Actually, she has a lot of good points, and her response to Brian's response is well reasoned. This is a good example how we skeptics make the believers angry.
Why, thank you!
Someone else responds (rose glass or some such) with this:
To make sure I wasn't getting this criss-crossed in my mind, because any rational personal could have seen these things. Given reasonable doubt, I went back and checked.
Well, it appears she's edited her blog without stating that she did so and removed Brian's third post from the comments in his defense.
[edit - no cache can't prove points] The blog is longer than the first time I read it.
I do not have a copy of her original blog and cannnot share
This is an example of the subtle twisting ways of the skeptibunkie. I have not "edited my blog" unless he/she means I have since posted new items, which is what a blog does. Goodness.
And yes, the person is correct I removed "Brian's third post from the comments in his defense." Here's where I'm sputtering a bit, because I said at the beginning of my reply to Thompson, that I'll play for the the first and only time. And yet, in typical skeptibunkie fashion, he responds anyway (the second time) leading off with an insult! So why would a blogger include a comment from someone who starts off by insulting them? (that's why I have put comments on moderation, as I remarked in one of my later posts here.) Lastly, tough, my blog, my rules. Really dahlings, who's the irrational one here?
Of course the "blog is longer than the first time I read it" -- I've since added new entries! Does this person not know what a blog is?
I do not appreciate the insinuation I somehow did something illegal, as it were. On the other hand, not at all surprising to come across such deeply rooted obsession with minutiae.
This is actually all very interesting, for I have personally known many children and families in similar situations as the ones in PK, and this has inspired me to write about that in the future.
Knowing the incredible terrier like tenacity of skeptics, I'm quite sure this will go on for sometime. After all, we're dealing with a forum that has, at last count, 23 separate threads on how Bigfoot doesn't exist.