Sklar's sign is not canon that is correct, well not entirely perhaps, but it did serve as inspiration. As far as "other things," there is no rule book to "the unseen world," it is just as likely the way I described it as it is yours. For every example one way there is another pointing the other way.  Kind of like being lost as Alice was in Tulgey wood. I have noticed all the maybes and perhaps both us have used and that sort of is the point. We do not know, at least I sure don't as to what laws govern the supernatural. I think what irritated me was the attempt to establish logic when all there is is speculation. The sort of cognitive mess that states things like: if P is correct then that indicates Q but only if Z is also true. Of course all of this is done without really establishing the nature of P beyond "if." To me such guessing games are not sound but I will concede imaginary worlds have a logic all their own. It is however only a matter of time until some of the "pseudo-problems" creep up when trying to create a story especially when attempting to overlay one on top of another. As for the Mansion I doubt anybody knows what system of rules, if there be one, the Mansion follows. All we have is what can be gleaned from the visual narrative (which you explained wonderfully in your Long-Forgotten blog), the general premise in the dialogue, and the overall composition or moral, which I take to be one large death joke. It does though seem that the original imagineer's rule book as to what governed hauntings in the Mansion has since been edited, or altered by current WDI but that's neither here or there. They hold the keys if they say the GH is rodeo clown then so be it.

As far as pressing the "guest' term hard perhaps I did indeed. But I cannot help but think that this is something that was not considered when imagineering made the switch to Constance. Surely not a connection or intended definition in the Mansion pre-Constance. And it seems hard pressed to connect the dots differently then before post haste and after the fact. "Guest" as a natural term might work but with extra emphasis on the quote marks, and not in the usual fashion. Finally the phenomenological perspective of ghosts is a speculative one, though I suppose it is a good enough rationalization but it is still a rationalization.

Last Edited By: Dead May 4 11 3:00 AM. Edited 4 times.