Colin Andrews fires a broadside at Swirled News. Swirled News responds.
[Bracketed numbers ie. , indicate references to our comments below Colin’s letter]
The tabloid style so reminiscent of SC magazine continues on the internet and for the subject itself I think it’s a darned shame. Worse, your supportive actions in publishing the character assassinations of the now obviously deeply disturbed Michael Glickman does no one a service.
You constantly beg evidence for this or that and yet cast great evil on those who are willing to share just that with you and or the public.  You appear scared for the public to actually see the facts and so rather than allowing free speech you follow any views different from your own with ridicule and hatred.  I make a forecast that it is only a matter of time before someone on your site is taken to court. The outright lies WILL get you into trouble at some point.
There is an undeniable bad flavour in your writings and especially those of Michael Glickman (bless him). 
It is clear to me that Glickman is not stupid but is deliberately cunning and puts more of his time to methods of attacking others than sorting the wheat from the chaff with the amazing man-made patterns which continue to fool your team.
Many good people who have taken years to look at the evidence have come to the same conclusion. In your world they are ALL wrong. They have concluded after many years and thousands of hours of looking, that most, if not all, crop circles are man made.  For me personally, I see clearly that a small but fascinating mystery remains even though you appear to misquote my own words by wanting the public to think I believe they all are.  Why? I rather imagine for impact. You seem to thrive on the people side of the subject.  The more unhappiness you cause with Glickers’s help, the happier you are. It is truly tabloid style.
The list is much longer than I have shown here, but here are some of the better known people who have seen all the evidence they could muster, and, against their best interests, have concluded there is a huge man-made problem:
Dr. Terence Meaden
Dr. Simeon Hein
Rob Speight, etc, etc.
And do not forget that many people who finished up making them started with an interest in researching them (these are known but not listed above). Those people are still out there fooling you. 
Your willingness to have Glickman write his 'off the wall' and intentional character assassinations under the disguise of a 'fun' column is clever ONLY IF your intentions are to inflict and perpetrate animosity and discord within the crop circle community.  The idea that you can get away with it within a protected area called 'humour' will not stand in a court of law.
Many people who simply want to make up their own minds will not be served well by seeing what happens to anybody who voices an opinion other than your own - that 'they are all real'.
Do not even attempt once more to back away from the fact that on TV and stage Glickers has said many times that "There is no evidence that even one is man made". Absurd beyond belief, even to the blind. 
It is time for you to step forward with equal courage to those listed (and others not) and show us all YOUR evidence that we have simply all got it wrong. 
The mystery which remains is complex and deserves a united happy family. Unfortunately, it is no closer to that nor will it ever be with your bottom of the bucket tabloid material in Swirled News, just stirring the pot amongst those who just might get along without it.
I would appreciate an opportunity to have this placed on your site, all be it in hope that a real 'voice of reason' exists within you somewhere.
Dare I suggest that the slowest start to the crop circles since the early 90s just might be due to the fact that the Foot and Mouth restricted areas have deterred the people making them? Isn't THAT a voice of reason!  (For those who enjoy paranoia or the study of insanity, they might like to check Glickman's radio talk show friend Whitley Streiber's web site for his take on the slow start.) 
COLIN ANDREWS, CPR International, USA
ANDY THOMAS, Swirled News editor, replies:
 Our argument is that what has been presented by Colin in his recent declarations and CD-ROM (reviewed elsewhere on Swirled News) does not constitute the ‘evidence’ he seems to think it is.
 No-one I know of connected to Swirled News has any “hatred” for anyone – we simply vigorously disagree with certain opinions and modes of behaviour. I, for one, on a personal level, actually quite like some of the researchers I disagree with.
 Judging by the amount of people accessing Swirled News, and from much of the feedback we’ve received, clearly many out there don’t share the view that there is a “bad flavour” to our content – many are heartily sick of the opinionated, unfounded and doomy public proclamations from inexplicably disillusioned researchers, and have welcomed a new web site which dares to balance all that – and one which actually has a sense of humour, which is more than certain individuals seem to have.
 We happen to disagree with those researchers who have declared that most formations are man-made. We have assessed the actual EVIDENCE to support this view, and found it wanting, simple as that. We’re as entitled to an opinion as Colin and those on his ‘list’ are.
 We have never stated that Colin thinks all formations are man-made. We look forward to receiving evidence for this alleged misdemeanour, stating sources and references.
 People are an important part of crop circle research, like it or not. No-one can ignore the impact certain personalities have had on the flow of information over the years – not least Colin’s own cult of personality propagated in the media on so many occasions.
 We could, if we had the time, compile a list, far, far longer, of those who are involved in crop circle studies and who DO still believe a large proportion of the glyphs remain unexplained.
 See points  and .
 We WILL back away from the accusation that Glickman says there is no evidence for man-made formations, because it is not true. As long ago as issue 64 of SC journal (May 1997), Glickers stated categorically in his old ‘Cornography’ column that: “Of course there have been, there are, and undoubtedly there will be, hoaxes”, which fully acknowledges that such evidence therefore does exist. His argument is more that such evidence is not usually forthcoming, however – which it isn’t. Hearsay and implication usually fuel the arguments instead.
 There are 94 issues and over a thousand pages of SC journal, not to mention three books I have written, which contain our evidence and arguments against the view that most formations are man-made.
 The Foot and Mouth arguments don’t take into account a) that the first formations of the year were almost certainly there for weeks before being spotted (by the look of their appearance) and thus arrived sometime in early May, during the F&M crisis peak; b) that even if the date of the first actual sighting is the one used to start the season, there have still been later circle seasons before now; or that, c) the crop was late in growing this season because of the very wet winter. Such sneering is inappropriate in this light.
 Whitley Streiber as a study of paranoia and insanity… What was that about people being “taken to court”?
Interesting to note that Colin addresses not a single point raised in our coverage of his recently presented ‘evidence’, or Geoff Stray’s article on 1990’s Operation Blackbird, and chooses instead to sidestep them by simply issuing a general assault…