|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do you believe in ghosts? |
| Yes |
|
43% |
[ 24 ] |
| No |
|
41% |
[ 23 ] |
| Undecided |
|
14% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 55 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Just a tip for some people on this thread: You can't use reason to argue someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get into. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
captain kirk
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| captain kirk wrote: |
| Why don't you and JMO prove something to me? |
What do I have to prove to you? The person making the claim about some unknown entity needs to prove their case.
| Quote: |
| Because though you want your hard proof and think anyone who gives credence to the supernatural is soft in the head you're too uncertain about what you disbelieve to call up a daemon. |
| Quote: |
| If there are no daemons what are you afraid of? Demons, that's what. And ghosts, and the rest of it. And you can take that essential gutlessness and put it in your pipe along with your condescending 'intellectual rigour', you poseurs. |
What do demons have to do with things? Are you saying I can call upon a demon and get my hard evidence?
You outlined some kind of process. I should pray for 30 days or something, every night, for an hour, to Satan. If I do this, I will get my evidence. And what if nothing happens? You would simply say "well, you didn't do it right". Or "you didn't believe strongly enough". Or "satan works in mysterious ways."
If I followed your method and a demon appeared to me, I would take that as pretty solid evidence of your claim. Now what would convince you to abandon your position?
|
My 'position', huh. My point, in this 'challenge' is that basically you and JMO are like wallflowers/spindoctors. This discussion is about 'what ifs' but only in theory. You can't deign to surrender your critical ability and try something that's not fully 'checked out'. At the same time you harrass, attempt to bully, mock, taunt, piss off, laugh at people who have sympathy/understanding for much of human history. People did believe in shamans, witchdoctors, seers, oracles, devils, daemons, ghosts, and so on. Do you think humanity for much of its history has been stupid?
If you want to do something you have to believe in yourself. I can DO it. You also have to believe in what you're doing. Your self-confidence and confidence in the activiy need to be up. That's why your attitude, and the attitude of JMO, seems sullen and petulant. 'The person who supports the outlandish claim needs to provide proof', you say. How are they going to do that? Every person is an individual, made up of bone, blood, and brains. A person can decide to priorize the importance perceiving/contacting ghosts. The mind and senses would be alerted by one's command and follow orders. The 'sensitive array' of one's 'mental/spiritual sensitivity' would reach out to be tickled. You seem to challenge me to 'make' you able to perceive ghosts. You're a stick in the mud, wallflower, pain in the butt on this issue. You want me to serve you up 'hard evidence'. Since every man is an island, born and dies alone, ultimately, it's up to the individual to determine for themselves the types of experiences they're after.
My challenge to skeptics to worship Satan nightly (before bed preferably) would have the aim of summoning a supernatural presence, like a ghost. I meant it as a joke. Ironic because skeptics are totally averse to meeting the unexplained halfway. You, and JMO, from the sounds of it, would NOT, as an 'experiment', set up a regime where you attempt to communicate with/perceive ghosts. You just wouldn't do it. Like you wouldn't attempt to communicate with/perceive Satan. It's funny. You guys are stuck in the mud, basically. But you know it all. That pisses me off. I don't take you seriously, and pity you. And you feel the same way about me. Knowing that, I invited you to 'go to hell'. Which, being so eminently rational, you wouldn't do. Hey, neither would I  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whats wrong with asking for evidence Kirk? Why should I suspend my disbelief? Thats what I do when I go to the movies/read fantasy or Sci Fi.
| Quote: |
| I believe, from having given it a go for a month one vacation, that remote viewing is a skill. That was my experience based on the results |
No its not and you can't. There I said it, prove me wrong. Grotto was right. If people can remote view why couldn't they read his paper. I don't see the problem.
People have tightrope walked accross the Niagara falls many times. I don't think that is the best example. If someone can remote view with the same success I'll have no problem believing in that. I can set up a challenge if you like and we can test your skills. I can be in the same room as you with the paper or object in my pocket and you can tell me what it is. How about it?
| Quote: |
Meanwhile there are things that are currently unexplained, seem to defy rationality, that occur/exist. It looks like magic/superstition but in fact it's beyond our ken at the moment. The theory hasn't settled into place to 'put it on the map yet'.
|
If the theory doesn't exist and there is no evidence for it existing it is much easier to assume it doesn't exist. Where is your evidence of these things existing? What exactly are you talking about?
