How can you tell self-deluded from liars?

[bob_conklin]

I'm sure that this is a common question, but I didn't get too much in my searches.

I call it "The pregnant question" from an old Randi post.

Where is the line?
My opinion is that at some point in their careers, the self deluded cross some line when they get more influential and just start becoming professionals.

Being professional then would be the line for me.

That would include most pastors, the pope, and .....

My line is way too broad. There has to be an Occam's Razor rule about this, but we never talk about it as skeptical ppl. We try to keep an open mind, but let's get real.

Feel free to post lists of self-deluded or liars here, and why. I want to know.

John Edward -- Liar 10.0
Sylvia -- Liar 10.0

The Pope -- Liar 7.5

Dean Radin -- ??
Dr Emoto -- ??
Creation Scientists in jail -- ??


PS, Do well Mr Lancaster, we need you.

[bob_conklin]

JZ Night -- 10.0
Tony Robbins -- ??

[bob_conklin]

Oprah Winfrey -- 5.0
Montel Williams -- 7.5 Liar

[bob_conklin]

Any one who channels ... certainly must know what they are doing ... right?

[bob_conklin]

%99.9 of all people -- 0.5 Liar

[Akhenaten]

This has come up in other threads. It's been pointed out by some, with whom I'd agree, that to an objective observer there comes a point where there isn't any effective difference between lying and self-delusion.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

With some people, it is pretty obvious they are just cynics. They know what they are doing. They would be the last to believe in it themselves. They are just scam artists, liars and frauds.

Sylvia Browne belongs to this group (though she, while not believing in any psychic powers, allegedly takes other forms of spiritualism very seriously and truly believes in them.)

With others...you just don't know. What in the world goes on in their minds? You just don't know.

Deepak Chopra is a "Gee, who knows?" case. On one hand, he oozes "con man". He is the very image of a petty huckster. His oily and greasy behavior, his faux innocent smile and behavior, his fake humility, his obvious greed and shrewdness, his cheapness, his smug and self serving insertion of himself into news he has nothing to do with, like the death of Michael Jackson...he's as sharp as they come. A pretty smart man.

On the other hand, he seems so sincere when talking about New Age and Hinduism. So serious about it. He repeats the silliest and dumbest chestnuts, like the "study" that found that children could recall their past lives, like he truly believes in them and is interested in them.

Who knows?

[Miss_Kitt]

I guess the perspective I have on this is that, whether it is due to self-deception or lying, they're still not telling you anything you can rely on as factual. The value of what they say is therefore not much. From a moral perspective, however, it does make a difference, in that the self-deluded may not be 'lying'. There is a middling long road from self-deceived to denying reality to outright lying, and the moral compass moves from 'innocent' to 'guilty guilty guilty' as that road is travelled.

Bear in mind that if one is going to start accepting money or expensive gifts/favors from others in return for one's services, one had better know if one is in fact delivering what is promised. Selling a car you own versus selling a car that looks like yours but you haven't actually looked in or tried the key to tell if it's not just someone else's vehicle of the same make and model are two different cases! And it is exactly that 'verifying it is what I say it is' where the transition from self-deceived to self-deluded to willful ignorance occurs.

I am amazed by the people who can look at themselves in the mirror and say, "Okay, all other dowsers that have been tested have turned out to be fake, but I'm different." In such a case, however, the person can arrange to have some very simple testing done to see if something other than Special Powers are involved. Something as simple as having the person who hid the object/substance being sought absent while the search is conducted can unravel an apparent dowser in short order. (I know; I tested myself this way back in college, when I thought I had Abilities.)

Age and experience are also factors, with youth and few or no encounters with doubters with questions falling on the 'innocent' end of the scale. When a person denies that their demonstration failed, or claims 'hits' that haven't happened, that is intellectually dishonest; when they persist in doing so after it has been pointed out to them, that is downright lying, and should be regarded as a moral breach.

I'm not sure what about the topic was the focus of the OP, but that's my general overview on the topic. Hope you find it helpful, MK

ETA -- One last point: The two (self-deception and fraud) are not incompatible. That is, someone may on the one hand genuinely believe that, say, psi abilities exist, AND fraudulently promote studies that have been proven to have inadequate controls. Or one may believe in, say, reincarnation AND also sell rich idiots weekends of 'discovering their old souls' that are really just sessions of ego gratification. I suspect some hucksters justify this as, "Well, it pays to support me so I can help other people get True Knowledge without having to hold down a mundane job."

