[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Nov 12, 2019 - 10:28pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:24pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - GeneP59 - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:22pm
 
Fires - kurtster - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:21pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - GeneP59 - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:15pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Nov 12, 2019 - 4:49pm
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - Nov 12, 2019 - 4:15pm
 
Name My Band - SeriousLee - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:47pm
 
The Black Crowes - SeriousLee - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:46pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Nov 12, 2019 - 2:33pm
 
What are you listening to now? - black321 - Nov 12, 2019 - 1:50pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Nov 12, 2019 - 12:39pm
 
Don't Make Me Laugh - Red_Dragon - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:53am
 
Bolivia - R_P - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:08am
 
What Makes You Sad? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 12, 2019 - 10:56am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Nov 12, 2019 - 9:47am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 12, 2019 - 8:59am
 
Health Care - miamizsun - Nov 12, 2019 - 8:18am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - cc_rider - Nov 12, 2019 - 7:59am
 
Immigration - Isabeau - Nov 12, 2019 - 7:31am
 
Counting with Pictures - yuel - Nov 12, 2019 - 6:33am
 
Ebola - miamizsun - Nov 12, 2019 - 5:27am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Nov 12, 2019 - 5:14am
 
Browser history - lyteroptes - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:55am
 
MacOS app - brpierce - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:07am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - sirdroseph - Nov 12, 2019 - 1:33am
 
Democratic Party - westslope - Nov 11, 2019 - 9:29pm
 
Neil Young - westslope - Nov 11, 2019 - 5:38pm
 
Talking Heads - R_P - Nov 11, 2019 - 4:50pm
 
The death penalty on trial? - cc_rider - Nov 11, 2019 - 3:16pm
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Nov 11, 2019 - 3:12pm
 
Canada - SeriousLee - Nov 11, 2019 - 2:52pm
 
Republican Party - Isabeau - Nov 11, 2019 - 1:18pm
 
TWO WORDS - Isabeau - Nov 11, 2019 - 10:37am
 
Puzzle it - SeriousLee - Nov 11, 2019 - 8:00am
 
Song, artist & album cover on apple TV app - gtufano - Nov 11, 2019 - 2:16am
 
Economix - westslope - Nov 10, 2019 - 2:33pm
 
Stuff you didn't know - Red_Dragon - Nov 10, 2019 - 2:18pm
 
2020 Elections - Red_Dragon - Nov 10, 2019 - 1:40pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - SeriousLee - Nov 10, 2019 - 1:37pm
 
Today in History - SeriousLee - Nov 10, 2019 - 9:09am
 
Jriver album covers not displayed - olivierbo73 - Nov 10, 2019 - 3:46am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - bgbgbg - Nov 10, 2019 - 2:35am
 
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote') - SeriousLee - Nov 10, 2019 - 12:34am
 
RIP R.E.M. - R_P - Nov 9, 2019 - 10:25pm
 
New Music - R_P - Nov 9, 2019 - 8:10pm
 
Neoliberalism: what exactly is it? - westslope - Nov 9, 2019 - 6:24pm
 
Military Matters - westslope - Nov 9, 2019 - 6:20pm
 
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't... - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 2:37pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - sirdroseph - Nov 9, 2019 - 7:08am
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 5:18am
 
Music Videos - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 5:15am
 
What Did You See Today? - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 4:46am
 
Out the window - SeriousLee - Nov 9, 2019 - 4:43am
 
What can you hear right now? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 8, 2019 - 7:58pm
 
Alternative URL for .ogg stream ? - sbarnum - Nov 8, 2019 - 6:03pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Nov 8, 2019 - 4:36pm
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 3:32pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 3:06pm
 
Things I wish for ..... - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:57pm
 
Great guitar faces - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:53pm
 
More reggae, less Marley please - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:34pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Ohmsen - Nov 8, 2019 - 2:23pm
 
Movie Quote - Proclivities - Nov 8, 2019 - 12:04pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Nov 8, 2019 - 10:14am
 
Just pictures - Proclivities - Nov 8, 2019 - 8:40am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 8, 2019 - 8:09am
 
