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

The sad, sad nature of Psi Research

A

Anonymous

Guest
Why is it poor?

The recent thread on Scole illustrated at least on glaring and elemental flaw that obvieates any positive findings,

The ongoing "research" in Princeton by the Pear people is an embaressment.

The work by Schwartz is beyond belief to the point that it borders on the paranormal itself.

Why is it that after 50 years (the period of "modern" investigation) there is nothing at all? Why is it that the objective of research appears to be soley for the purpose of justifing further research? If any Psi effect is real, where is the clear benchmark demonstration? Why is the science so poor?

Are these results simply nothing more than one would expect if a truly non-existant phenomenon were being investigated?
 
Give us some idea of where you're looking, so we can be sure we're discussing the same thing!

Fascinating subject.
 
Why is it poor?

Because "real" scientists, corporations and research bodies don't want to get involved with anything that would have them branded as kooks?

Closing the Dream Factory

One quote :

"Sony's corporate culture was deeply embarrassed by the research and, when Sony founding father Masaru Ibuka died on 19 December 1997, the writing was on the lab wall."

Even though the research by Sony provided very positive results, since no immediate commercial application could be found for the phenomena Sony quietly discontinued it's research into PSI.
 
escargot said:
Give us some idea of where you're looking, so we can be sure we're discussing the same thing!

Fascinating subject.

My point is that I think discussion of paranormal research misses the point. The meta issue is that the realm of the paranormal tends to breed apologetics, not research.

To be a bit cruel, it is like christianity. The results of creation "research" tends to be preordained and is therefore useless. Those that attempt justification deal with lack of physical proof thru logical exercises that are rather colorful but devoid of substance. Rules tend to be generated like "God and his actions are unknowable" therefore Allah smashed Bam and you cannot know why and that is proof of God in and of itself.

This is rather similar to activities in the paranormal. We might, as an exercise, develop a series of the "rules". You know, light is bad, belief is necessary, spirits are not at your beck and call (unless you have sold a sponsership).

My thoughts are evolving on this topic but it appears that "research", per se, is not fruitful for discussion. Critisising such research is like wack-a-mole.

No, the real topic of interest is the 50 year history of research and response of people who believe (or have a financial interest) in what, in any real scientific context, would be a very dead (hahahahaha) issue. Why is it that it still exists as an area for "investigation"? Are we really looking at a mirror of human wants and desires rather than phenomena? Is this really the paranormal phenomonon?

Objectively, let me ask a question to all readers of this. I assume that you read, on occasion, reports of various scientific findings. For example, this month, Sky and Telescope magazine published a story regarding Munch's motivation for painting "The Scream". Interesting, it seems that there is some evidence that the Kakatoa explosion had a bearing. I digress.......

When I read that, the first thought that I had was "interesting". When I read something by Targ, or Schwartz or virtually anything in the paranormal literature I think "is he/she lieing", or "how are they lieing" or "what is wrong with this".

You see? There is a meta problem with the entire area. It transcends lousey research and lieing researchers.
 
the way I see it is that psi effects are random and often unrepeatable, even if say, a ghost is known to appear at a certain location, it's very unlikely to appear when you wish to 'research' it. Science doesn't like things which can't be made to repeat themselves to order! Obviously, psi effects are taken seriously by governments etc. now and then, as in the remote viewing unit set up by the us military( Although now apparently defunct). However, if I discovered tonight that I had developed the power of psychotelekinesis....I wouldn't tell you because it would be guaranteed to ruin my life. (perhaps not very Fortean:( )
Not that I'm proposing that this has happened in the field, human nature being what it is, somehow it would get out.:D
 
Is it possible that the scientific method is what is wrong, or at least wrong for studying paranormal effects?

Now, before I get attacked by the scientific establishment, think about it - science now understands the limitations of thinking during earlier times, how the particular world views of that time shaped what people thought about the world. (For example, Galileo & the Earth's rotaion, and how it tied into the religious worldview of the time).

Even though the scientific method is very useful, there are entrenched bodies of intellectual thought tied up in how we view the world now, much the way as the critics of Galileo stood in the way of his progress because it didn't fit their worldview.

Is it possible that what we assume are the correct ways to analyse the environment now won't be overturned in 50 years time to be replaced with a new model that allows for and understands what psi is and how to measure it?
 
