ForumGarden

Reincarnation? You decide.

To the Left, Jeremy Corbyn. English Politician with Left Wing views.

To the Right, Pyotr Tchaikovsky, Russian Composer with Conservative views.

They'd be doppelgänger.

I can think of nothing in any of Tchaikovsky's biographies which suggests he had a political thought in his life, I'd be interested to know why you ascribe to him "Conservative views". Perhaps you mean musically conservative, in which case I think you'd have trouble explaining the final symphonies.

If you look at Kuznetsov's portrait, the trimming has changed the shape of the face considerably. The portrait itself isn't at all like Mr Corbyn.

FourPart;1488513 wrote: Reincarnation? You decide.

To the Left, Jeremy Corbyn. English Politician with Left Wing views.

To the Right, Pyotr Tchaikovsky, Russian Composer with Conservative views.





Apart from the ears, that's a good likeness, FourPart! I think the case for reincarnation is still undecided. There are several people around today that have knowledge of previous times/life that is difficult to explain by conventional means. I'm open-minded about the concept, TBH.

Doppelganger is an equally valid explanation.

spot;1488514 wrote: They'd be doppelgänger.

I can think of nothing in any of Tchaikovsky's biographies which suggests he had a political thought in his life, I'd be interested to know why you ascribe to him "Conservative views". Perhaps you mean musically conservative, in which case I think you'd have trouble explaining the final symphonies.

If you look at Kuznetsov's portrait, the trimming has changed the shape of the face considerably. The portrait itself isn't at all like Mr Corbyn.


Tchaikovsky was a product of Tsarist not revolutionary Russia, and that his political and social views were highly conservative.
(One Conservative Tchaikovsky Source)

Is this meant to be a serious thread, FP?

Probably.

I'm trying to get my head round the idea that I might be the reincarnation of Queen Cleopatra, but only if I look like her. It's a requirement for reincarnation that I never heard of previously.

FourPart;1488564 wrote: (One Conservative Tchaikovsky Source)


I see the sentence, it's a great pity Mr Gardiner didn't put a reference against it. I have no idea why he thinks it's true. I'll reed a couple of chapters elsewhere and see if I can discover where he's basing that "deeply conservative" from, it's very alien.

Easy to mock, not so easy to explain!

As I said earlier, there are several people around today that have knowledge that is difficult to explain by conventional means. Here are some of those people. Can anyone explain, by rational means, HOW these people knew the things they claim about their 'previous life'?

10 Interesting Cases Of Supposed Reincarnation - Listverse

(I'm not certain that account #1 should be on the above link, though)

All very thought provoking.... Even if it's unproveable.

But they all have to look the same. I got that bit, yes. Like Mr Corbyn might be a reincarnation of Pyotr Tchaikovsky because they're spitting images of each other.

spot;1488575 wrote: But they all have to look the same. I got that bit, yes. Like Mr Corbyn might be a reincarnation of Pyotr Tchaikovsky because they're spitting images of each other.


Personally, I'm not sure that would be a requirement for reincarnation. However, that's not to say reincarnation doesn't happen. I've an open mind on this subject. I would tend to judge by what 'impossible' knowledge a person has, as opposed to who they resemble.

Ahso!;1488567 wrote: Is this meant to be a serious thread, FP?


Not particularly.

I'm not a believer in reincarnation to any degree. I think reincarnation requires a soul of some sort. Other than a soul defined as one's accumulative history, I'm not convinced of any other context.

There is a theory out there that I've become aware of that suggests the notion of particles of the deceased traveling between identical universes and sort of visiting the same person in those other universes and somehow revealing or hinting at the near future as well as other sensations, I suppose.

It's pretty interesting to think about.

Ahso!;1488591 wrote: I'm not a believers in reincarnation to any degree. I think reincarnation requires a soul of some sort. Other than a soul defined as one's accumulative history, I'm not convinced of any other context.

There is a theory out there that I've become aware of that suggests the notion of particles of the deceased traveling between identical universes and sort of visiting the the same person in those other universes and somehow revealing or hinting at the near future as well as other sensations, I suppose.

It's pretty interesting to think about.


It definitely qualifies as part of 'the great unknown', Ahso. I've also heard something similar to the theory you have put forward; either way it's quite intriguing!

Ahso!;1488591 wrote: There is a theory out there that I've become aware of that suggests the notion of particles of the deceased traveling between identical universes and sort of visiting the the same person in those other universes and somehow revealing or hinting at the near future as well as other sensations, I suppose.

