Hayley is a Ghost

The new rules of Hayley Stevens

Posted on: June 20, 2011

1 – When I am right, I am right. Just because someone doesn’t agree with me because they have clear biases doesn’t mean it is okay for them to be rude and abusive.

2 – When people are rude to me on my blog, on my twitter or on my facebook account, I will not take it laying down.

3 – I will not allow people to abuse me online simply because I am female. Comments like ‘she’s a worthy receptacle of any mans porridge’ will not be tolerated.

4 – I have a right to write about my opinions and will not let anyone force me out of doing so.

5 – When people threaten me with legal action because they do not like what I am saying, I will not let that silence me until I am standing in a court.

6 – I will accept constructive criticism from anybody, the rest can fuck off.

7 – I know that I am open minded, those who think otherwise are the ones in the wrong.

8 – I do not have to apologise for being who I am, or for thinking what I do.

9 – From now on, I will ignore the annoying assholes who visit my blog and leave nasty and inflamatory comments. I will block those who are abusive on facebook and twitter and I will kick those who see fit to heckle me in real life. Kick them with my Dr Martens. In the shins.

10 – I will shoot Trolls on the god damn spot. With my pretend gun.

You may have noticed that ‘The Rather Friendly Skeptic’ no longer exists. She is “deceased” and instead I am Hayley Stevens, a woman who hides behind no labels. I don’t need to portray myself as friendly, I do not need to apologise for who I am or how I speak. It’s not me that has the problem, it’s those who I’ve mentioned above who have the problem and try to make it my problem.

I am a skeptical blogger, podcaster, writer and public speaker. I talk about my experiences as a paranormal researcher who has become skeptical as the years have gone by. I have made friends and I have made enemies. I have made more friends than enemies. I do not claim to be an expert – I do all of the aforementioned in my free time, as an aside from my professional career.

Today I let a bad situation get the better of me and I acted irrationally and let online bullies and trolls upset me, but I am Hayley Stevens and I wont let idiots get the better of me again.

I don’t care if you don’t like me.

You have been warned.

Advertisements

36 Responses to "The new rules of Hayley Stevens"

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!

No one should have to be a victim in this manner. People wonder why some skeptics are hard and harsh, well there are clear reasons.

Its a shame you’ve been driven to breaking point.

Porridge receptical- makes me (who can make some rather rude comments myself) feel icky.

Good for you, Hayley. It’s sad that it had to come to this, but you don’t deserve to be pushed around. Nobody does.

Skeptics can only really *be* friendly when the people they are intellectually opposing play nice and are courteous themselves. If part of one side has reduced itself to mean and nasty attacks, the other side has no reason to continue to try and facilitate communication with those people.

Online abuse should not be tolerated in any form. And if you disagree, you can piss off.

You know, If the rest of us in the skeptical community aren’t giving you support, kick us too. We can’t do anything about the woos, but we can make sure there’s good experiences to balance.

BRAVA! ~Delighted to see that you shall not let them silence your rational, humanist honest voice.

🙂 This is an excellent set of rules.

Sad to see you go from Twitter, but I’m glad you’re doing what’s right for you.

just for what it’s worth, you’re one of my favorite people in the “skeptical community” whatever that is; one I respect a great deal, and enjoy hearing from in blog, podcast, or whatever other form. Thanks for being a badass. 🙂

Thanks for keeping the blog going – this looks like an excellent set of rules. 2 and 6 together should make the comments section more civilized than it has been lately.

I’m sorry to hear that there are so many idiots out there, no doubt hiding behind the anonymity of their computers and saying things they would never say face to face. I personally liked the Friendly Skeptic, but understand why you need to protect yourself. Just don’t let them grind you down.

Maybe you should you stick to your own rules instead of stamping your feet when something doesn’t go your way! You’re the first one to cry “Oh, I’m hurt” when someone says something that you don’t like. But maybe it’s about time you considered other people’s feelings when you lay into them! Like the old maxim says, “if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out”.

John.

Firstly, where do I “lay into” anyone.
Secondly, kiss my ass. < rule 2 & 6 coming into play.

You have no idea what abuse I've been dealing with, so you have no right to even try to comment on what I should and shouldn't accept. Idiot.

There is a difference between calling someone out for their actions and being abusive though… #justsaying

That is of course directed at John.

Well said Hayley. Freedom of speech. we all have our own opinions. RESPECT is all that is needed. Whether people agree or disagree, there is no need for abuse or aggressive behavior.