We've covered this before on other threads, the point that science likes to ascribe one explanation to everything, and reject that which doesn't conform to it's own, narrow, purview. Forteanism, on the other hand, takes each individual case on it's own merit, and evaluates the evidence thereof. There could be hundreds of different shades and types of ghost, for example, whereas a number of researchers have their pet theory, and if a ghost fails to "fit in", it's immediately dubbed a fake, either an unwitting one (vibrations from distant train tracks, trick of light, etc) or if all else fails they'll condemn it as a hoax, rather than admitting there may be a flaw in their own procedures.

I'd like to point out right now that I believe most ghost-hunters actually out in the field are generally, and genuinely, open-minded and scrupulous in their investigations: it's the ones who sit in their Uni offices writing books rather than going out and looking who tend to be the most intransigent - unfortunately, the latter are the ones who get the funding. Somewhat unfair, IMHO, and one of the reasons psy research at the academic level will continue to kiss it's own arse for a long time to come. Jobs for the boys :(.
 
Incitatus said:
Objectively, let me ask a question to all readers of this. I assume that you read, on occasion, reports of various scientific findings. For example, this month, Sky and Telescope magazine published a story regarding Munch's motivation for painting "The Scream". Interesting, it seems that there is some evidence that the Kakatoa explosion had a bearing. I digress.......

When I read that, the first thought that I had was "interesting". When I read something by Targ, or Schwartz or virtually anything in the paranormal literature I think "is he/she lieing", or "how are they lieing" or "what is wrong with this".
But, isn't that a bit subjective?

You're the one that expects main stream researchers to be doing "serious" research and researchers in the paranormal to be potentially deceitful.

Like the doctor in Boston recently, who put his name to a medical condition whereby kids who read too much Harry Potter at a sitting developed blinding headaches.

Good science, or headline grabbing nonsense?
 
Megazoid said:
Even though the research by Sony provided very positive results, since no immediate commercial application could be found for the phenomena Sony quietly discontinued it's research into PSI.


This is part of the problem. What results, published where? We hear about "results" from that CIA fiasco, we hear stories about the pie in the sky results. Where are they?

The problem is not the research, my thought is that it is the "set" of people to believe such stories.
 
AndroMan said:
But, isn't that a bit subjective?

You're the one that expects main stream researchers to be doing "serious" research and researchers in the paranormal to be potentially deceitful.

Like the doctor in Boston recently, who put his name to a medical condition whereby kids who read too much Harry Potter at a sitting developed blinding headaches.

Good science, or headline grabbing nonsense?

The problem with disease and conditions that require the use of shrinks is that you have to have a recognized condition to get insurance.

This area is sorta like graft.
 
Incitatus said:
The problem is not the research, my thought is that it is the "set" of people to believe such stories.
Do you mean the mind set of people, or the group of people who believe such things?

Personally, I believe there's plenty of evidence to support ESP. Unfortunately, since it works on a deeply visceral level, most of the evidence is entirely anecdotal.

Certain phenomena, like premeditating the phonecalls of long absent friends and relatives, or twins telepathy, have become so common that orthodox science has had to invent increasingly complicated and unlikely explanations for their occurrence. Because, science says ESP does not exist.

edit: Had to correct spelling, it was doing my nut in!
 
AndroMan said:
Because, science says ESP does not exist.
Moreover, it cannot exist. Again, because science says so. Any virtually any scientist who stands up and says "but it can and does happen" will soon be packing the contents of their desk into a box and spending more time with their family :(. It's ironic that the scientific establishment holds Galileo in such esteem, as a triumph of logic over superstition, whilst itself behaving like Pope Urban whenever anyone questions its own wisdom.
 
What I think is interesting is that when subjects are put under the microscope they often underperform to a spectacular degree that is BELOW the odds of chance.
I may be being irrational here, but it is my deepening suspicion that modern scientists are only interested in proving 'The Bleeding Obvious'.
 
Jimv said:
What I think is interesting is that when subjects are put under the microscope they often underperform to a spectacular degree that is BELOW the odds of chance.
I may be being irrational here, but it is my deepening suspicion that modern scientists are only interested in proving 'The Bleeding Obvious'.

How often does this happen? Do you have references?
 
Originally posted by AndroMan
Do you mean the mind set of people, or the group of people who believe such things?

