 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Ah, yeah. Your version was.. vague enough to kind of imply, in the minds
> of some people, the whole "ghosts are like a recording of a person, so
> since the person didn't think about their guts, their ghost won't show
> them."
That's what I intended, without attempting to imply I believed it. :-)
> One has to be real careful, when talking about the supposed
> supernatural, not to lend accidental credence to what is non-credible. ;)
What makes you think the effect is supernatural?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > One has to be real careful, when talking about the supposed
> > supernatural, not to lend accidental credence to what is non-credible. ;)
>
> What makes you think the effect is supernatural?
1) Natural effects tend to leave evidence that is more tangible than lens
flares, overexposed camera straps, and imprints on the reporter's central
nervous system.
2) There is no known natural accounting for dead people somehow being alive with
diaphanous bodies and no internal organs, or for clothing just as ethereal as
the bodies. But that could change. (Of course, Bill's dead person is neither
diaphanous nor clothed, so she might be natural after all.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yeah. Would be damn funny to watch these clowns run around getting
> freaked, if, every time I turn them on, I have to remember that probably
> 60-70% of the US actually think these people are **evidence** that
> ghosts are really real, or they wouldn't be "looking for them".
Wow. I took their show to be completely different. They seem to take a
skeptical approach, but I suppose you have a point there...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> 1) Natural effects tend to leave evidence that is more tangible than lens
> flares, overexposed camera straps, and imprints on the reporter's central
> nervous system.
Some do, some don't. :-) Look at the long history of things we didn't
know about until we got the right measuring instruments. Do you think
the placebo effect is supernatural too? :-)
> 2) There is no known natural accounting for dead people somehow being alive
What makes you think they're dead people (assuming anything there has
actually been seen, that is)? Anyway, see above.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Cousin Ricky wrote:
> > 1) Natural effects tend to leave evidence that is more tangible than lens
> > flares, overexposed camera straps, and imprints on the reporter's central
> > nervous system.
>
> Some do, some don't. :-) Look at the long history of things we didn't
> know about until we got the right measuring instruments. Do you think
> the placebo effect is supernatural too? :-)
Effects that are supernatural remain so until proven otherwise. Or I think
that's how it goes.
> > 2) There is no known natural accounting for dead people somehow being alive
>
> What makes you think they're dead people (assuming anything there has
> actually been seen, that is)? Anyway, see above.
So they're like Danny Phantom? Cool!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yeah. Would be damn funny to watch these clowns run around getting
>> freaked, if, every time I turn them on, I have to remember that
>> probably 60-70% of the US actually think these people are **evidence**
>> that ghosts are really real, or they wouldn't be "looking for them".
>
> Wow. I took their show to be completely different. They seem to take a
> skeptical approach, but I suppose you have a point there...
>
Maybe should watch them seriously some time then. For the most part,
these kinds of shows tend to take things way too seriously, due to the
people on them being complete twits. If I am wrong about this one, then,
guess that proves, once again, that Sci-Fi is marginally more rational a
station than "Discovery", which had both the moron that claimed to talk
to the dead, the pet psychic women, and and endless series of
docu-delusions about people haunted, possessed, etc. by ghosts, demons,
or what ever.
Its hardly a wonder people can't tell the difference between science and
gibberish, which channels that are "supposed to" dedicate themselves to
science run total bunk all the time. Its gotten persistently absurd
enough that I change channels the moment someone even "hints" at this
kind of stuff.
Though, I admit, watching cryptozoologists run around looking for "scary
creatures" and only finding undefined foot prints and the same lame
"heat images" is damn funny, again, until you realize there are people
out there "expecting" them to actually find bigfoot at some point. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Ah, yeah. Your version was.. vague enough to kind of imply, in the
>> minds of some people, the whole "ghosts are like a recording of a
>> person, so since the person didn't think about their guts, their ghost
>> won't show them."
>
> That's what I intended, without attempting to imply I believed it. :-)
>
> > One has to be real careful, when talking about the supposed
>> supernatural, not to lend accidental credence to what is non-credible. ;)
>
> What makes you think the effect is supernatural?
>
Umm. I don't. The term is **completely** meaningless, in that if
something has any effect at all on the world, it "becomes" natural, even
if its only on the person's nervous system. I said **supposed** there.
Its the term the believers in it like to use, because they have this
logic short circuit in which they think the "mind" and somehow sense,
are somehow separate from the physical world, therefor its possible for
some "other" world to muck with their perceptions, while having no
effect on the real world. The irony being, they then use physical
devices to run around "looking for" the damn things.. lol Which is it
people? Either you can measure it, and their for its "material" or you
can't, so it isn't. You can't have it both ways. ;)
Seriously though, would you prefer "alleged supernatural", since you
seem to want to make a court case out of it? jk ;)
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> ...and that Richard Dawkin's conspired with
>> Darwin, Hitler and Genghis Khan, using ... who the heck knows what, to
>> undermine faith by inventing DNA.
