Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: 30 Nov 1999 21:18:03 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 111 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 BJ writes: > > Yah know, I don't think it's all that unusual to ask for proof of > OOBEs. It isn't unusual. Rather it is very usual, there is seldom a month where this question does not get asked. One (the main?) reason why some are fed up with (and touchy about) it. > Speaking from a perspective of not knowing, but very curious > about the subject given my lucid dream experiences, an OOBE seems on the > surface at least to be something that IS provable. On the _surface_ yes. Unfortunately as soon as one goes into the depth one hits into the limits of provability real fast (and hard). The problem is that OOBE is an _experience_. Trying to prove an experience is not possible, the same as one can not prove dreams, LDs, or even conciousness (a feature of which dreams, LDs and OOBEs are alternate states of). Without an proof of conciousness and a exact description of its normal and altered states one can not prove OOBE (nor dreams or LDs). > For those who > equally energetic about defending the OOB state, at least consider > someone asking for proof as being a reasonable request. The request is considered reasonable the first time it is asked (and was the first time GH asked it). What is not regarded as reasonable is: a) re-requesting over 20 times after recieving an answer "physically impossible to prove" over 10 times. b) calling people liers, hypocrits or deluded because they can not deliver an (for the requester) satisfying answer. Note, that what you are seeing now, are just the agitated ones flamig off their anger, the decent ones who did answer the requests have long given up on GH (who I nominate the most dense poster I have ever met in 7 years of being on this net). > That is > assuming that if a skeptic would be 100% satisfied if the OOBE state was > proven by simply conducting the simple "OOB and read the card" > experiment. This experiment has been suggested (by GH and others) over 10 times and has been denied (by various respondents) over 5 times. The reason for the denial being, that the experiment simply is miss-fitting: It proves RV (remote viewing), not OOBE (out of body experience). It proves that somethign remote has been viewed, not that going out of body has been experienced. Actually there exist RVers, and they all claim, that they are not OOBEing when RVing (some of then are also OOBEers and explicitely remark them being separate things). > I think I would believe in it a lot more if I found some > simple evidence like that. Well there exists no evidence in an scientific/legal sense, only personal experience is possible (according to present understanding of provability). For example: why do you believe in LDs? Because you have experienced them! Not because someone proved them to you. The same is also the case with normal dreams or with conciousness. The proof (in non-scientific sense) is only personal. This is why GH has been over 5 times told to try it himself, followed by his standard "lies and hypocracy" response. > The thing is, has the out of body state been proven already? Not. Neither such a "state", not the "experience" (which is what the OOBEers are claiming to have had). As for what OOBE actually is there exists an wide spectrum of beliefs in this group: psychological effect, soul leaving body, transfer of focus of conciousness to second "body", and most likely others I have missed or forgot. > example. How many people KNOW that lucid dreaming exists? I would > venture a guess and say very very few people know what lucid dreaming I agree on that one. LDers know it, OOBEers (most) have heard of it. And a few researchers perhaps. > it. Whenever I talk about it with someone I do not get an excited > response about wanting to experience it also, more like a "yah..." and Same for OOBE, mainly. > then silence. Personally I have trouble talking about lucid dreaming > because I sound like I'm some kind of "new age" nut. And this is just There we have a small difference, that many OOBEers simply do not care for being called a "new age nut". -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ ###### Message-ID: <384494E4.103B1754@Home.com> From: TienYen Organization: none that I know of X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-AtHome0405 (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 15 Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 03:21:11 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.226.43.9 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc2.on.home.com 944018471 24.226.43.9 (Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:21:11 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:21:11 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!nntp.abs.net!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc2.on.