Last night

[Sakari]

Well, this is weird. If any of you have have actually read what he said you'd understand there is no base for your claims of "the video game made you see it"

Lets review what he said in response to a few of your posts:

- He said he was not lacking of sleep(quite possible he's a night owl)

- He said he was not playing, he attempted to but the game didn't allow him to.(The lag was too much to handle)

That would rule out your theories, if you have others feel free to share them.

(Although Seeker's issue with ghost recon is actually quite interesting and I really hope to see him start a separate thread explaining this in detail)

As for what I think it might have been, well its just hard to tell with such little detail. It could have been anything from mind playing tricks to possibly a spirit or ghost... With such little information I wouldn't dare take a guess.

Ok, smarty pants

Did you actually read his response?.......In case you missed or ignored it, I quoted it for you below.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't low on sleep but everything else seems reasonable and thanks

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Ok, smarty pants

Did you actually read his response?.......In case you missed or ignored it, I quoted it for you below.

Well now that we've resorted to name calling...

Once again your analysis was based upon the assumption that he was tired, and had been gaming. Him saying your theory was plausible does not mean it is the cause. He might have just said such a thing because he himself was unsure of what exactly happened and once offered a simple explanation various times just accepted it.

But the fact of the matter is, he later stood firm on two issues that fundamentally dismiss your theory from being the factual cause.

1) He was not tired.

2) He was not gaming.

Your entire theory was based around those two key assumptions even though he clearly dismissed them more than once. Which means your theory is not the factual cause. Let's pretend to be adults here and leave the name calling to the kids.

PS- Isn't it interesting how you're the skeptic and i'm the believer but yet you were the one to jump the gun on giving an explanation?(And again jumped the gun on being defensive and rude when faced with skepticism of your own explanation?)

[Sakari]

Well now that we've resorted to name calling...

I thought the smiley face ( ) directly behind that was enough to show " joking ".....

Since it was not, I apologise, it was supposed to be a jokingly made statement.Something most of us say to friends, spouses, etc......Trust me, name calling in here is no where near " smarty pants ".....It is pretty much blunt and obvious....Again, sorry for that.

I was not being rude at all, I could care less if someone agrees with me or not.....I was just trying to show you he even said everything other than the being tired sounded reasonable, and thanked us, end of topic, done deal....Considering he was the one with the question, and he was happy with our answers, I would take that as satisfaction enough........You are still missing that part.

Again, sorry if my smiley was not enough, and my statement offended you.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Sakari