FLUKEY OR SPOOKY? Incredible real-life coincidences or are they?

[Ivan Seeking]

That's not true, because guess what NO REAL SKEPTICS would even look at information like this they already know it's false claims or maybe chance or maybe lying. It's like ghost hunters, Monster hunters, and people who hunt for aliens on totally scientific grounds guess what those people aren't real skeptics because real skeptics know that starting that endeavor is insane because it's false.

This is probably the most applicable definition of skeptic

skep·tic
3.a person who habitually doubts, questions, or suspends judgment upon matters generally accepted

http://www.yourdictionary.com/skeptic

To doubt and question are not judgements. And you are clearly not suspending judgement, you are passing judgement.

How is your statement consistent with the definition?

 

[SpeedOfDark]

This is probably the most applicable definition of skeptic


http://www.yourdictionary.com/skeptic

To doubt and question are not judgements. And you are clearly not suspending judgement, you are passing judgement.

How is your statement consistent with the definition?

These matters are generally accepted, they're entirely ludicrous are you telling me the lochness monster is generally accepted? No, therefore I would wave that off as well as I would wave these off for the fact that they're not generally accepted.

Being skeptical of something like Secondhand Smoke, recycling, and free speech in america is something to be skeptical of and something I AM Skeptical of and understand why people believe. Scholarly folks and intelligent minds don't believe in these "real - life coincidences" proposed to us, since they're obvious schwim-schwammery.

I found a different definition also

skep·tic   /ˈskɛptɪk/ Show Spelled
[skep-tik] Show IPA

–noun
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. ( initial capital letter ) Philosophy .
a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.


That seems like me DOUBTING THE AUTHENTICITY AND VALIDITY OF SOMETHING PURPORTING TO BE FACTUAL.

I've yet to see any evidence that I even have yet to be skeptical about, and that's much harder to try to look over and decide whether it is bogus or real. All I've heard so far on this forum is simply statements that people are making without ANY EVIDENCE and expect me to believe it. Sorry that's just not going to happen, not in my world, not in the world of a real skeptic, and not in the world of science. We don't just believe things people say, and try to find evidence for it, we hear the claims people say and their evidence to support it generally evidence is skepticised but we haven't even made it to the point of presenting doubtible evidence.

 

[JaredJames]

Being skeptical of something like Secondhand Smoke, recycling, and free speech in america is something to be skeptical of and something I AM Skeptical of and understand why people believe. Scholarly folks and intelligent minds don't believe in these "real - life coincidences" proposed to us, since they're obvious schwim-schwammery.

Skeptical of second hand smoke and recycling? Wow, just wow.

Remember, it's the "scholarly folks and intelligent minds" that came up with the above.

Also, are you implying those who study certain things aren't intelligent? That seems to be something you'd have a hard time proving. In fact, if it isn't studied an "intelligent mind" can't give a view point as there's nothing to base it on.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's not true, because guess what NO REAL SKEPTICS would even look at information like this they already know it's false claims or maybe chance or maybe lying. It's like ghost hunters, Monster hunters, and people who hunt for aliens on totally scientific grounds guess what those people aren't real skeptics because real skeptics know that starting that endeavor is insane because it's false.

It's good to have you out there, defining beyond language or the history of the term and philosophy, what a skeptic is and does.

Sure, it's just your own private definition, but it's YOURS... don't lose that!

The rest, Ivan has covered, Jared covered, and frankly you should already know.

P.S. The whole point, by the way, of Skepticism... We DON'T KNOW. You EXAMINE. Again, get a dictionary, look up cynic and skeptic: you're that clearly a cynic without a desire to move outside of this nearly religious "comfort" zone to examine claims. OK... don't, but then hell man, don't post in S&D!

edit: You did get a dictionary, and you ignored the FIRST definition? "QUESTIONS".. not "ASSUMES OR KNOWS".

 

[Jiggy-Ninja]

I had a dream once that my cat was dying.

We didn't know why, she wasn't obviously sick or injured or anything, the feeling in the dream was just that she was dying. We took her to the vet, they couldn't do anything about it. She just kept getting worse, and worse..

And then I woke up. Needless to say I was quite disturbed by this dream; I am quite fond of her. So I searched the house for her.

Didn't take long. She was curled up in a basket of towels (getting her hair all in them like usual). I poked her to see if she was alright, and then she looked up at me with that look. You cat owners should know it, the look that says "What the hell are you bugging me for? Can't you see I was sleeping here?"

She was perfectly fine (still is, in fact). Nothing wrong with her. My dream was just a dream, nothing more.

It still worried me enough that I bothered to look up what the average lifespan of a house cat is though.

The biggest problem with "coincidences" like this is the law of large numbers, along with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism)" thing. For every person you hear about whose dream predicted the death of their grandmother or something, there's probably hundreds or thousands of people like me whose "prophetic" dreams were totally meaningless.

Unless they are consistently and reliably repeatable, they are nothing more than freak statistical coincidences, nothing more. They happen all the time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Unless they are consistently and reliably repeatable, they are nothing more than freak statistical coincidences, nothing more. They happen all the time.

That isn't quite correct. This is what we assume lacking evidence otherwise, and we have no scientific model to explain such alleged occurrances except to cite statistical expectations. However, the real test would be whether a particular sort of event occurs more often than we would expect. It is also true that there is no practical way to test some claims, so if there was a signal buried in the noise, we might have no way to detect it.

Repeatability is required for scientific verification, not existence. For example, there are some events that Quantum Mechanics allows for only once over the life of the universe or so. So in the extreme, it is possible for some events to happen only once.

 

[nismaratwork]

That isn't quite correct. This is what we assume lacking evidence otherwise, and we have no scientific model to explain such alleged occurrances except to cite statistical expectations. However, the real test would be whether a particular sort of event occurs more often than we would expect. It is also true that there is no practical way to test some claims, so if there was a signal buried in the noise, we might have no way to detect it.

Repeatability is required for scientific verification, not existence. For example, there are some events that Quantum Mechanics allows for only once over the life of the universe or so. So in the extreme, it is possible for some events to happen only once.

True, it's not worth assuming that this is nonexistant, only that no evidence exists to support the claim. The question then is, in the absence of evidence, why believe?... if evidence emerges, then that equation changes of course. If this is forever undetectable, then... it's as good for us as nonexistant unless it can be explored indirectly.

 

[Jiggy-Ninja]

That isn't quite correct. This is what we assume lacking evidence otherwise, and we have no scientific model to explain such alleged occurrances except to cite statistical expectations. However, the real test would be whether a particular sort of event occurs more often than we would expect. It is also true that there is no practical way to test some claims, so if there was a signal buried in the noise, we might have no way to detect it.

Repeatability is required for scientific verification, not existence. For example, there are some events that Quantum Mechanics allows for only once over the life of the universe or so. So in the extreme, it is possible for some events to happen only once.

I've not really learned much about Quantum Mechanics, outside the stuff in SciAm articles and various popular science books (I try to stay away from the New Agey pseudo-philosophical garbage and stick to respectable sounding stuff), so I don't really know any QM equations. Do you mean that according to QM, those events are only allowed to happen once during the lifetime of the universe, or only probable to happen once in the lifetime of the universe. Could you give an example of said phenomenon?

Even if it is possible for some events to only happen once, we wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions from those events. Your QM example seems a little off of the point I was trying to make, like it's going the "wrong way", so to speak; from theory -> unlikely prediction instead of from unlikely observation -> theory. Let's see if I can word this like I was thinking of it...

Take one of these highly unlikely, once-an-eternity events, and suppose it was empirically observed to have occurred twice in rapid succession, say 10 years between the two observations. Assume that both observations are accurate, reliable and correct; there's no doubt about what was seen. The event cannot be reproduced by any means, and analysis of the data does not suggest that there was any unknown factor affecting the frequency of the event. All that is known is 1) The event was observed to have happened twice and 2) theory predicts that this is very, very, very, very, very, very (ad infinitum) unlikely to have happened by chance.

