| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 776.1 | The Ultimate And Absolute Remedy! | CACIQE::ESPOSITO | | Sat Jun 25 1988 05:00 | 32 |
| Re: .0
I have no doubt you will receive torrents of replies, all from
concerned well meaning Noters. The advise you'll get will range
from smearing garlic butter on the door lintels, to importing Tibetan
Lama's to exorcise your abode!
I would ask you if these manifestations are a source of trouble,
fear and uneasiness for you and your family? If so then undersatnd
that you can be rid of them (it) by calling on the name of the Lord
Jesus!
I am not referring to an elaborate ritualistic incense burning ceremony
to rid the house of the demon but by prayer. If you are affiliated
to a church that acknowledges the existence of such demon and spirit
entities you can solicit help.
I offer you this advice from a Christian standpoint in the knowledge
that such manifestations can only be dealt with and banished by
a greater power the greatest; Christ Jesus and His Blood Shed On
Calvary!
There are those that would toy with such things . . . unthinkable.
The next time such a manifestation occurs and you would like to
be rid of it, in faith (assuming that you recognize the Lord as
the Son of God and believe that He is) Rebuke it, literally with
a loud voice, saying, "I rebuke you by the Blood of Jesus!" Repeat
that in faith believing as many times as you need to and watch what
happens to that thing that has been stirring about.
You asked, I answered; try it and believe!
|
| 776.2 | In need of a friend ? | FNYHUB::PELLATT | Sheet in, lay back, and *fly* ! | Sat Jun 25 1988 09:23 | 38 |
|
Re .0
>> Sorry to take up so much space guys! My fingers are tired :-)
Nice account, thanks.
Re .1
I think you should re-read the base note - nowhere does it imply that
this spirit is a "demon" !
>> from smearing garlic butter on the door lintels, to importing Tibetan
>> Lama's to exorcise your abode!
...to screaming the name of the Prince of Peace to ( literally ) scare
the hell out of this spirit.
This is only my opinion and I don't mean to offend you, but I'm afraid
your "solution" strikes me as devoid of compassion and completely
un-Christian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The author of the base note ( sorry don't know your name ! ) made it
quite clear that this spirit has been "co-habiting" with the family
for almost two generations and, from all appearances, is completely
benign ( even benevolent ? ) in its intentions.
Could it not be that, perhaps through some great sadness or
loneliness, this spirit finds itself "emotionally" tied to the house ?
Maybe approaching it as a friend, with a view to understanding the
reasons for it's presence, would be productive ? Perhaps then, through
new-found friends, the spirit could release itself from the house.
Peace, Dave.
|
| 776.3 | Lazy animals | USACSB::OPERATOR_CB | | Sat Jun 25 1988 09:34 | 26 |
|
Re: .0
Welcome aboard the good ship DEJAVU!
My guess as to why the animals didn't respond is that..
a)Possibly they were always responding or responding
continuously so that no change in behavior could be
noted?
b) If you had a cat it most likely did not respond due
to the fact that the cat knew the spirit would not feed
it.
RE .1
Garlic butter on the door lintels does not work!!! I
have tried it!! The trick is to place lots of Garlic
butter on the DOOR HANDLE to keep the spirit from getting
a grip! This fustrates the spirit and he then leaves.
But better a Tibetan Lama than a South American llama!
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Craig
|
| 776.4 | I'll do it My Way, thank you | BSS::BLAZEK | Dancing with My Self | Sat Jun 25 1988 14:53 | 78 |
| re: .0
Doesn't sound as though this is a source of fear for you (don't
know about the rest of your family) but rather one of increasing
curiosity as to why this ghost (or ghosts 8-) ) isn't giving you
more information about itself to you. If s/he has been living in
the house for many decades (I agree with Dave that it feels an
emotional attachment to the house, probably why it checks things
out when your Dad remodels) perhaps it sees your family as temp-
orary inhabitants or is still in the process of learning who you
are. Did you say anyone has ever seen it?
re: .2 (Dave)
You said it far better than I could have, my friend.
re: .1 (Richard)
Repeatedly it has been mentioned that a preaching attitude is not
a good approach in DEJAVU. Apparently that has no bearing on your
mode of communication as you are serving to enhance my, and maybe
others', anti-Christianity (i.e., "spreading the WORD") feelings.
>> -< The Ultimate And Absolute Remedy! >-
That is YOUR Ultimate And Absolute Remedy, not *THE*. Besides,
KROBINSON was not asking for a remedy, KROBINSON was asking for
explanations.
>> If you are affiliated to a church that acknowledges the existence
>> of such demon and spirit entities you can solicit help.
Meaning if you are not affiliated with a church you have no ties
to Christ, correct? Or are you referring to the fact that priests
and ministers have a better and more functional "IN" with higher
powers? Again, the author of .0 was not requesting papal help.
>> There are those that would toy with such things . . . unthinkable.
Toy with what things? Ghosts? Christianity? Bloodshed on a
cavalry?
>> a loud voice, saying, "I rebuke you by the Blood of Jesus!"
And you've rebuked me with such a disgusting phrase. Guess that
makes me a demonic ghost or something, eh? You're taking a thus
far non-harmful situation (.0) and turning it into something along
the lines of The Exorcist. Why are you using scare tactics? .0
did not say their family felt threatened by this presence. Why do
you automatically assume it's negative?
>> Repeat that in faith believing as many times as you need to and
>> watch what happens to that thing that has been stirring about.
That "thing that has been stirring about" is an entity, it is a
soul, it is something created by God since ultimately everything
is created by God/Goddess/A Higher Power.
Your Christian preaching is not welcome by me and I would thank
you to refrain from doing so in such a sanctimonious manner in
this conference again. Not to tangent off here, but in another
note we discussed broaching Christianity in DEJAVU--the majority
of DEJAVU'ers who responded to that note were against such a
discussion. We've tried it before, it doesn't work. You've been
asked to temper your zealous pro-Christian spoutings before, that
doesn't work either. Richard, it'd be different if you calmly
offered your opinion. But your replies, to me, sound as though
you're standing on a pulpit screaming of fire and brimstone.
Maybe you weren't around when this discussion occurred, but many
of us went through a painful process to find our *own* truth, our
*own* spirituality, one that involved breaking with church-like
This Is The Way It Is So BELIEVE attitudes. And if you can't
understand this, I'm sorry.
Carla
|
| 776.5 | | NEXUS::GORTMAKER | the Gort | Sat Jun 25 1988 20:36 | 15 |
| re.1
I feel as though you are forcing your opinion on me by the fact
that everytime a new person joins the file you're the first to reply
with the hard sell hell fire and damnation preaching that turned
me off to church over 10 years ago. I always thought that christianity
was something that one had to accept for their own self I.E sitting
thru the sermon dosent a christian make. We all have to make our
own choices in life and being force fed wont change anyones mind
only make them GAG!