>
> *Almost* a conspiracy theory, except the Hitler part; Hitler was a Christian in
> good standing until (just before?) he blew his brains out. Except that the
> apologists are in vehement denial about that, so the conspiracy theory (which
> is imaginary to begin with) will probably fly anyway.
>
Well, yes and no. Hitler was a member of a small organization of wackos
that included an actual "satanist", in the tradition idiot terms used to
define those people, and several of what might be thought of as a mix of
mystics, alchemists and new ager types, who all **literally** thought
that some crazy novel (Originally titled "The Coming Race") that they
read was real, and that magic worked, and even spent a fair amount of
time in post WWI snatching up Orphans to human sacrifice and engaging in
sex magics. See, the "novel" was early sci-fi, and well.. when you are
the first person writing sci-fi, some idiot isn't going to get that its
made up. In the story some guy find a tunnel into the center of the
earth, discovers a race of people down their with a power called Vril,
then discovers, by the end of the book, that "children" are the most
potent possessors of it of all, and could literally destroy the entire
planet, if taught how to use it, and they chose to do so. So, logically,
killing children, to collect their "Vril force" would, presumably, make
Hitler and the rest of the nuts more powerful. Its also how they got the
whole "master race" BS, since they imagined themselves "descended" from
the Vril masters. (Just type vril into Google and have fun reading the
idiocy...)
That he was also a Christian at the time, or more specifically Catholic,
only goes to prove that being buried in nonsense from sheep herders
doesn't "prevent" you from falling for even bigger nonsense. lol
>> Believe me, even though the stuff above was pulled out of my ass in like
>> 20 seconds, there is "probably" some nutcase making the exact same
>> argument on a creationist site as I write this.
>
> Not a creationist site, but some New Age left wingers considered DNA a myth.
> Seems (1) they didn't like genetic determinism; (2) therefore DNA doesn't
> exist. (Just Establishment propaganda intended to squelch people's aspirations
> by telling them "You are this, you are that...") Unfortunately, I can't find
> the magazine article. Creationists, New Agers, hard to tell 'em apart except
> that the former have more political power, and tend to be more fatalistic on
> behalf of us poor slobs who'll be Left Behind.
>
What, you think there are no New Age Creationists? ;) lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> 1) Natural effects tend to leave evidence that is more tangible than lens
>>> flares, overexposed camera straps, and imprints on the reporter's central
>>> nervous system.
>> Some do, some don't. :-) Look at the long history of things we didn't
>> know about until we got the right measuring instruments. Do you think
>> the placebo effect is supernatural too? :-)
>
> Effects that are supernatural remain so until proven otherwise. Or I think
> that's how it goes.
>
Nah, for a real believer, they remain supernatural even "after" proven
otherwise, and its just all a conspiracy to fake the evidence proving
they are not. Sigh, you really need to get with the program here. You
will never make a real "believer" if you think like this. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Maybe should watch them seriously some time then. For the most part,
> these kinds of shows tend to take things way too seriously, due to the
> people on them being complete twits. If I am wrong about this one, then,
> guess that proves, once again, that Sci-Fi is marginally more rational a
> station than "Discovery", which had both the moron that claimed to talk
> to the dead, the pet psychic women, and and endless series of
> docu-delusions about people haunted, possessed, etc. by ghosts, demons,
> or what ever.
Hmm, maybe. Of course, being that they are on Sci-Fi, it is after all
just entertainment. Who was that guy, always seemed to wear
uncomfortable shirts.. Richards, something or other... can't remember.
His show had a talk-show format .. I think I watched it once, and
immediately dismissed him as a huckster. He does the very typical
"psychic" dance, asks lots of questions, and makes something up on the
spot that might be plausible. The one I watched he actually was waaaay
off. And yet, he was wildly popular. And pet psychic? give me a break!
As for Discover, TLC and their ilk, while I do watch a lot of what they
have on, (Some of it is entertaining ... sometimes interesting) but over
the years, they've sort of devolved into TLC being the Interior Design
channel, Discovery being the psuedo-science channel, Animal Planet being
Heroic Vets and animals with big teeth, and the Science channel being
the Xenobilogy and far-off physics speculation channel, with a dose of
blowing things up, and the occasional manufacturing process.
IOW, they're not so much about the sciences anymore, but rather about
entertaining the masses.
>
> Though, I admit, watching cryptozoologists run around looking for "scary
> creatures" and only finding undefined foot prints and the same lame
> "heat images" is damn funny, again, until you realize there are people
> out there "expecting" them to actually find bigfoot at some point. lol
>
Mm, lots of that stuff on Sci-Fi.. Discovery networks carry it, too,
sometimes.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