What music have you paid real money for recently? - haresfur - Nov 8, 2019 - 5:30am
 
FLAC stream - antakar - Nov 8, 2019 - 4:58am
 
Q: How Many Surrealists Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?? - oldviolin - Nov 7, 2019 - 3:27pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Nov 7, 2019 - 2:42pm
 
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon? - miamizsun - Nov 7, 2019 - 2:18pm
 
News of the Weird - miamizsun - Nov 7, 2019 - 2:14pm
 
Radiohead - R_P - Nov 7, 2019 - 1:31pm
 
Apple TV - oklahope - Nov 7, 2019 - 1:18pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask an Atheist Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 49, 50, 51  Next
Post to this Topic
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 23, 2015 - 8:25am

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Stunning.

-ly stupid.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Mar 23, 2015 - 8:01am

 kurtster wrote:
(...)  I really have no other explanation.  Make of it what you will.  But I took this picture.  It was in broad daylight and is not altered in any way. (...)
 
Looks like the camera strap (or something similar. Dreadlocks? {#Mrgreen}) was in front of the lens...
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 23, 2015 - 5:57am

 RichardPrins wrote:

It has an element of truth, regardless of data. Old-time cameras in their own way accounted for other "ghosts' (in the pre-Photoshop days).

 
Funny you should bring this up.  Years ago I posted a picture I took in 2006 that shows circular beams of light coming from nowhere in a house that we were bidding on a painting job.  There is a very interesting back story to the picture.  The home owner was a widower who had recently lost his wife due to an illness.  The house was very charming and we spent several hours there.  In the course of discussing colors to complement the decor he made a point to how much of his wife was present in the house because of its decor. It became very clear that he missed his wife and was still deeply in love with her.  Through the course of the conversation he mentioned that he had lived in the development for many years having lived in one of the original homes many years ago that we determined that I used to mow for them as a kid.some 30 years earlier.  One day, I injured myself with the lawn mower and his wife who was a nurse was home at the time came out to help me.  The incident is a separate story unto itself, but not relevant to this. 

Anyway in the course of events, we toured the home and took pictures to recall the rooms for the purpose of creating a bid.  The home owner often mentioned that he wished his wife was still around to help him make some decisions on the decor.  So the picture below shows a piece of fabric laying on a bed as a possible thing to work with.  No biggie, took the pic along with several more of the room.  Later on when reviewing the pictures we found this one.  We looked at it and were quit amazed at what we saw.  We anguished about showing him the picture and in the end, we didn't.  We never did get the job.  He died several months later and joined his wife.  I took the picture to be perhaps his wife indicating a preference to that piece of fabric on the bed in the picture.  I really have no other explanation.  Make of it what you will.  But I took this picture.  It was in broad daylight and is not altered in any way.

  SPIRITUAL 1

Here is another shot of the bed at the same time.

SPIRITUAL 2

Another shot.  Same room, same time ... yes it was broad daylight ...

  DSC00617


R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 10:39pm

 Prodigal_SOB wrote:
Yeah, I know and I suspect the graph is a total SWAG rather than based on any real data, but it's still one of my favorite XKCDs.
 
It has an element of truth, regardless of data. Old-time cameras in their own way accounted for other "ghosts' (in the pre-Photoshop days).
Prodigal_SOB

Prodigal_SOB Avatar

Location: Back Home Again in Indiana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 10:28pm

 RichardPrins wrote:

Cameras that have brought about yet more silliness. {#Mrgreen}
Exhibit A.

 
Yeah, I know and I suspect the graph is a total SWAG rather than based on any real data, but it's still one of my favorite XKCDs. 
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 10:11pm

 Prodigal_SOB wrote:
 Oh yeah, one more thing.
 
 
Cameras that have brought about yet more silliness. {#Mrgreen}
Exhibit A.
Prodigal_SOB

Prodigal_SOB Avatar

Location: Back Home Again in Indiana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 10:00pm


 Oh yeah, one more thing.
 

 
Prodigal_SOB

Prodigal_SOB Avatar

Location: Back Home Again in Indiana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 9:30pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
kurtster wrote:
So here's why I asked the question ...

