A plea

What do you mean I now say I am a layperson who has never professed expertise ? I've never said I was anything other than a layperson, so what ? If I'd told you I was a consultant neurosurgeon or anaesthesiologist, it wouldn't make any difference, you'd still say the information I've presented is wrong.   

As I've said before, your avatar describes you down to a tee. You are strange, touchy and self righteous with a giant chip on your shoulder.

If you're trying to provoke me with personal insults, I'm afraid you're not going to succeed.

But I don't like being misrepresented, so to clarify - I haven't said the information you presented was wrong. I have said that the questions that were being asked were entirely valid ones, and that appeals to authority weren't adequate as a response. And that if someone is asking for empirical evidence, and explains that several times, and is still presented with appeals to authority, then it is not at all surprising that they become frustrated.

The really annoying thing is that this might have been an opportunity to learn something, and perhaps even to strengthen the evidence by locating some empirical evidence about the effect of burst suppression in this case. Whether it strengthened the evidence or not, it might have been an opportunity for people to understand the situation better.

That is what I am saying that people should try to do, because it is in everybody's interests. That was the point of this thread. The fact that it has just degenerated into a further exchange of personal attacks on both sides - and also now personal attacks against me - is not encouraging, to say the least.

This has turned into perhaps one of the worst and most useless threads on this site (not Chris’s fault, obviously). I’m a little confused by the lack of accountability on both sides here. PR started name calling fairly aggressively and it didn’t, in my opinion, take very much, though I understand his/her frustration. Additionally, Chris, I get that you’re saying you understand why PR lost temper, but your version of losing temper and PR’s are not remotely similar. The two sides here seem to believe neither side did anything that could really be criticized. Or they lightly say “oh, my bad” then say something indicating they don’t really feel that way. 

We all know tim feels strongly about the Pam Reynolds case, so I suppose from my POV I didn’t read much that I thought was so worthy of the show that has followed it. In any event, I wish both parties would just say “yeah, I could’ve done better” and moved on. Enrique, I think the way you’re handling things isn’t helping. This thread has devolved immensely, though the original thread devolve does plenty first.


Well, since my USSR experiences I hate public lynchings, and especially when it's done to a friend. So, I handle these situation the way I see fit, but... I appreciate the opinion.

If you're trying to provoke me with personal insults, I'm afraid you're not going to succeed.

But I don't like being misrepresented, so to clarify - I haven't said the information you presented was wrong. I have said that the questions that were being asked were entirely valid ones, and that appeals to authority weren't adequate as a response. And that if someone is asking for empirical evidence, and explains that several times, and is still presented with appeals to authority, then it is not at all surprising that they become frustrated.

The really annoying thing is that this might have been an opportunity to learn something, and perhaps even to strengthen the evidence by locating some empirical evidence about the effect of burst suppression in this case. Whether it strengthened the evidence or not, it might have been an opportunity for people to understand the situation better.

That is what I am saying that people should try to do, because it is in everybody's interests. That was the point of this thread. The fact that it has just degenerated into a further exchange of personal attacks on both sides - and also now personal attacks against me - is not encouraging, to say the least.

Trying to provoke you? I don't need to try to provoke you, Chris, you've already 'attacked' me three times without any provocation from me towards you, I might add. When you first joined the forum (like we all did) I gave your posts the likes some of them deserved. You've never given me any likes, not even for ND experience interviews that took me many hours/days to research and compose, to help get the forum going. 

Now that's okay, of course, you may prefer to save your likes in perpetuum, but it doesn't make for good community relations to never give anyone a thumbs up, does it.  

"And that if someone is asking for empirical evidence,"

There is no 'empirical' evidence as to exactly when Pam heard the music other than that she heard it around the time she returned to her body, just before or just after defibrillation.

PR's question was based on differences in Sabom's account and what I was able to discover and therefore he was basically intimating that there might be a major problem with the reliability of the information and therefore the whole case.  However, Sabom simply got the timing of the defibrillation wrong.

She wasn't defibrillated at 32 degrees C, she was defibrillated at 27 degrees C, a temperature at which consciousness is not possible. In the time it took Hotel California to play (before or after), Pam's physiological condition wouldn't have significantly changed and therefore we can be certain (but not prove of course) that something paranormal occurred, and indeed that is what the surgeons have said, although they don't use such terms as paranormal, of course.

