Ted Roe of NARCAP — June 8, 2014

[Gene Steinberg]

That's the spirit.

 

[Ted Roe]

Hey Ted, I never said your work wasn't good or that you shouldn't be commended for all the effort you've all put in at your own expense. The Paracast has a donation button, and I've even thought about putting one on the USI website. It's not a crime, and I gratefully accept any donation anyone wants to send. I've managed to keep USI operational ( barely ) of my own pocket for over 20 years. So, so far as I'm concerned. Good luck getting your charity money.

I've used a screen capture to explain how you can clarify your position on your website, or even better, avoid any misinterpretation altogether. It wouldn't take much to fix it, but if you choose to leave the association between alien visitation and entertainment intact ( as illustrated ), knowing full well how it can be interpreted because of that association, then your claim that they weren't meant to be associated will no longer be believable. For now I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt. I'll check back in a week or two to see if it's been changed, or if you like, I'd be happy to fix it for you. You've seen the USI website. I built it myself and can do the job easily.

ANTI-UFOLOGY? The XO of the largest UFO research group, one we all know, contacted me this morning to request that we collaborate..so you are wrong about most of your concerns. Nobody has ever accused us of being "anti-ufology" but you. We have many of the core minds that you refer to as "Ufology" in our corner supporting our work much like Constance upthread. If I was so "anti-ufology" I wouldn't do media at all and much of the media we do isn't about your belief in aliens as it is.
[/quote]
Again, I've never said I don't support your work, we're talking about the flipside of your involvement in the field, and whether or not you want to admit it, you are involved in the field of ufology, and prior to finding the anti-ufology component of your image strategy buried in your documentation, and then watching how it's handled by people associated with NARCAP, I never had a problem with NARCAP either. And if other ufologists haven't caught onto it yet, or worse yet, don't care, then ufology has an even bigger problem to deal with. Let's have a closer look again to another quote ( in addition to the one already mentioned courtesy of Nick Pope ):

--- Begin Quote ---

Recommended Actions to Improve the Current Climate
of Denial within the Aviation World about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
and Related Commentary

Richard F. Haines Chief Scientist

National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena
Oak Harbor, Washington

November 18, 2010

/-- Slice here to item 41 --/​

“41. Dissociate from ufology. It is critically important that this initiative disassociates itself from ufology and ufologists…because of the reputational damage that would arise from association with a field that is widely perceived by key decision-makers as being unscientific and full of cultists, charlatans and crackpots.

--- End Quote ---

So instead of working to change the perceptions you're talking about by pointing out the good work done in the field, and by recognizing that many people welcome the opportunity to discuss their experiences, and that many people already believe that alien visitation is either real or entirely possible, and understanding ( or at least you should understand ) that the perceptions you're afraid of are those that have been capitalized on by anti-ufology skeptics, scientists who don't know any better, and religious people who think it's the devil, what do you do? You introduce your own jargon and try to make the thinly veiled claim that you're not interested in ufology, because after all, you don't want to be associated with all us "cultists, charlatans and crackpots" !

So back when I started out saying that the two-faced approach to ufology isn't something I can endorse, how much more do I need to point out using your own documentation and other examples from those associated with NARCAP? There's more out there besides the "critically important component "of your "initiative" above.

Item 41. is a mistake. It throws serious ufology under the bus along with all the "cultists, charlatans and crackpots". You think it's serving your purpose well, but I doubt you're fooling anyone that matters. Item 41. should read more like:

SAMPLE 41. It is critically important that this initiative associate itself with serious ufology studies and not be perceived as a part of the sub-component of ufology culture associated with cults, religion, entertainment, and pseudoscience.​

Your comment on the person at the podium who hears a voice in his ( or her ) head is fair to interpret in the context of this discussion as direct to mind communication.

