Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.out-of-body    |    I guess everyone needs a self-vacation    |    7,897 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 7,361 of 7,897    |
|    David Mitchell to All    |
|    Re: clairsentience lives [was: phone rin    |
|    01 Feb 07 06:39:51    |
      From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk              On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:43:48 -0800, h elmer | espeance wrote:              >> >It's a matter of record that birds _do_ imitate telephone rings       >       > agreed, but always defaulting and trying to come up with a phsyically       > based reality answer doesn't mean that somebaody isn't having an obe       > (or other psychoc experience)              No; but the mundane explanation is by far the most likely, so it makes       sense to eliminate it first.              >> Within this context, I find the expression "anecdotal at best"       >> slightly offensive, and certainly not friendly at all.       >> Many of the users of alt.out-of-body believe in certain       >> phenomena that you would describe as impossible.       >> Clairvoyance is but an example. If you want to participate       >> in these discussions as a civilized and polite person,       >> maybe you should not label them as anecdotal, or worse,       >> just because they express their convictions.       >> I strongly believe in the possibility of expressing       >> opposite opinions in a polite and, why not, friendly manner.       >       > me too, me too, me three - mountains of anecdotes are worth exploring,              "Exploring?" How?              Surely the first step is to find out whether there actually _is_ anything       to explore. (Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time, especially       your own).              > and really take the obe (or i.e., clariaudience) out of the       > paranormal, and put it into the realm normal human experience              Again, how? What methodology would you use? What criteria for proof?       And if you have answers for those questions, how do you know that your       methods would work - have they been tested, and, if so, how? If not, how       do you know they would work?              If you _can_ answer all of _those_ questions, I rather suspect you'll end       up with something very like the scientific method. ;-)              --       =======================================================================       = David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get       = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.       =======================================================================              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca