Ghost information required.

[Frankie]

I, am not so familiar with ghosts, (bar ghost cat) so I ask, if any of you have information on such a topic of ghosts?

A young girl I counsel, is in need of information about; This means a lot to her to do this topic.

Proved ghosts
Unproven ghosts.
Stories and invents.
Hoaxes.
True ghost stories.
Famous ghost haunts.
Famous investigators and disproves.

Any links to such so I can print them out for her would be appreciated by both her and myself.

Frankie.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Frankie


Proved ghosts


Not one.

Sorry. There are people who swear they have seen them, and people who swear they exist, and even people who swear various photos, recording, videos, etc...prove they are real.

The fact is there is not one single recorded case of a ghost in which the evidence is reliable, replicable, beyond question, or even in the vast majority of cases, produced under controlled conditions.


Unproven ghosts.

Plenty!!!

Some of the more impressive...at least in terms of amount of tales, photos, recordings etc... are

The Bell Witch (http://www.bellwitch.org/home.htm)

The Enfield Poltergeist (http://englishculture.allinfoabout.com/features/enfield-ghost.html)


Stories and invents

I enjoy H.P. Lovecraft myself, as do many of our participants.


Hoaxes.


One of the most famous of all time in the US is The Amityville Horror Hoax (http://chatanuga.org/Amityville.html), which despite everything you may have heard was yes indeed a hoax. The perpetrators admitted it and there is plenty of evidence to show it was. The site I linked to actually explains the entire thing, fake story, real evidence and breakdown of time-line pretty darn well.


True ghost stories.

Se above under "Real Ghosts." But, if you want stories that are Supposed to be true...there are plenty of great books for a campfire.

The North American Field Guide to Hauntings (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609800213/qid=1076392040/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8380027-7598451?v=glance&s=books)

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Ghosts and Hauntings (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0028636597/qid=1076392128/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8380027-7598451?v=glance&s=books)

Are two of my favorites. The Complete Idiot's Guide is written by a magician named Tom Ogden who gives a fantastic brief history course in the rise of modern spiritualism and describes many of the hoaxes and "mentalist" acts used to scam people in the late 1800s / early 1900s. He then goes on to tell some really cracking ghost legends from all over the Us and UK that are claimed to be true by locals.


Famous ghost haunts.

Both Books above fit that bill nicely.

In addition, Ghosts of St. Augustine (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1561641235/qid=1076392309/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8380027-7598451?v=glance&s=books) is an enjoyable read.


Famous investigators and disproves.

Many of the cases I've mentioned above, and plenty of other material are available on a fun little CD-ROM I bought some years ago called Ghosts cheesily narrated by Christopher Lee. It's amusing, interactive and contains some video and audio clips as well as investigator biographies. Bare in mind these are believer investigators, not scientific investigators. You can find more info here:

http://www.gameboomers.com/reviews/Gg/Ghostsby%20inferno.htm

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Just be sure to only research the skeptical POV on this subject!

[Frankie]

Andonyx
Thank you for the helpful information. This will help her immensely to fulfil this one task she so wants to succeed on badly.

Frankie.

[Frankie]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Just be sure to only research the skeptical POV on this subject!

This young lady is very sceptical. Not by choice, but by what she has had to go through, and still has to go through. I am sure she will concentrate on the sceptical side of this subject. With Andoynx, kind help she is already one step towards closer to her set goal.



Frankie.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Andonyx


The fact is there is not one single recorded case of a ghost in which the evidence is reliable, replicable, beyond question, or even in the vast majority of cases, produced under controlled conditions.



Of course not. Nor should one expect otherwise. That is the nature of the phenomenon. Are you seriously suggesting though, that no-one has actually ever had an experience which might be appropriately labelled as "seeing a ghost"? This is rather radical! :eek:

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Of course not. Nor should one expect otherwise. That is the nature of the phenomenon. Are you seriously suggesting though, that no-one has actually ever had an experience which might be appropriately labelled as "seeing a ghost"? This is rather radical! :eek: I suppose this hinges on the word "appropriately". I would say many have had the experience of seeing something they believed was a ghost. If that is what you mean, I agree.

In fact, some have seen a ghost that I invented! (long story, no time to tell it now)

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Of course not. Nor should one expect otherwise. That is the nature of the phenomenon. Are you seriously suggesting though, that no-one has actually ever had an experience which might be appropriately labelled as "seeing a ghost"? This is rather radical! :eek:

Listen you...

You can have your semantical debates about the nature of proof and experience in another thread. I answered the person's question with the most accurate information I was able to give, and took great pains to answer without agenda.

No one has proven a ghost's existence, and she didn't ask if anyone has ever had an experience that could be labeled "seeing a ghost" she asked about "proven ghosts" and I answered her. So take your little philosophical struggle somwhere else.

[Andonyx]

For what it's worth, Frankie, I am not suggesting piracy as such, but I think the ghosts CD-ROM may be out of print. But it could be a useful resource for this kind of thing. I would be willing to part with a copy of it for loan and educational purposes if you cannot find it elsewhere.

Let me know if you decide it would be useful.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Just be sure to only research the skeptical POV on this subject! Your posts always make my day. :big:

[max]

Frankie
This is a true ghost story and one which still sends a chill up my neck.
In 1976 me and my fiance (now my wife) were holidaying in the south of England. we decided to set off home at about 10am on a Sunday morning. Me being me however took a wrong turn and I found myself after a while travelling towards Hastings...i.e. further south than when we set off supposedly toward the north and home.
As we got to Hastings we both thought the seaside town looked interesting so decided we'd spend the day there and then set off for home. We parked up a narrow street off the main promanade.
We stayed on the beach for some hours, having a fine time in and out of the sea etc. At about six pm we decided to get dressed and look for a restaurant.
After a good meal and then a saunter along the shore we both felt tired and agreed it would be better to stay the night, so we started to look for a hotel. Each one we called at was full for the night. Indeed we had both forgotten that it was a bank holiday weekend. We trudged the streets looking everywhere and by midnight it was clear to us that we would have to sleep in the car.
As we got to the car I suggested that we looked up the street in which we were parked, just as a last ditch chance. It was a street of terraced houses (for Americans that is a row of houses with no space in between each) As we passed one house, we noticed it had a double sized window in comparison to the other houses, as though it had been a shop at one time. As we commented on this an old lady peered round the net curtain and asked us what we wanted. we began to explain and she came to the door, where we explained in detail the days events and that we were now having to sleep in the car.
She replied that she could help out adding that she never took guests but in this instance she would. She asked us in and showed us the bedroom. We readily agreed to stay and added that we needed to get our suitcase out of the car which was just across the street, almost facing her house.
She said that she had to go out and wouldn't be back till morning and that there was no one else in the house but she would give us a key so we could get our stuff and let ourselves back in. Bearing in mind that it is past midnight and this lady looked to be late seventies, we were puzzled as to why she was trusting her house to complete strangers and where could she be going on her own at that time of night. Anyhow. as she gave us her key she stressed three times that we must give it back to her before we left the following morning. as I took the key from her I promised I would return it and noticed that the head of the key had an embossed pattern of a fleur de lis. The key was made of brass. I remarked on this and said we couldn't get the key mixed up with ours as ours had no pattern at all, just numbers.
We went to the car and then let ourselves back in the house, using the fleur de lis key. There was no sign of the old lady. we went upstairs and unpacked. I went to the bathroom first. It was a long narrow room and the sink where I was cleaning teeth etc was half way down. three times the door handle was tried and three times I shouted to my fiance that I'd be out soon. When I got back to the bedroom my fiance had never moved and didn't know what I was talking about.

Having settled in bed, we both heard loud footsteps on the stairs, indeed counting thirteen of them before they stopped at the bedroom door. I got up to see who/what it was and there was no one there. Quite unerved by now I wedged a chair under the door handle so that no one could get into our room.
In the morning the old dear was back and the radio was playing. For something to say I commented what a wonderful tenor Heddle Nash was (his record was playing) The lady replied that she was going to the pavillian the following Sunday as he would be in town and performing. Well, I knew that he had been dead for some 25 years perhaps even longer.
I began to feel panicky and feared that some sort of force may hold us in the house and that we wouldn't get out so I hastily handed her her key. As I did so I remarked that the key was hers and not ours and pointed to the pattern. I held it so my fiance could see too, so that there could be no mistake. The lady walked across the room and placed it on a dresser. We paid her two pounds and left. I drove out of Hastings like a madman, wanting to put some miles between me and her.
Five hours later we arrived back at my house. My fiance jumped out the car and ran to the door. I shouted to her that she hadn't got the key but she'd already opened the door and held up the key to prove it. her face changed as she noticed that the key had on its head a raised brass pattern of a fleur de lis. Which we both know lay on the old dears dresser some 300 miles away

[c0rbin]

Of course not. Nor should one expect otherwise. That is the nature of the phenomenon. Are you seriously suggesting though, that no-one has actually ever had an experience which might be appropriately labelled as "seeing a ghost"? This is rather radical!