The quotes and examples I've provided more than justify my commentary, and your responses have been largely based on denial & evasion. Anyone who follows this discussion can see that. Again, I offer you the opportunity to do the right thing by amending item 41. of your initiative and to work with ufology to our mutual benefit. USI is not a cult and not every ufologist is a charlatan or crackpot, and it's not fair that your initiative lumps all ufology together in the same boat, and then uses that strategy to make yourself seem more credible. Not to mention topping it off with a solicitation ( since you don't like the word panhandle ) donations.[/QUOTE]

I don't really care what you can endorse. Ufology has earned a lousy reputation and a lot of people involved know it and talk about it. Its up to its own to fix itself, its not our job or responsibility. Its not our fault they can't regulate what they say and do and move their message effectively. We associate with efforts of merit where we can find them but the general paradigm has nothing to offer serious engagement of the subject and Dick Haines is exactly right to point out that association with it only harms good work. Sorry that doesn't work for you but I didn't create this problem, I had to learn to navigate through it. I agree with everything Dr. Haines says here and don't agree with you. As I have said repeatedly, we have a lot of the best minds in the field in our corner and they don't agree with you, either.
I think we are finished. Good luck with your endeavors.

 

[Randall]

I don't really care what you can endorse. Ufology has earned a lousy reputation and a lot of people involved know it and talk about it. Its up to its own to fix itself, its not our job or responsibility. Its not our fault they can't regulate what they say and do and move their message effectively. We associate with efforts of merit where we can find them but the general paradigm has nothing to offer serious engagement of the subject and Dick Haines is exactly right to point out that association with it only harms good work. Sorry that doesn't work for you but I didn't create this problem, I had to learn to navigate through it. I agree with everything Dr. Haines says here and don't agree with you. As I have said repeatedly, we have a lot of the best minds in the field in our corner and they don't agree with you, either. I think we are finished. Good luck with your endeavors.

Your continued denials are contradicted by the direct quotes from NARCAP official documents. Your continued dodges to specific questions are readily apparent. You admit to working with ufologists while at the same time NARCAP's initiative says it's "critical" to "disassociate" NARCAP from ufology and ufologists because of the "reputational damage that would arise from association with a field that is widely perceived by key decision-makers as being unscientific and full of cultists, charlatans and crackpots." It's hypocritical, damaging, and divisive. But you admit to neither caring or wanting to change that because it suits your interests. Despite all that, you still expect your plea for donations to be taken seriously.

Dress it up however you want. The world already has plenty of legitimate aviation investigation and safety organizations. They're capable of dredging up and reconstructing a crashed jumbo jet from an oceanic debris field miles wide and don't need another dime from me, but if I were going to donate to aviation safety, NARCAP is the last place I'd send my contribution. And since NARCAP's image management strategy is to "dissociate" itself from ufology, I guess it wouldn't want my donation for that cause either.

For all I know, your claims of having your own UFO experience are just to gain the sympathies of all us "cultists, charlatans and crackpots" because after all, we're so gullible we'll probably believe anything. If you had really had the kind of experiences you claim to have had, I can't help but think you'd be a lot more understanding about why I take offense to your "image management" strategy.

 

[Ted Roe]

Your continued denials are contradicted by the direct quotes from NARCAP official documents. Your continued dodges to specific questions are readily apparent. You admit to working with ufologists while at the same time NARCAP's initiative says it's "critical" to "disassociate" NARCAP from ufology and ufologists because of the "reputational damage that would arise from association with a field that is widely perceived by key decision-makers as being unscientific and full of cultists, charlatans and crackpots." It's hypocritical, damaging, and divisive. But you admit to neither caring or wanting to change that because it suits your interests. Despite all that, you still expect your plea for donations to be taken seriously.

Dress it up however you want. The world already has plenty of legitimate aviation investigation and safety organizations. They're capable of dredging up and reconstructing a crashed jumbo jet from an oceanic debris field miles wide and don't need another dime from me, but if I were going to donate to aviation safety, NARCAP is the last place I'd send my contribution. And since it's image management strategy is to "dissociate" itself from ufology, I guess it wouldn't want my donation for that cause either.

For all I know, your claims of having your own UFO experience are just to gain the sympathies of all us "cultists, charlatans and crackpots" because after all, we're so gullible we'll probably believe anything. If you had really had the kind of experiences you claim to have had, I can't help but think you'd be a lot more understanding about why I take offense to your "image management" strategy.

Ufology is nothing to be associated with if you are making a serious effort to understand UAP. Its common sense though you don't seem to see it.
Your opinion is noted.
Good luck with your future endeavors.

