Pam Reynolds' NDE--the "clicks": Continuous or discontinuous?

Allow me to observe that, yet again, you don't seem to be reading my posts carefully or even completely.

No, I've read your posts carefully every time.

The strength of Reynolds' alleged anomalous veridical hearing of "Hotel California" as it's presented nowadays depends on her having been at 27 degrees C when it was heard, as The Self Does not Die makes clear. But if, as Sabom clearly maintains, the song did not play until after Reynolds' resuscitation when she was no longer at 27 degrees C but much warmer (again, per Sabom), then the argument for the view that that observation was anomalous is weakened.

Pam herself said that she heard the song when she was being defibrillated. Can you not understand that it's not particularly important about the song. Why do you keep using that as a benchmark ? The main anomalous event in the second part of her observations was the extraordinary fact that she was somehow consciously aware of being defibrillated twice when she was effectively dead. She was defibrillated at a temperature of 27 degrees C.

Again, you don't seem to be making serious efforts to comprehend what I write. I have no desire right now to again correct your misinterpretations or plain lack of knowledge of what I've written. To repeat, please do not reply to my posts unless you've read them fully and carefully.


Why do I have to start going back over this case in detail, just because you come on here with a request for yet another in depth analysis. Your position is illogical anyway. You've already purported to accept that something anomalous occurred...and then you moved on to her second set of observations with doubt in your mind ? Why ?

Secondly, to doubt the opinion of highly experienced anaesthesiologists who have told you factually, that burst suppression is the gold standard and then take issue with me (a layperson) and request that "I" go and find you cast iron 'proof' that burst suppression removes any possibility of consciousness, is frankly absurd.

Please go and ask the experts yourself ? Until you do, lets leave it there.

There is a problem with the formatting above which I can't rectify.

if anyone knew why there is a discrepancy between the Mayses' 2008 statements about the "clicks" to which Reynolds was exposed and Greene's statements on the same topic

It doesn't matter what the May's said in 2008, I haven't looked into that, why does it matter? We went to the definitive sources well after whatever Robert and Suzanne said, the surgeons themselves and Spetzler's published paper.

Wow, what a brilliant analytic approach! So for you, if someone accepts claim X that has some association with claim Y, he should just go ahead and uncritically accept claim Y without considering independent reasons for or against acceptance of it. Of course, I have already explained, at length, why I have raised some doubts about the second set of observations. How you can assert that you've read my posts carefully every time and yet ask the above-quoted questions is beyond me. Are you trolling?

That statement is so incredibly stupid, it's unbelievable. Claim "x" and claim "y" in this report are identical. Verified accurate paranormal observations when the physiological condition of the patient prohibited it !!

If you accept the first, then it doesn't matter whether or not you accept the second, you've already accepted that something paranormal occurred.

To accuse me of being a troll and not worth talking to on this topic, shows me that you are the troll, not me. You are also very stupid, quite rude and wholly illogical, and there I'll leave it.

Moderators: I can't seem to make a post with normal sized format.

To understand who's actually "very stupid" in this exchange, consider that you, for example, alleged that I "request[ed]" that you do something, and then when I noted that I very clearly did no such thing, and highlighted what I actually asked for, you switched to essentially complaining that I shouldn't have asked for that, as if you hadn't initiated the dispute with the just mentioned allegation: "It doesn't matter what the May's said in 2008 . . . why does it matter?" By the way, you've apparently missed my statement concerning why it might matter--but no surprises there.

This suggests that you're so fantastically stupid that not only are you seemingly unable to understand anything that I write, you can't even keep track of your own claims.

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.

As it happens, my academic work is primarily in intelligence research.

Intelligence research, you say ? Darn it, why didn't you say that at the beginning; I would have known you weren't actually a moron.