I see UFOs all the time, Ian. Aliens? None yet.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by max
This is a true ghost story and one which still sends a chill up my neck....Great story, Max!

Oh the assumption that you didn't just make it all up, did you ever go back to the house? I'd have been very tempted.

Rolfe.

[max]

Rolphe
Yes I went back to Hastings in 1996 (about) Fortean TV were to include the story in one of their progs. I had been too scared to even think of going back up to that point but decided to go anyway.
The terraced street was no longer there. It had been replaced with modern flats (apartments) and a school also. I couldn't even locate the cemetery which was immediately behind the old dear's house. I had only noticed the cemetery as I drove off from Hastings twenty years before.
I was telling the story to a paranormal expert sometime after the incident and he said the lady is what is known as a disincarnate and added that they can only manifest themselves for short periods.....i.e. 'I am going out now and won't be back till morning'
He asked did I notice her teeth and feet. Well, I don't recall noticing her teeth but I did remember that as she took us upstairs to look at the room, she went ahead of us and she wore a long skirt which trailed and I recall how graceful she moved sort of floating and no leg movement to disturb her skirt. But at the time I put it down to just that, her graceful movements. Anyhow the expert explained that a discarnate can't reproduce feet or teeth, and again such info sets off the hairs standing on end on my neck as I recall her. He also said that the key is what is termed as an apport and the 'ghost' leaves something so you know you have been helped by the otherside.
He also added that the house wherein we stayed was most likely empty in that it was for sale or even that the true occupants were away on business or a holiday.
Whatever the explanation is or was for that day/night I would never like to experience it again. At the point I feared we would be trapped in that house in a time warp perhaps, the feeling is hard to explain. It's a mixture of heart attack, sweating but being freezing, goose pimply, hair literally standing on end and thinking that my three daughters would never see me again but worse, would never know what happened. All this happens in seconds but seems like hours. and all the time not taking my eyes off of the lady for one second.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I suppose this hinges on the word "appropriately". I would say many have had the experience of seeing something they believed was a ghost. If that is what you mean, I agree.

In fact, some have seen a ghost that I invented! (long story, no time to tell it now)

Yes, but are you saying the vision is purely a product of the brain, that it corresponds to no external reality?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Andonyx


Listen you...

You can have your semantical debates about the nature of proof and experience in another thread. I answered the person's question with the most accurate information I was able to give, and took great pains to answer without agenda.

No one has proven a ghost's existence, and she didn't ask if anyone has ever had an experience that could be labeled "seeing a ghost" she asked about "proven ghosts" and I answered her. So take your little philosophical struggle somwhere else.

{shrugs}

Well saying no-one has proven any ghosts exist (whatever that might mean) is a pretty vacuous statement. No-one has proved your existence. Does that imply you do not exist?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by c0rbin


I see UFOs all the time, Ian. Aliens? None yet.

But UFOs? Well yes. So if one sees UFOs and they exist (in a literal sense, obviously not necessarily as alien spacecraft!). Why not extend the same reasoning to ghosts?

The point here is that people clearly experience what they appropriately label "ghosts". Now the question I would like to ask is why are people supposing that what all these people see are hallucinations? Is it because it doesn't fit into the skeptical belief system, or are there any independent arguments justifying your position? If the latter then what might these arguments be?

[Ipecac]

Kevin Wagner, the guy who put up the Amityville Hoax site above is a strange dude. He is pretty skeptical and analytical in looking at the Amityville story. He does a good job of spotting nonsense, suggesting possible explanations, and debunking the whole thing.

But in his personal life, he apparently believes he was hounded by demons from an early age until he was baptised after college. He has a whole page of his "paranormal" experiences, most of which begin with, "I was in bed when . . ." He attributes dreaming or being partially asleep to many of the incidents in the Amityville house, but doesn't seem to realize that they would apply to his situation as well.

His experiences are here. (http://chatanuga.org/MyGhost.html)

Weird.

[c0rbin]

But UFOs? Well yes. So if one sees UFOs and they exist (in a literal sense, obviously not necessarily as alien spacecraft!). Why not extend the same reasoning to ghosts?


Conversely--why?




The point here is that people clearly experience what they appropriately label "ghosts". Now the question I would like to ask is why are people supposing that what all these people see are hallucinations?


You would have to ask "these people," who ever they are. My opinion is that sure these people saw something or expirienced something they perceive as a "ghost." I just happen the think that there is a long list of more logical explanations before one gets to "apparation of a disembodied spirit of a long-dead soul."


Is it because it doesn't fit into the skeptical belief system, or are there any independent arguments justifying your position? If the latter then what might these arguments be?


This is like me asking you why you assume every speck in the sky is space aliens.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Conversely--why?




You would have to ask "these people," who ever they are. My opinion is that sure these people saw something or expirienced something they perceive as a "ghost." I just happen the think that there is a long list of more logical explanations before one gets to "apparation of a disembodied spirit of a long-dead soul."



This is like me asking you why you assume every speck in the sky is space aliens.

OK, you don't intend to give any reasons. That's fine. But if you don't provide any, how are you going to influence my beliefs and others who think that apparitions/ghosts might have some element which is of an external origin? There are good reasons to suppose at least some appartions are of an external origin, therefore unless you can produce any counter reasons . . .{shrugs}

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


{shrugs}

Well saying no-one has proven any ghosts exist (whatever that might mean) is a pretty vacuous statement. No-one has proved your existence. Does that imply you do not exist?

Look what is it you don't understand oh lord of language?

She asked about proven ghosts, I told her there weren't any. Making up some straw men or tangent arguments is about as vacuous as it comes.

Or what would you have me do, ignore that statement entirely since you claim my response is useless?

Are there proven ghosts?

No.

I answered her questions accurately.

If you want to add more than that to the answer and give her some of your pointless drooling long-winded bore fests about the nature of observation and evidence go ahead. But I happened to be taking into account the context of her message which was related to information her student could persue for a project.

But please, oh please, feel free to take this thread and turn it into another one of your crusades against skepticism and bastardize the entire thing into serving some inconsequential idiotic desire of yours. Please do, it would make me so happy.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Andonyx

If you want to add more than that to the answer and give her some of your pointless drooling long-winded bore fests about the nature of observation and evidence go ahead.
[/B]

Your anger against me is irrational.

Obviously nothing can be proved outside of deductive logic. So ghosts are not proven, but there again, nothing else in the world is either.

We need to address the question of whether or not it is reasonable, to suppose, that those certain characteristic experiences which people label ghosts, and which people have had throughout recorded history and across all cultures, are all in fact hallucinations.

You, in common with others here, answer in the affirmative. I have not seen any arguments which justifies this stance :confused:

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Your anger against me is irrational.

Obviously nothing can be proved outside of deductive logic. So ghosts are not proven, but there again, nothing else in the world is either.

We need to address the question of whether or not it is reasonable, to suppose, that those certain characteristic experiences which people label ghosts, and which people have had throughout recorded history and across all cultures, are all in fact hallucinations.

You, in common with others here, answer in the affirmative. I have not seen any arguments which justifies this stance :confused:


Dude, you are a complete ass.

And my anger with you is the pent up anger of having to deal with complete asses like you on a constant basis.

First you make one straw men in supposing that I said anything about wether ghosts exists or not at all.

I didn't.

Then you take that foot in the door to start spouting your usual philosophical crap about the nature of reasoning and evidence, and act like I am somehow remiss in my answer to this person.

She asked a question and I answered.

I answered correctly. You took me to task for my correct anser.

Then I asked you several questions you failed to answer, such as what should I have told her, why you were getting involved in this discussion with irellevant arguments, and wether or not my answer was correct. You answered none of these things, made up some more useless BS to whine about, act persecuted as usual, generally contribute nothing of value, also as usual, and then spout off in youe Ian-centric, I'm so hurt and the only reason no-one respects me here is because they are too stupid to understand...tirade.

Au contraire mon-ami, we understand you find. You're a jackass.

It's pretty self-explanatory, really.

Then, and this really takes the cake, you come on here and decide without asking, and with no evidence whatsoever to support this conlusion that I, like so many here answer your question in the affirmative. Please oh giant brained one, please quote me where I answered in the affirmative.

Now seriously, do you have anything to contribute to answering Frankie's questions? Anything useful to add that her student could use in her project?

Or do you want to just play little self-pleasuring academic word games with yourself as usual. I have a feeling you enjoy playing with yourself quite a bit.

