Jump to content

Ghosts and paranormal activity in ED & PR


Louisa

Recommended Posts

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am very happy to give the OP the assurance that

> there is no such thing as paranormal activity.


Eh.....how do you know? If people at one won point quite reasonably assumed the Earth was flat, the liklihood is you would have been one of them. And it seems it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> taper Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I am very happy to give the OP the assurance

> that

> > there is no such thing as paranormal activity.

>

> xxxxxx

>

> Evidence for your statement, please?


The burden of evidence is on you and yours. V difficult to prove a negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was just a question of how many people had died in any place, then all hospitals should be so full of ghosts that it would be difficult to walk through the corridors. Like wading in mystic soup (not that I'm sure this is a reliable comparison, I haven't actually tried it)

lynne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get the wrong kind of psychic whistle and you'll be surrounded by the ghosts of a thousand dead dogs.


I don't think evidence is necessary - the faintly ethereal and slightly scatty are free to believe in ghosts just as the seriously deluded are to believe in god/gods etc.


Just as long as they don't start killing each other over the right approach to poltergeists and/or organise a fatwa against Ghostbusters for trivialising the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> The burden of evidence is on you and yours. V

> difficult to prove a negative.


xxxxxx


Indeed. So better not to make statements which you can't prove :)


Some people are unable to distinguish between certain colours. Other people (I knew one) can only see things in shades of black and white.


No amount of others telling them they were "wrong" could convince them that colour "existed", if they had a mind to doubt it.


Some people are sensitive to psychic phenomena which others can't perceive. Telling them that they are talking bollocks just because you are not so sensitive is closed-minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Popper and Kuhn must be cheering from on high at

> the standard of scientific debate on the EDF


xxxxxx


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Kuhn who wrote about paradigm shifts?


Quite relevant to the discussion if so, I would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Some people are sensitive to psychic phenomena

> which others can't perceive. Telling them that

> they are talking bollocks just because you are not

> so sensitive is closed-minded.


Maybe, but does a mad man always know he is mad?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Some people are sensitive to psychic phenomena

> > which others can't perceive. Telling them that

> > they are talking bollocks just because you are

> not

> > so sensitive is closed-minded.

>

> Maybe, but does a mad man always know he is

> mad?...


xxxxxx


I'm not talking about psychosis ....


ETA: Anyway, I'm not feeling well and I'm going to bed, so feel free to return to slagging off things you don't understand :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> taper Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > The burden of evidence is on you and yours. V

> > difficult to prove a negative.

>

> xxxxxx

>

> Indeed. So better not to make statements which you

> can't prove :)

>

> Some people are unable to distinguish between

> certain colours. Other people (I knew one) can

> only see things in shades of black and white.

>

> No amount of others telling them they were "wrong"

> could convince them that colour "existed", if they

> had a mind to doubt it.

>

> Some people are sensitive to psychic phenomena

> which others can't perceive. Telling them that

> they are talking bollocks just because you are not

> so sensitive is closed-minded.


And some people are sensitive to believing any old crap because they are feeble minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

taper Wrote:


>

> And some people are sensitive to believing any old

> crap because they are feeble minded.


And you really do write 'any old crap'. Just because you don't know somwthing doesn't mean it doesn't exist and I'm talking about anything. For feeble minded read closed mind in your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The most recent one did, despite the council making it very difficult for anyone to object (which interestingly they were forced to change for the CPZ consultation and look how that went for them). I will dig out the responses for you when I have more time so you can enlighten yourself.   Ha ha...the language used by councils when they see the results of a consultation and need an out to ignore the views of locals...;-) Did you not notice how this only became a thing once the consultation had been run....one wonders why!? Earl you can bluster all you like but you cannot ignore the fact the council closed the junction to emergency services and put lives at risk and resisted all calls (from the emergency services) to open it for them. Surely you can't defend that  or are you willingly turning a blind eye to that too? Ha ha, which kind of begs the question then why so many of you get so vexed by One Dulwich? Surely you could compartmentalise their work if the above was true? I suspect it has a lot to do with the accountability that they are forcing and the fact some don't like it.
    • I believe around 57% of the 5,538 people who were part of the self selecting sample making up the original consultation, opposed the LTN. So just over 3,000 people. This was around 3 years ago now. I think there’s something like 40,000+ living across se22 and SE21 🤷‍♂️  The LTN is a minority interest at best. Whilst it’s an obsession for a small number on the transport thread who strongly oppose it, I suspect most locals quietly approve of the improvements made to that junction. …and we still haven’t heard who has supposedly been pressurising the emergency services and how (are we seriously going with the far left / the commies)? Is anyone willing to stand up and support the 'One' claim that people are partially covering their plates and driving through the filters due to inadequate signage? Again, it all sounds a little ridiculous / desperate. Feels like it may be time for them to start coming to terms with the changes.
    • Okay Earl, of those 'consulted' how many voices were in favour of the junction and how many against? Were there more responses in favour or more against? This local junction change is being driven by Southwark Labour Councillors- not as you assert by Central Govt. Also, if consultations are so irrelevant as indicators of meaningful local support in the way you seem to imply, why do organisations like Southwark Cyclists constantly ask their members to respond to all and any consultation on LTN's and CPZ's?  
    • You could apply the same argument to any kind of penalty as an effective deterrent.  Better than doing nothing. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...