All I am doing is providing my experience of seeing a ghost!
Call it what you will, you're clearly playing games with the description, as you admit yourself:
The issue is that many people go beyond the evidence their experience provides and say something "I saw a ghost, that means there is life after death". That is when someone making the claim that they have seen a ghost moves beyond "scepticism".
Then this bit:
No, that would be going beyond the evidence. What I have done is taken the experiences that I have read about (that defines what "seeing a ghost" means) and compared them to my own experience and they seem very similar or even identical therefore I am using that term.
Nope, it's exactly the same as what you've done. You've assumed that your experience is the same as some other people's and classed it in the same terminology that believers of the myth do. As I said, it is identical to seeing a deer which, seen through bush, looks like a humanoid and claiming to have seen Sasquatch. (And a lot better result than mistaking it for human. Check how many hunters get killed through being mistaken for game if you think subjectivity's cool.)
Why are you so sure that your own "vision" was the same as what other people saw? Pretty subjective subject, eyewitness testimony, especially when the subject is the subject.
That you can't see the identical nature of the claims suggests deliberate obfuscation for a reason known best by yourself. When someone outside at night tells me they can see a star, I'm quite happy to accept that they can see a flaming gaseous object outside of the solar system - not Brad Pitt.
I'd say that the overwhelming majority of people associate "ghosts" with supernaturality. You clearly don't, and why you bother to say you have "seen a ghost" is really your affair, but it's at odds with the [un]realities of the statement.
So to take us back to the origin of this thread: this is why it is very difficult to make generalisations and say something like "believers in ghosts cannot be sceptics" or "believers in [a] god cannot be sceptics" - it all depends on what the person making the claim actually means.
Which really confirms the need to separate sceptics and skeptics. I, as a sceptic, will seek to clarify, not confuse. Skeptics may call it "a hard-, but brittle-shelled vessel containing genetic information and nutrients to allow a zygote to grow into a young chicken", but a sceptic will be quite happy with "egg".
