Brian Topp Posted March 15, 2014 #1 Share Posted March 15, 2014 On Saturday Watford’s Independent Paranormal Research group attained the impossible: “undeniable” evidence of spirits in Cassiobury Park. The finding has opened the book at a very interesting chapter in Watford’s history, namely past resident Arthur Capel, 1st Baron of Hadham, who married the heiress of the Cassiobury Estate, Elizabeth Morrison. To see these paranormal team of evidence: http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/11077833.The_Cassiobury_Park_Ghost__an_implausibly_fun_excuse_to_delve_into_Watford___s_past/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolguy Posted March 16, 2014 #2 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Looks like a dog lol.its just matrixing 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted March 16, 2014 #3 Share Posted March 16, 2014 "Undeniable" evidence. Sorry, that's as far as I go. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted March 16, 2014 #4 Share Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) "There are so many faces that I can make out, it’s almost undeniable proof. There are faces on their sides and I can see almost a full body apparition”, he says. What? It's a photo of flash illuminated mist/smoke and I can't make out anything resembling a face. "Undeniable proof". Laughable. Investigator Alexander Ray held his breath when the photograph was taken, in case the full-body apparition (several feet away from the camera to fit into frame) was spooked by his slight exhalation. Sounds like typical ghost stories, too eager to provide reasons for why it isn't something banal like breath condensation being lit up by flash. It's breath condensation, mist, cigarette smoke or something similar. Nothing we haven't seen countless times before being touted as ghosts. Edited March 16, 2014 by JesseCuster 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted March 17, 2014 #5 Share Posted March 17, 2014 They did say "almost undeniable proof".... As for me, I'd love for one of these 'investigators' to come over to UM and defend their claims... How about it, key members of the 'Watford Independent Paranormal Research group', namely: Jamie Burnell Alexander Ray ... once you've googled yourself here, why not join up? Just a passing observation... that paranormal group doesn't seem to have any web-presence, and indeed about the only other reference to them can be found at.. wait for it... The FACEBOOK page of the 'esteemed' {joking!!!!} Society for Psychical Research!! Wow, that's the same crowd that seems to endorse the likes of Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin... they are in fine company indeed. Sighs wearily.. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasEqgumby Posted March 17, 2014 #6 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Mist. As usual, nothing. Sad but true. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldethyl Posted March 17, 2014 #7 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I kinda see a dog too off to the right. God shoot me I see the same thing as coolguy. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundew Posted March 17, 2014 #8 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I kinda see a dog too off to the right. God shoot me I see the same thing as coolguy. I saw a cow shape in the clouds once, which is why I never stand outside looking up with an open mouth..... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted March 17, 2014 #9 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I see a wolf. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Occult1 Posted March 17, 2014 #10 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Just a passing observation... that paranormal group doesn't seem to have any web-presence, and indeed about the only other reference to them can be found at.. wait for it...The FACEBOOK page of the 'esteemed' {joking!!!!} Society for Psychical Research!! Wow, that's the same crowd that seems to endorse the likes of Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin... they are in fine company indeed. Sighs wearily.. Really, trying to twist informations at your advantage, ommiting facts, is deplorable... If you actually did go the facebook page of The Society For Psychical Research, you'll have noticed that the article (that shows up on Google) posted on March 12th related to hayleyisaghost.co.uk is that of sarcasm concerning these alleged ''proofs'' put forward by the Watford Independant Research group. That's an interesting article, debunking these pictures, by the way : http://hayleyisaghos...ury-park-ghost/ Edited March 17, 2014 by sam_comm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted March 18, 2014 #11 Share Posted March 18, 2014 They did say "almost undeniable proof".... As for me, I'd love for one of these 'investigators' to come over to UM and defend their claims... How about it, key members of the 'Watford Independent Paranormal Research group', namely: Jamie Burnell Alexander Ray ... once you've googled yourself here, why not join up? Just a passing observation... that paranormal group doesn't seem to have any web-presence, and indeed about the only other reference to them can be found at.. wait for it... The FACEBOOK page of the 'esteemed' {joking!!!!