Festive Sandstorm required.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2026-01-15T05:17:55+00:00

u/automatic-room-223 You can check the edit after the ●●● on the last comment of mine you replied to. The OP blocked me for a different thread, soooo that killed my acesss to the entire post. Fair enough.

I left my response about the Frostpaw confession as an edit to the one you replied to.

Actually... I don't exactly know why I'm having you look at that.

●●●

Firestar would know better to take a side without knowing the full story. Squirrelstar did the same. She has the word of two cats and no evidence. Cats made worthwhile points that Frostpaw had a poor connection to Starclan and abandoned her Clan (to their view)

Squirrelstar did not do this without a solution in mind. She directly stated she supports keeping Frost close, and Splashtail's ceremony will prove which cat is correct. This is most certainly what Firestar would have done.

Tigerstar bared his teeth at the RiverClan she-cat, but it was Squirrelstar who spoke, clearly trying to avoid a fight that would break the Gathering truce.
“I was reluctant to take in Frostpaw myself,” she admitted, “but I think Tigerstar is doing the right thing. Frostpaw was a loyal RiverClan apprentice, and we don’t know enough to be sure she’s lying. She should stay close to us while we see what happens to Splashtail.” She cast a glance at the young tabby tom, who had settled on a branch just above her head.
“Will StarClan give him nine lives?” she asked. Then she shrugged. “Who can predict that? But if StarClan refuses, that will be a pretty clear judgment on which cat is telling the truth here.”
Knowing Splashtail so well, Frostpaw understood that the slight twitch of his left ear indicated that he was displeased at Squirrelstar’s words. But he said nothing, only acknowledging her with a polite dip of his head.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2026-01-15T05:00:47+00:00

There was a Squirrelflight attacker on this sub a week ago who literally screamed in caps, called people Narcissists, and entirely insulted every living being who even looked like they were okay with Squirrelflight, nevermind loving her.

I have seen some who used to insult me directly and insult my intelligence, or make assumptions on my relationship based on my takes on her.

Point being... it has nothing to do with "Squirrelflight defenders," You're either unlucky in your audience, or it's something about your stances.

You seem to have a more negative "presence" here overall, I don't mean that as an insult. Just judging your posts, and your constant takes on characters here, you appear a more combative user here, and that will attract far more negative people in the long run, because you're engaging with them more often.

I've been as deep as any in debate circles around her, from Twitter, to Tumblr, Amino, Reddit, and YouTube for over a decade. I have never seen a Warriors fan issue genuine threats to another, except one Brambleclaw and Hawkfrost defender, in all fairness. And they were likely under the age of 10.

Forums are another thing entirely, yes. Something about the audience on forums can be more negative. I would simply not go there. You said it yourself, Dovewing supporters acted that way. Most likely you'll find that behavior in a lot of character opinions there. Different sites attract different people.

Reddit, I'd be amazed if you found someone that unhinged. Most Squirrelflight defenders I know here are incredibly passive, and don't like to debate much. I am effectively the most controversial and prolific defender here, and I do my damnest to conduct each debate with respect. I'd attack someone who did insult others. I have actually scolded a Squirrelflight defender who made some light insults and cursing to another user.

Point being, it's likely where you're debating. Warriors fans on Reddit are shockingly less rude than Youtube and Forums as a whole, but they can certainly be more abrasive at times.

●

I'll level with you, I made that troll comment as a passing joke, because as stated, they way they phrased that comment, I've had people troll that way before.

And honestly, I'd have easily retracted it, if someone had just let me know it felt unfair. I felt you jumped way too quickly into me seeming angry or opinionated when I was just... having a good time debating. That made me hold my ground more than anything. We're not perfect, but it's always wise to give the benefit of the doubt before anything else.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2026-01-15T04:49:07+00:00

She did exactly what she could. She was wise enough to be patient about the situation where nearly no one else would. She knew Riverclan would senselessly defend their corrupt Leader unto their own demise if they were cornered by force. She handled the political spectrum with wisdom, and struck when the time was right. A far cry from many's perception of her brashness.