As to his other question about what Robert and Suzanne Mays said in 2008 (?) (about clicks 25 x) it held zero interest for me, nor would I have been able to answer, without rooting out the piece and examining it, which I didn't feel inclined to do.  It doesn't matter what they said, Robert sorted it all out to his and Rivas and Smit's satisfaction before the publication of the IANDS book (The Self Does not Die). The information in the book is correct and there is nothing else to say about it.

As to me considering myself an authority on the case, I've never said any such thing, nor would I. I've merely examined the case
down the years to get at the facts and I'm glad I did. Otherwise the pseudo sceptics and cynics like Malf and co would have triumphed.

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.

Hmm, a few frazzled tempers here, eh? I seem to remember being involved in a few of these myself yet I don't remember any of them being in the slightest way constructive or enlightening.

In PR's defence, he/she contacted me by PM asking about the Pam Reynolds case and I, quite innocently, recommended he/she have a chat with tim as I consider tim to have a lot of the details of the case at his fingertips. Not claiming that he is any kind of expert or qualified commentator, just someone who - like a journalist rather than a scientist - has researched the case. [Edit] My point being that I did not get the impression that this was someone out to debunk the Pam Reynolds case.

In tim's defence, he has had to deal with a lot of what might be termed typical sceptical nit-picking, if not outright misrepresentation of the story. If he is particularly sensitive it might be because he has had to defend the facts against some desperate grasping for mundane explanations over several years both here and on the Skeptiko forum. PR has probably reaped the whirlwind of past encounters with other "researchers".

And on the point of research, I made the distinction earlier between "journalistic" and "scientific' research. This, I believe, can be a trigger for those of a more empirical nature such as, if you will forgive me for being so bold, Chris. I think back to another Chris - that is Chris Carter - who wrote a series of books on this very subject matter and was widely criticised for not being an expert in the sense that he is not a scientist. Nevertheless, Carter assembled evidence gleaned from research by actual scientists, as well as a lot of anecdotal evidence from experiencers and those close to them, and presented that evidence in a useful and informative manner. A life in science does not endow omniscience and a journalistic approach can be just as valuable as an empirical study.

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.

Tim

Well, obviously the problem is that no matter how many times it's explained that what was being asked for was empirical evidence, you simply come back with "X says." And it seems you view as ridiculous the very idea of asking X what the basis of his statement is.

It really is extremely frustrating, and I can only sympathise with ParapsychResearcher. As I've said, I think he was far more patient than I should have been.

And I'm sure anyone at all with a scientific background will find that attitude equally frustrating, because it is the antithesis of the scientific approach. And I have to say that when proponents behave like that it can be incredibly damaging, not only to any attempt at reasonable discussion, but also to their own cause.

...down the years to get at the facts and I'm glad I did. Otherwise the pseudo sceptics and cynics like Malf and co would have triumphed.

Sad me, included not.

Sad me, included not.

Yes, I agree, Steve.

This has turned into perhaps one of the worst and most useless threads on this site (not Chris’s fault, obviously). I’m a little confused by the lack of accountability on both sides here. PR started name calling fairly aggressively and it didn’t, in my opinion, take very much, though I understand his/her frustration. Additionally, Chris, I get that you’re saying you understand why PR lost temper, but your version of losing temper and PR’s are not remotely similar. The two sides here seem to believe neither side did anything that could really be criticized. Or they lightly say “oh, my bad” then say something indicating they don’t really feel that way. 

We all know tim feels strongly about the Pam Reynolds case, so I suppose from my POV I didn’t read much that I thought was so worthy of the show that has followed it. In any event, I wish both parties would just say “yeah, I could’ve done better” and moved on. Enrique, I think the way you’re handling things isn’t helping. This thread has devolved immensely, though the original thread devolve does plenty first.

Hi, Dante. Just to add...(We all know tim feels strongly about the Pam Reynolds case) only because of the misinformation that has been presented about the case to try to neutralise it. It's not some kind of 'sacred cow', for me, I just wanted the record set straight, that's all.

I would actually prefer to stop discussing it now. All there is to say has been said. For sceptics to now suggest that her burst suppression might just have been insufficient is quite telling, I believe.