} Society for Psychical Research!! Wow, that's the same crowd that seems to endorse the likes of Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin... they are in fine company indeed. Sighs wearily.. Why wouldn't they come over to defend their claims? Well, because they can't handle the opposing side's argument, can't handle being debunked. Unless they are willing to take that risk. If so, then it's a good thing. Lets get all of this out and debunked so we can get to the small amount of stuff that can't be debunked--if it exists--then a serious attempt at research could possibly be made. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted March 18, 2014 #12 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) Really, trying to twist informations at your advantage, ommiting facts, is deplorable... That was 'deplorable? Just finished a drama class? And I 'twisted information'? Funny how you are not being specific - what was false in what I said? If you actually did go the facebook page of The Society For Psychical Research, you'll have noticed that the article (that shows up on Google) posted on March 12th related to hayleyisaghost.co.uk is that of sarcasm concerning these alleged ''proofs'' put forward by the Watford Independant Research group. So, you are not disputing a single word, nor are you defending the Society for Psychical Research.. just complaining that I didn't refer to any perceived sarcasm..? Sarcasm towards the Watford Independant {sic} Research Group? Umm, who are they? Are they the parent club from which the actual organisation in question (which is the "Watford Independent Paranormal Research Group) was split? I'm so confused... Yes, I'm being pedantic and picking on spelling/grammar, but you know how it goes - live by the sword... Thing is, why would a respectable research organisation even bother to address such dreck, using sarcasm or otherwise? Do you see articles in Nature on people claiming to see pink unicorns? The PSPR is not a respectable research organisation and they are in it for the Facebook audience.. Edited March 18, 2014 by ChrLzs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolguy Posted March 18, 2014 #13 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) I kinda see a dog too off to the right. God shoot me I see the same thing as coolguy. God shoot you u ???..you see the same as me lol.SO YOU SAYING IAM NUTS HAHAH just kidding Edited March 18, 2014 by coolguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldethyl Posted March 18, 2014 #14 Share Posted March 18, 2014 God shoot you u ???..you see the same as me lol.SO YOU SAYING IAM NUTS HAHAH just kidding Gotta hand it to you, you are never down. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr no Posted March 18, 2014 #15 Share Posted March 18, 2014 I'm a bit puzzled at why you would take a picture of something they couldn't see.I must be having a bad day however,I can't see anything at all 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Occult1 Posted March 18, 2014 #16 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) That was 'deplorable? Just finished a drama class? And I 'twisted information'? Funny how you are not being specific - what was false in what I said? If you had bothered to verified why the the facebook page of The Society For Psychical Research showed up on Google, you would have noticed that the post dated March 12th, with a touch of exasperation, was sharing an article writted by Hayley Stevens (http://hayleyisaghos...ury-park-ghost/) debunking these pictures from this Watford Independant Research group. Instead, you went for an half-baked truth, but anyone with the sens to verified this information could realize it was very inacurate and that you twisted it to your advantage. So, you are not disputing a single word, nor are you defending the Society for Psychical Research.. just complaining that I didn't refer to any perceived sarcasm..? Sarcasm towards the Watford Independant {sic} Research Group? Umm, who are they? Are they the parent club from which the actual organisation in question (which is the "Watford Independent Paranormal Research Group) was split? I'm so confused... Yes, I'm being pedantic and picking on spelling/grammar, but you know how it goes - live by the sword...Thing is, why would a respectable research organisation even bother to address such dreck, using sarcasm or otherwise? Do you see articles in Nature on people claiming to see pink unicorns? The PSPR is not a respectable research organisation and they are in it for the Facebook audience.. Let's be honest here. You hit ''Watford Independant Research group'' on a search engine and didn't even bother to verified the reason why the Facebook page of The Society For Psychical Research showed up. Contented of this information, you ran back here bashing it to your satisfaction, ommiting facts, not even mentioning what the facebook article mentionning this paranormal group was really about, to fit your prejudice. That's what I call taking a shortcut. And in this case that's a form of denigration beyond sound skepticism, and that's what is deplorable. Regardless of our opinions on these organisations, you can do better than that ChrLzs. Edited March 18, 2014 by sam_comm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted April 24, 2014 #17 Share Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) On another thread, sam_comm has decided to re-raise this long-expired equine and accuse me of applying guilt by association.. So let's look at what I said earlier in this thread, line by line (strangely, sam-comm doesn't seem to like quoting and replying to each sentence, so let's teach him how that works..). Sam, if