| Quote: |
| have not experienced any ghostly pheneomona, period, that I know of. If you think I'm a big proponent of ghosts. BUT if I approached 'ghost-hunting' seriously and started doing things to set my awareness up to be 'ghost-focused' I wouldn't be surprised if ghosts appeared. Like calibrating a astronomical radio antenna to be receptive on a certain wavelength, towards a certain point of the sky. The purpose of my human awarness would be to 'detect/contact ghosts' |
this is hilarious. Once you have conditioned yourself to see ghosts I'm sure they will be everywhere. I suggest mushrooms. What wavelength do ghosts exist on exactly? It would seem they would be very easy to detect if they were a wave like light, or sound. The purpose of your human awareness seems to delude yourself as much as possible.
| Quote: |
| IMO it takes a very finely attuned 'susceptibility' |
 I know what you mean.
| Quote: |
| Children have it, because they haven't set into place 'filters' yet. |
Did you read this off a movie poster? I'm sure I saw this on a poster for a new horror movie. Where does this idea come from? Do children really see more ghosts than adults?
| Quote: |
| By filters I mean blinders that help one to focus on this and not that. Being prone to detecting ghosts/phenomena of another dimension isn't for everyone. |
Yea specifically for people with an ounce of sense. What dimension? There are 4 we know about. Are you proposing another one?
| Quote: |
| Unless the seer was in a clearly defined helping position; shaman, medium. |
Magicians can replicate what mediums do with the same success. They use cold reading, same as the mediums. They are for the most part scam artists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The 'sensitive array' of one's 'mental/spiritual sensitivity' would reach out to be tickled. |
This is fantastic. My mental/spiritual sensitivity is just waiting to be tickled. I wish now I had become an alter boy. There is no way someone being serious could write this. Captain Kirk is brilliantly satirizing the true believer. I salute you sir. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| captain kirk wrote: |
| You can't deign to surrender your critical ability and try something that's not fully 'checked out'. At the same time you harrass, attempt to bully, mock, taunt, piss off, laugh at people who have sympathy/understanding for much of human history. |
Wow, humans make a claim and others debate those claims. Welcome to the real world. Have I mocked you on this thread? Disagreeing with you and showing you your arguments are full of logical fallacies isn't mocking. It's called debating. You seem rather PO'd we dare even question claims of ghosts and demons.
| Quote: |
| People did believe in shamans, witchdoctors, seers, oracles, devils, daemons, ghosts, and so on. Do you think humanity for much of its history has been stupid? |
False dichotomy. Humans have always been smart. They built the pyramids, after all. (Although some of your ilk would claim otherwise... we weren't in fact smart enough to build them but needed space aliens.) However, it's taken a long time to develop the scientific method which helps eliminate human bias when observing the world. What seems like cause and effect is not always cause and effect. It's very easy to develop beliefs based on a poor understanding of cause and effect. Doesn't mean one is stupid. As you can see from that list of medical biases I posted, very smart doctors make wrong decisions based on them.
So, it's not a question of being smart or stupid. Your line of reasoning here, therefore, is based on a simple fallacy. Next.
| Quote: |
| 'The person who supports the outlandish claim needs to provide proof', you say. How are they going to do that? |
You made the claim. You tell me. I don't believe in ghosts any more than I believe in Santa. I don't dismiss the possibility 100%. Just give me compelling evidence. I'll believe. It's that simple. Nothing more, nothing less.
| Quote: |
| Ironic because skeptics are totally averse to meeting the unexplained halfway. |
Depends on who you are referring to. I really don't have time to pray to Satan every night for an hour for a month or whatever. And if I did and got no results, you'd not abandon your position. You would have a pat reason why it didn't work for me. If I did this and got no result, would you eat crow? If a demon appeared to me, I would happily eat crow. But I got to know you're going to put something on the barrel head too.
If you had a simpler test (like stand in front of a mirror and chant blood mary three times), let me know. However, there are many skeptical organizations willing to investigate such claims and help you run your tests. Randi, for example, has tested many people and offers his million dollar prize.
And let me again repeat my previous group of questions:
Regarding the video. Do you believe that's a real video of a ghost? Do you believe what is seen in that video is impossible to fake given current, commonly available video editing software? How are we to distinguish between a real ghost video and a faked one? You do agree that some people might have the motivation to post fake videos of ghosts as real for the sake of fame or malice? Should we just take all claims as true? If no, how do we determine false claims? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| captain kirk wrote: |
My point is this is what skeptics do. Grotto, on a thread about the paranormal, posted a challenge (this was a couple of years ago, Grotto has since left the board, went back to Canada I think), "I have a piece of paper on which is some writing placed in my house. I challenge anyone to, using remote reviewing, tell me what is written on this paper". His point was that, unless anyone could do that, remote viewing wasn't possible. |
Any paranormal test would have to test the claims made by the individual, if I say I can remote view but only at night whilst doing a hand stand naked then this is how the test would have to be carried out.