Personally, I believe there's plenty of evidence to support ESP. Unfortunately, since it works on a deeply visceral level, most of the evidence is entirely anecdotal.

But, then, how can you have any idea that it is true?

Certain phenomena, like premeditating the phonecalls of long absent friends and relatives, or twins telepathy, have become so common that orthodox science has had to invent increasingly complicated and unlikely explanations for their occurrence. Because, science says ESP does not exist.

I'd really love a reference for this. Could the phone thing be a conflating of email, cell, mobil, and home? Might it be easier to communicate at any time, day or night so that if you have the odd thought about someone the chance of hearing from them is improved? How many times do you think about someone and nothing happens? It's not really convoluted to invoke statistics and selective memory

edit: Had to correct spelling, it was doing my nut in!
 
stu neville said:
Moreover, it cannot exist. Again, because science says so. Any virtually any scientist who stands up and says "but it can and does happen" will soon be packing the contents of their desk into a box and spending more time with their family :(. It's ironic that the scientific establishment holds Galileo in such esteem, as a triumph of logic over superstition, whilst itself behaving like Pope Urban whenever anyone questions its own wisdom.

I would certainly hope that a scientist who says it can and done happen without proof is sent packing.

I disagree that science is closed to Psi. Do you realize how a person who could actually demonstrate this stuff would be lionized? Broad swaths of science would have to be rewritten. This is Nobel material, sir. And remember, scientists want fame and fortune as much as anyone else. No, blaming the scientific community is an out.

Might I ask what your familiarity with science and scientists is?
 
AndroMan said:
Do you mean the mind set of people, or the group of people who believe such things?

edit: Had to correct spelling, it was doing my nut in!

What I mean is that the research community concerned with Psi has done a grave disservice to non-scientists by presenting flawed research as good. I think that this has dulled the critical thinking capabilities of many people in ways that, if such thinking ever intruded into their everyday lives, would be catastrophic.
 
brian ellwood said:
the way I see it is that psi effects are random and often unrepeatable, even if say, a ghost is known to appear at a certain location, it's very unlikely to appear when you wish to 'research' it. Science doesn't like things which can't be made to repeat themselves to order! Obviously, psi effects are taken seriously by governments etc. now and then, as in the remote viewing unit set up by the us military( Although now apparently defunct). However, if I discovered tonight that I had developed the power of psychotelekinesis....I wouldn't tell you because it would be guaranteed to ruin my life. (perhaps not very Fortean:( )
Not that I'm proposing that this has happened in the field, human nature being what it is, somehow it would get out.:D

My friend, if you could demonstrate such a power you would, really and truely, be THE MAN. Riches, wine, women and song. One afternoon in a Casino and you are set.
 
Incitatus said:
Might I ask what your familiarity with science and scientists is?
Certainly - I work in Academic support, two of my colleagues are Psychology lecturers, two of my best friends have doctorates (respectively in Particle Physics and Organic Chemistry), my father was an engineer, and I have discussed psi research with each of them at different times. It is from these conversations that i have gleaned "the party line" on psi in itself.

Science itself is, and always has been notoriously protective of it's own mindset: for example -
Today, scientific research is still judged by peer review. Henry Bauer (1994) in his book Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method revealed how research is generally funded through association with a university. In Western civilization , said Bauer (1994) selected peers judge the journal articles that the academic scientists must publish to retain their university positions and insure future funding.

Specific questions about the process of peer review were examined by sociologist Michael J. Mahoney of the University of Pennsylvania. In an interview granted to Boston Globe science reporter, David Chandler (1987), Mahoney discussed his study. Mahoney sent copies of a paper to 75 reviewers but doctored the results so that in some cases the research appeared to support mainstream theories (Chandler 1987). In other cases Mahoney had doctored the paper so the research deviated from them. When the doctored results ran contrary to the reviewer's theoretical beliefs the author's procedures were berated and the manuscript was rejected. When the results in the doctored papers confirmed the reviewer's beliefs, the same procedures were then lauded and the manuscript was recommended for publication (Chandler 1987).