 

[Randall]

, "Ufology is nothing to be associated with if you are making a serious effort to understand UAP. Its common sense though you don't seem to see it.
Your opinion is noted.
Good luck with your future endeavors.

Seriously? You honestly think, "Ufology is nothing to be associated with if you are making a serious effort to understand UAP.", and you think that's "common sense"? Let's start with some serious basic ufology 101.

​

Hynek, Ruppelt, Condon, Vallée; NONE of these people are crackpots or charlatans. Even Condon, whose policies we may not agree with was a scientist with impeccable credentials, as was J. Allen Hynek who founded the Center For UFO Studies. Ruppelt was the head of the official USAF investigation into UFOs and among the first to give us a real glimpse on what went on inside. On one hand you do really great work that they would probably applaud, and on the other, you mar their memory and their legacy with your BS attitude toward the field they all made serious contributions in. In the case of Hynek, he devoted years of his working and retirement life to the subject in an effort to bring it credibility, and damn it, I don't care what you think of me, but that deserves respect.

 

[Ted Roe]

Ufology said, "Hynek, Ruppelt, Condon, Vallée; NONE of these people are crackpots or charlatans. Even Condon, whose policies we may not agree with was a scientist with impeccable credentials, as was J. Allen Hynek who founded the Center For UFO Studies. Ruppelt was the head of the official USAF investigation into UFOs and among the first to give us a real glimpse on what went on inside. On one hand you do really great work that they would probably applaud, and on the other, you mar their memory and their legacy with your BS attitude toward the field they all made serious contributions in. In the case of Hynek, he devoted years of his working and retirement life to the subject in an effort to bring it credibility, and damn it, I don't care what you think of me, but that deserves respect"





Dr. Haines and Hynek were friends and associates until Hynek died. Haines wrote a number of books advancing the ETH before deciding to let the data do the work. They worked together to define UAP amongst other things...

You don't know what you are talking about.

Dr. Vallee worked with Hynek on his staff at Project Blue Book and now works with us at NARCAP. I discuss NARCAP policy with him from time to time as he is on our advisory committee. He has been with us from the beginning.

CUFOS Director Mark Rodhiger and I communicate occasionally... Mike Swords is a CUFOs guy as well... We had a case published in their magazine a couple of years ago...

You forgot Paul Hill, and others.

As for Edward Condon, if you are suggesting the Condon study had any validity I think you are mistaken or you simply don't know anything about it. It certainly is no example of UFO science. .... In his introductory "Conclusions and Recommendations", Condon wrote: "Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." He also recommended against the creation of a government program to investigate UFO reports.

I think Dr. James McDonald was a better scientist.

I have attached a pic from one of our meetings of Dr. Vallee, Dr. Haisch, Dr. Haines and some of our other staff including Mr. Brian Smith, not sure of his current title though it was Deputy Dir. of Human Factors at NASA the last time I checked (Before that he was Director of the Aviation Safety office at NASA Ames research center).... Mr. Larry Lemke, also a NASA employee, worked with Carol Stoker studying extremophiles in the context of et life and space exploration and has been involved with Mars exploration and other NASA projects. Mr. Ruben Uriarte is currently NCA MUFON director, I think and a NARCAP member for some years now as our Spanish Language Coordinator - very helpful as we built our relationship with Chile and S America...

Dr. Vallee seems okay with our mission. He is the tall guy with white hair and the smile on his face.

Again, we are finished.

Good luck with your future endeavors.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[environmental_one]

Ufology said, "Hynek, Ruppelt, Condon, Vallée; NONE of these people are crackpots or charlatans. Even Condon, whose policies we may not agree with was a scientist with impeccable credentials, as was J. Allen Hynek who founded the Center For UFO Studies. Ruppelt was the head of the official USAF investigation into UFOs and among the first to give us a real glimpse on what went on inside. On one hand you do really great work that they would probably applaud, and on the other, you mar their memory and their legacy with your BS attitude toward the field they all made serious contributions in. In the case of Hynek, he devoted years of his working and retirement life to the subject in an effort to bring it credibility, and damn it, I don't care what you think of me, but that deserves respect"





Dr. Haines and Hynek were friends and associates until Hynek died. Haines wrote a number of books advancing the ETH before deciding to let the data do the work. They worked together to define UAP amongst other things...

