Ghosts?

[Gavin Chipper]

If I died and became a ghost, I'd present myself to a scientific laboratory for some rigorous testing. Apparently I'd be the first to do this. Draw your own conclusions.

[George Jenkins]

Fred lies naked in the corner, surrounded by broken glass in a pool of liquid, while Tom cowers shivering in the corner.
What happened prior to this?

Hmmmm....certainly something fishy about that.

Certainly was fishy, with fred being a goldfish

[Lesley Jeavons]

Wey hey, George and Jimmy, you know the game too.

Yes, Fred is a goldfish, and Tom...





... is a cat.

[George Jenkins]

Wey hey, George and Jimmy, you know the game too.

Yes, Fred is a goldfish, and Tom...





... is a cat.

Sod it, I didn't know Tom was a cat, I ain't so clever after all.

[Martin Gardner]

Fred lies naked in the corner, surrounded by broken glass in a pool of liquid, while Tom cowers shivering in the corner.
What happened prior to this?

I don't know. Were Fred and Tom attending a party at Michael Barrymore's house?

LMAO

[Phil Reynolds]

Remember, Charlie is always right.

Even someone who believes that the spirits of the departed habitually float round old houses at night moaning would have to agree with Charlie's post, which simply pointed out the fact that, given two possible explanations for strange phenomena, the more mundane one is more likely to be true. So, er, what exactly was the point of your post?

Phil, the point of my post was about your assertion, that belief of the existence and stories of Ghosts were claptrap

George, my question was directed at Jimmy, not at you.

[Phil Reynolds]

Remember, Charlie is always right.

So, er, what exactly was the point of your post?

Some may ask what the point in your website is: pages and pages about your dazzling television appearances when nobody really gives a shit.

Blimey - for you to know that, you must be one of the few people who's actually bothered to wade through it all. As it says (with uncharacteristic succinctness) on the contact page, my website is "self-indulgent trash". But it keeps me amused (or used to when I could be bothered to keep it up to date). Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

[Rosemary Roberts]

what exactly was the point of your post?

Phil, since Jimmy didn't choose to answer your question I will jump in with my understanding of it. He feels that Charlie's statement (that more mundane solutions are more likely to be true) is so obviously ill-founded that only people who are beholden to him could possibly agree. And I suppose he must be right - why else did we have to sign that 14-page agreement when we joined the forum?



For the record, I thought your website was very interesting, particularly the self-indulgent bits.

[Phil Reynolds]

Phil, since Jimmy didn't choose to answer your question I will jump in with my understanding of it. He feels that Charlie's statement (that more mundane solutions are more likely to be true) is so obviously ill-founded that only people who are beholden to him could possibly agree. And I suppose he must be right - why else did we have to sign that 14-page agreement when we joined the forum?

I guess I must be beholden then. Er, be holden. No, BE beholden. Sounds wrong either way. (I wonder if Stewart Holden is beholden? Wibble.)

For the record, I thought your website was very interesting, particularly the self-indulgent bits.

In the face of such fulsome approbation, only a churl would quibble over your choice of tense.

[Roxanne]

People are very impressionable. It is incredibly easy to manipulate peoples memories (as demostrated by the extensive research of Elizabeth Loftus), or even to create false ones. I can't give you a reference for this experiment, but here's the procedure as far as I can remember: adult participants were each shown a photograph of people in a hot air balloon, on which their face (taken from a photo of the participant as a child) had been superimposed. When asked whether they remembered being in the balloon, they generally said no. A couple of weeks later they were asked whether, having had time to think about it, they remembered the balloon ride. Many of the participants then gave fairly detailed accounts of their experience of having been on a hot air balloon ride that had never actually happened. People often find, when talking to their parents about their childhood, that things they "remember clearly" actually happened differently, or didn't actually happen at all. The example my psychology teacher gave was that she "remembered" a metal bar being cut through with a circular saw when her foot was trapped under it, but talking to her mother she found out that the bar had actually been unscrewed at both ends and was never cut through at all, but her memory had been distored as she remembered being terrified, and it seems more rational for her to have been terrified if there had been a saw near her leg than a screwdriver. What can also happen is that children remember things based on their own understanding of what they see eg. a child can see a man fixing a broken circuit board with a soldering iron, and what they remember is that the wizard fixed their toy with a magic wand.

The human brain is not perfect. Take deja vu, for example. You feel as though something has happened before, but you know it hasn't, so generally you accept that it is infact a feeling generated by your brain being a bit funny. In the case of people feeling the presence of a ghost/angel/god/aliens, it's the same thing, but because you can't have the same certainty that the feeling is wrong, you don't think "I felt like something was there but it wasn't" you think "I felt like something was there but I couldn't see it". It is infact possible to give a person deja vu or a religious experience by stimulating specific areas of their brain with the same level of electromagnetic radiation as is generated by your average hairdryer. I've actually had a "religious experience" where for a few days I was convinced that I had felt the presence of God (quite unnerving for an atheist), before remembering this article on the work of Michael Persinger and thinking "now that's more like it". George's so-called "haunted house" was most likely just one where there was significant electromagnetic activity.

As for waking up feeling like something is pressing on you, that's sleep-paralysis and is perfectly normal. It happens when your brain wakes up before your body, and it takes a few seconds for your body to stop being affected by the systems that stop you moving too much in your sleep. Handily enough, while looking for this painting, I found this article, which links sleep paralysis to the geomagnetic activity that's mentioned in the Persinger article.

[Rosemary Roberts]

In the face of such fulsome approbation, only a churl would quibble over your choice of tense.

So he would!

[Jimmy Gough]

Blimey - for you to know that, you must be one of the few people who's actually bothered to wade through it all. As it says (with uncharacteristic succinctness) on the contact page, my website is "self-indulgent trash". But it keeps me amused (or used to when I could be bothered to keep it up to date). Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

No worries. I really should stick to reading posts though

[George Jenkins]

People are very impressionable. It is incredibly easy to manipulate peoples memories (as demonstrated by the extensive research of Elizabeth Loftus), or even to create false ones. I can't give you a reference for this experiment, but here's the procedure as far as I can remember: adult participants were each shown a photograph of people in a hot air balloon, on which their face (taken from a photo of the participant as a child) had been superimposed. When asked whether they remembered being in the balloon, they generally said no. A couple of weeks later they were asked whether, having had time to think about it, they remembered the balloon ride. Many of the participants then gave fairly detailed accounts of their experience of having been on a hot air balloon ride that had never actually happened. People often find, when talking to their parents about their childhood, that things they "remember clearly" actually happened differently, or didn't actually happen at all. The example my psychology teacher gave was that she "remembered" a metal bar being cut through with a circular saw when her foot was trapped under it, but talking to her mother she found out that the bar had actually been unscrewed at both ends and was never cut through at all, but her memory had been distorted as she remembered being terrified, and it seems more rational for her to have been terrified if there had been a saw near her leg than a screwdriver. What can also happen is that children remember things based on their own understanding of what they see eg. a child can see a man fixing a broken circuit board with a soldering iron, and what they remember is that the wizard fixed their toy with a magic wand.