It's pretty interesting to think about.


Point-to-point immediate contact and information exchange across space and time is commonplace. If you go outdoors tonight and look at the middle star of Orion's Belt, there will be a succession of coherent photons triggering your retinal cells. Each of those photons has - naturally enough - traveled at the speed of light, so no apparent time has elapsed for the photon between being released from the atomic energy event in 675AD and firing one of your neurons. As far as the photon's concerned, a single atom from 1,340 years ago just reached out and touched a single atom in your eye and influenced your mind, and the photon was the instantaneous energy transfer.

There's a Czech scientist who drew a graph a few years ago, depicting space and time. Depending on how he drew a line or plane across the graph, he demonstrated different classes of perception and noted that all of them have been reported during different mental states. All space could be perceived as a single location, all time could be perceived as a single moment, depending on what your points of reference were.

I don't think a brain in a different era and location, dying or otherwise, needs necessarily to emit a soul which has to exist independently and travel independently to get from the one person to the other. As you say, the idea of an externally independent soul detached from the physical medium in which a mind exists is bogus tosh recalled from a credulous uninformed age which lacked the mental tools to explore reality. But transferring information from one brain to another, one in a state to reach out and the other receptive, doesn't strike me as an impossibility.

spot;1488598 wrote: Point-to-point immediate contact and information exchange across space and time is commonplace. If you go outdoors tonight and look at the middle star of Orion's Belt, there will be a succession of coherent photons triggering your retinal cells. Each of those photons has - naturally enough - traveled at the speed of light, so no apparent time has elapsed for the photon between being released from the atomic energy event in 675AD and firing one of your neurons. As far as the photon's concerned, a single atom from 1,340 years ago just reached out and touched a single atom in your eye and influenced your mind, and the photon was the instantaneous energy transfer.

There's a Czech scientist who drew a graph a few years ago, depicting space and time. Depending on how he drew a line or plane across the graph, he demonstrated different classes of perception and noted that all of them have been reported during different mental states. All space could be perceived as a single point, all time could be perceived as a single moment, depending on what your points of reference were.

I don't think a brain in a different era and location, dying or otherwise, needs necessarily to emit a soul which has to exist independently and travel independently to get from the one person to the other. As you say, the idea of an externally independent soul detached from the physical medium in which a mind exists is bogus tosh recalled from a credulous uninformed age which lacked the mental tools to explore reality. But transferring information from one brain to another, one in a state to reach out and the other receptive, doesn't strike me as an impossibility.


But transferring information from one brain to another, one in a state to reach out and the other receptive

The Americans and the Russians dabbled extensively with a technique dubbed 'remote viewing' for spying purposes during the 'cold war' era, though it was not officially considered a success. No camera required, so no evidence of espionage.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

If the potentially respectable investigations of, for example, the late Professor Ian Richardson, are representative, then these mind-conjunctions require very powerful triggers which your dabblers might well find too difficult to reproduce - the violent death of the active agent being pretty much an essential starting point. How the CIA would hope subsequently to track down and interrogate the recipient three year old might also form a barrier to its routine application as an operating technique.

Remote viewing, as opposed to full-fledged transmigration, could of course have laxer criteria. Were I asked to design a working technique - and I have considered the theoretical aspects quite thoroughly over the years - I suspect I would begin by ordering up a thousand or so male goats. Trial and error would follow. A refinement of the precise degree of astonishment to which the goat should be subjected, and exactly how much blood the remote viewer would then be required to drink, are key aspects, but fortunately Crowley left detailed notes.

spot;1488600 wrote: If the potentially respectable investigations of, for example, the late Professor Ian Richardson, are representative, then these mind-conjunctions require very powerful triggers which your dabblers might well find too difficult to reproduce - the violent death of the active agent being pretty much an essential starting point. How the CIA would hope subsequently to track down and interrogate the recipient three year old might also form a barrier to its routine application as an operating technique.

Remote viewing, as opposed to full-fledged transmigration, could of course have laxer criteria. Were I asked to design a working technique - and I have considered the theoretical aspects quite thoroughly over the years - I suspect I would begin by ordering up a thousand or so male goats. Trial and error would follow. A refinement of the precise degree of astonishment to which the goat should be subjected, and exactly how much blood the remote viewer would then be required to drink, are key aspects, but fortunately Crowley left detailed notes.