Your blog, your rules. The number of trolls who have infested this blog since the LAPIS post is remarkable and perhaps they need basic manners laid out for them. And accusing people of not being “open minded” tends to get jumped on.

Well done you, keep going and don’t let anyone get in your way. 🙂 🙂 Wish I had that kind of advice back when I started and glad to say it to you on your journey. 🙂

Bully for you! I for one have greatly enjoyed your writings and appreciate your insights and experience. Those who want to argue via personal attacks aren’t worth your time or energy.

“6 – I will accept constructive criticism from anybody, the rest can fuck off.”

haha – perfect! This’ll do as a golden rule for blogging.

Haley,
There are a number of ways that debates can be carried out. There is the civilised way, in which both sides put their point over and, if they are so disposed, make reasonable criticisms of the opposing point of view. There may even be room for good-natured banter and teasing in such debates, as this can often prevent the proponents from taking matters too seriously. But there’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed and its not always easy to identify just where that line is. Your Rules, to me, read less like a personal code of conduct and more like a Declaration of War.

I’ve been the subject of much abuse myself. Some of it has been verbal, some far worse. Not all of it was precipitated by those who you could call “skeptics”, but some was. Now while I’d be the first to agree that abuse of any kind is uncalled for, perhaps it might help if we looked at just what it is that might be making you a target. What follows are just my own thoughts on the matter, of course.

When anyone engages in a debate, then we can take it as read that they believe they’re right. However, there’s a way to make your case in which you can make it clear that you think you’re right without upsetting folk or ruffling anyone’s feathers unnecessarily. This is called exercising tact; something which in my opinion, sadly, you have absolutely no idea about.

Some time ago, we engaged in a protracted discussion about the Evolution vs. Creation debate. You made it quite clear that you believed in the Theory of Evolution, but in my opinion you spoke in condescending and not very complimentary terms about those who believed in Creation. Fortunately I copied the discussion and kept it for future reference. On reviewing it, I noticed that I had allowed myself to be “wound up”, and infused my retorts with a degree of sarcasm. I shouldn’t have done this, for essentially I was potentially lowering the tone of the discussion instead of trying to raise it – something which it certainly needed. I learned a lesson; now, although I still rib and tease – that’s, just my nature – I try not to “cross that line”. Sometimes I do. I’m only human.

But there was something else I noticed on reviewing the discussion; a recurring theme. Those who believe in Evolutionism are right. Those who believe in Creationism are wrong. Fair enough; that’s what the entire discussion was about. But it was the other comments which you and other posters made which I found offensive and/or insufferably arrogant. Here’s a small sample:

[Hayley: not all of the below comments included by Mike are from me]

“Science isn’t opinion. It is the opposite of opinion. Opinion is involved with Creationism, though. Which is why Creationism doesn’t have equal worth or merit as non-Creationism”.

“I have a problem with the term “Evolutionists” as it attempts to portray the scientifically-informed as opinion-holders”.

“I don’t recognise the term “evolutionists”. You may as well classify people who don’t levitate as “gravitationalists”.

“Evolution = fact. If you get frustrated by people who accept that fact, imagine how you would feel when dealing with a Flat Earther. The evidence is there; everything science has to offer us tells us that Earth is not flat, but a Flat Earther insists that you appreciate both sides of the argument… as if “both” sides have equal worth or merit. They don’t”.

“There’s plenty of room for teaching Creationism in RE along with every other mythological conception of how the world came into being” (emphasis mine).

“I don’t care if I inflame the opposition. They’re Christians. They can forgive me”.

“If the blanket-ban of non-scientific Creationism in science classes is dictatorship, where should the boundaries be set within the classroom?” (emphasis mine).

“Creationism is a pretty much debunked theory, even though some may not like to admit that”.

“The theory of evolution is the best current understanding that we have of the way in which things are”.

“Science is a self correcting process and things like creationism are not self correcting, they are old, out dated theories repeated over and over again. Not science at all”.

“Mike. I don’t love crossing swords with people who repeatedly refuse to accept plainly stated facts”.

“Science isn’t what you think it is. Be a bit more cerebral regarding what science actually is (it includes the words “repeatable” and “verifiable”) and you would be a good deal less boring”.

“Hayley, you’re better just leaving him to it…he’s a pugilist. He enjoys the argument more than he enjoys the understanding that can come from any debate. Saying (and showing) that he’s wrong is, to him, no more than the dinging of a bell so that he can come out from his corner of the ring… punching and swinging at a contender who has already left the ring (wearing the belt), given his press interview and is currently in a limo heading towards a nightclub whilst being blown by some very talented companion”.

