• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Sensing Someone Staring At You

ruffready

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
2,366
seattlepi.nwsource.com/lifestyle/115082_stare01.shtml
Link is dead. Here are the relevant excerpts from the MIA article. The full article can be accessed at the link below.

Think someone's staring at you? 'Sixth sense' may be biological

If Rupert Sheldrake is right, at least seven out of 10 of you reading this article have felt the prickly sensation of being stared at.

Maybe you've also had feelings of foreboding that later proved true.

Or perhaps you've been startled to answer the phone and hear the loved one you were just thinking about.

Far from paranormal, these experiences are rooted in our biology, says Sheldrake, a Cambridge-trained biochemist and maverick thinker who's been called "a scientific heretic who refuses to be burnt at the stake."

He says scientific exploration of these common experiences could lead to a new understanding of human and animal minds -- if science could overcome its dogmatic hostility toward this line of inquiry.

"This field of research is inherently controversial," said Sheldrake, who has been touring with his new book, "The Sense of Being Stared At, and Other Aspects of the Extended Mind" ...

Sheldrake argues for a new concept of the mind -- one not bounded by the brain, but operating through fields of influence that he believes are present throughout nature.

He suggests these "morphic fields" organize the development and behavior of animals, plants, social groups and mental activity, from human and animal telepathy to such everyday mysteries as the synchronized swooping of flocks of birds. ...

As the title of his book suggests, the sense of being stared at is the most common "paranormal" event, reported by 70 to 90 percent of the adults Sheldrake surveyed. He speculates that focused visual attention has an effect that extends beyond the eye and brain of the observer. ...

SALVAGED FROM THE WAYBACK MACHINE:
https://web.archive.org/web/2003041...i.nwsource.com/lifestyle/115082_stare01.shtml
(The full article concerning Sheldrake and his work can be accessed at this link.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another link
Most of us have had the feeling. Suddenly, you are convinced someone is staring at you; you turn round and, sure enough, someone has their eyes fixed on you. If you make a point of asking, nearly everyone will admit they have experienced picking up a ringing phone to find the caller is someone they have just been thinking about calling.

However many of us have gone through these experiences, it is not the sort of information we tend to volunteer. Either we think it is so ordinary it is not worth mentioning or we fear being seen as irrational or suggestible. Biologist Rupert Sheldrake, on the other hand, believes there is a scientific explanation and is convinced that these experiences are evidence the mind extends to fields of influence outside our bodies.

Sheldrake, who has already written about the ways humans and dogs communicate, believes we trample through life disregarding clues that our ancestors would recognise as essential for survival. He says unexplained human abilities, such as telepathy, the sense of being stared at, and premonition, are not paranormal, but part of our biological nature. As a biologist and a former director of studies in biochemistry at Clare College, Cambridge, he takes a scientific approach.

"The sense of being stared at is part of something bigger," he says. "Obviously, in the relationship between predator and prey it would have survival value.

"The sense of being stared at is something that operates between strangers, whereas telepathy works best with a family or circle of friends and before the telephone was invented it was something that was used to communicate need. It is still reported by breast-feeding mothers that they know when their baby needs them."

It seems likely that a similar survival mechanism is at work when people sense danger in advance. There are many examples of people who have paid attention to premonitions and lived to tell the tale. Such tales have taken on a new impetus in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre.

After the disaster, Sheldrake appealed for people who had dreams or premonitions that might be related to it. Of the accounts that seemed relevant, 38 involved dreams and 15 involved premonitions. About one-third of the dreams happened on the night before the disaster and another third in the five or six days beforehand.

Some of the dreamers were on planes that crashed, others were in terrifying situations inside skyscrapers, including the World Trade Centre specifically. One dreamed that Manhattan was hit by a blizzard and later recognised the falling ash as the image from her dream. People who had premonitions reported a sense of dread, eerie feelings, and intense panic and pain.

Sheldrake is well aware of the difficulties in using such reports as scientific evidence. "No doubt every night some people have nightmares about planes crashing or buildings falling down," he says. "The fears or nightmares followed by disasters will tend to be remembered more than those that are not.

"The idea that we often dream of things that have not yet happened is so contrary to our usual assumptions that it can easily seem impossible, or something we would rather dismiss - until it becomes a matter of personal experience."