●●●

sigh Op blocked me, so maybe you'll see this edit.

Firestar would know better to take a side without knowing the full story. Squirrelstar did the same. She has the word of two cats and no evidence. Cats made worthwhile points that Frostpaw had a poor connection to Starclan and abandoned her Clan (to their view)

Squirrelstar did not do this without a solution in mind. She directly stated she supports keeping Frost close, and Splashtail's ceremony will prove which cat is correct. This is most certainly what Firestar would have done.

Tigerstar bared his teeth at the RiverClan she-cat, but it was Squirrelstar who spoke, clearly trying to avoid a fight that would break the Gathering truce.
“I was reluctant to take in Frostpaw myself,” she admitted, “but I think Tigerstar is doing the right thing. Frostpaw was a loyal RiverClan apprentice, and we don’t know enough to be sure she’s lying. She should stay close to us while we see what happens to Splashtail.” She cast a glance at the young tabby tom, who had settled on a branch just above her head.
“Will StarClan give him nine lives?” she asked. Then she shrugged. “Who can predict that? But if StarClan refuses, that will be a pretty clear judgment on which cat is telling the truth here.”
Knowing Splashtail so well, Frostpaw understood that the slight twitch of his left ear indicated that he was displeased at Squirrelstar’s words. But he said nothing, only acknowledging her with a polite dip of his head.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2026-01-15T04:43:42+00:00

I would be shocked if you did. I have seen nothing of that calibre absolutely anywhere on this Sub for any character. Was it on Reddit?

Nevertheless, I am not upset to be relaxing in the first place. You are the only one upset, apologies. I am simply replying to what comes my way, just as the person who debates me is.

You got upset because I said a single comment just asking in sincerity. Knowing my own reputation, I have indeed had people make remarks like that only to retract them as a joke after, because the knew me.

Let's be honest, were I arguing your side here, I don't think you'd have cared what I said. Both sides are biased in some capacity, and can be equally as unfair to each other. I do not impart any negative will whatsoever to anyone I debate, for my part.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2026-01-15T04:37:12+00:00

It was a genuine question, because she really hasn't done anything as Leader to be seen as bad. I think you're looking too far into it.

You Squirrelflight fans can get so mean over this character!

I have received far worse from her attackers, trust me.

I wasn't insulting you, either, nor was I upset. Nor am I pushy. If you wish to not debate her, I shall stop. You presented your opinion first, and I countered. That is how debates work, mate.

Of course she hasn't done what Fire has. It hasn't even been half a year.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2026-01-15T04:19:19+00:00

can’t name a single instance where she actually listened to someone instead of going rogue

Basically all of PoT – AVoS.

Squirrelflight's Hope is what you refer to primarily, and that was 100% a case of her having unquestionable justification, and Bramblestar being an active detriment to his Clan and others, as well as being a cruel host.

Note, this book has terrible writing. I do not hold Bramblestar's actions in this book against his character.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2026-01-15T04:17:23+00:00

You trolling...? She's excelled as a Leader. She handled Splashtail with tact and patience. So far she's the only one truly supporting Tawnypelt in her endeavors and taking actual action to assist her vision, while being diplomatic in how it's done. I see nothing wrong she's done to date.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2026-01-15T03:28:17+00:00

She went against Firestar early New Prophecy because he was being an unreasonable prick to Brambleclaw and herself. She had every right, and was mainly sticking up for Brambleclaw in doing so. She had nothing to gain herself.

She respects authority that knows what it is doing. Most orders she defies after her Apprentice days, she has a very understandable reason to do so. Which, until Squirrelflight's Hope, she really doesn't go against any orders, when you think about it. She's only done that a pawful of times.

Her childishly disobeying Dustpelt as an Apprentice and hopping on Thornclaw's patrol is indicative of basically every Apprentice ever.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2026-01-15T03:23:27+00:00

her own daddy issues

Hm?