Mahoney presented the results of this study to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Afterwards, Mahoney received 200 to 300 letters and phone calls from scientists who felt they had been victimized because the results of their research conflicted with the generally accepted scientific viewpoint or with their reviewer's beliefs (Chandler 1987).
From here, which also gives numerous examples of the sort of pressure scientists who go "against the grain" face, even if they are eventually vindicated, invariably some time later. Privately, many are doubtless open-minded vis-a-vis the existence of psi phenomena, but publically, silence cannot be misquoted. And even if (and hopefully when) hard, checkable evidence is obtained, it will still be an uphill struggle before it's widely accepted. On that basis, I am tempted to blame the scientific community.
 
Incitatus said:
The ongoing "research" in Princeton by the Pear people is an embaressment.

Why is the PEAR research an embarrassment? The results are quite striking.
 
Incitatus said:
I would certainly hope that a scientist who says it can and done happen without proof is sent packing.

I disagree that science is closed to Psi. Do you realize how a person who could actually demonstrate this stuff would be lionized? Broad swaths of science would have to be rewritten. This is Nobel material, sir. And remember, scientists want fame and fortune as much as anyone else. No, blaming the scientific community is an out.

Might I ask what your familiarity with science and scientists is?

Human nature being what it is, its more witch burning material than Nobel. too many people with too much of a vested interest in keeping a tenured postition, rather than any semblance of questioning allowed. For a parallel, look at the way 'Forbidden Archaeology' was treated when it came out. Very little construcitve criticism of the material presented, more 'This can't be true because it contradicts the theory... the joy of articles of faith and circular logic.
 
Is it true to say that psychics always under-perform once under laboratory conditions?

"It's true to say that there always have been and always will be phonies and charlatans claiming psychic powers either for profit or for notoriety.

But it's wrong to say that every psychic has been exposed as fraudulent. Quite apart from famous names like Uri Geller, there are dozens of individuals all over the world who have repeatedly performed paranormal feats in controlled conditions.

In England there are Nicholas Williams, Stephen North, Julie Knowles and a number of juveniles who remain anonymous such as Andrew G. In France there is Jean-Pierre Girard. In Japan there is Masuaki Kiyota and in Russia there are numerous individuals, the best known of which is Nina Kulagina.

Working with English metal benders, John Hasted, professor of experimental physics at Birkbeck College, University of London, has devised extensive methods of guarding against conscious or unconscious fraud. He has for example implanted microscopic strain gauges in metal specimens linked electrically to a chart recorder to provide a record of the forces imposed on the specimen. He has recorded many instances of stresses being registered simultaneously from three or more gauges, and extensive deformation of the specimen, under circumstances that rule out fraud. In one famous case, a large piece of aluminium was twisted out of shape by Andrew G., a 12-year old boy, from a distance of 30 feet.

Doctors Charles Crussard and Jean Bouvaist in France have recorded metal bending by Jean-Pierre Girard in glass tubes that have been completely sealed under conditions that have been examined by Hasted and others. Working under the auspices of a French commercial metals company, the investigators have gone to enormous lengths to ensure the effects they are examining were produced paranormally and not by normal methods.

For example each metal sample was hallmarked so it could not be substituted, and all its dimensions measured accurately before and after bending. The hardness of the metal was tested before and after and the crystalline structure of the metal examined by taking 'residual strain profiles'. The structure was also examined under the electron microscope and micro photographs taken. In addition the chemical composition of the metal was examined before and after.

These observations revealed a number of structural anomalies such as a local hardening of the kind produced by compression forces of many tons, but apparently originating internally.

Hasted has adopted similar rigorous precautions to rule out fraud. For example he and the French researchers have been able to get subjects to bend metal rods that it is beyond the strength of any normal person to bend. Crussard has videotaped Jean-Pierre Girard bending a metal rod by gently stroking it, yet producing a bend that requires some three times the strength of a normal person.

Hasted has also reported the phenomenon of a metal-bender turning part of a spoon 'as soft as chewing gum' merely by stroking but under closely controlled conditions that enabled the plastic deformation to be verified by Hasted himself and where the chemical composition and weight of the spoon was examined before and after. It is possible to soften a metal spoon chemically but only by causing a corrosion that would leave a number of alteration such as weight loss, and no such changes were detected.

The usual response to such experiments is "How come scientists have discounted them? They must have been frauds musn't they?"

