GH and GHI:

[Amnesiac]

if you do not like what I have to say.........don't read it.

this idea seems to be the hardest thing for people to comprehend on the interwebz.

[WoIverine]

and here I thought this was a thread about Guitar Hero! Damned abbreviations!

Edited August 21, 2009 by SpiderCyde

[HollyDolly]

No Clark AFB was in the Philippines, this was a GHI case. Clark was heavily damaged in a volcano eruption, and ultimately the USAF returned control of the land to the Philippine government in 1991. It had been a US military stronghold in the Asian Pacific since 1909 (maybe 1902, I forget). It was a major jumping off point during WW2 and VN. It had been abandoned and looted for years before eventually being rehabed into the Clark International Air Port, The Philipine government renamed the airport to someting else in 2003, I forget what it was though.

But the military hospital has never been touched and has been left abandoned, that place is way spooky and haunted for sure.

The other case on that episode was from an old Catholic monastery, that had been converted into a Hotel, which ran out of money and had been abandoned. It ended up being homeless people living on the property there.

He was a missile thrower,.......what we called them anyway. He was the guy (one of them) who sat in a Minuteman missile silo awaiting the word to push the button and launch us into nuclear WW3.

I will look into that, I thought it was the QM staff also.

Like I said, I have seen people twisted on xanax who look and act the same way, it might not be booze.... but it is something.

Me too! I loved my years living all over the world, and visiting some of the very same places they go to now.

You mean Dracula's Castle? V'lad Dracul was a real person, Frankenstein was a fictional character by Mary Shelly. As far as the Lisheen Ruins, I didn't see GHI go there, I saw GH go there with Grant and Jason, and they asked Barry from GHI to join them because he had been there before, and because Steve is scared to fly and could not make the trip.

Holly,

This was a great conversation with you, a great experience. I am glad you posted your remarks.

Semper Fi

As far as Frankenstein's Castle goes, there was a real family named Frankenstein, and according to their host Walter, the family died out in the 16th or 17 century. Then Conrad Dippel later on moved in and added von Frankenstein, meaning "of Frankenstein," because he was said to have been born at the castle. Radnu Florescu, who has written about Dracula,Vlad the Impaler, also wrote a a book about the castle, the Frankenstein family and also Mary Shelly's fictional character.They have a copy of it at the Schertz Public Library. Unfortunately the libaray is closed right now, as they are moving everything to the new one next door. This thing is just huge.Should be awesome when it opens next month.

And yes I agree they need to go back to Dracula's Castle. They did a show several years ago on either the Discovery or History Channels, where radnu Florescu, who is Romanian, went in search of Dracula, Vlad Tepes. He visited the same ruins as GHI.I remember one shot they took of the castle had light this very large ball of white light.

[Hamlyn]

this idea seems to be the hardest thing for people to comprehend on the interwebz.

Well, let's see.

A guy writes some nasty things about some people, and those things may be false.

"If you don't like it, then don't read it" is not really an adequate defense.

The issue is not whether or not somebody likes it. The issue is that saying false and malicious things about people harms their reputations.

If there is a possibility that such things are false, they should not be stated as fact. They should not even be propagated as rumor and gossip. Maybe you disagree.

In any case, I believe the poster in question made it clear that he doesn't care. He claims to KNOW by looking at video footage who is a drunk and a drug abuser, and so he feels justified in declaring people drunks and drug abusers in public with no further evidence. Also, Google tells us that many people have accused GH of fakery, and so it must be TRUE and may be stated as fact.

If that is your idea of a good public discussion, then you're welcome to it. Lord knows there is plenty of that kind of thing going on in this field. I don't see what is so great about denouncing the personal character of people you have never met, but hey, I guess I don't see what's so great about a lot of popular things.

Anyway, don't worry. I can easily comprehend the idea of not reading our friend's posts, as he is now the sole occupant of my ignore list.

[Amnesiac]

Well, let's see.

A guy writes some nasty things about some people, and those things may be false.

"If you don't like it, then don't read it" is not really an adequate defense.

on the contrary. there's this little idea that's been kicking around called freedom of speech - you may have heard of it. well, this is protected by the first amendment, and while i don't intend to blow this up into some huge political/personal argument, i would just like to point out that, although you and others may find his post distateful, he still has the right to post it (generally speaking). granted, it may approach the edges of slander, however, neither you nor i [legally] can do anything about it. i believe this was pointed out, and he acknowledged it by challenging grant to take issue (after all, he is the only one who could).

i just think it would be helpful for those who often find themselves taking up issue with things they cannot control, to perhaps avoid those situations when possible, and also, perhaps, accept not always agreeing with things people say as a part of life (bc it is) and just deal with it. it would really save people from a lot of unnecessary stress. of course, there are countless issues that do deserve fighting for or against, but someone's opinion on the internet: probably not one of them.