The human brain is not perfect. Take deja vu, for example. You feel as though something has happened before, but you know it hasn't, so generally you accept that it is in fact a feeling generated by your brain being a bit funny. In the case of people feeling the presence of a ghost/angel/god/aliens, it's the same thing, but because you can't have the same certainty that the feeling is wrong, you don't think "I felt like something was there but it wasn't" you think "I felt like something was there but I couldn't see it". It is in fact possible to give a person deja vu or a religious experience by stimulating specific areas of their brain with the same level of electromagnetic radiation as is generated by your average hairdryer. I've actually had a "religious experience" where for a few days I was convinced that I had felt the presence of God (quite unnerving for an atheist), before remembering this article on the work of Michael Persinger and thinking "now that's more like it". George's so-called "haunted house" was most likely just one where there was significant electromagnetic activity.

As for waking up feeling like something is pressing on you, that's sleep-paralysis and is perfectly normal. It happens when your brain wakes up before your body, and it takes a few seconds for your body to stop being affected by the systems that stop you moving too much in your sleep. Handily enough, while looking for this painting, I found this article, which links sleep paralysis to the geomagnetic activity that's mentioned in the Persinger article.

I really enjoyed reading your post Roxanne, very deep and informative. But in my long and weary life, I have learnt to never trust the "Experts",psycho-analysts etc. Not that I blame them, they have to pay their Mortgage etc. experiments that you describe with hot air balloons are simply mind altering, brain-washing experiments which required the passage of time to work on the memories of participants. Our experiences were right now, in this bedroom or living room. Referring to that, I must tell you that when we lived on the second floor, our bedroom was in the front of the house, and not very big. Our living room in the back was big enough to hold a small dance, with a huge bay window and balcony, overlooking a beautiful view over the chislehurst valley. We changed rooms in the hope of finding some piece at night, but it was just the same. It was in that room that I experienced the greenish glow lighting up the room, and finding my hair standing up straight. It was suggested that electricity might be the answer in that house, and I believe that may be so. which creates another question. If many forms of life require electricity to live, (I'm thinking of the human heart and with other animals), it might be required for other forms of life in another dimension we can't see.

However! I will capitulate and say that you are all correct when you say that we (all of us in the house) were suffering from an excess of imagination, Yup! I give in.

But for complete victory, you have to explain, using your superior knowledge, and never been within miles of the house, why Kathleen Groeger, after just a few days moving into my old flat, should scream at me in the garden, " I know why you moved out of that Fucking flat and into the one that I should have had. There is a fucking ghost in there and the fucking bastard thing won't let us sleep". I repeat what I said about Kathleen, she was a very tough lady indeed. you will probably find it easy to find the answer as to why she said that, but don't bother about theories and imagination. we've had all that.

[Lesley Jeavons]

But for complete victory, you have to explain, using your superior knowledge, and never been within miles of the house, why Kathleen Groeger, after just a few days moving into my old flat, should scream at me in the garden, " I know why you moved out of that Fucking flat and into the one that I should have had. There is a fucking ghost in there and the fucking bastard thing won't let us sleep". I repeat what I said about Kathleen, she was a very tough lady indeed. you will probably find it easy to find the answer as to why she said that, but don't bother about theories and imagination. we've had all that.

I'm inclined to agree with you George. I'm appreciating having people here's sceptical points of view to open my mind to alternative explanations - as since my own 'ghost' experience I never questioned their existance, I purely believed in them, no questions.

I can maybe now accept that I've perhaps imagined something etc, but my second example, repeated below, is similar to yours - where other people have had the same experiences.

And another story. When my husband was doing his Photography degree he was doing a project on childhood memories. He wrote to the people who lived in his favourite childhood home asking if he could visit to take some pictures to use alongside old ones. They agreed and also said it was ok for his Mum and I to go too. Corin's family have loads of ghost stories from living in this house, so Corin's Mum asked the owners if they had any. They did. They realed off lots of stories and discriptions of similar events and people to the ones Corin's family have always talked about.

[George Jenkins]

But for complete victory, you have to explain, using your superior knowledge, and never been within miles of the house, why Kathleen Groeger, after just a few days moving into my old flat, should scream at me in the garden, " I know why you moved out of that Fucking flat and into the one that I should have had. There is a fucking ghost in there and the fucking bastard thing won't let us sleep". I repeat what I said about Kathleen, she was a very tough lady indeed. you will probably find it easy to find the answer as to why she said that, but don't bother about theories and imagination. we've had all that.

I'm inclined to agree with you George. I'm appreciating having people here's sceptical points of view to open my mind to alternative explanations - as since my own 'ghost' experience I never questioned their existance, I purely believed in them, no questions.

I can maybe now accept that I've perhaps imagined something etc, but my second example, repeated below, is similar to yours - where other people have had the same experiences.

And another story. When my husband was doing his Photography degree he was doing a project on childhood memories. He wrote to the people who lived in his favourite childhood home asking if he could visit to take some pictures to use alongside old ones. They agreed and also said it was ok for his Mum and I to go too. Corin's family have loads of ghost stories from living in this house, so Corin's Mum asked the owners if they had any. They did. They realed off lots of stories and discriptions of similar events and people to the ones Corin's family have always talked about.

I love you Lesley, and If you wasn't married and I didn't already have a lovely girl whom I adore.
I'd--. Oh never mind, I'm forty years too late anyway.

[Jon Corby]

FFS Lesley and George, you can't give people vague-ish recollections of stuff that happened years ago, and expect them to "explain" anything. Don't be so fucking stupid. "I've learnt never to trust the experts" has to be one of the most idiotic statements ever.

Lesley, contact the Randi foundation and go back to your haunted house with them. If it is indeed haunted, they'll give you $1m. I'll just take 10%.

[Rosemary Roberts]

They realed off lots of stories and discriptions of similar events and people to the ones Corin's family have always talked about.

Corin's family will have talked to their neighbours, and the same neighbours will have passed the stories on to the new occupants. People are very suggestible, and very willing to give the expected answers. Besides, "no, we never noticed anything" is so boring.

