It Happened To George: Experiences With UFOs, Haunted Houses & The Spirits

[gerhard1]

What questions did he specifically stonewall on...? I think he explained his weird experiences as well as he could for what they were...what else could he have verified considering the type of experiences he had?
Perhaps 'chased off' is the wrong word(phrase)...but then I don't think he was treated all that well....and in the end he became defensive. And that surprises people?
ps: Again...I'm not trying to pick on anyone specific here.....this type of thing happens often from what I have seen on paranormal forums over the years. And GeorgeK certainly could have handled it better also.

He would delay, delay, delay posting the photographs that he said he had, and then post pictures that were unrecognizable. The 'entity in the headband and the flowing robes' if I recall his description correctly, was one. And when he finally did post a picture, there was nothing I could see. That is stonewalling.

I will grant that he might have had some strange experiences. But when he presents evidence that does not confirm what he says, it makes me suspicious. Better just to say that he had the experiences and be done with it.

And, as you infer, this is quite common where anomalous phenomena are discussed.

Once more, I'm not saying that he did not have the experiences that he claims. But the evidence he offers in support of what he says, is, to be kind, lacking.

 

[Swifty]

I don't like bullies. He's done nothing wrong apart from being eccentric .. and polite ..

 

[gerhard1]

1. He stonewalled by (a) ignoring perfectly reasonable questions, and (b) often by way of opening another thread, distracting by going off on some other tangent of alleged oddities. Within threads, his claiming (with risible illiterate 'evidence' from the psychic rev.) to be carrying Jesus's DNA is a good example

2. IMO he was treated with remarkable restraint and politeness: a magnificent instance of the urbanity and tolerance of this forum. He became defensive very early on

3. Yes indeed he could have handled it better, by being straightforwardly responsive. For example, by hanging around long enough to be asked, and to answer, whether he'd gone in daylight to see if his supposed wanking gnome (did he really say that?) was part of the structure, or whatever

FWIW I think George came here in order to leave in a huff. He set things up so that he could take offence in due course and, having garnered the attention he seems to need and that was mostly the point, could stalk out of the room convinced of and confirmed in his own right[eous]ness—everyone else in the regiment being mysteriously out of step. It was fascinating to watch, tho' not what I'd call entertaining, exactly.

Much truth here.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Joking about George isn't sitting comfortably with me, I think this thread is only being kept open on the chance he'll return. I don't think that's likely now, I know I wouldn't going by the further posts made in his absence .. mods?

I know what you mean, and it's been bugging me, too.

If nothing else ... It doesn't strike me as appropriate to include everyone else's postmortem on his transient tenure within the corpus of what he himself posted and / or discussed.

After all - this merged thread is titled to reflect what happened to George (as an observer / reporter) - not what happened with George (as a member of this forum).

You're right about this and other threads Georgek started being left open in the event there's further discussion of the topics he established.

By the same token, it's only fair to say his presence was a notably feather-ruffling, if not disruptive, event for the forum and its overall membership.

Here's an idea ... How about my splitting off the later 'post-mortem' discussion into a separate thread in Website Issues? In other words, how about my setting up a separate place for chatting about George as opposed to George's reported experiences?

 

[EnolaGaia]

I don't like bullies. ...

Agreed, but ... Not everything arguably construable as bullying behavior was done by people not named George.

... He's done nothing wrong apart from being eccentric ..

I agree, up to a point ...

... and polite ..

I can't say I agree with this bit.

 

[Marrowpod]

It's also to the purpose to say, as others have, that George probably did have strange experiences, or at least thought he did. But I didn't discern anyone significantly challenging them, rather quite genuinely wanting to know more about them. Which is scarcely unreasonable, and hardly 'bullying'.

Incidentally, did anyone besides me think his shot of Larnaka bay from the UFO was significantly worse than the NASA one, despite his claim otherwise? (If it was of Larnaka bay indeed.)

 

[Swifty]

I know what you mean, and it's been bugging me, too.

If nothing else ... It doesn't strike me as appropriate to include everyone else's postmortem on his transient tenure within the corpus of what he himself posted and / or discussed.

After all - this merged thread is titled to reflect what happened to George (as an observer / reporter) - not what happened with George (as a member of this forum).

You're right about this and other threads Georgek started being left open in the event there's further discussion of the topics he established.

By the same token, it's only fair to say his presence was a notably feather-ruffling, if not disruptive, event for the forum and its overall membership.

Here's an idea ... How about my splitting off the later 'post-mortem' discussion into a separate thread in Website Issues? In other words, how about my setting up a separate place for chatting about George as opposed to George's reported experiences?

Thanks for your response Enola, I'm chatting to Frides about the same stuff you've mentioned now and I'm backing off on this one mate X

edit: I missed it when he wasn't being polite sorry

 

[dr wu]

I know what you mean, and it's been bugging me, too.

If nothing else ... It doesn't strike me as appropriate to include everyone else's postmortem on his transient tenure within the corpus of what he himself posted and / or discussed.

After all - this merged thread is titled to reflect what happened to George (as an observer / reporter) - not what happened with George (as a member of this forum).

You're right about this and other threads Georgek started being left open in the event there's further discussion of the topics he established.