What has tended to happen in the past two decades, especially since CSICOP has been on the case, is that if anyone claiming psychic powers shows any signs of gaining scientific credibility, then a concerted attempt is made to ridicule and publicly debunk that person, showing how he or she "could have" faked their results. These "explanations" are usually preposterously contorted exercises but as long as the mud sticks they serve their purpose. Thereafter the "skeptics" can always claim "so and so was caught cheating and exposed long ago".

No-one ever bothers to check the real facts and most people dimly recall the public notoriety that the "skeptics" achieved simply by making accusations of fraud. "

http://www.alternativescience.com/paranormal-phonies.htm
 
Hugo Cornwall said:
Human nature being what it is, its more witch burning material than Nobel. too many people with too much of a vested interest in keeping a tenured postition, rather than any semblance of questioning allowed. For a parallel, look at the way 'Forbidden Archaeology' was treated when it came out. Very little construcitve criticism of the material presented, more 'This can't be true because it contradicts the theory... the joy of articles of faith and circular logic.

Indeed, compare this to the attitude towards any sensible criticisms of Neo-Darwinism...

http://www.forteantimesmag.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=309893#post309893
 
Incitatus said:
I'd really love a reference for this. Could the phone thing be a conflating of email, cell, mobil, and home? Might it be easier to communicate at any time, day or night so that if you have the odd thought about someone the chance of hearing from them is improved? How many times do you think about someone and nothing happens? It's not really convoluted to invoke statistics and selective memory
Yes statistics.

Certainly many cases may well be a coincident of memory and the chance calling of a long forgotten number.

But often, people are struck by the call that has coincided with the first thought about a person in many years.

Science is now well on the way to "proving" that human memory, if not impossible, is at least highly unlikely and certainly not to be trusted. If people believe that they have premeditated a phonecall, by some minutes, or hours, perhaps days, then it is obviously a delusion.

If it is a matter of seconds, then there's a scientific explanation for the sense of de ja vu experienced.

However, "science" has the advantage with statistics, in that so much can be proved, simply depending on what you wish, or intend your findings to show.

Nonetheless, Rupert Sheldrake's done a bit of research work on this:
Sheldrake.org: 'The Sense of Being Stared At'

A critical review of the work, that mentions the phonecalls side, here:
(signonsandiego.com) Who's gonna call ya? If you know beforehand, don't call it telepathy: By Scott LaFee

Which link was originally posted on this Thread:
Feel like someone's staring at cha?
 
I guess the situation is helped by psi being a fugitive phenomenon that is exceedingly sensitive to environment - the infamous 'shyness factor'. Arguably this makes a controlled envionment a rarety in this field, as investigators cannot generate the phenomena to order.

With lab work, there is little excuse for sloppiness, but field work is bound to amount to a gathering of what is, in the end, largely anecdotal material. However, the amassing and cross-referencing of that material has value, and so maybe ought not to be discounted.

Having said that, some excellant field work does exist. Hans Bender's work on the Rosenheim poltergeist arguably established that something inexplicable was occurring through hard instrumental evidence. Some of the better EVP experiments give pause for thought. Other examples have been mentioned.

I suppose it comes down to this: the experimental side of parapsychology is still finding it's feet, and has to deal with some real obstacles, while the philosophical side is woefully underdeveloped due to the fear of ridicule.

There's along way to go and this is just the start - perhaps encouragement is more in order rather than slating.
 
One afternoon in a Casino and you are set.
Absolutely, and if I could influence a roullette wheel I would go and do it, but only once or twice, or one lottery win etc...but I would never admit how I'd done it. There are lots of charitable causes (apart from my own;) ) which could benefit from this. But there are also many parties with vested interests in getting hold of anyone who could do it....from crime to govrntmts to the media.
Counterproductive comments from someone who believes in paranormal phenomena!
 
Now, I've noticed that the word 'should' gets bandied about alot during this kind of debate - parapsychologists should do this, do that...so, something to think about - a dab of modal logic...

'should' and it's cognates implies:

-that one advocates the act - it is deemed a good idea
-that one believes the recipient of the pointy 'should' actually can perform the action, or that it is possible in principle

Here is the rub. Take a theme from the Scole thread - Maurice Keen has been roundly lambasted for not sticking to his guns and insisting that image intensifying equipment be used during the sittings. Now, to say that he should have done it is fine in so far point one is concerned, but if one reflects that his team may well have been ejected from the sittings entirely had they done so, it does not fulfil the second. He deemed it was not possible, and if you accept that, hitting him with a 'should' is a trifle inconsistent.

