Leaderboard

My take is that I haven't personally experienced it, and that I am not afraid to say that I don't know what people are reporting. I also don't have a pathological need to explain everything (away). I do know that the eye glow has been reported by several people that I have found to be otherwise reliable witnesses. For that reason, I remain intrigued and choose to suspend judgement. I don't understand how that is an unreasonable position to take. As far as your assumption of my woeful ignorance concerning logical reasoning, I would like to remind you what happens when you assume. Obviously you think me an ass. I would hate to see someone of your obvious knowledge and erudition descend to the same lowly rank. Edited to fix a syntactical error.

'Ya know...there are a lot of things that we take for granted today that were in the "gray areas of science' not too long ago.

Regarding "playing tricks" ... that requires some interpretation on our part. Tricks points to humor and humor requires a cultural context since different cultures find different things funny. Providing stimulii to assess our reactions ... most likely. Whether it is "humor" or not requires crawling out the limb a little farther. I would recommend caution in interpretation of "jokes." I would recommend caution in returning "jokes". Could go badly wrong. We have to make assumptions and we have to interpret, there's no progress without those, but we need to keep a clear eye on what it is we are assuming and what interpretations we are making so we don't slip up and allow them to become something else, something akin to doctrine or dogma. Their validity is part of what we need to test, it's not the basis for evaluating the results of the test. MIB

I'm guessing it was probably the same thing that they pulled off when they peeped in my window that's 15' above ground level. And that's nothing compared to what the one pulled off at my second story bedroom window. They have "talents".