Matthew Le God

Why any more so than any of those claiming to have seen ghosts? Why have you decided to label only one side of the debate as moronic?

So it only "looked like a shadow". Why was your first conclusion, "it is most likely a ghost" rather than anything else? Is that really the most likely cause of a shadow?

Nope, definitely you. You can then apply that logic to anything, um... like a celestial teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Provide some peer reviewed academic evidence accepted by the scientific community of anything to do with ghosts? (You are clearly on a wind up)

You are just being silly now. That does not meet the criteria of what I asked for. More silliness... Again, you must on a wind up if you think fictional Hollywood films can be used as evidence. Watch the Bertrand Russell Celestial teapot video.

The ghost can not be a witness to seeing itself. Can you show me a peer reviewed and accepted academic paper which has evidence of paranormal activity? So because they told you it was a documentary based on real events, you take a Hollywood movie of it to be "evidence". The 9/11 conspiracy movie "Loose Change" is also labelled as a documentary, however every claim they make in it can be debunked. Watch the Youtube celestial teapot video I posted in #164 (which you made no comment about). The burden of proof is on you, not me. So far you have failed on that count.

I'm perfectly happy with that statement, especially when you don't take it out of context like you just have. Imagine you are 11 years old, a good friend tells you that they still believe in Father Christmas just before their first Christmas in at secondary school. Do you not think it is for their own good to tell them it is nonsense? Of course do it gently, but for their own good and future it is better that they know it to be nonsense.

Are you the only witness to this? Not saying you are lying, you seem to genuinely believe it happened to you. That doesn't mean or prove that it did however. Evidence - perhaps. But certainly not proof. It is also untestable and unrecorded. Are you seriously suggesting a Hollywood film is evidence of ghosts? How do you know it is a true story? Just because they tell you it is? Does that mean the Oliver Stone 1990 film "JFK" is evidence of a second gunman? Please tell me you are on a wind-up?

Tell me more about this ghost experience where you were told ghosts only exist until there place of origin is destroyed. What counts as destroyed? What about a Norman Castle that is no longer used but partially ruined, is that destroyed? Can ghosts haunt them? What about the Pyramids? Stonehenge? etc etc Were you the only witness to this encounter? That is not proof. The burden of proof lies with the claimant not the sceptic, put eloquently by Bertrand Russell in 1952 about the existence of God, however it can be applied to ghosts, unicorns, monsters, dragons, fairies, leprechauns etc etc as-well... [video=youtube;_AXBvmd-xcw]

Who is "distressed" and which posts have shown them to be as such? Which replies have been "a little short of a disgrace"? You probably won't like this... but sometimes it is good for people to be told what they believe in is nonsense, or at the very least ask them questions that should prompt them to consider their beliefs a little more deeply than they currently do. Especially when it comes to things that have very little or nothing in the way of reviewable evidence.

That doesn't answer either of the questions or respond to the first statement.

Dave Beasant Barry Venison Jason Dodd Alan Neilson Francis Benali Ken Monkou Simon Charlton Jim Magilton Neil Heaney Matt Le Tissier Neil Shipperley

They didn't pick the most flattering of photos.

Last game at the Dell in May 2001, 3-2 win against Arsenal.

If you hadn't realised already, calling me a "boring c***" won't change my posts. If anything it says more about you, in that you feel the need to use petty insults against a person you don't like on the internet. If you dislike my posts that much, put me on your ignore list and you won't need to read them.

1976 and 2003 FA Cup Finals.

Because otherwise it opens the way for every creature within the last 3.7 billion years to have a ghost. How do you know that? What in this thread?

So what about the numerous human ancestors and related groups? Neanderthals for examples had speech, art, intelligence etc. Or Homo Erectus, or Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Floresiensis etc etc etc many living at the same time as modern man. Do they have ghosts? Where do you draw the line? On what evidence do you base it "could happen"? My point was that people leap to the conclusion "its a ghost" and overlook more plausible reasons for an experience they have.

It is a mixture of a lot of factors, including training and match performance amongst other things.

Things like the Catholic church's policy on abortion isn't exactly helpful to mankind and also very hypocritical given that between 30 - 50% (some believe even more than that) of all fertilised eggs are killed naturally in the womb without human interference. God (if he were to exist) is the biggest abortionist of them all!

This is a debate on a public forum that Dog started about ghosts, unless people are questioned about their belief in the supernatural they won't look any deeper. Until humanity overcomes prehistoric and bronze age beliefs in this kind of thing (along with religion) mankind's growth is stunted. Are you saying people shouldn't question others when they make supernatural claims? Should we all just take every myth and supernatural event someone tells us as true, or should we not delve deeper and see if there is any substance to it? tbh I don't care if you think I'm boring, but to not question claims such as these is taking us back hundreds, if not thousands of years in human development.

We have to follow guidelines in order to have a settled database. Otherwise you would get researchers with tinted glasses overrating all of their players and it would be a mess. We are allowed a degree of flexibility and the guidelines are just that - guidelines and not set in stone. In any case, in FM11 as a League One player Lallana has a CA of 120. That puts him above many Championship players in the same position. In fact a CA of 120 in FM11 (version 11.3) would rank Lallana the joint 4th best attacking left sided player in the Championship in 2010/11. Have a look for yourself on the FM11 editor and do a filtered search like I just did.

Dog (and anyone else that believes in ghosts), Can you please answer questions 1 and 3 in post #134?

Very little reason to believe the original poster didn't have an invite. He started this thread before the dinner and before the club spokesman confirmed on Twitter that it took place. So he had prior knowledge before it was made public.

Read the whole thread on the Ugly inside, not just the opening few posts.