But Jon Corby's suggestion is the best. Get Randi on the job.

[Jon Corby]

Get Randi on the job.

*chortle* *guffaw*

[Charlie Reams]

But in my long and weary life, I have learnt to never trust the "Experts",psycho-analysts etc.

This is not psychoanalysis (which is mostly bollocks), it's just simple science. If you don't believe the results then you can repeat the experiment yourself and you'll see the same thing.

But for complete victory, you have to explain, using your superior knowledge, and never been within miles of the house, why Kathleen Groeger, after just a few days moving into my old flat, should scream at me in the garden, " I know why you moved out of that Fucking flat and into the one that I should have had. There is a fucking ghost in there and the fucking bastard thing won't let us sleep". I repeat what I said about Kathleen, she was a very tough lady indeed. you will probably find it easy to find the answer as to why she said that, but don't bother about theories and imagination. we've had all that.

If there was some other factor in the house (something in the air, some magnetic field, or whatever) then she would be as susceptible to it as you.

[George Jenkins]

FFS Lesley and George, you can't give people vague-ish recollections of stuff that happened years ago, and expect them to "explain" anything. Don't be so fucking stupid. "I've learnt never to trust the experts" has to be one of the most idiotic statements ever.

Lesley, contact the Randi foundation and go back to your haunted house with them. If it is indeed haunted, they'll give you $1m. I'll just take 10%.

Jon, I took your advice to Lesley, and clicked on the Randi foundation, and I wish to thank you for introducing me to that motley throng of hilarious "experts" with impressive qualifications like-He spoke at such and such meeting etc. Or he wrote books. (and no doubt made lots of Dollars)
I loved the bloke whom was an "expert" on health care, but whom didn't mention that if you ain't got the money, you die. The "experts" presumably learnt their expertise from other "experts", and they learnt their-(Oh! shut up George, this could go on forever, bearing in mind the law of regression) As to the million dollar prize you mention, it's just a cynical gimmick, and they can't lose, because how can our, I repeat OUR experience be proved.

You actually provided the proof of what I believe about experts. Are you so naive as to believe that those powerful Foundations exist for the good of the people, especially in a place like America, full of religious nutters. No; they are there to make millions of dollars, like Billy Graham.

I don't take offence at your remark about me being fucking stupid, and also making Idiotic statements. As for giving people vague-ish recollections, I didn't think that describing Kathleen Kroeger's scream of "There's a fucking ghost in that fucking flat" as being vague. As to expecting people to explain a simple question about Kathleen's experience, I would expect an educated person to say that he regretted he didn't know, not to descend to that level of obscene insults. The word; bigot comes to mind.
A word to Lesley. When people sneer about your experiences, don't forget to remind them that they were not there, and there is a lot of money to be earned(?) in organisations, created to to refrute these experiences.

[Charlie Reams]

As to the million dollar prize you mention, it's just a cynical gimmick, and they can't lose, because how can our, I repeat OUR experience be proved.

They certainly can lose. Someone could produce a house which was repeatedly, demonstrably haunted; someone could do consistently better than chance at mind-reading, water divining etc; someone could consistently heal people with the power of the hands. In fact, people have tried to win the money with all of these approaches -- in many case it seems that the people undertaking the challenge really believed they had these gifts, and were surprised when the experiments conclusively showed that they were no better than random.

Some one-off thing that happened to you can't be proved or disproved. But nor can you disprove that yesterday I discovered a new type of octopus but today I forgot about all it, so I can't provide any details or evidence, sorry. Obviously you wouldn't take such a claim seriously, because without evidence, no one cares. If ghosts really are amongst us then we should be able to detect them with some degree of reliability.

You actually provided the proof of what I believe about experts. Are you so naive as to believe that those powerful Foundations exist for the good of the people, especially in a place like America, full of religious nutters. No; they are there to make millions of dollars, like Billy Graham.

Umm, the Randi foundation is highly anti-religious. I doubt Billy Graham is a big fan of their work.

As for giving people vague-ish recollections, I didn't think that describing Kathleen Kroeger's scream of "There's a fucking ghost in that fucking flat" as being vague.

No one disputes that she actually said that. The vagueness comes in with the ghost which she supposedly experienced which was vaguely like something you vaguely experienced.

A word to Lesley. When people sneer about your experiences, don't forget to remind them that they were not there, and there is a lot of money to be earned(?) in organisations, created to to refrute these experiences.

There is? How can I make money by refuting people's spurious recollections of things which obviously didn't happen? I must take up this line of work immediately!

[George Jenkins]

But in my long and weary life, I have learnt to never trust the "Experts",psycho-analysts etc.

This is not psychoanalysis (which is mostly bollocks), it's just simple science. If you don't believe the results then you can repeat the experiment yourself and you'll see the same thing.

But for complete victory, you have to explain, using your superior knowledge, and never been within miles of the house, why Kathleen Groeger, after just a few days moving into my old flat, should scream at me in the garden, " I know why you moved out of that Fucking flat and into the one that I should have had. There is a fucking ghost in there and the fucking bastard thing won't let us sleep". I repeat what I said about Kathleen, she was a very tough lady indeed. you will probably find it easy to find the answer as to why she said that, but don't bother about theories and imagination. we've had all that.

If there was some other factor in the house (something in the air, some magnetic field, or whatever) then she would be as susceptible to it as you.

Yes Charlie, and if there is a scientific answer, I think that your electrical theory is the most probable. Especially as I have already written about the glow in our bedroom and my hair standing on end. It was a strange sensation and when I pushed it down, it wouldn't stay down. I still insist that ghosts do not exist, and since leaving that house (52years) we have had no other experiences similar to those

[George Jenkins]

As to the million dollar prize you mention, it's just a cynical gimmick, and they can't lose, because how can our, I repeat OUR experience be proved.

They certainly can lose. Someone could produce a house which was repeatedly, demonstrably haunted; someone could do consistently better than chance at mind-reading, water divining etc; someone could consistently heal people with the power of the hands. In fact, people have tried to win the money with all of these approaches -- in many case it seems that the people undertaking the challenge really believed they had these gifts, and were surprised when the experiments conclusively showed that they were no better than random.

Some one-off thing that happened to you can't be proved or disproved. But nor can you disprove that yesterday I discovered a new type of octopus but today I forgot about all it, so I can't provide any details or evidence, sorry. Obviously you wouldn't take such a claim seriously, because without evidence, no one cares. If ghosts really are amongst us then we should be able to detect them with some degree of reliability.

