A plea

@malf

"ParapsychResearcher's  > As it happens, my academic work is primarily in intelligence research. And from my relevantly informed position, I can say with good confidence that you have a verbal IQ probably no more than a few points over 100, and that's pushing it.

"Claim 'x' and claim 'y' in this report are identical."

That should tell any reasonable person following this thread all they need to know. You truly are an imbecile."

[b]The following 1 user Likes ParapsychResearcher's post

  • malf[/b]

Malf, I just took a verbal IQ test and scored 137  Am I an imbecile, or not ?

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.

At the beginning PR was asking about contradictory statements they'd come across about clicks being played either continuously or discontinuously and whether there had been a study done on burst suppression looking at the idea of anaesthetic awareness because standard surgical eeg's aren't so precise that they could pick it up to see if the possibility of anaesthetic awareness could be ruled out. As the confluence of the clicks being discontiuous and anaesthetic awareness being possible under burst supression could weaken the case somewhat. Though he made it clear he very much did think it was a real, veridical OBE.

Tim, from what I saw, said that he wasn't sure about the clicks but didn't really supply anything beyond an assertion about burst suppression awareness because other medical people said so basically. Not a specific study about it like PR had been wondering about. Which would've also been far stronger evidence. I mean, remember when medical doctors and specialists believed and would say that once you're an adult you don't make any more neronal connections so you can only preserve whatever you'd made up till that point and how that later turned out to be wrong? Because I do. I remember that being the "professional expert opinion". That's what made what Tim was saying an assertion.

My point in bringing up the tone policing tactic is, as far as I saw in the beginning, Tim didn't actually fully address what PR was asking while PR restated it more than once in case they had been unclear. It really did look like Tim was just making assertions to me. Not unbased ones, but assertions nonetheless. But it was Tim, more or less, saying that those sorts of questions don't matter anyways because the case is so obviously true that made it reminiscent of those old conversations I used to see and have. One person asserts something, the other either asks more or points out an issue, it goes ignored or is shrugged off and the cycle repeats until the non asserting side just gets fed up. I stopped reading shortly after this because I don't really have much interest in the Pam Reynolds case. It being real or not doesn't matter one bit to me.

At the beginning PR was asking about contradictory statements they'd come across about clicks being played either continuously or discontinuously and whether there had been a study done on burst suppression looking at the idea of anaesthetic awareness because standard surgical eeg's aren't so precise that they could pick it up to see if the possibility of anaesthetic awareness could be ruled out. As the confluence of the clicks being discontiuous and anaesthetic awareness being possible under burst supression could weaken the case somewhat. Though he made it clear he very much did think it was a real, veridical OBE.

Tim, from what I saw, said that he wasn't sure about the clicks but didn't really supply anything beyond an assertion about burst suppression awareness because other medical people said so basically. Not a specific study about it like PR had been wondering about. Which would've also been far stronger evidence. I mean, remember when medical doctors and specialists believed and would say that once you're an adult you don't make any more neronal connections so you can only preserve whatever you'd made up till that point and how that later turned out to be wrong? Because I do. I remember that being the "professional expert opinion". That's what made what Tim was saying an assertion.

My point in bringing up the tone policing tactic is, as far as I saw in the beginning, Tim didn't actually fully address what PR was asking while PR restated it more than once in case they had been unclear. It really did look like Tim was just making assertions to me. Not unbased ones, but assertions nonetheless. But it was Tim, more or less, saying that those sorts of questions don't matter anyways because the case is so obviously true that made it reminiscent of those old conversations I used to see and have. One person asserts something, the other either asks more or points out an issue, it goes ignored or is shrugged off and the cycle repeats until the non asserting side just gets fed up. I stopped reading shortly after this because I don't really have much interest in the Pam Reynolds case. It being real or not doesn't matter one bit to me.

Ah, so, you 1) only object to Tim's argumentation, insinuating that said line of argumentation is sufficient to justify hurling insults at the "perpetrator" thereof. So, basically, if somebody (like yourself) doesn't like the arguments presented by one side, it makes verbal violence (and insults ARE that ) justifiable. At least you didn't call for firing squad for Tim, like some sort of virtual Felix Dzerzhinsky. 2) on top of that, you confess that you didn't read the thread, and than, you state that (!!!!!) Pam Reynolds case doesn't even interest you. I'm flabbergasted....

