The Mandela Effect Can No Longer Be Denied: Berenstein Was The Tip of The Iceberg

just as weve adressed your memory conformity and 'magical thinking' several times... also, very very boring - .-

Magical thinking is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation. Magical thinking may lead people to believe that their thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it.[1] It is a type of causal reasoning or causal fallacy that looks for meaningful relationships of grouped phenomena (coincidence) between acts and events.

i wonder who that sounds like

a reply to: bryan2006

The New Zealand thread must have been a "doozy!!"

There's definitely something going on!! If not, there wouldn't be so many people noticing it. I'd wager a guess it's much more noticeable now to more people than the other times numbers of people began seeing the discrepancies.

a reply to: WeSbO

Thanks for mentioning it.

So, the logo up there in beautiful Canada still reads Home Depot and not just the verbal or written wording?

I can't draw any definite conclusions from it but it adds to the data.

a reply to: tweetie

Yep it does, but only in the french parts of canada (which seems logic) :

www.homedepot.ca...

www.marketingmag.ca...

a reply to: game over man

I can't honestly answer that but as far as manipulating people's minds, in my perspective, no abductions would be needed. What I've learned is brain manipulation is done via all sorts of technology. For example, it can be remotely done generally or it can be pinpointed to an individual or specific group.

For the people who've had a history of abductions by the Greys, and I'm not an expert on it, I don't think there is a correlation between that and the ME which is purely my sense of it when reading your query. No one has done a survey on it, as far as I know, but it would be interesting to know a percentage.

a reply to: tweetie

It doesn't add to the data. It just proves yet again that the ME crowd make simple mistakes that anyone can make and refuse to accept them as mistakes.

The Brand is The Home Depot.

The website is homedepot.com

The store is The Home Depot and Home Depot depending on when and where the store was built.

Even their history switches between Home Depot and The Home Depot. Source

the founders’ vision of one-stop shopping for the do-it-yourselfer came to fruition when they opened the first two Home Depot stores on June 22, 1979, in Atlanta, Georgia.

So another example of ME completely explained, yet rejected by the ME crowd.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Just one world, one timestream - being manipulated by 'something'.

So then this relatively new concept, "the Mandela effect" is simply a rehashing of the Matrix, a programmed or simulated reality that can be hacked so to speak, a concept that has actually been around for centuries.

I lean towards this concept as being the reality we experience, based on social conditioning, media conditioning and my own experiences combined.

I would say that for an absolute certainty, there are no multiple timelines, or realities, involved.

as you say that is how you see it, reading this thread and the numerous others people have started, some are convinced they have come from an alternate reality, some imply with what they post and how they post that they are special/chosen and have a purpose greater than that of others.

You said his in reply to Agartha,

Hogwash, pure & simple, and more than a little dishonest from you. Go back a couple of pages, and read my posts where I appeal to EVERYONE to stop treating this like we've been 'chosen', and to quit proselytysing.

It seems that a few have interpreted that some have implied this.

That there is just challenging, its either not correctly expressed and interpreted wrong, even though some have actually said or brought forth the idea that they and those in similar positions are somehow chosen, Not just in this thread but in others.

Whenever someone expresses such things or when ever someone interprets that another is saying such its an invite to a more heated debate.


I find that fascinating, I can relate to the egotistical nature of such claims or ideas posters have.

My only skepticism or better yet doubt is towards those that say its impossible to be issues with memory or that they simply didn't know something before and learnt something new, Like I said I can relate to being so egotistical and the reason I post is to see how far ones ego can take them,

One could debate that, that could be my own ego manipulating me at the same time, I wont deny that it could be, which to me (in my own egotistical mind) gives me an edge over others that do deny certain things as being possible.

It is fascinating, I think many others find as such as well, just look at how many post in this and all the threads alike, both for and against.

Like I said in an earlier post, its entertaining to engage in such discussions, however if one takes it too seriously or personal its only harms them and maybe gives people on the other end a bit of gratification.

a reply to: tweetie

The NZ thing has been completely shown wrong even by those who perpetuate the ME.

Maps, especially flat maps, have land masses and continents moved slightly, made larger or smaller to get everything to fit on a 2d map. It seems it all depends on what maps you were used to using in school which seems to be where confusion is coming from.