| captain kirk wrote: |
So he decided to think. That's like saying, "I challenge people to tightrope walk across Niagara Falls. Unless anyone can do that, tightrope walking is not possible". I believe, from having given it a go for a month one vacation, that remote viewing is a skill. That was my experience based on the results. People like JMO, Mindmetoo would go at in ass-backwards, IMO, and want to kick the tires before they get in the car. Is the theory behind this activity sound. It must check out and be possible before I'll even try it. Meanwhile there are things that are currently unexplained, seem to defy rationality, that occur/exist. It looks like magic/superstition but in fact it's beyond our ken at the moment. The theory hasn't settled into place to 'put it on the map yet'. |
Ghost aren't impossible just so highly improbably to believe in them is not rational. Is it worthy of investigation, if you think so sure, do it!
| captain kirk wrote: |
So I made this challenge to sound as hardline, insistent, no holds barred, prickish, 'show me the money or shut up'-ish. Because I find the hardline skeptics that collect here to shoot fish in a barrel extremely annoying. They attempt to say, 'no, this is absolutely not possible, give me evidence' |
Really who said absolutely not possible? Well when the evidence arrives the believers all deserve an apology I suppose.
| captain kirk wrote: |
when they haven't, it seems, approached any of these 'iffy areas' with any amount of 'suspension of disbelief' in order to give them a spin. There has to be a certain amount of co-operation to make things work. Skeptics seem to specialize in sullen petulance, yet like to come across as shining rationalists weeding out the genepool for weaklings, limp heads. It's all rather farking tiresome. |
Sorry you feel this way. Many skeptical organisations carry out such tests meeting people half way working with believers to investigate claims.
| captain kirk wrote: |
I have not experienced any ghostly pheneomona, period, that I know of. If you think I'm a big proponent of ghosts. BUT if I approached 'ghost-hunting' seriously and started doing things to set my awareness up to be 'ghost-focused' I wouldn't be surprised if ghosts appeared. Like calibrating a astronomical radio antenna to be receptive on a certain wavelength, towards a certain point of the sky. |
Is this true for faeries,spirit animals, familiars, Vishnu, telepathic aliens too?
| captain kirk wrote: |
The purpose of my human awarness would be to 'detect/contact ghosts'. Most people, and especially the vocal skeptics like JMO and Mindmetoo, aren't prepared (alligned to use the radio antenna analogy) to see/perceive ghosts. IMO it takes a very finely attuned 'susceptibility'. Children have it, because they haven't set into place 'filters' yet. By filters I mean blinders that help one to focus on this and not that. Being prone to detecting ghosts/phenomena of another dimension isn't for everyone. It makes you look 'crazy' because you would be aware of something other people aren't. You would take it seriously, what others can't perceive. Others would end up fearing, then loathing you for this oddness. Unless the seer was in a clearly defined helping position; shaman, medium. |
Well your opinion doesn't count for much as there is no pesky evidence to support it. Children see and believe all kinds of crap that isn't there. Do any child psychologists support your view? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Just a tip for some people on this thread: You can't use reason to argue someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get into. |
You are wiser than any of us.
Of course we sill ignore what you said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nobbyken
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Location: Yongin ^^
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If Jesus believed in ghosts, then so do I.
Luke 24:39 (NIV)
Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nobbyken wrote: |
If Jesus believed in ghosts, then so do I.
|
If Jesus jumped off a cliff would you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
captain kirk
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Disagreeing with you and showing you your arguments are full of logical fallacies isn't mocking. It's called debating. You seem rather PO'd we dare even question claims of ghosts and demons.
| Quote: |
| People did believe in shamans, witchdoctors, seers, oracles, devils, daemons, ghosts, and so on. Do you think humanity for much of its history has been stupid? |
False dichotomy. Humans have always been smart. They built the pyramids, after all. (Although some of your ilk would claim otherwise... we weren't in fact smart enough to build them but needed space aliens.) However, it's taken a long time to develop the scientific method which helps eliminate human bias when observing the world.
So, it's not a question of being smart or stupid. Your line of reasoning here, therefore, is based on a simple fallacy. Next.
| Quote: |
| 'The person who supports the outlandish claim needs to provide proof', you say. How are they going to do that? |
You made the claim. You tell me. I don't believe in ghosts any more than I believe in Santa. Just give me compelling evidence.
| Quote: |
| Ironic because skeptics are totally averse to meeting the unexplained halfway. |
Depends on who you are referring to. I really don't have time to pray to Satan every night for an hour for a month or whatever. And if I did and got no results, you'd not abandon your position. You would have a pat reason why it didn't work for me. I got to know you're going to put something on the barrel head too.