I was recently reminded that it is becoming commonplace here in the states that when you sell a house you must declare that it is haunted, if it is.

For those who do not believe in ghosts (the paranormal) how does that sit with you ?  Ghosts have a legal standing in the USA.

The other question for those who do believe in ghosts, in what realm do they exist ?  An afterlife, another dimension of existence unrelated to our earthly existence, or what ?

This is just thoughtful curiosity on my part.

There are statutes in some states requiring disclosure of "emotional defects”. A property with factors affecting its market value unrelated to its physical condition is known as "stigmatized." If the house was a notorious brothel or crack house, say.

The only time a claim that a disclosing a haunting was a seller's obligation made it to the Supreme Court the claim was dismissed, in Stambovsky v. Ackley.

So no, ghosts do not have legal standing in the US. A claim of haunting (true or not) does need to be disclosed in some jurisdictions, but the legal precedent above would probably invalidate such a requirement if it went to court.

 
   A fascinating discussion, but I do have a couple of minor issues with the terminology used.  When I see the phrase "the Supreme Court" I and I think most others would assume you are talking about the Supreme Court of the United States.  As I was hard pressed to see how there could be a federal angle to this I had to look it up and was relieved to find that it was actually the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division that decided this case.  Being a Cliffs Notes kind of guy I went for the Wikipedia article rather than the actual court documents but there were a couple of things that I found kind of interesting.  It was about as egregious a situation as you could imagine.  The seller in this case had actively promoted, perhaps even created the notion that the house was haunted.  Property law in New York at the time though was caveat emptor and the trial court initially ruled in favor of the seller.  However an appellate court overturned that decision saying.

Where, as here, the seller not only takes unfair advantage of the buyer's ignorance but has created and perpetuated a condition about which he is unlikely to even inquire, enforcement of the contract (in whole or in part) is offensive to the court's sense of equity. Application of the remedy of rescission, within the bounds of the narrow exception to the doctrine of caveat emptor set forth herein, is entirely appropriate to relieve the unwitting purchaser from the consequences of a most unnatural bargain.

 When it got to booted up to the Supremes a majority on the court held that because of his prior actions the seller could not now claim that it wasn't haunted and for the purposes of this case "as a matter of law, the house is haunted."   However they also ruled it was still the buyer's obligation to have made this determination.  It was the dissenting opinion, also siding  with the seller,  that relied on the argument that there ain't no such things as ghosts.

Finally, if the doctrine of caveat emptor is to be discarded, it should be for a reason more substantive than a poltergeist. The existence of a poltergeist is no more binding upon the defendants than it is upon this court.


   I'm also a bit curious as to just what Kurt means by "commonplace".   It's been a long time since I have personally bought or sold a house, but a do have a lot friends and relatives who have moved around quite a bit over the years and I do know a couple of real estate agents.  I have never in my life heard of this being part of a sale.  I have to think that if really was something that more than a just a very few crackpots were concerned about I would be able to find a listing for somebody doing home ghost inspections.  It's been my experience that there is never a shortage of people willing to take money from fools whenever the opportunity exists.  I couldn't find a single listing for one in my phone book though.  However I do realize all markets are different.  Are you selling a house and having a lot potential buyers ask about it?   Is this something you and your friends wouldn't think of making an offer without including?  Do you know of a reputable home ghost inspection service I could use if need one?  Is this something anyone here has ever had to deal with?
 


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 4:18pm

 haresfur wrote:

But this could affect the price when you sell, particularly since it can be shown that you claimed to buy into the belief. So I suppose your best bet would be to die at home and have your relatives claim that your ghost decided to move to Mexico with the old ghost.

So Kurt, do you believe in ghosts? 

 
I'm open to their existence.

You make a good point about buying a property at a reduced price by acknowledging a haunting and the problem one might encounter at a later date during a resale. 
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 4:14pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Nah, I'd have an exorcist/friend with beer come and remove the ghost long before selling. Solved!

 
The critical ingredient.
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 3:35pm

 haresfur wrote:

But this could affect the price when you sell, particularly since it can be shown that you claimed to buy into the belief. So I suppose your best bet would be to die at home and have your relatives claim that your ghost decided to move to Mexico with the old ghost.