you have a problem with my posts, then you have 3 basic options: - ignore me, and let others take me to task (notice nobody else did - why is that do you think?) - report it to moderators - address WHAT I SAY specifically, line by line. As you seem to wish to do NONE of those and instead make stuff up and offer your silly, whining, handwaving interpretations, then I'm going to take you to task and apply the last option whether you like it or not... So, let's look at what I ACTUALLY SAID: Just a passing observation... Note that despite me making it clear that this was, er... a 'passing observation', it seems to have got Sam's knickers into a huge twist. I'd suggest he toughens up a little. Anyway nothing much to dispute there, right sam?....onto the next bit.. that paranormal group doesn't seem to have any web-presence At that time a Google search on their name did not reveal any website, so that was a TRUE and FAIR comment. Indeed, I invite any interested readers (interested in the truth, not Sam-comm's biases) to search on the "Watford Independent Paranormal Research Group" and tell us what you find other than secondhand references to these stories. Q 1. Sam, did they have a web-presence then? Or do you concede that what I wrote was 100% TRUE? If you dispute what I wrote, QUOTE the incorrect part and address it, there's a good unbiased investigator... .. indeed about the only other reference to them can be found at.. wait for it...The FACEBOOK page of the 'esteemed' {joking!!!!} Society for Psychical Research!! At that time, before these other couple of stories surfaced, that was indeed the only other significant reference that popped up on Google. That can easily be verified by painstakingly going through all the new references and noting that they are dated AFTER my post. The reference on the Society for Psychical Research facebook page has now rolled off their front page into oblivion... Q 2. Sam, were there any other significant references back at that time? Or do you concede that what I wrote was 100% TRUE? If you dispute what I wrote, QUOTE the incorrect part and list the links that you found (and tell us why you didn't mention them at the time), there's a good unbiased investigator... Interestingly, Sam didn't dispute this in his whine, and indeed used it to make up a strawman, as below. Wow, that's the same crowd that seems to endorse the likes of Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin... It's pretty easy to show that the Society for Psychical Research does indeed endorse Sheldrake and Radin and their ilk. Indeed it is pretty much the ONLY faux research group that 'publishes' their works. It has little/no credibility in mainstream science, for good reason - it admits it publishes speculative papers. And at the time I posted my comments, THEY were the only people taking up this story. Q 3. Sam, is the Society for Psychical Research the one that endorses Sheldrake and Radin? Or do you concede that what I wrote was 100% TRUE? If you dispute what I wrote, would you like me to list all the publications of those two that can only be found there..? Guilt by association? Forgive my mirth. Ask yourself why that was the ONLY group picking up on this? And why does sam think this is insulting/guilt-laden? He must, like me, know that the SPR is not a credible organisation... If not, then surely there would be no guilt... they are in fine company indeed. Yes, according to Sam, I've made these two groups 'guilty by association' - first the Watford group for being stupid enough to actually give this ridiculous imagery the time of day, let alone give it to the media, and then the Society for Psychical Research for being the only 'outlet' (initially) to pick it up and run with it on their page. Not sure which is worse.. Can you be specific about where the guilt actually lies, sam? Or have you just built a big strawman? Anyway, Sam, getting back to the thread topic - what is it about the imagery in question: from the Watford Observer.. ...that so impresses you? Feel free to point out what you like about the image and the story, or perhaps offer some in-depth analysis... Or are you just here to handwave and whine and avoid the actual subjects of threads like these? Edited April 24, 2014 by ChrLzs 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Topp Posted April 24, 2014 Author #18 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I still baffled, why do these people should not he scrutinized over terrible evidence? They claim it's legitimate, this shows lack of skill of photography or a desperation to be noticed. Its mist, smoke, their breath. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesjr191 Posted April 24, 2014 #19 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I have to wonder, do these folks hope to fool the world? Do they think were as stupid and feeble minded as that? Or do they honestly believe they see ghostly images? Its the same as staring into the clouds, you can see anything you want. God forbid one of them ever serves on a jury. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Occult1 Posted April 24, 2014 #20 Share Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) At that time a Google search on their name did not reveal any website, so that was a TRUE and FAIR comment. Indeed, I invite any interested readers (interested in the truth, not Sam-comm's biases) to search on the "Watford Independent Paranormal Research Group" and tell us what you find other than secondhand references to these stories. Q 1. Sam, did they have a web-presence then? Or do you concede that what I wrote was 100% TRUE? If you dispute what I wrote, QUOTE the incorrect part and address it, there's a good unbiased investigator... That exactly what I said. You hit "Watford Independent Paranormal Research Group" on a search engine, and the facebook page of the Society For Psychical Research came up in the results. Nothing wrong there, I think we both know that. The problem is the following: you actually didn't bother to verified why the facebook page came up. Or if you did, you choose to ignored it on purpose. In any case, contented with this information that fit your prejudice of parapsychological organisations, you made an association here between this ''ghost hunter'' group and The Society For Psychical Research, running back here bashing this organisation by insunuation, therefore made guilty by association. ''The FACEBOOK page of the 'esteemed' {joking!!!!} Society for Psychical Research!! Wow, that's the same crowd that seems to endorse the likes of Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin... they are in fine company indeed.'' Sighs wearily.. At that time, before these other couple of stories surfaced, that was indeed the only other significant reference that popped up on Google. That can easily be verified by painstakingly going through all the new references and noting that they are dated AFTER my post. The reference on the Society for Psychical Research facebook page has now rolled off their front page into oblivion...Q 2. Sam, were there any other significant references back at that time? Or do you concede that what I wrote was 100% TRUE? If you dispute what I wrote, QUOTE the incorrect part and list the links that you found (and tell us why you didn't mention them at the time), there's a good unbiased investigator... If you had bothered to verified why The Society For Psychical Research came as search results, you would have noticed without any difficulty that the article dated March 16 (still accessible in Facebook's archive) was to share an article debunking these so called ''evidence'' put forward by the "Watford Independent Paranormal Research Group". It was an article posted for an humoristic purpose, since the administrator of the facebook page appreciate Hayley Stevens' writting style on these topics. (I have to admit her articles are interesting by the way. ) She also co-host a podcast for the Merseyside Skeptics Society. Here is the link: http://hayleyisaghos...ury-park-ghost/ But I guess it wasn't worth mentionning.. Since the Society Of Psychical Research is already condamned in your view, and by association with this group of ''ghost hunters'' you had an opportunity to further discredit them. .. The thing is, anyone with the sens to verify this insinuation could easily see the very innacuracy of it. Interestingly, Sam didn't dispute this in his whine, and indeed used it to make up a strawman, as below. Please, I don't mind disccusing this topic with you, for clarification purpose if need be, but I think it can be done respectfully. No one is ''whining'' here, only exposing a situation (though my last post was a few weeks ago). I just think it was fair to mention this situation in the ''Extraterrestrail Life &The UfO Phenomenon'' section, as you didn't restrain yourself to do so with Zoser. It's pretty easy to show that the Society for Psychical Research does indeed endorse Sheldrake and Radin and their ilk. Indeed it is pretty much the ONLY faux research group that 'publishes' their works. It has little/no credibility in mainstream science, for good reason - it admits it publishes speculative papers.Q 3. Sam, is the Society for Psychical Research the one that endorses Sheldrake and Radin? Or do you concede that what I wrote was 100% TRUE? If you dispute what I wrote, would you like me to list all the publications of those two that can only be found there..? As I understand it, Ruper Sheldrake and Dean Radin are both researchers in parapsychology and are involved in this field. But that is not the issue here, the reasons of this argument. You have every right to your opinions about these researchers and express them, as I sure do. ''The FACEBOOK page of the 'esteemed' {joking!!!!} Society for Psychical Research!! Wow, that's the same crowd that seems to endorse the likes of Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin... they are in fine company indeed.'' But omitting facts , twist informations or taking shortcut at your advantages, when the information (why FACEBOOK in caps-lock, if not to emphasise on it?) is erronous, is no longer a matter of opinions and has to be exposed. I hope you would do the same for me, if you came across false informations or insinuations in my posts. And at the time I posted my comments, THEY were the only people taking up this story. But they were not endorsing this group of ''ghost hunters'' whatsoever. All the contrary. You made it in your post as if they were supportive of this group, That's what I call serving an half-baked truth. Whether you did this on purpose, knowingly to mock this organisation or that you simply took a shortcut, not bothering to check the reason why the facebook page came up on Google, is unkown to me. Yes, according to Sam, I've made these two groups 'guilty by association' - first the Watford group for being stupid enough to actually give this ridiculous imagery the time of day, let alone give it to the media, and then the Society for