I now return this note to constructive ideas and/or suggestions
the author of .0 requested.
-j
|
| 776.6 | GAWK!!! | SALEM::AMARTIN | MY AHH DEEDAHS! | Sun Jun 26 1988 03:17 | 10 |
| Thank YOU Carla!!!
Re: .1
I (we) respect your 'beliefs', respect ours. We need not a sermon,
just understanding. Please refrain from further Brimstone fallouts,
huh?
And DON'T try that "you dont understand" crap. I was brought up
by Nuns and Preachers, I UNDERSTAND all too well.
Thank you, and good day.
|
| 776.8 | Cool off; the message I wrote was to the Noter | BORIKN::ESPOSITO | | Sun Jun 26 1988 05:07 | 27 |
| Re.: .4
If .7 got/gets written you may refer to it, if you care to. There
was a transmission problem at my end so I can't be sure at this
time if it was written.
I defend you're right to believe, think and express what you feel.
Whether you acknowledge that right for me to excerise the aforementioned
is of no concern, since it is obvious that your personal prejudice(s)
show you have little or no tolerance level for informed opinions
that relate to anything that might be Bible based (Christian) or
the like. Be that as it may, I offered my opinion, I am entitled
to it, I believe and have served my country which defends
the rights of it's citizens to express the same.
You have read much into "my response to the Noter" that is not there
. . . trust me when I say that; I wrote it. Your reaction reveals
much about who *you* are than it does about me.
You seem to have a lot of pent-up anger and frustration that seems
to move you to "judge" individuals whom you don't even know.
Relax, clam down and be open to what ever opinions are about, the
whole world will be better for it.
|
| 776.9 | The World According To "GAWK!!!" | BORIKN::ESPOSITO | | Sun Jun 26 1988 07:44 | 34 |
| Re: .6
I refer you to .8
Reactions such as what have been registered here seem to be bordering
on hysteria and hate!
So the world according to "Gawk" leaves no room for ideas, informed
opinions, or other possibilites save your own?
You should be advised that replies written in an intelligent fashion,
which express different veiwpoints, popular or otherwise have every
right to be expressed and analyzed.
Your personal prejudices regarding your exposure, abuse or the like
from religious entities does not entitle you to tell anyone to "refrain"
from expressing themselves in a free and open forum; especially when the
allegations you make are based on personal prejudice.
Tell me *only* what I want to hear, when I ask you a question! Don't
tell me what you think! The Noter did not make such statements. So what
right does anyone have to censor or caustically critisize the sincere
responses of anyone else . . . none!
My response is my own, well worded and self explanatory.
* * *
Shades of Selma Alabama in the 60's . . .
"Sure you can go to school, University even . . . but not the one
in my neighboorhood!"
|
| 776.10 | Bonfire allert!!! | SALEM::AMARTIN | MY AHH DEEDAHS! | Sun Jun 26 1988 08:13 | 10 |
| Fine. No wrongs and no rights. Let us both expel ourselves from
this tangent and allow the basenote's author to get his/her answers.
Agreed?
Hysteria? No. Hate?? Hmmm, Let me get back to you on that one.
Again, our views on religion are not the topic, help and information
is. Well? what do yu say? Can we (you and i, and possibly others)
refrain ourselves from ratholein gthis topic? I can.
GAWK!!! hast spoken
|
| 776.11 | Bonfire Alert Indeed!!! | BORIKN::ESPOSITO | | Sun Jun 26 1988 14:32 | 22 |
| Re: .10
One can only offer one's experience, informed opinion or advice
if the same is accepted or rejected depends upon the those who review
and consider it.
For the record "personal views on religion are not the topic" so why
vent them unless it's a form of "therapy" one should do it in the
proper place (Conference) at the indicated time.
"Hate" is a powerful emotion, it clouds the reasoning facilities and
tends to foster a host of other ills all of which are destructive...
first and foremost to the one who harbors the it.
The errie scene of hundreds of books being burnt in a huge bon fire
in Nazi Germany comes to mind. That act marked the beginning of
the greatest outrage against humanity the world has ever known.
Something to reflect on when we tend to lash out out those that expound
different beliefs and attack the same for expressing them.
"Free thought and the right to express it, is a sacred right" stifle
that and you have a Bonfire alert that really needs to be sounded!
|
| 776.12 | Anyone for attempting communication? | REGENT::WAGNER | | Sun Jun 26 1988 20:45 | 22 |
| to .11 BORIKN::ESPOSITO
You do have a strong point and to paraphrase Thoreau: I don't believe
in a damn thing you re saying but I'll defend to my death your right
to say it. It is interesting to note that the previous entrys to
your .11 were expressly doing what so many of the "new agers" accuse
christians with doing: Attempting to prevent those not sharing
their own idealogy from sharing that idealogy with others. So much
for spirituality!
BACK TO BASE NOTE .0
It would be interesting to sit down with a Ouija board and see
if communications could be initiated with such entity, and maybe
discover why the entity is tied to the physical plane. Then perhaps
a means could be determined to free it from its attachment to the
earthly plane which it doesn't doesn't seem to want or be able to do
on it's own.
Ernie
|
| 776.13 | Info and comments | USAT05::KASPER | Life is like a beanstalk, isn't it... | Mon Jun 27 1988 03:44 | 30 |
| re: .0, .12
I don't now much about ouija boards, but just read note 8. Maybe you should
too before you try that approach. It has some good info and some informed
"be careful's" in it.
I think your situation is an interesting one and feel that there must be a
purpose in it somewhere for both your family and the 'other tennants'.
I think love would be a good start and if communication between the planes
is appropriate, it will happen without any imposed methods.
A comment to .1 (BORKIN::ESPOSITO). I have opted not to get into other
wordy battles in other notes due to the Christianity controversy. You,
and everyone here is entitled to their beliefs, but several well intentioned
notes have gone astray (down the ole nasty rathole) due to discusstions about
whose truth is the real truth. Please, try to keep focused on the note and
make sure you understand the request/question. Your first note (.1) appeared
to be an opportunity to jump in and preach it seems, as you totally missed
the noters request (was not asking for exorcisim, just wanted to share some
warm experiences they've had with what I would call old friends from the
tone of the note.)
My concern is not your beliefs (or anyone elses - it's easy to hit the
"next note" key on the keypad), but rather the continuance of DEJAVU.
It's a place we've alL come to love and to share in, yourself included.
Let's keep this note on track.
Terry
|
| 776.14 | >-< >-< | MARKER::KALLIS | Don't confuse `want' and `need.' | Mon Jun 27 1988 11:34 | 21 |
| Re .0:
Whatever it is, it does sound benign, or at least nonmalevolent.
Precisely its nature is not clear; but whatever it is, it seems
restless.
Re .1 (Richard):
Leaving this in a Christian perspective for a moment, rather than
"rebuking" it, since it may be nonmalicious, why not say, "Find
peace from your troubles through the love of Jesus. This I say
in His name."?