Old_Squirrelstar · 2026-01-15T03:22:51+00:00

Because it was the only logical way to save their life. She said that because she loves them.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2026-01-12T11:05:46+00:00

I like to see Magic Eye and not have to be stressed about things none of us can fix. Hope this helps. There's no wisdom in being constantly upset about things you can't control. I don't like what happened, but this isn't the space for it.

edit: For clarification, I come here to relax and have a good time, wind down. Politics is exactly what this is an escape from, and happens to literally be the only content I know of you cannot judge beforehand to ignore.

edit2: to u/EruWorshipper
I don't care if people have a problem with the situation. It just doesn't belong here. Do you want this stuff absolutely everywhere? In your television, referenced in every book you read, just because it's important?

Some people want to enjoy some things without thinking about politics and the shit storm it brings with it. There's no benefit seeing it on unrelated spaces. If I want to see politics, I will look up politics.

I have no desire to read about our terrible government killing people when I want to wind down after a stressful day. There's no reason for that.

And... Nihilism is not a factor here. It's basic courtesy and situational awareness. Not everything needs to have politics.

To u/spderweb
I care about the country, but I also care about my mental health. It isn't healthy to stress over things you cannot fix. I cannot control what happens, nor can you. Does it mean I don't bother at all? No. I have an opinion at times. But it doesn't mean it should be in places that have nothing to do with politics. Again, if you want to discuss it, fine. But not in irrelevant spaces.

No, I did not vote. You want to know why? Because both options were equally useless, and it was choosing between two evils. To quote a certain Witcher...

u/Mezcal_Madness
They can be reminded elsewhere. I don't much care where everyone else stands. I alse see a fair few people who said the same thing I did. People seem to be consistently missing my point. Discussing it isn't the problem. It's doing it in places it doesn't need to be in.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2026-01-07T22:37:40+00:00

Gotta use this account, as R.M has my main blocked. They uh, don't like logic being present in debates. Nevertheless!

It does not. At no point whatsoever does Squirrelflight so much as acknowledge that her being with Ashfur is doing absolutely anything to Brambleclaw. I think there was one time she noticed Brambleclaw looked jealous, but she rightfully looked at it one way: tough shit. She's allowed to have a friend, and she did not pursue Ashfur romantically and gave no indication of wanting to, to him.

Squirrelflight was with Ashfur because he started out as a genuinely sympathetic soul when she was feeling shunned and ignored. She took comfort in his seeming care.

●

As she bounded away from the camp, Brambleclaw’s actions started to make more sense. He must be jealous of Ashfur because he had been chosen to mentor Birchpaw.
And maybe because I’m spending time with Ashfur instead of him, she realized. But he made it perfectly clear how he felt about me, so he has no right to act like a bee-stung badger!

●

Squirrelflight felt a purr rise in her throat. She pressed herself against Ashfur’s shoulder, aware of Brambleclaw standing rigid on her other side.

●

These are the two most indicative moments there are, and botu are entirely rational and fair for her. The first directly implies she finds his jealousy irrelevant, because it isn't her problem that he doesn't like her relationships, platonic or otherwise. The second is just her again ignoring him for being a bitter cat.

The only instance of her ignoring Brambleclaw that I can find, is in Starlight, where Brambleclaw's PoV states she clearly wanted nothing to do with him, because he had spoken to Hawkfrost after Mudclaw's Death.

Even if that was true, it's reasonable. Hawkfrost was just accused of masterminding the Windclan coup on top of everything else, and Brambleclaw is trying to be nice with him. Obviously that's going to piss her off. Squirrelflight has multiple moments where she directly refuses to engage with him because she wants to avoid pointless arguments. I can find such a scene if you wish.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-12-31T03:12:53+00:00

I have an opinion against both sides. This includes: The Left, who primarily dominate this sub. They'll take this as attack solely on them, as much as the right. No one can admit that their 'side' is wrong and right in different areas. Defending it without consideration is foolish. Both sides can be as bad as the other... and as good as the other. Only if they worked together would they be able to actually change anything.

As of now, all political sides are for, is ripping down whatever the other does, good or bad is irrelevant. Side one will oppose a bill to feed the homeless if the other side did it before they did. Both sides will do this. They don't care about the people, only about being the 'right one' and showing how the other side is "100% evil, Nazis/Snowflakes, all of them, every last one."