Psychical Research for being the only 'outlet' (initially) to pick it up and run with it on their page. Not sure which is worse.. Can you be specific about where the guilt actually lies, sam? Or have you just built a big strawman?Anyway, Sam, getting back to the thread topic - what is it about the imagery in question: from the Watford Observer.. ...that so impresses you? Feel free to point out what you like about the image and the story, or perhaps offer some in-depth analysis... Or are you just here to handwave and whine and avoid the actual subjects of threads like these? I've made quite clear I think that these ''evidence'' can be easily debunked as a natural phenomenon. Do not try to picture me as the ''believer'' complaining of a ''skeptic''. All seem to agree on this thread that there is nothing supernatural on these pictures. The Society For Psychical Research shared an article debunking these so called ''evidence'' put forward by the "Watford Independent Paranormal Research Group". It was an article posted for an humoristic purpose, since the administrator of the facebook page appreciate Hayley Stevens' writting style on these topics. A touch of exasperation was added, to express how ridiculous and without any kind of skepticism certain groups are investigating nowadays. I think many websites, and so called ''evidences' of paranormal activity that can be found online are a strong indication of that. Stevens is known in the paranormal field as a ''skeptical activism'', very rational and down-to-earh person, she writte thoughtful, in-depth article and I just don't see why A Society For Psychical Research ''should not'' post such link on their facebook page, if need be? Edited April 24, 2014 by sam_comm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted April 24, 2014 #21 Share Posted April 24, 2014 OK, Sam, I shall endeavour to be more polite and you do have some valid points.. But I would point out a couple of things. 1. Nothing I said was false, and some of your interpretations of my intent were not correct - please stick to what I say. 2. The Society for Psychical Research obviously chooses what stuff they publish on their Facebook page. They would also know that a significant part of their audience (see below) won't actually read the article, nor will they detect sarcasm or exasperation.. They will instead pass on the picture as "more proof!!1!!1!!" 3. I emphasised facebook in order to point out that they seem to put much more effort into that (ie social media which tends to attract a somewhat undiscerning audience) than on their homepage - do you see other credible research organisations like Nature doing this? They may occasionally refute poorly researched information, but ONLY if it has significant media coverage or comes from a an allegedly scientific source. This story had neither and did not deserve to get pushed into the spotlight. So, in answer to your point: I just don't see why A Society For Psychical Research ''should not'' post such link on their facebook page, if need be? I tend to disagree. As I said, a large and respected research organisation should be careful what it brings up as topics that deserve attention (even if it is just to refute it), otherwise every uneducated Tom, tinfoilhatted Dick and conspiratorial Mary will figure that they deserve the same treatment, no matter how ridiculous the topic. We live in an age where absolute dreck can get enormous coverage in the media, especially via the Interwebz. The more that happens, the more we help to breed a new generation of people with 7 second attention spans and the belief that everything they see (often not reading the detail, let alone researching it properly) is worthy of attention and .. probably true... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Occult1 Posted April 25, 2014 #22 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) 1. Nothing I said was false, and some of your interpretations of my intent were not correct - please stick to what I say. I think the facts are there nonetheless and it's not about my interpretation but the informations insinuated that are verifiable and proved to be very inacurate. I genuinely think that you can do better than that, ChrLz. Sound skepticism and inquiries are not plain, unfounded denigration. ''and indeed about the only other reference to them can be found at.. wait for it... The FACEBOOK page of the 'esteemed' {joking!!!!} Society for Psychical Research!!'' I think the insinuation is pretty obvious here, not exactly rocket science. But anyway I see that you have softened your position, from initially turning my reaction into ridicule now to a polite disagreement. 2. The Society for Psychical Research obviously chooses what stuff they publish on their Facebook page. They would also know that a significant part of their audience (see below) won't actually read the article, nor will they detect sarcasm or exasperation.. They will instead pass on the picture as "more proof!!1!!1!!" Clearly that's unfair to say that people following The Society For Psychical Research on facebook are not intelligent enough to understand a facebook article.. Really... It seems to me from various comments I've read that quite a few are open-minded people, interested to know more about the paranomal studied on a scientific, non-materialistic standpoint. If you look at the 17 comments below the article dated March 12, no one seem to have misunderstood what is this about... 