The question was in regard to what EVIDENCE there was regarding them being the same person. I also stated that it didn't really matter for my point whether they were or not. I was just curious as to whether someone had some concrete evidence to support their claims, or if they were just running on suppositions and hearsay as seems to often be the case. I still have not seen ANY evidence..only claims. Just because someone gets on here and says "He Emailed me. It was definitely Fred." doesn't make it so. It's still just a claim. You can get on the internet and say ANYTHING. Just saying it does not make it true and I have no idea who Kanuk is or his level of trustworthiness or honesty any more than I do yours. I'm not saying I doubt your integrity or his, I have no reason to. However, I don't believe anything anyone tells me about anything unless I can see evidence or have some other reason to believe it's true and that includes Fred. What I am telling you is that whether Fred and Sobek are one and the same has not been proven to me and doesn't matter to me. I could care less about his political views or yours or anyone else's for that matter. I have my opinions, and they will remain just that. I was simply curious as to whether you guys REALLY knew what you were talking about or were just talking, and now I think I have my answer.
As I said before, I don't come to KS to talk politics. To me that's like going to French Cooking website to talk about Molecular Microbiology. If I want to discuss politics, I'll go to a political website. If there are people in one of my other websites that I want to talk politics with, I'll invite them to go to the political site with me. My discussions with Fred, when we have them, whether they are on the forum or by E-mail, DO NOT include politics, religion, sailing, or anything else other than Herpetology related subjects. Whatever dealings he has with anyone else is between him and them and not my concern. I understand that you have had some bad dealings (at least from your point of view) with Fred in the past and maybe a few others such as John Cherry, but believe me, not everyone else wants to hear all the details and see the same repetitive rantings over and over and over and deal with all of the disruptiveness every time you decide to turn a conversation that doesn't include you into a way to wedge your agenda in. I don't blame you for being angry if you did, in fact, get the bad end of a deal or two. Anyone would be angry. But it's not necessary to continually impose all of that on the rest of the world. Once you make your point once, that should be enough. Everyone in these forums is intelligent enough to take the information ALREADY provided and make their own decisions. In the case of John, he is a well known and respected (and very knowledeable) breeder. I think that some of your postings were perhaps misinterpreted with regard to that problem, then became construed as just another attempt to be disruptive. It has to do with the fact that everyone knows John and his accomplishments and years of work, but nobody knows you or your accomplishments. Then you take the attitude that is conveyed in your postings and it's no wonder people get upset with you and your postings end up being deleted. The problem with your approach is that your points end up being lost in the feud that results, and nobody takes them seriously because of that approach. I've seen a couple of times when it appeared that you were going to try a more diplomatic approach, but it was either already too late or for whatever reason, the conversation just disentegrated after that. There have been times that I have understood and even agreed with the point that you were trying to make, but by the time the conversation gets to the point of name-calling and attitudes, all points are lost. When you end a post with something like "Next", as if you have successfully dispatched another opponent, when in reality you have failed to even make a salient point (or even keep your facts straight) it tends to be somewhat deleterious to your credibility. I have absolutely no problem with you personally, and as I said, even sometimes agree with what you are saying...it's the methods that I question.
.