You don't know what you are talking about.

Dr. Vallee worked with Hynek on his staff at Project Blue Book and now works with us at NARCAP. I discuss NARCAP policy with him from time to time as he is on our advisory committee. He has been with us from the beginning.

CUFOS Director Mark Rodhiger and I communicate occasionally... Mike Swords is a CUFOs guy as well... We had a case published in their magazine a couple of years ago...

You forgot Paul Hill, and others.

As for Edward Condon, if you are suggesting the Condon study had any validity I think you are mistaken or you simply don't know anything about it. It certainly is no example of UFO science. .... In his introductory "Conclusions and Recommendations", Condon wrote: "Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." He also recommended against the creation of a government program to investigate UFO reports.

I think Dr. James McDonald was a better scientist.

I have attached a pic from one of our meetings of Dr. Vallee, Dr. Haisch, Dr. Haines and some of our other staff including Mr. Brian Smith, not sure of his current title though it was Deputy Dir. of Human Factors at NASA the last time I checked (Before that he was Director of the Aviation Safety office at NASA Ames research center).... Mr. Larry Lemke, also a NASA employee, worked with Carol Stoker studying extremophiles in the context of et life and space exploration and has been involved with Mars exploration and other NASA projects. Mr. Ruben Uriarte is currently NCA MUFON director, I think and a NARCAP member for some years now as our Spanish Language Coordinator - very helpful as we built our relationship with Chile and S America...

Dr. Vallee seems okay with our mission. He is the tall guy with white hair and the smile on his face.

Again, we are finished.

Good luck with your future endeavors.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Seriously? You honestly think, "Ufology is nothing to be associated with if you are making a serious effort to understand UAP.", and you think that's "common sense"? Let's start with some serious basic ufology 101.

​

Hynek, Ruppelt, Condon, Vallée; NONE of these people are crackpots or charlatans. Even Condon, whose policies we may not agree with was a scientist with impeccable credentials, as was J. Allen Hynek who founded the Center For UFO Studies. Ruppelt was the head of the official USAF investigation into UFOs and among the first to give us a real glimpse on what went on inside. On one hand you do really great work that they would probably applaud, and on the other, you mar their memory and their legacy with your BS attitude toward the field they all made serious contributions in. In the case of Hynek, he devoted years of his working and retirement life to the subject in an effort to bring it credibility, and damn it, I don't care what you think of me, but that deserves respect.

"Ufology", you are a troll. A ball of light is not necessarily an object and UAP has been defined for some time now. Your inability to control yourself in a public forum responding to a brilliant interview is downright rude. A professional would contact him directly rather than attempt to smear a well documented organization full of brilliant minds presenting data in a charitable way to the public. The comments here are inaccurate to a slanderous fault and you would do well to shut up and not get sued by NARCAP or Roe for slander. It's nice to see Ted Roe school you throughout your BS but your BS is uncalled for and some of it, like here is slanderous. Beware - your written mouth on the internet can still get you sued. Good job Ted Roe!

 

[environmental_one]

Ufology said, "Hynek, Ruppelt, Condon, Vallée; NONE of these people are crackpots or charlatans. Even Condon, whose policies we may not agree with was a scientist with impeccable credentials, as was J. Allen Hynek who founded the Center For UFO Studies. Ruppelt was the head of the official USAF investigation into UFOs and among the first to give us a real glimpse on what went on inside. On one hand you do really great work that they would probably applaud, and on the other, you mar their memory and their legacy with your BS attitude toward the field they all made serious contributions in. In the case of Hynek, he devoted years of his working and retirement life to the subject in an effort to bring it credibility, and damn it, I don't care what you think of me, but that deserves respect"





Dr. Haines and Hynek were friends and associates until Hynek died. Haines wrote a number of books advancing the ETH before deciding to let the data do the work. They worked together to define UAP amongst other things...

You don't know what you are talking about.

