Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Employing a dishonest modus operandi is not something that any forum contributor should expect to be able to do with impunity.

You have no proof I was dishonest about anything. As usual you are just attacking the poster instead of the evidence because you have no argument to make. Classic ad hominem fallacy. Classic trollish derailing of the topic under discussion with personal insults.
 
You have no proof I was dishonest about anything. As usual you are just attacking the poster instead of the evidence because you have no argument to make. Classic ad hominem fallacy. Classic trollish derailing of the topic under discussion with personal insults.

I have the opinion of a moderator that you were dishonest on another thread, here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-many-scientists-are-so-ignorant.155617/page-15

and the opinion of an ex-moderator to the same effect in one of the two earlier examples I posted. The third is indeed my own judgement. But that's three people's opinion already. If we were to do a poll, it would be a lot more. So stop whining - and stop being dishonest.
 
I have the opinion of a moderator that you were dishonest on another thread, here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-many-scientists-are-so-ignorant.155617/page-15

and the opinion of an ex-moderator to the same effect in one of the two earlier examples I posted. The third is indeed my own judgement. But that's three people's opinion already. If we were to do a poll, it would be a lot more. So stop whining - and stop being dishonest.

You have the biased opinions and unsupported accusations of people frustrated by my well-evidenced belief in the paranormal. A belief I will not easily back down from since it is entirely evidenced-based. And that prompts personal attacks on me. That's all you have. You have no evidence I have lied or been dishonest about anything. That in itself is dishonest.

"An ad hominem argument is one that is used to counter another argument; but, it is based on feelings or prejudice, rather than facts, reason or logic. It is often a personal attack on one's character rather than an attempt to address the issue at hand."===https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=ad hominem examples&oq=ad&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i59j0l3.5506j0j8
 
Last edited:
I myself had my own personal experience of afterdeath contact when my mother died. I was sitting in her senior ctr room by her bed and had just told her to move on, which she did in a matter of moments. Then I called my sister to tell her the news. When I hung up the nurse brought me her cell phone and the hospice nurse talked to me and comforted me. The second she hung up the cell phone rang. It only rang once. Not knowing what to do, I walked out to the hall and gave it to the cleaning lady. She looked at the phone and the caller ID said my mother's name "Lisa"!

Now this could certainly be dismissed as coincidence, but my mom and I had previously made a special agreement that she would give me a sign when she crosses over. I even joked with her to not make it too scary. I am convinced to this day she did exactly that.

I wish I had come across this earlier. It was buried below a large embedded video.

It explains your emotional attachment to paranormal phenom. You're not looking for objective analysis, you're looking for validation of your own experience.

Lively discussions are one thing, but it is not my desire to erode or dismantle your experience of the last moment you had with your mother.

I withdraw.
 
It explains your emotional attachment to paranormal phenom. You're not looking for objective analysis, you're looking for validation of your own experience.

That event was a validation. And a personal gift from my mother. Death is not what we think it is..
 
So... if ghosts are real, then alien spaceships, bigfoot, and everything else is real too?
 
You never bother to critique any "evidence" you're presented with if it affirms what you want to believe.
 
You never bother to critique any "evidence" you're presented with if it affirms what you want to believe.

What evidence have I been presented with that proves any of these beings don't exist? Specifically, what has been your contribution in this endeavor? You know..When you aren't spuing drive-by one liner insults.
 
"Oh, this celebrity ghost hunter says there's a ghost here. Well that proves there's a ghost!"

"Oh, this person is a doctor and she claims this dubious DNA sample is actually from a bigfoot. Well that proves bigfoot exists!"

And so on...
 
"Oh, this celebrity ghost hunter says there's a ghost here. Well that proves there's a ghost!"

"Oh, this person is a doctor and she claims this dubious DNA sample is actually from a bigfoot. Well that proves bigfoot exists!"

And so on...

So I shouldn't believe someone because they're on TV? I shouldn't believe a DNA sample examined and confirmed by 6 independent labs? That's a pretty shitty excuse for dismissing evidence.
 
So I shouldn't believe someone because they're on TV? I shouldn't believe a DNA sample examined and confirmed by 6 independent labs? That's a pretty shitty excuse for dismissing evidence.
It's pretty shitty evidence.

You're still refusing to acknowledge (or should I say you're wilfully ignoring) the fact that it was all proven to be BS.
 
It's pretty shitty evidence.

You're still refusing to acknowledge (or should I say you're wilfully ignoring) the fact that it was all proven to be BS.

When and what was proven to be BS?

On second thought, why don't you start a different thread on it? Posting off topic will be moderated here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top