Also, the "globe" in movies with the "added land mass" is the logo of the globe manufacturer and that has been proven undoubtedly on reddit.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TombEscaper

One of the ME's people seem to be pretty adamant about is what they remember as Captain Crunch now being called Cap'n Crunch. At first I dismissed this one, thinking I had always remembered it as Cap'n Crunch. But then I thought about the reason why I had known it as Cap'n Crunch. This is probably going back at least 15 years, when I still used to eat a lot of cereal. I clearly remember being at the store in the cereal aisle and seeing Captain/Cap'n Crunch. It was spelled Cap'n, and I thought to myself "Hmm, that's odd. All the years I've been eating this cereal and I've never noticed it's spelled that way." It looked strange and unfamiliar. It's almost like it jumped off the box and became Cap'n before my eyes. It's interesting that I would remember that, but I do, and it's the reason I had dismissed that ME at first.

You were quite right to dismiss this "phenomenon." The others are mistaken. The product has always spelled its name "Cap'n Crunch," although it is pronounced "Captain Crunch." This is at the heart of the vast majority of "Mandela Effect" examples. Blu-Ray is pronounced Blue Ray. McEntire is pronounced the same way as McIntyre. In Ukraine, the German-Jewish name "Bernstein" got transliterated into Cyrillic, then back translated on a statue-less Ellis Island into Berenstayn. (In movies, immigrants are always overjoyed when they see the Statue of Liberty as they approach Ellis Island, hence the mistaken impression on non-New Yorkers.)

But that brings up a whole new labyrinth of questions. If these ME's are all recent (last couple years), was my perception somehow seeing things differently for all those years? If Captain Crunch "became" Cap'n Crunch within the last year or so, how could I have noticed this "change" all those years before?

Why are you wasting mental effort on this non-issue? Your perception and memory is correct; Cap'n Crunch has always been spelled that way.

This is one of the reasons I've said multiple times that this has more to do with individual and collective perception than long-term memory.

Now you're starting to get it! Memory = perception / time. For example, there was a rock and roll band called "Bill Haley & His Comets." Hayley pronounced his name Hay- lee. The band's name (which changed from time to time) was a sort of pun, of course, but it led people to assume that the discoverer of the comet's name was pronounced the same. It is not, it has always been Ha-lee.

You are finally coming around to what I have been trying to explain for days: this "phenomenon" is the mind playing tricks on itself. It is mis-perceiving things, then being startled when you see them clearly... like an optical illusion. There is nothing mysterious or metaphysical about it.

For those of you who find it frightening that your memory does not match the reality before your eyes: do you find optical illusions frightening? Are you terrified because the mental circuits that interpret two dimensional images as being three dimensional can be confused to create what appears to be an "impossible reality?"

So why be terrified when your audio memories conflict with the visuals you are looking at? (Captain v. Cap'n, Springstein v. Springsteen, McIntyre v. McEntire, etc, etc, etc.)

You say memory = perception/time, but, time is showing itself to be an illusion through this phenomenon. I can now look back as far as the mid 90's and realize that I was experiencing this. It is not really correct to say "this point in 'time' is when things changed," or that there was some certain point on a linear timeline that people began to have these realizations. This is some sort of awakening or unveiling that is affecting different people at different junctures. It transcends time.

To say that people have been mistaken all this time on things such as Haley's Comet and the so-called "erroneous" Berenstein rendering is not logical. Such misconceptions have ways of being corrected, usually rather swiftly; not after 30 years of not realizing the so-called mistake.

For example, a few years ago the song "Radioactive" by Imagine Dragons became popular. Having never actually looked at the lyrics, I was under the false assumption they were singing "Ready to rock you," and I was far from alone on that. But that false assumption didn't last more than a few weeks, perhaps. Why? Because it is not really possible for something at the forefront of mainstream pop culture to remain misperceived en masse, for long periods of time. Such things simply have a way of correcting themselves. Now, you and others would have us believe that "mistaken" perceptions such as Haley's, Berenstein, and Depends have carried on for decades for who knows how many thousands of people, without them ever having been exposed to the "correct" rendering.

Nonsense.

