Doesn't this piss you off?

I didn't know this blog existed Smart LX and I came across it quite by chance. Someone named Kamil posted this question for LX and Keith Augustine answered

https://asktheatheist.com/?p=3850&cpage=...ent-117527

Kamil has read one of my posts on Aware of Aware, obviously got a bit worried (in case he might actually have a soul) and then gone over to Smart LX's blog for some comfort.

(Keith) accuses me of being a troll and using anonymity "tim" to effectively hide. That's not true, though, because my name has been published and it's clear in the book who I am (although not notable of course). It doesn't make sense for an ordinary layperson to use his real name on line. It would simply be pretentious.

I've replied forcefully to Keith, both on this blog and by email.

Edited : I thought Keith might have been Smart LX but I don't think he is. He sometimes uses uses another alias but it doesn't matter. Also there is another "Tim" on there making comments but it's not me. I always use a small  "t".

I didn't know this blog existed Smart LX and I came across it quite by chance. Someone named Kamil posted this question for LX and Keith Augustine answered

https://asktheatheist.com/?p=3850&cpage=...ent-117527

Kamil has read one of my posts on Aware of Aware, obviously got a bit worried (in case he might actually have a soul) and then gone over to Smart LX's blog for some comfort.

(Keith) accuses me of being a troll and using anonymity "tim" to effectively hide. That's not true, though, because my name has been published and it's clear in the book who I am (although not notable of course). It doesn't make sense for an ordinary layperson to use his real name on line. It would simply be pretentious.

I've replied forcefully to Keith, both on this blog and by email.

Edited : I thought Keith might have been Smart LX but I don't think he is. He sometimes uses uses another alias but it doesn't matter. Also there is another "Tim" on there making comments but it's not me. I always use a small  "t".

What I find pretty weird, aside from personal attacks which after years of "war" I suppose can't be avoided, is much wrong stuff is being said in that blog.

A user tells that Pam has been the only person/case in which the experience was reported regarding standstill surgery, which isn't actually true. Studies on patient undergoing deep hypothermic operations have shown different other cases, like the one studied by Mario Beuregard or Sam Parnia himself.

Another one says that Pam, in those 3 years before meering Sabom, did research on her operation and then constructed her story. Basically, that user says she was cheating. He ignores  the fact (correct me if I'm wrong) that she told he experience to The surgeons while she was in the hospital, she didn't tell the story 3 years later. That was inly the time at which Sabom interviewed her.

Another one says that before undergoing the procedure she was briefed on it. This has been ruled out both by the surgeons themselves and by Pam. I don't get what kind of surgeons would explain the details of a coming gruesome surgery, it doesn't go like this at all in Italy, they may give you some infos but very superficial, just to calm you down a bit.

And,  another thing that puzzles me is Keith debunking. It all amounts to "she woke up" and ends there. So she woke up, filterrd the noise in her ears, then reconstructed the scene in her mind Daredevil like. All of this in AA, under EEG monitoring and with taped eyes too. Uhm, I get it, the idea of having some sort of soul coming out of the body sounds crazy, but Daredevil sounds crazy too. There isn't any proof that she had AA, just wild speculation.