A Week in a Haunted House

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No hostility intended. Law school is really hard. I’m sure you did your best.

I am going to tell you what I should have told the last person in real life who used this disgusting tactic on me:

You do not get to assume ANYTHING. And I have NO OBLIGATION to confirm or deny any of your unfounded assumptions. For the record, I do not confirm nor deny. Now, BACK... OFF.

Do not talk about my law school experience, it is a sensitive topic.

Stop derailing this thread and stay out of my personal affairs.

With the fact you literally mentioned it before, and your ludicrous logic on several topics, it is not an unwarranted assumption.

That said, you should know that a single sighting requires an incredible burden of proof for it to be a positive claim. The fact you seem to ignore this for the sake of the argument belies an ignorance on the topic, or a rather malicious deceit, and that is not an unfounded assumption, nor an unwarranted one.

We assume you are ignorant on the topic because thinking you are maliciously deceitful doesn't exactly befit you.

[Infected Mushroom]

I am going to tell you what I should have told the last person in real life who used this disgusting tactic on me:

You do not get to assume ANYTHING. And I have NO OBLIGATION to confirm or deny any of your unfounded assumptions. For the record, I do not confirm nor deny. Now, BACK... OFF.

Do not talk about my law school experience, it is a sensitive topic.

Stop derailing this thread and stay out of my personal affairs.

With the fact you literally mentioned it before, and your ludicrous logic on several topics, it is not an unwarranted assumption.

That said, you should know that a single sighting requires an incredible burden of proof for it to be a positive claim. The fact you seem to ignore this for the sake of the argument belies an ignorance on the topic, or a rather malicious deceit, and that is not an unfounded assumption, nor an unwarranted one.

We assume you are ignorant on the topic because thinking you are maliciously deceitful doesn't exactly befit you.

Are you all going to keep at this until/unless I report?

Is this where this is headed?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

With the fact you literally mentioned it before, and your ludicrous logic on several topics, it is not an unwarranted assumption.

That said, you should know that a single sighting requires an incredible burden of proof for it to be a positive claim. The fact you seem to ignore this for the sake of the argument belies an ignorance on the topic, or a rather malicious deceit, and that is not an unfounded assumption, nor an unwarranted one.

We assume you are ignorant on the topic because thinking you are maliciously deceitful doesn't exactly befit you.

Are you all going to keep at this until/unless I report?

Is this where this is headed?

Don't look at me, I was just explaining the situation, here.

I even tied it to this thread, so I don't think I am derailing the topic by tying it to the thread in question, considering I've engaged you in good faith.

[Dogmeat]

With the fact you literally mentioned it before, and your ludicrous logic on several topics, it is not an unwarranted assumption.

That said, you should know that a single sighting requires an incredible burden of proof for it to be a positive claim. The fact you seem to ignore this for the sake of the argument belies an ignorance on the topic, or a rather malicious deceit, and that is not an unfounded assumption, nor an unwarranted one.

We assume you are ignorant on the topic because thinking you are maliciously deceitful doesn't exactly befit you.

Are you all going to keep at this until/unless I report?

Is this where this is headed?

Report him then, or address his post.

[Galloism]

That said, you should know that a single sighting requires an incredible burden of proof for it to be a positive claim. The fact you seem to ignore this for the sake of the argument belies an ignorance on the topic, or a rather malicious deceit, and that is not an unfounded assumption, nor an unwarranted one.

Well, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

For instance:

“I saw a guy juggling bowling pins while walking across a tightrope.” is not an unusual claim. He’s probably a circus performer and the speaker was at a circus. We can accept this as probable.

“I saw Donald Trump juggling bowling pins while walking across a tightrope.” is an unusual claim. The White House may be like a circus right now, but it seems extremely unlikely an overweight real estate developer in his 70s has those kind of skills and demonstrates them for people.

“I saw an alien juggling bowling pins while walking across a tightrope.” is even more extraordinary, because while we have scientific proof Donald Trump both exists and is on this planet, we do not for aliens.

“I saw a ghost juggling bowling pins while walking across a tightrope.” is even more extraordinary than that, because while aliens existing is statistically probable (even though improbable to find us), there’s no reason or even physics mechanism we know of whereby ghosts can even exist.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

An incredible claim requires incredible evidence tbh.

If one sighting is true, then I am sure that person has an extraordinary level of evidence that proves, beyond doubt, that this sighting is true.

If one sighting is true, then I am sure that person has an extraordinary level of evidence that proves, beyond doubt, that this sighting is true.

Hmmmm... Not really?

You can have a true sighting of something without anything else to back it up. It doesn't make it not true, it would just be disbelieved (and incorrectly so).