You can try and turn this into another of your non-debates, and you can try to act like you have the market cornered on some great understanding of the rational mind none of the rest of us do, or you can just try an accept the possibility for one moment that you are just another ninny on a internet message board posting a bunch of useless drivel that is of no practical value to anyone. Then you can go back to whatever crappy little unremarkable non-existence you've managed to carve out for yourself in your lonely bachelor apartment, look yourself in the mirror and admit that in fact your dreams have passed you by, you will not actually accomplish the vast majority of what you thought you would have before you die, and resign yourself to being another non-starter in a world of 6 billion other human beings also trying to make something of their lives, and finally accept that your own inflated image of your self and your own over-estimation of your abilities far exceeds the credit that any reasonable person with a little distance and perspective on your life would afford.

Now begone you contemptible nuisance and trouble us no more.

[voidx]

Originally posted by max
Anyhow the expert explained that a discarnate can't reproduce feet or teeth, and again such info sets off the hairs standing on end on my neck as I recall her.

What's the logical explanation for why discarnates cannot reproduce feet or teeth? What is it specifically about feet and teeth that proves difficult, or rather, impossible for discarnates to reproduce? This to me is just another example of an unproven characteristic/assumption of paranormal behaviour that people just take at face value and don't question. Similiar too "If mental mediumship is possible, it must be a difficult process".

Posted by Interesting Ian
We need to address the question of whether or not it is reasonable, to suppose, that those certain characteristic experiences which people label ghosts, and which people have had throughout recorded history and across all cultures, are all in fact hallucinations.

Ummm who here claims that all experiences with ghosts are "all" hallucinations? I daresay no one. Hallucinations are one possible mundane explanation for the experiencing of ghostly presenses. They could be natural phenomenon which produce some visual affect that looks "ghostly", they could be poor memory, becoming spooked for any number of normal irrational reasons and then seizing and therefore embellishing specific details to support your irrational fit of fear. Many many reasons can be explored. I've seen no one here claim all ghosts experiences are hallucinations each and every time.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Andonyx



Dude, you are a complete ass.

And my anger with you is the pent up anger of having to deal with complete asses like you on a constant basis.

First you make one straw men in supposing that I said anything about wether ghosts exists or not at all.

I didn't.

Then you take that foot in the door to start spouting your usual philosophical crap about the nature of reasoning and evidence, and act like I am somehow remiss in my answer to this person.

She asked a question and I answered.

I answered correctly. You took me to task for my correct anser.

Then I asked you several questions you failed to answer, such as what should I have told her, why you were getting involved in this discussion with irellevant arguments, and wether or not my answer was correct. You answered none of these things, made up some more useless BS to whine about, act persecuted as usual, generally contribute nothing of value, also as usual, and then spout off in youe Ian-centric, I'm so hurt and the only reason no-one respects me here is because they are too stupid to understand...tirade.

Au contraire mon-ami, we understand you find. You're a jackass.

It's pretty self-explanatory, really.

Then, and this really takes the cake, you come on here and decide without asking, and with no evidence whatsoever to support this conlusion that I, like so many here answer your question in the affirmative. Please oh giant brained one, please quote me where I answered in the affirmative.

Now seriously, do you have anything to contribute to answering Frankie's questions? Anything useful to add that her student could use in her project?

Or do you want to just play little self-pleasuring academic word games with yourself as usual. I have a feeling you enjoy playing with yourself quite a bit.

You can try and turn this into another of your non-debates, and you can try to act like you have the market cornered on some great understanding of the rational mind none of the rest of us do, or you can just try an accept the possibility for one moment that you are just another ninny on a internet message board posting a bunch of useless drivel that is of no practical value to anyone. Then you can go back to whatever crappy little unremarkable non-existence you've managed to carve out for yourself in your lonely bachelor apartment, look yourself in the mirror and admit that in fact your dreams have passed you by, you will not actually accomplish the vast majority of what you thought you would have before you die, and resign yourself to being another non-starter in a world of 6 billion other human beings also trying to make something of their lives, and finally accept that your own inflated image of your self and your own over-estimation of your abilities far exceeds the credit that any reasonable person with a little distance and perspective on your life would afford.

Now begone you contemptible nuisance and trouble us no more.

Allow me to put it more simply. Your comment that there are no proven ghosts is entirely vacuous and constitutes no evidence or reasons whatsoever to suppose that ghosts do not exist. Get it yet?? :rolleyes:

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Yes, but are you saying the vision is purely a product of the brain, that it corresponds to no external reality? Looks like Voidx just answered this, but I'll give a little example. A student of mine saw what he "knew" (his words) was a ghost. It haunted his apartment, which he described as a windowless basement apartment. The apparition appeared on or near his bedroom wall, and it was really starting to freak him out.

I asked him to, the next time he saw this ghost, approach it and put his hand in front of it. If his hand cast a shadow, look behind for a light source (I gave other possibilities too, but this is the one that worked). He had, it seems, a very small window which was obscured on the outside by bushes--it never let in light, so he never noticed it. At night, though, a passing car would project a moving ghost on his wall.

Was that all in his head? Of course not. Was it a ghost? Nope. Of course, there are such visions seen with less concrete stimuli, and under widely varied conditions. Sometimes it is the brain...sometimes an afterimage on the retina, or a "floater" in the vitreous humor of the eye. There are loads of possibilities besides either "purely a product of the brain" and "external reality that is actually a ghost, or at least fits the description".

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Allow me to put it more simply. Your comment that there are no proven ghosts is entirely vacuous and constitutes no evidence or reasons whatsoever to suppose that ghosts do not exist. Get it yet?? :rolleyes: Hey, Ian, I'll accept this, as long as you accept that there is also no reason whatsoever to suppose that they do exist.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Allow me to put it more simply. Your comment that there are no proven ghosts is entirely vacuous and constitutes no evidence or reasons whatsoever to suppose that ghosts do not exist. Get it yet?? :rolleyes:
Allow me to rephrase it.
There are no proven instances of ghosts. This constitutes no reason to suppose ghosts exist.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Allow me to put it more simply. Your comment that there are no proven ghosts is entirely vacuous and constitutes no evidence or reasons whatsoever to suppose that ghosts do not exist. Get it yet?? :rolleyes:

Allow me to put it more clearly.

No one asked if ghosts existed!

NO ONE! That was a never a question of the poster. They asked if there are any PROVEN GHOSTS!

There aren't.

And that's what I told them.

Are you so seriously self absorbed that you're going to make a criticism of my answer to a QUESTION THAT WAS NEVER EVEN ASKED?!?

Now can you explain to me how ANYTHING you've posted in this entire thread is NOT vacuous? Or irrleveant? or worth the time it took to type?

Can you tell me at all why you're still harping on the same line of logic after I've shown you repeatedly that it has nothing to do with this discussion?

Can you you tell me even slightly why you're mad that I didn't put in information the poster asked nothing about?

Can you tell me why you made up lies about my asnwers to your questions?

Can you tell me why you haven't answered a single one of mine?

There is that clear enough for you, you pathetic, useless fool?

I can't believe I'm even taking the time to respond to someone who has managed to posess in equal amounts the social ineptitude and over confidence to name themselves Interesting Anything, and then post a picture on their avatar....on a freaking skeptics board. This isn't match.com you dateless wonder. Seriously, loser, why don't you just hit the pub tonight in a tee-shirt that says, "Won't somebody please love me, I'm so desperately lonely..."

No but keep making up crap. Hey keep posting crap that no one cares about to this thread. I don't mind. I'll just take every single opporunity you post something else worthless to mention all the ugly little doubts I'm sure you have about yourself everytime you look in the mirror or contemplate venturing forth outside.

Guess what, Ian...they're all true...

I will stop the moment you can quote me one single item you've posted in this thread that has anything to do with the original post's question.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Hey, Ian, I'll accept this, as long as you accept that there is also no reason whatsoever to suppose that they do exist.
This really seems to be the crux of Ian's semantics game. He only plays it one way for the most part. Yes we have to make some very fundamental assumptions to suppose our materialist worldview, whatever particular version we might subscribe too. Yet he often neglects to mention that for him to suppose his immaterialist view he also must make some fundamental assumptions. He never counters with how these numerous examples would work, or not work, within his own worldview, he merely runs around attempting to poke holes in ours. And although correctly, however pointlessly, he simply continues to point out that everything we take as evidence from our scientific viewpoints, carries with it some very basic assumptions about the nature of the world, that as of yet cannot be quantified (and may never be able to be quantified).

I hereby fully admit I make some very fundamental assumptions in subscribing to my materialist worldview. Either attempt to argue issues within that framework, or counter with a detailed arguement about how they work, or can be explained, in your contrary framework. Now...let's move on :D.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Andonyx
[B]

Allow me to put it more clearly.

No one asked if ghosts existed!

NO ONE! That was a never a question of the poster. They asked if there are any PROVEN GHOSTS!

There aren't.

And that's what I told them.



{sighs}

But clearly the original question has no meaning. I'm tired of repeating myself here. Proof does not exist outside of deductive logic. Even the phrase "inductive logic" is actually an oxymoron. So we have to interpret Frankie's question in a differing way. My best guess would be that Frankie is referring to scientific evidence. But as I have already explained, the nature of ghosts are of such a nature that the concept of scientific evidence cannot be applied. Basically then your response to Frankie is wholly devoid of any substance.