What a strange post! Quite why you would want to read/quote anything Crowley wrote is beyond me. One of the wickedest individuals I have ever read about ( if what is written is true); dangerously delusional, perverted and homicidal to boot.

It's got to be a 'wind-up'!

Smaug;1488602 wrote: It's got to be a 'wind-up'!You manage to work that out about one time in twenty.

But why do you do it? For a supposedly intelligent man, winding other people up seems to be a pretty pathetic, pointless, anile thing to do.

What joy you derive from it is utterly incomprehensible.

Might I recommend you seek psychiatric help....?

He didn't say he did - what he said is that that's how you worked it out.

In that case, if I only manage to work it out 1 time in 20, then there are 19 other 'wind-ups' that he's just alluded to....

And I really can't be bothered.....Life's too short!

That depends on what the "twenty" refers to. You'll need to ask spot. The choice of wording was probably deliberate.

Smaug;1488611 wrote: But why do you do it? For a supposedly intelligent man, winding other people up seems to be a pretty pathetic, pointless, anile thing to do.

What joy you derive from it is utterly incomprehensible.

Might I recommend you seek psychiatric help....?


I'm practically incapable of holding a conversation with you, and I'm pretty sure it's not anything I'm doing.

Either you're able to reed post#16 and recognize its humorous intent, or you're sufficiently humourless as to think I'm trying to misinform you. Nobody, but nobody, could imagine that it's a serious post. It can only make the slightest sense if it's seen for what it is, which is an amusement. A moment's flight of fancy. Whimsical. Incapable of serious interpretation. Like sending ForumGarden's congratulations to the leadership of North Korea on their seventieth anniversary. These posts fall bang-centre in the category of jeux d'esprit, compositions intended to display wit for the amusement of anyone who comes across them. They only work if they can, technically, be taken seriously, though nobody in their right mind would attempt to.

None of these things would be capable of amusing anyone if they didn't have an underlying statement of truth to make their point. In the case of post#16 the underlying statement of truth is the perniciously disgusting nature of spy agencies like the CIA and their amoral approach to whatever slime-laden job they invent for themselves.

In the unlikely event that there might be two meanings of "wind-up", I take it (from the wictionary) to mean "a humorous attempt to fool somebody, a practical joke in which the victim is encouraged to believe something untrue", though I would insist that it's only funny if the average reeder is likely to see through it and laugh. Why anyone would fail to see through these things would baffle me if it were common. They are inconsequential japes, obviously so and clearly understood as such by all but a few. There are so few who believe them literally that, I'm afraid, I tend to find it funnier still on those rare occasions when it happens.

May I just say...

After reading you for ten years Spot, I still have to stop and re-read and wonder 'is he being serious'. You do walk a very fine line of being believable sometimes.

If it was obvious, it wouldn't be worth writing.

This entire thread, just to bring it back into perspective, is about FourPart mistaking the word reincarnation for doppelgänger. And people honestly believe I've claimed expertise in killing goats to bring about abnormal states of mind and nominated Crowley as an authority? Nobody could be that dim.

I occasionally, on a quiet night, dangle a hook on the off-chance I might get a bite, that's all. It's astonishing what some people will swallow.

Spot, as Betty Boop said, and as far as I'm concerned I sometimes am not sure whether you are being serious or whether you are joking, because you write stuff in such a schoolmasterish and quite often an old fashioned manner ! If I took something that you posted with a pinch of salt and treated it as not serious and made a reply accordingly, I bet I would get it in the neck because on that occasion you are bound to be serious. I would be seen as making fun of you and I'm damn sure you would not take that very well would you ? That is why a lot of members use the emoticons - just to emphasize that what they have just said is in fact not meant to be serious ! The emoticons can be very useful when you cannot see a person's face, have eye contact, body language or tonal inflection. Emoticons (smileys) are used to suggest the mood of the post, and they save much misinterpretation.

Your aversion to using emoticons causes people to misinterpret your posts quite often. Is this a deliberate ploy, a bit like your miss spelling of some words, probably to annoy and irritate readers (reeders - á la spot ) ?

Perhaps all the readers should treat all the spot posts as being 'tongue-in-cheek and jocular !

spot;1488674 wrote: If it was obvious, it wouldn't be worth writing.

This entire thread, just to bring it back into perspective, is about FourPart mistaking the word reincarnation for doppelgänger. And people honestly believe I've claimed expertise in killing goats to bring about abnormal states of mind and nominated Crowley as an authority? Nobody could be that dim.

