From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:09:14 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 151 Message-ID: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> Reply-To: "Trish" NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust128.tnt2.new-port-richey.fl.da.uu.net X-Auth: D407C213029CCD8C50D08491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!dallas-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!worldfeed.news.gte.net!not-for-mail Hi everyone ... Over the last few days I've had an interesting dialogue with the Lucidity Institute. I've clipped some suggestive pieces from the web page I've referrenced below ......... any thoughts, opinions, or ideas about it are most welcome. I'm trying to get a grasp on this, and I don't, at all, like the feeling I get from it. Here's the page .... As for the rest, Trish, I have to say, READ MY BOOK! ;) Actually, the relevant chapter is on the web: http://www.lucidity.com/LD9DIR.html Here's some excerpts ... But now let us return to the other enigma we were discussing: the out-of-body experience. The OBE takes on a confusingly wide variety of forms. A person having an OBE may for example find his sense of identity apparently associated with a second, non-physical body--a "soul," "astral body," "spirit," or, to suggest a term having a certain charm, "out-of-body body" (OBB)! Equally, while "out-of-body", one may entirely dispense with the inelegance of bodies of any sort, and experience oneself as a point of light or a freely mobile center of awareness. In some OBEs, one will seem to see one's physical body while in other cases one finds but an empty bed or someone else entirely. Let us take the case of one "astral projector" who wrote that before he knew what his OBEs were, he "was much afraid each time" he had one. He explained that his projections always began with him lying in bed, feeling a weight holding him down. The next thing he knew he would be out of his body. During one OBE, he walked around his bedroom and looked down the stairs into the kitchen. He decided to look at himself in the mirror, but curiously could not see anything when he did so. On another occasion, when returning from "astral adventures," he thought, "I'll look at myself on the bed." But when he looked, he saw his mother, who "had been passed over quite a long time." Yet curiously, finding his dead mother in bed instead of his sleeping body didn't lead him to the conclusion that he was dreaming; he took this to mean that his mother's spirit would always be with him whenever he was "projected." [8] Two features of this OBE report are particularly suggestive. One is that upon "leaving his body" the astral projector walked around "his bedroom" and looked into "the kitchen." This added to the second fact that he expected to find his own sleeping body in bed upon his return, indicates that he conceived of himself as being in a non-physical ("astral") body, but in an environment identical to the physical world. It is exactly this kind of contradictory and confused mixture of mental and material elements that is also characteristic of the pre-lucid or naive dreamer. Secondly, note the projector's failure to consider the possibility that if his physical body wasn't in the bed he was looking in, it might not be the real bed he was looking at, or the real bedroom, or the real kitchen, either. These kinds of minor lapses of rationality and the failure to question the anomalies that confront one seem to me quite characteristic of non-lucid dreaming and OBEs. ---------------------- It seems like they're trying to box OBEs with normal dreaming. There's no reference to OBE'rs having a conscious interpretation to the passage of time ... of accurate memory recollection (knowing what you did that morning, at work that day, etc.) ... Was this omitted, or did they never ask? ---------------------- In addition to the anomalies that people tend to accept in OBEs, there is another similarity to dreaming. This is the fact that during the OBE, they are convinced that what they are experiencing is actuality. For example, the gentleman with the "astral mother" whose case we have just discussed testified that he had learned through his OBEs that "the real Me is apart from and working through, my physical body. I now know for sure that we have two bodies." This feeling of knowing "for sure" is quite characteristic of the tenacity with which people cling to the conclusions they draw from their out-of-body experiences. Wherever else they may differ, for instance whether the "two bodies" are or are not connected by a "silver cord," persons who have had out- of-the-body experiences are quite unanimous in being 'absolutely certain' that they are not dreams. Yet during ordinary dreams we are usually convinced at the time of the actuality of what we later discover to have been delusions. ---------------------------- How could they confuse the automatic/primal acceptance common in normal dreams with the open and conscious awareness found in OBEs? It's almost like comparing the consciousness of a mouse to that of a human and saying it's the same thing. ---------------------------- The lucid dream is sometimes considered to be an inferior form of the out-of-body experience. But I believe the opposite may be the case, as may have already occurred to those readers who followed the progression of stages through which children pass in developing understanding of the concept of "dreaming". ---------------------- Ok .. we can go out and play now. If you can ... please take the time to read this document in full. I've always had a lot of respect for the Lucidity Institute ... but I felt this "explanation" of OBEs was condescending and patronizing. And knowing that it comes from the Lucidity Institute .. I also feel a sense of betrayal. I'm open to all different types of ideas ... many people believe that during OBEs you actually do leave the body ... other people feel it's another type of experience similar to lucid dreaming ... and that's ok. But to think they just toss us off as a band of hallucinating idiots completely floors me. Is it that the topic of OBEs is to difficult a topic to explore so they write it off? Will including OBEs as a legitimate form of consciousness limit their funding and render them the laughing stock of the scientific community? Or is it that they're taking up the fight in the war of who's better, lucid dreams or OBEs? I'm so sick of this war. It