Sack the New Hierophant?

[Anonymous]

He has a web site, is a film critic, ex wrestling promotor and so forth. Opinionated etc. I'll see if I can find anything further. Yes...Really...Stately Wayne Manor.........(actually, he would be good for FT)

 

[CodenameThrow]

AlthoughI never did take you for a chap to go around praising his own column so perhaps not....

Haha you cheeky sod On a COMPLETELY unrelated note let me direct you to an amazingly well-written article I found online about the significance of the date 6/6/06 yesterd
-----------------------------transmission terminated-----------------------------

 

[Anonymous]

Must be an omen.................runs fleeing with coat.............

 

[stu neville]

He has a web site, is a film critic, ex wrestling promotor and so forth. Opinionated etc. I'll see if I can find anything further. Yes...Really...Stately Wayne Manor.........(actually, he would be good for FT)

Oh yes - we could do with a whole lot more nothing-so-trivial-they-don't-have-an-opinion-about-it Renaissance men like him on here...

 

[Anonymous]

My point entirely - imagine ....imagine ...imagine 'this' what we may (ahem) have here, but in print. See the horror and amusement value.

Twirls moustache and ties another victim to the rails - sadly the last one died of old age before the train arrived....

 

[evilsprout]

I did wince at this month's a little bit. The old Heirophant always managed to divert scorn towards those in ufology that perhaps deserved it without ever belittling the actual area of study. This month it starts as a spiteful swipe at ufology in general. It does seem odd that the very magazine that upped its ufology pages after the demise of UFO Magazine then prints something that reads largely like an attack on ufology.

And what the fecking heck is that bollocks about David Clarke's car?!

 

[Ravenstone]

It does seem odd that the very magazine that upped its ufology pages after the demise of UFO Magazine then prints something that reads largely like an attack on ufology.

And what the fecking heck is that bollocks about David Clarke's car?!

I did wonder about that, but then the beauty of FT was always its ability to show both sides of the coin.

As for the car, I haven't a clue either.

 

[CodenameThrow]

I did wince at this month's a little bit. The old Heirophant always managed to divert scorn towards those in ufology that perhaps deserved it without ever belittling the actual area of study. This month it starts as a spiteful swipe at ufology in general. It does seem odd that the very magazine that upped its ufology pages after the demise of UFO Magazine then prints something that reads largely like an attack on ufology.

And what the fecking heck is that bollocks about David Clarke's car?!

i liked it. in fact I would say it is my favourite new hierophant so far. the little picture made me chuckle. in fact, this month's issue was a total doozie, apart from the bollocks about the thylacine/zooform entities/window areas

 

[Lanark_And_Rima]

I'm not quite sure of the Nova Hierophant yet, I spent the last couple of issues reeling at the glory of "His" second coming...I for one like a good bit of bitching in FT, so long as its in the right place and directed towards Kevin Carlyon...Not particularly happy with his targets as yet, but I'll give him time.

And, returning to old patterns, he's the first thing I turn to in FT.

Now, how about bringing back the only breifly there FT crossword?

 

[kirmildew]

Personally I don't find the Hierophant very interesting at all. It's just not a part of FT that holds my interest and I agree with the above... Bring back the FT crossword instead!
IMHO the UFO thing has been done to death and they should have less, not more, coverage between the pages of FT. I don't read the UFO Casebook at all any more.

 

[James_H]

Not badm I think I'm getting used to it.
The hierophants apprentice, however, was appalling, not least for the ponderous and stylised writing which I suppose someone still thinks is funny.