I am saying these things not to debate with you, which is a pointless waste of energy, but for the benefit of others reading along.

a reply to: DJW001

Again, I am taking full credit for Blu-Ray/Blue-Ray since I am the one who injected into into the ME crowd as a test via YouTube.

a reply to: TombEscaper

Wait, you mean you can recall long term memories and have determined the ME has been happening since the 90's?? Don't you see the poor logic you've employed there? The whole issue with this phenomena is that you can't rely on memories. They are often wrong, even if just slightly.

a reply to: raymundoko

Don't you see the poor logic you've employed there?

let me answer that.
Nope

originally posted by: TombEscaper

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TombEscaper

One of the ME's people seem to be pretty adamant about is what they remember as Captain Crunch now being called Cap'n Crunch. At first I dismissed this one, thinking I had always remembered it as Cap'n Crunch. But then I thought about the reason why I had known it as Cap'n Crunch. This is probably going back at least 15 years, when I still used to eat a lot of cereal. I clearly remember being at the store in the cereal aisle and seeing Captain/Cap'n Crunch. It was spelled Cap'n, and I thought to myself "Hmm, that's odd. All the years I've been eating this cereal and I've never noticed it's spelled that way." It looked strange and unfamiliar. It's almost like it jumped off the box and became Cap'n before my eyes. It's interesting that I would remember that, but I do, and it's the reason I had dismissed that ME at first.

You were quite right to dismiss this "phenomenon." The others are mistaken. The product has always spelled its name "Cap'n Crunch," although it is pronounced "Captain Crunch." This is at the heart of the vast majority of "Mandela Effect" examples. Blu-Ray is pronounced Blue Ray. McEntire is pronounced the same way as McIntyre. In Ukraine, the German-Jewish name "Bernstein" got transliterated into Cyrillic, then back translated on a statue-less Ellis Island into Berenstayn. (In movies, immigrants are always overjoyed when they see the Statue of Liberty as they approach Ellis Island, hence the mistaken impression on non-New Yorkers.)

But that brings up a whole new labyrinth of questions. If these ME's are all recent (last couple years), was my perception somehow seeing things differently for all those years? If Captain Crunch "became" Cap'n Crunch within the last year or so, how could I have noticed this "change" all those years before?

Why are you wasting mental effort on this non-issue? Your perception and memory is correct; Cap'n Crunch has always been spelled that way.

This is one of the reasons I've said multiple times that this has more to do with individual and collective perception than long-term memory.

Now you're starting to get it! Memory = perception / time. For example, there was a rock and roll band called "Bill Haley & His Comets." Hayley pronounced his name Hay- lee. The band's name (which changed from time to time) was a sort of pun, of course, but it led people to assume that the discoverer of the comet's name was pronounced the same. It is not, it has always been Ha-lee.

You are finally coming around to what I have been trying to explain for days: this "phenomenon" is the mind playing tricks on itself. It is mis-perceiving things, then being startled when you see them clearly... like an optical illusion. There is nothing mysterious or metaphysical about it.

For those of you who find it frightening that your memory does not match the reality before your eyes: do you find optical illusions frightening? Are you terrified because the mental circuits that interpret two dimensional images as being three dimensional can be confused to create what appears to be an "impossible reality?"

So why be terrified when your audio memories conflict with the visuals you are looking at? (Captain v. Cap'n, Springstein v. Springsteen, McIntyre v. McEntire, etc, etc, etc.)

You say memory = perception/time, but, time is showing itself to be an illusion through this phenomenon. I can now look back as far as the mid 90's and realize that I was experiencing this. It is not really correct to say "this point in 'time' is when things changed," or that there was some certain point on a linear timeline that people began to have these realizations. This is some sort of awakening or unveiling that is affecting different people at different junctures. It transcends time.

To say that people have been mistaken all this time on things such as Haley's Comet and the so-called "erroneous" Berenstein rendering is not logical. Such misconceptions have ways of being corrected, usually rather swiftly; not after 30 years of not realizing the so-called mistake.

For example, a few years ago the song "Radioactive" by Imagine Dragons became popular. Having never actually looked at the lyrics, I was under the false assumption they were singing "Ready to rock you," and I was far from alone on that. But that false assumption didn't last more than a few weeks, perhaps. Why? Because it is not really possible for something at the forefront of mainstream pop culture to remain misperceived en masse, for long periods of time. Such things simply have a way of correcting themselves. Now, you and others would have us believe that "mistaken" perceptions such as Haley's, Berenstein, and Depends have carried on for decades for who knows how many thousands of people, without them ever having been exposed to the "correct" rendering.

Nonsense.

I am saying these things not to debate with you, which is a pointless waste of energy, but for the benefit of others reading along.

Stop feeding them.

