Response to comments these past few days

I’ve been getting some feedback from two specific topics in the past few days. One, the NAWAC study on wood ape activity and, second, from a few UFO proponents who seem to have become obsessed with commenting on the site and wonder why their comments don’t appear.

Well, there are a few factors at play here. Since I’m not going to answer all the requests individually (I’m already overwhelmed with stuff to do AND traveling at the moment), I hope this blanket response will suffice.

I would like the UFO people to stop pushing their unsupported views on me via email and comments. If your comment is not appearing, there is a good reason, and the DN comment thread is not for you. I’ve heard your argument but my website is not a suitable platform for a debate on it.

It is a different sense in which I regard the Bigfoot/wood ape concept. Many of you have expressed dismay at my positive, possibly endorsing, tone in the NAWAC piece. Comments have included alternative anecdotes, speculation, ad hominems, and outright dismissals, sometimes at me, mostly at the researchers. Contributing your informed opinion is welcome but I’m not going to change the post. Please recognize the difference between asking “What is going on here?” and endorsing the claim. There seems quite adequate evidence that something is going on. However, what that could be is wide-ranging; I will not speculate. I do not have an invested belief. I am exploring the idea. By accusing me of being gullible, you have greatly misunderstood and underestimated me. If it turns out to be an elaborate ruse, that’s a sound answer I will accept. But I do not see the evidence for that at the present time. If you have such evidence, beyond speculation and accusations, document it. I hope that attention to Area X will help uncover the answer.

Thank you for contributing your opinions. I read them and take them into account. My current stand is fairly neutral. I want to hear most sides (I’ll draw the line at delusional bullies and denialists skeptics). And if I choose not to dismiss but to entertain an event or claim for some inquiry, I will. I appreciate your visit to Doubtful News.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Response to comments these past few days

  1. For the record, I have no issues with your post, and I very much hope you would stick by your guns and not change it. My issue is solely with the information and assertions contained in the NAWAC sponsored study itself. If my comments came across as anything but that, it was not my intention, and I hope I have not offended. 🙂

  2. When you inflict unfair damaging press on others, expect a rebuttal. It’s unfair, mean and selfish, but to snub a reflective view, simply because you disagree or don’t want to hear it, cowardly. Perhaps the folks you and some of your ill-mannered followers slam, don’t find it fair or like it either.

  3. I’m assuming you are referring to me as unfair and the people who commented critically about the pro-UFO side as “ill-mannered”. You must specify exactly what was “unfair” about it all and who was ill-mannered. I didn’t show most of the nasty comments on the DN feed because of the comment policy and the fact that they don’t deserve a place on my page due to their language and behavior. There is nothing cowardly about that.

    I think people who attack a skeptical viewpoint with vulgar language and personal attacks do so because they don’t have anything reliable to use instead. Real progress and knowledge are made through careful study, evaluation, and civil discussion. There have been a few disclosure groups that go this route, which is fine, but to yell and call me stupid as well as suggest I am writing just to incite a “mob mentality” shows worrisome paranoia and a dangerous detachment from reality.

Comments are closed.