doesn't make any sense. I went to them hoping they may have learned something new. In return I get a few mumbled answers and some links to web pages. No one will answer any specific questions that I ask. I'm not a newbie ... I've spent years with the subject have had quite a few wonderful experiences with lucid dreams and OBEs. I'm rational, and I've explored just about every avenue leading to answers that's out there. But they pat me on the butt and tell me to "run along". I would have much preferred getting no response at all. It just hurts to think that the Lucidity Institute has abandoned us as well. Trish ###### From: "Lee W" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Lines: 15 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Message-ID: <%F4R2.68243$Eb.14053@nnrp2.clara.net> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 17:57:15 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.8.82.146 X-Complaints-To: abuse@clara.net X-Trace: nnrp2.clara.net 924112635 195.8.82.146 (Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:57:15 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:57:15 BST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!nnrp2.clara.net.POSTED!not-for-mail HI Trish, Thanks for taking the time out to enquire to the LInstitute about the OOBE/LD debate. I think it just shows that many people (scientists etc) still have a long way to go to understand our existence fully. Instead, at the moment, they just write all these experiences (have they read about all the OOBE hits that have happpened, remote viewing, telepathy, NDE, shall I gon on) as a load of tosh and all hallucations and dillusions. Ah well, whats there loss is our gain. -- Remember, to fly is not to walk, and to walk is not to fly. Lee. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Date: 14 Apr 1999 21:56:33 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 149 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6u4smjrn66.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 "Trish" writes: > > or ideas about it are most welcome. I'm trying to get a grasp > on this, and I don't, at all, like the feeling I get from it. Shattered dream are painfull... so here some help > physical body wasn't in the bed he was looking in, it might > not be the real bed he was looking at, or the real bedroom, > or the real kitchen, either. > These kinds of minor lapses of rationality and the failure to > question the anomalies that confront one seem to me quite > characteristic of non-lucid dreaming and OBEs. > > ---------------------- > It seems like they're trying to box OBEs with normal dreaming. Most likely they are. Dreaming is after all an proven effect. Hmmm. Actually dreaming is not proven, just everyone has seen it, so no one questions its reality. Just declare it random brain firing and thats over with it. The LI then goes out to look at the phemonena of this firing. But that is still traditional science. > what you did that morning, at work that day, etc.) ... Was this > omitted, or did they never ask? Or simply regarded it as not relevant. Dreams also contain real elements, it is the unreal ones that prove then not real (=physical). So they apply the same reasoning to OBEs (not physical, not real). > fact that during the OBE, they are convinced that what they > are experiencing is actuality. For example, the gentleman > with the "astral mother" whose case we have just discussed > testified that he had learned through his OBEs that "the real > Me is apart from and working through, my physical body. I now > know for sure that we have two bodies." Subjectively this is seen so. But there is no proof to an scientist, so it is treated as if proven (!) wrong. Funily there exists no proof for daily life being real. That is simply accepted. But philosophers (west/Plato and east/Buddha) have questioned this since millennia. > This feeling of knowing "for sure" is quite characteristic of > the tenacity with which people cling to the conclusions they > draw from their out-of-body experiences. Wherever else they So we have an statistical claim by the OBEers. That proves that there is an phenomena here, but not the interpretation OBEers have. The explanation (2nd body, astral) does not fit their dogma, so it must be wrong. And why give up an successful dogma just for these few "funny" OBEers ideas? Why does such remind me of the late-medieval katholic church? > How could they confuse the automatic/primal acceptance > common in normal dreams with the open and conscious > awareness found in OBEs? It's almost like comparing > the consciousness of a mouse to that of a human and > saying it's the same thing. "OBE can't be like real life". That violates dogma, So it must be an error. What one does not know from ones own experience to be false is easier to believe than to change ones dogma. > If you can ... please take the time to read this document in full. Time taken, to read think and answer. Your writing is usually worth it. > I've always had a lot of respect for the Lucidity Institute ... but > I felt this "explanation" of OBEs was condescending and > patronizing. And knowing that it comes from the Lucidity > Institute .. I also feel a sense of betrayal. One that the LI FAQ actually sugests that it would happen. Actually after reading that the first time, I noticed that they are not on the same wavelenth as OBEers. Even if the similar name of the Monroe Institute suggest them both being similar organisations. One reason I think that their FAQ should be in a.d.l, not a.oob. OBE (and NDE) requires reconsidering ones picture of the world. LD does not, it fits entirely within the physical world picture. So TMI and LI are entirely different cultures. > I'm open to all different types of ideas ... many people believe > that during OBEs you actually do leave the body ... other people > feel it's another type of experience similar to lucid dreaming ... > and that's ok. But to think they just toss us off as a band of > hallucinating idiots completely floors me. Typical present day majority of science (a.k.a. scientism): Anything that can not be proven is non existant. That conciousness and dreams are not provable and so consequently non existant, which is clearly false, does not wake them up to the mistake in this logic. Noticing that is what broke my belief in science as unfailable method and consequently as authority to explain. With this attitude relativity or quantum physics would have been declared a