Dr. Vallee worked with Hynek on his staff at Project Blue Book and now works with us at NARCAP. I discuss NARCAP policy with him from time to time as he is on our advisory committee. He has been with us from the beginning.

CUFOS Director Mark Rodhiger and I communicate occasionally... Mike Swords is a CUFOs guy as well... We had a case published in their magazine a couple of years ago...

You forgot Paul Hill, and others.

As for Edward Condon, if you are suggesting the Condon study had any validity I think you are mistaken or you simply don't know anything about it. It certainly is no example of UFO science. .... In his introductory "Conclusions and Recommendations", Condon wrote: "Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." He also recommended against the creation of a government program to investigate UFO reports.

I think Dr. James McDonald was a better scientist.

I have attached a pic from one of our meetings of Dr. Vallee, Dr. Haisch, Dr. Haines and some of our other staff including Mr. Brian Smith, not sure of his current title though it was Deputy Dir. of Human Factors at NASA the last time I checked (Before that he was Director of the Aviation Safety office at NASA Ames research center).... Mr. Larry Lemke, also a NASA employee, worked with Carol Stoker studying extremophiles in the context of et life and space exploration and has been involved with Mars exploration and other NASA projects. Mr. Ruben Uriarte is currently NCA MUFON director, I think and a NARCAP member for some years now as our Spanish Language Coordinator - very helpful as we built our relationship with Chile and S America...

Dr. Vallee seems okay with our mission. He is the tall guy with white hair and the smile on his face.

Again, we are finished.

Good luck with your future endeavors.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


Good job Ted Roe in both this interview and in schooling "UFOLOGY" through the difference in NARCAPs work in UAP (all phenomena as opposed to "objects"). Also, thank you for this awesome picture of some of the NARCAP team! What a dream team! NASA Aviation Safety Director, 2 Human Factors Directors, NASA Engineer, Vallee, and so many others. What an elite group you run. I happily donate to NARCAP and I support all you do. Thank you especially for the first EVER airline survey of pilots and aircrews. I love that report. It is a historic document as are all NARCAP Technical Reports. I am happy that NARCAP has done all this work and I am grateful for your personal efforts to further this work. Thanks to you and all your staff and advisors!

 

[Han]

[/QUOTE]


"Ufology", you are a troll. [/QUOTE]

Says the person who signs up to a forum to attack another.......

 

[environmental_one]

I really liked this interview enough to sign up to Paracast and comment for the first time ever. The work that NARCAP (Roe and Haines with staff and advisors) is doing is breakthrough. I appreciate the data they have published and it's all FREE! Checkout www.narcap.org and see the technical reports.

 

[environmental_one]

"Ufology", you are a troll. [/QUOTE]

Says the person who signs up to a forum to attack another.......[/QUOTE

I signed up to comment positively in the direction of Paracast and Roe. I was quite taken aback by the sometimes rude, mostly inaccurate and at the end of the thread - slanderous remarks of "ufology". You seem to take my comment out of context. Ufology is dominating this thread and his behavior is consistent with the definition of an internet Troll. He has forced Roe to repeat himself and refuses to acknowledge explanations. He was obviously wrong about Vallee as Vallee has been a member of NARCAP since the beginning. There are more inaccurate and slanderous comments from Ufology than I mention!

 

[Han]

Something is making me suspicious.

 

[environmental_one]

Aviation Safety in America: Spherical UAP
http://www.narcap.org/Projsphere/3.1.6_narcap_projSph.pdf

Thank you, I had not read this report yet!

 

[Han]

"Ufology", you are a troll.

Says the person who signs up to a forum to attack another.......[/QUOTE

I signed up to comment positively in the direction of Paracast and Roe. I was quite taken aback by the sometimes rude, mostly inaccurate and at the end of the thread - slanderous remarks of "ufology". You seem to take my comment out of context. Ufology is dominating this thread and his behavior is consistent with the definition of an internet Troll. He has forced Roe to repeat himself and refuses to acknowledge explanations. He was obviously wrong about Vallee as Vallee has been a member of NARCAP since the beginning. There are more inaccurate and slanderous comments from Ufology than I mention![/QUOTE]

Maybe I could ask your advice as you seem to have a better understanding of "slander" than I do: Would it be slander if I suggested for example: that environmental_one and Ted Roe were the same person? or that MR Roe had requested a "supporter" to engage in some "image management"? Just to be clear I am not saying that this is the case I am merely interested in "slander" and the different interpretations internationally. (I live outside the U.S and find it interesting that what is OK there is not here and vice versa)

 

[environmental_one]

Thank you Paracast, Gene and Chris for this interview!
This is so cool. So much has happened since I was involved in NARCAP. I am looking forward to catching up and being part of the team again.

