made to look true. However, with this technology, is also technology to prove which is fake/tampered with and which as never been altered. Cheap, I'm sure not. However, with such big stakes, it would be worth the wager for the hiring of the independent to settle it once and for all with proof, not just words.


----------



## theguy67 (Oct 15, 2017)

I do see Wellington's point. Obviously parts of Black Fish were manipulated, and faked, but the question of Sea World's honesty is still a valid one. However, I still believe in innocent until proven guilty. Sure, marine parks such as Sea World do have dark pasts, and when they screw up I don't blame them for sweeping stuff under the rug. I think the good Sea World has done still out weighs the bad, and Black Fish hasn't done much good. If anything, that program only made things worse by widening the divide.

There's a group out there that sees any thing with walls as a prison. Many animal activists fall in to this group. When it comes to animals, its very easy to play on someone's emotions.

Also @Tom . The reason ( I think) "no one seems to want to do anything about it" is because of sensationalism. Like I said above about playing on people's emotions. There's nothing sensational about animals NOT suffering. You'd have to go in a round-about way which removes the shock factor. Essentially "whale's aren't suffering, but black fish did x,y,and z, only to cause this effect. Starts to sound like a conspiracy theory. Most people lose interest at this point, and many arrive at the question @wellington asked. Sometimes its hard to know who to listen to and they just give up.


----------



## theguy67 (Oct 15, 2017)

Another question I have is about the former trainers that were speaking out. Why did they turn against Sea World? 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts...s-belong-in-the-ocean-not-seaworld-180954333/ This article briefly mentions one, as well as a book he wrote. Maybe his book would shed some light...

This is a tricky subject for me, because I'm still on the fence about Sea World having orcas. Do I think whales can be kept in captivity? Yes, but with much more room. That is probably not very cost effective, which is unfortunate.


----------



## Tom (Oct 15, 2017)

wellington said:


> I did watch your video. I don't see proof that it's fake. I see Sea World saying it's fake. Where's the proof, other then Sea World's words?
> Sea Worlds words won't change minds/opinions, but proof will, an independents, with no stake in the game proof.
> If you stole my tv and you told the police it was yours, when I'm saying it's mine, the police are going to want proof to determine who is telling the truth. Receipt, serial number, a picture of it in the house from the past, something. Small matter, so not a lot at stake really compared to the Blackfish story. The Blackfish story has bigger stakes up for grabs. Bigger stacks makes one or both sides pull out every trick possible to be the winner. With technology today, just about anything can be made to look true. However, with this technology, is also technology to prove which is fake/tampered with and which as never been altered. Cheap, I'm sure not. However, with such big stakes, it would be worth the wager for the hiring of the independent to settle it once and for all with proof, not just words.



If you are equating the honesty and integrity of Seaworld with that of animal rightists, then this battle is already lost.


----------



## Tom (Oct 15, 2017)

theguy67 said:


> Also @Tom . The reason ( I think) "no one seems to want to do anything about it" is because of sensationalism. Like I said above about playing on people's emotions. There's nothing sensational about animals NOT suffering. You'd have to go in a round-about way which removes the shock factor. Essentially "whale's aren't suffering, but black fish did x,y,and z, only to cause this effect. Starts to sound like a conspiracy theory. Most people lose interest at this point, and many arrive at the question @wellington asked. Sometimes its hard to know who to listen to and they just give up.



All good points, and a very well done explanation of how this drama usually plays out.

Each time it goes the way you've described, however, people who did nothing wrong, and everything right, lose. They lose their jobs, their livelihood, their professional reputation, their faith in the legal system, their faith in humanity even. All this because of an unfounded accusation.

The bullyies with the agenda and all the money behind them simply make a false accusation. Their lies revolve around some remote element of truth and they show sad film footage with sad music, and their victim is crucified before a defense can even be mounted. When a defense is mounted, then its the muddy waters you've described in your post, no one knows who to believe, but the damage is already done. The victim of the slanderous remarks has already lost and lost big time.

Its wrong and it needs to be put to a stop. Its a witch hunt, but this isn't Salem.


----------



## Tom (Oct 15, 2017)

theguy67 said:


> Another question I have is about the former trainers that were speaking out. Why did they turn against Sea World?



In any group of thousands of people, there are going to be nut jobs. I support Law Enforcement and overall they are some of the best people in our country. But among their ranks tens of thousands, there are a few rotten apples. Its unavoidable.

