We are not averse to criticism, so long as is it constructive and preferably not laden with cuss words and other manners of offence.

For example one person contacted us to tell us that one of our sections was badly put together and parts needed removing as these were confusing to the reader...  Fair enough, when we looked at the section, the material which was rushed together by us when we first launched cremationofcare.com was indeed 'badly done' and needed reproach.  We held our hands up to this and changed it, thanking the visitor for pointing this out to us.

We do actually appreciate criticism, it is the only way that we can improve.  By looking at faults and seeing what needs changing.  That's just life.

But there are those who feel a need to create an aura of animosity and conflict by 'slagging off' (as we say in the UK) the material and the authors on a personal level in an attack of negativity.

In a lot of cases, the critic won't even have the moral high-ground to debate you on the facts and will attack you using stereotypes and straw-man techniques, as we se here: -

• "Just give it a rest. You're talking unadulterated, unsubstantiated pish. I went on to your website and saw links to stories about Princess Diana and all the other conspiracy theories in the world. ...is Elvis alive? Is there still a Third Reich operating in the Antartic? Did Prince Phillip order Princess Diana to be killed? - this is total nonsense, as is your 9/11 babble. You've obviously got brains granted, but your ideas are half baked to say the least."

• "That "cremation of care" site totally undermines any (already infinitessimal) credibility for the 911 conspiracy movement with its references to the Illuminati and "new world order", which I file in the same bracket as Scientology, homeopathy and organised religion."

We only have two issues so far. Curiously enough, both are related to the symbolism archive.  A popular (but not our main) focus of research material.