Re .many:
As noted elsewhere, it's hard to draw the line about when one oversteps
the bounds of etiquette in these things. My overall advice is,
when irritated, count to ten ... even if it means counting to 100
... before answering.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 776.15 | | FSLENG::JOLLIMORE | For the greatest good... | Mon Jun 27 1988 12:09 | 23 |
| .0 (KROBINSON)
What area of Fitchburg? (I grew up and still live in Fitchburg.)
What was the history of that area at the time the house was built?
What did early settlers do there? Farm?
Was the area occupied by Native Americans prior to, or around the time
the house was built?
Have your seen the book _The City and the River_? Is there any mention of
your house there? Or of the Garfields?
I'm wondering if the 'spirit' was part of the Garfield family or was
maybe there before and 'moved in' with them? Do you know anything of the
Garfield family? Any interesting family history, deaths etc?
When your parents went to Boston for info on the house...was it that
no info was given out, or no info was available?
I like (friendly) haunted houses.
.1 (Richard)
I thought your reply was inappropriate, fwiw.
Jay
|
| 776.16 | | ATREUS::KROBINSON | Word of the day...USE | Mon Jun 27 1988 13:06 | 51 |
| Sorry to cause so much discussion over this note :-)
Re: .15
My house is on the corner of East Street and Pearl Street. Yes,
my house is mentioned in the City and the River, only it is listed
as the Second oldest house in Fitchburg, the first oldest house
was on Highland ave or something like that, but has burnt down.
So that makes my house the oldest.
As far as the Garfields go, like I told you, from what we know,
this man was somewhat important to the city because at the historical
society there is a room dedicated in this mans name. Not too much
info on him though (figure that one out :-), and there is also a
street named in Fitchburg after him, near the college. As far as
history goes, well, I'm not too sure, I assume that farming was
involved because we were told that our cellar (well part of it),
was used as a barn, and one day my brother and his friends found
a skelleton of a horses' head.
Anyways, like I had said in my base note, this is a 'friendly' ghost.
I mean its never hurt us in any way, and I don't think it ever will.
I'm not sure, but I thought that I had heard a while back, on a
TV show, that if you bring anything into your house like one of
those ghost busters type people (sorry guys, I'm not to up on the
proper names for these things :-), or priest, or anything like that
to try to get the spirit to talk, then you could end up by hitting
a bad nerve, and making a very angry spirit. Is this correct?
As far as actually 'seeing' this thing, well, I THINK that I had
seen something when I was about 15 years old. It was a Saturday
night, my Mom and Dad had just gone to bed, I was the last one to
go up stairs, and had but one more light to shut off, so it was
dark, but I could still see, well, I had just gotten my dog (who
was a puppy) and he like to sleep in the stairs, so I walked over
to the stairs to pick him up and carry him up, and I could have
sworn that I saw someone sitting in the stais, I couldn't really
make out the face, but I was standing right in front of it, and
all I can remember is that my first reaction was that it was my
father, so I looked at it and said "God, don't ever scare me like
that again", but then as soon as I said it, something inside of
me told me that it wasn't my father... and then what ever it was
stood up and disappeared. My feelings were mixed, I mean I KNEW
that I saw something, yet, part of me was affraid, and part of me
wasn't. I dont' know if that was a sign that it was trying to make
contact, but realized that we WERE still affraid, I dont' know,
but I've never came across it again. Alot of times, its just that
feeling of knowing someone is watching, or that someone is in the
room with you.
|
| 776.17 | animal reactions | BPOV07::GROSSE | Harold be thy name | Mon Jun 27 1988 13:20 | 9 |
| re.0
from what I have read on the subject of animals and presences is
that they will only react if the presence is hostile. And also,
as someone in a previous note mentioned that they will ignore
someone who is not feeding them, this comes into it too as they
neither feel threatened nor in need of the presence in your home,
so will ignore it.
Fran
|
| 776.18 | whatever it is ... | MARKER::KALLIS | Don't confuse `want' and `need.' | Mon Jun 27 1988 13:24 | 21 |
| Re .16:
>Anyways, like I had said in my base note, this is a 'friendly' ghost.
>I mean its never hurt us in any way, and I don't think it ever will.
>I'm not sure, but I thought that I had heard a while back, on a
>TV show, that if you bring anything into your house like one of
>those ghost busters type people (sorry guys, I'm not to up on the
>proper names for these things :-), or priest, or anything like that
>to try to get the spirit to talk, then you could end up by hitting
>a bad nerve, and making a very angry spirit. Is this correct?
You can't be sure it's a ghost. However, a priest or "ghost busters
type people" (they're called exorcists, usually) are generally brought
on to _expel_ a discarnate entity, not "make it talk." Now, naturally,
any spirit creature that's being forcibly expelled might be angry.
Some mediums or "channelers" supposedly can be used to communicate
with a spirit entity (though whether the sririt tells the truth
or not is another story). _Communication_ alone isn't supposed
to make such critters angry.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 776.19 | TROUBLED SPIRIT | MTBLUE::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Mon Jun 27 1988 15:39 | 22 |
|
Hi,
Its been a while since i've felt the urge to respond here,but,this
subject has stirred my interest.Using a Ouija board,in my opinion,based
on my experience,would not allow communication,since,i believe,the
spirit is on a different plane than the level of Ouija board
communication.I also believe this spirit is what is called "Earth
bound".They exist on a plane between ours and the spirit world,for
whatever reason.I believe they are troubled and for some reason
will not accept leaving this plane.Steve,I agee with your suggestion
in a religous context,that in the spirit of Love,to ask for help
from Jesus,for this lost soul,that they will find comfort in Him.
Have you ever tried to communicate with the spirit by gathering
together with those who believe,and,talking to it?I would gather
together and hold hands,in a circle.It could appear for a short
time if you make contact,using your combined energy field.I believe
the people involved would have to be those that the spirit knew,that
is,those who have lived in the house for some time.
Peace
Michael
|
| 776.20 | Two of us. | VENTUR::GRIFFIN | | Mon Jun 27 1988 16:10 | 59 |
| .0
Well you're not alone. My parents bought a home in East Arlington years
ago which is also the oldest in that area and was part of a large farm
estate. We also were the first "outsiders" to live there and experienced
a number of occurances, some of which do differ from yours, notably the
appearances of the spirit and the effect on a pet.
After many months of shaking beds, missing objects, swinging lights, and
opening doors, my mother decided she had had enough and brought in an old
friend who was sensitive to such things (she doesn't claim to be psychic
or a medium. She has a "gift" and prefers to keep it very low key). She
announced to us that there were in fact three different spirits; one an
elderly woman who was pleased we were there, a young girl who was sad and
had died violently, and an angry (she did not use the word evil) middle
aged man who did not like us there. In researching the house we can
identify the woman and girl, but are still not sure of the man.