For example, maybe the truth is XYZ. I come up with a completely wrong and nonsensical equation that shows truth = XYZ. I am disbelieved... but the truth is still XYZ.

Truth =/= there is excessive proof for it

That's not how statement valuation works.

Let's take your statement "XYZ is true". You just telling us that XYZ is true does not, in fact, mean XYZ is true because you cannot back up your claim, and therefore we would disbelieve your claim due to a lack of proof.

Your word is not enough to believe you. Especially in cases where proof should exist that you are telling the truth. The problem here is that the claim that aliens exist requires incredible proof that, in fact, sapient life exists in other planets. A claim that has not been proved yet, and therefore there's a reason to be skeptic about any claims of sightings.

Whether you saw it or not is irrelevant, because you are not trying to convince yourself that what you saw is true, you don't need to tell us anything to believe whatever you want to believe. You are trying to convince us that what you are saying is true, so there's a burden of proof you need to meet when you try to convince other people. It just so happens that other people require a higher burden of proof than you would as the person who saw the thing he saw.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

With the fact you literally mentioned it before, and your ludicrous logic on several topics, it is not an unwarranted assumption.

That said, you should know that a single sighting requires an incredible burden of proof for it to be a positive claim. The fact you seem to ignore this for the sake of the argument belies an ignorance on the topic, or a rather malicious deceit, and that is not an unfounded assumption, nor an unwarranted one.

We assume you are ignorant on the topic because thinking you are maliciously deceitful doesn't exactly befit you.

Are you all going to keep at this until/unless I report?

Is this where this is headed?

Oh yea, also, let me respond to your dumb pissy statements with this, that your reaction is hilarious and hypocritical, considering this:

We all know he pulled it out of his ass. We don't need to pretend it comes from somewhere special.

And I wouldn't give my children to Trump either, because they're my kids quite frankly.

And you alone reserve the right to work them half to death and disinherit them if they don’t live their life the way you want them to live (by your own admission if you had billions of dollars you wouldn’t supply them with anything more then 10k once you are now longer legally obliged to provide). I suspect you would even charge your own kids rent as soon as they can legally work groceries.

The thought of them growing up and taken care by the rich, affluent trump family and having a real shot at being someone important and powerful shocks you. You are reminded how your own father made you bleed to get what little you have today and you shudder at the possibility that your child could get more for less.

Most important of all, you have to remain the legal father. Anything else is a massive blow to your self worth.

I have to say, this is quite a fascinating alternate point of view (even though I can’t personally agree with it). Internally it’s all consistent (if you run with some premises) but it is utterly reprehensible.

It has become very clear to me that a lot of people in this thread respond with a form of knee jerk possessiveness. THEY ARE MY KID. Never mind what is best for them. Never mind that someone could offer more.The other half is this strange ideology where you remain “parent” but really won’t support your children at all.

And the fact you literally nominated me for the insanity award this year for the same, taking a severe jab at me and calling me crazy for shit that happened months ago:

Award for Insanity Soldati ("I might disinherit my kids... if I had billions I wouldn't share more than $10,000 with them")

I suggest you chill the fuck out, considering you have no right to talk to me about "personal attacks". Considering I let you go for calling my morals reprehensible and downright insinuating I was crazy. You might have forgotten about this. I haven't. You wanna talk about me insulting you or making you uncomfortable? Let's make this clear: you don't get to tell me shit, considering your insinuations at me, twice.

[The New California Republic]

No hostility intended. Law school is really hard. I’m sure you did your best.

I am going to tell you what I should have told the last person in real life who used this disgusting tactic on me:

You do not get to assume ANYTHING. And I have NO OBLIGATION to confirm or deny any of your unfounded assumptions. For the record, I do not confirm nor deny. Now, BACK... OFF.

Do not talk about my law school experience, it is a sensitive topic.

Stop derailing this thread and stay out of my personal affairs.

...

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

People wouldn't be talking about Law School if IM hadn't told us about it the first place.

[The New California Republic]

People wouldn't be talking about Law School if IM hadn't told us about it the first place.

Don't poke the bear.

[Thermodolia]

People wouldn't be talking about Law School if IM hadn't told us about it the first place.

Don't poke the bear.

IM is Stlain confirmed!!

Next year vote IM for best Commie

[Ifreann]

I'm baffled that people persist in bringing something up when a fellow poster has asked us, repeatedly and at length, not to do so. I didn't realise that there was so much hostility towards IM that people would make such deliberate attempts to be hurtful.

[The New California Republic]

I'm baffled that people persist in bringing something up when a fellow poster has asked us, repeatedly and at length, not to do so. I didn't realise that there was so much hostility towards IM that people would make such deliberate attempts to be hurtful.

I don't know what is going on either. It seems to be the flavor of the month at the moment for some unexplained reason.

