Friday 13 January 2023

Blog Comments Section to End

Just a quick announcement saying that the comments section of each article will end after this piece. As some of you may know, there has been a mirroring of the blog articles on Facebook along with any other posts of interest that are not included here. This started back in February 2022 with a post about the sale of Winifred Cary's house overlooking the loch. 

Almost a year on I think the Facebook group can now stand on its own two feet with 266 members and whoever else visits the page. Various people who comment here are now seen on the Facebook group in what is an easy transition. Being a mirror site, people are not allowed to post their own stuff unless it is of genuine interest or to publicise ongoing work at the loch. Details are at the bottom of this post.

Over the last 12 years of blogging, many a person has commented on this site from the the most gullible believer to the most ardent sceptic. Some have been a pleasure to talk with and others have been a complete pain in the arse. Such is the nature of blog commenting and not a few have assumed anonymous identities to say whatever they want without anyone knowing who they are (or that is what they thought).

The nature of commenting in relation to the blog or the article at hand varied quite a bit. Some would engage with the subject matter in a thoughtful and questioning manner, others asked questions but only to score points while others would joke and post a comment which had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article. Others had underlying agendas such as pushing the plesiosaur theory as an argument against evolution while others were plain deceptive (as I will explain in another article).

Then there was the small matter of censorship. In other words, I decide what goes in the comments section and some people did not like that. Inane and wind up comments were regularly deleted. Comments designed to start a flame war were deleted. Comments which asked the same old questions despite being answered in the previous article were deleted. Everyone is innocent in their own eyes and no doubt egos were pricked. I don't particularly care about that to be perfectly honest.

Then there were the trolls. Like every cave in mythology housed a troll, so they inhabit every comment section in the virtual world. But again, no matter, you just delete every comment they post and they will pop up again under another false identity. That is less likely to happen on Facebook, but their comments and presence can still be banished from the group.

If Facebook is not where you want to be and you would rather remain anonymous then that is your choice but my choice is to move on. I will however leave one place for comments to be placed if people do not wish to contact me by email or Facebook and it will be this comment section of this article and a link to it will be left at the end of every article.

I'll see you over on Facebook at the Loch Ness Mystery Blog group which can be accessed at this link.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com



77 comments:

  1. Well GB, have a wonderful life with your 266 members.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eoin, as a fellow Irishman, you have been an embarrassment with your recent snide comments regarding this blog, and Roland in particular. I don't know Roland, don't always agree with him, but have a bit of civility please, given the efforts here.

      Delete
    2. Has he answered your question yet Eoin in how he knows the sonar contct was animate?

      Delete
    3. I gave my opinion on whether the object was animate or not in my original article on the sonar contact. Go and read it.

      Delete
    4. So you are not on Facebook, Eoin?

      Delete
    5. Regarding the sonar contact, Adrian Shine once said that for a sonar contact to interest him, it needed to be a 'nice crescent shape'.

      Thats what we have with this one, it couldnt be more crescenty unless it was an actual cresent, which it is..

      Delete
  2. The " agenda" is the opposite of what you just said. The controllers are obfuscating the plesiosaur evidence to PROTECT the evolution THEORY. remember they are " extinct" "65" (6+5=11,11=death)million years ago.
    Did you get the jab?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just have this last comment here. Goodbye to all I know and those who knew me. It's been a great run for me since 2011.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goodbye, John. Unless we see you on Facebook.

      Delete
    2. I'll still be following the blog and poking around on your Facebook group Roland, so I won't completely disappear.

      Delete
  4. Although, I understand your reasoning, I think it is a great shame in shutting the comments section. I will miss it greatly. NeilB

    ReplyDelete
  5. Blogs are way more nurturing and peaceful and welcoming places than more recent social media (i.e facebook) despite all the drama. The way it's designed prevent an intense image flux and provides a more centered experience while reading about a subject. Facebook is just a place that hurts people, it sucks.
    I even miss people like Geordie Sceptic here.... sure a lot of believers also do. But good luck, the blog is yours and people should respect your decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Lucas, you will find Geordie Sceptic over on Facebook, he keeps changing his profiles to try and hide but he's recognisable vitriol always pokes through eventually, then he has to make a new alias in order to troll again.
      I'm happy to see things moving on here Roland, mainly because there will no longer be the lag between making a comment and it being approved for posting, conversations will now be able to take place in relative real time.
      Also hopefully this is an opportunity to broaden the verity of voices in the debate, at times it has been a bit of a small pool of contributors on here which may have detured others from speaking up.
      And Roland, don't worry about shaking Eoin off, he monitors every word I can assure you.

