Publications making bold claims, offering arguments against conventional views, or presenting strong positions on philosophical, spiritual, or political issues tend to elicit criticism. That is only natural. As human beings, our worldview is a part of our identity and so when some of us encounter a contrary opinion to our worldview, it may feel as if our identity is under attack and that it needs defending. Consequently, it’s not uncommon for publications taking unconventional stances on topics to provoke strong reactions and receive their fair share of critics. Since Rond is a new worldview contrary to those in the mainstream, it’s more than understandable for publications of the Rond Project to draw at least some criticism.
In the event that a given publication for the Rond Project draws substantive criticism, the author will do his best to be as objective as possible about his work and take into consideration what the critics have to say. Whenever he encounters thoughtful critiques that he feels deserve an answer, he will either post an article to clarify the Rondian position or proceed to compose an update of the publication in question in order to correct any genuine errors.
Of course, he cannot respond to everyone’s concerns. But as time and interest permits, he will do what he can to set the record straight or revise in the light of constructive criticism.