Apparently I misunderstood your initial post. I thought you were looking for an open ended discussion, pro and con, of Fortean posts at a cryptozoology site.

Concerning my “craving the darkness” comment:
1. As you should understand, I was making a value judgement concerning the linkage of Fortean ideas with cryptozoology. I am entitled to this as my opinion as well as you are entitled to a contrary opinion. (This does not imply that I am some “random” dunce that doesn’t understand Forteana.)
2. Actually, I was using the “darkness” metaphor because others had used it in a favorable way in posts above mine.

To clarify my view: I hold a conservative view concerning cryptozoology. I believe cryptozoology should find itself as a sub-discipline of the life sciences, probably not as important as, say, evolutionary science, but nonetheless legitimate.

This view runs counter to a Fortean takeover of cryptozoology interests. The Fortean’s unstated premise is that “conventional wisdom” as acquired over the centuries (through the sciences and rational thought) is inadequate in accounting for anomalous events. This view allows the Fortean to propose all sorts of explanations for phenomena that are improbable on their face (but are paradoxically as probable as mundane explanations under the Fortean view.)

I believe there is a reason why folks have linked Fortean ideas (basically anti-rational and anti-scientific) with cryptozoology (a proposed scientific descipline). They simply want to be able to entertain the most sensational and romantic ideas and not be tied down to more realistic, mundane explantions. You and I may disagree as to the result of this marriage: light or darkness?

I appreciate what you do!

Mr. “jerrywayne,” for example, only confirms my sense that a random few people don’t know what the Fortean point of view is. If people characterize a Fortean POV as “graving for darkness,” more work needs to be done here.

In reality, exploring and finding new things in the unknown (dark) and bringing them into the known (light) is the focus, in Forteana and cryptozoology. As Ivan T. Sanderson taught me, skeptically but open-mindedly dealing with the tangible intangibles is definitely in line with being a cryptozoologist, and I retain that core mission as a Fortean and a cryptozoologist.

No, this is not presented as a criticism of anyone here. Just a funny quote.

This is your site and it is your right to post whatever you want. I thank you for allowing dissenting views in the readers response.

However, I do not think you add credibility to the topic of cryptozoology when you go completely to the deep end of the pool known as Fortean. In my humble view, Forteans want their cake and to eat it too. If some phenomenon seems too weird to be true, then it may be true because it is too weird. (The “We live in a weird world” mantra). We shouldn’t forget that Fort wrote to discredit mainstream science and to contradict everyday rationalism.

You will never lack for adherents to this view (just look above for comments of those who willfully admit to a graving for “darkness” and an aversion to the “light”). But I think you cheapen the whole topic of cryptozoology when you give in to your flights of Fortean fancy.

Anyway, I read a quote by Einstein today that I think can be applied here:

“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.”

It comforts me to think of all that darkness out there.

~Kitty Cat Bandit