Instead of dismissal, however, he wants to see such instances subjected to detailed research.

Since the late-1980s, when he realised that experiments could be conducted both simply and cheaply in this area, he has amassed data from thousands of tests on whether people could tell they were being stared at and could predict which of four people was about to phone them.

The results across a vast range of age groups and different cultures have consistently shown that people sense these things to a degree that is greater than random chance by a statistically significant amount.

"The implications are enormous, but the phenomenon is just dismissed because it does not fit into scientific theories," says Sheldrake, who freely admits that he's regarded by the scientific community as a heretic. However, Sheldrake's approach to unexplained phenomena and the nature of the mind is that of the biologist. "I am interested because it has much to teach us about animal nature and human nature, about the nature of the mind and, indeed, the nature of life itself.

"If I look at someone from behind, and she does not know I am there, sometimes she turns and looks straight at me. Sometimes I suddenly turn around and find someone staring at me. Most people have had experiences like this. The sense of being stared at should not occur if attention is inside the head. I suggest that through our attention we create fields of perception that stretch out around us, connecting us to what we are looking at."

He suggests that these "morphic fields" influence the behaviour of animals, plants, and humans, including telepathy and the synchronised flight patterns of large flocks of birds. The same phenomenon, therefore, allows wolves to hunt in scattered packs without losing one another and someone in Glasgow to expect Auntie Jean from Australia to be on the phone before hearing her voice.

Sheldrake makes no claim to understand this, but is determined to demonstrate that it exists in order, at least, to change the scientific response from one of embarrassed dismissal to one of serious inquiry.

If his hypothesis is right and the mind extends beyond the brain, it may liberate us from the straitjacket of the human condition.

"We are no longer imprisoned within the narrow compass of our skulls, our minds separated and isolated from each other," says Sheldrake. "We are no longer alienated from our bodies, alienated from our environment and alienated from other species. We are interconnected."


The Sense of Being Stared At and Other Aspects of the Extended Mind by Rupert Sheldrake, is published by Hutchinson at £17.99. For more information on Rupert Sheldrake's ongoing experiments see http://www.sheldrake.org
 
I've always taken this theory as a "given"; I've experimented frequently by staring at my sleeping dog, she invariably wakes up within a few seconds (well, maybe it does depend on how deeply she's sleeping) to return my stare.

Survival instincts at work. I most usually can know if I'm being stared at, but we women usually learn early on to ignore it, not return the stare to avoid being hit on.
 
I once entertained the possibility that we've evolved in such a way that the hairs on the back of the neck are sensitive to focused packets of photons which reflect off peoples' retinas.

That doesn't explain why I wake up seconds before the alarm clock rings, even though I set it to different times most mornings. Maybe another defence mechanism by where when you are asleep you are sensitive to electromagnetism, and somehow detect the pulse of electricity that's about to set your alarm off?
 
Being watched...

There could be a simpler explanation...

Small vulnerable animals (like lemurs) may well exist in a state of permanent but unadaptable-to anxiety and paranoia...they are PROGRAMMED to get stressed when alone and seperated from the safety of others...we retain this, and get paranoid when alone, or when feeling vulnerable.

Or it's psychical.

Or it's ghosts trying to come through.

Or...something.
 
feel like someone is staring at cha?

This is Britain 2003 - I know someone is staring at me... :rolleyes:
 
A cynical look at Sheldrakes telephone research:
Most people, at one time or another, have thought about somebody and then, a short time later, come into contact with that very same person. They bump into them while shopping, for example, or receive an unexpected letter, call or e-mail.

It happens just often enough that some people believe these events cannot be dismissed as sheer coincidence. Certainly, there are larger forces at work here.

The problem, of course, has been finding proof.

A British cell biologist named Rupert Sheldrake claims to have done so. In a paper co-authored with Pamela Smart, in the Journal of Parapsychology, Sheldrake went looking for evidence of "telephone telepathy" and concludes that it is, in fact, "a genuine phenomenon."

Sheldrake and Smart gathered 271 test subjects. Each person was asked to list four potential callers who were friends or family members. Each subject was then continuously videotaped sitting in front of a phone. Each was told they would receive a call at a prearranged time from one of the four people they listed. When the phone rang, the subject was asked to identify the caller before picking up. If they were just guessing, the subjects would be correct roughly 25 percent of the time, or one time in four tries.