“No, we’re just not accepting creationism as a fact, because it isn’t a fact. As I stated before, it’s outdated and flawed”.

Okay, we get the picture, and it pretty much follows the standard pattern such debates take. However, the problem with some skeptics is that they can, as John Triplow rightly said, “dish it out but they can’t take it”. Some skeptics like to apply rules to others, but do not always care to follow them themselves. Further, they tend to get extremely annoyed when we “less cerebral” mortals point it out. If you look back over the above quotes, you’ll see that you and others think its perfectly acceptable to call Creationism a “theory, “myth” or non-scientific. However, when Creationists do the same you throw a hissy fit and say, Evolution is NOT a theory, its a FACT! Actually, the “fact” – whether you like it or not – is that not everyone shares your view and a good many people hold alternative explanations. Your weakness, Hayley, is that instead of exercising a little tact and allowing them to utilise the same terminology as you do – which would only be fair – you don’t. You simply talk down to those who see things differently and don’t even attempt to engage them in any meaningful dialogue. There is nothing conciliatory in your tone, nothing which suggests you would be prepared to talk to Creationists and try and reason with them. You just repeat the same old line; “We are right and you are wrong”.

Well, okay; you don’t want to engage in any meaningful dialogue, perhaps, but at least we can respect the views of others even if we don’t share them, right? I mean, wouldn’t you prefer a Creationist who at least respected your views to one who simply treated you with contempt? Wouldn’t it be more mature to respect their views, too, even if you don’t agree with them, so that constructive discussion can take place in a reasonably cordial way? You’d think so, according to Hayley’s Rule 7: “I know that I am open minded, those who think otherwise are the ones in the wrong”.

Good start, and I think a reasonable person would assume that if you’re open-minded enough to consider other possibilities, you’d have the common sense to understand that showing respect to other people who hold those views would be a necessary part of the process. Not so, though, according to Hayley Stevens:
“I will not respect another persons beliefs if I do not agree that they are right”.

[Hayley: I don’t respect wrong or flawed belief systems, but I do respect peoples right to believe what they want
Remember those words? They’re yours. So, if one engages in any debate with Hayley Stevens and holds differing views, then one should be aware that she does not even respect you.

“When I am right, I am right. Just because someone doesn’t agree with me because they have clear biases doesn’t mean it is okay for them to be rude and abusive”.

I think your immaturity is showing through again, I’m afraid. What you could have said was, “Just because someone doesn’t agree with me doesn’t mean it is okay for them to be rude and abusive”, which would have been fine, but you just had to add the phrase, “because they have clear biases”: Another example – and I have others- of how you seem to have a need to keep telling people that they’re wrong. Those on the receiving end of such unnecessary reminders will, I fear, feel insulted. If you want to engage people in dialogue to further our knowledge, then show a little tact. “We have a disagreement” is a phrase that won’t upset anyone, but, “We have a disagreement because you’re wrong” is just calculated to get people’s backs up.

In Rule 1 you say, “Just because someone doesn’t agree with me because they have clear biases doesn’t mean it is okay for them to be rude and abusive”. We can assume from this, I think, that a reasonable person would also extend the same courtesy to others. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”, as they say. To be consistent, then, and to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, those who apply Rule 1 to others would be unwise, for example, to use phrases such as, “Mind your own fucking business” or, as in Rule 6, “ I will accept constructive criticism from anybody, the rest can fuck off”, which could be interpreted as somewhat offensive.

In Rule 8 you say, “I do not have to apologise for being who I am, or for thinking what I do”. This is quite correct, although we sometimes might have to apologise for what we do and the things which we say. I know I’ve had to on occasions.

Rule 2: “When people are rude to me on my blog, on my twitter or on my facebook account, I will not take it laying [sic] down”.

I don’t think anyone would have a problem with that, providing of course that the response was not one which caused the respondent to lower themselves to the same level as the alleged perpetrator. In regards to this, Rule 9 has some bearing: “From now on, I will ignore the annoying assholes who visit my blog and leave nasty and inflamatory [sic] comments.”

