Thanks for taking the time to make an almost an immediate reply to the comments I aired below. It makes me wonder why you are so quick to refute any derisory comments on here considering the 'huge' amount of effort and work you are pursuing on 'Underworld'
Glad to be able to accommodate you.
I am enjoying this message board and have been willing to engage in debate despite the fact that I should be writing my book.
But let me get you right. What you seem to be saying is that if I take the trouble to engage in debate with you then you "wonder" whether I am really telling the truth when I say that I am putting a 'huge' amount of effort into the "Underworld" work.
Is that right? Is that your argument?
If so then you clearly feel that it would be good intellectual and scientific process if I didn't debate your comments with you.
If you prefer an open forum without rebuttals I shall be happy to give you that.
Believe me I'd much rather be lost in the mystery of "Underworld" and the magical places I have dived at than engage intellectually with somebody whose mind is as full of relf-righteous pomp, hostility, latent violence and knee-jerk cynicism as yours is.
You are genuinely convinced by this 'rubbish' so you may well not fully realise the implication of miseducating millions of people in claims that you suggest to be 'scientifically proven'.
I am not miseducating anyone. I respect my readers and their ability to make up their own minds.I am offering my point of view -- my 'take' on things. You should give my readers credit enough to realise that. People are not fools you know.
Let me add that 1st year History undergraduates are taught how to distinguish genuine evidence from unsubtantiated claims. Its a valuable lesson that anybody conducting a scientific inquiry should be familiar with so I'm at a complete loss to explain why so many people have been taken in by your work.
Well, if you think my claims are unsubstantiated then you at least must be relieved that 1st year History undergraduates are safe from me -- having learned "to distinguish genuine evidence," etc, etc.
Presumably no 1st year undergraduates have made the mistake of buying my books. But really is it not a little presumptuous of you to assume that the rest of my readers (those who aren't/haven't studied history at University level) have been "taken in" by my work? I firmly believe that those people who broadly support my work, just like those who broadly oppose it, do so through a process of intelligent decision-making of their own (as, presumably, you have).
It is wrong of you to pour scorn on the intelligence of others in the way you do.
And yes, you're right, I shouldn't spent so much of my time dealing with your hate mail.
Perhaps I'll stop here...
All the best, Graham