Would such a freakish coincidence be enough to call QM into doubt? Or would it be reasonable to dismiss these observations as a mere coincidence, despite its unimaginably low probability?

If it can't be reproduced under controlled circumstances, it can't really be studied, so you can't draw very many conclusions from it. All you can do is say "It was a coincidence" and move on, at least until other data arrives. I believe that's the point I was trying to make. And I might still not be making it very well, or I could be totally wrong. I'm open to both possibilities.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding the statement about QM: One can use QM to calculate the odds of various events occurring over some interval of time. There are some freaky-strange things that QM allows for but only very rarely - so rare that it might only happen once over a span of billions of years. The point of that is that existence does not require repeatability, scientific verifcation does.

The point of my post was to make the distinction between those things that we ASSUME, and those that we actually know. Assumptions are not a priori, facts. We assume that all such claims can be attributed to statistics, but it is an assumption.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

True, it's not worth assuming that this is nonexistant, only that no evidence exists to support the claim. The question then is, in the absence of evidence, why believe?... if evidence emerges, then that equation changes of course. If this is forever undetectable, then... it's as good for us as nonexistant unless it can be explored indirectly.

Yes, I was only concerned that the facts are correctly represented. There is a common myth that arises by default that assumptions are facts.

Belief is a personal choice based on how one weights the evidence. It is at least conceivable that some people have real and inexplicable experiences with no way to prove it. For them, belief might be justified because they lived it. For the rest of us, it is an anecdote that carries little logical weight. In the case of apparent extreme coincidences, I doubt the leap of faith that these are more than statistical flukes, is logically justified for anyone.

I try to approach things from an even more pragmatic perspective: Belief plays no role either way. It has no place here. It is possible that there is more to some claims than we think -this cannot be logically rejected - but at this time there is no way to show evidence for that. Lacking scientific evidence or model to support a given claim, we assume it is all in the odds. That's all that can be said. No reference to "belief" was needed.

 

[Jiggy-Ninja]

I think I get your point now.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, I was only concerned that the facts are correctly represented. There is a common myth that arises by default that assumptions are facts.

Belief is a personal choice based on how one weights the evidence. It is at least conceivable that some people have real and inexplicable experiences with no way to prove it. For them, belief might be justified because they lived it. For the rest of us, it is an anecdote that carries little logical weight. In the case of apparent extreme coincidences, I doubt the leap of faith that these are more than statistical flukes, is logically justified for anyone.

I try to approach things from an even more pragmatic perspective: Belief plays no role either way. It has no place here. It is possible that there is more to some claims than we think -this cannot be logically rejected - but at this time there is no way to show evidence for that. Lacking scientific evidence or model to support a given claim, we assume it is all in the odds. That's all that can be said. No reference to "belief" was needed.

Yep, I'm with you, and the belief "state" we're each in, as long as we're committed to the skeptical process, is only something to discuss in casual settings anyway. Your separation of the two is something I must say, I admire.

 

[ibrakeforcake]

i experienced a weird coincidence at the weekend.

i bought two books from two separate stalls at a car boot fair.

one was Under Milk Wood by Dylan Thomas

the other was Coral by Steve Jones, the celebrated biologist;

the first chapter of Coral was all about the influence on Steve Jones of ... Under Milk Wood...

i was like OMG ( i wasn't really because i am not a 14 year old girl ! )

this is a genuine report of a weird experience.

ibfc

 

[Antiphon]

If they are both books about biology then it's not so odd. If they are about totally unrelated fields then its odder.

 

[JaredJames]

Yeah, I agree with the above.

It sounds like you have certain tastes and the fact you happened upon two books that match them isn't that amazing.

 

[skeptic2]

I ran out of gas in winter when it was really cold where there were no gas stations nearby. I was sitting in my car trying to decide in which direction I should walk when a tow truck pulled up in front of me and stopped. Instead of offering me a tow, he wanted directions to an address which was about 10 miles away and happened to be the same building where a friend of mine worked. I told him I'd take him there if he'd tow me to a gas station.

 

[Antiphon]

Is the skeptic(2) now a believer?

 

[skeptic2]

Possibly.