Now ignoring those who are abusive is sometimes (although not always) a sound tactic, although I’m not convinced that referring to them as “assholes” would do anything to remedy the situation. I’m confused, however, at the second part of the rule, which seems to contradict the first part; I cannot see how your threat to, “kick those who see fit to heckle me in real life. Kick them with my Dr Martens. In the shins” Could be classed as ignoring them. But maybe I’m missing something. I do hope that the phrase, “kick those who see fit to heckle me in real life” wasn’t meant to be taken literally. I think you should clarify this point.

Rule 3: “I will not allow people to abuse me online simply because I am female”.

I’ve never heard anyone do this (other than, perhaps, the comment below), but if they have then I understand what you say perfectly.

“Comments like ‘she’s a worthy receptacle of any mans [sic]porridge’ will not be tolerated”.
I remember reading this when it was first posted, and have to say that I did not find it funny at all. In fact, I found it offensive. However, I didn’t realise you had actually taken issue with it, because your comment at the time was, “I’ve never been referred to as some sort of a breakfast bowl before… how odd. oh, and ew”; not the sort of response I’d have expected from someone who had been deeply offended, but that’s just me. Perhaps you didn’t find it offensive then, but do now.

“You may have noticed that ‘The Rather Friendly Skeptic’ no longer exists. She is “deceased” and instead I am Hayley Stevens, a woman who hides behind no labels. I don’t need to portray myself as friendly…”

Hayley, in my experience of reading your postings, I imagine the only people who would think of you as a “rather friendly skeptic” would be other skeptics with the same disposition as yourself. I cannot imagine Creationists or pro-paranormal researchers thinking of you in that way.

“I do not need to apologise for…how I speak”.

Well, I think we all do at times. Personally, I think its a sign of humility and maturity when a person speaks unwisely and then has the courage to both admit it and apologise. Mind you, I remember one skeptic I know – not that long ago, actually – stating that, “Admitting you’re wrong is a sign of weakness”. I can’t agree, I’m afraid. I think its a sign of strength.

“It’s not me that has the problem, it’s those who I’ve mentioned above who have the problem and try to make it my problem”.

This often turns out to be the case, but not always. Sometimes our words boomerang back on us and, whether we like it or not, become our problem. This is why, the older I get, the more I try to moderate my language.

“I do not claim to be an expert”.

I think this would carry a little more weight if you didn’t keep telling people how right you are and how wrong they are. When people make pronouncements with such lofty conviction, it comes across as if they think of themselves as an expert.

“I am Hayley Stevens and I wont let idiots get the better of me again”.

What’s with the “I am Hayley Stevens” prefix? We know who you are. Was this meant to impress or intimidate? Is this just another way of saying, “Hey, don’t forget this is Hayley Stevens you’re talking to here, so watch out”?

That apart, the sentiment is okay as long as you don’t broaden your scope and include within your definition of “idiots” those who simply disagree with you.

“I don’t care if you don’t like me”.

Okay then, but its a shame, though, for I’ve always believed that we should strive to foster good relationships with others wherever possible. I know that it isn’t always possible, of course, but as you don’t care then it won’t matter to you anyway.

“You have been warned”.

Well, at least the real Hayley Stevens has stood up, and I know that wearing a decent pair of shin pads may now be in order. However, Hayley, I just wonder how you square the opinions of some posters with your own – or how they can square your postings with theirs:

Daradian: “We all have our own opinions. RESPECT is all that is needed”.

Hayley: “I will not respect another persons beliefs if I do not agree that they are right”.

Podback: “…perhaps they need basic manners laid out for them”.
Hayley: “… the rest can fuck off… I will kick those who see fit to heckle me in real life. Kick them with my Dr Martens. In the shins”.

Rev Matt: “Those who want to argue via personal attacks aren’t worth your time or energy”.
Hayley: “Idiot”. “Assholes”. “Trolls”.

Now I’m pretty-well convinced that posters here – and possibly Hayley herself – will see this as just another “attack” upon her. All I can say is that it genuinely isn’t meant to be. It is meant to be a blunt but sincere attempt to offer the “constructive criticism” that she claims to welcome. As a demonstration of my sincerity in this matter, let me say the following: If I have spoken out of turn and said anything that was offensive, even if it was not meant to be, then I apologise. If I am attacked, then I, like Hayley, reserve the right to defend myself. What I’d like to think is that I never initiate such battles. As a test of my own intentions, and those of other posters – and including Hayley – let me make a suggestion. If we all seriously wish to bring an end to this unfortunate thread, and allow wounds to heal, and prevent such episodes occurring again, we should all make a pact to rein in our tongues, display a good dose of humility and treat each other with respect. Maybe we can draw a line under this situation, put it behind us and move on. I think the nature of any responses will make it clear whether people genuinely want to live and let live, despite our differing opinions, or simply carry on enjoying a bitter, bile-filled war of words.