I occasionally, on a quiet night, dangle a hook on the off-chance I might get a bite, that's all. It's astonishing what some people will swallow.
You speak of people not understanding humour, yet you don't seem to appreciate it from others. I made a post in a light hearted vein, and straight away, true to form you jumped in with both barrels. Ahso even asked if the post was intended to be serious. I repled "Not particularly", yet you continued on your tirade.

As for mistaking Reincarnation with Doppleganger, might I remind you of the dictionary definition of Doppelganger:

doppelgänger

or Doppelgänger

[dop-uh l-gang-er; German daw-puh l-geng-er]

Examples

Word Origin

noun

1.

a ghostly double or counterpart of a living person.
(Doppelganger | Define Doppelganger at Dictionary.com)

I used to find your posts arrogant & offensive. These days I see it as not being a personal thing because you seem to be the same way with everyone. I don't think it's so much that your posts are arrogant & offensive. I think it's just you that's arrogant & offensive.

On the serious side, I know that there was a study done in Southampton University (and probably other institutes as well), where images of pictures, letters & numbers were placed in strategic positions where they could only be seen from above in locations such as Intensive Care wards, where there might be a high incidence of "Out Of Body Experiences", where a typical claim might be that a person had physically died & they found themselves floating above everyone in the ward watching down, but when asked about any of the images, not one was able to give an answer. This leads me to believe that the "Out Of Body Experiences" are nothing more than Lucid Dreaming, often experienced in the phase between sleep & consciousness, frequently brought about by an oxygen imbalance in the brain.

FourPart;1488689 wrote:

As for mistaking Reincarnation with Doppleganger, might I remind you of the dictionary definition of Doppelganger: a ghostly double or counterpart of a living person.


Yes! Perfect! Exactly what the picture of Tchaikovsky represents! Bravo, you got there. And what the picture doesn't represent is any sign of reincarnation!

My word it's uphill sometimes.

spot;1488691 wrote: Yes! Perfect! Exactly what the picture of Tchaikovsky represents! Bravo, you got there. And what the picture doesn't represent is any sign of reincarnation!

My word it's uphill sometimes.
Tchaikovsky, in case you were unaware, is not a living person.

FourPart;1488689 wrote: You speak of people not understanding humour, yet you don't seem to appreciate it from others. I made a post in a light hearted vein, and straight away, true to form you jumped in with both barrels. Ahso even asked if the post was intended to be serious. I repled "Not particularly", yet you continued on your tirade.

As for mistaking Reincarnation with Doppleganger, might I remind you of the dictionary definition of Doppelganger:



(Doppelganger | Define Doppelganger at Dictionary.com)

I used to find your posts arrogant & offensive. These days I see it as not being a personal thing because you seem to be the same way with everyone. I don't think it's so much that your posts are arrogant & offensive. I think it's just you that's arrogant & offensive.


I would agree with you there, FourPart! Disdainful arrogance personified, IMO. It's a shame, because without the arrogance and disdain, he would be very interesting to talk to. Maybe he feels he's superior to everyone in some way?

FourPart;1488693 wrote: Tchaikovsky, in case you were unaware, is not a living person.Indeed not. He - or at least his image as painted by Kuznetsov which you half-reproduced - is, to whatever extent there's a resemblance, the ghostly look-alike counterpart of the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, who is extremely alive, rampantly heterosexual and musically talentless. Tchaikovsky is consequently Mr Corbyn's doppelgänger. The essence of doppelgänging is to look alike. Two living look-alikes are also often colloquially referred to as doppelgängers, the BBC ran a couple of such stories last month with photos and used the word, both related in some way to Ireland. They're here, here and here.

Do you really think - I ask because it's possible that you do - that a reincarnated person is a reincarnation because he has a physical resemblance to his dead counterpart? If so then I just don't see where you've acquired this false notion. The living person is called a reincarnation only because he is believed to re-embody the soul of the dead person, and either has or doesn't have memories of living that previous life. Where does a physical resemblance come into the concept?

Blimey, I should have kept my mouth shut!

I posted light heartedly to gently point out that Spot can be hard to 'get'. More of a prompt to sit back and ponder what he is saying and have a wonder about his intentions and whether some of it is tongue in cheek. The one in this thread was screamingly obvious to me as it was soooo off the wall. Other times it's not so easy to tell, which is the exact right time to ponder instead of firing off an instant knee jerk reaction!