In case anyone wonders, Nintendo has changed the name of Pikachu in some areas in the world.

Hong Kong Pokémon Fans Protest Pikachu's Name Change

Now Nintendo wants to unify them: Pokémon in Greater China will be officially called 精靈寶可夢, or Jingling Baokemeng in Mandarin (Jingling means “spirit” or “elf,” and Baokemeng is a transliteration of Pokémon). Earlier in Hong Kong, it was 寵物小精靈 Pet Little Elves (or Spirits), while in Taiwan, it was 神奇寶貝, Magic Babies.

Much better to just seek confirmation bias amirite?

a reply to: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TombEscaper

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: bryan2006
I haven't posted yet it or read absolutely all of the replies on this thread. It seems to be going better then one I helped create years ago about New Zealand... That one.

I'm wondering if there isn't a bouncing between realities like switching back and forth... I know there's something going on again.

How long ago was that, out of curiosity? I'd like to read that. I noticed some of these quite a while back, one of them pretty close to two years ago now.

The more I think about things, I'm starting to believe I was actually experiencing this as far back as 15-20 years ago. I have a few reasons for thinking that, but here is one.

One of the ME's people seem to be pretty adamant about is what they remember as Captain Crunch now being called Cap'n Crunch. At first I dismissed this one, thinking I had always remembered it as Cap'n Crunch. But then I thought about the reason why I had known it as Cap'n Crunch. This is probably going back at least 15 years, when I still used to eat a lot of cereal. I clearly remember being at the store in the cereal aisle and seeing Captain/Cap'n Crunch. It was spelled Cap'n, and I thought to myself "Hmm, that's odd. All the years I've been eating this cereal and I've never noticed it's spelled that way." It looked strange and unfamiliar. It's almost like it jumped off the box and became Cap'n before my eyes. It's interesting that I would remember that, but I do, and it's the reason I had dismissed that ME at first.

But that brings up a whole new labyrinth of questions. If these ME's are all recent (last couple years), was my perception somehow seeing things differently for all those years? If Captain Crunch "became" Cap'n Crunch within the last year or so, how could I have noticed this "change" all those years before?

This is one of the reasons I've said multiple times that this has more to do with individual and collective perception than long-term memory.

Here is another example of this strangeness. Below is a link to a news piece by Charles Osgood from all the way back in 1985, when (?'s) Comet was "back" in the area. In this piece, he talks about remembering Haley's (pronounced Hay-lee's) Comet as a child, but now (or then, in 1985) he realized it was always known as Halley's (pronounced Hal-lee's) Comet,and he had no proof other than his memory of a Haley's Comet. Now, what is really weird about this is that I remember that time, when the comet was passing by, and I definitely remember it as Haley's Comet; in fact, that's all I had known it or heard it as my whole life - until the Mandela Effect phenomenon. Everyone has always referred to it as Haley's Comet. I had never heard "Halley's." But sure enough, there is a 1986 NASA video featuring the comet, and it is referred to as Halley's (Hal-lee's).

Is this the earliest documented case of a Mandela Effect? It appears Charles Osgood and maybe others were experiencing the ME as far back as 1985. In his perception, it was Halley's Comet, but as for me and everyone I've known and everyone I had ever heard talk about it, it was Haley's. I'm not really sure how this is explaiable; but then again, I don't understand how any of this is explainable.

This seems to be the case for two other people in my life as well, concerning Captain Crunch. As far as Haley's Comet, I was out there in 1985 watching it pass by with my parents. My adoptive father died in October of that year and we had him out there in his wheelchair. That was also the same year it snowed six inches in San Antonio. A memorable year. I was 14 years old.

The explanation I got for the changing of the name was that we had simply been misspelling it all along, and I accepted that. But that change escaped my notice until February of last year. The reason I found out was, my employer adopted a beagle pup who has a really bad habit of escaping the front yard and she runs so fast that she was named Halley. I questioned that, and got the answer of historical misspelling.

This morning, however, I messaged her and asked her "What is the name of the island where Lady Liberty stands?". She answered back within less than one minute, "Ellis Island." No hesitation.

This woman is a practicing attorney with multiple specialties, a law professor, a small business owner and consummate professional. She was born and raised in Manhattan, and travels there at least twice a year, in fact she just got back from a visit last week. She is not uneducated, nor mentally unstable, or any of the other ridiculous things that have been stated as reasons for the ME. I did not mention it to her, either...although when she gets out of court today, it's going to bug her that I asked, and I fully expect her to message me about it.

