anti-Christ

@ghost-of-a-duke said
It 'is' possible to be honest about something and also be delusional. I don't however think this applies to the accounts being discussed. I believe it is more likely a case of honest misinterpretation of events, influenced yes by a stressful situation and pre-held beliefs.

I think it does apply. And the factors are not a mystery. "Honesty" is irrelevant.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Again, did I miss a post about the angel being discussed having wings and hovering off the ground? - I am suggesting a kindly human being could be misconstrued as 'angelic' by a theist, during a traumatic event. (Without the need for any hallucinations or delusional thought).

Once again, in your analogy, did the guy who saw the weather balloon claim to have had a conversation with the lifeform inside the UFO?

@fmf said
No.

Then your point is moot, believing as I do that you refer to Dive's embellished recollection, not Suzianne's.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Then your point is moot, believing as I do that you refer to Dive's embellished recollection, not Suzianne's.

I have, at all times, been referring to my own vivid recollection of the story about the CPR on the streets of Denver.

@fmf said
Once again, in your analogy, did the guy who saw the weather balloon claim to have had a conversation with the lifeform inside the UFO?

So, just going to ignore the point I made, hey?

Suzianne talking to the 'angel' is irrelevant if we accept it was a kind human being in the right place at the right time.

@fmf said
I have, at all times, been referring to my own vivid recollection of the story about the CPR on the streets of Denver.

Which you can't link to?

Was it one person or numerous people? Where is the evidence to support your claim? (I have no memory whatsoever of the original post).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
So, just going to ignore the point I made, hey?

Suzianne talking to the 'angel' is irrelevant if we accept it was a kind human being in the right place at the right time.

I don't see your point as being much other than you grasping for something to say.

Suzianne talking to the 'angel' is irrelevant if we accept it was a kind human being in the right place at the right time.

"Suzianne talking to the 'angel' is", as I see it, a delusion, caused by the "high stress" you mentioned and chronic drug abuse". Another possibility is that the story is a complete fabrication that simply seeks attention on a message board. However, I am taking her at her word.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Which you can't link to?

No. It was about 8-10 years ago.

@fmf said
No. It was about 8-10 years ago.

And yet you have a vivid recollection of it?!.......

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Was it one person or numerous people? Where is the evidence to support your claim? (I have no memory whatsoever of the original post).

Was it one person or numerous people?

So many people that she lost count. Brought back from the dead... on sidewalks and in the backs of cars. She had no idea how many there'd been.

Where is the evidence to support your claim?

I have no need to prove anything to you.

I have no memory whatsoever of the original post.

It was before your time.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
And yet you have a vivid recollection of it?!.......

Yes.

@fmf said
Was it one person or numerous people?

So many people that she lost count. Brought back from the dead... on sidewalks and in the backs of cars. She had no idea how many there'd been.

Where is the evidence to support your claim?

I have no need to prove anything to you.

I have no memory whatsoever of the original post.

It was before your time.

Okay, I'll put complete trust in your vivid recollection...

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Okay, I'll put complete trust in your vivid recollection...

Whether you do or not makes no difference.

@fmf said
Whether you do or not makes no difference.

It does to me. I'll take your 'vivid recollections' from 8-10 years ago with a pinch of salt. (Bearing in mind your bias when it comes to Suzianne).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
It does to me. I'll take your 'vivid recollections' from 8-10 years ago with a pinch of salt. (Bearing in mind your bias when it comes to Suzianne).

None of the stuff you have been saying about the nature of delusion is augmented or supported in any way by you now changing tack in this conversation and saying you need that pinch of salt with regard to the account given.