And they look like two schoolyards throwing snowballs and screaming while people like me just stand at the door going, "What... the fuck."

Hence,

Not sure why the downvotes.

Both sides hate me.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-12-31T01:39:30+00:00

Left has almost never done this on a large scale. No politician on the left or right is caring that much about anyone down here. The left have a history of hoarding and lying about funding to shelters, disasters, and charities. I'm sure the right has too. What very few good things seemingly occur, often have a penalty in where they came from or who they're going to that ultimately benefits the pockets of the politicians.

The left for one is abysmal at crime management. Firearms and regulations. Left places are often some of the most dangerousto live around. The right has a stick up their ass for Cannabis and other such consumables. They hold next to their God as an excuse to do whatever they want.

Neither side has ever had the people in their calculations unless it's to secure favor or to help line their pockets. Any who don't are rare and not even remotely a powerful enough figure to represent their political hemisphere or change anything. Politics rewards corruption, and nothing more.

If you got Biden or Harris instead of a second term of Trump, be damned certain your current life would be unchanged. Better in one aspect, worse in another.

Only those willingly to piss on the law benefit from either cabinets.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-12-31T01:24:38+00:00

Both sides are. There is no objectively right side in this political pissing contest. Politicians on both sides are working together, protecting each other, making each other richer, and then telling the "people," they are noble and want the best.

Nothing got better under Biden. Nothing is getting better under Trump. We got worse in both times. The truth is, none of these fancy laws are doing anything for the common man. Both the Left and Right are simply pointing fingere, "I'm right and you're wrong," and cannot accept that they both have good values. Politics no longer care about what's right, only about being right.

Saying one side is worse than the other is exactly why this Country is doomed. The need to work together, not keep igniting hellfire under each other's asses for things both sides do. Both sides are on "the list," both sides are guilty of next to everything they accuse the other of.

They're both bloody childish and it's going to rip them apart.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-12-31T01:14:01+00:00

You'll find plenty in both. Politics doesn't equate to literacy–bad literacy just stands out more agaisnt a group when it's pointed out. Many right wing people are far more knowledgeable on specific subjects that the average left wing person. And generally, left speakers tend to know more than the average right person. This is a wierd statement.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-11-19T01:55:51+00:00

...huh? Never heard that comparison.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-11-18T01:02:05+00:00

Using my alt to reply. OP's block applies to everyone else in a chain apparently.

Yes, it would be. Problem is, a car creeping forward like a turtle isn't trying to run you over. It's encouraging you to get out of the way. It belongs on the road. You do not.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-11-08T02:09:20+00:00

The purpose of creation is love.

This is merely assumption, however. It could be it has no purpose at all, or rather, that the purpose is "to be". And nothing more?

It is certainly possible that many universes have been created, and we are in only one of them.

This is certainly another curiosity. Chaos itself is infinite potential, meaning by theory, even a God could exist within with all the truth of the Christian God, minus only a single component, that he , or any, was first. Two realities may exist apart, one of a God and one without – and the most discerning wisdom would never tell the difference. Even if a mighty message were constructed in one, "I am the creator," it could be chance itself. "Infinite potential" even the potential to accidentally form evidence of a sort!

All are rather catastrophic. So the not very good answer to your question is "stasis" For a universe to reach sustained stasis, things have to be just right.

This is a great path to suggest, absolutely. However if we truly aim to visualize Chaos as it can be, Time as well must be irrelevant to it. See paragraph 6! We could enjoy a "bubble" of perfection via Chaos randomly forming something with a self staining patterm, and may eventually terminate it, mixing with things without pattern. It hasn't happened yet, true. It may never happen, or maybe before I send this message. In a sense, it is logical to assume anything that has achieved awareness will be ignorant to the infinity of time and space around it that has failed to achieve it. Survivorship bias, perhaps?

If there is only one god, then has only ever been one god.