I don't have a comprehensive enough grasp on the whole time shift concept to come to any viable conclusion about the possibilities here. I've had trouble with that theory from the start, because of the inconsistencies in the timeline, and also because not everyone is affected by all of the MEs. For example, Mandela himself is not a problem for me...which makes the fact that this thing is called the Mandela effect an annoyance to me personally. But I know we humans have a need to put labels on everything, so I accept that too.

Incidentally, Captain Crunch is my favorite cereal...particularly the peanut butter one. I've got a box of each in my pantry right this second. Total mouth-gasm...but I digress.

I noticed the change in spelling, but I accepted it too, because in the commercials they always called him "Cap'n"...exactly like military members slur it; "Sergeant" becomes "Saren't", "Gunnery" becomes "Gunny", and so on. I even said something about it to my husband...and this was at least four years ago...that FINALLY they started spelling it like they say it. It didn't bother me, just chalked it up to a product revamp, the same way I did with Depends and Herbal Essence.

I have never looked at the "official" list of MEs. I didn't know the Captain was one. Nor Haley's. Nor Ellis Island. I deliberately did not look, because I've worked at a medical research facility and understand the concept of artifact and contamination. I know it is very possible to become influenced by things like that, no matter how strong willed a person may be, and I decided to cut that out of the equation right from the start.

I have said this numerous times, but if this is being done to us, it is deliberate. I cannot accept the time/reality shift theory otherwise, at this point. And if you pay attention to the words of the people you and others keep feeding here, like I said before, they are providing information in those broken records they continue to play for us so relentlessly. That's deliberate, too.

Every good lie contains at least one hidden truth. It's obvious here though, because they're all reading from the same script, and it is not their lie in the first place. They don't answer questions posed to them because they don't have the answers. That is not their purpose here. Notice how much it escalates their behavior when they realize they're being ignored. I hope they keep doing it...they're bringing us closer to the truth.

This thread is becoming very difficult to read, because while many experiencers are trying to explain & understand their experiences, the 'broken record' is perfectly expressed by the pseudo-skeptics. None of whom have yet addressed the logic issue I pointed out, that the veracity of the Mandela Effect is unproveable, and its converse is equally unproveable.

Here's the post I made, which nobody has yet replied to. I reiterated this post a second time, and nobody replied to it. This is the third time of asking, to see whether any of the pseudo-skeptics care to engage in a discussion regarding the points I raise here:

So here's a few thoughts on the underlying mechanics of the ME.

Reality can be edited ... with huge apparent differences in the 'scenery', but zero difference (generally) in the narratives.

The narratives apparently keep flowing, like a river will keep flowing, even if someone dumps a big rock in the centre. There's a bend, an arc around the rock (think Obama's speech about putting hands upon the arc of history), but the water itself, the general features of the river, and the general flow of water, remain unchanged. Anything that was floating on the river keeps flowing right along too, it just bends round the rock as the water molecules do.

Perhaps we are all like dust carried on the surface of the river (Time) - as the river is diverted, we just keep on flowing towards the destination. Just because someone threw a few obstacles in, doesn't change the shape of the river or the path it is travelling ... perhaps we can start to consider Time to flow like the proverbial river, ever on towards the destination, even with a few bends around obstacles along the way.

Perhaps we could say that examples of the Mandela Effect are each an artefact, like a bunch of rocks tied together with twine, thrown into the river & separated out from one another along the river's course. The whole of the 'artefact' - several rocks tied together - is large, and stretches along quite a distance. Water flows around each individual part, and eventually traverses the whole of the artefact. At each point along the artefact, water molecules flow around something which is present, which is still connected to the 'past' (upstream), and which is connected to the 'future' (downstream). We look at the artefact from our point on the surface of the river and say that 'history has changed', because there are elements of the strange artefact further along upstream which appear to us different from the moment when we actually passed that part of the river, in our history. It (TIME/REALITY) has changed, but if we turn our heads to look back, all we can see is evidence of the presence of the artefact - we can't look back & see the previous moment in our history when that artefact did not exist. For better or worse, it's there now, and all evidence (our turning to look back) shows it having been back there, upstream, too. The past & present, and future, all tied up with the presence of this artefact, and none of us can cause the river to revert back to how it was before the artefact came to be deposited in the river.

