Reader's Comments:        Add a Comment        Return to Article

Commenting on this article is via email, so there will be a delay between making a comment and seeing it appear. 'Unsigned' posts will be marked 'Anonymous'. Your email address will not be disclosed, nor will your surname if provided. If you wish your full name published, or a link to your website, simply request this in your email.

Comments:

1. Comment by Robin, 10 Sep, 2008

   Have just read your material on Silly Beliefs on handwriting analysis and Malcolm McCloud.
   Having been involved (since 1980) with both Questioned Documents i.e forensic analysis, and handwriting analysis; I am perhaps, from your point of view, biased.
   I thought your sceptisicm and cynicism was bordering on libel. The significant effort you went to to make the site was excellent but your reasoning and sarcasm was blunt and inaccurate. Not to mention very discourteous.
   The throw away lines and generalities indicates, to me at least, that it was just criticism not critique. There's a difference.
   There is much broohaha about the graphology not being scientific. Well, I guess that's also very debatable. It depends on how one defines science.
   The Sorbonne University in Paris runs a one semester course in Graphology that's mandatory for school teachers doing there degree there. In France also, more that 80% of companies use handwriting analysis as a vetting tool when hiring staff.
   In Germany, all school teachers do a semester of graphology as part of their training. The German Federal Court system uses graphology as part of testimony and evidential proceedure. And I'd hardly call the Germans un-scientific.
   But the question that needs to be asked here is John: where is your scientific approach and proceedure here?
   The presentation on your site is not a great deal more than well presented pub talk.
   You are obviously possessed of talent, yet you waste your time slagging people.
   It's a wise dog that scratches its own fleas John.

2. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Sep, 2008

   Robin, you do what the general public does and that is you suggest that Questioned Document Examination (QDE) and graphology are one and the same. They're not. 'Questioned Document Examination' "deals with the authenticity and authorship of written documents" and is a respected branch of forensic science. Graphology is a pseudoscience based on a superstition and is respected only by its practitioners and a few deluded members of the public, which does unfortunately include some businesses, schools etc that use their proclamations to unfairly vet employees. If you work in both fields you should know the difference between looking for a forged signature and providing a psychological profile.

   Saying you support and work in both QDE and graphology is like someone saying they are both a police detective and psychic detective. One is respected, proven and accepted while the other is laughed at, disproved and rejected.

   You say,

   "There is much broohaha about the graphology not being scientific. Well, I guess that's also very debatable. It depends on how one defines science."

   At least you acknowledge the vocal complaint that graphology is not scientific. Yet you say that the scientific consensus is "debatable", and suggest that this problem can be negated by redefining what science is. The debate is between science and graphologists, not within science itself. Science is united in its view that graphology is bogus. There is no debate. Certainly you or other graphologists could redefine what "science" means and thus bring graphology in from the cold, but so could Creationists and astrologers and every other silly belief who are greatly peeved that science has rejected their claims. If someone needs to redefine what science means to get scientific support for their claims then this should signal just how flawed their belief really is.

   Your mention that a university teaches a course in graphology or that some teachers in France or Germany are "forced" to take a graphology course means little I'm afraid. It's not whether someone teaches it, but whether it has any validity. We have all heard of a university somewhere that teaches a course that the rest of the academic community wouldn't think of offering e.g. homeopathy, witchcraft, energy healing etc. The majority of courses in graphology are offered by private, unaccredited graphology schools who are at odds with each other as to what they teach, since there is no consensus in the graphology world as to how handwriting should be interpreted.

   You ask "where is your scientific approach"? My scientific approach is displayed in the article by looking at the evidence for and against graphology and reaching a decision based on what I found. That there is no scientific evidence that indicates graphology works and that there is plenty of scientific evidence that shows that it is just a primitive superstition, a bogus method of divination along the lines of astrology, physiognomy, palmistry and phrenology.

3. Comment by Vicki, 01 Feb, 2009

   Hi to Malcolm, I met you at a Kurek Ashley Fire Walking seminar about 6 1/2 years ago in Brisbane.

   I was blown away by your amazing talent and even more so by how you picked my character and exactly where I was at, at that time of my life.

   Love to do it again with where I am at now.

   Do you offer this, and if so, how do I go about it?

   Thankyou and Kind regards

4. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Feb, 2009

   Sorry Vicki, but you obviously didn't read our article on Malcolm. The only talent he has is to con people into thinking he has some mystical power, and we certainly won't try and arrange a meeting so that he can rip you off again. And surely you realise that fire walking is just other scam? You don't need to attend a seminar since anyone can do it if the trick is set up properly. That's right, it's all a trick, and anyone that charges you money to teach you how to fire walk is a con-man.

Return to Article

Add a Comment