If anyone has issues with this suggestion, then I’d like to hear them.

“When an educator tells you, ‘Science has proven this to be absolutely true’, they are making a statement they cannot possibly justify. Absolute certainty regarding one’s position requires absolute perfection of the thinking processes. Apart from God, Jesus and possibly Bob Hope no one has that”. David Smith.

I want to address one point you raised, Mike.

Good start, and I think a reasonable person would assume that if you’re open-minded enough to consider other possibilities, you’d have the common sense to understand that showing respect to other people who hold those views would be a necessary part of the process. Not so, though, according to Hayley Stevens:
“I will not respect another persons beliefs if I do not agree that they are right”.

Remember those words? They’re yours. So, if one engages in any debate with Hayley Stevens and holds differing views, then one should be aware that she does not even respect you.

Let me clarify this for you as I have done so before. I do not respect wrong or flawed belief systems, but I do respect peoples right to believe what they want.

Second point I want to make… is this really the best thing you have to do with your time. Go through a blog post of mine and pull it to pieces? Really? You have completely over-analysed this. I think you presume this blog is about you and John Triplow and those other people. It really isn’t about any of that at all.

Also, your comment has really shown you for the anti-science stance you clearly take, and because of that, I cannot take you at all seriously.

Hayley, can I start your fan club now?

You are quite right in this. To be blunt: I respect people. Not beliefs.

People are afforded a base level of common respect that increases or decreases based on their behaviors. Believe whatever silly nonsense you want, if you are polite and willing to engage in honest discussion I will do the same.

Mike, have you ever perhaps considered that its just a *teensy bit* pathetic and *more* than a bit undignified for a middle-aged man to go trolling about like this on the website of a young woman of less than half your age and more than twice your intelligence?

It might be a good idea to give that some thought now, There’s a good boy…

“If you look back over the above quotes, you’ll see that you and others think its perfectly acceptable to call Creationism a “theory, “myth” or non-scientific. However, when Creationists do the same you throw a hissy fit and say, Evolution is NOT a theory, its a FACT! Actually, the “fact” – whether you like it or not – is that not everyone shares your view and a good many people hold alternative explanations.”

It is perfectly acceptable to call creationism a theory because it is, in fact a theory. ie: hypothesis. There is no evidence to justify it as fact.

This is stark contrast to when a creationist calls Evolution a theory (ie. Hypothesis) becuase evolution is NOT a “just” a hypothesis. This is because there IS evidence to justify it as fact. Evolution is robustly supported by countless lines of evidence and to ignore it is to be willfully ignorant.

Your statement: “Actually, the “fact” – whether you like it or not – is that not everyone shares your view” is true.

Not everyone holds the same view.

HOWEVER – to imply (by virtue of using “Actually”) that because people do not hold the same view, no one can say what is fact and what is not a fact is complete non-sense.

Facts remain facts, regardless of whether someone believes them or not. Not calling them such does not change that. It is quite appropriate for ANYONE to tell the other what is a fact, what is not a fact, and what is an unsupported hypothesis yet to be tested – what matters is the substance that supports those claims.

Oh, nice work on the quote mining, too by the way.
Very impressive.

Keep Smilin’.

I’m sorry got bored half way through. What I read was reasonable in tone but not actually applying reason. I think this is why people suggest you don’t have the right to use certain terms that have specific meanings related to logic, evidence and reason. Also (I did read the end) if someone says ‘Science has proven this to be absolutely true’ they’re probably just being lazy. It is not part of the scientific method to make such statements and there for disingenuous of you to “quote” it.

Nice, since I usually comment as Dalradian, and had a typo earlier, I presume you have just put words in my mouth? Perhaps you can point me to where I stated “Daradian: “We all have our own opinions. RESPECT is all that is needed” as it doesn’t sound like me, or is it quotemine? I don’t comment often and can’t find this quote. Usually, respect is earned., we do not need to respect every belief. Though every person can hold whatever belief they choose (just be aware they might be called out on it)

Wendy; have you ever considered that this is just a teensy bit stupid coming from someone who has only half my intelligence and even less of my maturity? Anyway, if Hayley is twice as intelligent as me, then what are you panicking about?

