Is Neil Jenman feeling a tad insecure?

I think Neil Jenman maybe a little insecure. I can’t be sure so I’ll let you decide.

A few days ago I left a comment on Neil’s anti-LJ Hooker tirade about the sale of a property where three people had been murdered. My comment was simple and respectful and queried the basis on which he was making his assertions. This is what I said:

You assert: “And, as all agents know, Asian people are extremely superstitious. There is just no way that a typical Asian family will even consider buying a home that has been the scene of a gruesome mass murder.” On what basis are you claiming that ALL Asian people are superstitious? What is ‘typical’ Asian family? Would a gay couple be considered ‘typical’? Would they be “extremely superstitious? How would you know that? These comments are not to be used if edited in any way.

The following day I received an email from Neil. Impressive service. This is what he had to say.

The same way I know that Eskimos have a higher tendency to be left-handed. It’s a fact.

Further, having spent so much time (and especially on this case) with members of the Asian community and researching Feng Shui, I find their superstitions and beliefs fascinating; and I must admit that, even now, years later, I find myself remembering and even adopting some of their beliefs.

I suggest you read up on it.

And, no, I’m unlikely to quote you, edited or not. I get the feeling the same won’t apply to yourself, however. But that’s just a feeling, not a fact.

Regards

Neil

I like that Neil is able to assert a universal fact about a whole race of people based on his own experience. I wish I had his confidence. What of those Asians who are not superstitious. Are they really Asian or just Asian impostors?

I like that Neil has the chutzpah to tell me to read up on Feng Shui. I’m unsure why he made the recommendation. Best I start reading.

I like that Neil is in touch with his feelings. He was right. I did publish his response. I wonder if he will now return the favour.

To be clear, I was not critising Neil’s commentary on the murder house sale. I don’t know the facts of the case and am confident that the legal system has dealt with the matter appropriately. What I object to is someone making grand and unverifiable assertions to make a point. Sure, he’s entitled to make unverifiable claims. It makes for entertaining reading. But if he’s unwilling to support his claims and continues to insist on his own lived experience as being the only possible reality, then his rants will only ever be valuable as entertainment.