      Delete
    2. Hi Steve.
      While browsing through the facebook page, I have reached the conclusion don't believe a wider audince willing to debate means better results. Most comments there are uninteresting, unless the ones made by people who are already here. Im sure whenever someone feels like they should partjcipate in the conversation, they already do it here - like me.
      Real time and real place might not be such an advantage, people should take their time, such as they do here and on other blogs, to discuss something. Im afraid Facebook will make the debate more poor, despite its longer reach. I mean, the group is there, why not let everything continue here as it was? You can choose not to moderate comments. Idk.
      Anyway, hipe i didnt aound too harsh, i appreciate roland and his efforts! Such great content bye

      Delete
    3. There are pros and cons to most decisions. For me there were more cons.

      Delete
  6. Well after all these years my last comment on ur blog! Yes things get out of hand but people av to accept people av different opinions to theirs!!! No hard feelings!!, after all we are all after the same thing.. The answer to the mystery! Good luck GB with ur cameras.. Good luck Mr Feltham with his loch side vigil and good luck Eoin with ur webcams! I'm just planning my next trip up there.. Can't wait... Cheers.s to u all.. Its bin a blast!!! Goodbye nessie hunters.... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  7. ... Don't get me wrong, Eoin would be more than welcome over in my Facebook group so long as he uses his own name and doesn't hide behind a fake ID, I'm sure a lot of contributors to my page would relish the opportunity to interact directly with him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We would relish the opportunity to speak with Eoin on your page but we know unfortunately he won't.

      Delete
    2. I think Eoin may find it a bit like sitting in a sauna with his winterwear on.

      Delete
  8. Comments about the 2020 sonar contact can be directed to the original article at http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-latest-sonar-contact-of-nessie.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. I thought an actual website was the natural upward move for Roland, when you consider the utter dross that have a "channel" , talking cats, right-wing loons and women in bikinis doing housework [cough,ahem] I would have thought the LNM deserved a serious website run for and by people with a passion for the subject.
    Going on Faceache is almost a sideways move, although it has the plus of contributors being able to post images and videos which the blog lacked.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry to hear this, I appreciated the fact you kept the comments open here as well as Facebook. I really cant stand Facebook and I hope moving the comments to there isnt a precursor to an actual Facebook only blog.

    Whilst I came off facebook to protect my mental health and currently have no wish to go back, I might create a new account for the sole purpose of visiting and commenting.

    I know I'm not the most prolific commenter, but to those that also are not on Facebook, its been a pleasure chatting with you, negative comments aside, its been fascinating reading your insights and arguments :D

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have to say, I'm sorry to see the end of this blog in it's current form. It has been a great joy to read over the years, The rather quaint format appealed to me as opposed to the sensory attack of much other social media. Many thanks Roland, and all thoughtful contributors.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I thought I had nothing more to say, but comments above have prompted me to make these observations. A few years ago Roland had considered doing away with the comments section. There was a lot of protest by the readers that he not do so, perhaps this dissuaded him at the time. The concerns some have now about moving on to Facebook has it's merits. Commenting here and engaging with others is a lot more user friendly and the format is cleaner than the jumble and clutter of Facebook. Some readers above, I don't know and hardly ever see any comments from them here and they are showing misgivings. It seems they not only enjoy the content, but also enjoy the give and take and drama that goes on here by the participants. Another thing to consider is that maybe Roland has grown weary of the constant bickering, the trolling, the divergence and inappropriate comment by some of us and considers that a pain in the arse as he puts it. Dealing with difficult people is not easy and sometimes I can be put in that category. Now with a viable Facebook page, maybe Roland feels he can no longer manage to tend to both Facebook and this blog. This blog is a gargantuan task and not for the weak or timid. With that said, I think this time he is serious about moving on with his new endeavour and nothing will change his mind. So be it. Perhaps in the future, he will open up comments on selected articles from time to time to get fuller discussion and feedback. That would seem like a middle ground and fair position to satisfy some.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, opening the comments section for some more weighty articles may be an idea.

      Delete
    2. Except then we would have to check baxk every time you post an article on Facebook to see if the comments for it are open here. That's worse than the current system where we know there will be comments at both locations.

      Delete
    3. I would think some of us are going to be jumping back and forth from FB to here anyway, to keep on top of things, even though some of us don't care to post on FB.