bunch of lies if they were not demonstratable by an simple "look here at my measurements!". Even something as simple as chaotic determinism (a mathematical effect that acts in physics) is not universally accepted, 30 years after being discovered. And that effect can be demonstrated by computer simulation (it was actually discovered while computer meteology calculations). > Is it that the topic of OBEs is to difficult a topic to explore so > they write it off? It takes too much work on the part of the new entree (particularly an sceptical one) for casual acceptance of something as shattering to existing dogma as an non-physical world is. > Will including OBEs as a legitimate form of consciousness > limit their funding and render them the laughing stock of the > scientific community? I think it is more an preconcieved "we know its most likely crap, so why waste our time" type of thinking. Explaining it as halucination is sufficent for them, with their little bit of half-knowledge of the phenomena. > It just hurts to think that the Lucidity Institute has abandoned > us as well. Were the LI ever on our side? Or was that just an illusion from the beginning on? -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ 20th century record companies fit the 21st century data highways as good as 19th century stagecoaches fit the 20th century freeways ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:42:51 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 39 Message-ID: <7f2sal$k89$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <1999041419054075767@zetnet.co.uk> Reply-To: "Trish" NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust148.tnt2.new-port-richey.fl.da.uu.net X-Auth: D407C2060284CD8518998491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!howland.erols.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!worldfeed.news.gte.net!not-for-mail J L Williams wrote in message <1999041419054075767@zetnet.co.uk>... >The message <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> > from "Trish" contains these words: > > > >> I went to them hoping they may have learned something new. >> In return I get a few mumbled answers and some links to web >> pages. No one will answer any specific questions that I >> ask. I'm not a newbie ... I've spent years with the subject >> have had quite a few wonderful experiences with lucid dreams >> and OBEs. I'm rational, and I've explored just about every >> avenue leading to answers that's out there. But they pat me >> on the butt and tell me to "run along". I would have much >> preferred getting no response at all. > >> It just hurts to think that the Lucidity Institute has abandoned >> us as well. > >> Trish > >Hi Trish, long time no hear:) >Could it be that they are following their own school of >thought/research and don't want to be distracted, especially by >someone in a group that is so open and progressive? >At least you tried ;-) >Regards >Jim >Watch and pray, time hastes away. > > Thanks Jim .... Just makes me wonder why they post their FAQ in this group at all. Trish ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:51:37 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 54 Message-ID: <7f2sr3$r0s$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <3714F92B.BB3E09E6@netparadise.no> Reply-To: "Trish" NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust148.tnt2.new-port-richey.fl.da.uu.net X-Auth: D407C20611DBCD9C10D38491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!nntp.flash.net!worldfeed.news.gte.net!not-for-mail Lars Foleide wrote in message <3714F92B.BB3E09E6@netparadise.no>... >Trish wrote: > >> Hi everyone ... >> >> Over the last few days I've had an interesting dialogue with the >> Lucidity Institute. I've clipped some suggestive pieces from the >> web page I've referrenced below ......... any thoughts, opinions, >> or ideas about it are most welcome. I'm trying to get a grasp >> on this, and I don't, at all, like the feeling I get from it. >> >> It just hurts to think that the Lucidity Institute has abandoned >> us as well. >> >> Trish > >Not sure how you got the idea that The Lucidity Institute accepted >Out of Body experiences for what they really are. >It is a highly scientific instititue that have a reputatition they need >to keep, >the idea that something is leaving our body is able to view the >physical world around us is absolutely out there to them. > >Many skeptics don't believe what is reported for respected universities >that >have done numerous studies on telekinesis. So publishing a report stating > >that out of body experiences are more than just dreams could do more >harm than good to them. Such things ain't science... > >They may even have a totally different opinion about OBEs that what they >are saying... How knows....? > >The LI isn't the place to go if you want info on OBEs.. >- Lars > I know what you mean Lars. It's just that lucid dreams and OBEs go hand in hand. This is like Cain slaying Abel. I can picture their white rooms and hospital beds and equipment .... a lucid dreamer falls into sleep paralysis ... and a few minutes later sits up abruptly and declares .. "Hey .. wow! I think I just had an OBE!" .... Suddenly the red alarm lights go off, the men in the white suits come in and quickly usher our naive lucid dreamer into extensive adjustive therapy. Put into the "big chair", our poor friend is zapped every time he/she says the "O" word. jeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzz! Trish ###### From: J L Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 19:05:40 +0100 Message-ID: <1999041419054075767@zetnet.co.uk> References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-10003900.zetnet.co.uk X-Mailer: ZIMACS Version 1.20c 10003900 Lines: 30 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!ayres.ftech.net!news.ftech.