My sister and some friends decided to try some contact by using the ouija
board. They did contact a male spirit who claimed to be the presence in
the house. The dialogue was rather disjointed and rambling according to
her but the words "angry", "hate", and "kill" clearly came out of the
session. Rattled, to say the least, she has never attempted contact
again.
My father has seen the spirit of the girl on two occasions. I must set up
the room in which he saw her because I'd like some imput on some
conjecture and questions we now have. The master bedroom is huge, as that
is how they built them way back the. On either side of the room are
closets. It was a freak accident we discovered that if you go into the
left side closet, scale the wall, and cross the ceiling beam you will
come to a fully enclosed room on the other side of the right side closet.
There is a ladder built into the wall which you can climb down into it.
We also found a small table, chair, dish, knife and fork in it.
Originally we thought the probability high of it being a secret room in
use for the underground railway. However, both times my father has seen
the spirit it has disappeared into that room. Our conjecture is the
possibility it was used as a punishment room for the little girl. I would
like any comments or other ideas from the community.
Finally, ya I know wordy :-), the second floor sitting room is situated
in such a way that you have a clear view up the stairs to the third
floor. On numerous occasions, everyone sitting in that room gets a strong
feeling of being watched and find themselves ALL looking up the stairs at
the same time. What is even more unnerving is that our cat is doing it
too. It's the only time I've ever seen an animal stop fast, cringe, glare
up the stairs, start to move and do a double take.
My only suggestion is if you're really interested try and find out who in
fact the spirits are. We have had no harm, just shaken up on occasion.
.15 (Jay)
Anytime you want to put on the jeans and ice down the Molson, let me know
and you can have the grand tour.
Thanks for your time.
Ted
|
| 776.21 | | FSLENG::JOLLIMORE | For the greatest good... | Mon Jun 27 1988 16:51 | 8 |
| .20 (Ted)
That sounds tempting. Let's see, we've got champagne au natural in the
woods, and iced Molson in Ted's (friendly) hanuted house in Arlington.
I'll let you know when the Molson is properly iced ;')
Jay
|
| 776.22 | I think you're feigning innocense. | GENRAL::DANIEL | We are the otters of the Universe | Mon Jun 27 1988 18:06 | 83 |
| from .1
> I have no doubt you will receive torrents of replies, all from
> concerned well meaning Noters. The advise you'll get will range
> from smearing garlic butter on the door lintels, to importing Tibetan
> Lama's to exorcise your abode!
from .8
> You seem to have a lot of pent-up anger and frustration that seems
> to move you to "judge" individuals whom you don't even know.
in .1, you encourage .0 to listen to you above the others, seem to be placing
yourself above other "well-meaning Noters"; you put yourself in position of
Judge; you continue to make statements in .1 that imply that you are in a
position of authority, in which other noters are not. And then you say that
you're entitled to your opinion, when the "opinions" you write, are stated not
only as fact, but as being superior to other "opinions". And then you, the
Judge of how valid are other opinions, accuse others of judging You. Whether
or not this was your intent, it is what your reply strongly implies.
> You have read much into "my response to the Noter" that is not there
> . . . trust me when I say that; I wrote it. Your reaction reveals
> much about who *you* are than it does about me.
Why should I trust you? I don't even know you.
Your reaction in .1 reveals that you prejudge what will be the replies of
others. Your words are inciteful, and I personally believe that you intend for
them to be that way; that you intend to preach and try to negate the notes
written by others, and that when you claim that you have no such intentions,
you are being extremely pretentious.
> I am not referring to an elaborate ritualistic incense burning ceremony
> to rid the house of the demon but by prayer.
> I offer you this advice from a Christian standpoint in the knowledge
> that such manifestations can only be dealt with and banished by
> a greater power the greatest; Christ Jesus and His Blood Shed On
> Calvary!
..."from a Christian standpoint" sounds innocent enough, but "in the knowledge
that such manifestations can *only* be dealt with and banished by etc etc" you
imply that there is only one knowledge and truth, which negates the others.
> You have read much into "my response to the Noter" that is not there
> . . . trust me when I say that; I wrote it. Your reaction reveals
> much about who *you* are than it does about me.
No, you've implied it, and whether or not you want to realize that, it is the
truth. You've placed a lot there to be read into. Your reactions and words
reveal a lot about you, and you are guilty of the many things of which you
accuse other Noters. You project very well; projection is unconscious, so I'm
not surprised that you don't see it in yourself, but see it so very well in
others (whether it's there, or not).
> There are those that would toy with such things . . . unthinkable.
The judge speaks.
> I defend you're right to believe, think and express what you feel.
And then to state The Truth, which negates what others believe and feel. But
it is the Truth according to Richard, not the Truth as it holds true for all.
> Whether you acknowledge that right for me to excerise the aforementioned
> is of no concern, since it is obvious that your personal prejudice(s)
> show you have little or no tolerance level for informed opinions
> that relate to anything that might be Bible based (Christian) or
> the like.
Read that sentence back to yourself and replace the "yours" and "you's" with
"my" and "I", and the "Bible based (Christian) or the like." with "other than
what I believe is Christianity" and you will see how you come off to others,
which is how I suppose they actually come off to you. Projection.
> Be that as it may, I offered my opinion, I am entitled
> to it, I believe and have served my country which defends
> the rights of it's citizens to express the same.
You have offered that your "opinion" is THE Truth by broad-basing your
statements, as illustrated. I think that you enjoy enciting responses that
are irritated. I know of some religious zealots who enjoy that too, because
they think that by getting angry responses, they can prove the other person
wrong. And I sincerely believe that it is your intent to do the same.
|
| 776.23 | | MARKER::KALLIS | Don't confuse `want' and `need.' | Mon Jun 27 1988 18:44 | 27 |
| Set Mode=Moderator
Re .22 (Meredith):
Re .1, .8, et al. (Richard):
Re .others_in_reaction:
This discussion is tilting alarmingly close to something highly
confrontational; let's _all_ cool down a bit.
I believe that calm and reasoned discussion is always desirable,
however, as I noted a few replies ago, it's sometimes difficult
to determine the limits of polite discourse.
Let's try to establish some ground rules. When we sign into this
Conference, it's suggested we read a moderator note (1.2) that among
other things defines what's appropriate within the area of ettiquite.
One point is that for many Conference members share different belief
systems, and any discussion where belief systems are in conflict,
one should "agree to disagree."
Before continuing in this discussion, I'm officially requesting
all participants review the contents of 1.2 in their entirety.
I won't discuss the points of the responses in here.
Steve Kallis, Jr
|
| 776.24 | Busting or talking. | PBSVAX::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Mon Jun 27 1988 19:13 | 56 |
| RE: .16 (KROBINSON)
> <Priests or "ghostbusters" likely to anger ghosts>
It all depends on the ghost and on the "buster".