[bob_conklin]

yess
Deepak Chopra -- ??
There is a good one.
But me thinks when the $$ started coming in he went to the liar side.
When faced with the challenge, like he has, there can be no doubt.

[bob_conklin]

Here again, the money is the Ocams Razor.

[bob_conklin]

Ms Kitt,
I used to be that way with religion. There really is an incompatabilty. That falls into the self-deluded catoegory. There is no between. None whatsoever. Facts are facts, and the rest is opinion.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe

With some people, it is pretty obvious they are just cynics. They know what they are doing. They would be the last to believe in it themselves. They are just scam artists, liars and frauds.

Sylvia Browne belongs to this group (though she, while not believing in any psychic powers, allegedly takes other forms of spiritualism very seriously and truly believes in them.)

With others...you just don't know. What in the world goes on in their minds? You just don't know.

Deepak Chopra is a "Gee, who knows?" case. On one hand, he oozes "con man". He is the very image of a petty huckster. His oily and greasy behavior, his faux innocent smile and behavior, his fake humility, his obvious greed and shrewdness, his cheapness, his smug and self serving insertion of himself into news he has nothing to do with, like the death of Michael Jackson...he's as sharp as they come. A pretty smart man.

On the other hand, he seems so sincere when talking about New Age and Hinduism. So serious about it. He repeats the silliest and dumbest chestnuts, like the "study" that found that children could recall their past lives, like he truly believes in them and is interested in them.

Who knows?

I often get sucked in to watching some of the late-night televangelists to answer this question. Some of them, at least, have to be sincere, but it's beyond me to sort them out.

Cheers

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Miss_Kitt

I guess the perspective I have on this is that, whether it is due to self-deception or lying, they're still not telling you anything you can rely on as factual. The value of what they say is therefore not much. From a moral perspective, however, it does make a difference, in that the self-deluded may not be 'lying'. There is a middling long road from self-deceived to denying reality to outright lying, and the moral compass moves from 'innocent' to 'guilty guilty guilty' as that road is travelled.

Hi MK! Long time, no talkies.


I'm with you completely in delineating between the moral aspects of lying vs self deception and their outward appearance.

I'd hope I'm safe in assuming that those who, for whatever reason, are actively involved in detecting the differences would be looking beyond the superficial.

Originally Posted by Miss_Kitt

Bear in mind that if one is going to start accepting money or expensive gifts/favors from others in return for one's services, one had better know if one is in fact delivering what is promised. Selling a car you own versus selling a car that looks like yours but you haven't actually looked in or tried the key to tell if it's not just someone else's vehicle of the same make and model are two different cases! And it is exactly that 'verifying it is what I say it is' where the transition from self-deceived to self-deluded to willful ignorance occurs.

This speaks more to the liar/self-deceiver's perception of himself, if I read it aright. It is indeed worth bearing in mind that the 'perp' is not the one to be expected to provide objective evidence for one case or the other.

I'm glad I don't often have the job of sorting it out. 'tis a tangled web.

Originally Posted by Miss_Kitt

I am amazed by the people who can look at themselves in the mirror and say, "Okay, all other dowsers that have been tested have turned out to be fake, but I'm different." In such a case, however, the person can arrange to have some very simple testing done to see if something other than Special Powers are involved. Something as simple as having the person who hid the object/substance being sought absent while the search is conducted can unravel an apparent dowser in short order. (I know; I tested myself this way back in college, when I thought I had Abilities.)

I share your amazement. It's like, "how can you be so duh?" sometimes

I've fortunately never been a victim of Teh Woo™.

Originally Posted by Miss_Kitt

Age and experience are also factors, with youth and few or no encounters with doubters with questions falling on the 'innocent' end of the scale. When a person denies that their demonstration failed, or claims 'hits' that haven't happened, that is intellectually dishonest; when they persist in doing so after it has been pointed out to them, that is downright lying, and should be regarded as a moral breach.

Kerrect.