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!master.news.zetnet.net!user-10003900.zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail The message <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> from "Trish" contains these words: > I went to them hoping they may have learned something new. > In return I get a few mumbled answers and some links to web > pages. No one will answer any specific questions that I > ask. I'm not a newbie ... I've spent years with the subject > have had quite a few wonderful experiences with lucid dreams > and OBEs. I'm rational, and I've explored just about every > avenue leading to answers that's out there. But they pat me > on the butt and tell me to "run along". I would have much > preferred getting no response at all. > It just hurts to think that the Lucidity Institute has abandoned > us as well. > Trish Hi Trish, long time no hear:) Could it be that they are following their own school of thought/research and don't want to be distracted, especially by someone in a group that is so open and progressive? At least you tried ;-) Regards Jim Watch and pray, time hastes away. ###### Message-ID: <3714F92B.BB3E09E6@netparadise.no> From: Lars Foleide X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 35 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 19:23:14 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.204.238.176 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no X-Trace: news.telia.no 924117794 195.204.238.176 (Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:23:14 CEST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:23:14 CEST Organization: Telia Internet Public Access Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news.algonet.se!algonet!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed1.telia.no!news.telia.no!not-for-mail Trish wrote: > Hi everyone ... > > Over the last few days I've had an interesting dialogue with the > Lucidity Institute. I've clipped some suggestive pieces from the > web page I've referrenced below ......... any thoughts, opinions, > or ideas about it are most welcome. I'm trying to get a grasp > on this, and I don't, at all, like the feeling I get from it. > > It just hurts to think that the Lucidity Institute has abandoned > us as well. > > Trish Not sure how you got the idea that The Lucidity Institute accepted Out of Body experiences for what they really are. It is a highly scientific instititue that have a reputatition they need to keep, the idea that something is leaving our body is able to view the physical world around us is absolutely out there to them. Many skeptics don't believe what is reported for respected universities that have done numerous studies on telekinesis. So publishing a report stating that out of body experiences are more than just dreams could do more harm than good to them. Such things ain't science... They may even have a totally different opinion about OBEs that what they are saying... How knows....? The LI isn't the place to go if you want info on OBEs.. - Lars ###### From: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:21:19 GMT Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom Lines: 15 Message-ID: <3714f764.8146915@news.dial.pipex.com> References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <1999041419054075767@zetnet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: aa173.du.pipex.com X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 924118464 24879 193.130.240.173 (14 Apr 1999 19:34:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Apr 1999 19:34:24 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!bore.news.pipex.net!pipex!not-for-mail On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 19:05:40 +0100, J L Williams wrote: >Could it be that they are following their own school of >thought/research and don't want to be distracted, especially by >someone in a group that is so open and progressive? >At least you tried ;-) I echo what Jim says. Even in a group as 'open and progressive' as this one, I have been criticised for posting stuff which some people find irrelevant to alt.out-of-body (Past-Life Experiences for example!). So in a group which has narrowed down and constricted its sphere (or bladder!) of influence to something as dull as Lucid Dreaming, when there are so many other interesting states to investigate, you can expect nothing but cystitis. Hey ho, well done for trying, Love from Julia. ###### From: J L Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:31:35 +0100 Lines: 20 Message-ID: <1999041422313575767@zetnet.co.uk> References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-10003900.zetnet.co.uk X-Mailer: ZIMACS Version 1.20c 10003900 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!ayres.ftech.net!news.ftech.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!master.news.zetnet.net!user-10003900.zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail Another thought on this Trish. Just look at the FAQ and from whence it comes! How much of this have they experienced themselves? Ok on LD's, after all that is their area of research and presumeably their expertise. On OBE's how would they know unless they have studied that area as well? Are they saying that that their students have had OBE's and LD's and after a reasonable length of study they have found no measurable differences between the two? Looking at their text I'm not sure. I am very skeptical of FAQ's. Some have been compiled with no personal experiences at all. Just using references on the 'net and from readings. Well we read it on usenet.......it MUST be true! Makes it all a bit clinical/academic which is the way this bit of FAQ comes across. Regards Jim Watch and pray, time hastes away. ###### From: J L Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:40:10 +0100 Lines: 27 Message-ID: <1999041422401075767@zetnet.co.uk> References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <1999041419054075767@zetnet.co.uk> <7f2sal$k89$1@news-1.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-10003900.zetnet.co.uk X-Mailer: ZIMACS Version 1.20c 10003900 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!diablo.theplanet.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!master.news.zetnet.net!user-10003900.zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail The message <7f2sal$k89$1@news-1.news.gte.net> from "Trish" contains these words: > Thanks Jim .... Just makes me wonder why they post their FAQ in this group > at all. Well, whilst you was away we did have a discussion about these FAQ's raised by my good self. This point you have raised makes it all the more unreasonable for the LI to be posting to this group. If I want their FAQ (AND I DO NOT) I would go to their ng. Regards Jim Watch and pray, time wastes away. Mmmm sig. typo! Should be "hastes away!" :) > Trish ###### From: "ToSeek" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6u4smjrn66.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Lines: 26 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:44:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.13.58.47 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:44:37 MDT Organization: MetroNet Communications Group Inc. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news1.tor.metronet.ca!news1.mtl.metronet.ca!not-for-mail Neil Franklin wrote in message <6u4smjrn66.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>... >"Trish" writes: >> It seems like they're trying to box OBEs with normal dreaming. >Most likely they are. Dreaming is after all an proven effect. >Hmmm. Actually dreaming is not proven, just everyone has seen it, so >no one questions its reality. Just declare it random brain firing >and thats over with it. The LI then goes out to look at the phemonena >of this firing. But that is still traditional science. Actually Dreaming is proven, just read the book of Stephen Laberge about Lucid Dreaming. Some people, while dreaming managed to confirm it to the other scientifics in the lab with eyes movement. Also I find that they are no reason to try to deny their work and who knows if we won't be all surprised by some "scientific" who successfully prove that OBE exist in a near future! DG ###### Reply-To: "Trish" From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6u4smjrn66.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Lines: 170 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /w3JS5Gq9WOHDCe9qYPVfW92kOivfa7tPMUVsswcmouoSrZo+CRMbth6pitwrfF+GN85nEJ/HMr0!03bVq+2SrcRSfo5zNz0d1RSkQnlzziwJmrQ7O65cWMu7IMqG1wLX8oG9SIrNWJo= X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:45:28 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:45:28 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.POSTED!not-for-mail Hi Neil ................ Neil Franklin wrote in message <6u4smjrn66.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>... >"Trish" writes: >> >> or ideas about it are most welcome. I'm trying to get a grasp >> on this, and I don't, at all, like the feeling I get from it. > >Shattered dream are painfull... so here some help Thank you. : ) > > >> physical body wasn't in the bed he was looking in, it might >> not be the real bed he was looking at, or the real bedroom, >> or the real kitchen, either. >> These kinds of minor lapses of rationality and the failure to >> question the anomalies that confront one seem to me quite >> characteristic of non-lucid dreaming and OBEs. >> >> ---------------------- >> It seems like they're trying to box OBEs with normal dreaming. > >Most likely they are. Dreaming is after all an proven effect. > >Hmmm. Actually dreaming is not proven, just everyone has seen it, so >no one questions its reality. Just declare it random brain firing >and thats over with it. The LI then goes out to look at the phemonena >of this firing. But that is still traditional science. > > >> what you did that morning, at work that day, etc.) ... Was this >> omitted, or did they never ask? > >Or simply regarded it as not relevant. Dreams also contain real elements, >it is the unreal ones that prove then not real (=physical). So they >apply the same reasoning to OBEs (not physical, not real). > > >> fact that during the OBE, they are convinced that what they >> are experiencing is actuality. For example, the gentleman >> with the "astral mother" whose case we have just discussed >> testified that he had learned through his OBEs that "the real >> Me is apart from and working through, my physical body. I now >> know for sure that we have two bodies." > >Subjectively this is seen so. But there is no proof to an scientist, >so it is treated as if proven (!) wrong. Funily there exists no proof >for daily life being real. That is simply accepted. But philosophers >(west/Plato and east/Buddha) have questioned this since millennia. > > >> This feeling of knowing "for sure" is quite characteristic of >> the tenacity with which people cling to the conclusions they >> draw from their out-of-body experiences. Wherever else they > >So we have an statistical claim by the OBEers. That proves that there >is an phenomena here, but not the interpretation OBEers have. The >explanation (2nd body, astral) does not fit their dogma, so it must be >wrong. And why give up an successful dogma just for these few "funny" >OBEers ideas? > >Why does such remind me of the late-medieval katholic church? Ahhh ..... I'm starting to see it clearly now Neil ........... > > >> How could they confuse the automatic/primal acceptance >> common in normal dreams with the open and conscious >> awareness found in OBEs? It's almost like comparing >> the consciousness of a mouse to that of a human and >> saying it's the same thing. > >"OBE can't be like real life". That violates dogma, So it must be an >error. What one does not know from ones own experience to be false is >easier to believe than to change ones dogma. <> I've changed my dogma many times already ... it's the only way to stop running in circles. Chickens. > > >> If you can ... please take the time to read this document in full. > >Time taken, to read think and answer. Your writing is usually worth it. > > >> I've always had a lot of respect for the Lucidity Institute ... but >> I felt this "explanation" of OBEs was condescending and >> patronizing. And knowing that it comes from the Lucidity >> Institute .. I also feel a sense of betrayal. > >One that the LI FAQ actually sugests that it would happen. Actually >after reading that the first time, I noticed that they are not on >the same wavelenth as OBEers. Even if the similar name of the Monroe >Institute suggest them both being similar organisations. > >One reason I think that their FAQ should be in a.d.l, not a.oob. > >OBE (and NDE) requires reconsidering ones picture of the world. LD >does not, it fits entirely within the physical world picture. So TMI >and LI are entirely different cultures. > > >> I'm open to all different types of ideas ... many people believe >> that during OBEs you actually do leave the body ... other people >> feel it's another type of experience similar to lucid dreaming ... >> and that's ok. But to think they just toss us off as a band of >> hallucinating idiots completely floors me. > >Typical present day majority of science (a.k.a. scientism): Anything >that can not be proven is non existant. That conciousness and dreams >are not provable and so consequently non existant, which is clearly >false, does not wake them up to the mistake in this logic. > >Noticing that is what broke my belief in science as unfailable method >and consequently as authority to