      Delete
  13. It's kind of a toss-up: The articles posted here are easier to read than via the Facebook format, whereas comments on FB are easy enough to be notified of or posted. It's not like I haven't bounced between sites before. Either way, I'll continue to follow and don't expect to miss anything.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just to add a little more. I guess it can't be that bad having a Facebook page as an adjunct to the main blog, if it brings more coverage and people into the fold. I was just wondering, Dick Raynor has invited me to join The Lake Monster Skeptical Forum. If I join that group, can I also join the LNM group without being a traitor and a heretic? Or would that be an unpardonable heresy? Can I be a believer and a skeptic at the same time on some aspects of the LNM or other lake cryptids without being a most gullible believer, or is it all or nothing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's how it starts lol! "Come over John, we just want a little talk. No harm in that eh?" A few months later you're a full-blown skeptic! ;)
      I'm just joking John, I believe in open debate and you should be able to join whatever groups you like imo.
      Cheers and have a good 2023!

      Delete
  15. John, you're in complete control here. Don't burden yourself with other people's views and stance. Do what you want, talk with whoever you want, believe whatever you wish and form your own path. I've always said that in order to appreciate the mystery then you should consider all aspects. Remember, we are all here because it's fascinating and it's something that we are all passionate about. Being a Loch Ness enthusiasts is good enough so screw these labels and make sure you have fun.

    Simon Dawes is a glowing example. He's far more sceptical than me but we work together with trust, respect and appreciation. Loch Ness is there for everyone!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AR, Is Loch Ness really there for everyone, hmm
      Oh by the way AR, your recent 18 second clip of Robert Pollock footage actually shows 2 objects if not 3 in the water. They are too far apart to be considered as part of one object, which could lead to the assumption that the footage shows swimmers.

      Delete
    2. Where can one find this footage please?

      Delete
    3. @Eoin, sorry. I obviously didn't hit the publish button.

      Why would it not be for everyone? If you are referring to just the 'average person' then perhaps you might be right as they'll show no interest but because we're on a LN blog and communicating through other related platforms which are filled with LN enthusiasts, you could then say it's for everyone as we all have that interest in common. Hope that makes sense.

      I'll have another look at the Pollock footage to try and see what you are describing.

      Delete
    4. Ha, ha, Eoin you do make me laugh.
      How come you are all of a sudden so good at identifying what you think are mundane objects when it's someone else's video, but if it's your blob then it must be Nessie no matter what, even when people say
      '' uh no mate, that's me on a paddle board ''.

      I Just couldn't resist one more opportunity to flag up your B. S. before we say goodbye.

      Thanks for creating this space Roland, it's entertained me through many a long winters night.
      See you on the other side.

      Delete
  16. Thanks for the feedback guys. Ken, that was funny!

    ReplyDelete
  17. FB is poison. To bad Roland, I enjoyed the comments. I hope the blog will remain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Within the context of the FB blog group, I would say it has not been poisonous. One troll so far, but that could happen anywhere.

      Delete
    2. depending on the toxicity of the bite

      Delete
  18. Sorry to see the comments section here ending. I joined Facebook several years ago but decided after about two months that it was a colossal waste of my time and disabled my page. Social media often tends to be anything but social, and I don't have the time or interest to deal with keyboard tough guys who write things from the safety of their keyboards that they wouldn't have the testicular fortitude to say to someone's face! I have enjoyed this blog and wish Roland the best in his future LNM endeavors!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are mainly here for the comments, I would regard that as a failure of the blog.

      Delete
    2. Don't sell yourself or the blog short GB. Without the blog there would never have been so many interested and interesting readers and their comments throughout the years. That's what makes this blog the more interesting and enticing. I have seen many come and go and I suspect many are still around lingering for the stories and a once in a while comment by them. Then there are the unseen, possibly numbering in the thousands, who don't give a fig about the comments, but are just here for a good story. One day this blog will come to an end and will be part of your legacy. The comments, will be ours, the readers legacy, whether sublime or ridiculous. In short, the blog is the main course, with the comments being the dessert. :)

      Delete
    3. Gb, im here for The John Alvarado Show!

      Delete
    4. LOL! I don't know if that's a complement or a put down. Hmm...I may start my own blog.