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Neil Franklin wrote: > The request is considered reasonable the first time it is asked (and > was the first time GH asked it). What is not regarded as reasonable is: > > a) re-requesting over 20 times after recieving an answer "physically > impossible to prove" over 10 times. > b) calling people liers, hypocrits or deluded because they can not > deliver an (for the requester) satisfying answer. > > Note, that what you are seeing now, are just the agitated ones flamig > off their anger, the decent ones who did answer the requests have long > given up on GH (who I nominate the most dense poster I have ever met in > 7 years of being on this net). Hmmm... Is there an award for this? ###### From: garrison@efn.org (Garrison Hilliard) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: 1 Dec 1999 03:57:06 GMT Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 34 Message-ID: <8226ai$1vv$1@news.efn.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: garcia.efn.org Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.cmc.net!news.efn.org!not-for-mail > From: TienYen > >Neil Franklin wrote: >> The request is considered reasonable the first time it is asked (and >> was the first time GH asked it). What is not regarded as reasonable is: >> >> a) re-requesting over 20 times after recieving an answer "physically >> impossible to prove" over 10 times. Since that's really not an answer... remember, I asked for evidence, not for proof. Perhaps a remedial English class (and definitly a logic class) would be helpful. >> b) calling people liers, hypocrits or deluded because they can not >> deliver an (for the requester) satisfying answer. I have called very few people names... please present evidence otherwise if you have it (once again, I expect a very long wait). >> Note, that what you are seeing now, are just the agitated ones flamig >> off their anger, the decent ones who did answer the requests have long >> given up on GH (who I nominate the most dense poster I have ever met in >> 7 years of being on this net). Two things here... a. show me the answered requests for evidence (although whoever cited the long-discredited Targ paper came close), and b. it's obvious you never ran into Earl Curley. >Hmmm... Is there an award for this? For bad debating? ###### From: "Jerry Adams" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:52:54 -0800 Lines: 41 Message-ID: <823k84$j7v$1@news.laserlink.net> References: <8226ai$1vv$1@news.efn.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust218.tnt29.dfw5.da.uu.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uunet!sea.uu.net!pao.uu.net!lax.uu.net!ffx.uu.net!news.laserlink.net!not-for-mail Please provide proof that "skeptics" are not belligerent, overbearing (censored)holes predisposed to fornicating with farm animals and the recently dead. Garrison Hilliard wrote in message <8226ai$1vv$1@news.efn.org>... >> From: TienYen >> >>Neil Franklin wrote: >>> The request is considered reasonable the first time it is asked (and >>> was the first time GH asked it). What is not regarded as reasonable is: >>> >>> a) re-requesting over 20 times after recieving an answer "physically >>> impossible to prove" over 10 times. > >Since that's really not an answer... remember, I asked for evidence, not >for proof. Perhaps a remedial English class (and definitly a logic class) >would be helpful. > >>> b) calling people liers, hypocrits or deluded because they can not >>> deliver an (for the requester) satisfying answer. > > >I have called very few people names... please present evidence otherwise >if you have it (once again, I expect a very long wait). > > >>> Note, that what you are seeing now, are just the agitated ones flamig >>> off their anger, the decent ones who did answer the requests have long >>> given up on GH (who I nominate the most dense poster I have ever met in >>> 7 years of being on this net). > >Two things here... a. show me the answered requests for evidence (although >whoever cited the long-discredited Targ paper came close), and b. it's >obvious you never ran into Earl Curley. > >>Hmmm... Is there an award for this? > >For bad debating? > ###### From: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 15:14:23 GMT Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom Lines: 89 Message-ID: <3845328d.10193970@news.dial.pipex.com> References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com NNTP-Posting-Host: userac39.uk.uudial.com X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 944058672 1160 62.188.130.237 (1 Dec 1999 14:31:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 1999 14:31:12 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!diablo.theplanet.net!diablo2!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!not-for-mail On 30 Nov 1999 21:18:03 +0100, Neil Franklin wrote: >BJ writes: >> Speaking from a perspective of not knowing, but very curious >> about the subject given my lucid dream experiences, an OOBE seems on the >> surface at least to be something that IS provable. > >On the _surface_ yes. Unfortunately as soon as one goes into the depth >one hits into the limits of provability real fast (and hard). >The problem is that OOBE is an _experience_. Trying to prove an experience >is not possible, the same as one can not prove dreams, LDs, or even >conciousness (a feature of which dreams, LDs and OOBEs are alternate >states of). >Without an proof of conciousness and a exact description of its normal >and altered states one can not prove OOBE (nor dreams or LDs). >This experiment has been suggested (by GH and others) over 10 times >and has been denied (by various respondents) over 5 times. >>The reason for the denial being, that the experiment simply is >miss-fitting: It proves RV (remote viewing), not OOBE (out of body >experience). It proves that somethign remote has been viewed, not that >going out of body has been experienced. >>Actually there exist RVers, and they all claim, that they are not >OOBEing when RVing (some of then are also OOBEers and explicitely >remark them being separate things). Hi, Neil, always a pleasure to hear your voice of common-sense! I have been following the latest 'prove OOBE!' routine on this news group, and you have, as usual, pointed out the significant flaw in the premise that the contents of a sealed box can be correctly detected whilst OOBE (or RVing, come to that.). The item might be described correctly - there is that possiblity - but it might also not be described correctly. A sceptical non-oober could not comprehend why. Only a person who has actually experienced OOBEs and RVing could understand why; and they could not explain why to the sceptic! So, yes, proof is (virtually) impossible but it is still - occasionally - possible to observe the contents of a locked box. Why? Why indeed ; I am trying to make sense to myself of how I have managed to visit a number of people in a pre-arranged RV, and to describe them, their clothing, their rooms and sometimes even their random thoughts in exact detail. Despite my knowing very little about them, and they being on a separate continents. Example - I saw a wedge of brie on a white plate. Odd, but I reported it anyway. My visitee was astonished - just at that instant she had been having unusually happy memories of her mother, who would deep-fry a wedge of brie for her children whenever she felt loving towards them! Another time, she forgot I was 'due' to visit and I saw a pattern of red, white and blue like a portion of the American flag. It turned out that she had been in conversation with someone, but had for a moment turned aside to stare blankly at her poorly child asleep on the nearby sofa under a patterned quilt; she had noticed that a portion of the quilt had fallen into a pattern resembling the Stars and Stripes! For another pre-arranged visit, she forgot I was coming and I got the impression of her moving at high speed and in intense concentration. She admitted that she had rushed out in the car and was exceeding the speed limit at that moment. As someone able to do this, I am also intrigued (and unashamed) that I have utterly failed to visit other people in unarranged or even pre-arranged and spectacularly public 'misses'! I am also intrigued that I have 'seen' items in the rooms of the people I did visit which had once been there but were not there now - Jim's old curtains being a good example! I have also perceived unusual items in an unorthodox way - I saw a brightly coloured toy boat when trying to visit one woman. She reported back that she had actually been trying to trick me by lying on a lilo, floating on her swimming pool, wearing clothes of the exact colours I described! Another time, I 'saw' a vertical bundle of strings hanging on a wall, which I could not understand. The person I visited identified it as his home-made harp, although I had no idea that he was musical, practical or creative! I once saw a vase of daffodils, which surprised me as they were out-of-season where I live. The visitee reported back that garden of the house I visited, however, was filled with an unusually splendid show of daffodils, being in a very sheltered location. Now, if I could have drawn pictures of those images and posted it by airmail to the people I visited, they may have recognised the items I drew, but I necessarily had to use words instead. Whether I drew or wrote down the contents of the locked box, the sceptic could interpret my words or drawing as being 'wrong' and how much further would that have advanced their demand for proof? And what if I identified something that had been in the box last week? Or next week? Or what the tester had been thinking about at the moment 'I arrived' but he was too embarrassed to admit it? So 'proof' to the sceptic isvirtually impossible - it would necessitate them changing their belief system - - as I have had to do! But these experiences certainly 'proved' to me that something inexplicable is going on 'out there', and so I will continue to investigate it... Love from Julia. ###### From: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 18:54:53 GMT Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom Lines: 13 Message-ID: <38456cd9.1276402@news.dial.pipex.com> References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3845328d.10193970@news.dial.pipex.com> Reply-To: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com NNTP-Posting-Host: useraq76.uk.uudial.com X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 944071907 14272 62.188.136.136 (1 Dec 1999 18:11:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 1999 18:11:47 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!colt.net!