"Ghostbusters" come in a number of flavors. We have priests or
other Christian religious people who are intent on exorcism; since
they interpret ghosts as necessarily evil forces. (Although you
can find individuals who violate this simplistic generalization).
You also have religious people from other backgrounds (e.g., Shinto)
whose intent may or may not be similar.
Then there are psychics and sensitives who might or might not have
either a traditional religious viewpoint or a spiritualist or
spiritist orientation. It is a little hard to generalize here.
Some may feel that it is best to always get rid of the spirits,
some may go on a case by case basis, and some may leave it up
entirely to the (corporeal) people involved.
There are also headline hunters like Ed Warren, who is discussed
at length elsewhere. He would do everything in his power to blow
it up into spectacular headlines.
Finally, there are scientific types -- parapsychologists or psychical
researchers -- who are most likely to have a fairly neutral viewpoint.
They're basic purpose is to learn more about what is going on.
That of course, may or may not be a disadvantage from your viewpoint.
Many (I would say all the good ones) consider the needs of the
people involved take precedence over their own research goals and
act accordingly -- they may, for example, bring in psychics or
religious people as they see appropriate.
So much for the various kinds of "busters".
Ghosts (whatever they are) also show a wide range of personal quirks.
However, most of them seem to have rather childlike personalities.
This makes them unpredictable -- anything you do *might* produce
a "temper tantrum" or a sulk, or may be thoroughly appreciated.
But there are liklihoods involved: if you go in and try to forceably
eject the personalities (and fail) you are much more likely to get
a negative reaction (as Steve said). If you act interested in them,
they might act like they feel you are prying or forcing yourselves
on them, but they are unlikely to react *too* negatively, and your
interest -- even if rejected out of "shyness" -- is quite likely
to be appreciated. Similarly if you set out to "help" them.
(NOTE TO THE SKEPTICAL: It doesn't really matter what the nature
of these ghosts are, whether they are independent personalities,
paranormally externalized internal personalities of the people
involved, or non-paranormally Rorschach-like projections of
subconscious personalities, or whatever. They have the apearance
and characteristics of a "real" personality, and can meaningfully
and apparently usefully be treated as such.)
Topher
|
| 776.25 | But you asked him not to... | SUPER::REGNELL | Smile!--Payback is a MOTHER! | Mon Jun 27 1988 19:43 | 26 |
|
My story about the Haunted House, and the lovely lady
ghost we currently live with is filed under note
23.29.
One additional comment to .0...I expect the reason your
gentleman does not appear to you is that you told him
not to.
"God, don't ever scare me that way again..."
Or something like that when you told of seeing him when
you were 15? Simple is sometimes easiest...you asked
him not to scare you, he scared you when you saw him,
so now he doesn't appear?
You could just tell him you would like to see him again
and see what happens. There is a difference between an
adrenalin surge (like you describe) and really being scared
or "in fear of your safety". I *always* feel adrenalin
surge with our ghost (or whatever you wish to call her)
and with a family "haunt" our family has had for centuries;
but I have *never* felt "fear". They are both delightful
creatures and I would miss them were they gone.
Mel
|
| 776.26 | | VENTUR::GRIFFIN | | Mon Jun 27 1988 19:55 | 5 |
| .21 (Jay)
Does that mean you're buying for a change?????? ;^)
Ted
|
| 776.28 | How I look at it ... | TRCO01::FINNEY | Keep cool, but do not freeze... | Mon Jun 27 1988 22:52 | 47 |
| I'm sure that there are others that have the problem that I have
when thinking and discussing phenomena such as .0's experiences
and that is to reconcile the world as I know it be based upon my
education and experience in the _scientific_ vein, and the world
as I know it to be based upon _religious_ education.
If I happened to be the person who responded first .0's fascinating
account, I would have suggested what .1 suggested, that is - try
invoking the name of the Lord. Get Him involved. From a christian
point of view, this spirit could be one of those in 'limbo' - not
having accepted the Lord, and therefore not accepting their death.
This theory was expounded with different words in 776.? earlier.
( reminds of a story from the old Twilight Zone series with the
three astronauts who died when they crashed on a planet, but the
commander couldn't accept the fact that he was dead, and was so
strong of will that the other two followed suit, and remained stuck
in limbo for eternity ...)
Interceding with the Lord on behalf of this lost soul could have
beneficial effects. We pray for the souls of the living and the
dead, why not for the souls of those in-between. This of course
implies that it wouldn't be necessary to verbally speak these words,
but to pray silently, and you must believe in what you are doing.
Try to think of helping the lost soul to his final peace, rather
than ridding yourself of a nuisance. (whether or not there is any
hostility present)
The above assumes that you are a christian believer of course ...
If you are of some other faith, then praying in a similar way,
according to your faith would be just as suitable. But you must
believe in what you are doing.
From a _scientific_ ( better word for this ? - opposite of religious
? ) point of view, you might try explaining the phenomena with some
physical observations. - lighting & construction of the house. Traffic
nearby ( rail, heavy truck ), emotional states of observers, and
you might find a scenario of physical occurances that provide an
explanation and therefore some comfort.
Personally, I try to explain these things by physical means first
and if that just doesn't wash, I look for a spiritual reason. In
the case of .0 , based on her account, I'm wavering between the
two, leaning towards spiritual.
Scooter
|
| 776.29 | | FSLENG::JOLLIMORE | For the greatest good... | Tue Jun 28 1988 12:02 | 11 |
| .26 (Ted)
Whaddaya mean, for a change!!!!
.27 (Rob)
I'm interested in whatever else Marie can remember from Amy.
.28 (Scooter)
I agree that prayer, for the releasing of the person's soul, might be
appropriate in some cases.
Jay
|
| 776.31 | Love it | DECWET::MITCHELL | The Cosmic Anchovy | Tue Jun 28 1988 20:51 | 11 |
| RE: .0, .20, .27, .30 and others in this conference
I go away for a week or so and come back to the best ghost stories ever!
Apparitions, predictions, gray ladies, secret rooms, the whole schmere.
WOW!!
Maybe I should go away more often...
Bye Y'all,
John M. (on vacation)
|
| 776.32 | Lets Party..... | HOCUS::RCOHEN | There's no rush, just hurry up.... | Tue Jun 28 1988 21:00 | 16 |
| I think we have an ideal situation here:
First, what about having our next Dejavu East Party in Fitchburg?
I think we may have found a suitable house!
Second, we can also bring baseball bats, thumbscrews, and any
other favorite medieval devices and settle these religious
issues once and for all!
Bob
|
| 776.33 | Yeah! - A haunted house DEJAVU party!!!!! | SCOPE::PAINTER | | Wed Jun 29 1988 00:44 | 10 |
|
John M.,
There is a poster in a travel agency window which says:
"Please go away."
Just thought I'd throw that into the discussion here.