Hayley: I think I have every right to analyse a posting which is as aggressive, arrogant and sneering as yours. The fact that you and Wendy have completely ignored a genuine effort to draw a close to this just exposes your real motives and intentions. No, I didn’t think this was about John and I; its about you, your derision of dissenting opinions and, quite frankly, your deeply disturbing “set of rules” . And they are disturbing. It was because I and others found them so disturbing that I decided to try and draw a quick conclusion to this all. As my attempt has been met with puerile contempt, you and your oh-so-clever scientific buddies can get on with it. Personally, I think you should be ashamed of yourself, but that isn’t going to happen. If you are representative of the best skepticism has to offer, then I thank my lucky stars that I am not associated with it. You say that you cannot take me seriously. The problem is that I’ve read your new rules and do take you seriously. As I said, I find them disturbing.

You and others found them disturbing. Good gosh. How terrible.

Hmm, I wasn’t going to say anything, but your comments seem more condescending than anything I’ve seen from Hayley or others- “have you ever considered that this is just a teensy bit stupid coming from someone who has only half my intelligence and even less of my maturity?”

I’m getting a little tired myself of playing nice. None of the comments in your original post which you claim are offensive can be seen as offensive by me- but then offense is subjective and ultimately much of them are true.

Science isn’t an opinion. The evidence we have doesn’t support “magic man dunnit” and Creationism is a ridiculous notion that has had to take on the guise of Intelligent design in a failed attempt to be taken seriously. I don’t debate religion any more and have no intention of doing so now, beside I’m sure you’ve already been presented with enough evidence that you chose to ignore.

Your level of arrogance is astonishing.

“The fact that you and Wendy have completely ignored a genuine effort to draw a close to this just exposes your real motives and intentions.”

“No, I didn’t think this was about John and I; its about you…”

While I think Statement B was more or less correct (at least, in the abbreviated form I have quoted it), it’s also not particularly compatible with Statement A.

“…have you ever considered that this is just a teensy bit stupid coming from someone who has only half my intelligence and even less of my maturity? ”

Sorry, too busy laughing to read further. I think it’s pretty clear that the majority in fact support Hayley and all the best to her with her new directions as they’re clearly the right ones if they don’t have to put up with this kind of garbage.

Hayley, all the best with blocking and reporting that kind of stuff to spam rather than give it the time of day – and I look forward to your quality content that got me reading your site and others reading now and in the future. 🙂

Daraidan; the colours on my browser were not displaying and it looked as if your name was attached to the post by Jamie Williams. Apologies.

Actually, Hayley , I also find your comments deeply disturbing. Earlier you resorted to calling me an “idiot” and preceding that you told me to “kiss [your] arse”. I admit I typed out a response that was deeply scything and intensely personal. I was angry.

However, it was because of how disturbing your new set of rules are that I decided not to post my initial comment. I was genuinely concerned what the consequences could be.

For that reason alone, Hayley, I will not be posting any further comments on this site.

Regards,

John.

“how disturbing your new set of rules are that I decided not to post my initial comment. I was genuinely concerned what the consequences could be.”

Oh wow, what do you think the consequences are – do you think she’s going to hunt you down and kill you?

With the greatest respect (although you certainly don’t seem to deserve that, given your utter lack of respect to Hayley), wise the fuck up.

Okay, you’re the new poster girl for hyper-skepticism. Nasty is the new Nice. Glad to see your last comment is as thoughtful and polite as ever. If nothing else, you’re consistent. And there really is nothing else.

Oh there is much, much more, Mike. It’s just not your cup of tea. Accept that and move on.

[…] Is there a need for improvement? Sure. No one is perfect. But as another friend and I discussed earlier in the year, there’s always a learning experience in everything that tries to knock the feet out from under you. I take heart from reading not only Barbara’s blogpost but that of Hayley Stevens, with ‘The New Rules of Hayley Stevens’. […]

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Hayley is a ghost

Hayley Stevens is an advocate for science-based research into seemingly paranormal experiences and occurrences. With a background in the pseudo-scientific research into ghosts, Hayley offers a unique insight into the strange world of ghost hunting through her experience.

She describes herself as 'a ghost hunter who doesn't hunt for ghosts' and this is her personal blog where she writes about ghosts, people, and other interesting things. Read more here.

Recommended Posts




Question.Explore.Discover. Back for an encore. Only £89


Those looking for the 'QED Rebel Dinner' click here.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 41 other followers

%d bloggers like this: