I don’t know about you guys, but so far I’ve been pretty happy with the experiment allowing folks to submit entries for consideration. We’ve had some really good ones so far that have really sparked some interesting comment threads and overall I’m very pleased.
But I’ve finally gotten the first submission that I’m not sure I should publish in part because it’s pretty much completely the opposite to the sort of article I would write myself and I’m not sure I want to have SEB appear to be condoning the topic as legitimate. It was submitted by a relative newcomer who goes by the name of Fred Call a.k.a. BigBro and it’s titled Paranormal history and the Mafia. The general thrust of the entry seems to be an attempt to link skeptics who don’t buy into the idea of psychic phenomena (such as myself) as being similar to those folks who would deny the existence of the Mafia. It delves into prophetic visions and various Popes and how the Russians have a long history of relying on seers and prophets. It’s full of odd sentences such as the following: “In an ironic way there is a relationship between the Chicago gangster Al Capone and the rise of quantum theory.” That’s enough to pique your interest, but Fred never bothers to explain what the hell that has to do with anything at all as that’s the only sentence he provides for that thought.
I’m not entirely certain just what, exactly, the point of the entry is as it’s a bit vague and ends abruptly being part one of a planned two-part discussion by the author. About all I can tell for certain is that it has a very pro-psychic and anti-skeptic message to it which is more or less diametric to the stance I’ve taken on the issue. There are aspects of it that are so vague they actually made me laugh a little because I couldn’t begin to fathom what was going through Fred’s mind at the time he wrote it and I’m inclined to think he’s a bit of a nutball based on the entry itself. My initial reaction was to post the entry with editor’s notes sprinkled throughout that pointed out how silly it all sounds, but that seemed like a rude thing to do to someone who had taken the time to submit an entry. I don’t want to have anyone mistakenly think that SEB in any way endorses the content of that entry either so I’m leaning towards just deleting it as being not in-line with the editorial stance of SEB, but I thought I’d put the question in front of you regulars to see what you thought I should do about it.
Posted on 11/10/2004 at 06:25 AM 
Posted on 11/10/2004 at 08:44 AM 
), but I’ve gotten to know some of the regulars’ writing well enough so that when I see a guest post by one of them, I’m as interested in reading it as I am in reading Les’s writing.
Since I began posting on May 30th, I’ve made 26 entries, which works out to an average of about 1 entry every 6 days. If I didn’t have this outlet, I doubt I would instead have a blog of my own. It’s simply too time consuming and requires a never ending desire to be creative, proficient and engaging. I may have been one or two of those things once or twice, but I could never be that way as often, with as little effort as Les seems to expend. I doubt I will ever be as eloquent as Les, or even Eric, though I’ve seen clever compelling entries by other guest writers. I don’t think any of us have proved yet to be at Les’ level, but the more we write, the better the chances we may become as readable as he is.
I have never taken the honor of being able to contribute for granted. I simply think too much of the regulars here, and admire in them their abilities to discuss complicated controversial subjects in engaging, considerate and informative ways. I even love the wacky posters who represent (to me) the lunatic fringe of the blogoverse. And I love attempting to be humorous and satirical when the mood strikes me and when I manage to be such.
I am thrilled constantly by the commenting quality of composers here. From JoshMan’s smooth, accomplished conversational ease to nowiser’s well-constructed intelligent musings, to decrepit’s wisdom and manner of conveying it, to GeekMom’s affable communicative style and elwed’s logical mind and his and ability to reveal it, to maryh’s reasonableness and delightful humor, to JethricOne’s kind faith and ease of speaking succinctly of it, to VernR’s reach of knowledge conveyed, to Spocko’s intriguing sense of humor, to Ragman’s feelings for fair engagement, to deadscot’s certain considerate style, to .rob adams’ ability to say so much, yet so strangely sometimes, to John Hoke, Eggman, Cindi, shana, Unsomnambulist, Brent, Etan, David, chief, Adam M, amy, Brooks, Neo, Brent, Cindy, Bachalon, ***Dave, Lady Veronica, Neon, Jay, LordKlegg, OB, QueenMillefiore, ingolfson, Dave M, Doccus, and how can I ever forget Momma, PopTarts, Laughing Muse, Tish, ... etc, and though I shouldn’t have mentioned anyone unless I mentioned everyone, I easily have those named and sixty plus more people in my head at the moment that I know would have no problems making intelligent, entertaining and thought provoking entries. We are of many ages here but we seem to mesh well. And we have new commenters who promise to be engaging.
I am mentally recalling even others here who communicate well and provoke my interests constantly but I need to stop trying to name them individually. I only named a few to illustrate that this blog is filled with well-adjusted, unique and accomplished personalities, some of whom may be professional writers someday, or already are.
I appreciate your honesty, Zachary, but the very discussion in this thread is proving that others have standards they, too, expect to be maintained at SEB. Some just seem to be more gracious than you. What you said offends me more than you may ever know, and I imagine others might be put off as well. Yet, if you are not compelled to read an entry or post a comment to it, that is saying something we need to hear.
Let’s look at this as an experience in degrees. Some bloggers won’t even allow comments. Others allow them but not guest entries. Other blogs still, are represented by several entities. I think Les shows a remarkable maturity, solicitude and lack of excessive ego by sharing his construction with his readers. I too think he has something special here, and am humbled by his willingness to share it to such an extent. And, I want its over-all integrity maintained as well.
When Les decided to open entry privileges to all members, the first things I thought were: “How are you going to have the heart to say no to anyone, and if you say no, will the person cease commenting or desiring to read here? Will the readership decrease instead of growing?” Then he received a certain entry and gave it careful consideration, because allowing it might alter the greater identity and credibility of this blog. While I would hate for it to have been an entry of mine receiving such consideration/censure, I felt that he should maintain certain standards and trusted his wisdom.
I hope that Les’ experiment pays off again and again, but it cannot at all if we, as members, refuse to imagine and work for the possibilities this privilege affords each of us. Never read what you don’t want to, Zachary. But do try to avoid an elitist’s mindset and if someone writes something that you deign to read that makes you think, if they construct something that makes you laugh, if they touch on a familiar feeling of yours, I hope you’ll be generous by telling them so.
Again, I apologize for not mentioning all the people who have impressed me, but I do remember you. Also, I apologize if I misspelled any names. I’m really recalling a lot from memory.