So Kurt, do you believe in ghosts? 

 
Nah, I'd have an exorcist/friend with beer come and remove the ghost long before selling. Solved!


haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 3:17pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Actually, if I am buying a house and find out that the seller's moving because the house is haunted, I'm going to smell a bargain and play on that fear. If I find out after the closing, I'm going to kick myself for missing that, but I can see some people getting lawyered up about it to try to recoup some of the purchase price. But it's all about money and taking advantage of someone else's irrational beliefs.
 
But this could affect the price when you sell, particularly since it can be shown that you claimed to buy into the belief. So I suppose your best bet would be to die at home and have your relatives claim that your ghost decided to move to Mexico with the old ghost.

So Kurt, do you believe in ghosts? 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 11:11am

kurtster wrote:
So here's why I asked the question ...

I was recently reminded that it is becoming commonplace here in the states that when you sell a house you must declare that it is haunted, if it is.

For those who do not believe in ghosts (the paranormal) how does that sit with you ?  Ghosts have a legal standing in the USA.

The other question for those who do believe in ghosts, in what realm do they exist ?  An afterlife, another dimension of existence unrelated to our earthly existence, or what ?

This is just thoughtful curiosity on my part.

There are statutes in some states requiring disclosure of "emotional defects”. A property with factors affecting its market value unrelated to its physical condition is known as "stigmatized." If the house was a notorious brothel or crack house, say.

The only time a claim that a disclosing a haunting was a seller's obligation made it to the Supreme Court the claim was dismissed, in Stambovsky v. Ackley.

So no, ghosts do not have legal standing in the US. A claim of haunting (true or not) does need to be disclosed in some jurisdictions, but the legal precedent above would probably invalidate such a requirement if it went to court.
winter

winter Avatar

Location: in exile, as always
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 8:04am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

For this to be an issue, the seller must participate in the belief that haunted houses are a thing. If I'm selling a house that's rumored by local children/morons to be haunted, I would happily state that it is not haunted and that anyone who says otherwise is welcome to try to prove that it is. But if I truly believe it's haunted by a "bad" ghost, but hide that fact, and sell to someone else who believes in ghosts, then they have a claim, no? 

Actually, if I am buying a house and find out that the seller's moving because the house is haunted, I'm going to smell a bargain and play on that fear. If I find out after the closing, I'm going to kick myself for missing that, but I can see some people getting lawyered up about it to try to recoup some of the purchase price. But it's all about money and taking advantage of someone else's irrational beliefs.
 
This is somewhat different from me selling a house that is notorious for having been the scene of a recent or infamous grisly murder, or is (in the case of the movie Poltergeist), built on a burial ground/cemetery. Those things can drive down property values because I'm going to wonder about cleanup, or worry that some sort of remediation will happen at my expense. If it's just the scene of an infamous but not necessarily grisly/messy crime, then you're dealing with public perception and yeah, who wants to live in a home everyone associates with that? Ghosts or not, it's not reasonable for everyone to be Spock about it... "hey, you live in that house where the guy kept 3 girls locked up for years? Weird" Yeah, you'd only be able to get market price for something like that if you don't disclose it to the buyer, so I agree that people who buy might have a claim.

 
{#Yes}
buzz

buzz Avatar

Location: up the boohai


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 7:48am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
that would make an interesting court case:

Suing the other party for misrepresenting a ghost.

Sounds like fun.

Who you gonna call as your first witness? 

 
Ghostbusters
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 4:32am

 kurtster wrote:

Agreed.  The lawyer issues and money issues certainly play into this.  I'm just trying to keep this simple however.  But you do allow for the additional question of if a so-called known haunted house were for sale, would you avoid purchasing it ?  Or would you try and purchase it at a greatly reduced price ?  (You already answered this question but its still out there for others) I guess it measures the strength of one's convictions, yes / no ?

Yes, these are all hypotheticals,  but the very nature of this thread is to discuss the hypothetical.