You actually provided the proof of what I believe about experts. Are you so naive as to believe that those powerful Foundations exist for the good of the people, especially in a place like America, full of religious nutters. No; they are there to make millions of dollars, like Billy Graham.

Umm, the Randi foundation is highly anti-religious. I doubt Billy Graham is a big fan of their work.

As for giving people vague-ish recollections, I didn't think that describing Kathleen Kroeger's scream of "There's a fucking ghost in that fucking flat" as being vague.

No one disputes that she actually said that. The vagueness comes in with the ghost which she supposedly experienced which was vaguely like something you vaguely experienced.

A word to Lesley. When people sneer about your experiences, don't forget to remind them that they were not there, and there is a lot of money to be earned(?) in organisations, created to to refrute these experiences.

There is? How can I make money by refuting people's spurious recollections of things which obviously didn't happen? I must take up this line of work immediately!

You will certainly make money in america Charlie.

[Jon Corby]

I loved the bloke whom was an "expert" on health care, but whom didn't mention that if you ain't got the money, you die.

What? By the way, it isn't correct to use "whom" instead of "who" all the time.

The "experts" presumably learnt their expertise from other "experts", and they learnt their-(Oh! shut up George, this could go on forever, bearing in mind the law of regression)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have an issue with this? Doesn't it make sense?

As to the million dollar prize you mention, it's just a cynical gimmick, and they can't lose, because how can our, I repeat OUR experience be proved.

Exactly. If your claims (or those of any other haunted house) had any substance to them, they COULD be proved. Surely you see the problem with saying "this amazing thing happened, but you can't see it and it won't happen again but I challenge you to prove that it didn't happen otherwise you have to accept that it did happen"?

You actually provided the proof of what I believe about experts. Are you so naive as to believe that those powerful Foundations exist for the good of the people, especially in a place like America, full of religious nutters. No; they are there to make millions of dollars, like Billy Graham... ...don't forget to remind them that they were not there, and there is a lot of money to be earned(?) in organisations, created to to refrute these experiences.

Peculiar. I actually confess to knowing very little about the Randi foundation (other than that they offer the $1m prize thing) but I would have thought your animosity would be better directed at those making money by perpetuating supernatural bullshit (religion, psychics) rather than those debunking it. I don't know if the Randi foundation do make money by this activity, but if they do then more power to them. They wouldn't be able to do so were it not for idiots.

[Charlie Reams]

I don't know if the Randi foundation do make money by this activity, but if they do then more power to them. They wouldn't be able to do so were it not for idiots.

They don't, it's a not-for-profit organisation mainly funded by sales of James Randi's books about... debunking ghost stories.

[George Jenkins]

I don't know if the Randi foundation do make money by this activity, but if they do then more power to them. They wouldn't be able to do so were it not for idiots.

They don't, it's a not-for-profit organisation mainly funded by sales of James Randi's books about... debunking ghost stories.

Nobody does something for nothing, they get paid, and I am impressed by the business acumen of the Randi foundation, which must be a very efficient advertising facility for James Randi's books. Why else would this organisation exist. Why would these people be concerned about some other nervous people whom believe in ghosts. do these nervous people pose a threat to them. No they don't, but they provide an excellent opportunity to make money.

This Randi foundation is so important, it would be a calamity if it ceased to exist, wouldn't it? would anybody notice? of course not, but at the moment, Business is business.

[Phil Reynolds]

Nobody does something for nothing, they get paid, and I am impressed by the business acumen of the Randi foundation, which must be a very efficient advertising facility for James Randi's books. Why else would this organisation exist.

George, is it so hard for you to believe that some people - whilst needing to run a commercial business to make a living, and to pay the people who work for them - can still have as one of their goals the pursuit of common sense and the exposing of charlatans? James Randi couldn't continue his crusade if he didn't make money to support it. At the same time, he is smart enough that he could make a lot more money than he does if he wanted to. He does what he does because he sincerely believes that far too many people are taken in by bullshit (be it religious, paranormal or whatever). There are so many people making huge amounts of money out of peddling phony psychic powers, the fear of God and other nonsense. Why are you so anti someone who makes a little bit of money by opposing them?

[George Jenkins]

I loved the bloke whom was an "expert" on health care, but whom didn't mention that if you ain't got the money, you die.

What? By the way, it isn't correct to use "whom" instead of "who" all the time.

The "experts" presumably learnt their expertise from other "experts", and they learnt their-(Oh! shut up George, this could go on forever, bearing in mind the law of regression)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have an issue with this? Doesn't it make sense?

As to the million dollar prize you mention, it's just a cynical gimmick, and they can't lose, because how can our, I repeat OUR experience be proved.

Exactly. If your claims (or those of any other haunted house) had any substance to them, they COULD be proved. Surely you see the problem with saying "this amazing thing happened, but you can't see it and it won't happen again but I challenge you to prove that it didn't happen otherwise you have to accept that it did happen"?

You actually provided the proof of what I believe about experts. Are you so naive as to believe that those powerful Foundations exist for the good of the people, especially in a place like America, full of religious nutters. No; they are there to make millions of dollars, like Billy Graham... ...don't forget to remind them that they were not there, and there is a lot of money to be earned(?) in organisations, created to to refute these experiences.

Peculiar. I actually confess to knowing very little about the Randi foundation (other than that they offer the $1m prize thing) but I would have thought your animosity would be better directed at those making money by perpetuating supernatural bullshit (religion, psychics) rather than those debunking it. I don't know if the Randi foundation do make money by this activity, but if they do then more power to them. They wouldn't be able to do so were it not for idiots.

Well; it seems that I am still learning, E.G. Who? interrogative,referring to PERSONS, anyone without exception. Whom? the objective case of "who", and referring a PERSON. If this is wrong, I'll chuck my dictionary away

[Phil Reynolds]

I loved the bloke whom was an "expert" on health care, but whom didn't mention that if you ain't got the money, you die.

What? By the way, it isn't correct to use "whom" instead of "who" all the time.

Well; it seems that I am still learning, E.G. Who? interrogative,referring to PERSONS, anyone without exception. Whom? the objective case of "who", and referring a PERSON. If this is wrong, I'll chuck my dictionary away

If that constitutes your dictionary's entry for "who" in its entirety, then yes, you probably should chuck it away.

• The person who wrote this is an idiot - the subjective form "who" is used, because it refers to the subject of the verb "wrote".
• The person whom I saw writing this is an idiot - the objective form "whom" is used in formal writing (though rarely in informal writing and everyday speech), because it refers to the object of the verb "saw".