Umm no I didn't say it's justified, I said it makes sense that it would've happened based on what I did see. I was pretty explicit about that. And no, I don't care whether that specific case is true or not. Is there a reason I should I care?

At the beginning PR was asking about contradictory statements they'd come across about clicks being played either continuously or discontinuously and whether there had been a study done on burst suppression looking at the idea of anaesthetic awareness because standard surgical eeg's aren't so precise that they could pick it up to see if the possibility of anaesthetic awareness could be ruled out. As the confluence of the clicks being discontiuous and anaesthetic awareness being possible under burst supression could weaken the case somewhat. Though he made it clear he very much did think it was a real, veridical OBE.

Tim, from what I saw, said that he wasn't sure about the clicks but didn't really supply anything beyond an assertion about burst suppression awareness because other medical people said so basically. Not a specific study about it like PR had been wondering about. Which would've also been far stronger evidence. I mean, remember when medical doctors and specialists believed and would say that once you're an adult you don't make any more neronal connections so you can only preserve whatever you'd made up till that point and how that later turned out to be wrong? Because I do. I remember that being the "professional expert opinion". That's what made what Tim was saying an assertion.

My point in bringing up the tone policing tactic is, as far as I saw in the beginning, Tim didn't actually fully address what PR was asking while PR restated it more than once in case they had been unclear. It really did look like Tim was just making assertions to me. Not unbased ones, but assertions nonetheless. But it was Tim, more or less, saying that those sorts of questions don't matter anyways because the case is so obviously true that made it reminiscent of those old conversations I used to see and have. One person asserts something, the other either asks more or points out an issue, it goes ignored or is shrugged off and the cycle repeats until the non asserting side just gets fed up. I stopped reading shortly after this because I don't really have much interest in the Pam Reynolds case. It being real or not doesn't matter one bit to me.

I couldn't address what PR was asking because he was asking for the impossible ! He directly implied that Hameroff and Woerlee's knowledge of anaesthesia, and the use of burst suppression being the gold standard in removing the possibility of consciousness...might not be sufficient to 'prove' that Pam Reynolds couldn't have somehow have been conscious. It's nonsense, because the question doesn't need to be asked.

(Note : proof is only available in mathematics, Mr Paranormal researcher).

Obviously, getting rid of someone's brainwaves is the only way to ensure that consciousness is completely eradicated. What else can be done ? How can you have consciousness without brainwaves ? It's absurd ! 

So what am I supposed to do with a question like that ? Why do I have to start back tracking years and years to find out what someone said somewhere, sometime, just to satisfy some unknown poster who basically thinks that I'm full of shit ?

Why not ask the experts in anaesthesia ? I'm a layperson, I've never professed expertise. What I do bring to the research is a desire to have facts upheld.

@Mr Paranormal researcher : Go and ask the experts yourself.

I couldn't address what PR was asking because he was asking for the impossible ! He directly implied that Hameroff and Woerlee's knowledge of anaesthesia, and the use of burst suppression being the gold standard in removing the possibility of consciousness...might not be sufficient to 'prove' that Pam Reynolds couldn't have somehow have been conscious. It's nonsense, because the question doesn't need to be asked.

(Note : proof is only available in mathematics, Mr Paranormal researcher).

Obviously, getting rid of someone's brainwaves is the only way to ensure that consciousness is completely eradicated. What else can be done ? How can you have consciousness without brainwaves ? It's absurd ! 

So what am I supposed to do with a question like that ? Why do I have to start back tracking years and years to find out what someone said somewhere, sometime, just to satisfy some unknown poster who basically thinks that I'm full of shit ?

Why not ask the experts in anaesthesia ? I'm a layperson, I've never professed expertise. What I do bring to the research is a desire to have facts upheld.

@Mr Paranormal researcher : Go and ask the experts yourself.

You know you could've just said "No I'm not aware of any studies on that" and been done with it. There was no point going beyond that especially given they weren't even arguing against the case let alone NDE's in general. There was no point going further.

You know you could've just said "No I'm not aware of any studies on that" and been done with it. There was no point going beyond that especially given they weren't even arguing against the case let alone NDE's in general. There was no point going further.

"You know you could've just said "No I'm not aware of any studies on that" and been done with it"

Really ? And that would have satisfied him? Don't be so naïve.