But Sheldrake reports that test subjects scored, on average, a correct identification 45 percent of the time, a hit-rate so high that he estimates the probability of producing it by random chance is less than one in 1 trillion.

"The next step must be for others to replicate these findings," Sheldrake opined in an entirely unexpected e-mail describing his work. "If the results are repeatable, experiments with telephone calls could provide conclusive proof for the reality of telepathy."

Or not.

Oh sure, Sheldrake's experiment is bound to garner acclaim among folks already inclined to believe. But before you jettison Caller ID in favor of your own psychic abilities, stop to consider these points.

First, Sheldrake is a crackpot, albeit a bright and amusing one. He has proposed, for example, seven experiments that could change the world (and written a 1995 book by the same name). Those experiments include determining the organization of termites, the underlying directional mechanisms of homing pigeons, why pets sometimes sense when their owners are coming home, and the effects of researchers' expectations upon their work.

More profoundly, Sheldrake contends that telepathy and similar phenomena are manifestations of "morphic fields" – unseen, undetectable entities that somehow connect and direct not just living organisms, but inorganic molecules and crystals.

Sheldrake discounts critics as "scientific fundamentalists" unwilling to think outside the box, a dismissal that neatly fails to address the usual, on-going shortcomings of paranormal research.

For example, what about Sheldrake's own research expectations? Or the very real phenomenon of selective thinking, in which one selects out favorable evidence for remembrance and focus while ignoring anything that would undermine a bias?

Most of us have experienced moments when we anticipated a telephone caller, exclaiming, "Wow! That's weird. I was just thinking of you." We don't remember the six other people we thought about who didn't call.

Then too, there are questions about Sheldrake's experimental methodology, whether his sampling was too small or in some other way skewed. Somehow I doubt his findings would ever have survived peer-review in, say, Science.

I wanted to ask Sheldrake more about his experiment, but nobody answered the only phone number I could find. Maybe it was a bad number. Or maybe, just maybe, Sheldrake knew I would be calling.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20030625-9999_1c25singular.html
 
More Likely when More Active?

very good article. I think (maybe) in Our younger days more often . When I dated alot of different people and had a lot of freinds, the phone would often ring and someone like "Linda" would call, whom I had just been thinking of. You see I had gone out with about four different Linda's, and unfortunatly, I could not tell between all their different voices, so would usually ask, "so what's your last name again"? or something stupid..bottom line I ended up with-out any of the "Linda's"..shakes me to this day.
 
Rupert the Rosey Cheeked Lothario

Dear All,
I've been most fortunate in hearing Dr.Sheldrake speak about remote staring ( amongst other subjects, including his telepathic parrot video which takes some beating ) & he is a charming and erudite chap.
However, with no slur against the gent's character AT ALL, my good lady friend secured a private interview with the good Doctor to gently ask him about his Remote Staring Experiments. She was most interested in various protocols and scientific controls, etc...you know, the boring sciencey bit.. because she was going to do a remote staring experiment for her Psychology honours year at Glasgow Uni'.
Well, By Jove, our ruddy cheeked hero just shrugged off her scientific enquiry with " er, I hadn't thought of that ", and "..hmm good question.."; but nevertheless generously demonstrated some not-so-remote staring ~ by concentrating hard on her cleavage.
Of course, Dr.Sheldrake as a biologist is eminently qualified for such field research.
And of course, he emerges from this episode scientifically triumphant because my good lady friend DID indeed detect his staring, AND go on to produce a fine experiment which did indeed get a scientifically significant result !
Regards,

Innes

P.S - Anecdotally we have all had the experience of being watched - but have we had the experience of being ignored ? Is this what drives children into showbusiness ??
 
The eyes have it

ALEXANDRA GILL suspends her disbelief and tests a British scientist's theory that we really can tell when someone's watching us
Saturday, August 9, 2003 - Page F8

VANCOUVER -- I have the sense I'm being stared at.

"Correct," says Rupert Sheldrake, the controversial British biochemist who is, indeed, staring at my back. Then again, I'll bet at least half the patrons in this busy Vancouver café are staring curiously at both of us right now.