explain. > > >With this attitude relativity or quantum physics would have been >declared a bunch of lies if they were not demonstratable by an simple >"look here at my measurements!". Ah Neil. Thank you! I feel so much better now. A lot better. > >Even something as simple as chaotic determinism (a mathematical effect >that acts in physics) is not universally accepted, 30 years after >being discovered. And that effect can be demonstrated by computer >simulation (it was actually discovered while computer meteology >calculations). > > >> Is it that the topic of OBEs is to difficult a topic to explore so >> they write it off? > >It takes too much work on the part of the new entree (particularly an >sceptical one) for casual acceptance of something as shattering to >existing dogma as an non-physical world is. > > >> Will including OBEs as a legitimate form of consciousness >> limit their funding and render them the laughing stock of the >> scientific community? > >I think it is more an preconcieved "we know its most likely crap, so >why waste our time" type of thinking. Explaining it as halucination >is sufficent for them, with their little bit of half-knowledge of the >phenomena. > > >> It just hurts to think that the Lucidity Institute has abandoned >> us as well. > >Were the LI ever on our side? Or was that just an illusion from the >beginning on? Probably just an illusion. But a sweet one. Well, that bubble's burst. Thanks for helping me out Neil. Trish ###### Reply-To: "Trish" From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6u4smjrn66.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Lines: 35 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /bNDCyH3PBvDGedu1cBos0zgE4opxmYgp6gdMg3HYd+EGEwLcTD3NCGuTWG6VO5Kd+6D+LrQWx7F!6jl0+MjTySRwRwOZwNXTt/2j7LTU+siM5gJ9vGW971c1jCCMS0GmNEB1XUDQHg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:49:19 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:49:20 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.POSTED!not-for-mail ToSeek wrote in message ... > >Neil Franklin wrote in message <6u4smjrn66.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>... >>"Trish" writes: > > >>> It seems like they're trying to box OBEs with normal dreaming. > > >>Most likely they are. Dreaming is after all an proven effect. >>Hmmm. Actually dreaming is not proven, just everyone has seen it, so >>no one questions its reality. Just declare it random brain firing >>and thats over with it. The LI then goes out to look at the phemonena >>of this firing. But that is still traditional science. > >Actually Dreaming is proven, just read the book of Stephen Laberge about >Lucid Dreaming. Some people, while dreaming managed to confirm it to the >other scientifics in the lab with eyes movement. > >Also I find that they are no reason to try to deny their work and who knows >if we won't be all surprised by some "scientific" who successfully prove >that OBE exist in a near future! > >DG Stephen LaBerge is the one who wrote the document I was referring to. And he's also the head of the Lucidity Institute at Stanford. I have a lot of respect for his work ... but I don't care for his attitude. Trish ###### Reply-To: "Trish" From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <1999041422313575767@zetnet.co.uk> Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Lines: 20 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: <9DbR2.256$fP2.13589@paloalto-snr1> X-Trace: /Kkf2OelZEurFVmdebdFEB3VKWqbII3CC8LHAOjK/zGQ3+EPtQTKqxWhN4WRQpXjODUyigMnEU/o!Amal82mcYOEYySw3x7/kv2X42KsNp08/W2jdXT+1UJbZFXfYq1BWWSFxdZ7HRw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:52:05 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:52:05 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!remarQ-easT!supernews.com!remarQ.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.POSTED!not-for-mail J L Williams wrote in message <1999041422313575767@zetnet.co.uk>... >Another thought on this Trish. Just look at the FAQ and from whence it comes! >How much of this have they experienced themselves? > >Ok on LD's, after all that is their area of research and presumeably >their expertise. >On OBE's how would they know unless they have studied that area as >well? Are they saying that that their students have had OBE's and >LD's and after a reasonable length of study they have found no >measurable differences between the two? Looking at their text I'm not sure. Basically, this is exactly what they're saying. But they seem to omit certain issues ... and twist other issues ... just to prove their point. Trish ###### From: "Mark Baron" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Date: 15 Apr 1999 15:15:26 GMT Organization: Mayo Foundation Lines: 22 Message-ID: <01be8752$7d2b2480$8ddab081@baron.mayo.edu> References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <1999041422313575767@zetnet.co.uk> <9DbR2.256$fP2.13589@paloalto-snr1> NNTP-Posting-Host: baron.mayo.edu X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.tli.de!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!news.pagesat.net!skypoint.com!newshub.tc.umn.edu!mayonews.mayo.edu!not-for-mail > > Basically, this is exactly what they're saying. But they seem to omit > certain issues ... and twist other issues ... just to prove their point. > > Trish > That's what I found interesting about the article. They could not explain an OBE as an objective experience of an objective reality. However, they did try to explain shared experiences of OBE/LD as a form of telepathy. Trying to keep it "Just mental" But then how do you explain the telepathy? It's interesting to observe how different people with different perspectives explain similar experiences. Different beliefs, context, and language. -- Mark Baron "Are you a physical being having spiritual experiences, or are you a being of spirit having physical experiences?" --Gregg Braden ###### From: johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:47:55 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Lines: 31 Message-ID: <37197976.3776691@news.melbpc.org.au> References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <1999041422313575767@zetnet.co.uk> <9DbR2.256$fP2.13589@paloalto-snr1> NNTP-Posting-Host: bilby20.melbpc.org.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!209.98.98.32.MISMATCH!