[Yahweh]

(Although I feel dirty for continuing the derailment of this thread...)
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


{sighs}

But clearly the original question has no meaning. I'm tired of repeating myself here. Proof does not exist outside of deductive logic. Even the phrase "inductive logic" is actually an oxymoron. So we have to interpret Frankie's question in a differing way. My best guess would be that Frankie is referring to scientific evidence. But as I have already explained, the nature of ghosts are of such a nature that the concept of scientific evidence cannot be applied.
That sounds a bit like ad hoc reasoning, however I'll let it slide if you explain to me what it would take to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts.

Until, I will be unlikely to accept the existence of anything paranormal or supernatural, my reasoning sensibility means too much to expend my commonsense...

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Let’s all get drunk and worship science in a mundane manner!

:run:

[max]

it's about time Frankie reappeared........it's his thread:D

[Darat]

Originally posted by Frankie
I, am not so familiar with ghosts, (bar ghost cat) so I ask, if any of you have information on such a topic of ghosts?

…snip…

Frankie.

Not directly to your point but there have been some articles over the years in a popular newstand magazine called "New Scientists" about ghosts and "spooky" reactions and what may cause them. The site requires a subscription however there is a free 7 day trail available - check out http://archive.newscientist.com/ .

Some articles that I found that may be useful include:

http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg17924055.400

...snip...

DO YOU FANCY owning a "haunted" house where you could scare your guests witless at the flick of a switch, just like the baddies in Scooby Doo? Press one button and there's a distinct chill in the bedroom. Press another and weird vibrations set hairs on end in the study. And over by the fireplace in the dimly lit living room, amid the flickering shadows, you catch fleeting images out of the corner of your eye. Was it a child, an old hag, or...just the light playing tricks?

...snip...

For the record, Wiseman doesn't believe in ghosts. But he is sure that the sensations felt by people who have ghostly encounters - fear, oppression and even nausea - result from a heady blend of psychology, hard-wired fear of dangerous situations and weird environmental effects such as subtle air movements. Combine these with preconceptions about ghosts soaked up from all those Hollywood horrors, and beliefs about the supernatural, and you have a potent mix that can unleash the weirdest feelings.

Earlier this year, Wiseman and his team produced peer-reviewed scientific evidence to back their hunch, published in the British Journal of Psychology (vol 94, p 195). They recorded the experiences of hundreds of volunteers visiting two of the UK's most "haunted" spots. One was Hampton Court, the palace near London reputedly haunted by the screaming ghost of Catherine Howard, Henry VIII's fifth wife. The other was the South Bridge Vaults, a labyrinth of claustrophobic chambers and creepy corridors beneath a Victorian bridge in Edinburgh.

...snip...



and

http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg16021655.700


...snip...

We know, of course, that Marley and the other spirits in A Christmas Carol were the products of Dickens's imagination. But today's ghost hunters are after more than mere fantasy. For the first time, they are armed with affordable yet sophisticated sensors and recording equipment. And they are beginning to turn up unusual physical measurements from "hauntings", as well as intriguing if not entirely convincing photographic evidence. "There's been more progress in the past two decades than in the past 200 years," says Randy Liebeck, a ghost investigator in Totowa, New Jersey. "The technology is now becoming available to the layman." And, he predicts, it's only a matter of time before ghosts are captured on video.

...snip...


and

http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg17623746.300


...snip...

Infrasound enthusiasts also believe that the low notes help to create a sense of awe in a cathedral. And they might be right. Intense infrasound is known to make some people hyperventilate, while others feel breathless or oppressed. And in one strange case, reports of a ghostly presence in a laboratory were traced to infrasound generated by an extractor fan (see New Scientist, 19 December 1998, p 42). The only way Angliss was going to know for sure if infrasound could affect people's appreciation of music was to design a controlled experiment. But infrasound is uncharted territory for scientists and artists alike.

...snip...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...snip...

Obviously nothing can be proved outside of deductive logic. So ghosts are not proven, but there again, nothing else in the world is either.

...snip ...

But for deductive logic to have any veracity doesn't it require an empirical foundation?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


{sighs}

But clearly the original question has no meaning. I'm tired of repeating myself here. Proof does not exist outside of deductive logic. Even the phrase "inductive logic" is actually an oxymoron. So we have to interpret Frankie's question in a differing way. My best guess would be that Frankie is referring to scientific evidence. But as I have already explained, the nature of ghosts are of such a nature that the concept of scientific evidence cannot be applied. Basically then your response to Frankie is wholly devoid of any substance.

By assuming a nature, you are assumining existance.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But clearly the original question has no meaning.

You choose to interpret it in such a way that it doesn't. Frankie used the word 'proven,' which is loaded in your semantic games to be meaningless for anything outside of mathematics. But Frankie isn't you and probably uses the word the way normal humans do - not as an absolute mathematical certainty but something where the evidence is overwhelming to the point that it is silly to doubt it. That's the obvious intent of the question, which Andonyx and others understood.

If someone asks a question that doesn't make sense to you, is your response to attack answers to that question? That makes no sense, unless what you are really attacking is the presumed position of the answerer. A reasonable person just might, instead, ask for a clarification of the question.

My advice: If you are someday arrested and are told, "Don't worry, you're innocent until proven guilty," it's probably a bad idea to presume that that's a meaningless statement.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by FutileJester


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But clearly the original question has no meaning.

FJ
You choose to interpret it in such a way that it doesn't.



No no. If we take the question in the literal sense it has no meaning. Therefore I was taking it in the sense of scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence for ghosts. But this is of course wholly irrelevant to the question of whether ghosts exist, and furthermore, does not constitute any reasons for not believing in ghosts. To state otherwise would be to assume that ghosts ought to be physical, because otherwise how does one obtain scientific evidence?? But the normal understanding of ghosts would be that they are not physical. But to assert they ought to be detectable is to assert they are physical and here we are essentially presupposing the correctness of the materialist metaphysic. As you should be able to see, this is question begging. Another informal logical fallacy! LOL

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No no. If we take the question in the literal sense it has no meaning. Therefore I was taking it in the sense of scientific evidence.

Why? It was completely obvious to everyone that this was not the way the word was used in the OP. What do you gain from intentionally misinterpreting the intent?

There is no scientific evidence for ghosts. But this is of course wholly irrelevant to the question of whether ghosts exist, and furthermore, does not constitute any reasons for not believing in ghosts. To state otherwise would be to assume that ghosts are physical, because otherwise how does one obtain scientific evidence?? But the normal understanding of ghosts would be that they are not physical. But to assert they ought to be detectable is to assert they are physical and here we are essentially presupposing the correctness of the materialist metaphysic.

As has been pointed out to you (repeatedly), this has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the question! No one asked about existence, or belief, or physicality, or scientific evidence, or detectability, or the materialist metaphysic. They asked about proof, in the loose everyday sense.

As you should be able to see, this is question begging. Another informal logical fallacy! LOL

Whose argument are you trying to refute? No one made any of those arguments. Pointing out logical falacies in a strawman is amusingly ironic.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
There is no scientific evidence for ghosts. But this is of course wholly irrelevant to the question of whether ghosts exist, and furthermore, does not constitute any reasons for not believing in ghosts. To state otherwise would be to assume that ghosts ought to be physical, because otherwise how does one obtain scientific evidence?? But the normal understanding of ghosts would be that they are not physical. But to assert they ought to be detectable is to assert they are physical and here we are essentially presupposing the correctness of the materialist metaphysic.
I kind of follow you up until "But to assert that they ought to be detectable is to assert they are physical ..." You appear to believe two things: (1) ghosts exist; (b) ghosts are not detectable. I do not understand how to reconcile those two things.

Also, I think you'll find that many people believe ghosts are physical. Certainly the folks doing physical seances do. Certainly people who have taken photographs of orbs and whisps and faces do. Certainly the people who take bumps in the night as evidence of ghosts do. So do the people who think we lose 21 grams of weight when we die.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by FutileJester
quote:Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No no. If we take the question in the literal sense it has no meaning. Therefore I was taking it in the sense of scientific evidence.

FJ

Why?



Well what other meaning could it possibly have apart from proof in the literal sense, or scientific evidence? What is this 3rd mysterious meaning??




It was completely obvious to everyone that this was not the way the word was used in the OP. What do you gain from intentionally misinterpreting the intent?



I emphatically disagree. What other meaning could it possibly have apart from those 2? Besides which, my experience tells me that whenever people use the word proof on this board, they actually mean scientific evidence. Therefore your contention that people don't understand Frankie as meaning this, is extremely implausible.