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!not-for-mail On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 15:14:23 GMT, hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) wrote a long rant about the unpredictability of box contents... Neil, I sent this post to the newsgroup as usual, and it duly appeared. However, it also returned itself to me (unlike other posts I made at the same time) as being an email with a 'failure notice' that it had not reached you. I did not send it as an email, although I had for a moment considered doing so... is this another example of my computer trying to obey my every whim and command all by itself? Or is there something wonky with your reception at the other end, as it were? You being a computer expert, perhaps you can work it out... Love from Julia. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: 01 Dec 1999 22:28:25 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 13 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6u1z968i6e.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <384494E4.103B1754@Home.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 TienYen writes: > > Neil Franklin wrote: > > given up on GH (who I nominate the most dense poster I have ever met in > > 7 years of being on this net). > > Hmmm... Is there an award for this? No award, apart from the mentioning on the appropriate forum. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: 01 Dec 1999 22:57:24 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 69 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6uwvqy729n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3845328d.10193970@news.dial.pipex.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) writes: > > On 30 Nov 1999 21:18:03 +0100, Neil Franklin > wrote: > > >The problem is that OOBE is an _experience_. Trying to prove an experience > >is not possible, the same as one can not prove dreams, LDs, or even > >conciousness (a feature of which dreams, LDs and OOBEs are alternate > >>The reason for the denial being, that the experiment simply is > >miss-fitting: It proves RV (remote viewing), not OOBE (out of body > > Hi, Neil, always a pleasure to hear your voice of common-sense! Thanks for the flowers. > premise that the contents of a sealed box can be correctly detected > whilst OOBE (or RVing, come to that.). Well in RV it can be proven (at least fairly reliable, but not 100%). That was actually the difference I was pointing out: that with the suggested experiment one would prove RV, not OOBE (= missed target). > The item might be described > correctly - there is that possiblity - but it might also not be > described correctly. It it were only an non-reliability problem (as in RV) one could prove it: simply do enough tests, that one ends up with an high enough success rate for it not to be simply random luck at guessing. That is what the RV guys at SRI and DOD did to prove it. The problem with OOBE is that one can not demonstrate that an experience of being out of body (a feature of conciousness) has taken part. > yes, proof is (virtually) impossible but it is still - occasionally - > possible to observe the contents of a locked box. For RV it is difficult but not impossible (I assume that is what your "virtual" applies to), but for OOBE it is impossible (strictly, not just virtually). The physics of conciousness make it so (at least with our present (non-)knowledge of how conciousness works. [nice RV examples snipped] > So 'proof' to the sceptic isvirtually impossible - it would > necessitate them changing their belief system - - as I have had to do! Even that would not work. I have changed my belief system (I was a skeptic until about 5 years ago), but I can still not concieve of an proof any OOBEer could make to prove to me OOBE. > But these experiences certainly 'proved' to me that something > inexplicable is going on 'out there', and so I will continue to > investigate it... Yes, the only path I (and most others here) see to find out about it, is to try to do it myself (so far I am not successfull, mainly do to lack of trying). -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: 01 Dec 1999 22:57:45 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 46 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6uvh6i7292.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3845328d.10193970@news.dial.pipex.com> <38456cd9.1276402@news.dial.pipex.