Re: Ghosts?
Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:40 pm
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.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
Certainly was fishy, with fred being a goldfishJimmy Gough wrote:Hmmmm....certainly something fishy about that.Lesley Jeavons wrote: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?
Sod it, I didn't know Tom was a cat, I ain't so clever after all.Lesley Jeavons wrote:Wey hey, George and Jimmy, you know the game too.
Yes, Fred is a goldfish, and Tom...
... is a cat.
LMAOJimBentley wrote:I don't know. Were Fred and Tom attending a party at Michael Barrymore's house?Lesley Jeavons wrote: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?
George, my question was directed at Jimmy, not at you.George Jenkins wrote:Phil, the point of my post was about your assertion, that belief of the existence and stories of Ghosts were claptrapPhil Reynolds wrote: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?Jimmy Gough wrote:Remember, Charlie is always right.
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.Jimmy Gough wrote:Some may ask what the point in your website is: pages and pages about your dazzling television appearances when nobody really gives a shit.Phil Reynolds wrote:So, er, what exactly was the point of your post?Jimmy Gough wrote:Remember, Charlie is always right.
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?Phil Reynolds wrote: what exactly was the point of your post?
Rosemary Roberts wrote: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?
In the face of such fulsome approbation, only a churl would quibble over your choice of tense.For the record, I thought your website was very interesting, particularly the self-indulgent bits.
So he would!Phil Reynolds wrote:In the face of such fulsome approbation, only a churl would quibble over your choice of tense.
No worries. I really should stick to reading posts thoughPhil Reynolds wrote: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.
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.Roxanne wrote: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'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.George Jenkins wrote: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 wrote: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.Lesley Jeavons wrote: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.George Jenkins wrote: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 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.
Lesley Jeavons wrote: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.
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.Lesley Jeavons wrote: They realed off lots of stories and discriptions of similar events and people to the ones Corin's family have always talked about.
*chortle* *guffaw*Rosemary Roberts wrote:Get Randi on the job.
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.George Jenkins wrote:But in my long and weary life, I have learnt to never trust the "Experts",psycho-analysts etc.
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 wrote: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.
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)Jon Corby wrote: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%.
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.George Jenkins wrote: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.
Umm, the Randi foundation is highly anti-religious. I doubt Billy Graham is a big fan of their work.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.
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.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.
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!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.
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 thoseCharlie Reams wrote: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.George Jenkins wrote:But in my long and weary life, I have learnt to never trust the "Experts",psycho-analysts etc.
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 wrote: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.
You will certainly make money in america Charlie.Charlie Reams wrote: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.George Jenkins wrote: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.
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.
Umm, the Randi foundation is highly anti-religious. I doubt Billy Graham is a big fan of their work.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.
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.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.
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!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.
What? By the way, it isn't correct to use "whom" instead of "who" all the time.George Jenkins wrote: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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have an issue with this? Doesn't it make sense?George Jenkins wrote: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)
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"?George Jenkins wrote: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.
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.George Jenkins wrote: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.
They don't, it's a not-for-profit organisation mainly funded by sales of James Randi's books about... debunking ghost stories.Jon Corby wrote: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.
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.Charlie Reams wrote:They don't, it's a not-for-profit organisation mainly funded by sales of James Randi's books about... debunking ghost stories.Jon Corby wrote: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.
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 wrote: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.
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 awayJon Corby wrote:What? By the way, it isn't correct to use "whom" instead of "who" all the time.George Jenkins wrote: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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have an issue with this? Doesn't it make sense?George Jenkins wrote: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)
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"?George Jenkins wrote: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.
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.George Jenkins wrote: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.
If that constitutes your dictionary's entry for "who" in its entirety, then yes, you probably should chuck it away.George Jenkins wrote: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 awayJon Corby wrote:What? By the way, it isn't correct to use "whom" instead of "who" all the time.George Jenkins wrote: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.
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.Phil Reynolds wrote: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 wrote: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.
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 ?!Lesley Jeavons wrote: 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, you must realise that some people are superior. that doesn't mean that they more intelligent, and fine words don't make a Gentleman.Lesley Jeavons wrote: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.
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 thisLesley Jeavons wrote: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.
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)Jon Corby wrote: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 thisLesley Jones wrote: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.
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.George Jenkins wrote: I am tolerant of young people, possibly still going to school or university, and probably never done a day's work in their lives.
Exactly, it's my dad's fault.George Jenkins wrote:but it did show up the author's lack of manners and good breeding.
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.Charlie Reams wrote: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.George Jenkins wrote: I am tolerant of young people, possibly still going to school or university, and probably never done a day's work in their lives.
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, 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.Jon Corby wrote: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 )
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 wrote:I think Charlie is being a bit harsh but what's new there.
What's the point? This forum is great as it is - there is no need to change.Gavin Chipper wrote:
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!
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 coolGeorge Jenkins wrote:So Jon, when you first mentioned my mistakes with grammar
Great!George Jenkins wrote:Charlie, My last post was intentional.
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.George Jenkins wrote: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.
Just now you were telling me not be patronising. Maybe you should just write stuff that actually makes sense, e.g. not the above.George Jenkins wrote: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 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.George Jenkins wrote: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 possibly wasn't being entirely serious.Kirk Bevins wrote:What's the point? This forum is great as it is - there is no need to change.Gavin Chipper wrote:
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.Gavin Chipper wrote: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 wrote:I think Charlie is being a bit harsh but what's new there.
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.Charlie Reams wrote:Great!George Jenkins wrote:Charlie, My last post was intentional.
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.George Jenkins wrote: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.
Just now you were telling me not be patronising. Maybe you should just write stuff that actually makes sense, e.g. not the above.George Jenkins wrote: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 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.George Jenkins wrote: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
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.George Jenkins wrote: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.
Good luck fixing your own computer.George Jenkins wrote:Experts I might need? plumber? I am a qualified plumber.
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.Raccoon wrote: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
...he's a lesbian?Charlie Reams wrote:I met someone like that before and he's currently eating mushrooms in a Belgian forest if you know what I mean.
Took the thought out of my mouthMichael Wallace wrote:...he's a lesbian?Charlie Reams wrote:I met someone like that before and he's currently eating mushrooms in a Belgian forest if you know what I mean.
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.George Jenkins wrote: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.
That is some scenario! I'm really sorry I missed it.Jon Corby wrote: ... 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.Jon Corby wrote: ... 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.
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 wasJon Corby wrote: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.George Jenkins wrote: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.
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.
Okay, replace "moving out" with "shouting sod off and playing 'This Ole House' really loud". The point still stands.George Jenkins wrote: As for moving out, the house was de-requesitioned by Government order, and we were allocated new council houses.
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.Jon Corby wrote:Okay, replace "moving out" with "shouting sod off and playing 'This Ole House' really loud". The point still stands.George Jenkins wrote: As for moving out, the house was de-requesitioned by Government order, and we were allocated new council houses.