There is no scientific evidence for ghosts. But this is of course wholly irrelevant to the question of whether ghosts exist, and furthermore, does not constitute any reasons for not believing in ghosts. To state otherwise would be to assume that ghosts are physical, because otherwise how does one obtain scientific evidence?? But the normal understanding of ghosts would be that they are not physical. But to assert they ought to be detectable is to assert they are physical and here we are essentially presupposing the correctness of the materialist metaphysic.

JF

As has been pointed out to you (repeatedly), this has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the question!



It has absolutely everything to do with the question!



No one asked about existence, or belief, or physicality, or scientific evidence, or detectability, or the materialist metaphysic. They asked about proof, in the loose everyday sense.



Huh?? :confused: Sorry, but I have no idea what it means in the loose everyday sense. Please give a precise definition. Or even a loose definition. If it doesn't mean either proof in the literal sense, nor scientific evidence, then what does it mean? Anecdotal evidence?? Do you really want to maintain that proof means anecdotal evidence?? :eek:

As you should be able to see, this is question begging. Another informal logical fallacy! LOL

JF

Whose argument are you trying to refute? No one made any of those arguments. Pointing out logical falacies in a strawman is amusingly ironic.


It has been insinuated that since there is no scientific evidence for ghosts, this makes the likelihood of their existence improbable.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I kind of follow you up until "But to assert that they ought to be detectable is to assert they are physical ..." You appear to believe two things: (1) ghosts exist; (b) ghosts are not detectable. I do not understand how to reconcile those two things.

Also, I think you'll find that many people believe ghosts are physical. Certainly the folks doing physical seances do. Certainly people who have taken photographs of orbs and whisps and faces do. Certainly the people who take bumps in the night as evidence of ghosts do. So do the people who think we lose 21 grams of weight when we die.

~~ Paul

Right fine. I agree that physical ghosts are unlikely to exist. Now let's all stop bickering should we?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]
I kind of follow you up until "But to assert that they ought to be detectable is to assert they are physical ..." You appear to believe two things: (1) ghosts exist; (b) ghosts are not detectable. I do not understand how to reconcile those two things.


Yes I know. That's because you cannot think outside your materialist mindset. :) And bear in mind that when I say detectable I mean of course physically detectable.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well what other meaning could it possibly have apart from proof in the literal sense, or scientific evidence? What is this 3rd mysterious meaning??

Well, call me crazy but you could start with the one I posted a couple of hours ago:

But Frankie isn't you and probably uses the word the way normal humans do - not as an absolute mathematical certainty but something where the evidence is overwhelming to the point that it is silly to doubt it.

I'll pedantically add that Princeton Wordnet 1.6 defines proven as "established beyond doubt"; the American Heritage Dictionary says that to prove is "to establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence". Are these really that mysterious? Would you contend that the phrases "a proven liar" and "innocent until proven guilty" actually convey no information whatsoever?

I emphatically disagree. What other meaning could it possibly have apart from those 2?

The one most people use; see above.

Besides which, my experience tells me that whenever people use the word proof on this board, they actually mean scientific evidence.

I prefer to judge each poster individually. The prejudicial reasoning behind your assumption does not change the fact that your assumption was wrong.

Therefore your contention that people don't understand Frankie as meaning this, is extremely implausible.

In the face of everyone except for you saying that this is indeed exactly how they took it, and Frankie's positive responses to the answers given, I think this is far more than plausible.

Huh?? :confused: Sorry, but I have no idea what it means in the loose everyday sense. Please give a precise definition. Or even a loose definition. If it doesn't mean either proof in the literal sense, nor scientific evidence, then what does it mean? Anecdotal evidence?? Do you really want to maintain that proof means anecdotal evidence?? :eek:

See above. And yes, proof can involve anectdotal evidence - in some contexts. Legal proof, for instance, is far different from scientific proof. The simple fact is that words have many meanings. Usually we can tell which meaning to apply by context, and if not, we can ask for clarification. Or, we can claim that for some reason someone intentionally asked a question which had no meaning...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Yes I know. That's because you cannot think outside your materialist mindset. And bear in mind that when I say detectable I mean of course physically detectable.
Aha. You should say that in the first place.

Now let's consider this. What is the difference between "physically detectable" and "whatever else detectable"? This sounds like dualistic language, yet I think you hold that you are some sort of monist. In that case, there should be no untraversable boundary between the physical (however you define it) and the other (however you define that). If ghosts exist, they exist everywhere the same.

~~ Paul

[voidx]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Aha. You should say that in the first place.

Now let's consider this. What is the difference between "physically detectable" and "whatever else detectable"? This sounds like dualistic language, yet I think you hold that you are some sort of monist. In that case, there should be no untraversable boundary between the physical (however you define it) and the other (however you define that). If ghosts exist, they exist everywhere the same.

~~ Paul
And if physical detectablility is impossible within our worldview, what are some proposed methods of possible detection for ghosts in Ian's worldview. Seeing as how he thinks they exist.

As usual he likes to point out where our worldview is lacking to explain something, but he makes no effort to describe how his own worldview is not also lacking in the same area. Nor how it is superior and actually supports the idea logically where ours does not.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I doubt that I’ll do this but it would be interesting if I had a sock puppet that would only post to agree with other skeptics!

Example!

Also, I think you'll find that many people believe ghosts are physical. Certainly the folks doing physical seances do. Certainly people who have taken photographs of orbs and whisps and faces do. Certainly the people who take bumps in the night as evidence of ghosts do. So do the people who think we lose 21 grams of weight when we die.

OMG! You’re so right, they’re all crazy!!!

As usual he likes to point out where our worldview is lacking to explain something, but he makes no effort to describe how his own worldview is not also lacking in the same area. Nor how it is superior and actually supports the idea logically where ours does not.

Wow! You just totally refuted him! What an accurate description!

Allow me to put it more clearly.

You can’t make the truth any more frickin clear than that!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

What would be even more interesting is a skeptic SP that agrees with other skeptics who are agreeing with skeptics!!!!!!! I’ll show examples at a later time!

[Darat]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
I doubt that I’ll do this but it would be interesting if I had a sock puppet that would only post to agree with other skeptics!

Example!



OMG! You’re so right, they’re all crazy!!!



Wow! You just totally refuted him! What an accurate description!



You can’t make the truth any more frickin clear than that!

Hey since this thread has been totally been derailed can you tell us what changed you from being a “believer” into the "sceptic" you are today?

It would be good to know what prompted your conversion...

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Darat


Hey since this thread has been totally been derailed can you tell us what changed you from being a “believer” into the "sceptic" you are today?

It would be good to know what prompted your conversion...

It had to be Pyrrho's touching story of going from an irrational believer to a rational skeptic! After that rational thinking and the materialist world view became undeniable truths!

[voidx]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Wow! You just totally refuted him! What an accurate description!

No my towelie little friend I didn't refute him. I merely pointed out an inconsistency in his style of arguing. Ian's points still stand on their own. I merely point out that he provides no solutions or alternate methods. Something I think he should, if he believes his worldview is more valid than ours. If I believe Turkeys are invincible and Ian thinks Dogs are invincible, he cannot laugh to hard at pointing out that when dropped from planes Turkeys die, when Dogs dropped from planes also die. He'd have to show how Dogs dropped from planes in fact do not die at all before he could truly enjoy his little bit of self-righteous laughter. Do try and keep up.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by voidx

No my towelie little friend I didn't refute him. I merely pointed out an inconsistency in his style of arguing. Ian's points still stand on their own. I merely point out that he provides no solutions or alternate methods. Something I think he should, if he believes his worldview is more valid than ours. If I believe Turkeys are invincible and Ian thinks Dogs are invincible, he cannot laugh to hard at pointing out that when dropped from planes Turkeys die, when Dogs dropped from planes also die. He'd have to show how Dogs dropped from planes in fact do not die at all before he could truly enjoy his little bit of self-righteous laughter. Do try and keep up.

Don’t underestimate yourself when being a skeptic! Even though you put faith in dreams in cases like this skeptics always refute the believer! But it was just an example of what this SP would be like, it’s not meant to be taken literally!!!

[magicflute]

You know... I am really getting tired of jackasses who highjack nearly every thread, posting inumerable nonsensical posts because they are in need of our replies to justify their meaningless existence. Your counter arguments will NEVER convince them of ANYTHING. They are sustenance to their warped ego. So be warned!

PLEASE DON"T FEED THE JACKASSES!

[voidx]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
But it was just an example of what this SP would be like, it’s not meant to be taken literally!!! [/B]
Just like you :eek: . Except when talking about dreams, you get very serious when you talk about dreams...rather bad for your schtick I'd say.

[voidx]

Originally posted by magicflute
You know... I am really getting tired of jackasses who highjack nearly every thread, posting inumerable nonsensical posts because they are in need of our replies to justify their meaningless existance. Your counter arguments will NEVER convince them of ANYTHING. They are sustenance to their warped ego. So be warned!