 

[ibrakeforcake]

If they are both books about biology then it's not so odd. If they are about totally unrelated fields then its odder.

that was part of the weirdness... Under Milk Wood is a play written in the 1950s

Coral is a book about coral by a biologist... i don't think you can get much more unrelated than that !

ibfc

 

[Darken-Sol]

i seem tspend exactly ten dollars on random goods more often than any other number... well according to journal entries. also i seen a license plate on a semi that had my birthday(1241982) except the first 1 was a J. which i interpreted as january.

 

[JaredJames]

that was part of the weirdness... Under Milk Wood is a play written in the 1950s

Coral is a book about coral by a biologist... i don't think you can get much more unrelated than that !

The fact that one book was inspired by the other means they aren't unrelated - so if you are interested in the one, chances are the other may hold your attention for a bit. So it's really not that mysterious.

i seem tspend exactly ten dollars on random goods more often than any other number... well according to journal entries.

So you don't know what you actually spend on goods, you're just assuming it's ten dollars because a journal says so?

Still, it's a pretty round number and most things I encounter on a daily basis fall within that range so it's not surprising I'd find myself spending it a lot - consider petrol, unless on a long drive I always put £10.

also i seen a license plate on a semi that had my birthday(1241982) except the first 1 was a J. which i interpreted as january.

Numbers can be made to show anything you want them to. You did it yourself by making the J into what you wanted it to be.

 

[Evo]

A few years ago I was driving home from work and a car in the next lane had a custom license plate PFSIS4U. I posted about it in the forum.

That was weid, we had just formed the PF Sisterhood.

 

[JaredJames]

A few years ago I was driving home for work and a car in the next lane had a custom license plate PFSIS4U. I posted about it in the forum.

That was weid, we had just formed the PF Sisterhood.

I'm always wondering how many people sat around me have used or use PF.

Wherever I go, particularly high traffic areas, I'm always curious.

I could be stood next to one of the big names here and not know it.

 

[Evo]

I'm always wondering how many people sat around me have used or use PF.

Wherever I go, particularly high traffic areas, I'm always curious.

I could be stood next to one of the big names here and not know it.

It was probably PFS IS 4 U, there is a company here called PFS, but since it was all typed together PFSIS4U, it meant something different to me.

 

[JaredJames]

It was probably PFS IS 4 U, there is a company here called PFS, but since it was all typed together PFSIS4U, it meant something different to me.

You never know, could have been one of your sisterhood showing their support.

It's a long shot, but I've seen enough crazy stuff to make me realize anything is possible.

 

[physics girl phd]

A few years ago I was driving home from work and a car in the next lane had a custom license plate PFSIS4U.

I want that plate (if only I had my own car). Think of all the plates we could have (domestic, and abroad... and are motorcycle/scooter plates under different systems too? I really would prefer to scooter anyways.)

 

[Darken-Sol]

A pack of smokes, two candy bars and a cup of coffee=10 bucks. ingredients, that i didn't have, for taco night=$10. I have atleast seven occurrences in the last few years of keeping a journal. perhaps i just like spending exactly $10.00. Maybe I also am very quick at calculating math and am unaware of it. let's also say i have alist of all taxable and untaxable goods somewhere in my head. and i use this list to filter and adjust for tax on the way up to the cashier. then it seems a coincidence i have these abilities and they function so well without conscious thought.

 

[JaredJames]

lets also say i have alist of all taxable and untaxable goods somewhere in my head. and i use this list to filter and adjust for tax on the way up to the cashier. then it seems a coincidence i have these abilities and they function so well without conscious thought.

Assuming sales tax is consistent on products, chances are you'd know the exact amount to which you'd add tax to get $10.

So when you're out, you're aware of this figure when buying things and work to it.

It's really not a coincidence when you consider you live with money day in day out. I'd actually be a bit worried if you couldn't give at least an approximate total with tax. From this perspective, most people should be able to 'force' a total of $10.

Another note, now you're focussing on spending (you say you're recording it) it could produce these results.