By the same token, it's only fair to say his presence was a notably feather-ruffling, if not disruptive, event for the forum and its overall membership.

Here's an idea ... How about my splitting off the later 'post-mortem' discussion into a separate thread in Website Issues? In other words, how about my setting up a separate place for chatting about George as opposed to George's reported experiences?

A different thread to discus his 'situation' might be a good idea though imho it probably will change nothing regarding how some people react to these kind of things.

 

[Marrowpod]

I know what you mean, and it's been bugging me, too.

Here's an idea ... How about my splitting off the later 'post-mortem' discussion into a separate thread in Website Issues? In other words, how about my setting up a separate place for chatting about George as opposed to George's reported experiences?

Bah. That's overly pedantic. "What happened to George" includes what happened to him on this site, and comment on that should be attached to his accounts. IMO.

 

[dr wu]

He would delay, delay, delay posting the photographs that he said he had, and then post pictures that were unrecognizable. The 'entity in the headband and the flowing robes' if I recall his description correctly, was one. And when he finally did post a picture, there was nothing I could see. That is stonewalling.

I will grant that he might have had some strange experiences. But when he presents evidence that does not confirm what he says, it makes me suspicious. Better just to say that he had the experiences and be done with it.

And, as you infer, this is quite common where anomalous phenomena are discussed.

Once more, I'm not saying that he did not have the experiences that he claims. But the evidence he offers in support of what he says, is, to be kind, lacking.

I think George could have reacted differently (and answered some questions better...including my own...) but imho several people were a bit too heavy handed ....heh that's just my take on it....and again that's not uncommon on forums.
It's hard to know how to approach and respond to some of these unusual claims and posters.

 

[EnolaGaia]

It's also to the purpose to say, as others have, that George probably did have strange experiences, or at least thought he did. But I didn't discern anyone significantly challenging them, rather quite genuinely wanting to know more about them. Which is scarcely unreasonable, and hardly 'bullying'.

Agreed ...

Incidentally, did anyone besides me think his shot of Larnaka bay from the UFO was significantly worse than the NASA one, despite his claim otherwise? (If it was of Larnaka bay indeed.)

Yes ... I never understood the claim his photo was in any way superior to the shot taken from orbit.

Since you brought up the subject of the photo ... I didn't mention this above and beyond challenging the extent to which it matched the NASA photo (and numerous other photos and maps I checked), but I frankly wasn't convinced his photo was taken from above looking down. After much tweaking and examination in graphics programs I couldn't rule out a suspicion it might have been taken looking up - i.e., a simulacrum comprised of clouds.

 

[Rushfan62]

That's interesting: was just looking at the New Posts and saw the above by Duane Pipe (a user I hadn't noticed before - Hello Duane) whilst listening to a live recording of OFSTED inspector turned author, after-dinner speaker and comedian Gervais Phinn.

As I read the words 'Duane Pipe', GP uttered the words 'Duane Pipe' - allegedly genuine name of child at a school in Yorks.

True story.

I know this happens all the time, but that was a doozy.

It's not my real name, but I'm in Yorkshire and knew a lady, now sadly deceased, who was friends with Gervaise Phinn!

 

[PeteS]

I know what you mean, and it's been bugging me, too.

If nothing else ... It doesn't strike me as appropriate to include everyone else's postmortem on his transient tenure within the corpus of what he himself posted and / or discussed.

After all - this merged thread is titled to reflect what happened to George (as an observer / reporter) - not what happened with George (as a member of this forum).

You're right about this and other threads Georgek started being left open in the event there's further discussion of the topics he established.

By the same token, it's only fair to say his presence was a notably feather-ruffling, if not disruptive, event for the forum and its overall membership.

Here's an idea ... How about my splitting off the later 'post-mortem' discussion into a separate thread in Website Issues? In other words, how about my setting up a separate place for chatting about George as opposed to George's reported experiences?

I wouldn't be comfortable with a thread chatting solely about a forum member. Perhaps a generic one talking about the possible reasons why people adopt a certain approach to this and other forums with mass postings and inability to discuss their opinion/experiences on a rational basis.

 

[Trevp666]

Like I said many posts back - George actually had a lot to bring to the table. He just didn't bring it to the table in a presentable way.
I mean, if you cooked the best meal in the world but served it up on a dustbin lid I doubt whether many people would want to eat it.
And unfortunately all that George is bringing to the table now is silence.

 

[Yithian]

Like I said many posts back - George actually had a lot to bring to the table. He just didn't bring it to the table in a presentable way.
I mean, if you cooked the best meal in the world but served it up on a dustbin lid I doubt whether many people would want to eat it.
And unfortunately all that George is bringing to the table now is silence.

George brought precisely three things to the table:

A) Fictional stories born of mental delusions.
B) A persecution complex.
C) Bad manners.

A) were at least interesting, but B) and C) made that interest irrelevant.

 

[Frideswide]

Thread closed while Mods work out what to move where (see EG post above).

Please do not move talking about the original poster into another thread unless you can define clearly the benefit to this place of doing so.

Frideswide

 

[stu neville]

The thread will remain locked, but in sight. Should Georgek deign to join us again in future we'll maybe revisit.

I missed all this...