The issue is not whether or not somebody likes it. The issue is that saying false and malicious things about people harms their reputations. that such things are false, they should not be stated as fact. They should not even be propagated as rumor and gossip. Maybe you disagree.

In any case, I believe the poster in question made it clear that he doesn't care. He claims to KNOW by looking at video footage who is a drunk and a drug abuser, and so he feels justified in declaring people drunks and drug abusers in public with no further evidence. Also, Google tells us that many people have accused GH of fakery, and so it must be TRUE and may be stated as fact.

If that is your idea of a good public discussion, then you're welcome to it.

what he is doing is simply backing up his claim with evidence. albeit, not the strongest, but still evidence nevertheless. so, yes, that is my idea of a good public discussion. i think his point is valid, bc if it's a possibilty, then it would certainly affect grant's credibilty. rather than just lapping up all the shit gh throws at us, it's probably prudent to question thier findings considering the many seemingly apparent flaws in their technique.

Lord knows there is plenty of that kind of thing going on in this field.

again, i think that is really healthy considering what it is they're actually suggesting.

Anyway, don't worry. I can easily comprehend the idea of not reading our friend's posts, as he is now the sole occupant of my ignore list.

i would like to give you credit on that. using the ignore function is a relatively simple task that seems to escape many people. it makes much more sense than going on a witchhunt to ultimately support censorship.

[ReconMarine]

on the contrary. there's this little idea that's been kicking around called freedom of speech - you may have heard of it. well, this is protected by the first amendment, and while i don't intend to blow this up into some huge political/personal argument, i would just like to point out that, although you and others may find his post distateful, he still has the right to post it (generally speaking). granted, it may approach the edges of slander, however, neither you nor i [legally] can do anything about it. i believe this was pointed out, and he acknowledged it by challenging grant to take issue (after all, he is the only one who could).

i just think it would be helpful for those who often find themselves taking up issue with things they cannot control, to perhaps avoid those situations when possible, and also, perhaps, accept not always agreeing with things people say as a part of life (bc it is) and just deal with it. it would really save people from a lot of unnecessary stress. of course, there are countless issues that do deserve fighting for or against, but someone's opinion on the internet: probably not one of them.

what he is doing is simply backing up his claim with evidence. albeit, not the strongest, but still evidence nevertheless. so, yes, that is my idea of a good public discussion. i think his point is valid, bc if it's a possibilty, then it would certainly affect grant's credibilty. rather than just lapping up all the shit gh throws at us, it's probably prudent to question thier findings considering the many seemingly apparent flaws in their technique.

again, i think that is really healthy considering what it is they're actually suggesting.

i would like to give you credit on that. using the ignore function is a relatively simple task that seems to escape many people. it makes much more sense than going on a witchhunt to ultimately support censorship.

I started to tear this post apart, but with your dissemination I see no need to, Thank you.

I will say this.....

For someone to say I have "slandered" (which is wrong by the way. Slander is spoken, Libel is written) the GH, TAPS team is asinine. They have produced a program which expects the watcher to agree to a level of "belief" of their findings. GH has NEVER sat down and told a client "look at this tape, we caught a ghost", they conveniently save themselves from being pigeonholed into a corner where they can be challenged in a public forum, or in a court room for fraud.

It is in fact ludacris for someone to accuse a person of defamation, because they say "these people a faking it when they say they have hunted ghosts". They are not chasing or catching ANYTHING tangible, to which the ends result is something that can be placed in chains, or a cage, or cell..

These people are not hunting Lions in Africa, or Tigers in Asia, they are not capturing criminals on the run.......

We are expected to believe they are "catching" ghosts?

And when you produce tangible evidence that provides the chink in their armour of believability, someone accuses you of libel?

I know I am not the only one who believes this is most illogical "argument" ever presented. You prove evidence is fraudulent where someone "claims" to have caught paranormal activity, and the person who proves them wrong is attacked as the fraud?