I didn't post with the intention of setting off a battery of insults to be flung at him with such animosity.

Unfortunately, Spot is ubiquitously 'hard to get' , and there is so much of insult, disdain, humour and enquiry mixed up in this smorgasbord that I've virtually given up on the idea of 'getting' him! If virtually everyone struggles to 'get' him, then surely the onus is on Spot to make himself 'gettable'....?

Emoticons can help here......

Smaug;1488756 wrote: Unfortunately, Spot is ubiquitously 'hard to get' , and there is so much of insult, disdain, humour and enquiry mixed up in this smorgasbord that I've virtually given up on the idea of 'getting' him! If virtually everyone struggles to 'get' him, then surely the onus is on Spot to make himself 'gettable'....?

Emoticons can help here......


In the context of this thread? I'm defending the English language. Reincarnation has a meaning, and it's quite simply untrue to say "Doppelganger is an equally valid explanation". The reason there's two words is that there's two different things under discussion. That's why we have vocabulary.

As for your non-alphabetic semaphore, I write in English. Not in pictograms.

I'm not convinced by "ubiquitously" either.

Emoticons can be very useful as an indicator of the mood/intent of the post, in the absence of tonal inflection, body language and facial expression. These things are all ABSENT in text, and emoticons help to bridge this gap. I use them for these very reasons, as it helps to fill this void.

You should try it, you might be surprised at the results....

Smaug;1488759 wrote: These things are all ABSENT in text
No they bloody aren't! For goodness' sake, if you can't pick up a tone of voice from plain English then the problem is entirely your own!

Gordon Bennett!

- does the demonstration convince you?

It's a rather obvious example. But when things are more subtle that's where the problems can arise.

You set yourself up as 'defending the English language', so maybe you can explain why you deliberately mis-spell certain words; (reeding) is a fair example. It is hypocritical to 'pick holes' in someone else's grammar, spelling or context if you're not prepared to 'go by the book' yourself. It's called hypocrisy....

Smaug;1488761 wrote: It's a rather obvious example. But when things are more subtle that's where the problems can arise.

You set yourself up as 'defending the English language', so maybe you can explain why you deliberately mis-spell certain words; (reeding) is a fair example. It is hypocritical to 'pick holes' in someone else's grammar, spelling or context if you're not prepared to 'go by the book' yourself. It's called hypocrisy....


Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of English language spelling reform.

An obvious example is all it takes to refute "These things are all ABSENT in text". The emphasis and lack of subtle variation is there in your wording. You see the "all"? The capitalized "absent"? These things are obviously not all absent in text.

spot;1488762 wrote: Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of English language spelling reform.


You've always got a glib explanation. I've read the link, and it's akin to Phonetics! Come down off your high horse as a defender of the English language; you might as well 'go the whole hog' and use txtspk, M8!!

Our great English authors would be turning in their graves!

Smaug;1488761 wrote: It's a rather obvious example. But when things are more subtle that's where the problems can arise.

You set yourself up as 'defending the English language', so maybe you can explain why you deliberately mis-spell certain words; (reeding) is a fair example. It is hypocritical to 'pick holes' in someone else's grammar, spelling or context if you're not prepared to 'go by the book' yourself. It's called hypocrisy....


We've all been here. We've all voiced the same concerns in the past. One thing everybody needs to know is that Spot is, by admission, a pedant. A pedant of the highest order. Pedantry is often relayed in what might seem a condescending manner but however one views it, it's loaded with truth. Unarguable truth. It's probably that, that we find so annoying sometimes. One thing pedants aren't, by nature, is hypocritical. What it is, is annoyingly honest

Snowfire;1488764 wrote: We've all been here. We've all voiced the same concerns in the past. One thing everybody needs to know is that Spot is, by admission, a pedant. A pedant of the highest order. Pedantry is often relayed in what might seem a condescending manner but however one views it, it's loaded with truth. Unarguable truth. It's probably that, that we find so annoying sometimes. One thing pedants aren't, by nature, is hypocritical. What it is, is annoyingly honest


Glad I'm not in the minority then, Snowfire! We're all entitled to opinions, regardless. One thing I won't take though, is a lecture from Spot on use of the English language from a 'reformer'; I was taught 'in the old school', which is one of the main reasons that I make the effort to ensure that my spelling and grammar is correct ( this damn Toshiba keyboard tries it's best to thwart me in this endeavour at every turn, though! ).

