I recognise your exasperation, lol
In the past, in countless fora, I've said much the same as you
although you've received much kinder responses than I did (wry smile).
As a rule, when I wrote similarly to you (usually when at the end of my tether with self-appointed sceptics who'd shot down newbies for sport)
the self-styled sceptics -- sensing they'd drawn blood -- would gang-attack even my posts which had called for a little restraint re: the 'take no
prisoners' style scepticism'. Can't win.
So, all things considered, this post of yours has fared pretty well : )
However, there's a positive to be drawn from most experiences and forum-scepticism is no exception (imo, anyway).
For ... those who've been ridiculed, put-down, dismissed, etc. by 'sceptics' come back stronger --- if they truly believe their theory or
experience has genuine merit and warrants better and further discussion/investigation.
And I've noted that very often, those with an 'unprovable yet still demonstrably valid' experience or theory to relate -- step up to the plate
again .. and again. And each time
they do so, they hone and refine their story so that it includes relevant detail which is often lacking in a
first post. In doing so, they flesh out the experience or theory so that it can be more clearly grasped by those with an open mind. In this way, the
theory or experience is rendered more understandable to others.
This is particularly the case with paranormal type theories and experiences upon which -- as many know from hard experience -- the self-styled
'sceptics' really enjoy grinding their fangs.
How often have we seen a newby's post state blankly, ' I was abducted last night', or ' My house is haunted I think'. Followed by a very few
lines about their experience ? And generally, they're ripped to bits by those posing as 'sceptics'. Being newbies, they retire, wounded and
discredited and the 'sceptics' etch another notch on their belts.
Those to whom this has happened -- if they know
their story is true (to the best of their knowledge) -- very often retire and regroup and when
they've recovered from their mauling by the 'sceptics', they post again. Only this
time, they flesh out their experience. They include
seemingly 'unimportant' and minor details. They place their experience in context, i.e., they include others who may have been present or nearby or
in the area in the hours or days previous; they describe any 'feelings' or moods that may have influenced the situation, etc. In short, they
provide as much detail as they can, in order readers may get a 'feel' for the situation.
Very often, when a poster takes the time and has the confidence to provide a comprehensive account of their experience/theory, it not only makes it
possible for the reader to identify with the poster -- it sometimes reminds a reader of a similar experience of their own.
There's strength in numbers. Not only do other's similar experiences serve as confirmation of the original poster's experience --- they also tend
to balance out even the most determined 'sceptical' attack.
Therefore, the 'sceptics' are performing a service. They encourage us to greater effort.
Most importantly, genuine sceptics (as opposed to the other kind) compel genuine posters to analyse their experience and to see it from the
perspective of a sceptical audience. Sceptics force us to examine our recollections 'from outside' ourselves. They help us to sort the wheat from
the chaff, experience-wise.
.. after sceptically scrutinising our own experience/theory .. we still
believe it has genuine merit and bears repeating in the
forum, then yes, we have a duty to recount it to others. And thanks to sceptics, we're much more likely to present an intelligent, articulate and
(sorry if this is jumbled. Someone has the tv on very loudly nearby and I can't concentrate any longer)