Responding to comments

I'm not usually very concerned with comments, but there have been several good ones left here that have provoked a response.

Re: Critical thinking revisited
pamela wrote:
"OK smartypants, you say. Here is a piece of broccoli. What do you say to that?"
i can understand the reasoning but what if it wasn't REALLY broccoli .. seriously !! if you didn't believe it existed, you wouldn't recognize it if it were stapled to your forehead so how do they prove its broccoli instead of say a horseshoe or a banana or a ghost even?

Are you saying that scientists refuse to recognise legitimate evidence of ghost sightings just because they don't believe in ghosts? Oddly enough, I think the opposite is true. I think the paranormal gets far more attention from the science community than it merits, because the scientists want to believe. These people aren't robots. They're human beings, just like you and me. They heard the same stories growing up. They have the same emotions and imagination. They just also have extremely analytical minds that will not permit them to believe in things they cannot demonstrate to be real. The science community would love to be able to prove the existence of the paranormal. Then they would be allowed to believe in it.

Re: Two-for-one offer
aiibrat wrote:
You have some interesting reads...so I'll take you up on your offer.

You go, girl!

Re: Two things
Sandi wrote:
I can understand what you are saying, but a phone call or prank is not as hurtful as having someone try to get you to open up about a horrific event in your life under the pretext of helping....when in fact, she was lying. That's what everyone got upset about.  I really don't care if someone wants to pretend to be the Queen of England that's fine, just don't hurt people.

One of the difficulties of this situation is the fact that many of these people desperately need this community. The internet is jam packed full of lonely people. People who are, in some way dissatisfied with their own life, and so escape into an artificial community online. That's not necessarily a bad thing, except that these people are emotionally fragile to start with, and may be unable to take my advice to keep an emotional distance from the people with whom they correspond. Of course, anyone pretending to be someone they are not for the purpose of defrauding someone out of money or gifts, is breaking the law, and needs to be dealt with accordingly. But, the person who creates a fictional persona and storyline only to attract attention to themselves is just being needy, and is really pretty similar to the people who get emotionally entwined with them. I mean, really, doesn't that describe us all, to some degree.

There's a complete journal entry in there somewhere.

Re: Pit Bulls
Sandi wrote:
Don't get me wrong I love animals. But there's just an image I get of a pit bull named Killer, governed by an owner named Bubba...not enough chainlink fence in the world for me to place between me & mine when it comes to this type of breed.

Do you think that if Bubba was not allowed to own a Pit Bull, whatever dog he did choose to own would be any safer to be around? The very point I'm trying to make is the problem is not with Killer. The problem is with Bubba. If Killer was prohibited by law from being a Pit Bull, he would be a Rottweiler, or a Doberman. In fact, twenty years ago, he would have been a Rottweiler. Thirty years ago he would have been a Doberman, and twenty years from now, he'll be some other breed of dog. But he'll be just as dangerous, because he'll still be owned by Bubba.

Re: The law of internet invocation
Karen wrote (and was echoed by several others):
I'll be interested toknow whether you hear from any of these people.

So far the experiment's a bust. I haven't heard from a single one of them. Not even my Dad. (flora, you don't count)

Re: Thoughts of the future
Jay wrote:
Great writing. You should have set up a blog ages ago!

Thanks, Jay. The cheque is in the mail.