As far as the drug issue goes, I have not libeled Grant Wilson in any fashion. I posted my belief that he is impaired in some fashion. my belief that he is impaired is no less logical or evident in video evidence, as his evidence of catching paranormal activity. And to say YOU CAN NOT use video evidence to indict his behavior, while saying HE CAN USE video evidence to prove his contact with the paranormal is ironic and skewed.....

What you notice about "our friend" is he has not provided ANY evidence to refute my opinion, or the evidence. He is just p***ed off because I have the balls to say it in public. He doesn't care if I have the opinion, he is p***ed off because I have the audacity to tell others about it. This is the classic leftist liberals agenda at it's finest. They could care less what you think about a subject as long as you do not confront it in public. If you object to gays or lesbians, that is OK just don't discuss it. Don't like Obama, or his Marxist agenda, that is OK just don't talk about it. Because to discuss it means if they want to be included in the conversation, they have to attack your for your opinion, which shows them to be militant in nature, even though they want you to believe they are the most tolerant people.

I do not care if "our friend" believes in GH and TAPS, I do too, to an extent......but I do not accept what they say without validation. You wouldn't do that with anyone else you need to place a level of trust into, so why would you do it with a "reality" tv show?

When you tell someone up front they might be offended by your belief, or language, you give them ample opportunity to LEAVE the discussion before they are in fact offended. If they persist in remaining, and all they do is remind you about how offended they are, without in fact refuting what you have to say....they had no argument to begin with.

I have refuted the idea that GH and TAPS and specifically Grant Wilson are in fact being truthful with their clients and audience, he is angry about it, but can not in turn dispute or refute it, he just does not like it.

Too bad....

Semper Fi

[Hamlyn]

on the contrary. there's this little idea that's been kicking around called freedom of speech - you may have heard of it. well, this is protected by the first amendment, and while i don't intend to blow this up into some huge political/personal argument, i would just like to point out that, although you and others may find his post distateful, he still has the right to post it (generally speaking).

I never said otherwise.

I said it was nasty. Because:

granted, it may approach the edges of slander,

Right. Libel, actually, because it's in print, not spoken, but yes, you and I agree substantially in spirit.

I never said I was in any position to do anything about it legally or otherwise, nor that I was inclined to. It's irrelevant to the point you've granted here.

i would like to give you credit on that. using the ignore function is a relatively simple task that seems to escape many people. it makes much more sense than going on a witchhunt to ultimately support censorship.

No witch hunt occurred.

No support of censorship occurred.

You are confused about some things.

First: Libel and malicious gossip are not valid exercises of a person's free speech rights, as you propose. Furthermore, these forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment, as you claim.

Second: Criticizing libel and malicious gossip is a valid exercise of free speech rights.

Third, criticism is not censorship.

Fourth, even if you think that what you call slander (or perhaps the "edge" of it) is a valid exercise of free speech rights, then you would have to think that criticizing such attacks is also free speech. Isn't that true?

Finally, if you think that responding critically to public speech is a "witch hunt," then you don't know what that term is supposed to mean.

You're saying that it's an attack on free speech to condemn the spreading of malicious gossip, slander, and libel. I don't buy it. One guy is free to say whatever nasty thing pops into his head about anybody, and another guy can't say anything about it? Or else he is on a witch hunt for censorship? Have I got that right?

But I get the message. This is your idea of a healthy public discussion. It's not mine. Again, you're welcome to it, but I have decided to round-file it, along with all the rest of this kind of aggressive posturing and character assassination. That's the last I will say about it. You can have the last word, since this has to end somewhere, preferably several posts ago.

[ReconMarine]

And you notice in a 4th chance he STILL did not try to refute the content of the message....only the context.

When you can not refute the message, attack the messenger....

Semper Fi

[Amnesiac]

I never said otherwise.

I said it was nasty. Because:

Right. Libel, actually, because it's in print, not spoken, but yes, you and I agree substantially in spirit.

I never said I was in any position to do anything about it legally or otherwise, nor that I was inclined to. It's irrelevant to the point you've granted here.

No witch hunt occurred.

No support of censorship occurred.

You are confused about some things.

actually, i think you misunderstood my intent. i was congratulating you on utilizing the ignore function, rather than appealing to the mods to edit or remove his "offensive" post, as is so common, imo.

First: Libel and malicious gossip are not valid exercises of a person's free speech rights, as you propose. Furthermore, these forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment, as you claim.

well, you're arguing a point i never made. where exactly did i claim that libel is protected by freedom of speech? answer: i didn't. like i stated, his speech may approach the edges of [libel], however, i don't believe it ever crosses.