If you had a simpler test let me know.
And let me again repeat my previous group of questions:
Regarding the video. Do you believe that's a real video of a ghost? Do you believe what is seen in that video is impossible to fake given current, commonly available video editing software? How are we to distinguish between a real ghost video and a faked one? You do agree that some people might have the motivation to post fake videos of ghosts as real for the sake of fame or malice? Should we just take all claims as true? If no, how do we determine false claims? |
I see these days as too politically correct and regulated. I'm not into debate, particularly since it's up to me to, apparently, prove my 'assertions' that there are ghosts. I'm just telling you what I think. This is my opinion. My experience. Some of the best experiences of my life have been meditating, delving into the esoteric. By the way I resent the comment that persons 'of my ilk' believe the pyramids were built by aliens. It's pretty damn rude, in fact.
The scientific method is all jolly well and good. It helps verify, get to the truth. If you're happy plodding along with the known and confirmed then be happy. I've always sided with the 'there is more to heaven and earth than is in your philosophy' attitude.
I think what you need to do, if you are serious about wanting to know about ghosts (you seem serious enough to want me to go out of my way to devise a test so that I can prove my 'claim' that there are ghosts) is get off your ass, get off the fence you're sitting on, and do something with your life that leads you in the direction of the 'unexplained'. As it is I don't think you're really serious, since you believe in ghosts as much as you do in Santa, and are more into, right now, debating. For you this is a debate. For me it's a discussion. So it's a game for you, debunking the flake. I'm the flake, you're the hotshot realist, living in reality, with the scientific method, logic, and reason to guide you. This same reason will NOT allow you to go outside of a certain perimeter.
Do you think you will lose your reason if you betray it? If you temporarily go against reason will you never come back? Boring. You don't have time for the 'esoteric'. So why even talk about it? Because it's a debate. And in a debate there are winners and losers. It would thrill you to win this 'debate'. Meanwhile you don't give a rat's ass about ghosts, or anything off the map. When someone proves it to you you will. Meeting 'your ilk' actually inspires me to get into meditation, remote viewing again. Debating with you about this is an untenable position. There are no facts. But the fact that you'd bother to squabble, read 'debate', for the dry exercise of winning and asserting your, I dunno, reasoning/debating skills is your corner entirely. If you want 'facts' you have to become a flake. No way around it. Catch 22.
About the video about all I said regarding videos on www.youtube.com was that there are orbs ripping around. JMO said there's a site that shows one how to make orbs on film. JMO wondered why ghosts would ride around in orbs. I said film doesn't lie, orbs show up. JMO said really? I said if the orbs are moving too quickly to see then the orbs can be seen once the tape is freeze-framed/slowed, if the tape isn't faked.
Regarding your questions regarding tapes of ghosts, those are all good questions. You seem to think I'm a half-wit by asking these questions. What's with the malice. You're like somebody moving in for the kill. You're going to win your 'debate' and show how damn stupid anyone is to believe in the esoteric. I don't know why I'm being posed these questions since this doesn't seem a discussion. It's more like a debate that's become a kind of 'end-game' for you. The position of defending the esoteric is untenable. We both know that. Does that mean the topic can't be discussed without it becoming science/common sense boy versus flake boy? It's damn tiresome. Basically I think the ghost videos on www.youtube.com are a lot of crap. As everybody knows just by looking at them. Were you expecting me to say they were groovy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| captain kirk wrote: |
| I'm not into debate, particularly since it's up to me to, apparently, prove my 'assertions' that there are ghosts. |
Yes. If you would like to convince us.
| Quote: |
| By the way I resent the comment that persons 'of my ilk' believe the pyramids were built by aliens. It's pretty damn rude, in fact. |
Take it any way your care. But people who believe in one pseudo science tend to subscribe to a very broad range. UFOs, ancient astronauts, psychics, big foot, etc.
| Quote: |
| The scientific method is all jolly well and good. It helps verify, get to the truth. If you're happy plodding along with the known and confirmed then be happy. I've always sided with the 'there is more to heaven and earth than is in your philosophy' attitude. |
Science certainly understands there's a lot more out there to discover. It's probably infinite and we'll never have complete understanding. But science tries. So yes, science also sides with the notion that there is more to heaven and earth than what we currently understand. To claim otherwise is a strawman.
