A plea

Rubbish.

Go back and read through the thread before you make petty allegations.

OK, if you want me to spell it out -

I read the thread too, and I disagree completely. In fact, I think that by trying to blame the original poster for what happened, you are adding insult to injury.

What we had, essentially, was someone asking for empirical evidence of something - something he was inclined to believe, not something he was contesting. The response to that was assertions based on what people had said. He patiently and courteously explained the difference between evidence and assertion several times. In fact, I was surprised at his patience. But the end result was what anyone who has followed similar discussions in the past would have expected - he was accused of being unreasonable for not accepting the assertions, and it all became personal and unpleasant.

I have experienced much the same in the past myself when I've had the temerity to post anything at all sceptical in that area.

The problem with arguments from authority is that the "authorities" can be wrong, new information can emerge, and old assumptions can be superseded. So in my book, anyone who questions assumptions is doing the field a service, and the kind of response we saw here is a gross disservice.

"What we had, essentially, was someone asking for empirical evidence of something - something he was inclined to believe, not something he was contesting."

I can't give him empirical evidence of exactly when the music was played. Only that it was played and Pam said she heard it around the time she saw her body jump through defibrillation. It's not important. The important facts were that she was consciously aware at a temperature of 27 degrees C while her heart was stopped.

So, if PR is indeed open to something paranormal occurring then he has what he needs. If he wants me to inform him absolutely EXACTLY when the music was played, I can't do it and neither can anybody else because it might have been heard just before she got back in her body or just after.

"At that moment, I thought my children would be okay and that my husband would take care of them and my mother had always been able to cope so I had no intention of returning. Then he pushed me and it felt like as if I had been pushed into a pool of ice water. It was cold, uncomfortable, and my chest ached. Then I heard the defibrillator on two occasions. The first time, I did hear that, but the second time I saw them. What surprised me the most that day, is that they had music in the operating room. I did not know that was done. I heard the song of Eagles, Hotel California, and words that say: "You can check out any time you like but you can never leave." I thought it was terrible ... So insensitive. I also told my doctor when I woke up. He said that I needed more sleep ... It was impossible for me to be awake at that time."

Well, I've had my say on this, and I don't see any need to add more.

If no one else here feels anything is wrong with what happened, so be it.

From my observations, it was PR who started with the personal attacks.

And you're... defending them?

What was tim "supposed" to do? Stay silent? Talk past them calmly? Calmness, patience, has its limits.

From my observations, it was PR who started with the personal attacks.

And you're... defending them?

What was tim "supposed" to do? Stay silent? Talk past them calmly? Calmness, patience, has its limits.

It's pretty clear this guy has a hard on for Tim and used this opportunity to attack him: anybody who read the thread knows who started escalating it.

I wish people could make more of an effort to be open to reasonable and courteous discussion - particularly with people who are new to the forum, particularly when they are questioning rather than dictating, and particularly when they make it clear that they are not approaching the subject from a hardline sceptic position.

Questioning our assumptions should never be a bad thing to do, and when the questioner is met with and defensiveness and hostility they are not likely to be persuaded. If newcomers to the site meet with that kind of reaction, we risk alienating people who could make a valuable contribution to the field.

I thought this was important to respond to.

It's a very good thought, but I'm not sure that asking people to change (or to recognize where change is needed) will work. Is there some kind of structural change that would work instead, so that it doesn't depend upon people changing their ways/perspective? I'm not sure of the specifics, but I thought I'd throw it out there if anybody else had ideas.

Something that helps prevent defenses from going up (not sure how to do that)? Or an "Authority Figure"-free zone (discussion of the available science, no "Authority Figure" opinion/speculation)? An "invitation-only"-zone (maybe controlled by the OP (a set-up for abuse, though) or a neutral third party)?

Linda

Not gonna lie, I tend to agree with Chris on this one. I didn't follow the thread all the way through but right from the beginning it seemed like Tim had started off more aggressive than really made sense. I'd have to read through the rest to find out but, let's just say, from what I DID read I'm not surprised that PR would've eventually started slinging insults if things had continued that way.

There's an old tactic I used to see people use on spiritualist forums that I like to call "tone policing" where they'd use a very nice calm tone but the content of what they were saying was still threatening, libatious, plain untrue, easily debunkable, very horrific to believe* and so forth. Then when the other side eventually got tired of pointing out the obvious and just started insulting them in defense they'd throw up their hands and go "whoa whoa why can't we have a civil discussion here? I mean, I was being nice to you" And the defensive person would be the one to get in trouble rather than the one ignoring all their points and dodging questions.

*An example was the idea that people choose everything that happens to them in their life because it's all part of a "spiritual lesson." No matter how nicely you say it, you're victim blaming those who go through horrible things and saying things like torture are good. It's universally a belief the believers only apply to others. Whereas when bad things happen to them, generally very mildly comparatively, they react as victims instead of learning the lessons they preach about.

Not gonna lie, I tend to agree with Chris on this one. I didn't follow the thread all the way through but right from the beginning it seemed like Tim had started off more aggressive than really made sense. I'd have to read through the rest to find out but, let's just say, from what I DID read I'm not surprised that PR would've eventually started slinging insults if things had continued that way.

There's an old tactic I used to see people use on spiritualist forums that I like to call "tone policing" where they'd use a very nice calm tone but the content of what they were saying was still threatening, libatious, plain untrue, easily debunkable, very horrific to believe* and so forth. Then when the other side eventually got tired of pointing out the obvious and just started insulting them in defense they'd throw up their hands and go "whoa whoa why can't we have a civil discussion here? I mean, I was being nice to you" And the defensive person would be the one to get in trouble rather than the one ignoring all their points and dodging questions.

*An example was the idea that people choose everything that happens to them in their life because it's all part of a "spiritual lesson." No matter how nicely you say it, you're victim blaming those who go through horrible things and saying things like torture are good. It's universally a belief the believers only apply to others. Whereas when bad things happen to them, generally very mildly comparatively, they react as victims instead of learning the lessons they preach about.

Are you accusing Tim of "using very nice calm tone but the content of what they were saying was still threatening, libatious, plain untrue, easily debunkable, very horrific to believe*", and insinuating that the "other part" started "insulting them(him) in defense"? You are just stating generalities about "victim blaming those who go through horrible things and saying things like torture are good", etc, How does it apply to the subject at hand? What are you accusing Tim of having done? What "horrible things" are you attributing to him? Your post is utterly cofusing to me.