[Lesley Jeavons]

Jon, did your contribution have to be so curt? Rosemary, Charlie and Roxanne's contributions have given me serious food for thought without ridiculing me (or George). I'm not expecting them to explain everything - this is a forum, where we discuss things with others which can help to put another slant on our own thoughts.

I don't think it's fair to think that I'm being stupid because of my experience. Something happened a long time ago which I haven't given much thought in years. I've never questioned it until now so it's taking a lot of undoing to disbelieve something that I've seen as fact for over two thirds of my life!

Yes, the years have past by so it's vague, but at the time... erm, can't really think of a good example... perhaps was as real to me as you being on Countdown with Charlie recently was to you. If I told you it didn't really happen you'd find it hard to believe as you remember it so clearly - you'd swear blind it happened because it did happen just as you recall. But what if we said you imagined it, that we all can imagine ourselves in the Countdown chair because we recognise the set. And because you'd been there before you easilly thought it had happened again. You'd plead that other people saw it too and said you were great, and we could argue that those people are being suggestable as Rosemary points out people are. (I realise this is a crap example and opens me up for ridicule - no, I'm not disillusional and don't really think you imagined the recent shows! - I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from re how real the event was at the time, so why I didn't question it.)

And George, I love you too.

[George Jenkins]

Nobody does something for nothing, they get paid, and I am impressed by the business acumen of the Randi foundation, which must be a very efficient advertising facility for James Randi's books. Why else would this organisation exist.

George, is it so hard for you to believe that some people - whilst needing to run a commercial business to make a living, and to pay the people who work for them - can still have as one of their goals the pursuit of common sense and the exposing of charlatans? James Randi couldn't continue his crusade if he didn't make money to support it. At the same time, he is smart enough that he could make a lot more money than he does if he wanted to. He does what he does because he sincerely believes that far too many people are taken in by bullshit (be it religious, paranormal or whatever). There are so many people making huge amounts of money out of peddling phony psychic powers, the fear of God and other nonsense. Why are you so anti someone who makes a little bit of money by opposing them?

Phil, you write so convincingly and politely, it was a pleasure to read and every word is the truth. However; I quoted Randi because he was used as a counter argument to our experiences in "Selwyns". As I have a thirst for knowledge, I would have welcomed a person like him to that house, and if he had solved the reason for our experience, the women would have lost their fear.
My anti Randi attitude is caused by my uneasiness of someone whom makes money out of other people's fear, but I agree that he can't be blamed for that. Charlies theory is the best, electrical phenomena. but unfortunately, it raises the question of cause and effect. What generates the electricity? There were no storm clouds in Selwyns.

[Rosemary Roberts]

it didn't really happen ... you'd swear blind it happened just as you recall. You .. plead that other people saw it too and said you were great .... those people are being suggestable ...

Lesley, after we've all been working so hard to humour Jon about his false memory, why did you have to let the cat out of the bag ?!

[George Jenkins]

I'm going to return to using normal everday English. From now on it's "who" for everything.

[George Jenkins]

Jon, did your contribution have to be so curt? Rosemary, Charlie and Roxanne's contributions have given me serious food for thought without ridiculing me (or George). I'm not expecting them to explain everything - this is a forum, where we discuss things with others which can help to put another slant on our own thoughts.

I don't think it's fair to think that I'm being stupid because of my experience. Something happened a long time ago which I haven't given much thought in years. I've never questioned it until now so it's taking a lot of undoing to disbelieve something that I've seen as fact for over two thirds of my life!

Yes, the years have past by so it's vague, but at the time... erm, can't really think of a good example... perhaps was as real to me as you being on Countdown with Charlie recently was to you. If I told you it didn't really happen you'd find it hard to believe as you remember it so clearly - you'd swear blind it happened because it did happen just as you recall. But what if we said you imagined it, that we all can imagine ourselves in the Countdown chair because we recognise the set. And because you'd been there before you easilly thought it had happened again. You'd plead that other people saw it too and said you were great, and we could argue that those people are being suggestable as Rosemary points out people are. (I realise this is a crap example and opens me up for ridicule - no, I'm not disillusional and don't really think you imagined the recent shows! - I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from re how real the event was at the time, so why I didn't question it.)

And George, I love you too.

Lesley, you must realise that some people are superior. that doesn't mean that they more intelligent, and fine words don't make a Gentleman.

[Jon Corby]

Jon, did your contribution have to be so curt?

... Yes, the years have past by so it's vague, but at the time... erm, can't really think of a good example... perhaps was as real to me as you being on Countdown with Charlie recently was to you. If I told you it didn't really happen you'd find it hard to believe as you remember it so clearly - you'd swear blind it happened because it did happen just as you recall.

Yes, it's an awful example, because there is plenty of verifiable proof that it all happened as I remember it. Odd stuff happens all the time. You think "I thought I saw something then. How did that get there? Why did that happen?" etc, which is all fine. While there are ultimately reasons for everything that happens, you can't always explain them because you're not always in possession of the full facts. Cool. Nothing wrong with that. It's when people then take these oddities and say "OMG! PROOF OF GHOSTS!" (which you effectively did in your first post) that they need a slap around the face to bring them back to their senses. My "curt contribution" is the cyber equivalent of this

[George Jenkins]

Jon, did your contribution have to be so curt?

... Yes, the years have past by so it's vague, but at the time... erm, can't really think of a good example... perhaps was as real to me as you being on Countdown with Charlie recently was to you. If I told you it didn't really happen you'd find it hard to believe as you remember it so clearly - you'd swear blind it happened because it did happen just as you recall.

Yes, it's an awful example, because there is plenty of verifiable proof that it all happened as I remember it. Odd stuff happens all the time. You think "I thought I saw something then. How did that get there? Why did that happen?" etc, which is all fine. While there are ultimately reasons for everything that happens, you can't always explain them because you're not always in possession of the full facts. Cool. Nothing wrong with that. It's when people then take these oddities and say "OMG! PROOF OF GHOSTS!" (which you effectively did in your first post) that they need a slap around the face to bring them back to their senses. My "curt contribution" is the cyber equivalent of this

Well lads and lassies; I didn't realise the extent of the controversy I would cause when I referred to phil's statement that stories of ghosts were claptrap. All I did was to ask for explanations for the very real experiences that three families had in Selwyns. I didn't expect the occasional bad temper and insults, but I hasten to add that I wasn't offended. I am tolerant of young people, possibly still going to school or university, and probably never done a day's work in their lives. I thought it sad when my lack of education and ability to talk "proper" was broadcast to the World. It doesn't effect me in the slightest, but it did show up the author's lack of manners and good breeding. This has happened twice since I joined this Forum. I have really enjoyed the arguments, but there is not the ghost of a chance that I would change my story about Selwyns. Sorry about that little dig. (No I'm not)

[Charlie Reams]

I am tolerant of young people, possibly still going to school or university, and probably never done a day's work in their lives.

