To NDE or not to NDE (re-done)

The very first time I ever mentioned "hallucinations, dreams, and unreal experiences", I did so in this post here. I put "hallucinations, dreams, and unreal experiences" in quotes and then I immediately followed the line with a link to a google scholar list of research specifically described, by the researchers, as research on hallucinations, dreams, and unreal experiences or various combinations thereof (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en...real+&btnG).

Well, I would just say again that if you are using a term in a different sense from the normal one, you need to explain that, otherwise you'll end up misleading people.

The fact that you may have quoted an example of a non-standard usage at some previous time and in a different thread is really neither here nor there. You really can't expect people to search through all your previous posts for enlightenment about possible non-standard usage of every word you utter.

If you won't tell us what experiences are in your sub-set of experiences, and you also won't tell us how you've chosen these these things to go into your sub-set, then we can't really discuss your sub-set any further can we?

Except that I told you exactly which experiences are in that set - whatever experiences are in the dozens and dozens of papers in this list:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en...real+&btnG

So discuss away.

Linda

Except that I told you exactly which experiences are in that set - whatever experiences are in the dozens and dozens of papers in this list:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en...real+&btnG

545 papers, to be precise. Though, of course, Google being what it is, the 545 hits currently returned by that search link won't be the same ones it would have returned last November when fls originally posted it.

I wonder - is this the most absurd comment ever made in the history of Internet discussions?

And has malf really read all 545 of those papers, and made a list of everything mentioned in them? 

I feel I should just say that on the basis of my experience in this thread and a number of others, I shall not be initiating any more discussions in the "Skeptic vs. Proponent" section of this site. 

I have always been keen to encourage discussions between sceptics and proponents. I feel that this is not only beneficial but vital to the field. But as a result of the actions of one participant, it's a sad fact that attempts at discussion in "Skeptic vs. Proponent" are frequently disrupted and indeed reduced to the level of pantomime.

The forum rules allow for sceptical discussion of specific issues in any section of the site, but say that arguments based on blanket scepticism - in other words "debunking" based on non-acceptance of any of the anomalous phenomena discussed here - should be reserved for the "Skeptic vs. Proponent" section:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-fo...re-posting

So where possible I'm going to avoid the "Skeptic vs. Proponent" section, and post in the other sections of the site when I can. Not that that means I won't try to correct obvious falsehoods in the "Skeptic vs. Proponent" section when I see them. Though even that is often a self-defeating activity, as it seems to lead only to more falsehoods and obfuscation.