Sure, language and spelling evolves over time, but this 'reform' is too close to phonetics for my taste.

Maybe we should all use 'text-speak'/phonetics and be damned? Not I, because it feels like a concession to the partially literate. Others may differ,but that's my opinion.

Smaug;1488763 wrote: Our great English authors would be turning in their graves!George Bernard Shaw bequeathed most of his assets for the purpose of spelling reform. Again, you're being too absolute.

When I was at school, my German text-books all used Gothic script because that's what German printers used when printing German. I can't imaging many Germans wanting to revert to that state of affairs.

Smaug;1488766 wrote: Glad I'm not in the minority then, Snowfire! We're all entitled to opinions, regardless. One thing I won't take though, is a lecture from Spot on use of the English language from a 'reformer'; I was taught 'in the old school', which is one of the main reasons that I make the effort to ensure that my spelling and grammar is correct ( this damn Toshiba keyboard tries it's best to thwart me in this endeavour at every turn, though! ).

Sure, language and spelling evolves over time, but this 'reform' is too close to phonetics for my taste.

Maybe we should all use 'text-speak'/phonetics and be damned? Not I, because it feels like a concession to the partially literate. Others may differ,but that's my opinion.


Doesnt mean you can't disagree or argue. You just need to understand that its not an easy ride and pedantry comes with rules. Unbreakable rules.

It's easier for me because I don't come with any pretence of intellectual ability of any kind. People sift through what I post to glean some sort of clue as to what I'm on about but if you raise your head above the parapet with any degree of intellectual superiority, real or imagined, then you need to get the rules spot on.

I just duck and dive under the radar chucking bread to the birds, so no one really notices. It's probably easier to see a bigger picture from that perspective. And safer too.

spot;1488767 wrote: George Bernard Shaw bequeathed most of his assets for the purpose of spelling reform. Again, you're being too absolute.

When I was at school, my German text-books all used Gothic script because that's what German printers used when printing German. I can't imaging many Germans wanting to revert to that state of affairs.


IN YOUR OPINION I'm being too absolute. Your opinion. My old English teacher would, no doubt, disagree! I've already agreed that language and spelling evolve over time, and I've already stated that it's too close to phonetics for my taste. My opinion.

Apparently, you've previously admitted to being a pedant. Here's a couple of definitions of 'pedant'....

Pedantry - definition of pedantry by The Free Dictionary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant

It's not for me to say which one is the more appropriate here, or even if either are appropriate. I merely supply the definition(s).

This thread has gone seriously 'off-topic', hasn't it? Still, nothing unusual there!:wah:

(A good example of an emoticon illustrating that the last line of this post is NOT a complaint, and not an expression of annoyance....)

Smaug;1488769 wrote: IN YOUR OPINION I'm being too absolute. Your opinion.Utter rubbish. It's a matter of logic. You wrote "Our great English authors would be turning in their graves!" and I pointed out that GBS obviously wouldn't be. The only opinion is whether GBS was a great English author. If you don't like GBS, try H G Wells instead - equally committed to spelling reform. Your sentence is too absolute because there are exceptions. Where does my opinion enter into it?

Smaug;1488769 wrote: This thread has gone seriously 'off-topic', hasn't it? Still, nothing unusual there!:wah:No it hasn't. This thread is about whether reincarnation has anything to do with physical resemblance - it's a use of English thread. Reincarnation has absolutely sod all to do with physical resemblance.

FourPart;1488579 wrote: Not particularly.Break it down; serious/silly.

spot;1488770 wrote: Utter rubbish. It's a matter of logic. You wrote "Our great English authors would be turning in their graves!" and I pointed out that GBS obviously wouldn't be. The only opinion is whether GBS was a great English author. If you don't like GBS, try H G Wells instead - equally committed to spelling reform. Your sentence is too absolute because there are exceptions. Where does my opinion enter into it?


YOU stated that I'm too absolute. YOU stated, NOT G.B.S.!!! Therefore it's YOUR opinion! Unless you're a 'medium' channeling G.B.S.s opinions, now?

The title of this thread is Reincarnation? You Decide.. Quite what a debate on English language reform, spelling and pedantry has got to do with reincarnation eludes me, but I've no doubt that you'll attempt to validate your statement(s) as to why it's appropriate....

Smaug;1488773 wrote: YOU stated that I'm too absolute.
I made that statement as a matter of fact, not as an opinion.