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) writes: > > Neil, I sent this post to the newsgroup as usual, and it duly > appeared. Here also (newswise, not in mail). > However, it also returned itself to me (unlike other posts I > made at the same time) as being an email with a 'failure notice' that > it had not reached you. I did not send it as an email, although I had > for a moment considered doing so... Well I would say, that it was sent as news and as mail. The later copy would fail the way you report it. > Or is there something wonky with your reception at the other end, as The From: lines of my news posts are deliberately slightly broken (known as spamblocking). If you look at it exactly you will see: From: neil@franklin.ch.remove ^^^^^^^ The mail system will only deliver posts where the last bit has been removed by the sender (either before sending the first time, or after recieving an error message). This ensures that I only recieve mails from intelligent senders (most likely readers wanting to contact) and not from non-intelligent ones (some computer that is mindlessly extracting addresses from news posts and spewing crap (usually adverts) at everyone). Sometimes it backfires on people who do not know the trick. > it were? You being a computer expert, perhaps you can work it out... Being a computer expert I use this trick. It is very effective: despite posting a lot and since years I still get less than 5 adverts a week (others who do not do this report over 10 a day). -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ ###### From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3845328d.10193970@news.dial.pipex.com> <38456cd9.1276402@news.dial.pipex.com> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Wow. X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980818 ("Laura") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.0-STABLE (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Message-ID: <38458ca7_2@news.calweb.com> Date: 1 Dec 1999 13:01:27 -0800 X-Trace: 1 Dec 1999 13:01:27 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 43 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!web1.calweb.com!jmprice You have your newsreader set to send a copy by email. I got one too. Personally, I really, really hate that. I read *news* after all. Lots of folk get lots of spam. They therefore mung the address so the spam scavengers can't get a decent address automatically. Hence your (dis)courtesy email copy simply bounced. My choice is to leave it all in news. In alt.out-of-body article <38456cd9.1276402@news.dial.pipex.com> Julia Hawkes-Moore wrote: : On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 15:14:23 GMT, hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia : Hawkes-Moore) wrote a long rant about the unpredictability of box : contents... : Neil, I sent this post to the newsgroup as usual, and it duly : appeared. However, it also returned itself to me (unlike other posts I : made at the same time) as being an email with a 'failure notice' that : it had not reached you. I did not send it as an email, although I had : for a moment considered doing so... is this another example of my : computer trying to obey my every whim and command all by itself? : Or is there something wonky with your reception at the other end, as : it were? You being a computer expert, perhaps you can work it out... : Love from Julia. -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 There is no question that the feminist effect to rethink hysteria has had a major positive effort on literary criticism. It has also had real impact for psychiatry and psychoanalysis. But the feminist embrace of all abuse narratives and the treatment of all women as survivors have troubling implications. Claiming hysteria and admiring its victims may have had inspirational functions in the 1970s: feminism, like other insurgent movements, needed martyrs. But Saint Dora's days are over. Today's feminists need models rather than martyrs; we need the courage to think as well as the courage to heal. - Elaine Showalter - _Hystories_, p61. ###### From: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 23:35:41 GMT Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom Lines: 8 Message-ID: <3845b052.9071028@news.dial.pipex.com> References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3845328d.10193970@news.dial.pipex.com> <38456cd9.1276402@news.dial.pipex.com> <6uvh6i7292.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com NNTP-Posting-Host: userbr52.uk.uudial.com X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 944088753 3941 62.188.146.245 (1 Dec 1999 22:52:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 1999 22:52:33 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!not-for-mail On 01 Dec 1999 22:57:45 +0100, Neil Franklin wrote: >Being a computer expert I use this trick. It is very effective: >despite posting a lot and since years I still get less than 5 adverts >a week (others who do not do this report over 10 a day). Oh, right, I knew you'd have a good reason for it! Love from Julia. ###### From: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 23:45:58 GMT Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom Lines: 52 Message-ID: <3845b0dd.9209549@news.dial.pipex.com> References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3845328d.10193970@news.dial.pipex.com> <6uwvqy729n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com NNTP-Posting-Host: userca23.uk.uudial.com X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 944089371 5191 62.188.150.91 (1 Dec 1999 23:02:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 1999 23:02:51 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 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!