Looking for Skeptics

[Donn]

I feel it's fair to say it's part & parcel of that particular month yes. So ok, we're down to 6 syllables. We et' al still hear 5. The first syllable being "Please.." followed by 4 more syllables. It's a pity you didn't section the message to the Hare Krishna priest that was present here at the time. That clip didn't get a second mention because it was fast.

Okay, this response,to Pixel42 .. pure trolling.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Flaccon intends to tell us more in "short posts".

From what I know of her, she believes that if she thinks or says something, it becomes fact.

How can you reason with someone so self-absorbed and misguided? She's a lost cause; immune to reason.

Having said that, this thread's skeptical replies are such good reading, I don't want to miss a thing.

Very neatly summed up!!

 

[Reno]

Sorry no, where's the point in going further unless it's understood. I'd really like to try and have these "moves" understood, without the re interpretations.

Well in that case, in the words of Duncan Bannatyne: - "I'm out."

 

[Pixel42]

Sorry no, where's the point in going further unless it's understood. I'd really like to try and have these "moves" understood, without the re interpretations.

We understand that you attribute many things that have happened to you and/or that you have seen and heard to supernatural forces. We do not agree that such attribution is justified, because plausible non-supernatural explanations are available. Until and unless you can produce objective evidence for the supernatural forces you believe exist we will continue to assume they are not required to explain your experiences.

I think that adequately sums up the thread so far. Can we please move on.

 

[Mojo]

Sorry no, where's the point in going further unless it's understood. I'd really like to try and have these "moves" understood, without the re interpretations.

We understand that you attribute many things that have happened to you and/or that you have seen and heard to supernatural forces. We do not agree that such attribution is justified, because plausible non-supernatural explanations are available. Until and unless you can produce objective evidence for the supernatural forces you believe exist we will continue to assume they are not required to explain your experiences.

I think that adequately sums up the thread so far. Can we please move on.

I suspect that by "it's understood", flaccon means "you agree with me", and by "re interpretations" she means "any interpretation other than flaccon's".

 

[Garrette]

Well in that case, in the words of Duncan Bannatyne: - "I'm out."

As am I. Flaccon is clearly either a troll or a person badly in need of help. Neither case warrants further participation here, not even the oft-used justification of making sure newbies and lurkers don't fall for it. Anyone who falls for this is either themselves a troll or badly in need of help, and no amount of rational discussion will sway them.

NB: Please do not take this post as a judgment upon any skeptics posting here. We all come at this from different vantage points, and this one is simply mine. I admire those who continue to calmly discuss the issue, and I will likely revisit the thread to see where it is, but as far as participating, it is no longer for me.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

It's a pity you didn't section the message to the Hare Krishna priest that was present here at the time. That clip didn't get a second mention because it was fast.

I'm utterly confused. Which Hare Krishna priest was present? Where was he present? What you you mean by 'second mention', as I can't remember him being mentioned a first time?

Honestly, I don't envy the ASKE investigators. And what the anonymous journalist will make of this I dread to think.

 

[pakeha]

I'm utterly confused. Which Hare Krishna priest was present? Where was he present? What you you mean by 'second mention', as I can't remember him being mentioned a first time?

Honestly, I don't envy the ASKE investigators. And what the anonymous journalist will make of this I dread to think.

You're not alone.
I reread that post and was obliged to open a bottle of decent Rioja to rid myself of the image of Hare Krishna priests lurking on the Internet.

 

[Cassidy]

2. I was not able to contact that Bishop and so travelled home and wrote him a brief letter. He kindly replied and informed me to contact the diocese of Chester. I contacted a local priest first, who suggested I should contact the Bishop myself.

Jan/Feb 014. I contacted the local Bishop (via email) who suggested I seek medical attention. So I contacted the GP and explained that I'd stumbled on a pile of "voices" whilst trying to record the heavy creaks that were running down my walls (one voice being my late Father's voice) He asked if the evidence of this was portable, and offered to hear out what I'd been hearing. We made a second appointment where I took my PC into his surgery.

If I may point out before "incompetence" is pointed out again.. had my GP (of 12 years) ever considered me even slightly cuckoo, he would not have given it a second thought to hand this experience over to psychiatry. I believe a General Practitioner would not ignore, nor treat mental illnesses.

