Human beings are complex creatures,
Indeed. No argument.

and attempts such as this to pigeonhole, and thereby discredit, any one group are unrealistic.
I’m afraid you misunderstood. It’s a given, as I agreed with your comment above, that we are complex (most of us) creatures, and when it comes to UFO research and studies, we all have our own skeptic views towards various things. But I am speaking of specific things:
chronic skeptics (not to be confused with true skepticism; this was cheerfully stolen from Colin Bennett’s term) those who take an active anti-UFO stance, sort of “anti - UFO activists.”

When it comes to those two categories, it is not a question of “pigeon holing” (for they’ve already done that themselves) it is a matter of pointing out their oftentimes intentional inaccuracies.

It is not uncommon for a single human being to be a mixture of both the skeptical and the credulous, or the certain and the uncertain, in regard to any number of things.
Again, agreed, but that is not the issue I was addressing in my piece.

I think what Regan Lee is trying to do in this article is define the way she thinks “real ufologists” or “decent ufologists should behave, so as not to offend her sensibilities.
No, what I was doing was making clear the distinctions among those who are “pro UFO” vs. ‘anti UFO’ –

But she’s barking up the wrong tree, because neither humans nor the world are ever going to change to conform to what she thinks is right and proper. She’ll just have to be satisfied with fitting her fellow human beings into neat categories with interesting names like “pro-ufo,” “anti-ufoist,” “trolls,” “deniers,” “pelicanists” and “fence sitters.”
there are Pelicanists about. No one would argue with that one.

As are trolls; they be about as well.

And there are many a UFO “denier” about; or have you not come across the anti-UFO blogs, etc yet?

As they comment on such things UFOish, I do as well.

Regarding the others, such as hill hoppers and fence sitters, that is my perception, I will grant you that “hill hoppers” and “fence sitters” are a matter of taste, perception, and opinion, but that’s how I see it. I really am truly confused by those who so gliby flit about from one side of the grass to the other; and am suspicious. But, that’s just me.

Zowie, as you’ve commented, we’re complex, and there is a wide range of views within UFOlogy. But it strikes me as surreal when some suggest that “anti-UFOists” — who range from mild dismissal to outright attacks and lies — are to be included, with the same level of consideration as those of us who are usually far less disingenuous.

That’s what the blog is here for - debate, agreement, disagreement. After all, if everyone in ufology agreed - and we were all wrong - the subject would never advance, and neither would our knowledge.

I think what Regan Lee is trying to do in this article is define the way she thinks “real ufologists” or “decent ufologists should behave, so as not to offend her sensibilities. But she’s barking up the wrong tree, because neither humans nor the world are ever going to change to conform to what she thinks is right and proper. She’ll just have to be satisfied with fitting her fellow human beings into neat categories with interesting names like “pro-ufo,” “anti-ufoist,” “trolls,” “deniers,” “pelicanists” and “fence sitters.”

So, Nick Redfern, I fear I must disagree with you that this is an “excellent commentary.”

I’m peeved though; at both myself and American Chronicle. They messed up, and the unedited copy went through, not the final copy; which explains the sloppy copy. And I can’t get it back, or delete it. Oh well…

(I’ve just started your ‘Saucer Spies” book. . .)

We as a species have a lot of growing up to do. If we can’t even see ourselves as one what will we think of some other intelligence that may look very Different from us? Is it a wonder why the phenomenon has chosen not to fully reveal itself?