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!not-for-mail On 01 Dec 1999 22:57:24 +0100, Neil Franklin wrote: >Well in RV it can be proven (at least fairly reliable, but not 100%). >That was actually the difference I was pointing out: that with the >suggested experiment one would prove RV, not OOBE (= missed target). >It it were only an non-reliability problem (as in RV) one could prove >it: simply do enough tests, that one ends up with an high enough >success rate for it not to be simply random luck at guessing. That is >what the RV guys at SRI and DOD did to prove it. Gosh, it would be an extraordinarily boring task to sit in a laboratory repeatedly visiting the same place... even if paid to do it... No, I'll have to stick with being a beginner RV, not an expert,- as with computers, eh? :) >> yes, proof is (virtually) impossible but it is still - occasionally - >> possible to observe the contents of a locked box. > >For RV it is difficult but not impossible (I assume that is what your >"virtual" applies to), but for OOBE it is impossible (strictly, not >just virtually). The physics of conciousness make it so (at least with >our present (non-)knowledge of how conciousness works. >[nice RV examples snipped] > >> So 'proof' to the sceptic isvirtually impossible - it would >> necessitate them changing their belief system - - as I have had to do! > >Even that would not work. I have changed my belief system (I was a >skeptic until about 5 years ago), but I can still not concieve of an >proof any OOBEer could make to prove to me OOBE. Hmm. I see your point. You really are going to have to go OOBE soon, Neil: what is holding you back? >> But these experiences certainly 'proved' to me that something >> inexplicable is going on 'out there', and so I will continue to >> investigate it... > >Yes, the only path I (and most others here) see to find out about it, >is to try to do it myself (so far I am not successfull, mainly do to >lack of trying). Other people fail through trying too hard, like me : at least I have been blessed with a few accidental glimpses of the beauty out there, although I have had to fritter away my time with RVing, visiting and sending healing, space and time travel and previous life experiencing... Still, it all keeps me busy I suppose! Surely there's something there that might appeal to you: it all seems so easy to do compared with going OOBE at will... Love from Julia. ###### From: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 23:59:14 GMT Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom Lines: 23 Message-ID: <3845b445.10079341@news.dial.pipex.com> References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3845328d.10193970@news.dial.pipex.com> <38456cd9.1276402@news.dial.pipex.com> <38458ca7_2@news.calweb.com> Reply-To: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com NNTP-Posting-Host: useran07.uk.uudial.com X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 944090167 5907 62.188.135.24 (1 Dec 1999 23:16:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 1999 23:16:07 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newspeer.te.net!news.indigo.ie!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.tli.de!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.cybercity.dk!taps.news.pipex.net!pipex!bond.dk.uu.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!not-for-mail On 1 Dec 1999 13:01:27 -0800, John M Price PhD wrote: >You have your newsreader set to send a copy by email. I got one too. >Personally, I really, really hate that. I read *news* after all. >>Lots of folk get lots of spam. They therefore mung the address so the >spam scavengers can't get a decent address automatically. Hence >your (dis)courtesy email copy simply bounced. >>My choice is to leave it all in news. Sorry about my inadvertent emailing, John. I was quite shocked to realise what I had done! I am a computer ignoramus, as I am sure you have already noticed, plus computers and other electronic gadgetry frequently go (literally!) haywire on me. It drives my husband (an electronic design engineer) quite mad! Although now he is planning to do a PhD on why this happens to computers operated by healers. The organisers of three major healing centres in the UK have all told me that 'loose' trainee healers send their computers doolally several times a day, and one suggested that the healing energies are on the same wavelength as the innermost workings of computers, whatever they are. Now Bob is trying to work out a shielding mechanism. Will it work on the fax machine, I ask myself? Love from Julia. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: 02 Dec 1999 21:20:09 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 52 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6ug0xlqeme.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3845328d.10193970@news.dial.pipex.com> <6uwvqy729n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3845b0dd.9209549@news.dial.pipex.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) writes: > > On 01 Dec 1999 22:57:24 +0100, Neil Franklin > wrote: > >It it were only an non-reliability problem (as in RV) one could prove > >it: simply do enough tests, that one ends up with an high enough > >success rate for it not to be simply random luck at guessing. That is > >what the RV guys at SRI and DOD did to prove it. > > Gosh, it would be an extraordinarily boring task to sit in a > laboratory repeatedly visiting the same place... Well they actually do not visit the same place. They have sets (so 30-100 of places, where each proband visits a random set of 10-20. For the exact method try: Mind Treck by Joseph McMoneagle. > >Even that would not work. I have changed my belief system (I was a > >skeptic until about 5 years ago), but I can still not concieve of an > >proof any OOBEer could make to prove to me OOBE. > > Hmm. I see your point. You really are going to have to go OOBE > soon, I expect so. It only took 3 serious attempts to get to the vibrations. That actually convinced me that all of you here are talking about something real. I suppose I have an really intense case of a hole after the first success :-). > Neil: what is holding you back? As said: simply too lazy (and too tired after the day). I at present are on average 6-7 hours a day in bed. I suppose I should get into trying Saturday and SUnday mornings. But on those I tend to forget to try, instead just enjoying the rest. > >Yes, the only path I (and most others here) see to find out about it, > >is to try to do it myself (so far I am not successfull, mainly do to > >lack of trying). > > Still, it all keeps me busy I suppose! Surely there's something > there that might appeal to you: it all seems so easy to do compared > with going OOBE at will... I really should try again. First I am going to have to find a bit of time to re-read OOBE texts to get back into the mood. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: 02 Dec 1999 21:20:26 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 18 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6uemd5qelx.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3845328d.10193970@news.dial.pipex.com> <38456cd9.1276402@news.dial.pipex.com> <38458ca7_2@news.calweb.com> <3845b445.10079341@news.dial.pipex.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) writes: > > (an electronic design engineer) quite mad! Although now he is planning > to do a PhD on why this happens to computers operated by healers. The > organisers of three major healing centres in the UK have all told me > that 'loose' trainee healers send their computers doolally several Perhaps a 'tightening up' would help? :-) > are. Now Bob is trying to work out a shielding mechanism. Will it work > on the fax machine, I ask myself? If that comes to work, I would like to see its design (I am also EE). -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ ###### From: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Answers to BJ, Re: Dont waste your time ... Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 22:59:17 GMT Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom Lines: 17 Message-ID: <3846f8c5.1351209@news.dial.pipex.com> References: <81tihd$j4q$1@news.efn.org> <38431F67.2956DF35@ameritech.net> <6u3dtnn37o.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3845328d.10193970@news.dial.pipex.com> <6uwvqy729n.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3845b0dd.9209549@news.dial.pipex.com> <6ug0xlqeme.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com NNTP-Posting-Host: userak74.uk.uudial.com X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 944172979 14002 62.188.134.48 (2 Dec 1999 22:16:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Dec 1999 22:16:19 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 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!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!not-for-mail On 02 Dec 1999 21:20:09 +0100, Neil Franklin wrote: >As said: simply too lazy (and too tired after the day). I at present >are on average 6-7 hours a day in bed. I suppose I should get into >trying Saturday and SUnday mornings. But on those I tend to forget to >try, instead just enjoying the rest. I think you deserve to cherish yourself more, and get more sleep! >I really should try again. First I am going to have to find a bit of >time to re-read OOBE texts to get back into the mood. Well, grant yourself an extra hour lying in bed to do your reading. My recommendation would be to routinely meditate each day - 15 minutes of your 'extra hour' should be sufficient. Enjoy! Good luck... Love from Julia.