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news2.melbpc.org.au!not-for-mail On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:52:05 GMT, "Trish" wrote: < snip > >Basically, this is exactly what they're saying. But they seem to omit >certain issues ... and twist other issues ... just to prove their point. Nice to see this "reality check" from you, Lars etc. :-) I cannot remember the exact details now but recently one of my students was amused by a comment in one of the LaBerge books that said something like "and some people imagine they see dead relatives". Or was it "imagine they are outside of their body" ? Either way there was apparently no consideration of the possibility that the supposed dreamer actually WAS having the experience. The word "imagine" was clearly meant to dismiss these reports. Rather backs up your suggestion that these "scientific" people choose to ignore "controversial" areas of research. Not overly "scientific" IMO if people ignore data that might be relevant. Regards, John. **************************************************** ,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia. / Oz \ johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309 \_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/ ###### From: dromero@roanoke.infi.net (Douglas J. Romero, MD) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Date: 16 Apr 1999 22:29:59 GMT Organization: InfiNet Message-ID: <7f8dl7$r8f$3@nw003t.infi.net> References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm1-23.roanoke.infi.net X-Newsreader: Ink Spot 1.18 for Newton Lines: 191 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!woodstock.news.demon.net!demon!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsxfer.visi.net!news.infi.net!not-for-mail In message <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net>, "Trish" wrote: > > Hi everyone ... > > Over the last few days I've had an interesting dialogue with the > Lucidity Institute. I've clipped some suggestive pieces from the > web page I've referrenced below ......... any thoughts, opinions, > or ideas about it are most welcome. I'm trying to get a grasp > on this, and I don't, at all, like the feeling I get from it. > > Here's the page .... > > As for the rest, Trish, I have to say, READ MY BOOK! ;) > Actually, the relevant chapter is on the web: > http://www.lucidity.com/LD9DIR.html > > Here's some excerpts ... > > > But now let us return to the other enigma we were discussing: > the out-of-body experience. The OBE takes on a confusingly > wide variety of forms. A person having an OBE may for example > find his sense of identity apparently associated with a > second, non-physical body--a "soul," "astral body," "spirit," > or, to suggest a term having a certain charm, "out-of-body > body" (OBB)! Equally, while "out-of-body", one may entirely > dispense with the inelegance of bodies of any sort, and > experience oneself as a point of light or a freely mobile > center of awareness. In some OBEs, one will seem to see one's > physical body while in other cases one finds but an empty bed > or someone else entirely. > Let us take the case of one "astral projector" who wrote that > before he knew what his OBEs were, he "was much afraid each > time" he had one. He explained that his projections always > began with him lying in bed, feeling a weight holding him > down. The next thing he knew he would be out of his body. > During one OBE, he walked around his bedroom and looked down > the stairs into the kitchen. He decided to look at himself in > the mirror, but curiously could not see anything when he did > so. On another occasion, when returning from "astral > adventures," he thought, "I'll look at myself on the bed." > But when he looked, he saw his mother, who "had been passed > over quite a long time." Yet curiously, finding his dead > mother in bed instead of his sleeping body didn't lead him to > the conclusion that he was dreaming; he took this to mean > that his mother's spirit would always be with him whenever he > was "projected." [8] > Two features of this OBE report are particularly suggestive. > One is that upon "leaving his body" the astral projector > walked around "his bedroom" and looked into "the kitchen." > This added to the second fact that he expected to find his > own sleeping body in bed upon his return, indicates that he > conceived of himself as being in a non-physical ("astral") > body, but in an environment identical to the physical world. > It is exactly this kind of contradictory and confused mixture > of mental and material elements that is also characteristic > of the pre-lucid or naive dreamer. Secondly, note the > projector's failure to consider the possibility that if his > physical body wasn't in the bed he was looking in, it might > not be the real bed he was looking at, or the real bedroom, > or the real kitchen, either. > These kinds of minor lapses of rationality and the failure to > question the anomalies that confront one seem to me quite > characteristic of non-lucid dreaming and OBEs. > > ---------------------- > It seems like they're trying to box OBEs with normal dreaming. > There's no reference to OBE'rs having a conscious interpretation > to the passage of time ... of accurate memory recollection (knowing > what you did that morning, at work that day, etc.) ... Was this > omitted, or did they never ask? > ---------------------- > > > > In addition to the anomalies that people tend to accept in > OBEs, there is another similarity to dreaming. This is the > fact that during the OBE, they are convinced that what they > are experiencing is actuality. For example, the gentleman > with the "astral mother" whose case we have just discussed > testified that he had learned through his OBEs that "the real > Me is apart from and working through, my physical body. I now > know for sure that we have two bodies." > This feeling of knowing "for sure" is quite characteristic of > the tenacity with which people cling to the conclusions they > draw from their out-of-body experiences. Wherever else they > may differ, for instance whether the "two bodies" are or are > not connected by a "silver cord," persons who have had out- > of-the-body experiences are quite unanimous in being > 'absolutely certain' that they are not dreams. Yet during > ordinary dreams we are usually convinced at the time of the > actuality of what we later discover to have been delusions. > > ---------------------------- > How could they confuse the automatic/primal acceptance > common in normal dreams with the open and conscious > awareness found in OBEs? It's almost like comparing > the