I am wearing a blindfold, sitting across a table from Mr. Sheldrake, with my back toward him. We are conducting a scientific experiment, one similar to the thousands conducted as research for his most recent book, The Sense Of Being Stared At and Other Aspects of the Extended Mind.

Every few minutes, Mr. Sheldrake flips a coin. If the coin comes up heads, he stares at my back. If it's tails, he looks away and thinks of something else. As soon as his mind and eyes are in position, he snaps a clicker, which is my cue to guess whether he's looking at me or not.

Click.

"Looking," I say.

"Correct," replies Mr. Sheldrake, marking down my response.

Click.

"Not looking," I guess.

"No, I was looking," he answers.

If this experiment sounds somewhat eccentric, try wrapping your head around Mr. Sheldrake's theory of the seventh sense: Have you ever had the foreboding sense that something bad is about to happen -- and then it does? Or have you ever thought about a friend or family member for no apparent reason -- and that person suddenly calls you on the telephone?

"I was just thinking about you," we've probably all said at one time or another. Mr. Sheldrake, however, has made it his life mission to prove that what seems like a perceptible sense -- otherwise known as telepathy, precognition or the tingly feeling on the back of your neck when someone is staring at you -- is more than just a chance occurrence.

Based on the results of 5,000 case histories, 2,000 questionnaires, 1,500 telephone interviews and a decade of experiments involving 20,000 people, Mr. Sheldrake asserts that intuition is not paranormal, but rather a normal function drawn from our biological past.

This experiment he's performing with me is just one of many he uses to explain his theory that the mind is not confined to the brain, but extends outside the body and actually connects with other images and beings, in some sort of stretchable morphic field.

"I'm saying the mind is more than the brain, just like a magnetic field is more extensive than a magnet," explains the London-based scientist, who has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University.

In his book, Mr. Sheldrake claims that morphic fields link the members of a group together in a self-organizing system and underlie the bonds that form between pets and their owners, or nursing mothers and their babies. This model explains why a flock of birds, or a pack of racing cyclists, can intuit subtle shifts in the group's movement and make fluid split-second turns without colliding into one another, he says.

Many in the science community strongly disagree, but Mr. Sheldrake says there's nothing unscientific in proposing that fields extend farther than material objects.

"Most modern technologies are based on that concept. The field of a cellphone reaches out beyond the surface of the cellphone. Our minds reach out beyond our brains."

So let's get back to our scientific experiment. "You may or may not feel the difference," Mr. Sheldrake says as I try to connect with his field and feel his eyes boring into the back of my head. I can't honestly say I feel the connection, but then again, he and I have just met.

By guessing randomly, I should answer correctly 50 per cent of the time. And because it's a statistical experiment, we would really have to do hundreds of these tests with many more people to get any meaningful results. But for the sake of demonstration, we do 20 clicks, then tally my score.

As chance would have it, Mr. Sheldrake's coin flips split his looking and not-looking tests evenly. I guessed correctly in seven of the 10 "looking" trials. And in the "not-looking" trials, I was right five out of 10 times.

Mr. Sheldrake is excited. According to his theory of the morphic field, one would expect an average higher score in the looking tests. "If we have a sense of being stared at, the typical result would be more right than wrong," he explains. Conversely, because we don't have a sense of not being stared at (unless we're exceptionally vain), we have no more than a random chance of guessing when eyes aren't trained on us, so results tend to hover around 50 per cent.

Mr. Sheldrake's theories have provoked much scorn. Sir John Maddox, a physicist and editor emeritus of the journal Nature, called his first book, A New Science of Life, "an infuriating tract," and "the best candidate for burning there has been for many years." Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, says Mr. Sheldrake "has never met a goofy idea he didn't like."

On several occasions, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), the largest skeptical organization in the world, has attempted to refute his research by carrying out its own experiments.

"Their results were identical," Mr. Sheldrake says, smiling smugly. "They actually replicated the phenomenon."

Mr. Sheldrake says the skeptics, who have also questioned his various techniques of randomization, are almost evangelical in their objections. "It's like talking to creationists. They're just so narrow-minded and bigoted and stupid, really."

There was a time, however, when Mr. Sheldrake was just as narrow-minded. After completing his PhD in 1967, he remained at the school as director of studies in biochemistry and cell biology until 1973.

After that, he went to India, where he worked at the International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics.