As we journey along the river of Time, we are becoming aware that things can be changed retroactively - but without affecting the flow of Time, or the bulk of the narratives which were extant before the change occurred. The river more or less remains the same. The appearance of artefacts in Time, cannot be proven, and neither can it be disproven. Whether artefacts can be deposited in Time (whether the Mandela Effect is genuine) cannot be proven - it's a lot like the question of whether God exists, or doesn't exist. The only difference here, is that the evidence - in the case of the Mandela Effect - appears laden down upon the side of 'nothing has ever changed, no artefacts have been deposited in Time'. Memories are the ONLY type of evidence that can exist in the case of the Mandela Effect, unless there is some form of residue/ 'bleed through' of the old reality. All such residue will be disputed as erroneus by non-experiencers, for the simple reason that all other evidence - including their own memories - discounts the possibility of Time/Reality having ever been anything different.

Even if artefacts HAVE been deposited into the river of Time, those who haven't remembered the Time which we knew, (before the deposit was made) can never be made to see that anything has changed. All they can see is the evidence of the artefact further upstream in Time (for example, old TV commercials). We will forever be flogging a dead horse, even though philosophically - in this metaphor - the Mandela Effect could be a perfectly valid effect upon the type of Reality we inhabit, and perfectly possible, if the mechanisms were known. If, therefore, there is a force acting upon Time by depositing artefacts which alter our fundamental view of history, there is no way that we can ever convince non-experiencers of this fact, unless we convince them that pure logic permits it, and that our subjective memories appear to validate it. Even then, they would only be agreeing that in principle, the Mandela Effect may be real. They will never have personal evidence (memories) of the previously extant Reality.

I think this idea of artefacts being deposited in Time is quite possibly the closest analogy we can make. Whomever, or whatever, is doing this, has the ability to operate outside of strict linear Time. We are dealing with a force that is able to manipulate at least some manifest aspects of Time.

To move the discussion on a bit, can anyone claim that the scenario I outline above is not permitted by logic? I refer to the statement that perhaps, some force may be acting outside the constraints of linear Time, depositing artefacts - changes to the continuum - which then immediately become manifest in both the past & present at the same instant, leaving only a residual memory of the way things were before, in some people - the Mandela Effect.

The issue of logic, is that it doesn't have to be probable in order to be logically permissible. Is it logically permissible? Yes. Certain prerequisite conditions would need to be in place in order for this to happen, but we cannot assume that they are not in place.

I'm thinking of such things as mastery of the quantum & electro-gravitic fields, a conflux of technologies which may permit the generation of 'small' changes in the spacetime continuum, affecting both past & present scenery, yet leaving most narratives intact. Time may be quite inflexible when it comes to consciousness, hence narratives wouldn't be destroyed by the insertion of artefacts - the river would just bend around the artefact, so to speak. There would be no need for an ability to travel forward in Time.

We cannot really envisage this kind of technological development yet, but one day, we almost certainly will be capable of such feats. What if someone else already is capable? Well, then the conditions for the ME would be in place, and the matter would be quite straightforward - and we would be looking at possibly millions of people with residual memories of 'alternative scenery/narratives'. Which we presently do have.

Logically permissible, but unproveable one way or another.

Can you agree to that?

a reply to: tigertatzen

the trolls? cmon .. you know we aint trolls. you KNOW that.
stop trying to call us that.
I - at least - think ive proved im NOT a troll.
but , if you still feel that way, regardless of how many times ive said i care about you, i love my fellow man, i dont want people to get stuck in some insanity created by nothing else than their own imagination/experience/whatever - well..
ok. i will stop comment in the thread.

if you ask me now, to never say anything else in this thread - i promise you - i wont.
just to prove to you im NOT a troll.

deal?
tell me, if you honestly think im just trolling , tell me to stop.
and i PROMISE you i will never post anything here again.
but you have to be honest...

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I want to retract (is that a word? sorry im just swedish) my feelings toward you.
Ive read all your posts from the last 10 pages and you seem like an empathic person.
so i just wanted you to know (in case Tiger tells me to not post here anymore) that I think youre allright.
I wish you, and all your fellow MEers the best.
I mean that.
Peace.

Nobody in or from New York would think the Statue of Liberty is on Ellis Island, so I'm questioning the validity of your story.

To quote you: Every good lie contains at least one hidden truth. It's obvious here though.

a reply to: tigertatzen