Matthew Le God

What you say about monkeys and typewriters is nonsense. No actual experiment as you describe has taken place, it is a concept to show that given enough time monkeys pounding on keyboards would create the complete works of Shakespeare. Or randomness can create something simply with a structure to it. If anything, it is the complete opposite of what you are trying to use it to support.

Why has no-one ever collected the James Randi million dollar challenge? http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

Which ones in that video? At what time?

I think you should also consider how incredibly easy it is for even an amateur filmmaker to fake all of those things. Or just be innocently fooled themselves by natural events and genuinely believe it is a ghost when in fact it is something like the lighting, shadows etc from something easily explainable if they were to delve a little deeper. Watch this for something that looks like too elaborate to fake by an amateur filmmaker, but really is quite simple and has fooled many people... When watching a youtube video of a "ghost", before jumping to the conclusion "its a ghost", you have ask yourself... can this be faked and which is more likely, a camera trick or a ghost?

As S-Clarke and Saint Garett have said, you don't need to be in a crisis to bring in an emergency loan. You could have a fully fit and available squad and still bring players in during the emergency loan window between tomorrow and some point in November. For example last year Richard Chaplow was an "emergency loan". I think Professor is confusing it with when clubs in the past have brought in for example a keeper on loan due to an injury crisis outside of the loan or transfer window (as Man City did with Fulop). In these cases they are given special dispensation due to a lack of goalkeepers.

Yep, the infamous "grey shirt game". Although I suppose that line up may have been used in other games that season.

This is where Phoebe's point falls down. Those that believed the earth to be flat did not do so with any use of scientific method to come to their conclusions. Belief in a flat earth was influenced by myth, legend and religious scriptures that were considered infallible and later shown to be wrong by those using scientific method. Ross's view of evolution does however have its roots in scientific method and has lots of evidence supporting it, it is also open to change unlike that of myth, legend and religion which are considered set in stone and non changeable. You can't compare the two. Ross really should have pointed this out to his friend.

I agree.

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.