Second: Criticizing libel and malicious gossip is a valid exercise of free speech rights.

Third, criticism is not censorship.

Fourth, even if you think that what you call slander (or perhaps the "edge" of it) is a valid exercise of free speech rights, then you would have to think that criticizing such attacks is also free speech. Isn't that true?

i never stated you didn't have the right to disagree. i simply argued that you're wrong. but you certainly have the right to be wrong.

Finally, if you think that responding critically to public speech is a "witch hunt," then you don't know what that term is supposed to mean.

You're saying that it's an attack on free speech to condemn the spreading of malicious gossip, slander, and libel. I don't buy it. One guy is free to say whatever nasty thing pops into his head about anybody, and another guy can't say anything about it? Or else he is on a witch hunt for censorship? Have I got that right?

But I get the message. This is your idea of a healthy public discussion. It's not mine. Again, you're welcome to it, but I have decided to round-file it, along with all the rest of this kind of aggressive posturing and character assassination. That's the last I will say about it. You can have the last word, since this has to end somewhere, preferably several posts ago.

again, i see no problem with you arguing - just your argument. the witch-hunt-comment was in reference to certain members who fear when others speak their mind, however offensive it may be, and report their posts to ultimately have the mods remove it. that, to me, is censorship. as i've stated, i think the ignore function is the safest and most logical route versus trying to eliminate any dissention.

[ReconMarine]

So tonights new episode?

Anyone catch anything totally BS, in it?

I actually thought it was pretty good. I question the "running person" at the Mudd estate maybe just a bit.

Grant just seemed to me personally, to paraphrase the Bard "Me dost think he protest too much".....he couldn't do enough to imply he had nothing to do with the Thermal camera.

I did think that they waited a moment too long to turn the thermal in the direction off to the left where the figure ran, and that it was convenient how close they were to the van.

Do I have "proof" it was spoofed?......nope, and I think it was a decent episode.

Semper Fi

[Amnesiac]

unfortunately, i do think it was total BS. i agree with all of those points you made. another thing that stood out to me was grant's immediate reaction, which was something like "oh, what'd you catch an animal?" which seems pretty uncharacteristic of grant. however, of course, they can then "shock" you with the image of a figure. i think every time there's been a hit on the thermal in the past, grant did not react so suspiciously or hesitantly, and usually he wonders whether there's something paranormal when it actually does turn out to be some sort of animal or reflection.

*sigh* a few years ago something like that would've been pretty exciting, but after recent events, i just take these guys as a couple of charlatans.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Amnesiac

[ReconMarine]

unfortunately, i do think it was total BS. i agree with all of those points you made. another thing that stood out to me was grant's immediate reaction, which was something like "oh, what'd you catch an animal?" which seems pretty uncharacteristic of grant. however, of course, they can then "shock" you with the image of a figure. i think every time there's been a hit on the thermal in the past, grant did not react so suspiciously or hesitantly, and usually he wonders whether there's something paranormal when it actually does turn out to be some sort of animal or reflection.

*sigh* a few years ago something like that would've been pretty exciting, but after recent events, i just take these guys as a couple of charlatans.

I don't think they gave enough time or credence to the attic door opening, I think they should have fully closed the latch and then tried to debunk it, or leave a camera on it, and see what happened.

Semper Fi

[sinewave]

If GH were really doing science they would not get the back-story upfront. Why taint the evidence with suggestion and expectation? It would be much more convincing if they approached each new location without any priming or prompting from those involved. The reveal should then be structured in a way where the findings are compared with the back-story. Strong correlations at that point MIGHT be suggestive of something interesting going on. Further, the GH team should work independently in groups of 2 and not share their experiences with each other until the end. That would tend to strengthen the event correlations. Of course, even if they structured the show that way there is no way of knowing if they really did it that way. The recent revelations about Paranormal State, if true, indicate a great deal of deception behind the scenes. The alleged advanced arrival of the psychics and their apparent full knowledge of the situation ( i.e. names, dates, manor of death, etc) and the digging up of dirt on those involved is most disturbing. I don't doubt the possibility of deception in the production of GH and GHI. It could come from any or all of the team, crew, or production staff. Remember that Jay and Grant bought that (haunted) hotel in New Hampshire. Does Roto Rooter really pay that well? I suppose they just wanted to cash in on the gravy train they have been providing to all of the tourist oriented businesses they helped to promote.