| Quote: |
| I think what you need to do, if you are serious about wanting to know about ghosts (you seem serious enough to want me to go out of my way to devise a test so that I can prove my 'claim' that there are ghosts) is get off your ass, get off the fence you're sitting on, and do something with your life that leads you in the direction of the 'unexplained'. |
Well, I do devote some cycles of my day to such topics, albeit not from a credulous point of view. I've never seen or read anything that's offered concrete evidence in the way evolution has or the evidence for big bang or black holes.
| Quote: |
| So it's a game for you, debunking the flake. I'm the flake, you're the hotshot realist, living in reality, with the scientific method, logic, and reason to guide you. |
If that's the way you want to cast our roles.
| Quote: |
| It would thrill you to win this 'debate'. |
No. I'm quite convinced people such as you have no end of unsinkable rubber duckies. I've clearly laid out at which point I'm happy to eat crow. Though I've asked you twice, you can't seem to articulate what evidence is required for you to abandon your position. Hence, this is an unsinkable rubber ducky.[1]
Sorry, I debate not to win but simply because I enjoy finding logical fallacies in arguments such as yours and I enjoy reading up on whatever is required to of the debate.
| Quote: |
| If you want 'facts' you have to become a flake. No way around it. Catch 22. |
I don't have to become an oncologist to get a good summary of the etiology of various forms of cancer. Experts tend to be very good at summarizing their research, facts, and evidence.
| Quote: |
| About the video about all I said regarding videos on www.youtube.com was that there are orbs ripping around. |
Orbs are clearly just reflections in the camera lens. Orbs are very easy to reproduce under controlled conditions. They're not ghosts.
| Quote: |
| You seem to think I'm a half-wit by asking these questions. What's with the malice. |
You seem to be making wild accusations and claims. I'm trying to ask you some basic questions to get your position.
| Quote: |
| Basically I think the ghost videos on www.youtube.com are a lot of crap. As everybody knows just by looking at them. Were you expecting me to say they were groovy |
So then you share our skepticism regarding the video in question. What process did you use to arrive at that skepticism? And what metric do we use to determine a genuine ghost video vs one faked for fame or malice (or I should add a third category, some kind of misidentification, like lens flare for ghosts)?
_________________________
[1] Is this akin to me waiting around for someone to prove a negative for him? Depends. If we're talking pure logic, then yes. However, in science you usually safely conclude something doesn't exist if you look rather hard for it for a sufficient amount of time and don't find it. We've looked very hard for the Loch Ness monster. No such beasty. The safe money bet is there is no Loch Ness monster. Even in math, there's a thing called the Miller-Rabin test that proves a number prime even if you've not checked all of its possible factors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If you want 'facts' you have to become a flake. No way around it. Catch 22 |
So to find out the truth we have to abandon reason, logic and the scientific method. This seems to entirely contradict your previous statement.
| Quote: |
| The scientific method is all jolly well and good. It helps verify, get to the truth |
Which is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
captain kirk
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
JMO, Mindmetoo, if you want to find out about ghosts research on how to go about it. You can start with an oujia board, if you like. Or develop your senstivity through meditation. Look into it if you're really, really interested. You both don't believe in ghosts. You've made that clear. This debating over the subject is interesting to only a few people who like to watch debates. Personally I'd be more interested in stories people have about ghosts they think they met. I find this debating over ghosts dry and uninteresting. I don't mean to offend you both but, on the subject of ghosts and the unexplained, you're dry commentators. No stories to tell, no experiences to relate. Some of the best times of my life have been in meditation, and remote viewing. Talking about the topic of the esoteric in this debating way is, I find, pointless and disheartening (and not because I 'lose the debate'). For those who love debating, however, it's a sure win.
There is no evidence to support the esoteric. And you guys aren't interested, anyway. All you want is a clean kill, to debunk, to be able to say, 'I win the debate'. Great, you win the debate. There is no such thing as the esoteric. It's just not possible. Anyone who gives credence to what can't be rationally proved is a fool, deluded, likely prone to other delusions, is missing something in their diet, slept through physics class, has no friends, becomes irritable when there's a full moon. All the evidence is, apparently, pointing in this direction. I foolishly made my wild assertions, an untenable position, and have been debunked. Thank you and good night Keep up the squeaky clean mental hygiene. This 'debate' has been a trial with the labcoats, latex gloves and I hope you two don't want to dissect my brain to check for aberrations. Anyway, I'll leave you to your sterile thread/turf as there are no ghosts. Next! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Great, you win the debate |
Woohoo, i'm getting t-shirts made. Can I get a picture of you looking forlorn? That would really round it off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
captain kirk
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, it's a sad day for Captain Kirk all right. Sniff. Here's another bit of feel-good for you and Mindmetoo, "you're both anal nerds" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