For my own part, gradual fossilisation is making me so cynical that I don't believe myself most of the time.

Originally Posted by Miss_Kitt

I'm not sure what about the topic was the focus of the OP, but that's my general overview on the topic. Hope you find it helpful, MK

As always, your post was a delight to read. Thank you for your thoughts

Originally Posted by Miss_Kitt

ETA -- One last point: The two (self-deception and fraud) are not incompatible. That is, someone may on the one hand genuinely believe that, say, psi abilities exist, AND fraudulently promote studies that have been proven to have inadequate controls. Or one may believe in, say, reincarnation AND also sell rich idiots weekends of 'discovering their old souls' that are really just sessions of ego gratification. I suspect some hucksters justify this as, "Well, it pays to support me so I can help other people get True Knowledge without having to hold down a mundane job."

Nothing is ever black and white, is it? Keeps us on our toes.


Cheers,

Dave

[Andrew Wiggin]

I don't see this as a very useful distinction. Some people lie to everyone. Some people include themselves in the everyone they lie to. I suppose we can be a bit more charitable towards those who lie to themselves and believe, than to those who lie only to others and do not believe, but they're both lying.

A

[Akhenaten]

I don't disagree with you at all Andrew. I think rather than being charitable per se I was getting more at attempting to help those among the self-deluded that may not yet be beyond redemption. It's a bit of a judgement call, and one man's looneys may be another man's fraudsters, and I'm content with that.

[shandyjan]

As much as there is some self deception in some people, it aklways moves up the scale, and they do lie and exaggerate as they go along. They may believe in something, but will fake a bit to convince others. I think none are just self deluded, they will always lie a little at least.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Another one that befuddles me: Larry King.

He knows what cold reading is. He's done it as a gag on his radio show. He knows how it works. Yet he invites psychics (not just Sylvia Browne, many others) and seems to buy into them. He even once asked Sylvia Browne about cold reading, asked her if she wasn't doing it and let her deny that she does it. He invites all sorts of woos on his show and always gives them their say and treats them seriously.

He sucks up to them- but he sucks up to James Randi, too!

He sucks up to conservatives, he sucks up to liberals, he sucks up to religious leaders, he sucks up to atheists famous for being atheists, he sucks up to woos, he sucks up to skeptics, he sucks up to bad actors, he sucks up to good actors, he sucks up to black people, he sucks up to white people, he sucks up to gay people, he sucks up to straight people, he sucks up to Christians, he sucks up to Muslims, he sucks up to feminists, he sucks up to libertarians, he sucks up to socialists, he sucks up to PETA people, he sucks up to anyone, he sucks up to everyone.

What does he think of psychics and others? Who knows. He once said that he thought that his then young son was in contact with Larry King's late mother. I can't imagine anyone saying such a thing if they didn't believe it was true. Who knows.

[ExMinister]

Originally Posted by bob_conklin

Any one who channels ... certainly must know what they are doing ... right?

No. There are plenty of people who channel who are convinced they are channeling spirits without the first clue that it is coming from their own minds.

There are also plenty who are just outright fakes. Sylvia Browne's claim to remember nothing of what happens when Francine supposedly channels through her is a good indication that she knows exactly what she's doing.

Otherwise, I don't know how to tell between the sincere and deluded and the insincere and outright liars without doing an in-depth study of them the way Robert Lancaster has been doing with Browne, or Randi did with Geller, Peter Popoff and so on.

Originally Posted by shandyjan

As much as there is some self deception in some people, it aklways moves up the scale, and they do lie and exaggerate as they go along. They may believe in something, but will fake a bit to convince others. I think none are just self deluded, they will always lie a little at least.

No, unless I misunderstand you, there are people who are sincere but deluded, and not everyone lies. I know because I was one like that. Totally naive and totally sincere. I really believed that for the sincerely dedicated spiritual person, psychic ability and other spiritual gifts/abilities would be forthcoming. I was interested in truth. I still am. I guess that's why I am now a skeptic.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe

Another one that befuddles me: Larry King.