Of course, if you don't, it is quite all right. But I hope you see the point - applying imperatives to situations where they cannot be fulfiled is futile. Investigators can only act within the bounds of the possible, and to criticize them for not transcending those bounds is a little ungenerous.

Maybe that's a useful contribution to the discussion, maybe it is screaming eccentricity. But you can call me 'Susan' if it isn't so ;)
 
Incitatus said:
My friend, if you could demonstrate such a power you would, really and truely, be THE MAN. Riches, wine, women and song. One afternoon in a Casino and you are set.
This would of course presuppose that ESP abilities exist on some sort of intellectually controllable level. I will predict the numbers to come up, Control the drop of a roulette ball, read the minds of my fellow poker players, because I want to by force of will and mental control.

Perhaps that is possible, after years of severe yogic discipline. However, most phenomena seem to exist on on a deep emotional level and be more at the whim of physical, or psychological hurt (or pain), fear, sympatico between people, love, lust, etc. rather than wishful thinking.

Quite literally, gut instinct.
 
Re: Re: The sad, sad nature of Psi Research

Bilderberger said:
Why is the PEAR research an embarrassment? The results are quite striking.


Long story. In essence, they have said (on their site) that the effects are independent of distance and volition. This makes any kind of meaningful control impossible. Further, an effect that depends upon the holding in abeyence a law of Physics (the inverse square law) requires a bit more support than they have provided.

It also appears that they have rather willy-nilly altered various aspects of their protocol.

They also come up with some rather specious reasoning as when tighter control yield smaller results:

"Yet, like so much of the research in consciousness-related anomalies, replication,enhancement, and interpretation of these results proved elusive. As the program advanced andthe analytical techniques became more sophisticated, the empirical results became weaker. Itappeared as if each subsequent refinement of the analytical process, intended to improve thequality and reliability of the “information net,” had resulted in a reduction of the amount of rawinformation being captured. This diminution of the experimental yield prompted extensiveexamination of numerous factors that could have contributed to it, but after exploring andprecluding various possible sources of statistical or procedural artifact, we concluded that thecause of the problem most likely lay somewhere in the subjective sphere of the experience."


http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/IU.pdf

So, the experiment gets better and you don't like that so it must be due to yet another intervening variable.

I also recall that one of the principle investigators stated that there were, really, no results of interest. I am trying to find that quote.

PEAR was and is not science, it is a long term fishing expedition. Subjectively, I also find writing that is needlessly abstruce to be somewhat suspect. Try giving their stuff a read and tell me what you think.
 
A few thoughts.

Originally posted by Alexius
Now, I've noticed that the word 'should' gets bandied about alot during this kind of debate - parapsychologists should do this, do that...so, something to think about - a dab of modal logic...

'should' and it's cognates implies:

-that one advocates the act - it is deemed a good idea
-that one believes the recipient of the pointy 'should' actually can perform the action, or that it is possible in principle

Here is the rub. Take a theme from the Scole thread - Maurice Keen has been roundly lambasted for not sticking to his guns and insisting that image intensifying equipment be used during the sittings. Now, to say that he should have done it is fine in so far point one is concerned, but if one reflects that his team may well have been ejected from the sittings entirely had they done so, it does not fulfil the second. He deemed it was not possible, and if you accept that, hitting him with a 'should' is a trifle inconsistent.

Italics mine. Yes indeed, they might have, but we will never know since their need to examine was greater than their need to have that examination have some qualities of control. They also could have, presumably, recorded without the awareness of the sitters. They did not. My point is not to bash Keen, who by all accounts seems to be an earnest chap, but rather to point out that it is always something. Always.

Of course, if you don't, it is quite all right. But I hope you see the point - applying imperatives to situations where they cannot be fulfiled is futile. Investigators can only act within the bounds of the possible, and to criticize them for not transcending those bounds is a little ungenerous.

Point taken. But they could have in this case and they didn't. One might also raise the ethical question of participating in an exercise knowing that it is flawed and then subsequently lending one's name to the results.

Maybe that's a useful contribution to the discussion, maybe it is screaming eccentricity. But you can call me 'Susan' if it isn't so ;)

Shirley you jest[/QUOTE]
 
Back
Top