      Delete
  19. GB, I think most of us here were here mainly for the content of the blog. That said, I also think most of us enjoyed commenting on the blog's contents and interacting with each other. But you gotta do what you think is in your best interest. So again, I wish you well!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Is the blog still gunna be going?? I do enjoy the stories!! I've just booked my next trip up the loch... 10 nights in Loch Ness in July with a stop in the lake district each way to break journey up... Roll on!! .. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  21. The study rules pretty much everything out, leaving the LNM 1) something mis-identified; or 2) a creature unknown to modern science.

    I opt for Door #2 in the hopes of keeping things interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well Ron, as I understand it, the study doesn't even seem to acknowledge the existence of some unknown creature one way or another, or attempt at some kind of identification, so in that sense it takes a neutral stance. The study just is emphatic in the possibility of it being an enormous eel is very slim indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. John, the study didn't acknowledge other possibilities, in effect leaving it up to us to fill in the blanks. So I did. You can too.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have no idea Ron, Nobody does. But I don't need a study to tell me it's not an eel. Fill in the blank? Nothing that science knows fits! At least nothing extant, let alone a living plesiosaur.

    ReplyDelete
  25. John, big eels live in shallow ponds and lakes all over the country so the article is complete rubbish saying they could not grow big in a huge body of water like loch ness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you Gezza. There are some eels that grow up to maybe 4-6 feet in length, but that does not account for the "monstrous" sightings of the LNM. Maybe these have been misinterpreted as the LNM by some.

      Delete
  26. Every student knows a lot of natural phenomena and fauna have been "misinterpreted" as the LNM down the decades, therein lies the problem, giving the account from a tourist who saw a wave formation a mile away for 10 seconds the same evidentiary weight as the Finlay sighting.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yes John but the article says 1 metre eels are unlikely in loch ness, which im afraid is complete rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Its a shame the comments are ending because we can call out people who openly talk rubbish via the media like this article. I have no doubt big eels are lurking in loch ness and in my mind nessie is a giant one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you care Gezza? You said you were done with this blog and comments because you were already convinced that the LNM was a giant eel.

      Delete
    2. I think nessie is an amphibian plesiosaur type animal.

      Delete
    3. Somebody ought to slap you pappy. Plesiosaurs were reptiles. Chose one.

      Delete
  29. I care John when rubbish is talked. Yes i was done with the blog but as the comments are finishing i thought id add a few comments pmpl Nessie is a giant eel, just admit it .

    ReplyDelete
  30. One loch ness tale is at the end of WW2 a destroyer dumped a couple of depth charges overboard and a couple of giant eels came up, one about 3 feet around.

    ReplyDelete
  31. An eel that is 3 feet long is called an eel.
    Where did you here this story Bruce?

    ReplyDelete
  32. An eel 15 ft or bigger would be called a giant eel .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but still not called a Nessie. Give it up Gezza. You're trying too hard.

      Delete
  33. 3 feet in circumference.(girth)It is A Loch Ness Documentary, fairly recent, one of the tour boat guides tells the story. He also explains sonar colors and tells about one of the sonar hits, 2015 or so. I will try to find it and post link.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why did we never hear that before. I call BS. Tour guides get away with anything.

      Delete
  34. GB has posted his first no comment article and will soon close comments here. OK, my work is done here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John,
      I will miss "The John Alvarado Show" your comments were always interesting and informative as well as entertaining. I always checked the comments section regularly so it will be something I will miss.

      Best Wishes,
      Jack.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Jack. My time here was not wasted then. The best to you also. :)

      Delete
  35. Replies
    1. Debunking you're silly eel theory for one. Goodbye Gezza. LOL

      Delete
  36. Aaaaah man... I get it. It must have been mental running this blog with the comments open too. But I'm gutted. I absolutely loved it. Even the radges. Ach well, I won't cry it's over, I'll smile because it happened. Thanks GB and to all the commenters. Most of you were totally sound ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL Radges? Hmm...I resemble that remark. Farewell Kyle. You were one of the sounder ones.

      Delete
  37. The end of the comments section on this blog is regretable. Here's why: blog posts which later could benefit from links to later academic papers, miss out. A case in point is blog post "The 1880s Diver Incident - Evoltution of a story". A recent paper by Hart et al. "On the estimation of body mass in temnospondyls: a case study using the large-bodied Eryops and Paracyclotosaurus" estimated two fossil amphibians (Paracyclotosaurus davidi and Eryops megacephalus) weights of 250kg and 110kg with lengths of 2.45m and 1.9m respectively. Could these be the ancient forefathers of the giant "frog" seen in the canal? NeilB

    ReplyDelete