3. I emphasised facebook in order to point out that they seem to put much more effort into that (ie social media which tends to attract a somewhat undiscerning audience) than on their homepage - do you see other credible research organisations like Nature doing this? Social medias is the obvious way to reach people around the world in 2014. Many credible research organisations and scientists do so and take advantage of this platform to inform the public, posting articles, news ect. I see a lot of research organisations doing this, including NASA. They may occasionally refute poorly researched information, but ONLY if it has significant media coverage or comes from a an allegedly scientific source. This story had neither and did not deserve to get pushed into the spotlight. If you expect alleged ghost phenomenon to be of Nature's interest, you are seriously mistaken, Charlz. That's why parapsychology exist by the way, to investigate and study these phenomeon according to the scientific methodology. Since The Society For Psychical Research is interested in this type of phenomenon, which may be legitimate or not (that's another debate) They may post articles on this subject, and Hayley Stevens debunking these so called ''proofs'' (not just trashing but actually explaining why there is nothing supernatual on these piture, in detail) is a good exemple of that. I tend to disagree. As I said, a large and respected research organisation should be careful what it brings up as topics that deserve attention (even if it is just to refute it), otherwise every uneducated Tom, tinfoilhatted Dick and conspiratorial Mary will figure that they deserve the same treatment, no matter how ridiculous the topic. Though it seems to me that parapsychologists (or any other researchers in their respective fields) as trained scientists and investigators of such alleged anomalous phenomenon can play a role to educate or at least guide the public interested in these fascinating subjects toward skeptical, rational thinking. It's especially important in a field such as the paranormal, where so many interpretations, confusions, frauds infest it like a plague. BTW, here is a link of an interesting article on pseudoskepticism, posted April 21st on their facebook page: http://www.desmogblo...re-not-skeptics Edited April 25, 2014 by sam_comm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Topp Posted April 25, 2014 Author #23 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Sam_comm, You and I have discuss the same thing in the past. You throw in a lot of fancy words and various links but you don't read what people here say, you only nick pick and then try and argue more. That is not a discussion, it's a pointless "who posts last game". Chrlzs has made valid points, you side step them and try to attack and redirect he conversation into your favor. Have you considered politics? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Occult1 Posted April 25, 2014 #24 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) Sam_comm, You and I have discuss the same thing in the past. You throw in a lot of fancy words and various links but you don't read what people here say, you only nick pick and then try and argue more. That is not a discussion, it's a pointless "who posts last game". Chrlzs has made valid points, you side step them and try to attack and redirect he conversation into your favor. Have you considered politics? As for ''fancy'' words, it may be explained by the fact that English is not my first language. I hope you'll excuse me if I do not always express myself in a more usual fashion. It's still a work in progess for me. The links I provide is to add up to the discussion or debate, which I think can offer more than my own personal opinion on these topics for those interested. I read the intergrity of the messages, of course but I do not expect you, or anyone else to agree with my views, as I do not feel obligated to agree with that of others. A forum is after all to exchange ideas, debate and discuss. I've not found much common ground with Chrlz thus far in our exchanges, concerning these controversial topics but that's not unusual, since Paranormal & Unexplained forums such as UM cover quite a wide range of opinions and beliefs. Though I do think that we can find some basic, undisputed agreements. Edited April 25, 2014 by sam_comm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Topp Posted April 25, 2014 Author #25 Share Posted April 25, 2014 As for ''fancy'' words, it may be explained by the fact that English is not my first language. I hope you'll excuse me if I do not always express myself in a more usual fashion. It's still a work in progess for me. The links I provide is to add up to the discussion or debate, which I think can offer more than my own personal opinion on these topics for those interested. I read the intergrity of the messages, of course but I do not expect you, or anyone else to agree with my views, as I do not feel obligated to agree with that of others. A forum is after all to exchange ideas, debate and discuss. I've not found much common ground with Chrlz thus far in our exchanges, concerning these controversial topics but that's not unusual, since Paranormal & Unexplained forums such as UM cover quite a wide range of opinions and beliefs. Though I do think that we can find some basic, undisputed agreements. but you are looping, You repeat what you said from previous post but change it slightly. That isn't a discussion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now