[The Free Joy State]

I'm baffled that people persist in bringing something up when a fellow poster has asked us, repeatedly and at length, not to do so. I didn't realise that there was so much hostility towards IM that people would make such deliberate attempts to be hurtful.

I don't get it either.

I also miss the time when this was just a fun thread about your friend offering money to housesit for a ghost, and everyone was merrily ripping out the copper wiring.

[Alvecia]

I'm baffled that people persist in bringing something up when a fellow poster has asked us, repeatedly and at length, not to do so. I didn't realise that there was so much hostility towards IM that people would make such deliberate attempts to be hurtful.

I don't get it either.

I also miss when the time when this was just a fun thread about your friend offering money to housesit for a ghost, and everyone was merrily ripping out the copper wiring.

Why does everyone know someone they can pawn off copper wire to? I feel like I missed something in orientation.

[The New California Republic]

I'm baffled that people persist in bringing something up when a fellow poster has asked us, repeatedly and at length, not to do so. I didn't realise that there was so much hostility towards IM that people would make such deliberate attempts to be hurtful.

I also miss when the time when this was a fun thread about your friend offering money to housesit for a ghost, and everyone was merrily ripping out the copper wiring.

It kinda turned into IM saying that ghosts exist, and everyone else asking how that can be proved other than through unreliable eyewitnesses.

[The New California Republic]

I don't get it either.

I also miss when the time when this was just a fun thread about your friend offering money to housesit for a ghost, and everyone was merrily ripping out the copper wiring.

Why does everyone know someone they can pawn off copper wire to? I feel like I missed something in orientation.

Scrap merchants are easy to find in the phone book or on the Internet.

[The Free Joy State]

I don't get it either.

I also miss when the time when this was just a fun thread about your friend offering money to housesit for a ghost, and everyone was merrily ripping out the copper wiring.

Why does everyone know someone they can pawn off copper wire to? I feel like I missed something in orientation.

Because this is an alternate world, where everyone has a friend who can pay ten-thousand dollars to housesit.

So, likewise, everyone knows a guy who knows a guy who won't ask questions about a huge roll of copper wiring that you just happen to find lying around.

Scrap merchants are easy to find in the phone book or on the Internet.

There's that, too. Although, IRL, they probably would ask questions if you rolled up with a van full of copper wiring and said, "'Ere, guv; wanna buy some copper wire, no questions asked." (I'm guessing; I've never -- and would never -- stripped a house of its contents and fittings IRL)

[Alvecia]

Why does everyone know someone they can pawn off copper wire to? I feel like I missed something in orientation.

Scrap merchants are easy to find in the phone book or on the Internet.

And here I thought I just hadn’t spent enough time as a kid knicking trolleys from the local supermarket. Turns out it’s just boring logical stuff.

[Ifreann]

Why does everyone know someone they can pawn off copper wire to? I feel like I missed something in orientation.

Because this is an alternate world, where everyone has a friend who can pay ten-thousand dollars to housesit.

So, likewise, everyone knows a guy who knows a guy who won't ask questions about a huge roll of copper wiring that you just happen to find lying around.

[Alvecia]

Why does everyone know someone they can pawn off copper wire to? I feel like I missed something in orientation.

everyone has a friend

Ah, there’s my issue

[The New California Republic]

So, likewise, everyone knows a guy who knows a guy who won't ask questions about a huge roll of copper wiring that you just happen to find lying around.

The flecks of paint, insulation, and drywall still attached to the wire is gratis.

[The New California Republic]

Because this is an alternate world, where everyone has a friend who can pay ten-thousand dollars to housesit.

So, likewise, everyone knows a guy who knows a guy who won't ask questions about a huge roll of copper wiring that you just happen to find lying around.

Yup, they'd take several rolls of copper wiring and various household metal fixtures off your hands with no questions asked!

[The Free Joy State]

Because this is an alternate world, where everyone has a friend who can pay ten-thousand dollars to housesit.

So, likewise, everyone knows a guy who knows a guy who won't ask questions about a huge roll of copper wiring that you just happen to find lying around.

No, I don't use them anymore. They went out of business.

I use a different firm of no-questions-asked scrap dealers now: Hookey, Shifty, and Downright-Crooked.

[Chan Island]

I'm just amazed people even know about IM's law school days. Must be a thread I missed somewhere.

Anyway, leaving sleeping bears...


I just had another thought/question related to the premise- where is the haunted house, and what time of year is it? Because I could imagine some haunted houses being more desirable to housesit than others based on their location. For example, a haunted house with no central heating in the north of Siberia in winter might be an extraordinarily bad place to spend a week, as would a haunted house in the middle of Aleppo.

On the other hand, a country home in the English countryside or a villa high in the Alps might be really quite nice places to hang out.