He arrived there with "all the standard prejudices that come with a scientific education." But in India, he discovered that "a lot of the psychic-type phenomenon was just taken for granted -- not just by ordinary people, but by sophisticated, educated people as well. . . .

"Then I saw that . . . it doesn't undermine science to look at these things -- it enlarges science."

But in North American and Europe, there's a cultural taboo against discussing theories such as Mr. Sheldrake's. "People may experience these things privately, but they don't want to talk about it. . . .

"Whereas I think it's more rational to look at them, see what's going on and enlarge our views."

Or so to speak.

SOURCE: globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030809/FCSHEL/TPScience/
Link is dead. No archived version found.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On several occasions, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), the largest skeptical organization in the world, has attempted to refute his research by carrying out its own experiments.

"Their results were identical," Mr. Sheldrake says, smiling smugly. "They actually replicated the phenomenon."

My appalling skill at english language comprehension in these matters must have failed me once again. The CSICOP site seems to say the exact opposite;

csicop.org/si/2000-03/stare.html
Link is dead. No archived version found.


None of the fifty subjects were able to accurately guess all of the times that they were being stared at by the two experimenters. Eighteen of the fifty subjects did correctly guess two of the five-minute periods during their twenty-minute session. Seventeen subjects correctly guessed only one of the five-minute sessions and eleven were not able to guess any of the five. Only four of the subjects correctly guessed three of the five correctly. The mean accuracy for the group of fifty was 1.24 with an standard deviation of .91. A score of 1.25 would be expected by chance alone for each twenty minute trial, i.e., 1/435 or 1.25. With this outcome the usual statistical tests are irrelevant; there's no way that these particular results could ever approach statistical significance.

Since the four subjects who exceeded chance by correctly guessing three out of the five one-minute periods in which they were being stared at might well be "psi stars" or "psychically gifted," each of these four subjects was retested under the same experimental conditions three separate times. None of the four accurately identified more than one one-minute period in which they were being stared at. The mean retest score for all three retest sessions for the four "stars" was .025 for each session-less than chance. The mean of their original score plus the three retest scores was used in the distribution.

So even the group labelled 'psi stars' could not produce consistent results; this is entirely consistent with chance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sheldrakes response:

csicop.org/si/2001-03/stare.html
Link is dead. No archived version found.


I don't have time to study the various pros and cons in detail, fascinating though it would be.

But it shouldn't be hard to create a decent experiment to test this idea. Perhaps putting the 'starer' behind a one-way mirror, so there would be no normal knowledge of being stared at.

I wonder if it would work over the internet, staring at someone's username...?! :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This strikes me as an everyday fortean phenomenon but it's never discussed as such.

Have you ever been stareing at someone and had them turn around and look at you because they felt your stare? Or conversely, have you felt somebody staring at you and turned around before they could look away?

It happens, but I can't figure out why. There shouldn't be any biological reason why this should work, but it seems to be the case for everybody I've ever met in real life.

Possibly an adaption to having eyes in the front, maybe our field of vision can detect another creature's field of vision under the right circumstances, which is what we can "feel" when we can tell somebody is stareing.

Does anybody else have experience with this and/or explinations?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I frequently think someone is staring at me, but when I turn 'round there's no one there :eek!!!!:
 
When I'm at school I stare at my children if they are mis-behaving.

Most clock it because they know they are doing wrong but sometimes I use it as a battle of wills, terrible I know, but it's almost confrontation.

I never drop my gaze first. I think it's the animal instinct in me which fires off and lets them know who's in charge. And it usually works too.
 
some japanese martial artists believe that ki can be projected through the eyes...in the form of a visual kiai.
 
The staring experiments are mentioned in the recent New Scientist which has been discussed earlier although the experiment hasn't (it certainly plays into the question of experimenter effect though).

It was done by Richard Wiseman (the sceptic) and Marilyn Schiltz (believer) from the Univeristy of Hertfordshire and the Insitute of Neotic Sciences, respectively.

See:

Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring.
Wiseman, Richard; Schlitz, Marilyn,
Journal of Parapsychology v61, n3 (Sept, 1997):197
http://www.hf.caltech.edu/ctt/show212/article2.shtml

http://www.hf.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/hnctt/get/show212/6/1.html

http://www.hf.caltech.edu/ctt/show212/essay212.shtml

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=2&pageid=3&pgtype=1

http://www.teamchrysalis.com/AC/V2/AC210_Science_of_Spirituality_1.htm

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7653

Emps
 
Read Rupert Murdoch, *The Sense of Being Stared At* for a full discussion of this phenomenon.