 
I think if you believe in ghosts enough to have it influence your homebuying decisions, you're screwed. Older homes have all likely had someone die in them; newer homes you have to assume they may be on sacred ground or whatever or just potentially full of bad juju. I don't know how those people make it thru the day. I guess that's why we have feng shui.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 4:22am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
that would make an interesting court case:

Suing the other party for misrepresenting a ghost.

Sounds like fun.

Who you gonna call as your first witness? 

 
Exactly right.  It would have a little bit of everything in play.


NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 4:14am

that would make an interesting court case:

Suing the other party for misrepresenting a ghost.

Sounds like fun.

Who you gonna call as your first witness? 
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 4:04am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

For this to be an issue, the seller must participate in the belief that haunted houses are a thing. If I'm selling a house that's rumored by local children/morons to be haunted, I would happily state that it is not haunted and that anyone who says otherwise is welcome to try to prove that it is. But if I truly believe it's haunted by a "bad" ghost, but hide that fact, and sell to someone else who believes in ghosts, then they have a claim, no? 

Actually, if I am buying a house and find out that the seller's moving because the house is haunted, I'm going to smell a bargain and play on that fear. If I find out after the closing, I'm going to kick myself for missing that, but I can see some people getting lawyered up about it to try to recoup some of the purchase price. But it's all about money and taking advantage of someone else's irrational beliefs.
 
This is somewhat different from me selling a house that is notorious for having been the scene of a recent or infamous grisly murder, or is (in the case of the movie Poltergeist), built on a burial ground/cemetery. Those things can drive down property values because I'm going to wonder about cleanup, or worry that some sort of remediation will happen at my expense. If it's just the scene of an infamous but not necessarily grisly/messy crime, then you're dealing with public perception and yeah, who wants to live in a home everyone associates with that? Ghosts or not, it's not reasonable for everyone to be Spock about it... "hey, you live in that house where the guy kept 3 girls locked up for years? Weird" Yeah, you'd only be able to get market price for something like that if you don't disclose it to the buyer, so I agree that people who buy might have a claim.

 
Agreed.  The lawyer issues and money issues certainly play into this.  I'm just trying to keep this simple however.  But you do allow for the additional question of if a so-called known haunted house were for sale, would you avoid purchasing it ?  Or would you try and purchase it at a greatly reduced price ?  (You already answered this question but its still out there for others) I guess it measures the strength of one's convictions, yes / no ?

Yes, these are all hypotheticals,  but the very nature of this thread is to discuss the hypothetical.


ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 22, 2015 - 3:44am

 kurtster wrote:
I was recently reminded that it is becoming commonplace here in the states that when you sell a house you must declare that it is haunted, if it is.

For those who do not believe in ghosts (the paranormal) how does that sit with you ?  Ghosts have a legal standing in the USA.
 
For this to be an issue, the seller must participate in the belief that haunted houses are a thing. If I'm selling a house that's rumored by local children/morons to be haunted, I would happily state that it is not haunted and that anyone who says otherwise is welcome to try to prove that it is. But if I truly believe it's haunted by a "bad" ghost, but hide that fact, and sell to someone else who believes in ghosts, then they have a claim, no? 

Actually, if I am buying a house and find out that the seller's moving because the house is haunted, I'm going to smell a bargain and play on that fear. If I find out after the closing, I'm going to kick myself for missing that, but I can see some people getting lawyered up about it to try to recoup some of the purchase price. But it's all about money and taking advantage of someone else's irrational beliefs.
 
This is somewhat different from me selling a house that is notorious for having been the scene of a recent or infamous grisly murder, or is (in the case of the movie Poltergeist), built on a burial ground/cemetery. Those things can drive down property values because I'm going to wonder about cleanup, or worry that some sort of remediation will happen at my expense. If it's just the scene of an infamous but not necessarily grisly/messy crime, then you're dealing with public perception and yeah, who wants to live in a home everyone associates with that? Ghosts or not, it's not reasonable for everyone to be Spock about it... "hey, you live in that house where the guy kept 3 girls locked up for years? Weird" Yeah, you'd only be able to get market price for something like that if you don't disclose it to the buyer, so I agree that people who buy might have a claim.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 49, 50, 51  Next