He knows what cold reading is. He's done it as a gag on his radio show. He knows how it works. Yet he invites psychics (not just Sylvia Browne, many others) and seems to buy into them. He even once asked Sylvia Browne about cold reading, asked her if she wasn't doing it and let her deny that she does it. He invites all sorts of woos on his show and always gives them their say and treats them seriously.

He sucks up to them- but he sucks up to James Randi, too!

He sucks up to conservatives, he sucks up to liberals, he sucks up to religious leaders, he sucks up to atheists famous for being atheists, he sucks up to woos, he sucks up to skeptics, he sucks up to bad actors, he sucks up to good actors, he sucks up to black people, he sucks up to white people, he sucks up to gay people, he sucks up to straight people, he sucks up to Christians, he sucks up to Muslims, he sucks up to feminists, he sucks up to libertarians, he sucks up to socialists, he sucks up to PETA people, he sucks up to anyone, he sucks up to everyone.

What does he think of psychics and others? Who knows. He once said that he thought that his then young son was in contact with Larry King's late mother. I can't imagine anyone saying such a thing if they didn't believe it was true. Who knows.

Plus. In an interview on May 26, 2009 on Jian Ghomeshi's show on CBC Radio, King claimed to be an agnostic and certainly not religious.

I have the horrible suspicion that King's show is newsertainment. It is intended to amuse, not inform.

[ynot]

As far as I’m concerned self-delusion is lying to the self. Lying is lying regardless of who is being lied to.

[ExMinister]

Originally Posted by ynot

As far as I’m concerned self-delusion is lying to the self. Lying is lying regardless of who is being lied to.

I will respectfully disagree. Here's a decent enough definition of lying that comes from Wikipedia (apologies but it's a workable definition):

Quote:

A lie (also called prevarication) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth

This is the case with the intentional deceivers, not the self-deluded. In my case, I had no idea whatsoever that there was anything false about what I believed so how could I have been lying to myself? I certainly had no intention of deceiving myself, and I would have felt horrible at the idea of deceiving anyone else.

Delusion, according to Wiki:

Quote:

A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception

That's accurate. I held somewhat fixed beliefs that I would later discover to be false, fanciful and even derived from deception (it turns out other people were lying to me). But I wasn't lying, i.e. attempting to deceive myself or anyone else. I may have been deceiving others by virtue of sharing my deluded beliefs, but it wasn't intentional so therefore couldn't be considered lying.

Two different things.

[quarky]

The lie is the essential precursor to the truth.
Truth is defined by non-truth.
Truth is an on-going process, never quite arriving.
The lie is much more solid; it has arrived in its final state.

An honest lie is something we can work with, in the effort to route out the truth...which remains subjective. Inaccuracy can be quantified and acted upon in a way that flushes out less inaccuracy...which is a close to the truth as we can get.

We can define a liar with more accuracy than we can a truth teller, as honesty has endless layers of refinement.

2 different people make these honest statements:

person one honestly knows he lies, and says so.
person 2 honestly tries to be honest, and misses the mark.

The liar is more honest.

[ExMinister]

Originally Posted by quarky

The lie is the essential precursor to the truth.
Truth is defined by non-truth.
Truth is an on-going process, never quite arriving.
The lie is much more solid; it has arrived in its final state.

An honest lie is something we can work with, in the effort to route out the truth...which remains subjective. Inaccuracy can be quantified and acted upon in a way that flushes out less inaccuracy...which is a close to the truth as we can get.

We can define a liar with more accuracy than we can a truth teller, as honesty has endless layers of refinement.

2 different people make these honest statements:

person one honestly knows he lies, and says so.
person 2 honestly tries to be honest, and misses the mark.

The liar is more honest.

I liked this until the last sentence, which is where it stopped making sense in the context we're discussing. I'm sorry, but this would seem to imply that someone like Sylvia Browne, who is blatantly lying, is more honest than someone like me who is attempting to be honest and tell the truth. How does that make any sense?

Maybe I misunderstand you. If you are saying it is easier to confront a blatant liar than a deluded person who happens to believe false ideas but doesn't know the ideas are false or that they are deluded, you may have a point, but that has nothing to do with a lack of honesty on the part of the deluded. To be deluded is not to be a liar.

(Or perhaps you didn't intend this to be directed toward me or to the points I was making, in which case, disregard.)