This is not an endorsement of Murdoch's explanation, about which I have no opinion. But the book will be very interesting to anyone who is intrigued by this topic.
 
Rupert Sheldrake has tried the experiment as well. Its been a while since I read "7 Experiments" but I am pretty sure he tried quite a number of people and didn't find anything.
 
my experience is that it's one of those things where folks tend to remember the hits and ignore other explanations and the misses....

Kath
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tyger Lily said:
When I'm at school I stare at my children if they are mis-behaving.

Most clock it because they know they are doing wrong but sometimes I use it as a battle of wills, terrible I know, but it's almost confrontation.

I never drop my gaze first. I think it's the animal instinct in me which fires off and lets them know who's in charge. And it usually works too.

All teachers are pro at the Paddington bear hard stare. Hehe. ;)
A mum asked me once how I did it. We were sitting in the hall and one of my kids was misbehaving. I just stared at him, didn't say a word, and the kid felt the stare and stopped. It comes in very handy! :D
 
I've tried staring at people during many a long bus and train journey and it's never worked, they have never turned round, quite what I would do if they did turn round I have never worked out.
 
Lillith said:
I've tried staring at people during many a long bus and train journey and it's never worked, they have never turned round, quite what I would do if they did turn round I have never worked out.
Imagine all the people whose bus journeys you've ruined... sitting there thinking, "she's staring at me... I know she is... but I shouldn't turn around, what if she isn't... but she is..."

;) :D
 
Peni said:
Read Rupert Murdoch, *The Sense of Being Stared At* for a full discussion of this phenomenon.

This is not an endorsement of Murdoch's explanation, about which I have no opinion. But the book will be very interesting to anyone who is intrigued by this topic.

Rupert Sheldrake wrote that book.

Rupert Sheldrake Online
 
:headbutt:

Yeah, Sheldrake. The guy with the morphic fields and the 100th monkey and all that. That's what happens when I insist on posting late at night and don't bother looking up book references in my diary. Rupert Murdoch is famous for something completely different.

Good night y'all.
 
The simple explanation is that your always subconsiously checking your surroundings. When walking around you don't consiously think 'Oh a lamp post I'd better avoid it', it's part of your automatic processes. Same with scanning the surroundings you are looking around you all the time only when something worth triggering a response, such as someone looking at you does it shift into your concious mind.
 
I once heard someone comment that it is a heresy in biology to suggest that something observed can be affected by the observation. In physics it is heresy to suggest otherwise.

I know it's all about macro and micro, but it's still a point that intrigues me.
 
If you're being stared at and don't notice it, then you won't be any the wiser, but if you happen to catch someone staring at you out of the corner of your eye, then you'll put it down to this detection effect. And if you turn around to find someone staring at you, they could have just noticed you turning around and looked at you at that moment. There are too many simple explanations to put it down to ESP or whatever. Coincidence is another.
 
Not only can I detect when someone's looking at me, I have an intense hatred of being stared at. When I was young and my parents would take me to a restaurant, I would sometimes make quite a scene, yelling "WHAT are you STARING AT?! to anyone who looked at me too long. I also have the uncanny ability to know when something's going to run out in front of us while driving. My hubby is quite used to me warning him (or was as he doesn't drive anymore) and the animal will at some point dash out before we get where we're going. I've even locked eyes with a deer that skidded to a stop beside us, and mentally yelled "NO!" to it..... it turned around and ran the other way. I absolutely HATE to see animals squashed on the road, maybe it comes from my intense feelings on this topic. I will stop the car and go get an innocent dog or any other creature to safety.
 
I am sharing digs with 2 other students, one of whom (S) hates the other (C). S believes that C stares at her all the time and that every time she wakes up in the night, there is C, looking right at her! Says the staring either wakes her up or keeps her awake most nights!

I said, maybe C sleeps with her eyes open, and no, I'm not swapping beds with you.

Now I am on a trip to Krakow with S and am sleeping opposite her. No word yet of any staring going on as I'd have to tw*t her if she accused me of it. ;)
 
Back
Top