EDIT: A second note, if you have relatively consistent shopping habits you would find yourself spending the same amount a lot, again producing false results. An example of this would be me always buying a bottle of drink and chocolate on the way to work, each day it could total £2.00 - "wow, always spending the same amount" - when in reality it's purely down to my own habits and nothing mysterious about it.

 

[Darken-Sol]

i actually live near the border of another state where food has no tax unless it is prepared.so the tax depends on whether i cook my burrito at the store or take it home and cook it. here clothing has no tax. my last post was sarcasm. i apologise. i really don't keep track or calculate tax. i do however write about oddities in my journal. its really not incredible.

 

[JaredJames]

i actually live near the border of another state where food has no tax unless it is prepared.so the tax depends on whether i cook my burrito at the store or take it home and cook it. here clothing has no tax. my last post was sarcasm. i apologise. i really don't keep track or calculate tax. i do however write about oddities in my journal. its really not incredible.

Wasn't an attack, sorry if you took it in any such way.

Just want to provide a more 'level headed' approach for anyone who reads through.

 

[Lazernugget]

Weird. That is all I have to say.

 

[Evo]

Last night I was thinking of the book "The little prince", I don't know why, I don't recall ever reading it. I just got off the phone with my daughter The Evo Child. She asked me if I had ever read them "The little prince" when they were young, and I said I don't think so, why? She said she suddenly thought about it last night so she went out this morning and bought it. I told her I had thought about it last night too.

FLUKEY OR SPOOKY?

 

[alt]

Last night I was thinking of the book "The little prince", I don't know why, I don't recall ever reading it. I just got off the phone with my daughter The Evo Child. She asked me if I had ever read them "The little prince" when they were young, and I said I don't think so, why? She said she suddenly thought about it last night so she went out this morning and bought it. I told her I had thought about it last night too.

FLUKEY OR SPOOKY?

If such a thing happens rarely, FLUKEY.

If often, SPOOKY !

(IMO)

 

[JaredJames]

Last night I was thinking of the book "The little prince", I don't know why, I don't recall ever reading it. I just got off the phone with my daughter The Evo Child. She asked me if I had ever read them "The little prince" when they were young, and I said I don't think so, why? She said she suddenly thought about it last night so she went out this morning and bought it. I told her I had thought about it last night too.

*whistles X-files tune*

The only thing I find a bit weird for me is that every now and then I'll just think "grab my phone" and as I reach for it it'll go off with an email/text.

But then the question is "how many times have I grabbed my phone and it hasn't gone off?" - I suspect that answer may spoil the illusion of my precognitive abilities...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If one is to attribute such a story to statistics, then one should be able to show approximately what the odds may be.

Anyone care to do that calculation?

 

[JaredJames]

If one is to attribute such a story to statistics, then one should be able to show approximately what the odds may be.

Anyone care to do that calculation?

Here's a start for someone:

I get approximately 40 emails per day.
I check my phone anywhere up to a maximum of 20 times an hour (depends on boredom level). On average it's around 10 times.

I suppose you could assume an even distribution of each per hour and work out the odds they will fall together.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here's a start for someone:

I get approximately 40 emails per day.
I check my phone anywhere up to a maximum of 20 times an hour (depends on boredom level). On average it's around 10 times.

I suppose you could assume an even distribution of each per hour and work out the odds they will fall together.

I'm talking about Evo's story. Yours isn't that hard to manage.

 

[alt]

*whistles X-files tune*

The only thing I find a bit weird for me is that every now and then I'll just think "grab my phone" and as I reach for it it'll go off with an email/text.

But then the question is "how many times have I grabbed my phone and it hasn't gone off?" - I suspect that answer may spoil the illusion of my precognitive abilities...

You would find that weird ? Reaching for your phone, as you said up to 20 times an hour, and it going off as you reach for it - that's weird ? I'd call it weird if it didn't sometines go of in those circumstances.

 

[JaredJames]

You would find that weird ? Reaching for your phone, as you said up to 20 times an hour, and it going off as you reach for it - that's weird ? I'd call it weird if it didn't sometines go of in those circumstances.