PLEASE DON"T FEED THE JACKASSES!
*yanks bread crumbs back away from Towelie*...what? I wasn't doing anything.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by magicflute
You know... I am really getting tired of jackasses who highjack nearly every thread, posting inumerable nonsensical posts because they are in need of our replies to justify their meaningless existence. Your counter arguments will NEVER convince them of ANYTHING. They are sustenance to their warped ego. So be warned!

PLEASE DON"T FEED THE JACKASSES!

Do exactly as I say!

1. Settle down!
2. Go try and recruit children into skepticism because they are impressionable!
3. Debunk fortune cookies & space people!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by voidx

Just like you :eek: . Except when talking about dreams, you get very serious when you talk about dreams...rather bad for your schtick I'd say.

The far out notion of dreams just offends me more than any other delusion!

[magicflute]

I ask everyone to note that I never refered to anyone by name in my post about jackasses, yet it is amazing how easily they are able to recognize themselves reflected in the description and how readily and willingly they are to identify themselves to us!! Could it be they're psychic?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by magicflute
I ask everyone to note that I never refered to anyone by name in my post about jackasses, yet it is amazing how easily they are able to recognize themselves reflected in the description and how readily and willingly they are to identify themselves to us!! Could it be they're psychic?

No, because I'm the one who derailed the thread like you mentioned smart guy! Don't even joke about someone being psychic!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
[B]
And if physical detectablility is impossible within our worldview,


Impossible?? :eek: Obviously physical detectability is possible under any worldview ;)




what are some proposed methods of possible detection for ghosts in Ian's worldview. Seeing as how he thinks they exist.



People experience them, therefore they are detecting them :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


Hey since this thread has been totally been derailed can you tell us what changed you from being a “believer” into the "sceptic" you are today?

It would be good to know what prompted your conversion...

In what sense has the thread been derailed?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by magicflute
You know... I am really getting tired of jackasses who highjack nearly every thread, posting inumerable nonsensical posts because they are in need of our replies to justify their meaningless existence. Your counter arguments will NEVER convince them of ANYTHING. They are sustenance to their warped ego. So be warned!

PLEASE DON"T FEED THE JACKASSES!

Well thank you for your kind advice newbie. I'm just wondering why you should have the authority to dictate what people put in their posts? Care to let me know?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by FutileJester
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well what other meaning could it possibly have apart from proof in the literal sense, or scientific evidence? What is this 3rd mysterious meaning??

FJ
Well, call me crazy but you could start with the one I posted a couple of hours ago:

quote:But Frankie isn't you and probably uses the word the way normal humans do - not as an absolute mathematical certainty but something where the evidence is overwhelming to the point that it is silly to doubt it.



And what is meant by evidence? It is either scientific or anecdotal, is it not? Now you suggested that you're not talking about scientific evidence, so are you therefore talking about anecdotal evidence??

Please let me know :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
People experience them, therefore they are detecting them.
Sure, if you use a worthlessly broad definition of the word detect.

So Ian:

Now let's consider this. What is the difference between "physically detectable" and "whatever else detectable"? This sounds like dualistic language, yet I think you hold that you are some sort of monist. In that case, there should be no untraversable boundary between the physical (however you define it) and the other (however you define that). If ghosts exist, they exist everywhere the same.

~~ Paul

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And what is meant by evidence? It is either scientific or anecdotal, is it not? Now you suggested that you're not talking about scientific evidence, so are you therefore talking about anecdotal evidence??

Please let me know :)

:rolleyes: I know it's easier to make up positions to argue against than it is to, say, read what the other guy is saying, but please. Perhaps my position on whether or not I was talking about anectodotal evidence could be divined by reference to the cryptic utterance:

And yes, proof can involve anectdotal evidence - in some contexts.

Which, STILL, is completely beside the point that it's not about what I say, it's about what the real intent of the question is. You have not in any way convinced me that the best answer to the question, "are there proven qhost stories", is "that question has no meaning." Nor have you provided any alternative answer. I'm reminded of a group of kids making soap bubbles; there's always that one kid who only runs around popping everyone else's bubbles. You could have contributed; instead you complained. And on that note, I'm done. My apologies for the derail.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Ok, this is an example of a skeptic SP who agrees with a skeptic who is agreeing with a skeptic!

Skeptic1! …So that is why your arguments have been refuted you feeble minded fool!


…So that is why your arguments have been refuted you feeble minded fool!
Skeptic 2:
Exactly Skeptic1! There is no frickin doubt that you thoroughly debunked that foolish believer’s arguments! That believer is just an idiot for refusing to accept that you have defeated him!


Exactly Skeptic1! There is no frickin doubt that you thoroughly debunked that foolish believer’s arguments! That believer is just an idiot for refusing to accept that you have defeated him!
SkepticSP:
You’re so right skeptic 2! Skeptic1 really did crush that inferior intellect just like you said! I can’t get over the correctness of your observations of Skeptic1! You’re right on about those kooks always denying clear victory from our side!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

The forum will be a better place if you people start doing that with each other!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by FutileJester


:rolleyes: I know it's easier to make up positions to argue against than it is to, say, read what the other guy is saying, but please. Perhaps my position on whether or not I was talking about anectodotal evidence could be divined by reference to the cryptic utterance:



Which, STILL, is completely beside the point that it's not about what I say, it's about what the real intent of the question is. You have not in any way convinced me that the best answer to the question, "are there proven qhost stories", is "that question has no meaning." Nor have you provided any alternative answer. I'm reminded of a group of kids making soap bubbles; there's always that one kid who only runs around popping everyone else's bubbles. You could have contributed; instead you complained. And on that note, I'm done. My apologies for the derail.

I really don't see how anecdotal evidence can constitute proof in any shape or form. {shrugs} But since people are getting so pissed off with me for reasons I'm wholly unable to understand, I'm done with this thread. Goodbye.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by FutileJester
I'm reminded of a group of kids making soap bubbles; there's always that one kid who only runs around popping everyone else's bubbles. You could have contributed; instead you complained. And on that note, I'm done. My apologies for the derail. [/B]

My personality couldn't be more diametrically opposite. I find those who get a thrill from making others unhappy absolutely loathsome. And I've been surrounded by the bubble bursters all my life. The suggestion that I am one myself is hurtful and just demonstrates how clueless you are with my intent.

I see my task here as not letting skeptics get away with lies and misrepresentations. I recognise that you and others do not like that. But I'm interested in getting to the truth. If that makes me a few enemies along the way, then so be it. Sorry.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Sure, if you use a worthlessly broad definition of the word detect.

So Ian:

Now let's consider this. What is the difference between "physically detectable" and "whatever else detectable"? This sounds like dualistic language, yet I think you hold that you are some sort of monist. In that case, there should be no untraversable boundary between the physical (however you define it) and the other (however you define that). If ghosts exist, they exist everywhere the same.

~~ Paul

Phytsically detectable means it can be measured. Non-physically detectable means it can't. A monist simply holds there's really only one ontologically self-subsistant type of existent in the world. Normally either matter or mind. The materialist believes that everything can be reduced to matter, in particular mind is really just matter or an aspect of matter. The immaterialist/idealist believes that everything can be reduced to mind, in particular matter is really just mind or an aspect of mind(s). And dualism is something else again maintaining that both mind and matter exist in their own right. Dualism is what most people seem to believe in

DEpending on what type of ghost we are talking about (I believe there's at least 4 or 5 differing types), some of them do not have any interaction with physical reality, therefore they cannot be measured. They are like hallucinations although they ultimately may have an external origin.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


*snip*

DEpending on what type of ghost we are talking about (I believe there's at least 4 or 5 differing types), some of them do not have any interaction with physical reality, therefore they cannot be measured. They are like hallucinations although they ultimately may have an external origin. That is vey interesting, Ian. Some of them have no interaction with physical reality, fine, but that implies that you think the others HAVE. So let's start with those, since they must be testable; which types of ghosts do you claim have interaction with physical reality? And which interaction?

Hans

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
DEpending on what type of ghost we are talking about (I believe there's at least 4 or 5 differing types), some of them do not have any interaction with physical reality, therefore they cannot be measured. They are like hallucinations although they ultimately may have an external origin.
This again sounds dualistic. If mental monism holds that matter is just an aspect of mind, then the statement "do not have any interaction with physical reality" is equivalent to "do not have any interaction with an aspect of mind." But under mental monism, everything is an aspect of mind. Are these aspects partitioned into two noninteracting classes?

~~ Paul

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Impossible?? :eek: Obviously physical detectability is possible under any worldview ;)

My entire post was in reference to "ghosts" Ian, therefore I was commenting on the physical detectability of "ghosts" which at the time you said was impossible. Do try and take the post in context please.