I assume since you're quoting him that this this bizarre remark is addressed to Jon Corby, who has never attended university and works as a computer programmer to support his family.

The bizarre thing is that almost every post you make is full to the brim of absolute shit, yet you continually ignore the rebuttals posted and respond with yet more rubbish that only adds to the confusion. Please spend more time reading and thinking and less time ejaculating your every thought onto the keyboard.

[Jon Corby]

but it did show up the author's lack of manners and good breeding.

Exactly, it's my dad's fault.

[George Jenkins]

I am tolerant of young people, possibly still going to school or university, and probably never done a day's work in their lives.

I assume since you're quoting him that this this bizarre remark is addressed to Jon Corby, who has never attended university and works as a computer programmer to support his family.

The bizarre thing is that almost every post you make is full to the brim of absolute shit, yet you continually ignore the rebuttals posted and respond with yet more rubbish that only adds to the confusion. Please spend more time reading and thinking and less time ejaculating your every thought onto the keyboard.

Charlie, My last post was intentional. I wanted to find out if people who Whom (take your pick)dish out contempt and insults can take it themselves. I was not disappointed. I make just one comment about the superior attitude of alleged educated people, who(?) sneer at my lack of education, and you start foaming at the mouth. But I smiled at Jon's remark about his dad. he's got a sense of humour and I could almost get to like him.
My post about ghosts was provoked by your remarks about the belief in ghosts. it generated a lot of interest which I thought was good for the Forum. As to your statement that most of my posts were full of shit which led to confusion, I suggest that you have somebody reading my posts very slowly to you, explaining what I am saying.
I have enjoyed my time belonging to this Forum, and I have met some lovely people.
Please delete the records of my membership with this Forum

[Jon Corby]

George! As I already explained my post was meant as a 'slap in the face', meant to make you and Leslie realise that you can't just present people with flimsy anecdote from years gone by and say "explain THAT - and if you can't, it must be ghosts". There are countless explanations as to why (to an observer) a "form could appear in a corner of the room and then disappear", how the hell are we supposed to know which is the right one based on that? You've insisted that "you don't believe in ghosts", but if you actually missed the line explicitly insisting that it would be impossible to draw that conclusion from the rest of your posts. You get directed to a foundation who debunk such things, and rubbish them out of hand based on a cursory glance of their website, while also trashing the transfer of knowledge between experts, which is just bizarre (!?). I think this is what Charlie was getting at with the "bullshit" thing.

Like you said, this thread generated a lot of interest. Ghost stories are great fun. People like to be scared, they like inexplicable phenomena, it's exciting. But, ultimately, everything has an explanation. Just because you're not in possession of all the facts at any given time, doesn't mean it's right to fill in the blanks with fantasy. The same applies with theism, which I mentioned earlier in the thread but seemed to get misinterpreted by Kirk at the time.

And if you were testing that I can "take it as well as dish it out", I'd hope the answer is yes. While I can be a bit blunt sometimes, it's usually not intended in any offensive way, and I'd say I receive worse (allegations of sexism, homophobia, laughing-at-sick-people etc) than I actually give out. Well, maybe not

(Oh, as for the "whom" thing, I do admit found that really grating. I'd say it's safer to always use "who" as people don't get picked up on that. Always using "whom" makes it appear (to me) that you're actually trying to sound a bit grand and superior yourself, while at the same time obviously being the opposite. Probably more my problem for being so affected by it, not yours )

[Kirk Bevins]

I think Charlie is being a bit harsh but what's new there.

[George Jenkins]

George! As I already explained my post was meant as a 'slap in the face', meant to make you and Leslie realise that you can't just present people with flimsy anecdote from years gone by and say "explain THAT - and if you can't, it must be ghosts". There are countless explanations as to why (to an observer) a "form could appear in a corner of the room and then disappear", how the hell are we supposed to know which is the right one based on that? You've insisted that "you don't believe in ghosts", but if you actually missed the line explicitly insisting that it would be impossible to draw that conclusion from the rest of your posts. You get directed to a foundation who debunk such things, and rubbish them out of hand based on a cursory glance of their website, while also trashing the transfer of knowledge between experts, which is just bizarre (!?). I think this is what Charlie was getting at with the "bullshit" thing.

Like you said, this thread generated a lot of interest. Ghost stories are great fun. People like to be scared, they like inexplicable phenomena, it's exciting. But, ultimately, everything has an explanation. Just because you're not in possession of all the facts at any given time, doesn't mean it's right to fill in the blanks with fantasy. The same applies with theism, which I mentioned earlier in the thread but seemed to get misinterpreted by Kirk at the time.

And if you were testing that I can "take it as well as dish it out", I'd hope the answer is yes. While I can be a bit blunt sometimes, it's usually not intended in any offensive way, and I'd say I receive worse (allegations of sexism, homophobia, laughing-at-sick-people etc) than I actually give out. Well, maybe not

(Oh, as for the "whom" thing, I do admit found that really grating. I'd say it's safer to always use "who" as people don't get picked up on that. Always using "whom" makes it appear (to me) that you're actually trying to sound a bit grand and superior yourself, while at the same time obviously being the opposite. Probably more my problem for being so affected by it, not yours )

Jon, Now I do like you, and am surprised that I am still registered on this forum. Although I must have seemed to be annoyed, I have to confess that I was smiling most of the time, and just thought that I would have a go at these young blokes who keep chirping about my grammar. I did have a poor education, mainly because I am left handed and was forced to write right handed. This led to unreadable script, and unfriendly remarks from Teachers. Also I am inflicted with a condition similar to dyslexia with numbers. I can't remember getting a single sum right, and there is a name for it, but I forget it. This also caused unfriendly reactions from the Teachers. Even today, I phoned my golfing friend, and when a woman answered, I said "Hello Winnie" and the lady said "Hello, you've done it again, haven't you?" I quickly apologised, because that was about the forth time that I have dialled that number. she was quite nice about and we both had a laugh. My wife won't let me check the lottery tickets because of my problem.
Another problem with my education was the five weeks summer holidays, followed by five weeks hop picking. I was always behind the rest of the class.

When the time came for my exam for promotion to Engine driver, I tried writing left handed, and was relieved to find a slight improvement. the first four hours involved writing rules, and it had to be legible. After that, I decided to learn to write properly and got a Library book called Teach yourself handwriting, and it was Chancery italic script. It wasn't long before I was writing the guest lists in wedding albums, when my workmates children got married. Or filling in anniversary cards etc. So Jon, when you first mentioned my mistakes with grammar, my learning mode kicked in and I consulted the dictionary, but unfortunately, was unable to absorb the different applications regarding nouns, verbs, pronouns?(help)etc. I will take your advice about the word "use" and life will be a lot easier in future. If I still make grammatical mistakes, I apologise in advance for your suffering.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think Charlie is being a bit harsh but what's new there.

He can be a bit of a git - I think the best solution would be for one person who is definitely even more of a git to set up their own rival forum to take over. It's worked before!

[Kirk Bevins]

He can be a bit of a git - I think the best solution would be for one person who is definitely even more of a git to set up their own rival forum to take over. It's worked before!

What's the point? This forum is great as it is - there is no need to change.

[Jon Corby]

So Jon, when you first mentioned my mistakes with grammar

I'm pretty sure the who/whom thing is the only mistake of yours (and probably anyone's) I've corrected. As I said I just mentioned it because ordinarily people only use "whom" when they want to appear grand/superior, so since you were chucking out that accusation yourself I thought I'd try and chuck it back. It does rankle me for some reason, but like I said that's definitely more my problem than yours! Glad we're cool

[Charlie Reams]

Charlie, My last post was intentional.

Great!

I wanted to find out if people who Whom (take your pick)dish out contempt and insults can take it themselves. I was not disappointed. I make just one comment about the superior attitude of alleged educated people, who(?) sneer at my lack of education, and you start foaming at the mouth.

It was nothing to do with your education. You constantly say things like "I have learnt never to trust experts" which you don't need any education to see as ridiculous. Who do you visit when you get ill? Who do you rely on when your car/plumbing/electricity/gas/fridge breaks down? Oh, experts.

My post about ghosts was provoked by your remarks about the belief in ghosts. it generated a lot of interest which I thought was good for the Forum. As to your statement that most of my posts were full of shit which led to confusion, I suggest that you have somebody reading my posts very slowly to you, explaining what I am saying.

Just now you were telling me not be patronising. Maybe you should just write stuff that actually makes sense, e.g. not the above.

I have enjoyed my time belonging to this Forum, and I have met some lovely people.
Please delete the records of my membership with this Forum

I never understand why people ask for this. I never delete people's accounts or posts from the forum, it would just add to the confusion. If you don't want to post then... just don't, no technical solution required.

[Gavin Chipper]

He can be a bit of a git - I think the best solution would be for one person who is definitely even more of a git to set up their own rival forum to take over. It's worked before!

What's the point? This forum is great as it is - there is no need to change.

I possibly wasn't being entirely serious.

[George Jenkins]

I think Charlie is being a bit harsh but what's new there.

He can be a bit of a git - I think the best solution would be for one person who is definitely even more of a git to set up their own rival forum to take over. It's worked before!

Brilliant Idea, but I would be on my own, with nobody to argue with.

[George Jenkins]

Charlie, My last post was intentional.

Great!

I wanted to find out if people who Whom (take your pick)dish out contempt and insults can take it themselves. I was not disappointed. I make just one comment about the superior attitude of alleged educated people, who(?) sneer at my lack of education, and you start foaming at the mouth.

It was nothing to do with your education. You constantly say things like "I have learnt never to trust experts" which you don't need any education to see as ridiculous. Who do you visit when you get ill? Who do you rely on when your car/plumbing/electricity/gas/fridge breaks down? Oh, experts.

My post about ghosts was provoked by your remarks about the belief in ghosts. it generated a lot of interest which I thought was good for the Forum. As to your statement that most of my posts were full of shit which led to confusion, I suggest that you have somebody reading my posts very slowly to you, explaining what I am saying.

Just now you were telling me not be patronising. Maybe you should just write stuff that actually makes sense, e.g. not the above.

I have enjoyed my time belonging to this Forum, and I have met some lovely people.
Please delete the records of my membership with this Forum

I never understand why people ask for this. I never delete people's accounts or posts from the forum, it would just add to the confusion. If you don't want to post then... just don't, no technical solution required.

Calm down Charlie, I thought that we were all friends here, and because Kate disappeared from the Forum, I thought that you arranged it, Sorry, another mistake on my part. As for experts, take my advice, be wary if ever you need one. Actually, I was referring to experts setting themselves up as ghost busters, because that was the subject we were on at the time. they call themselves a Foundation to appear to be official, but they are only people like us (I read their advert) and I can't imagine what training would be required to catch a ghost or disprove the existence of it. We could do the same job and for nothing, just for the exitement.
Experts I might need? plumber? I am a qualified plumber. On my late shift driving trains, I took two days off without pay to attend College. I installed central heating systems for two of my workmates, fully automatic. set the thermostats and programmer and then forget it.

Also of course, I installed the heating in my daughter's houses, and while I was down in the cellar of one of them, the Electricity Board Inspector came down. I'd rewired the whole house with new ring mains, lighting etc. and I wanted it tested. When he finished he said to me, an amateur did this. I asked him how he knew, and he said it was too good and neat. I didn't tell him that I did it.
Car repairs? I bought a Morris Minor van for £30 for my plumbing business. it was cheap because the third gear didn't work. I dismantled the gearbox, found that a locking washer between third and forth gear had split through lack of oil , bought a new one for about 30shillings, put it all back, and ran it for 3 years. I used it to visit friends down in Weymouth. they were our neighbours in Kent. Ken Played for Gillingham football club, and now played for Yeovil. His wife Jenny, had failed her driving test three times. I was going to stop with them for four days to teach Jenny how to drive. I was a strict teacher and poor Jenny cried during the first lesson.
in the evenings we'd sit on the couch together and go through the highway code. Jenny passed her test.
So what can I do? I'm a Plumber, Electrician, Motor mechanic. Driving instructor. Bloody hell! I didn't realise that I was so clever. Why aint I rich?
I had a dishwasher that was out of guarantee, but with an extra year parts only, but pay for labour.The bloke who came told me what the trouble was and said that he'd see if he had one in the van. Of course, I knew that he wouldn't find one and he came back the next day and finished the job. He then presented with a bill for £90, which were two call out charges. I gave him £45 and told him it wasn't my fault that he ran an empty van. He then said that his company didn't stock up with many spares, because it tied up too much capitol. I said "I know, goodbye"
That Charlie, was a minor example of what I meant when I referred to experts, and to be wary.