No I meant it's weird if you only consider the times it goes off when it rings when I grab it. Something a lot of people do.

When it happens, first thought is "how weird". Followed by "oh, no it's not".

However, as I clearly point out in the first post, the moment you consider the actual numbers involved, any 'mystical' qualities take a running jump out the window.

I'm very much aware of exactly how uninteresting such a thing is.

 

[ibrakeforcake]

Last night I was thinking of the book "The little prince", I don't know why, I don't recall ever reading it. I just got off the phone with my daughter The Evo Child. She asked me if I had ever read them "The little prince" when they were young, and I said I don't think so, why? She said she suddenly thought about it last night so she went out this morning and bought it. I told her I had thought about it last night too.

FLUKEY OR SPOOKY?

is it possible that there was something about this book on telly or radio the previous day ?

ibfc

 

[alt]

No I meant it's weird if you only consider the times it goes off when it rings when I grab it. Something a lot of people do.

When it happens, first thought is "how weird". Followed by "oh, no it's not".

However, as I clearly point out in the first post, the moment you consider the actual numbers involved, any 'mystical' qualities take a running jump out the window.

I'm very much aware of exactly how uninteresting such a thing is.

Yes, I know what you meant. Still, I maintain that it is not weird at all, for your phone to go off sometimes as you reach for it, if you do so 20 times an hour. You seem to agree with that .. Followed by "oh, no it's not".

The actual numbers involved however, multiple times per hour, say 200 - 300 times per day (?) are light years apart from the rare incident that Evo described. Even so, as I said in response to that, if it happens rarely, that's easily attributed to coincidence.

If however, such things happen frequently to a person - things that might have odds of once a year, say, then that's a very different thing.

As Ivan was saying (I think) it's in the odds.

But I think we've been down this path before, many months ago - and no one seemed to be willing or able to tackle the odds.

PS - I'm asuming that Evo had no subliminal or subconscious perception of anything relating to the book prior to the event, ie, heard of it in the background or something.

 

[Evo]

is it possible that there was something about this book on telly or radio the previous day ?

Possible of course, but highly improbable. I rarely have the tv on anything but the Food Network, and my daughter rarely watches tv, she goes to school full time and holds down 2 jobs, about the only thing she makes time to watch is Dexter.

PS - I'm asuming that Evo had no subliminal or subconscious perception of anything relating to the book prior to the event, ie, heard of it in the background or something.

None that I am aware of, but the odd thing is us both thinking of a book neither of us have been exposed to at the same time.

But there is a long and bizarre history of these things happening between us. Especially when she was 12-14, and less so until she turned 16.

Here's an odd thing. When I was in my third trimester pregnant with her, a very dark, defined *beauty mark* appeared on the palm of my left hand, on the right lower side. It appeared overnight, I know that weird things can happen with pigmentation when you are pregnant, so I decided it just a bizarre pregnancy thing and it would go away, my doctor had no idea how it could've happened. When Evo Child was born, she was born with a brown *beauty mark* on her left palm in exactly the same place. We both still have the marks.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes, I know what you meant. Still, I maintain that it is not weird at all, for your phone to go off sometimes as you reach for it, if you do so 20 times an hour. You seem to agree with that .. Followed by "oh, no it's not".

I have no idea what you're supposedly pointing out. You're maintaining a fact that no one has disagreed with or even questioned. From the start I said I knew it wasn't weird, so what exactly is your point?

You would find that weird ?

I maintain that it is not weird at all

Your comments are as if I've made out it's some weird event. At best I said "a bit weird" but immediately after that I mentioned the odds and how 'not' weird it actually is.

I honestly don't know what is being discussed here, or what I supposedly said to bring it about.

Here's an odd thing. When I was in my third trimester pregnant with her, a very dark, defined *beauty mark* appeared on the palm of my left hand, on the right lower side. It appeared overnight, I know that weird things can happen with pigmentation when you are pregnant, so I decided it just a bizarre pregnancy thing and it would go away, my doctor had no idea how it could've happened. When Evo Child was born, she was born with a brown *beauty mark* on her left palm in exactly the same place. We both still have the marks.