[Gr8wight]

Have you ever watched a young child tell a lie? When caught out they will insist, to the point of trauma, that they were not lying. It is my considered opinion that, although they begin knowingly telling an outright fib, the moment the words pass their lips, they believe them absolutely.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Plus. In an interview on May 26, 2009 on Jian Ghomeshi's show on CBC Radio, King claimed to be an agnostic and certainly not religious.

I have the horrible suspicion that King's show is newsertainment. It is intended to amuse, not inform.

So he's almost certainly a cynic who knows psychics and others are fake but is happy to exploit them nevertheless. What a...I don't even know what.

You can't even really be angry at him. He's so shallow and glib as an interviewer and journalist and probably as a person, you can't even ascribe greed and ill will to him. He probably lets frauds on his show cause he isn't even thoughtful enough to get angry at what they do.

You are angrier at an agnostic who knows it is all a sham but doesn't much care than you'd be at a true believer.

[Sideroxylon]

George Costanza: "just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."

[alleracsum]

The culture of the shaman/medicine man is replete with this "duality". If I trick you into believing an essential Truth I am doing a good thing.

[pakeha]

A good point, alleracsum.
I suppose that's why the justifications for the 'lying for Jesus' tactics sound so familiar, then.

[cornsail]

If 0 = sincere believer and 10 = no internal pretense of belief (just speculating)...

Kevin Trudeau = 10
Miss Cleo = 10
John Edwards = 10
Uri Geller = 10
Sylvia Browne = 10
JZ Knight = 7
Alex Jones = 6 (I'm having a hard time with this one, could be higher)
Pat Robertson = 5
Acharya S = 4 (I think she believes her overall argument, but has no problem lying to sell it or exaggerate its magnitude)
Orly Taitz = 3 (seems genuinely nuts, but willing to lie)
Jesse Ventura = 1
David Icke = 1
Rosie O'Donnel = 1

[quarky]

Originally Posted by ExMinister

I liked this until the last sentence, which is where it stopped making sense in the context we're discussing. I'm sorry, but this would seem to imply that someone like Sylvia Browne, who is blatantly lying, is more honest than someone like me who is attempting to be honest and tell the truth. How does that make any sense?

Maybe I misunderstand you. If you are saying it is easier to confront a blatant liar than a deluded person who happens to believe false ideas but doesn't know the ideas are false or that they are deluded, you may have a point, but that has nothing to do with a lack of honesty on the part of the deluded. To be deluded is not to be a liar.

(Or perhaps you didn't intend this to be directed toward me or to the points I was making, in which case, disregard.)

I was just spewing philosophic. No particular target.

[ExMinister]

Originally Posted by quarky

I was just spewing philosophic. No particular target.

I was up on my soapbox anyway, happy to get back down.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Gr8wight

Have you ever watched a young child tell a lie? When caught out they will insist, to the point of trauma, that they were not lying. It is my considered opinion that, although they begin knowingly telling an outright fib, the moment the words pass their lips, they believe them absolutely.

And some people never grow out of this.

My impression is that there's a gradient that ranges all the way from accidentally repeating false information in good faith at one end to inventing facts to manipulate others at the other extreme.

The original post assumed a dichotomy, too, but there is a third option aside from 'self delusion' and 'lying' and it's the most common situation: 'Just Plain Wrong'. I thought Pi was 3.1415, but Pi is 3.1416. Not lying, not deluded... Just ordinary mundane vanilla wrong.

In all cases, the person is uttering falsehoods, and maybe the damage is the same, but I am willing to approach these people differently depending on my interpretation of their motives.

One way to identify a blatantly manipulative fact inventor (typically a malignant narcissist personality) is if they have a history.

So, Kevin Trudeau might have been wrong about one topic, but it seems unlikely that he would make a suspiciously profitable but unrelated error. Much less several more. First it's medicine, then it's financial advice. Right.

Browne is cut from the same cloth. It looks like she prefers white collar crime. Sold shares in a fictional gold mine, but the troublesome victims were upset when the scam was exposed, and pressed charges. This medium scam is way better: the victims actually rally to her defense when the scam is exposed. Nice work if you can get it.

[Cainkane1]

A self deluded person isn't lying. He or she believes what they are saying. A person deliberately lying often gives themselves away with facial expressions and body language. That is unless the liar is a psychotic. Psychotics have no feelings so they can lie without being detected.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

A self deluded person isn't lying. He or she believes what they are saying. A person deliberately lying often gives themselves away with facial expressions and body language. That is unless the liar is a psychotic. Psychotics have no feelings so they can lie without being detected.

Just a terminology thing: you probably mean [antisocial personality disorder], rather than [psychotic].

[RSLancastr]

Originally Posted by bob_conklin

PS, Do well Mr Lancaster, we need you.

Thanks, Bob! Susan tells me that I do a little better every day. She notices improvements which I don't (such as an improved ability to dress myself), as they make her life a little easier.

your question is one which I have often pondered. Sylvia Browne is quite obviously a liar. With Kaz, it was a little more difficult to call, at least at first. But as her stry became more and more convoluted, I found it more and more difficult to think that she actually believed it herself. that, and the fact that she never addressed my criticisms, but instead told her followers that I was an atheist (as though that would explain away my criticisms. when I was trying to decide whether she was a liar or just a nut, I finally decided that, for my purposes, it didn't matter. she needed to be Stopped either way.

[Eyeron]

There is some difference. The self-deluded truly believe their lie and believe that their lie is the only truth.

The liar is trying to be purposefully disruptive just for fun.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by ExMinister

I was up on my soapbox anyway, happy to get back down.

Maybe what i was getting at about the liar vs the deluded, or even slightly wrong, is that the data from the liar is more honest. Its like a complete unit of falsehood conveys more data than a partial unit of truth...at least in an 'on-off', or 'true-false' scenario.

You are safe from Sylvia. The dangerous shyster would be the one that is mostly correct. The horribly poisonous plant is less dangerous than the mildly poisonous one. We learn to avoid the first.

[shandyjan]

Originally Posted by ExMinister

No, unless I misunderstand you, there are people who are sincere but deluded, and not everyone lies. I know because I was one like that. Totally naive and totally sincere. I really believed that for the sincerely dedicated spiritual person, psychic ability and other spiritual gifts/abilities would be forthcoming. I was interested in truth. I still am. I guess that's why I am now a skeptic.

I was more referring to the top of the pile, the moneymakers, be it psychics like Sylvia, or televangelists with their dramatics. They know they are faking, even if some start out with some beliefs, they push it and deceive. I wasnt so much including the followers in that statement.
I dont think all believers are liars!
Hope that is clearer, as I find you to be very open sharing your feelings and experiences and wouldnt think of you as a liar!

[ExMinister]

Originally Posted by quarky

Maybe what i was getting at about the liar vs the deluded, or even slightly wrong, is that the data from the liar is more honest. Its like a complete unit of falsehood conveys more data than a partial unit of truth...at least in an 'on-off', or 'true-false' scenario.

You are safe from Sylvia. The dangerous shyster would be the one that is mostly correct. The horribly poisonous plant is less dangerous than the mildly poisonous one. We learn to avoid the first.

Agree and nicely put. The dangerous shyster would be the one that is mostly correct. That's so true.

Originally Posted by shandyjan

I was more referring to the top of the pile, the moneymakers, be it psychics like Sylvia, or televangelists with their dramatics. They know they are faking, even if some start out with some beliefs, they push it and deceive. I wasnt so much including the followers in that statement.
I dont think all believers are liars!
Hope that is clearer, as I find you to be very open sharing your feelings and experiences and wouldnt think of you as a liar!

Understood, thanks! Have you read The Psychic Mafia? Just finished that book recently and was shocked at how blatantly the mediums were willing to lie and how far they would go to cheat and deceive. In some cases even their own family didn't know. Done right, there is quite a lot of money to be made - as we see now with Sylvia Browne and those, as you say, at the top of the pile. The more they cheat, as long as they aren't caught, the more they appear to be "real." I guess therein lies the irony.

[shandyjan]

ExMinister, Even when caught cheating they seem to still get tv appearances, the world is wacky.
I havnt read much at all, since the internet took over my life. I must add that book to my list for the winter, this kind of thing interests me, I read Doris Stokes books many years ago, my mum did too and we believed her.