consciousness of a mouse to that of a human and > saying it's the same thing. And how do you compare the 0BE awareness to that of LD's. I really don't get your point. > ---------------------------- > > The lucid dream is sometimes considered to be an inferior > form of the out-of-body experience. But I believe the > opposite may be the case, as may have already occurred to > those readers who followed the progression of stages through > which children pass in developing understanding of the concept of > "dreaming". > > ---------------------- > Ok .. we can go out and play now. > > > If you can ... please take the time to read this document in full. > > I've always had a lot of respect for the Lucidity Institute ... but > I felt this "explanation" of OBEs was condescending and > patronizing. And knowing that it comes from the Lucidity > Institute .. I also feel a sense of betrayal. How so... they just propose an explanation that happens to differ from yours. At least they have done SOME research. > > I'm open to all different types of ideas ... many people believe > that during OBEs you actually do leave the body ... other people > feel it's another type of experience similar to lucid dreaming ... > and that's ok. But to think they just toss us off as a band of > hallucinating idiots completely floors me. They didn't. They just proposed an alternative point of view than the one you had. BTW the document doesn't mention hallucinations. It mentions delusions which is a clinical term for an idea that a person refuses to give up despite evidence to the contrary. IMHO from the post by different persons on this subject you people are bordering on that. > > Is it that the topic of OBEs is to difficult a topic to explore so > they write it off? > > Will including OBEs as a legitimate form of consciousness > limit their funding and render them the laughing stock of the > scientific community? Probably... but that's a whole different subject. > > Or is it that they're taking up the fight in the war of who's better, > lucid dreams or OBEs? I'm so sick of this war. It doesn't > make any sense. IMHO... you make even less. This is not a war. It is just different schools of thought regarding the same phenomena. I agree with being sick of it though. > > I went to them hoping they may have learned something new. > In return I get a few mumbled answers and some links to web > pages. No one will answer any specific questions that I > ask. I'm not a newbie ... I've spent years with the subject > have had quite a few wonderful experiences with lucid dreams > and OBEs. I'm rational, and I've explored just about every > avenue leading to answers that's out there. But they pat me > on the butt and tell me to "run along". I would have much > preferred getting no response at all. > > It just hurts to think that the Lucidity Institute has abandoned > us as well. > > Trish > > > like somebody else pointed out... when were they with us? Funny how nobody of the people that responded to your original post even considered the possibility that their explanation might be lorrect. The Lucidity Institute tries to engage in science and what was stated in the FAQ were Very acute observations of one account. And that's where my disserfion with their point stems. They do seem to disregard various different accounts of the experience. Personally I believe that the Main difference between lucid dreams and the OBE lies in your ability to verify 0BE acquired evidence. And of course there are no widely accepted definitions about what an OBE is and the scope of the experience. -- Douglas J. Romero, MD University of Virginia Salem-Roanoke Psychiatry Program ###### Reply-To: "Trish" From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7f2fat$bpp$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <7f8dl7$r8f$3@nw003t.infi.net> Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Lines: 13 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /wmC6Dxw4tq+DOod054/3dQLU3ZaMW+o8ISibUwY9HCYmBpyMMejRivjQVU6k6mAjJt6xW6bFgZ7!WmYGoX1wpBHKFFbw3OQPiqxjO4JF5DjUpmLDaDokYBS1ZlbY8WEItFu9zEQz X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 14:06:42 GMT Distribution: world Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 14:06:42 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.POSTED!not-for-mail Douglas J. Romero, MD wrote in message <7f8dl7$r8f$3@nw003t.infi.net>... I'm sorry it didn't make sense to you .. but I didn't expect to make sense to everyone. Maybe one day you'll understand, maybe not. Thanks for your reply ... Trish ###### From: dromero@roanoke.infi.net (Douglas J. Romero, MD) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Date: 20 Apr 1999 11:12:27 GMT Organization: InfiNet Lines: 23 Message-ID: <7fhner$mbv$1@nw003t.infi.net> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: pm9-65.roanoke.infi.net X-Newsreader: Ink Spot 1.18 for Newton Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer.visi.net!news.infi.net!not-for-mail In message , "Trish" wrote: > > > Douglas J. Romero, MD wrote in message <7f8dl7$r8f$3@nw003t.infi.net>... > > > > I'm sorry it didn't make sense to you .. but I didn't expect to make sense > to everyone. Maybe one day you'll understand, maybe not. > > Thanks for your reply ... > > Trish > > Hmmm... Very patronizing -- Douglas J. Romero, MD University of Virginia Salem-Roanoke Psychiatry Program ###### Reply-To: "Trish" From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7fhner$mbv$1@nw003t.infi.net> Subject: Re: Dialogue with the Lucidity Institute Lines: 32 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /bQNuYiDykhp9tdLqBnU/z1Mzr2mQDOcHlTKEnrRXHRXDAdc4pNNzC1gO9G5CXbnqfKqouulrW5U!hL7a7yBVBkCnr1j5kytUdPVQ/zCOUfqwv/t62Cqsn/ei+bRDDjP7LS1MxIZdFXKY6g== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:36:16 GMT Distribution: world Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:36:16 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.POSTED!not-for-mail Douglas J. Romero, MD wrote in message <7fhner$mbv$1@nw003t.infi.net>... >In message , "Trish" >wrote: >> >> >> Douglas J. Romero, MD wrote in message <7f8dl7$r8f$3@nw003t.infi.net>... >> >> >> >> I'm sorry it didn't make sense to you .. but I didn't expect to make sense >> to everyone. Maybe one day you'll understand, maybe not. >> >> Thanks for your reply ... >> >> Trish >> >> >Hmmm... Very patronizing > >-- >Douglas J. Romero, MD >University of Virginia >Salem-Roanoke Psychiatry Program > Sorry ... didn't mean to be. Trish