Cindy
|
| 776.34 | Research | SHRFAC::BRUNDIGE | Feel the Earth,Touch the Sky | Wed Jun 29 1988 20:18 | 12 |
| Hi,
You stated that when your parents went to Boston that "they"
wouldn't give them any information. One idea I had was to
give the Genealogical notes file a try (CLT::GENEALOGY).
Some of those people have become excellent researchers in
respect to familys and just history(local and otherwise)in
general. They might be able to show you where to look up
Garfields, who has lived in the house, etc.
Sounds like a great house to me!
Russ
|
| 776.35 | keep it coming | SVCRUS::CRANE | I'd rather be on my bicycle | Wed Jun 29 1988 22:41 | 6 |
|
Boy, This stuff is Great. I wish I had a good experience to add.
John C.
|
| 776.36 | The Christian Position Is Clear Re: "Spirits" | BORIKN::ESPOSITO | | Thu Jun 30 1988 03:28 | 22 |
| Re: .14
Addressing your point "within" a Christian perspective specifically,
there is only one origin, source and explanation for such an "apparition"
and or manifestation. It is a theological point of fact from strictly
a *Biblical* that the "spirit" in question is "negative", even though
it appears to be benign and it is from a "good" source or nature
then invoking the Lord by simply praying for Him to identify "it"
will do no harm . . . "Lord *if* this be not of you take it away."
(Christian Litmus test, if you will?)
Granted there are many such Spiritual beings that can inhabit the earth
plane, Angels from God the Bible tells us sent to minister or perform
specific tasks. Then there are other's the Bible clearly mentions
which masquerade as God's even in appearence.
But as for the spirits of the dead inhabiting houses etc. These
are demonic entitities regardless of how harmless they may appear.
This is a Bible based response.
|
| 776.37 | | FSLENG::JOLLIMORE | For the greatest good... | Thu Jun 30 1988 11:57 | 7 |
| .36 (Richard)
> This is a Bible based response.
No kidding?
Jay
|
| 776.38 | There are "spirits" and "spirits" (not to mention the 80 proof) | ERASER::KALLIS | Don't confuse `want' and `need.' | Thu Jun 30 1988 12:40 | 30 |
| Re .36 (Richard):
>Addressing your point "within" a Christian perspective specifically,
>there is only one origin, source and explanation for such an "apparition"
>and or manifestation.
That is unclear. As you noted later in your response, there are
many spiritual beings that do God's will, even unto confounding
His enemies (e.g., I Kings 22:21-23). When, in I Samuel 29:11-20,
the Witch of Endor calls up the spirit of Samuel to speak to Saul,
Samuel's spirit rebukes Saul because Saul has strayed from God.
That the spirit was there by God's will seems clear.
>................... It is a theological point of fact from strictly
>a *Biblical* that the "spirit" in question is "negative" ....
For the reasons stated above, I must gently demur; however ...
> .... invoking the Lord by simply praying for Him to identify "it"
>will do no harm . . . "Lord *if* this be not of you take it away."
>(Christian Litmus test, if you will?)
I don't think this is incompatible with what I suggested in .14.
If the manifestation _is_ other than benign, either prayer would
drive it away.
If, on the other hand, it "passes" the litmus test, it might be
an entity that needs help (which is what my .14 prayer was about).
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 776.39 | love can bond | BPOV07::GROSSE | Harry Krishna,Harry,Harry | Thu Jun 30 1988 12:56 | 8 |
| re.36
I heard several stories of parents who have passed on and have
made their presence known in the home in caring ways particulary
on Holidays. There is *nothing* evil about such a bond of love.
An obssesion that everthing unseen is demonic or some such
nonsense blinds an individual into seeing beauty and God's love.
Fran
|
| 776.40 | Dissent to the Dissenters | BTO::BEST_G | | Thu Jun 30 1988 13:45 | 32 |
|
I wasn't going to reply since everyone seemed to think we should
just drop the subject, but I feel the need to say something. I
think it is terrible what has happened here in this topic. As far
as I can see everyone immediately jumped on .1(Richard) for bringing
up the Christian viewpoint. It's not that I have a particular like
or dislike of that viewpoint. The thing that bothered me was that
Richard now seems beaten into submission by the way he now seems
to feel the need to announce that he is presenting a Christian view-
point. Why should he do this? If you look at some other replys
where folks are "telling the real truths" (the very ones who support
allowing others to have their own belief systems) you will see no
disclaimer stating "this is a new-age viewpoint" or "this is purely
my opinion and it comes from my Jungian view of the world" or what
have you. It seems to me that the reaction to .1 was totally un-
warranted. When I put my name at the bottom of this note it will
stand for "this is what Guy believes". I'm not forcing this on
anyone. If you disagree with someone who seems to be Bible thumping
an effective ploy might be to ignore(effectively, accepting the
other persons viewpoint) and simply offer alternative advice.
Especially in this matter the writer of the base note can take any
of these suggestions and use them as they see fit. As Topher seemed
to be saying a ways back, the solution that fits the people involved
would probably be most effective(depending on the real cause of
the events). (Forgive me if I'm wrong Topher).
Guy
p.s. Whew! I guess I got that off MY chest.
|
| 776.41 | calmly, calmly ... | MARKER::KALLIS | Don't confuse `want' and `need.' | Thu Jun 30 1988 14:00 | 24 |
| Re .40 (Guy):
> ... everyone immediately jumped on .1(Richard) for bringing
>up the Christian viewpoint. It's not that I have a particular like
>or dislike of that viewpoint. The thing that bothered me was that
>Richard now seems beaten into submission by the way he now seems
>to feel the need to announce that he is presenting a Christian view-
>point. Why should he do this?
I would be grieved if Richard were "beaten into submission," which
I don't think he is. Nor did I jump on Richard for bring up the
Christian viewpoint (he and I may have some small points of doctrinal
difference, but we share the same religion).
However, I _suspect_ Richard pointed out the "Christian perspective_
specifically because I made mention of it in .14, to which he was
responding. And, for that matter, that seems to have gone unmentioned,
save inferentially by Richard.
Richard certainly doesn't need me to speak for him, but lest anybody
think I'm jumping all over my Christian brother, let me make it
crystal clear that I'm not. Nor won't.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 776.42 | Not everyone | BTO::BEST_G | | Thu Jun 30 1988 14:04 | 7 |
|
I didn't think that you were doing that, Steve.
Guy
|
| 776.43 | yeah but | BOXTOP::HARQUAIL | | Thu Jun 30 1988 14:07 | 8 |
| re:40
But if you read .1 it's starts out with an implication of
nonsense to all future replies to be written that may contain
a different point of view.
Re:36 Hit next unseen
Terry
|
| 776.44 | Are we mindless? | BTO::BEST_G | | Thu Jun 30 1988 14:11 | 10 |
|
re .43
Yeah but, the originator of this note has a mind of their own.
And so do we.
Guy
|
| 776.45 | The 'why' of it is interesting | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Thu Jun 30 1988 16:50 | 89 |
| re: previous, in general
I agree, Steve. Richard does not need anyone to speak for him.