A real life Madagascar.

You'd be surprised how subtle a suggestion it would take for you both to be on the same topic. Even an advert on TV neither of you thought you saw could do it.

 

[Evo]

A real life Madagascar.

What's that?

You'd be surprised how subtle a suggestion it would take for you both to be on the same topic. Even an advert on TV neither of you thought you saw could do it.

The thread is about odd coincidences, isn't it?

 

[JaredJames]

What's that?

It's a film, the sequel has Alex the lion meet his father in Africa and they only realize they are related when they see the birthmarks on each others palms in the shape of Africa:
[PLAIN]http://i.fanpix.net/images/orig/t/b/tbndt7bixrn5ibrd.jpg

The thread is about odd coincidences, isn't it?

Well I'm working on deciding whether something is "Flukey" or "Spooky". Must eliminate all possibilities. If for example, there were a few TV adverts for it and your daughter suddenly phones you about it after you've bought it, it really wouldn't be that odd.

I'm also thinking along the lines of how often had you both been thinking about it and simply forgot because it didn't become anything?

 

[DaveC426913]

It's a film, the sequel has ...

Ah. If you'd said 'Madagascar the sequel', that would have made more sense (I haven't seen the sequel but I would have caught on.)

 

[JaredJames]

Ah. If you'd said 'Madagascar the sequel', that would have made more sense (I haven't seen the sequel but I would have caught on.)

I thought it was the first one initially, it wasn't until I looked up the picture I realized it wasn't.

 

[Evo]

It's a film, the sequel has Alex the lion meet his father in Africa and they only realize they are related when they see the birthmarks on each others palms in the shape of Africa:
[PLAIN]http://i.fanpix.net/images/orig/t/b/tbndt7bixrn5ibrd.jpg[/quote]LOL.

Well I'm working on deciding whether something is "Flukey" or "Spooky". Must eliminate all possibilities. If for example, there were a few TV adverts for it and your daughter suddenly phones you about it after you've bought it, it really wouldn't be that odd.

I'm also thinking along the lines of how often had you both been thinking about it and simply forgot because it didn't become anything?

It's an old, old book, I don't know why it would be advertised. I read the wiki on it last night, so I know I've never read it. It's just an odd thing, considering I was walking out of the bathroom and when I got next to my bed I suddenly thought of the book and thought it was odd that it popped into my mind. It's a well known book, so I'd heard of it, but had no idea what it was about. Then the next evening when Evo Child just out of the blue asked me if I had ever read the book to her and I asked her what brought that up and she said she suddenly thought of it the previous night and actually made a trip that morning to buy it, I thought it was a rather odd coincidence.

 

[JaredJames]

It's an old, old book, I don't know why it would be advertised. I read the wiki on it last night, so I know I've never read it. It's just an odd thing, considering I was walking out of the bathroom and when I got next to my bed I suddenly thought of the book and thought it was odd that it popped into my mind. It's a well known book, so I'd heard of it, but had no idea what it was about. Then the next evening when Evo Child just out of the blue asked me if I had ever read the book to her and I asked her what brought that up and she said she suddenly thought of it the previous night and actually made a trip that morning to buy it, I thought it was a rather odd coincidence.

Certainly on the weirder side of things. It's going on my "spooky" pile.

 

[DaveC426913]

LOL.

It's an old, old book, I don't know why it would be advertised. I read the wiki on it last night, so I know I've never read it. It's just an odd thing, considering I was walking out of the bathroom and when I got next to my bed I suddenly thought of the book and thought it was odd that it popped into my mind. It's a well known book, so I'd heard of it, but had no idea what it was about. Then the next evening when Evo Child just out of the blue asked me if I had ever read the book to her and I asked her what brought that up and she said she suddenly thought of it the previous night and actually made a trip that morning to buy it, I thought it was a rather odd coincidence.

There must be some significance to the book for each of you, otherwise you wouldn't have thought of it in the first place, and she wouldn't have bought it - or mentioned it. Before trying to find a possible connection between these two disparate events (yours and hers), what is it individually that brought it to your discrete attentions?