Same thing with SeaWorld. Who knows what is going on in the minds of these people. Maybe they've watched one to many animals rights commercials with the Sarah Mclachlan music and their brains turned to mush. Seriously though, maybe they've been brainwashed by one of these AR groups. Maybe they were an AR with an agenda before they went to work for SeaWorld. Perhaps they went in with a hidden agenda. Think this is preposterous? PETA used to place ads offering to pay for people's education, if they would promise to go undercover for them after. Friends of mine have been the victims of this infiltration. They also funded large numbers of people who when on to get hired by government agencies that control animal regulations and enforcement. Over the last couple of decades, these infiltrators with an agenda have worked their way up and been promoted to positions of power and authority. They abuse this power and authority to push their AR agenda every chance they get. Its sickening, and very little can or has been done about it.

Here's a different question that might shed some light: Why are there only one or two speaking out? There have been hundreds of orca trainers over the decades. I know some of them. If things were so bad, why don't all of them speak out. None of the ones I know are shy or soft-spoken in any way. People are entitled to feel the way they wanna feel. Doesn't mean it makes sense. Heck look at all the AR people on this very forum, a forum all about keeping wild exotic animals in captivity. What they say about AR is in direct contrast with what they are doing in their backyard every single day. They get on the internet machine, decry SeaWorld as horrible animal abusers, laud the people who made this preposterous film, and then go outside and admire their pet tortoise in their back yard. Talk about a complete mental disconnect...


----------



## KevinGG (Oct 15, 2017)

As much as animal rights groups may lie, they are not all liars and not all of the work done is wrong. This seems to be an ongoing thing, and one that is getting boring. Both sides continually show a disinterest in finding the truth and more in perpetuating an agenda. 

I disagree with @Tom in his “a few bad apples” comment in regard to police. Over and over again, we have seen examples of a culture that holds great bias, is unskillful and unlawful itself, kill thousands of citizens every year and more. This is not to say they are exclusively bad. In addition to the above, they continually risk their lives to help and protect people and are successful in doing so. I have more than one police officer within my family and friends and i respect and love them. (We should probably veer away from this to stay within forum rules and on topic) A critique is not evidence of disrespect. It takes great respect and love to be able to question a system or an institution or an individual, because it allows one to see them entirely. One cannot love something they are not willing to see all of. Nothing is exclusively good or bad. 

Seaworld is no exception to this. And if ones opinion is that Seaworld, and it’s orca program, have nothing to improve, have never acted inappropriately, then that person is diluted. Seaworld is a for-profit park and is designed for people as much as animals. Of course there are inherent problems in this, but I haven’t seen a great deal of work done by Seaworld to improve, as much as deny any problems or wrongdoing. Because of this I don’t find myself upset at the end of their orca programs. More people may not speak out at Seaworld due to fear of a job loss or a culture that punishes those who subvert. This wouldn’t be revolutionary, especially within a field wherein all facilities are overseen by the AZA. 

Blackfish was undoubtedly one sided. Seaworld is undoubtedly one sided. (A segment titled “Green Tyranny” is definitely one sided) As are AR groups and animal facilities (there are many that lie inbetween by the way.) We have to be more intelligent and more wise than to choose one or the other, but rather find an honest area based on facts, not sales pitches. Many of us decry poor conditions at certain tortoise breeding facilities and pet stores, but can see that others are okay and some (few) are great. It is not a conversation of only “should we or shouldn’t we keep animals”. It is one of “which animals” and “how are they kept” and “where do they come from” etc. We should look and think deeper.


----------



## wellington (Oct 16, 2017)

Tom said:


> If you are equating the honesty and integrity of Seaworld with that of animal rightists, then this battle is already lost.


Tom, if you think Sea World wouldn't stoop so low to clear their name and to try and save the thousands they are losing, then you are too close to the situation, being in the field, and so against anyone standing up for animal rights, to see things clearly. I am in no way defending Peta, never would, after learning the truth about them. However, not everyone in the field of animals treat animals the way you and I do. Veterinarians, rescues, zoos, aquariums, have all at one time or more over the years, some very recent, have abused animals in one way or another. Not the practice of the institutions, but, the actions of an employee(s) and the institution takes the heat. Don't forget, before your time in the animal field, animals in your business were not treated well. It was the animal rights people that demanded appropriate care and well being of actor animals. 
Not all animal rights people or groups wants to put you out of a job, in fact it's not about you, it's about fair and appropriate treatment and collection of animals. They just want animals to be treated as they should be and yes, some don't want us to have animals at all it seems. 
It wasn't that many years ago, that Sea World was plucking baby Orcas from their mothers. 
A he said she said proves nothing!


----------



## Tom (Oct 16, 2017)

wellington said:


> Don't forget, before your time in the animal field, animals in your business were not treated well. It was the animal rights people that demanded appropriate care and well being of actor animals.



Here you've missed a very important distinction, and its a missed distinction that is still carried on until this day with most of society. I hope I can explain the difference here.

The groups and people that made a difference in the past and improved the care and conditions of animals were "Animal Welfare" groups. These are people like you and me who want to see animals treated not only humanely, as a minimum standard, but treated well. I think most of society, except for a few sick individuals, fits into this category. 

The group that we are discussing here is NOT an animal welfare group. Seeing animals treated well is not their goal, although they've learned that deceiving people into believe that helping animals is their goal gets them paid. Animal rightists, and the people they dupe into going along with them, have a much bigger agenda, and lying cheating and stealing to achieve their agenda fits right into their moral code. The leaders of these groups are bad people. I've met them. I've interacted wit them.

A little bit of research will make this distinction clear to anyone that cares to look into it.


----------



## theguy67 (Oct 16, 2017)

To me the distinction is clear. I like to visualize it as a spectrum. Peta being on an extreme end, and those advocating for animal welfare closer to the middle. I could possibly see how animal rights groups evolved from the early animal welfare groups. It seems every time an activist group is needed and formed, a minority of extremists emerge and take part of the movement into a wild direction. You can use your imagination and see others, as that's a whole other can of worms we probably shouldn't open. 

The distinction is important. Although it wasn't clear in his statement, @wellington is probably aware of this. The issue remains (at least for him - I'm assuming you're male? lol) that he has trouble with who or where to get the truth from. I've already accepted that I will probably never have the truth, unless I go directly to the source. Now I could go to a secondary source, like Tom. BUT, I don't know Tom. (Just using you as an example) Everything he's saying is most likely true, but I can't know that to 100% certainty. So I can understand why it becomes frustrating when you are being pulled two different directions, and I don't think hiring an independent to find this "truth" would really work.


----------



## wellington (Oct 16, 2017)

Tom said:


> Here you've missed a very important distinction, and its a missed distinction that is still carried on until this day with most of society. I hope I can explain the difference here.
> 
> The groups and people that made a difference in the past and improved the care and conditions of animals were "Animal Welfare" groups. These are people like you and me who want to see animals treated not only humanely, as a minimum standard, but treated well. I think most of society, except for a few sick individuals, fits into this category.
> 
> ...


I agree, this particular group does play dirty. Most animal groups do not.
I get that. I also get too, that many corporations play dirty too, specially when under fire and losing thousands. 
So, you and all understand. I'm for Sea World. I hope they are being honest about their present practices and the past. I just believe in proof then he said she said. I think it would change a whole lot more minds, not only about Sea World, but about the animal group involved.


----------



## wellington (Oct 16, 2017)

theguy67 said:


> To me the distinction is clear. I like to visualize it as a spectrum. Peta being on an extreme end, and those advocating for animal welfare closer to the middle. I could possibly see how animal rights groups evolved from the early animal welfare groups. It seems every time an activist group is needed and formed, a minority of extremists emerge and take part of the movement into a wild direction. You can use your imagination and see others, as that's a whole other can of worms we probably shouldn't open.
> 
> The distinction is important. Although it wasn't clear in his statement, @wellington is probably aware of this. The issue remains (at least for him - I'm assuming you're male? lol) that he has trouble with who or where to get the truth from. I've already accepted that I will probably never have the truth, unless I go directly to the source. Now I could go to a secondary source, like Tom. BUT, I don't know Tom. (Just using you as an example) Everything he's saying is most likely true, but I can't know that to 100% certainty. So I can understand why it becomes frustrating when you are being pulled two different directions, and I don't think hiring an independent to find this "truth" would really work.


LOL, no I'm not male, but that's okay. Real name is Barb.
I don't really believe something just because someone said it. I do know Tom, a stand up guy! I would and do believe him. However, it was Tom when I joined this forum that backed up his words with proof. That was my reason for reaching out to him more then the forum. (This was in the very beginning, before I knew or trusted anyone)


----------



## theguy67 (Oct 16, 2017)

wellington said:


> LOL, no I'm not male, but that's okay. Real name is Barb.
> I don't really believe something just because someone said it. I do know Tom, a stand up guy! I would and do believe him. However, it was Tom when I joined this forum that backed up his words with proof. That was my reason for reaching out to him more then the forum. (This was in the very beginning, before I knew or trusted anyone)



LOL whoops. Well I'm not super active on here. Sometimes I look at usernames at create the character in my head. 

And I was just using Tom as an example. The hardest part in all of this is developing tools to sift through all of the information we are faced with.


----------