From what I've seen of his entries, he does a superb job for
himself.[I don't think he's one *I'd* want to challenge only because
I'd feel inadequate to the task...]
So, since Richard's comments can stand on their own merit, let
me just refer to them to bring out an observation I've made over
a period of time. NOTE: This is my personal opinion, based on
observation over a period of time here and in other conferences.
An interjection: Thank you, Guy, for a breath of rationality amidst the
reactionism...;-)
If you guys who got so emotional about Richard's response
go back to read it, you'll see that it's really very
straighforward. He said, basically,
1. The basenoter will get a wide diversity of responses. He did
not question the validity or lack thereof of anything that
might be forthcoming subsequent to his reply.
2. He asked whether these manifestations are unwelcome [since
that is a possibility, although the noter had not mentioned it].
3. If they are unwelcome, he proceeded to give his recommendation
on how to stop them.
While there's been a lot of talk about the need to have specified
that this is his *opinion* only, etc. etc., I've reread .1 and it
seems to ring of the voice of experience. If experience is the
basis for it, then his recommendation deserves consideration
and not out-of-hand rejection due to predisposed biases.
As Guy said, the fact that his name is at the bottom is
proof positive that the entry reflects his perspective,
opinion, feelings, experiences, insights, etc. I agree. There's
no need for a noter to feel that every time he/she says something
it has to be accompanied by an automatic 'personal opinion' tag.
I assume that everything you offer here is personal opinion [based
on reading, learning, understanding, experience, etc.]. I can
either consider it and accept it, or consider it and reject it.
But, an enlightened mind will at least consider it.
I think what happened here...while it looks like the reaction
was *against* Richard, it actually wasn't [if some of you
are honest with yourselves]. He made his contribution quite
inoffensively, I thought.
I feel the reaction was against Christianity, to which some
of you seem to have an automatic, programmed response for whatever
reasons, be it rebellion against parental upbringing, breaking
with the yoke of tradition and authority, searching for personal
freedom, etc.
I view that reaction as an expression of intolerance, which
surprises me in this conference. But more than than, I see it
as a reflection of your own feelings of inadquacy and insecurity.
Which again surprises me, as I thought this conference represented
those courageous souls who were setting out on their own path,
sometimes along uncharted routes, free spirits who were willing
to let all do their own thing, and learn from each other.
It's almost as if I see a 'closing of the ranks' when a
Christian perspective pops up...are you guy-shy? Is that the
reason? Because if that's so, you could be closing yourself off from
another source of truth and so, quite possibly, limiting your
avenues of pursuit of same.
I know this is a digression. My apologies to all, and to
you, Steve. You've handled this situation in a nicely
balanced fashion. Thank you.
Also, my apologies to any who would take offense at what
I've said here. There is no offense intended, just an
effort to examine the reaction closely, and understand
what was *really* being said. From such understanding grow
satisfying interpersonal relationships.
Call it my fascination with the human creature that
causes me to take a close look at underlying motivations
and thought processes...
Love, light and peace to all,
Irena
|
| 776.46 | | BPOV07::GROSSE | Harry Krishna,Harry,Harry | Thu Jun 30 1988 17:14 | 7 |
| re -1
oh, good grief...now we've gone from great ghost stories to
psycho-analysis....
cb
|
| 776.47 | See what I mean? | TRACTR::PULKSTENIS | a clod in the Potter's hands | Thu Jun 30 1988 17:39 | 17 |
| RE: < Note 776.46 by BPOV07::GROSSE "Harry Krishna,Harry,Harry" >
-< >-
>oh, good grief...now we've gone from great ghost stories to
>psycho-analysis....
>cb
psycho-analysis? Hardly. Just the dynamics of human interaction.
It's amazing how many ghosts there are, stirring things up,
in often overlooked places! ;-)
Irena
|
| 776.48 | repeat request: please, all, relax | INK::KALLIS | Don't confuse `want' and `need.' | Thu Jun 30 1988 18:24 | 103 |
| Set mode=moderator:
Friends, this is again getting unconfortably close to being
confrontational, in a way that is inconsistent with the ettiquette
of this conference, as spelled oput in 1.2.
I urgently request that everyone read that in its entirety.
Disable mode=moderator
Now, a point or two:
1) The best intentions can go astray. Irena notes in .45 ...
> I think what happened here...while it looks like the reaction
> was *against* Richard, it actually wasn't [if some of you
> are honest with yourselves]. He made his contribution quite
> inoffensively, I thought.
>
> I feel the reaction was against Christianity, to which some
> of you seem to have an automatic, programmed response for whatever
> reasons, be it rebellion against parental upbringing, breaking
> with the yoke of tradition and authority, searching for personal
> freedom, etc.
Perhaps, but perhaps it was reaction to something different. Richard's
_message_ was indeed what you said; however, in .1 he said the
following:
>I offer you this advice from a Christian standpoint in the knowledge
>that such manifestations can only be dealt with and banished by
>a greater power the greatest; Christ Jesus and His Blood Shed On
>Calvary!
Now, I happen to agree with Richard that the greatest power is God,
manifested through His Son, Jesus.
However, there are two ways you can read Richard's entries: that
something supernatural that is present can only be banished by a
greater power; or that the _only_ power that can banish such entities
is the name of The Savior. Now, the first meaning says that the
_greatest_ of the "greater powers" possible to banish whatever the
presence is can be found through Jesus; however, other lesser powers
(e.g., an angel, or one of the spirits mentioned in I Kings 22:21-23,
for example) could also do it, but that they pale to insignificance
in comparison to Christ. I happen to have taken the second
interpretation of what Richard was saying, but apparently a number
of people took the first.
Richard clearly says:
>I offer you this advice from a Christian standpoint ...
No hidden agenda there; he's just saying where he comes from. However,
in his enthusiasm, he also says:
>I have no doubt you will receive torrents of replies, all from
>concerned well meaning Noters. The advise you'll get will range
>from smearing garlic butter on the door lintels, to importing Tibetan
>Lama's to exorcise your abode!
This could be taken as a slap at others' perspectives, and that's
where I think the reactions started. Richard also said,
>There are those that would toy with such things . . . unthinkable.
Regrettably, this is so ambiguous that it could be taken as an
indictment of the entire conference. I did not take it that way;
I myself have suggested that any area of paranormal research be
undertaken in a serious, nonfrivolous manner, and have stated such
many times in this conference. These are words I stand by: _nobody_
should think any of this is a game, a lark, an amusement ... something
just to "fool around" with.
In .40, Guy notes:
> ... If you disagree with someone who seems to be Bible thumping
>an effective ploy might be to ignore(effectively, accepting the
>other persons viewpoint) and simply offer alternative advice.
>Especially in this matter the writer of the base note can take any
>of these suggestions and use them as they see fit.
... And this is an important part of "valuing differences," which
is a Digital policy. Richard said in his note, here's an approach
you can use, if you want to.
