Assessing this blog’s readership
Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.
You can see from this capture of my blog stats what topics
are favored and which aren’t.
Readers here don’t like postings that poo-poo the UFO/ET
probability. (Most living in the nostalgic past when we all thought that Donald
Keyhoe was right: Flying Saucers From Outer Space.)
But, for me, that changed when NASA made it clear with its
photos and images of the vast Universe and distances between probable solar
systems in our own galaxy how improbable ET visitation would be or is.
(I won’t re-tread my anti-ET stance here.)
Let me note what I see when I gallop around the internet,
looking at other UFO blogs.
Kevin Randle’s blog [kevinrandle.blogspot.com] is my first
stop on a foray of other UFO blogs.
Kevin has a plethora of regular readers (fans) and others,
me among them.
Yet, I am not distressed by those who comment at his blog.
They are usually ass-kissers and wackos, if their descriptive names and facial
(online identity) photos are taken into account.
While my readers use their real names, Kevin’s use “nom de
plumes” or avatarial names and photos.
And they rarely contribute anything worthwhile except to
applaud Kevin for his UFO work, which we all applaud but less sycophantically.
Their commentary is worthless, actually, and a waste of time
to read generally. (See comments there from PurrlGurrl and Bombastic Bill for
examples.)
But such online effluvia is not unique to Kevin’s blog.
Check out Marc OC’s site or Greg Bishop’s and other UFO oriented blogs. They
are flush with people who ride the UFO horse but take it nowhere worth anything
pertinent to the UFO debate.
Kevin, like the rest of us who offer up our opinions and
views on UFOs, appreciates kind words and thankful encomiums, but such
commentary is about as worthwhile as the sludge that washes up on seashores.
The UFO community is flush with hangers-on and morons, as is
the case with the bulk of onliners who use Facebook and social media to present
themselves to the world.
Can’t we bloggers get responses from a more intellectual
coterie of readers? How hard is it to present reasoned views and observations
about UFOs and the postings that we bloggers try to present about the phenomenon?
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
3 Comments:
Indeed, RR.
When I post my own observations which are not prompted by media or supposed 'experts' or feature-writers, replies seem often to be condescending at my lack of official, contemporary 'UFO knowledge'.
I've commented on KRandle's blog a number of times and often received the same.
While my thoughts on a ufological subject may be simple, old, new, complex or almost unrelated to the post, they are my views. Although rarely, some bloggers with a better grip on the latest UFO wisdom have tried to exchange with me on even terms, accepting that I haven't read everything that they have on the subject and even accepting that my points may be worth considering.
As in many of the subjects I have traced blogs through, All manner of thinkers and all manner of fools have responded to my comments.
Here, at UFO Conjectures I have met and exchanged with less fools who have their heads firmly jammed up their own arses than I have at other sites which may be a result of your varied and possibility-seeking posts.
All the best,
Woody
By
Woody, at Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Woody:
You remain among the more sensible and thoughtful of UFO followers, here and at Kevin's insightful blog.
If we only had more of you.....
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Everyone has an opinion, but what is an opinion worth? other than the effort to share with others.
I like woody's comment, and yes, we all face condescending replies, or a negative rebuttal of the truth in amongst all the doubt & misconceptions of Ufology.
It is wise to sit back, relax, acquire more knowledge, for what is really going on in Ufology.............
By
Daniel, at Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Post a Comment
<< Home