People experience them, therefore they are detecting them :)
No, people experience "something" you can no more label their experience as being a real ghost, than we can physically prove their existence. Your experiences are you own remember, we cannot be someone else and see exactly what they see, experience what they experience. You've brought this point up in the past. How is it then that you conviniently forget it here and just assume that what people are experiencing are actually "ghosts"? With nothing more concrete than its what they say they saw, or say they experienced?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

This again sounds dualistic. If mental monism holds that matter is just an aspect of mind, then the statement "do not have any interaction with physical reality" is equivalent to "do not have any interaction with an aspect of mind." But under mental monism, everything is an aspect of mind. Are these aspects partitioned into two noninteracting classes?

~~ Paul
I imagine the out for this particular point would be along the lines of the minds perception of the perceived physical reality noticing an interaction with somethings, and not noticing others. They still exist as an aspect of mind, but our minds having to play within the perceived "rules" of the "physical reality" would prevent us from detecting them from the point of view of the "physical reality". The fact that this makes those things essentially useless doesn't seem to matter.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, that's an interesting idea, VoidX. As I've said way too often, appropriate constraints placed on mental monism (such as the one you suggest), in order to make it jibe with experience, will eventually make mental monism and physical monism equivalent. We're well on our way.

Now, let's consider those ghosts that we cannot perceive. Presumably, we also cannot perceive one when it is integrated in a body, as opposed to free floating. So we never perceive them. So what's the point?

~~ Paul

[c0rbin]

OK, you don't intend to give any reasons. That's fine.

Reasons for what?

But if you don't provide any, how are you going to influence my beliefs and others who think that apparitions/ghosts might have some element which is of an external origin?

I don't want to force the horse to drink water.

There are good reasons to suppose at least some appartions are of an external origin, therefore unless you can produce any counter reasons . . .{shrugs}

You need to understand how this works. If you have evidence of ghosts, please show me--hell, I'm not important, show anyone.

I am really interested in seeing it because evidence of life after death would change the world.

Smarming about it through your teeth between tokes on the hooka will not change the world.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Well, that's an interesting idea, VoidX. As I've said way too often, appropriate constraints placed on mental monism (such as the one you suggest), in order to make it jibe with experience, will eventually make mental monism and physical monism equivalent. We're well on our way.

I quite agree. Many seem to forget that the glaring problems
within physical monism mostly exist because our framework of constraints and explanations for our experiences eliminate the more vague and broad explanations, so that we're left with hard, specific questions, that we cannot as of yet answer. Mental monism is missing these constraints and explanations, and so can still try and get away with tossing out vague broad statements for answers. The more we try and apply consist rules and frameworks to mental monism, I agree, the more we'll see they are faced with many of the same problems for explaining our experiences as physical monism is.


Now, let's consider those ghosts that we cannot perceive. Presumably, we also cannot perceive one when it is integrated in a body, as opposed to free floating.

By intergrated in a body do you mean possesion? Or just any physical manifestation?


So we never perceive them. So what's the point?

~~ Paul

Exactly, what is the point. I don't buy into the idea that the physical reality is just a sham, a made-up perception of a world that we can comprehend. It implies that initially "minds" could not handle the normal immaterial perception of reality, and so this perceived physical reality was created as a fix. What other reason is there for the mind to intentionally trick itself in this manner? If its a global self or mind, then what benefit does it derive from this constructed "physical" world. Why do our minds cripple our experience by forcing these "rules" on the "physical" world? Do "ghosts" and other such immaterial, imperceptible things present a danger to us? If not then why are they put beyond our ability to perceive? There appears to be no good reason. On the other hand if these rules are indeed rules because the physical world is real and it exists and we as physical beings cannot break these rules, then does that not make a little more sense? And since the physical world is complex, and by nature so therefore are we, and since complex things aren't always perfect, then isn't it also more logical to assume that at times our perceptions are simply confusing or odd or :eek: just plain wrong?

[voidx]

Here's a thought...maybe the "physical" world is just an incubator for new "minds". Run them through a fake perceived physical life span, at which at its termination, would make people ready to come into the immaterial fold as mature "minds". Oh, but some are ready faster than others, so we hit them with cars and shoot them with guns and natural disasters to extricate them faster. And being proud parents we can't help but stick our faces against the glass of the incubator sometimes and gurgle..."J...Joanie/Jeff/Jimmy/Jackson". I mean really, this makes as much sense as any other theory put forth :).
/sarcastic rant]

[Interesting Ian]

I note that nothing sensible is being said in this thread anymore so it's just as well I said I wouldn't participate in it any further.

I'll just address this one point.



This again sounds dualistic. If mental monism holds that matter is just an aspect of mind, then the statement "do not have any interaction with physical reality" is equivalent to "do not have any interaction with an aspect of mind." But under mental monism, everything is an aspect of mind. Are these aspects partitioned into two noninteracting classes?



Not everything is an aspect of mind. Mind itself isn't an aspect of mind.

Apparitions are not strictly speaking of the empirical realm, this is why our brains normally filter them out. They may be all around us, but we can't see them.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I note that nothing sensible is being said in this thread anymore so it's just as well I said I wouldn't participate in it any further.

I'll just address this one point.



Not everything is an aspect of mind. Mind itself isn't an aspect of mind.

Apparitions are not strictly speaking of the empirical realm, this is why our brains normally filter them out. They may be all around us, but we can't see them.
"All around us" applies to space within the "physical" realm. If Apparitions or not part of that empirical realm, then they wouldn't "be" anywhere. Why do you assume they spend their time occupying "space" within the "physical" realm, when we can't "see" them anyway? Do apparitions continue to "experience" the "physical" realm?

[c0rbin]

Cool now that Ian's not here we can move on to the real point of the thread which is: "Lessons Learned: One Quick Way to Keeping Boring Semantic HogWash Out of Your Thread"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx

"All around us" applies to space within the "physical" realm. If Apparitions or not part of that empirical realm, then they wouldn't "be" anywhere. Why do you assume they spend their time occupying "space" within the "physical" realm, when we can't "see" them anyway? Do apparitions continue to "experience" the "physical" realm?

Well then neither are we anywhere since consciousnesses do not constitute part of the furniture of empirical reality. When I say around us I simply mean we would perceive them should our brains be in a different state.

Anyway, last post from me in this thread seeing as someone has accused me of being a bubble burster. Don't want to spoil people's fun.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well then neither are we anywhere since consciousnesses do not constitute part of the furniture of empirical reality. When I say around us I simply mean we would perceive them should our brains be in a different state.

What possible brain state might that be, that will let me perceive ghosts?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Not everything is an aspect of mind. Mind itself isn't an aspect of mind.
But surely ghosts are? A ghost isn't part of the mind, is it?

So we seem to have two things:

The mind. It's some kind of pure beingness, the fundamental existent.
Aspects of the mind. These appear to us as the physical world. Some kinds of ghosts are here, but not all kinds?

So, it seems to me, the fundamental question is: Is there any way to detect the mind? If not, why bother with it?

Apparitions are not strictly speaking of the empirical realm, this is why our brains normally filter them out. They may be all around us, but we can't see them.
But our brains are just aspects of the mind. What is my brain doing filtering stuff out? Does it leave behind exactly those aspects that are the physical world? What is the point of this filtering?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Post to no one in particular:

I'm left not understanding the difference between mental monism and physical monism. Seems to me, one fundamental existent = another fundamental existent. Pick your favorite existent, contrain it so it behaves like the world we know, and there you are.

I guess it's a matter of jacking the thing around so that the remaining gaps are ones you're comfortable with.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos


But our brains are just aspects of the mind. What is my brain doing filtering stuff out? Does it leave behind exactly those aspects that are the physical world? What is the point of this filtering?

~~ Paul [/B]

I've answered this before. Good job I saved it to my hard drive. As I have said before.

Many of you will know that I do not favour the hypothesis that the brain generates the mind or consciousness. This of course is not to deny that brain states may not in an appropriate sense "cause" particular mind states, it's just that mind states do not originate from brain states. As I have put it before:

The fact that states of "A" may be correlated with "particular states of "B", means neither that "A" and "B" are one and the same thing, nor does it entail that "B" originates from "A", or indeed "A" from "B". It could be that both "A" and "B" both independently are generated by "C". Or it could be the case that although states of "B" are modified by states of "A", "B" ultimately originates from "C".

However, if the brain only modifies consciousness or minds, rather than being the progenitor of the mind, the question then arises as to why we need brains at all.

The first thing to recognise here is that processes within the brain are akin to any information processing system. As with any such information processing system there are architectural constraints and these serve to limit the mind so we only have access to those perceptions that follow the familiar and regular patterns that we associate with the physical world. This then allows us to function proficiently whilst we subsist in this empirical reality.

Now when the mind operates in detachment from the brain, when it is temporarily or permanently disembodied, then its processing is released from the constraining influence of the arrays of primitive processing units (essentially the brain). It will then have access to all other perceptions apart from our everyday perceptions. Those other perceptions will be driven by some other "engine", and the person may seem to be passing through other worlds. This would be broadly consistent with the anecdotal experiences of some out-of-body experiences, especially near-death experiences - and indeed with reportedly channeled descriptions from the dead, as well as with traditional accounts such as those found in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I guess it would also be consistent with the fact that these spirits seem able to provide John Edward with only their first initials, sometimes.

