Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

[_skippy the dead]

Deleted.

Screw it. Never mind.

[_Yoda]

Deleted.

Screw it. Never mind.

That kind of sums up my thoughts at the moment, too. LOL

[_marg]

In a post last night you indicated you hadn't read what they said and so I posted it. No comment from you on what they had to say.

Once again you're distorting. I did read what they said. They were all clear that they were offering opinions. Not "scientific fact", end of debate - which is what you want. Because you can't live with uncertainty. And you can't wait for on-going studies. You want to declare it all a dead issue, because of your insecurity.

I suggest you start another thread to debate this, so as to avoid bringing this thread back to the top.

Everyone offered opinions..that's what Lommel did as well. They explained using reasoning why Lommel offered flawed conclusions..and were highly qualified to do so.

As far as talking with you in another thread, I've spent quite a few days already doing so, and all I've gotten from you is attacks..you've given no indication or reason for me to think that will change.

Twice now I've presented what other scientists have said and you've given no indication you are capableof appreciating their reasoning.

You've indicated time and again you have little to no appreciation of what the skeptic position is. Your comment above that I can't wait for evidence or live with uncertainty indicates that. I'll repeat it once more for you...the skeptic position in which one rejects paranormal NDE claims does not mean one is closed minded to new evidence, nor that one can't live with uncertainty. It means one hasn't made a leap of faith to believe in the paranormal claims, like you have and other NDE paranormal adherents..because evidence does not warrant it.

It is wise to reject extraordinary claims, to not take all of them seriously just because people claim them. People only have so much time in their lives they can't and shouldn't remain agnostic on all claims. Initially I rejected NDE claims of consciousness after death, because quite frankly if it were truly well evidenced, I'm sure I would have heard of it by now. Having looked into it further because of this discussion I now appreciate even more so, why people believe in NDE paranormal. Those who have experienced it perceive it to be a real experience physically outside the body..that same feeling can be induced. Those who learn about it like you, wish to believe but as well are unable to sort through good evidence and reasoning from bad, unable to appreciate the science which supports NDE'
s being only physiological, and unable to appreciate the sort of evidence required to warrant rationally such a belief being true in actuality.

Quit posting to the thread Ray ...discussion is over, if you do so. If you wish to start a new thread on NDE's go ahead.

[_Ray A]

It is wise to reject extraordinary claims, to not take all of them seriously just because people claim them. People only have so much time in their lives they can't and shouldn't remain agnostic on all claims. Initially I rejected NDE claims of consciousness after death, because quite frankly if it were truly well evidenced, I'm sure I would have heard of it by now.

Sigh. You would have heard of it by now? Have you ever heard the saying "if the mountain won't come to Muhammad, Muhammad must go to the mountain"?

Let's see if you are open minded enough to carefully read just two links:

Start with a very basic one from Wiki. (Don't be selective, read it all in context)

And a little more complicated: NDERF. (There is some "New Age" stuff in this one, but also scientific articles, and 1,800 NDEs)

Report back in a new thread. Challenge me.

[_marg]

This is no longer about Dale, this is about you. This discussion has shifted to where it should have been in the first place, what your real issues were in all this. I'm sure you are prepared to drop it. You've not wanted to discuss the real issues ever. All along what you've offered is personal attacks.
The start of this thread was just a continuation of personal attacks from the NDE thread

You are the real biased low life in all this.

Once again I'm asking, just how thick are you?

Did you read Liz's comments? Do you understand plain English?

Start a new thread and I'll spend most of the day debating you. (Apart from an appointment I have at 11am)

You are interested in a new thread? ..then start it yourself.

The discussion is over..in this thread.

[_Bond James Bond]

Ah, but if you see marg's (ever so condescending and smug) reply to my comments, you'll see that I apparently threw out that opinion with so little effort, time and thought invested.

I totally agree with your opinion...I wonder if I have enough time invested. I did moderate this place for like 18 months. Is that enough?

[_Dr. Shades]

For the love of....

Seriously? "Danny Boy" is enough to not only get deleted, but REPLACED with "Mr. Peterson"?????

This kind of moderation is incredibly stupid.

I completely agree. If this is what the moderating around here has come to, we are in serious trouble. Please, Shades, don't let this bb go the way of ZLMB ....

I suppose it was almost inevitable that the pendulum would swing a little too far in the other direction. But when making course corrections, it's probably rare to get it precisely right the first time.

Rest assured that such things won't happen again.

[_EAllusion]

marg is not far off an atheist version of juliann.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think it would be very hurtful to some of the posters here if they were to be disciplined in any way for resorting to clever witticisms like Danny Boy. For certain people, that sort of thing seems to be the most substance they're capable of mustering.

[_EAllusion]

Also, it's an incredibly bad idea to start censoring posts because the mods feel they contain logical fallacies. That's to be sorted out in the give and take of the discussion and to be determined by the readers. That's the whole point of many of the conversations taking place here. It's an even worse idea to have someone like marg, who isn't very good at understanding the flow of an argument, to be making these judgment calls about what is and isn't an informal fallacy. Of course, by "ad hominem" marg probably just means the person was being pointlessly insulting, but I'm going on what's written. I also don't think she can moderate insults in a way that is not irredeemably biased.