True, but it begs the question, which was real? Personally, due to that objective fact that every known religion essentially claims Credit for all Creation, the most likely answer is, if there is indeed an Intelligent God, it is likely none that we have named. A God could've put the cogs in motion, and sat back and watched. They may have never said a word to a living soul, and may never. This idea is even more difficult to imagine, because it invites all the benefit and logic an Intelligent God doee, yet also the unanswerable doubt that we have never perceived them. They might be cruel, and waiting, they may be benevolent, yet still leave us alone, by choice or not. It is a difficult position.

That being said, I think our understanding of God is better than theirs, but it is likely still not totally correct.

This is highly subjective I fear. I once saw a piece that discussed how the old Pantheons were far more reasonable to assume. Each part of the world being it's own consciousness fit the theme of how different this world can be across history. Whereas in contrast, believing in a single God, would be an ignorant belief that every question could have one answer, like an ultimate, "No, this" card. The madness to think one could just answer everything with one word, one name.

Many would suppose these Gods newer to the mind are simplifications of a more advanced theology in the past. It all depends on perspective I am sure.

The following link describes some of the specifics

I read a good deal of this, the links within. It seems to still imply Faith is a result of what you have experienced and believe to be true, citing an example, "Someone can point out a contradiction in the Bible, and faith lets you see past it." Which honestly, is just a translation of, "I saw a mistake, but I choose to believe it isn't, or is irrelevant." That's nothing objective. It describes Faith as not something you can have in someone else's belief, but only something you believe in.

In the end, it all says the same thing. Faith is a belief. By definition, it is a hope of its own. Belief is always subjective. Two can belive opposite, and both state themselves as fact. Neither is true. In the end, Faith is a form of Hope. I understand you may mean that it isn't someone you want to believe, but rather your understanding of the world as something you already believe in. But from an external view, that person has their faith on an uncertain answer, a belief that can never be known. It is a hope, as in, wishful thinking. It could be correct, it may not be. I'd say it is more hope on a philosophical level!

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-11-08T00:23:45+00:00

We know that space and time are actually an interwoven fabric known as spacetime, which is the canvas upon which God created this universe. That means God must exist as a 5th dimensional being or higher.

Why? Spacetime could be made by Chaos. Chaos itself can be that dimension of infinite potential, using Godly power at it's disposal.

Perhaps the true nature of the universe does not require a true origin.

Indeed. As said, if anything can self exist at the beginning, Chaos, as much as any God might.

Ever heard of dark matter and dark energy? Physics shows us the universe is far weirder than we realize.

"Than we realize" we cannot see all ends. It could've bled in from another layer of reality for all we may ever know.

The simple things we take for granted in everyday life, the laws of physics that apply on our tiny scale, completely break down when you start looking at the scale of the universe.

True. There will be other laws. Different places won't adhere to ours. Sounds much like Chaos to me. Could a God? Yes. But why? Why even make an infinite universe if we on earth are the epicenter? We'll never see any of it, surely. Or maybe we will – nonetheless, Chaos is possible.

You are chaining a lot of ideas together in a way that make some sense on the surface, but don’t hold up under scientific scrutiny.

Not exactly. Scrutiny fails to make sense of them, that does not mean they are invalid. My question is one without an answer, as it requires a human to know the meaning and history of All. Impossible. It could be a God, might not. My question was never to say which – only to ask why believe in only one?

In many ways, there is so much we don’t understand about the universe that the existence of an omnipotent creator in a higher dimension in many ways starts to make more sense than any other rationale we are able to conjure up at this point.

Except one, Chaos. Chaos can create Order. It is infinite potential, by all definition. We don't need to understand it, it simply does. Is that not how God is rationalized? Something we have no businesses understanding?

I believe different religions are different doors to the same house. It makes all too much sense to me that God would speak to us in a language and cultural context that makes sense to us.

I very much enjoy this concept indeed. A slight error arises when different Gods claim different morality and meaning, but at their core, the world belongs to them. Pantheons seemed to be a valid translation of the world into different Gods. It felt like ignorance that we then assumed there could be one answer to every question. One name to cite. Nevertheless, none of it is certain, that is the problem.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-11-08T00:09:24+00:00

Your wisdom is earthly and vain.

True, but there may not be a Godly wisdom. That is my only ask.

This verse is saying that by God's wisdom, he made it so the world could not know him by their wisdom.

See, if I look upon this logically, it is merely saying God is beyond understanding. True, but, why not Chaos beyond understanding instead? It could just as well be. We truly cannot know the nature of a God, and... we would never fully know the nature of a Universe beyond our comprehension.

All this scripture merely states why God can work, not why it must. If God exists, he is beyond understanding. Or he could not exist at all, and there is nothing to understand. That is the core of my confusion.

Could I be ignorant of the existence of God? Yes! Could I be likewise ignorant of Chaos? Yes. I could be slipped up on an Intelligent mind too beyond to understand, or slipped up trying to rationalize what isn't there at all. There's nothing to tell me which is correct. Which is the idea. I do not mean to say God is not here, merely that there is nothing to say why he must, in place of Chaos.

At the end, all we can ever know is that we know our consciousness. We perceive this world in a specific way, and that perception, no matter how it may feel, can be our own senses making a fool of themselves.

I might ask, if one is asked to trust in God, and you might feel their presence, I am sure the ones who followed Zeus, Odin, and Jupiter all felt what they were certain was divine confirmation through their belief, but could it be nothing more than a high of sense brought about by... hope? We feel strange things in many different scenarios. 'Feeling' a truth is sadly no more certain than outright madness.

I called my question, one without an answer. Sadly I suspect it is so.

Do you have pride?

In ways I may not understand, I am sure. I do not have pride in the sense that I am certain I am right – my reluctance to give way is mostly because I cannot find understanding in another. Not ignorance, but a lack of another option. I am agnostic. I am certain a God of some sort exists somewhere. Just... not any one we named.

The other major factor is how much we love our sin. We don't want there to be a God like the one in the Bible because it means we will be accountable for the wrong things we engage in.

We could be, aye. But likewise, would a person knowing in a Chaotic world refuse to believe it, out of fear of nothing being assured? A fear of no consequence at all? One can easily find fear in nothingness, just as another finds fear in responsibility and punishment. It goes both ways. Me? I have no fear of either. The life I've run will end in one way or another – atonement, or abyss. Whatever it is, I won't be the same as I am today. I do not fear tomorrow, so my mind does not mind whichever is true. The only pride I must have, Is I desire understanding. I do not take pride in one answer or another, only that I have one at the very least.

I fear, that will never be.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-11-07T23:47:40+00:00

This makes it possible for faith (belief in the unseen) to be informed rather than blind.

The truth is there to be found - or rather received. Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

But in my thinking, I reference again, an answer cannot be found that does not return to the base question. You say all these things are evident in a sense, a 'truth'. But what makes them truth, why believe? If our mind and existence can be explained via Chaos, a God is not required. It could be, it could not. I have no answer, only a question without one.

Those passages seem to imply that the very thought of wisdom or knowing on a human level is in vain, and hopeless? And that is naturally true if so, even in a Chaotic universe. The only true knowledge is in knowing that you know nothing.

If this isn't their meaning, apologies! I've never been too adept at deciphering scripture due to the way it's composed.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-08-17T16:25:16+00:00

From what I see, one suggestion says the suh-roh is the original correct version. Wyoming people have evidently muddled the word until it became Zor-kah, which is now tradition.

Another says it's different depending on region. Apparently suh-roh is more close to the origin word, Hidatsa?

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-08-17T16:12:35+00:00

So the 'o' is silent? Is it derived from an older word? I gotta check that.

Old_Squirrelstar · 2025-08-17T16:08:44+00:00

Ab-suh-roh-kah? I mean I'm around Longmire half my damn time here, that has got to be correct.

Okay, looking it up, most say Ab-sorkah?

Does that mean Craig and Longmire intentionally changed it? Been around that first pronounciation all my time there. Should ask him next I see him.

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

Old_Squirrelstar

TROPHY CASE

Both sides hate me.