A plea

No, Tim, I have not "attacked" you. I have criticised the response on that thread by you and others (in fact when starting this thread I was careful not to make it personal by naming anyone). Criticising the way someone responds in a discussion is not the same as "attacking" them, and it is not remotely comparable with the name-calling you have just indulged in.

The empirical evidence that ParapsychResearcher referred to - and in relation to which he had to explain several times what he meant by empirical evidence - was about the effect of burst suppression on awareness, not any of the things you have just mentioned.

You are not a moderator. It's not your business to "police" the forum.

As regards burst suppression, The surgeons who conducted the operation told us that she was under burst suppression. To then try and suggest that she wasn't under "sufficient" burst suppression (ratio) is stupid beyond belief.

Obviously, they wouldn't place her under burst suppression that wasn't the deepest available. Spetzler has said "She was in the deepest anaesthetic state possible". That answers the question, doesn't it. Or it should for any reasonable person. 

Do you think I ought to contact Spetzler again and say, " Are you quite sure your anaesthesiologists applied sufficient burst suppression to render Pam Reynolds incapable of generating a thought ?  Come off it, he's already told us he doesn't have an explanation several times.

And if "PR" already accepts that NDE's occur even without burst suppression (paranormally), why come gunning for me over Pam Reynolds who WAS in burst suppression ? It doesn't make any sense. 

As for you, I've had quite enough of your disingenuous 'faux outrage' and treacherous attacks from magic peddling oddballs sniping at me. I said I'd finished with you last time. This time I have.