Our primary British idiot, the singer Sting, claims to have seen a ghost in his own bedroom. A ghost that manifested clearly enough to describe. A ghost seen by himself and by his wife.
Then he says:
"Intellectually, no I don't believe in them (ghosts), but I've experienced them on an emotional level.''
Right. So he sees a ghost with his own eyes, is certain he's seen a ghost, and doesn't believe 'intellectually'. His visual experience is only 'emotional'.
Just what will it take for these people? Even when they experience a ghost for themselves they won't believe it.
One day they'll die. Then they're going to get a very big surprise.
8 comments:
I must say I can sympathize with Sting. I've seen a ghost or two and find denial works wonders for me as well.
Here's a real life bit of gruesomeness. If ghosts were real, don't you think the victims would be haunting this gang viciously?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576159,00.html?test=latestnews
I've always thought Sting was highly overrated anyway.
And I'm sorry, Anon, because I'll bet you're a nice person, but I was wary of Fox news even before this. Now I doubt I will ever believe anything "reported" there again.
A well-informed person reads news from all sources. It's the only way to get as close to the full story as possible. So if you aren't reading Fox along with the Liberal outlets, you're not able to discern what stories you aren't hearing about. Each group covers only what they want you to know. Start reading a broader selection of sources with a sceptical eye for all and you might be astonished at all the news supressed by each side - Conservative and Liberal.
I read as many different sources as I can so that I'm able to discern what I think, rather than what one particular view prefers me to think. I'm an independent.
What makes you think I don't? I'm not going to read Globe or the National Enquirer, though, and as far as I can tell, Fox News is competing with them in the yellow journalism market. Please yourself. It's not my cup of tea.
No news service is unbiased. I think the Reuters service is possibly the least biased and the most even-handed. It makes for dull reading but it's fairly free of embellishments and devious twists.
All the UK papers are sensationalist to some degree. The Daily Mail could make a shock-horror-probe story about blancmange. You need a big pinch of salt with that one sometimes.
It's what sells, though. If newspapers read like scientific reports, hardly anyone would read them.
Reuters aren't in the same game. They provide stories for the papers, they provide the facts, the papers add their own spin. Sometimes they go too far. The truth is in there, but it can be well hidden.
Saw an article the other day that Sting is releasing a Christmas album described as having a "spooky, ghostly" quality to it. Might be just your thing.
I deleted my previous comment due to bad grammar. Gah.
ver: scons
With tea, please.
I used to like his band, the Police, when I was younger. Never took to him solo though.
Post a Comment