Annie

Post Reply New Topic

No more Mr. Nice Guy.

I have given you Sir Thomas Brown [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/relmed/relmed.html] and ye have not danced; I have given you Simone Weil [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102841384], and ye have not lamented.

Now, have a go at Annie:

http://lovestthoume.com/AnniesVisionsmenu.html

She is highly unusual - I might say unique. What she sees is totally unlike what you would expect from an Evangelical source. Some of us feel there is an authenticity not to be ignored. Sci fi buffs are particularly urged to compare and contrast.

"Annie Are You OK?
So, Annie Are You OK
Are You OK, Annie
Annie Are You OK?
So, Annie Are You OK
Are You OK, Annie
Annie Are You OK?
So, Annie Are You OK?
Are You OK, Annie?
Annie Are You OK?
So, Annie Are You Ok, Are You Ok, Annie?"

No, seriously, is this Annie suffering a psychological disorder?

Well, that was a fast read. But you could get that or another idea from just one short sample.

I would say no. The way the visions are reported, their content, argue against it.

But of course there are those who would maintain that belief in a divine entity, let alone receiving communications from a divine entity, not even mentioning letting other people KNOW it happened, would count as psychological disorder. Look what they did to Joan of Arc.

If your standards allow sane people to believe in God, then the answer is clearly no.

If she wasn't insane then she could just be attention seeking, along with her pastor. But hey, when she wins the lottery with prophetic accuracy (as in with a P value of <0.05), then I'd consider her claims.

Remember, libraries are full of elaborate and consistent works of fiction.

Edit:

Also, I put sanity on a bell curve, so no, I don't think people can be entirely sane and superstitious.

Let me tell you, ANY science what gets published - because the researcher has the right sort of evidence - is the tip of the iceberg. It is like mining. You see a vein of ore, just a a thin tracem you follow it, maybe eventually you get lucky and find the mother lode. Maybe not, in which case another great idea sits on the back burner until somebody can take it the next step.

I really get tired of the paranoia. My "attacks on climate change"? Where?

What I SAID was, "[Taking predicting the lottery as the criterion for accurate prediction], the Global Warming debate would be over, because none of the meltdown forecasters have won the lottery any more than the ice age forecaster of my young days did." What does that attack? Whom does it attack? How does it attack it?"

If you want my views on the climate toktok [see Sam Clemens' mot], just ask. For now I will just say, I do not attack much of anybody, and certainly not climatologists. I leave that for the Strident Thought Police [the exceptions know who they are].

What I should perhaps have included, and will say now - she is not "predicting", any more than the Book of Revelation is [yes, there are those who want to do a Nostradamus number on it]. What she - and I believe Revelation - is presenting is a synchronous [bad word, but it will have to do] view from outside. Most of it is current events seen from an angle normally unavailable. But if you read a bit and thought about it you know that.

So crazy girl says crazy things, and bad things happen? This fails to shock me.