This post is a bit long-winded, but it passes a couple minutes away for the readers.

[Michael Wallace]

I think I'm a bit late to this party (I'd kinda ignored this thread because I couldn't really be bothered with the prospect), but I wanted to say that I have rather enjoyed what I've seen of George's contributions to the forum, and would be rather sorry to see him go.

It's the one main problem with the Internet vs. the Real World - most of the stuff that gets said online in a jokey way, because it's not necessarily clear that that is how it is intended (as it would be if you were down the pub or whatever), often ends up getting blown out of proportion. (Of course, all this has been said thousands of times before, but this isn't Just a Minute so I'll take my chances.)

[Charlie Reams]

Actually, I was referring to experts setting themselves up as ghost busters, because that was the subject we were on at the time. they call themselves a Foundation to appear to be official, but they are only people like us (I read their advert) and I can't imagine what training would be required to catch a ghost or disprove the existence of it. We could do the same job and for nothing, just for the exitement.

Despite what you say, you're not out there doing it, so I think this pokes a fairly obvious hole in your point. It's called a Foundation because that's what charities are normally called, and they are a charity (or at least a not-for-profit.) Quite a lot of training is required to do the kind of statistics that are used in scientific studies, although no doubt you can do that yourself following some obscure incident with a steam train. I'm amused that you're so vehemently against the Randi Foundation when (in case this somehow passed you by) they're out to convince people of exactly the position you claim to hold.

Experts I might need? plumber? I am a qualified plumber.

Good luck fixing your own computer.

It's the one main problem with the Internet vs. the Real World - most of the stuff that gets said online in a jokey way

I wasn't joking in this case, although I never asked George to leave. I have no problem smashing spurious logic and bad thinking when I see it, and there's nothing personal about that. But it is fucking annoying when people continue to ignore what you say to them, never acknowledge that you have a point, and just repeatedly change the subject. I met someone like that before and he's currently eating mushrooms in a Belgian forest if you know what I mean.

[Michael Wallace]

I met someone like that before and he's currently eating mushrooms in a Belgian forest if you know what I mean.

...he's a lesbian?

[Ian Volante]

I met someone like that before and he's currently eating mushrooms in a Belgian forest if you know what I mean.

...he's a lesbian?

Took the thought out of my mouth

[Jon Corby]

Actually, I was referring to experts setting themselves up as ghost busters, because that was the subject we were on at the time. they call themselves a Foundation to appear to be official, but they are only people like us (I read their advert) and I can't imagine what training would be required to catch a ghost or disprove the existence of it. We could do the same job and for nothing, just for the exitement.

I think you're doing the Randi Foundation a huge disservice here George, by suggesting that any old Tom, Dick or Harry could waltz in and do the same job. I've seen several documentaries where they have successfully "solved" mysteries of haunted houses, and often it has taken exceptional detective work from the flimsiest of clues plus very elaborate planning to finally get to the bottom of it. The positioning of the roller skates and mattresses, the location of the net (and timing it in dropping it) all have to be utterly meticulously thought-out; particularly when you consider that often you have to build in the contingency of your half-witted friend stilt-walking in on broom sticks dressed up as a chef or something, with his Great Dane dog on his back covering his eyes with his paws, inadvertently prematurely setting off your trap.




Edit: Seriously though, a rather more obvious rebuttal to your claim is the fact that when you had the perfect opportunity to perform exactly this job, you instead chose to shit your pants and move out.

[Rosemary Roberts]

... your half-witted friend stilt-walking in on broom sticks dressed up as a chef or something, with his Great Dane dog on his back covering his eyes with his paws, inadvertently prematurely setting off your trap.

That is some scenario! I'm really sorry I missed it.

[Charlie Reams]

... your half-witted friend stilt-walking in on broom sticks dressed up as a chef or something, with his Great Dane dog on his back covering his eyes with his paws, inadvertently prematurely setting off your trap.

I feel I have more expertise in this matter than most, so I can say with some confidence that the janitor did it.

[George Jenkins]

Actually, I was referring to experts setting themselves up as ghost busters, because that was the subject we were on at the time. they call themselves a Foundation to appear to be official, but they are only people like us (I read their advert) and I can't imagine what training would be required to catch a ghost or disprove the existence of it. We could do the same job and for nothing, just for the exitement.

I think you're doing the Randi Foundation a huge disservice here George, by suggesting that any old Tom, Dick or Harry could waltz in and do the same job. I've seen several documentaries where they have successfully "solved" mysteries of haunted houses, and often it has taken exceptional detective work from the flimsiest of clues plus very elaborate planning to finally get to the bottom of it. The positioning of the roller skates and mattresses, the location of the net (and timing it in dropping it) all have to be utterly meticulously thought-out; particularly when you consider that often you have to build in the contingency of your half-witted friend stilt-walking in on broom sticks dressed up as a chef or something, with his Great Dane dog on his back covering his eyes with his paws, inadvertently prematurely setting off your trap.




Edit: Seriously though, a rather more obvious rebuttal to your claim is the fact that when you had the perfect opportunity to perform exactly this job, you instead chose to shit your pants and move out.

Seriously Jon, I had to work and sleep, so it wasn't really possible to keep all-night surveillance. Charlie's suggestion was the best, electrical phenomenon, which raises the question of cause and effect, what causes the electrical charge. As for moving out, the house was
de-requesitioned by Government order, and we were allocated new council houses.

[Jon Corby]

As for moving out, the house was de-requesitioned by Government order, and we were allocated new council houses.

Okay, replace "moving out" with "shouting sod off and playing 'This Ole House' really loud". The point still stands.

[George Jenkins]

As for moving out, the house was de-requesitioned by Government order, and we were allocated new council houses.

Okay, replace "moving out" with "shouting sod off and playing 'This Ole House' really loud". The point still stands.

I can see that you have read my posts Jon, and you have a good memory, but it's just not practical to move out of a house when there is nowhere to go. I'm just going to pop over to meet Roxanne. I believe that her post has provided me with the answers that I am seeking about our experiences in Selwyns. If it does, we can all get some bleedin peace.

[George Jenkins]

Roxanne, I believe that the information that you provided in you post is the best answer to my question about our experiences in that house called selwyns. The fact that everybody in the house seemed to be effected in the same way suggests electrical action of some sort, especially in the night that I woke up with a green glow all over and with my hair standing on end. I was impressed by the scientific research and experiments, so I am satified that my question is answed.
There is still the question of where the the electrical charge came from, but because of my experience in this Forum, and my desire to live a long peaceful life, I think that we can leave that question alone.