 

[environmental_one]

Says the person who signs up to a forum to attack another.......[/QUOTE

I signed up to comment positively in the direction of Paracast and Roe. I was quite taken aback by the sometimes rude, mostly inaccurate and at the end of the thread - slanderous remarks of "ufology". You seem to take my comment out of context. Ufology is dominating this thread and his behavior is consistent with the definition of an internet Troll. He has forced Roe to repeat himself and refuses to acknowledge explanations. He was obviously wrong about Vallee as Vallee has been a member of NARCAP since the beginning. There are more inaccurate and slanderous comments from Ufology than I mention!

Maybe I could ask your advice as you seem to have a better understanding of "slander" than I do: Would it be slander if I suggested for example: that environmental_one and Ted Roe were the same person? or that MR Roe had requested a "supporter" to engage in some "image management"? Just to be clear I am not saying that this is the case I am merely interested in "slander" and the different interpretations internationally. (I live outside the U.S and find it interesting that what is OK there is not here and vice versa)[/QUOTE]


An inaccurate statement is not slander but with the intent to defame publicly it is. I am not Ted Roe and he does not need image management - "ufology" and "han" do. I used to be and intend to be an active member of NARCAP (on a multi-year sabbatical fighting cancer). In answer to your question, I do not know what a judge would say in ruling for or against you in a slander case for suggesting, publicly, that Ted Roe and I are the same person. You have lost all credibility with me in doing so and leads me to believe what a detective or police officer may: that you accuse others of what you are doing to divert attention from your own actions. Unlike you, I will simply ask the question: So is HAN and "ufology" the same person? I am the daughter of a retiree of the police department and received a lot of second-hand training. I am getting suspicious.

 

[environmental_one]

And another thing "HAN" - there are approximately 55 active members of NARCAP, a few inactive ones and a few deceased ones (not to mention the international NARCAP teams and worldwide friends). Do you really think that NONE of us will listen to Ted Roe, the Executive Director of NARCAP's interview on Paracast?!?!?! Do you really think we aren't interested in supporting him or NARCAP with the amazing work they have done? Why did Paracast invite Ted Roe to interview? Maybe because Ted Roe and NARCAP are good for Paracast. Is that the ugly head of envy rearing up in your heart? WOW!

 

[marduk]

I think you both need to chill. Your energies can both be better spent than attacking each other over this stuff.

One is immediately reminded of why this is such a fractured field.

 

[Polterwurst]

Make that three likes, marduk.

 

[Han]

And another thing "HAN" - there are approximately 55 active members of NARCAP, a few inactive ones and a few deceased ones (not to mention the international NARCAP teams and worldwide friends). Do you really think that NONE of us will listen to Ted Roe, the Executive Director of NARCAP's interview on Paracast?!?!?! Do you really think we aren't interested in supporting him or NARCAP with the amazing work they have done? Why did Paracast invite Ted Roe to interview? Maybe because Ted Roe and NARCAP are good for Paracast. Is that the ugly head of envy rearing up in your heart? WOW!

yes you are right it was jealousy that lead to my suspicion that you were here on the behest of MR Roe..... (this is irony.)

Oh and regarding me and @ufology being the same person employing your "second hand" detective skills may reveal that this is highly unlikely given that we reside in different continents..... oh and the fact that we have disagreed on numerous occasions for example:
U.F.O. poll | The Paracast Community Forums (regarding the terminology of UAP/UFO etc and it's use in different language environments.)

Regarding Image management: the image you have portrayed to me is one of a fanatical cheerleader....

However in the interests of myself and the forum I will not make any further comments, and apologise for any offence caused by my remarks.