You have described what you think happens. You have not given any reasons why or for what purpose.
This then allows us to function proficiently whilst we subsist in this empirical reality.
But what's the point in the first place?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I guess it would also be consistent with the fact that these spirits seem able to provide John Edward with only their first initials, sometimes.

You have described what you think happens. You have not given any reasons why or for what purpose.

But what's the point in the first place?

~~ Paul

I'm sorry? What's the point of what? This life? The Universe? What? :confused:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What's the point of the Big Mind creating little minds and trapping them in brains that filter out everything except the "physical world"? Why go to all the trouble?

~~ Paul

[c0rbin]

Hey. You're back. I thought you were done with this thread. I am glad, actually.

Please note:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, you don't intend to give any reasons. That's fine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Reasons for what?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if you don't provide any, how are you going to influence my beliefs and others who think that apparitions/ghosts might have some element which is of an external origin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't want to force the horse to drink water.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are good reasons to suppose at least some appartions are of an external origin, therefore unless you can produce any counter reasons . . .{shrugs}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You need to understand how this works. If you have evidence of ghosts, please show me--hell, I'm not important, show anyone.

I am really interested in seeing it because evidence of life after death would change the world.

Smarming about it through your teeth between tokes on the hooka will not change the world.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
What's the point of the Big Mind creating little minds and trapping them in brains that filter out everything except the "physical world"? Why go to all the trouble?

~~ Paul
Exactly. You assume Ian that:
Posted by Interesting Ian
As with any such information processing system there are architectural constraints and these serve to limit the mind so we only have access to those perceptions that follow the familiar and regular patterns that we associate with the physical world. This then allows us to function proficiently whilst we subsist in this empirical reality.

What you forget is that this is merely an assumption and nothing more. Our familiarity with the regular patterns we associate with the physical world is controlled by the Big mind or "C". We are familiar with these patterns of the physical world only because the big mind placed those patterns in the physical world in the first place. Why did he not just create a less complicated framework that more seamlessly worked with our "minds".

Or if as you say:

Now when the mind operates in detachment from the brain, when it is temporarily or permanently disembodied, then its processing is released from the constraining influence of the arrays of primitive processing units (essentially the brain). It will then have access to all other perceptions apart from our everyday perceptions. Those other perceptions will be driven by some other "engine", and the person may seem to be passing through other worlds.

Then why didn't the Big mind just make that reality alone rather than this precursor "physical" reality. Why create multiple realities period? This seems to contradict your statement of:

This then allows us to function proficiently whilst we subsist in this empirical reality.

Because the statement before it seems to imply that when we leave the "physical" reality we move into another driven by another engine, which we can easily assume is just as proficient as the one we're in. So why does this "physical" reality stunt our experiences under the excuse of making a more proficient reality for us, when we move onto another that is completely open ended with the same proficiency?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Post to no one in particular:

I'm left not understanding the difference between mental monism and physical monism. Seems to me, one fundamental existent = another fundamental existent. Pick your favorite existent, contrain it so it behaves like the world we know, and there you are.

I guess it's a matter of jacking the thing around so that the remaining gaps are ones you're comfortable with.

~~ Paul
I agree completely. Ian can by all means accuse us of doing the above, so long as he admits to doing the exact same thing.

[nightwind]

Well, no such things as real ghost.

But ghost stories are sometimes fun.:D

[Frankie]

Originally posted by Andonyx
For what it's worth, Frankie, I am not suggesting piracy as such, but I think the ghosts CD-ROM may be out of print. But it could be a useful resource for this kind of thing. I would be willing to part with a copy of it for loan and educational purposes if you cannot find it elsewhere.

Let me know if you decide it would be useful.
That is so kind of you, I will let you know if she needs a copy.

[Frankie]

max

Would you mind if she uses your tale in her essay? I read it out to her, and she was most interested in it.

There are things on this site a young lady should not see, like grown men arguing


Frankie.

[Frankie]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Kevin Wagner, the guy who put up the Amityville Hoax site above is a strange dude. He is pretty skeptical and analytical in looking at the Amityville story. He does a good job of spotting nonsense, suggesting possible explanations, and debunking the whole thing.

But in his personal life, he apparently believes he was hounded by demons from an early age until he was baptised after college. He has a whole page of his "paranormal" experiences, most of which begin with, "I was in bed when . . ." He attributes dreaming or being partially asleep to many of the incidents in the Amityville house, but doesn't seem to realize that they would apply to his situation as well.

His experiences are here. (http://chatanuga.org/MyGhost.html)

Weird.
Thank you Ipecac, very much for the information.

[Frankie]

Originally posted by Darat


Not directly to your point but there have been some articles over the years in a popular newstand magazine called "New Scientists" about ghosts and "spooky" reactions and what may cause them. The site requires a subscription however there is a free 7 day trail available - check out http://archive.newscientist.com/ .

Some articles that I found that may be useful include:

http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg17924055.400



and

http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg16021655.700



and

http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg17623746.300



Darat thank you for your kind help. It is appreciated.

[Frankie]

Interesting Ian.

This is a child doing this essay on ghosts. This may have slipped past you. All she requires is information on what I asked originally.

By all means debate a part of it you found to be meaningless. But it does not help her do the essay. Providing information does. This essay I cannot stress enough how important it is to her to succeed on. I obviously cannot divulge details, but lets just say, the topic has more meaning for her. She chose it, she is making a step forward. I will do all that tI can to aid that within my power and knowledge to do so.

I hope you can understand that. Simplicity is sometimes more important than exactness.

[Frankie]

Originally posted by max
it's about time Frankie reappeared........it's his thread:D

Ahem. HER thread. Frankie short for Francesca.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Frankie
Interesting Ian.

This is a child doing this essay on ghosts. This may have slipped past you. All she requires is information on what I asked originally.

By all means debate a part of it you found to be meaningless. But it does not help her do the essay. Providing information does. This essay I cannot stress enough how important it is to her to succeed on. I obviously cannot divulge details, but lets just say, the topic has more meaning for her. She chose it, she is making a step forward. I will do all that tI can to aid that within my power and knowledge to do so.

I hope you can understand that. Simplicity is sometimes more important than exactness.

Frankie,

Right, that's fine. It's good she has an interest in such things. :)

I just felt that I should make one or two observations {shrugs}

BTW I think that when you say grown men are "arguing" you actually mean quarrelling. I should state I have not in fact been quarrelling, although I have been arguing (arguing in the proper sense of the word).

[Frankie]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Frankie,

Right, that's fine. It's good she has an interest in such things. :)

I just felt that I should make one or two observations {shrugs}

BTW I think that when you say grown men are "arguing" you actually mean quarrelling. I should state I have not in fact been quarrelling, although I have been arguing (arguing in the proper sense of the word).
Do you write tongue twisting riddles Interesting Ian? If not you should, in one sentence you have bamboozled me completely. Both laterally and literally:D

What is the difference between arguing and quarrelling? Please PM me the answer. I am already confused on this thread enough.

Frankie.

[max]

frankie
no , go ahead and use the story

[Frankie]

Originally posted by max
frankie
no , go ahead and use the story

Thank you max. You have made her day shine. An exclusive story nobody else will have. Hopefully.

You're not by chance living near Glenfield or have any family (children) there do you?

Fran

[max]

Frankie
No. My childeren are all grown and left home the eldest is 45

edited to add the P.S

P.S. If you are trying to work out the time./year....my fiancee of 1976 became my second wife. :D

[De_Bunk]

Ghosts and Religion...

Two subjects that, since the beginning of mankinds history, have never proven theirselves to exist...

And you need to counsel this child...

Tell her the truth...

They have NEVER, EVER, proven theirselves to be real...in existence...to be....

Get a grip...

( PS...I say...Come up with something different....'cos you are becoming real boring...real quick...and, somehow, really believe you are "Having us all on" with your BS...)

DB

[De_Bunk]

Yeh...

Tell her this...

One night, whilst sleeping i was visited by a ghost....

The appartion claimed that it, and several other thousand ghost / demons..were gonna suck out the life of children...and take them to Hell...where they would burn for all eternity...and then torture in the pits of Hell, everything they loved...including their mom and dad...and the dog and hamster...

Tell them that...

You stupid, stupid person...

Busted...

DB

[max]

same old de bunkum:D

[Frankie]

Thanks to all who offered help on the issue of ghosts. Except De_bunk whose comments are well out of line.

This topic can be deleted to save space most happily.

Frankie.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Frankie
This topic can be deleted to save space most happily.Oh? Like it doesn't matter if anyone else might find the information in the thread useful? Everything must be arranged for the greatest convenience of Madam Frankie (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28623)?

Rolfe.