On an related note: Back in June I spent some time in a favorite resort in Door County Wisconsin. The owner was telling me about the ghosts he just invented that haunt the property. He wants to get one of those ghost hunting groups out to put is place on TV. He thinks it might generate some business. I have no doubt.

Edited August 27, 2009 by sinewave

[Wookietim]

unfortunately, i do think it was total BS. i agree with all of those points you made. another thing that stood out to me was grant's immediate reaction, which was something like "oh, what'd you catch an animal?" which seems pretty uncharacteristic of grant. however, of course, they can then "shock" you with the image of a figure. i think every time there's been a hit on the thermal in the past, grant did not react so suspiciously or hesitantly, and usually he wonders whether there's something paranormal when it actually does turn out to be some sort of animal or reflection.

*sigh* a few years ago something like that would've been pretty exciting, but after recent events, i just take these guys as a couple of charlatans.

I actually approach the show as if it were "Unsolved Mysteries" - reenactments of investigations rather than the real investigations themselves... It keeps me from getting angry at the screen for being lied to...

The bottomline is that if TAPS ever had any credibility (Debatable at best since they proceed from a basis of assuming ghosts are real rather than a basis of gathering all evidence) they have slowly squandered it over the course of the show. At this point they are doing more harm than good to the field of paranormal investigations... I am happy they found a way to make boatloads of cash and I don't begrudge them that. I do wish that they would call it a day at this point though...

[Shego]

I saw the new ep. about 2 days ago.

It made me laugh when I saw the 'ghost' they caught.

xD

Ridiculous.

[ReconMarine]

GH Tonight

I record (DVR) all the episodes in hopes of catching up on all of the old ones. Tonight was a TREAT!

Am I the only one who thinks someone from TAPS might be reading this forum, and maybe this thread?

Several guestions we have been opining about were answered tonight.

The VERY FIRST episode of GH was replayed tonight and one of our questions was answered; We wondered about Grant and his being a plumber remember? I had personally stated I thought Grant was a coattail rider in the RotoRooter business and I was right. Jason stated flat out that Grant was "in computers", but needed a "change", and Jason said "I was just glad I could facilitate that change for him".

Then we were treated to the ENTIRE Queen Mary episode, where we saw the entire "blanket pull" episode.

Next and you have to be looking for tech stuff to see it, but it seems someone heard our conversation about "Why does TAPS only use FOUR cameras tied to the DVR multiplexer?" Because tonight they had a NEW 27" LCD with a multiplexer capable of running 12 cameras,.......and they had a FIFTH camera hooked up!

Great EVPs tonight!

Flashlight work was pretty sweet.

Second investigation with Grant alone was pretty weak.

Semper Fi

[Wookietim]

I hate to burst your bubble, but I have a feeling that this forum and thread is not the only part of the world that has pointed out the basic problems with GH... Any person with even a shred of common sense can point out at least a dozen things wrong with the show that impact it's believability (Starting with the basic fact that it is a TV show that requires ratings to stick around which opens up a huge temptation to find bits of "Evidence" - aka "Hoax some stuff and call it legit").

[sinewave]

I hate to burst your bubble, but I have a feeling that this forum and thread is not the only part of the world that has pointed out the basic problems with GH... Any person with even a shred of common sense can point out at least a dozen things wrong with the show that impact it's believability (Starting with the basic fact that it is a TV show that requires ratings to stick around which opens up a huge temptation to find bits of "Evidence" - aka "Hoax some stuff and call it legit").

Absolutely. Ratings equal money. When it comes to TAPS there are conspicuous revenue streams starting with the Roto Rooter van shot at the top then into the fake plumbing scenes used to open the show. The GMC logo on their trucks is never blurred out and they even occasionally use the model name "Yukon" to describe Jason's vehicle. The team is usually shown wearing items from the TAPS clothing line - all of which can be purchased from their online store. The KII EMF meter is featured prominently and always called by name. Brand name mentions seem to require sponsorship status so the show may well be enjoying a piece of the KII action. Jason and Grant make public appearances at conferences and on their own both of which figure to be pretty lucrative. People line up to pay money just to hear these guys talk!

Their shows help boost sagging tourism (or property values) by making locations more interesting. Hotel and restaurant owners have used the ghost angle for years to attract customers. What could be better for the bottom line that getting your establishment and its "ghost story" on national TV? B&B and inn keepers must be lining up for the chance to be featured. I wonder how many of them have actually paid for the privilege. I am not saying it is so but t is certainly not unheard of that supply and demand would dictate a cash based selection process. Recently, the plumbers from Warwick purchased their own hotel property in New Hampshire. It is quite a spread and by total coincidence it is haunted! The GHI guys confirmed it while Jason and Grant were snowmobiling. They said so on an episode of GH so I believe it. Jason and Grant are now cashing in on the gravy train they have provided to their clients. BTW Washoe County real estate listings show that the Gold Field Hotel was for sale when GH investigated it. The owner is not trying to restore it as he stated. He bought it a few years earlier for back taxes to the tune of $350K and tried to flip it for a profit with the help of a few well placed ghost stories and some paranormal investigation teams.

Edited September 3, 2009 by sinewave

[Oderint]

1. Am I the only one who thinks Grant looks "high" sometimes? I mean for real. I am not into character assassination on any level, but there are many times he just seems "out of it". I have managed a couple of bars, bounced in a dump truck load of them, thrown way too many drunks and people who were high out if them. I have seen enough of them too tell you know? And Grant just seems on many occasions to be on the verge of intoxicated, or on the lower end of a oxycontin high.

No offense dude, but that's practically all you did in your entire post. Attack people based on what you think if their behavior, looks, style and even voice. (although I agree her voice is annoying)

[ReconMarine]

Absolutely. Ratings equal money. When it comes to TAPS there are conspicuous revenue streams starting with the Roto Rooter van shot at the top then into the fake plumbing scenes used to open the show. The GMC logo on their trucks is never blurred out and they even occasionally use the model name "Yukon" to describe Jason's vehicle. The team is usually shown wearing items from the TAPS clothing line - all of which can be purchased from their online store. The KII EMF meter is featured prominently and always called by name. Brand name mentions seem to require sponsorship status so the show may well be enjoying a piece of the KII action. Jason and Grant make public appearances at conferences and on their own both of which figure to be pretty lucrative. People line up to pay money just to hear these guys talk!

Their shows help boost sagging tourism (or property values) by making locations more interesting. Hotel and restaurant owners have used the ghost angle for years to attract customers. What could be better for the bottom line that getting your establishment and its "ghost story" on national TV? B&B and inn keepers must be lining up for the chance to be featured. I wonder how many of them have actually paid for the privilege. I am not saying it is so but t is certainly not unheard of that supply and demand would dictate a cash based selection process. Recently, the plumbers from Warwick purchased their own hotel property in New Hampshire. It is quite a spread and by total coincidence it is haunted! The GHI guys confirmed it while Jason and Grant were snowmobiling. They said so on an episode of GH so I believe it. Jason and Grant are now cashing in on the gravy train they have provided to their clients. BTW Washoe County real estate listings show that the Gold Field Hotel was for sale when GH investigated it. The owner is not trying to restore it as he stated. He bought it a few years earlier for back taxes to the tune of $350K and tried to flip it for a profit with the help of a few well placed ghost stories and some paranormal investigation teams.

I have no doubt about the merchandising and marketing tie ins...

Although the TAPS website specifically state they do not charge for investigations.

And they do multiple "hunts" at the same locations, they are in fact going back to the Stanley this month for a "fan hunt".

As far as "busting my bubble"..... I have no delusions of grandeur. I was being pretty tongue in cheek about the GH people finally doing things to increase their possible credibility.

Semper Fi

[ReconMarine]

No offense dude, but that's practically all you did in your entire post. Attack people based on what you think if their behavior, looks, style and even voice. (although I agree her voice is annoying)

I brought up topics of debate about the individuals who present themselves to the public as "credible" and "truthful" resources.

I didn't make any exacting accusations about anyone except Grant Wilson, whom I believe personally to be a fraud and substance abuser.

I also backed up every statement I made with examples of why I hold such opinions.

Semper Fi

[Shego]

Missed it because it's starting to become lame.

[ReconMarine]

Missed it because it's starting to become lame.

Agreed, which is why we have been discussing the CURRENT episodes on the nights they premier, or soon after...

We moved on, others have not.

Semper Fi

[Kerrby]

It's on here in Australia, we've just seen the start of GHI (First few eps of season 1) and season 4 of GH.

Does it go down here from now on?

[sinewave]

It's on here in Australia, we've just seen the start of GHI (First few eps of season 1) and season 4 of GH.

Does it go down here from now on?

Dear God is no continent safe?!