In .46, cb says:
>oh, good grief...now we've gone from great ghost stories to
>psycho-analysis....
about Irena's observations. It's sometimes easy to forget that
notes frequently take lives of their own, and sometimes stray _far_
from the original point. This one has done its share of that.
If it continues in this mode, the religious issue will overshadow
the basic note to the point of becoming a rathole; let's try to
steer it away from that.
Finally, _my_ opinion is that whenever we get irritated we enable
the tolerance function. We can all disagree and "agree to disagree."
Let's not let acrimony get in the way of the camaraderie of DEJAVU.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 776.49 | Thank You | BTO::BEST_G | | Thu Jun 30 1988 18:34 | 9 |
|
Irena,
Thanks for your replys. You said it all much better than I could.
Guy
|
| 776.50 | | WILLEE::FRETTS | doing my Gemini north node... | Thu Jun 30 1988 18:50 | 30 |
|
This whole discussion, if you can call it that, has left me
with very disturbed feelings. I take exception to the way
Richard expressed his views in .1, not necessarily what he said.
The basenoter was not looking to be relieved of an entity that
was troubling the household. And I did feel that .1's first
paragraph was a direct insult to the noters of this conference.
I am not being anti-Christian, and I would take exception to
being told that. If there are those who read this conference
that think we are being anti-christian by our responses to
this note, then I would request that you scan through all the
notes in this conference and catch up on the history of what
has happened here, and you might see why some might be a bit
sensitive to Richard's approach.
As my final statement here, I just want to say that I think
people should be sensitive to the fact that there might be
others who are sharing an experience for the first time in
this conference. Let's not scare them off with overzealousness
or combativeness.
To the Moderator (aka Steve):
I appreciate the touch job you've taken on, and if you so decide
to delete this note, I will understand, but I just couldn't let
this one stew.
Carole
|
| 776.51 | | VITAL::KEEFE | Bill Keefe - 223-1837 - MLO21-4 | Thu Jun 30 1988 23:14 | 8 |
| Set mode = moderator
In case Steve was too subtle, let's keep any further replies limited
to the subject of the base note. Thanks.
- Bill Keefe
|
| 776.52 | | DECWET::MITCHELL | The Cosmic Anchovy | Fri Jul 01 1988 03:08 | 4 |
| See Topic 786 for a rathole continuation.
John M.
|
| 776.53 | A note to KROBINSON | CHGV04::ORZECH | Alvin Orzechowski @ACI | Fri Jul 22 1988 22:39 | 7 |
| So, what's the latest? Did you try and contact a psychic? Did you
get any more information about the house? Did you take seriously the
request to have a Dejavu party at your place?
Am I the only one who wants to know?
Alvin
|
| 776.54 | | ATREUS::KROBINSON | Word of the day...USE | Tue Aug 02 1988 15:45 | 30 |
| Re. .53
Hi Alvin,
Sorry to be so late getting back to you, but I haven't been checking
in on this note in a long time....
Anyways, I guess that I do appreciate all the replies, but alot
of them somewhat scared me... I mean we've been living with this
thing for almost 33 years (well my parents have ;-), and no harm,
has come to any of us, so I think that I would just like to leave
things the way they are for now... know what I mean? I guess that
I just wanted to let people know about my house, so it wouldnt'
seem like it was just my imagination, or our imagination ;-) I mean
with alot of people, when you say you have a ghost in your house,
they thing your CRAZY! Plus I only live there, I don't own it,
there are other people (like my parents) to concider, so that was
another reason why I didn't take anyone up on their offer... but
if I was just my house, then I think I would let everyone come over
just to get your views on it, and nothing more...like I said, I'm
a little nervous when it comes to things like talking to it, or
sprinkleing holly water...... or even garlic :-)
Thanks for listening though!
Kel
|
| 776.55 | Wow! | SCOMAN::RUDMAN | Overeat,v. To dine. | Tue Aug 16 1988 18:27 | 57 |
| Sure, I go on vacation and come back to find not only the swamp
has refilled but the 'gators have been quite prolific, and *then*
I finally get the time to access DEJ and find I've missed the best
note to be entered in months (IMP)!!!
So, after reading the whole thing a one sitting, I've gleaned the
following:
Possibly someone, by being presumably unintentially overzealous, and
ensuing rebuttals of rubuttals has caused the base-noter to reconsider
allowing DEJ visitors. This is most unfortunate. [My reaction,
incidentally, was being negative to the drastic (read ordering--
americans do not like to be told what to do) approach; I realized I
reacted at the subconscious level to the idea of getting
rid of the phenomena by whatever means before I got the chance to
experience it. I've never been exposed to this sort of thing
and I'd like to.
.13, incidentally, was the best viewpoint reply I'd read.
On being wordy: on the contrary; not enough. Stay late and write
more about your houses!!!
People should maybe proof their opinion-based replies to ensure
what they are trying to say matches the words & sentence structure.
A second reading may result in some editing. (Mine usually do.)
[I mention the unmentionable because I do not want anything to happen
which may jeopardize the future of this file, from cancellation
to Noters being reluctant to enter they're experiences and opinions
for fear of attack or ridicule.]
To continue, I'd jump at the chance just to see the secret room. Over
the years I've heard/read many accounts of old homes with secret passageways
and escape tunnels and hidden rooms but haven't had the chance to
actually see one. I find it fascinating to explore an older house.
Anyway, I rushed thru the replies, expecting to find a Field Trip had
already taken place. If, indeed, there will be a DEJ meeting at one
of these houses I need to know so I can put a six-pack of Molson on ice.
I, for one, agree not to bring Tarot, Ouija board, crystal ball,
pointed hat, bottled water in any form (except the beer, and it
won't be blessed), nor any other occult, spiritual, or religous
object. (This, of course, is easy as I do not own anything like
that.) The bible stays home. My camera bag will be in the car,
and can stay there if required. (Come to think of it, a VCR-type
camera--which I do not have--would be great for the secret room.)
Don
P.S. How much affect does a skeptic (even a silent one) have on
these types of sightings? In the past I've read accounts
of seances and the like failing because "someone present is a
non-believer". A great excuse, I think. How say the
believers?
|
| 776.56 | A follow-up | SHARE::ROBINSON | | Tue Oct 17 1989 19:46 | 18 |
| Hi,
I can't beleive that its been well over a year since I had entered that
note. Anyway, there hasn't been much going on in the house since I
entered that note, but I would like to thank everyone for the help, and
also, I would LOVE to have anyone who is interested over to the house
and give you guys a grand tour, I wasn't making up the story in the
beginning... the only problem is that living at home with my parents, I
just don't think its fare to them to invite total strangers to their
home, and on top of that show them around :-), so if and when my
parents ever decide to go away for a week-end, or what ever, I would
love to have you guys over.. I am still CURIOUS!
Thanks,
Kelly
|