Try to remain objective and less self-absorbed
When I post things to this blog (and others), I’m opening the blog to a discussion or discussions relevant to the posting.
I’m attacking ideas. Not people or their character.
I try to follow academic procedure for scrutinizing and challenging ideas that are grist for debate.
Paul Kimball was offended by this from me about him and Nick Redfern, in a comment:
That you and Paul Kimball place so much stock in synchronicity goes to the neurotic, mild form of hubris.
The context was about persons thinking that the gods or the “other” supposedly interacting with humans, and I was suggesting that Nick and Paul were being egocentric in assuming that the outside entity or thing was so enraptured by them that the thing made it a point, to the exclusion of other activity and concerns, to pay attention to their daily lives, providing synchronistic events to wake them up to another reality.
Nick answered my academic accusation graciously and thoughtfully, as usual.
Paul, on the other hand, was defensive, writing that he didn’t put “much stock” in synchronicity and I was mischaracterizing his position about the matter.
Maybe I was, but Paul did, admittedly, provide commentary about synchronicity at his blog, on Facebook, and in a few radio broadcasts.
That may not be “much stock” to him but it is to me.
However, if he wants to dilute my mistaken impression, that’s okay with me. It’s a small matter, a matter of interpretation.
It’s got nothing to do with Paul’s ethics or intelligence or anything to do with him personally.
It was an observation about something he noted, (only?) a few times, nothing more.
His pique seemed unwarranted, to me but, hey, that’s his prerogative: to go after my misperceptions.
I’d rather he would attack the gist of my postings rather than my asides, but the choice is his.
Then we got a note from Bruce Duensing telling us he was out of the campfire circle.
This because I suggested he stay within topic and try to be cogent, succinct in his comments.
Often, I and others have no idea what Bruce is saying or thinking. He’s avidly abstruse, out of brilliance I noted, but he took my suggestion as a personal affront to his cogitation and ideas.
I was merely trying to tell him to be less abstruse.
His clotted prose is often beyond me (and others), over my head perhaps, but not understood regardless.
He shouldn’t take my “editing” proclivities personally.
I merely want an understandable flow of ideas here – without grandstanding or defensive comments because someone is trying to protect their public persona.
This is our, my blog. It’s a minor effort in the great scheme of things, but should be what I want it to be, not what others would like it to be. (They can have or have already their own outlets and blogs.)
More importantly, visitors here can go outside the discussion, but only so far.
This isn’t a free-for-all.
So comment away, attack my stupidities if you need to, but don’t take my petty broadsides personally.
This is a forum for debates about UFOs and attendant matters.
It’s not UFO UpDates where personalities take precedence over ideas.