chairdriver Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 The grammar of this thread is appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 If i woke up and saw someone in my room, there's no way I'd be able to just go to sleep. I'd be all freaking out and throwing shit. But I've also 'seen a ghost', with some 'evidence' that it's not all bullshit, but really I was dead tired so it was probably all hallucinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Yeah I've also "seen" a ghost. But strange enough I don't actually believe in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 The most amazing part of this story is that you woke up to find a strange person in your room three times and failed to do anything about it. I'm sure you believe what you're saying, but I don't. I love how a complete stranger was in the room 3 times and the first thing you said was 'Don't step on my iphone'...priorities first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 If I walked into a single mother's house and said I could read her baby's mind, then started shouting four-letter words, claiming I was simply voicing her offspring's thoughts, I would expect to be arrested the moment I stepped outside.And if, during my "psychic reading", I also speculated about the mother's sex life, and a potentially abusive relationship with a former boyfriend, claiming her toddler was concerned about "men who want to touch mum's privates", and I went on and on in this vein until the mother burst into tears, there in the living room, in front of her child, I'd expect to be arrested, sectioned, and beaten in the back of the van. And if I allowed a TV crew to broadcast what I was doing, I'd expect to be attacked by a mob, who'd pull me apart and kick my remains around the street, pausing only to spit on any bits of my face that got stuck to their shoes. But no. In fact the outcry would be muted at best and Ofcom would turn a blind eye - as it did last week, while clearing Channel 5's unbelievably disgusting Baby Mind Reader of any wrongdoing. I've never fully understood the public's docile acceptance of psychics, or why, when it comes to their supposed abilities, the burden of proof is assumed to lie with the sceptic, as opposed to the sort of shrieking idiot who claims to be able to contact the spirit world (or in Derek Ogilvie's case, communicate telepathically with kids too young to talk). I'm quite hardcore on this. I think every psychic and medium in this country belongs in prison. Even the ones demented enough to believe in what they're doing. In fact, especially them. Give them windowless cells and make them crap in buckets. They can spend the rest of their days sewing mailbags in the dark. The audiences that psychics prey on are equally infuriating, albeit less deserving of contempt. They're just disappointing, like a friend who's let you down. Often, they're simply grieving and desperate. I mean, if you want to believe in psychics, fine. You're a dangerous idiot and I wouldn't trust you to operate a spoon without putting an eye out ... but fine. Your choice. Delude yourself silly. Your world is probably more fun than the real one. There's no death, just an afterlife filled with magic spirits who like to communicate with eerie, ugly, otherwise-unemployable bottom-of-the-barrel "showmen" back on Earth. But don't accuse anyone with the temerity to question your sad supernatural fantasies of having a "closed mind" or being "blind to possibilities". A closed mind asks no questions, unthinkingly accepting that which it wants to believe. The blindness is all yours. (If you want to feel your eyes pop rudely open, swot up on the "cold reading" techniques fake psychics use - a combination of guesswork and sly conversational tics which give the impression that the "psychic" is magically receiving accurate information from the ether. A fantastic (albeit pricey) step-by-step guide is available from Ianrowland.com. Anyway, back to my psychic prison fantasies. The problem with trying to jail all the mediums in Britain is they'd a) see it coming, and escape overseas to somewhere even more gullible, like Narnia, before you'd passed the legislation, or b) call on their ghostly friends in the spirit world to whisk them from harm's reach. Except they couldn't because ghosts - unlike scumbags and conmen - don't exist. Pity. But that's the real world for you. Often disappointing. But real. At least it's always real. Pretty much sums it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 We need the footage from that episode. The Baby Mind Reader is such a prick. Or the rest of that first third of the episode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xGZnRgfTCo With Psychic Colin Fry getting shat on by his predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 God I remember that. What a piece of shit that guy is...I mean, Jesus Fuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 It's awesome when he texts in to the interactive psychics. 