Readers' 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.

5. Comment by Craig, 17 Jun, 2013

   Go ahead, keep bagging Handwriting Analysis.

   I suggest you do some more.

   It's great that you're opinion is saving the rest of us gullible types.

   I have no idea how I've made it this far.

   I wish I'd stumbled across your silly site (is that right?) before, it would've save me heaps of effort researching topics when you're apparently correct with your research.

   At last I have found the ultimate truth.

   I will believe you and nobody else.

   I will not doubt your word or do any research on my own behalf.

   You must be very pleased with your undoubtable accuracy.

   Thank you for saving us all from this extremely dangerous and life threatening problem that affects today's society, quality of life and detracts from global economy.

   You should be bronzed and mounted.

   Back to topic, please bag Handwriting Analysis some more, it can only help us all.

6. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Jun, 2013

   Craig, do we detect a little sarcasm in amongst your praise and gratitude for your enlightenment? If not, then yes indeed, you have found the truth. It's good that you believe us and yes we are pleased with our accuracy. You have no need to thank us, we will keep debunking graphology as nonsense, and for our statue we were thinking of titanium rather than bronze. We're happy that we can save gullible types such as yourself, someone has to, especially since you say that 'I have no idea how I've made it this far'. Frankly neither do we.

   But if your comments were meant as sarcasm, we are a little confused. Are you saying that graphology is so obviously bogus that we needn't have written our article, that even the most dense imbecile knows that handwriting analysis is as silly as astrology and that it's therefore insulting to these imbeciles for us to suggest that they need to be told?

   Or are you saying that you believe that graphology is not a nonsense based on superstition and pseudoscience, one that shares its origins with astrology, palmistry and tealeaf reading? But if you believed graphology was valid and you spend your time searching the Internet and reading graphology articles, why did you not point out at least some of the errors we made in our article? Or is it that you can't challenge our claims, you just have a gut feeling that they must be wrong?

   Although perhaps there is something to graphology, since we can tell by your writing that you're obviously someone who struggles with comprehending what you read. Referring to views that you imply you got from our site, you say that 'I will believe you and nobody else. I will not doubt your word or do any research on my own behalf'. This is rather offensive, you're confusing us with a religion. We could ask you where we push this arrogant demand, but we know you won't reply. We are totally against those that insist that people should blindly believe, and we actively encourage people to do their own research (we even recommend books to read). In fact it is you that are telling us that you have found the ultimate truth — graphology works — and that we should blindly accept it. You don't recommend any research or offer any reasons, we should just believe you. We explain our reasoning and must leave it up to the reader as to whether they find our case convincing, whereas you refuse to present your case and yet seemingly expect us to crumple to your will.

   We are continually dismayed with people like yourself who choose to demonstrate that our view is mistaken with insults rather than reason. We can only assume, since you offer none, that you have no answers to our claims. Of course sarcastic insults will not cause us to doubt our stance one iota. We can't understand why you would think it might, we're not vulnerable children desperate to be accepted by you 'gullible types'. All your comments have done is to tell that there are naive graphology believers out there that are annoyed that we have exposed their belief, and yet they still aren't willing or able to challenge us. Silly Beliefs — 1. Graphology believers — 0.

Return to Article

Add a Comment