Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

To paraphrase the Bard, " The gentleman doth protest too much, me thinks."

Last week our Smackdown entitled, Male Chauvinism Within Cryptozoology? brought much consternation to Mr Loren Coleman. He blogs about it here.

Nowhere did I state that I thought Mr Noory was a chauvinist as Loren Coleman charges. I merely mentioned that he was the radio host of the program where Loren Coleman made his remarks. Apparently Mr Coleman misread that part.

Nor did I say Loren Coleman is a chauvinist. I have no clue if he is or isn't as I've never met the man. Only that I found statements made during the program to sound, "a bit chauvinistic."

And I did link directly to his own article on his appearance on that show for interested readers to formulate their own opinion based on his words, and not just my or Robin's interpretation of them.

Robin had this to say on the matter in an email sent directly to Loren Coleman:

"I was sorry to hear you were upset by my comment. I did not say you were a chauvanist--I simply said that one remark was chauvinistic. I stand by that opinion.

I did find it remarkable that you were so enraged. We're (Sue and I) such a small fish in the big pond I would hardly think our opinions would count so heavily. Perhaps if you had brought this to my attention rather than blogging it I could have had a chance to clarify that it was the STATEMENT not the person I objected to.

Im very VERY new in the crypto field. My role is primarily administrative at this point, at least until my book goes to press, and I rely on your work quite heavily as I learn. I will admit to having only a cursory interest in Bigfoot--Im more enthralled with birds and water "monsters" to be honest, with a possible study of cryptoentemology at some point. So all of my opinions" are based solely on the work of others; largely you.

If you and Sue Darroch want to battle this out, I'd like to be kept out of it. I admire you both very much, for different reasons, and it was never my intent to insult you. I wasn't upset when I made the statement. I simply felt that one remark was a bit off the mark and sexist. Surely you've taken stronger criticism from better sources *grin*.

If you'd like to discuss further, I'm certainly available for that.
Otherwise I consider this matter closed as far as I'm concerned."

Frankly it was way over blown in my opinion ... but if Mr Coleman feels that harmed, and wrong done by because I had the audacity to state my opinion on his words on my own blog then so be it. I'm sorry.

However, if I was in his position I would be thankful that someone took the time to state how my words were taken by at least two listeners if not more, so that I could address the issue. After all not all Coast To Coast listeners are going to be fans of his books, or aware of his website, and previous works. Therefore Robin, and I were probably not alone in thinking the statement sounded a "bit chauvinistic."

I will point out that Mr Coleman could have posted his concerns or asked for clarification on the original entry, we only filter for spam, not moderate every comment for opinion etc. Every comment received here is published, and only removed if it is racist, sexist etc. In the history of this blog that has only been done once, and there are some here that are highly critical of us. Our email addresses are not exactly hidden either.

Heck, all he had to do was ask, and I would have been happy to amend the entry to state this is how it sounded to us, but Coleman states it is in no way how it was intended.

Oh and thanks for pointing out the typo in the original entry. It has been corrected. Apparently this is a very huge deal for those in the "I've Never Made A Typo Club" ... ;)

As Robin said above, I too believe the issue to now be closed.

Cheers!
Sue