From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:32:11 -0800, h elmer | espeance wrote:   
      
   > is that from Janice's website? i think there's a faq there   
      
   It was posted by the newsgroup creator, and I googled for it.   
      
      
   >   
   > anyhow, that quote seems to support my suppositions very clearly, more   
   > than your position, can you see that?   
      
   Nope, exactly the opposite.  Lets break it down.   
   "I am interested in gaining a better understanding of what   
   >> such experiences might have to tell us about ourselves, and what kinds   
   >> of creatures we are, rather than merely looking at this phenomenon as   
   >> something akin to a sport like scuba-diving or hang-gliding.   
      
   So, he's hoping to "gain a better understanding", rather than just treat   
   the experiences as you would a sport.   
      
   How is hoping to do this?  "systematic exploration of the subject",   
   including "examination of the world's literature".   
      
   Note "systematic exploration".  Feebly waffling on about experiences   
   without any attempt at analysis is not "systematic exploration".   
   Discouraging discussion is not "systematic exploration".  Just recounting   
   dreams is not "systematic exploration".   
      
   > "experiences",   
      
   Nice try, but the full line is "a better understanding of what such   
   experiences might have to tell us..."   
      
   Note the "understanding".   
      
   > world's literature on subject -   
      
   Again, nice try, but it's "examination of the world's literature".   
      
   > historically documented   
   > in the "dreaming" category and through anecdotes, "pehomena", "direct   
   > experiential manner" etc., etc. - yes, what i've been pointing to adn   
   > saying in other and similar words   
      
   No you haven't.  It only sounds like the kinds of things you say because   
   you've snipped off all the references to examination and exploration.   
      
   > academic doesn't presuppose a hypthesis of non-existence of a   
   > phenomenon, the pretext of the group is that the phenomenon exists   
      
   (I know this is probably a rude question but what's up with your spelling   
   and writing?)   
      
   Anyway, no real scientist would "presuppose a hypthesis of non-existence   
   of a phenomenon" like this, and even the more sceptical posters   
   here generally don't - they simply insist that we take it at face value,   
   and don't make any more assumptions than we have to.   
      
   So, we would probably say that that there exists a state in which the   
   observer believes itself to be conscious and disembodied.   
      
   That's it.  That's all you can really say - the rest is speculation.   
      
   > again, analysis in my opinion could be more on topic, not an off topic   
   > opinion inserted to persuade someone to believe in a particualr   
   > viewpoint   
      
   Examination, exploration and discussion are 100% on-topic, indeed the   
   goal of the newsgroup, as I've shown.   
      
   Are you so afraid to have your mind changed?   
   Do you need to believe in literal OBE's _that_ much?   
      
   Oh, and for goodness' sake, snip your replies and don't top-post.  It's   
   incredibly rude.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- No, not that one.   
   = Mitchell ---   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)