 

[Cassidy]

I suspect that by "it's understood", flaccon means "you agree with me", and by "re interpretations" she means "any interpretation other than flaccon's".

Not at all, I'm just trying to straighten a lot of confused minds with what has actually happened. If these moves are understood, then you can make of it what you wish.

 

[Stray Cat]

Not at all, I'm just trying to straighten a lot of confused minds with what has actually happened.

The irony, it burns.

 

[tsig]

I suspect that by "it's understood", flaccon means "you agree with me", and by "re interpretations" she means "any interpretation other than flaccon's".

Before you could agree you'd have to figure out what she said.

 

[tsig]

I'm utterly confused. Which Hare Krishna priest was present? Where was he present? What you you mean by 'second mention', as I can't remember him being mentioned a first time?

Honestly, I don't envy the ASKE investigators. And what the anonymous journalist will make of this I dread to think.

Running for the door while screaming seems like one of the more favorable outlooks.

 

[Cassidy]

You're not alone.
I reread that post and was obliged to open a bottle of decent Rioja to rid myself of the image of Hare Krishna priests lurking on the Internet.

Thank you for that re read. It was mentioned and hand-waved away by Alderbank, the talking was too fast I think. It's a good example that I'd like to use in an informal test between a number of participants, including the P.I team.

 

[Stray Cat]

 

[Lucian]

You're not alone.
I reread that post and was obliged to open a bottle of decent Rioja to rid myself of the image of Hare Krishna priests lurking on the Internet.

Thank you for that re read. It was mentioned and hand-waved away by Alderbank, the talking was too fast I think. It's a good example that I'd like to use in an informal test between a number of participants, including the P.I team.

I'm still confused. I used the "search this thread" function, and I found no mention of Hare Krishnas until today.

 

[Donn]

Thank you for that re read. It was mentioned and hand-waved away by Alderbank, the talking was too fast I think. It's a good example that I'd like to use in an informal test between a number of participants, including the P.I team.

Believe it or not, flaccon, you are making things more muddled with every new "move" you take*.



* There's a Police song in there, I just know it!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's great that you want to explain things clearly flaccon, but you might want to read through your responses before you post them just to see if they actually say what you want to say.

For example, Pixel42 asked you about what it was you actually meant by a previous post and you replied:

I feel it's fair to say it's part & parcel of that particular month yes.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever as a response to the question in the post it's a reply to. It appears to be a total nonsequitur.

So ok, we're down to 6 syllables. We et' al still hear 5. The first syllable being "Please.." followed by 4 more syllables.

I think the rest of us are pretty much entirely in agreement about what the wording of the advert is, at least so far as the clear part of the recording is concerned. You appear to be the only dissenting voice. Well, you and "we et al" whoever that is.

It's a pity you didn't section the message...

Excuse me? What does "section the message" mean, and which message exactly are you referring to?

... to the Hare Krishna priest that was present here at the time.

What? At which time do you mean, and what might a Hare Krisna priest have contributed?

That clip didn't get a second mention because it was fast.

I can't make any sense of this. You mean the radio advert clip, yes? It got talked about here quite extensively so what do you mean that it didn't get a second mention? Where, when and by whom? And what do you mean by "because it was fast"? I don't understand.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...It was mentioned and hand-waved away by Alderbank, the talking was too fast I think. It's a good example that I'd like to use in an informal test between a number of participants, including the P.I team.

Are you still talking about the YouTube clip with the radio advert in the background? You played that clip to Alderbank? Did he say it was too fast to make out the words at all, or that he couldn't hear the words that you heard?

If you think it's a good example please bear in mind that everyone else here who's heard it thinks it sounds like a perfectly normal radio commercial.

 

[pakeha]

You're not alone.
I reread that post and was obliged to open a bottle of decent Rioja to rid myself of the image of Hare Krishna priests lurking on the Internet.

Thank you for that re read. It was mentioned and hand-waved away by Alderbank, the talking was too fast I think. It's a good example that I'd like to use in an informal test between a number of participants, including the P.I team.

I'm still confused. I used the "search this thread" function, and I found no mention of Hare Krishnas until today.

Nor did I.
flaccon, could you shout us a link to the Youtube clip in question?