2:40 in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 (edited) Yeah I've also "seen" a ghost. But strange enough I don't actually believe in them. Ha, I remember that thread frequently when I go to the bathroom late at night after everyone is sleeping. Edit: And what a blast from the past. Half the members are banned and the other half doesn't come here any more. Edited October 8, 2009 by Shino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caris Posted October 8, 2009 Author Share Posted October 8, 2009 The grammar of this thread is appalling. If you are referring to me, yes I know. I'm dyslexic like I seem to have to point out every couple of month. So get off your high horse and stop moaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 ...Just say no to cannabis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 If you are referring to me, yes I know. I'm dyslexic like I seem to have to point out every couple of month. So get off your high horse and stop moaning. I'm not going to excuse you, BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caris Posted October 8, 2009 Author Share Posted October 8, 2009 (edited) Oh sorry, next time I'm born I'll ask to change a few things. Edited October 8, 2009 by Caris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the great Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 If you are referring to me, yes I know. I'm dyslexic like I seem to have to point out every couple of month. So get off your high horse and stop moaning. i never noticed, but then im dsylexic too, and dyspraxic. words i know how to spell i sometimes hit the letters in the wrong order. the way some people go on youd think id stabbed a puppy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I prefer the bad grammar and spelling of posts over the bullshit pretentious...ness of some people. lolz. etcetc EDIT: ...that wasn't aimed at anyone by the way, just... saying. It's what makes chris the great... great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramar Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'm not going to excuse you, BTW. Your other posts hint it, but this confirms it. You're a prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Then you're a bit narrow minded :/ We cannot say for sure about anything beyond our own existence within this planet and it's orbiting moon. We can't even explain our sentience, so how can you say for sure ghosts cannot exist? We can't explain our own sentience? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Megawinnaz. I prefer the bad grammar and spelling of posts over the bullshit pretentious...ness of some people. lolz. etcetc EDIT: ...that wasn't aimed at anyone by the way, just... saying. It's what makes chris the great... great. Wasn't aimed at anyone despite using my trademarked "z". I actually did used to believe in ghosts, I really did, but now I find the idea completely preposterous. I realised that it was a hop skip and jump from the concept of a God, and thus felt really silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Why is it I always read about ghosts before I go to bed, I don't want to walk to the toilet in the dark now, cheers. I feel the exact same way. Why, oh, why did I have to check N-E that one last time before going to bed? >_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Megawinnaz. Wasn't aimed at anyone despite using my trademarked "z". I actually did used to believe in ghosts, I really did, but now I find the idea completely preposterous. I realised that it was a hop skip and jump from the concept of a God, and thus felt really silly. Woah, woah, it wasn't, honest. Plus, if it was that wouldn't make sense: because you have more "real" posts with bad grammar/spelling over the crappy pretentious posts. Don't leave me, I love you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 We can't explain our own sentience? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle That's reasoning and theory, not a factual explanation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I call bullshit. mostly because ghosts aren't real. The evidence really mounts up though when you consider that ghosts aren't real. Legendary post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 About the grammer thiiiing: The important thing is the meaning of the message, in my opinion. Yeah, the spelling of words is pretty important, but the meaning of what you are trying to say is much more important. You can have a brilliant sentence with correct punctuation, awesome spelling and excellent words, but these are not as important as the message that you are trying to convey. For some reason, when I'm typing something to Ine, sometimes the words that I use are not spelled correctly. In my last message to her, I wrote "I'm glad your think went well" instead of "I'm glad your thing went well." I didn't spot it at the time, and it kinda worries me that I do it pretty often. Maybe I'm just lazy and my eyes suck. But, thankfully, she understood what I tried to say. When I'm marking books, sometimes the children have made a monumental mistake with their spelling (there's been some classics that I've seen, but my brain and memory suck eggs) and it can be pretty tricky trying to decipher what they're saying. But, the spelling by no means has an impact on what they're "trying" to convey. Quite often they've said the right thing but the spelling or sentence order hasn't been perfect. So, I try not to be too hard on people, provided that they are making an effort to at least make what they're trying to say understandable. In some books, I've looked at work and there clearly just hasn't been any kind of effort there, and in return it makes it nigh on impossible for myself to understand what they're saying. However, looking at this thread title, it's not entirely perfect, but you can still understand perfectly what he has tried to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 That's reasoning and theory, not a factual explanation We are sentient, because if we weren't, we wouldn't realise that we weren't. Seems pretty factual to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Woah, woah, it wasn't, honest. Plus, if it was that wouldn't make sense: because you have more "real" posts with bad grammar/spelling over the crappy pretentious posts. Don't leave me, I love you. I was only splashing your caramel, deep fry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts