From: esoterica4@yahoo.com (Panayiotis) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:23:06 GMT Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer Lines: 95 Message-ID: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> NNTP-Posting-Host: thes530-c113.otenet.gr X-Trace: newssrv.otenet.gr 948997572 1730 195.167.110.113 (27 Jan 2000 18:26:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@otenet.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Jan 2000 18:26:12 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!news.otenet.gr!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31279 Hello all. After reading to Jerry Adams' post, I'd first want to say that I totally compensate with him. I remember how this NG once was. It's sad now to see every new post to become a loop of flaming. I think we have lost the meaning here. Some people feel that having a *civilised* conversation with the sceptics can do good to both. I would say that since these people feel this way, let this debate take place in one thread. Name the thread "Debate whether OOBEs are real". Currently, it's named "hallucinations or the real thing?". If is was only this thread that was being affected by the arrival of the sceptics, I wouldn't mind that much, but now almost every post becomes a flame war. Please, let's limit the debate to one or a few threads. But the way things are now are becoming intolerable, and people like Jerry are forced to leave, because a bunch of people came in to turn the place upside down! Why are we letting them do this? When you're in a bar and some drunk idiot comes in, asking for trouble, you know that you'd better not pay attention to him, nor talk to him, because then it's trouble you get. You know that all you have to do is ignore him and avoid contact. Why don't we do the same with the people? The only difference is that they're not drunk (or at least I hope so). Even if the conersation with them isn't bad, you're wasting all of your energy (and bandwidth, but who cares aboud bandwidth) about this debate. There are about 30 new posts every time I check in, from which more than 20 will be about this debate. Once we were spending our time on the NG, our evergy, our thoughts about OOBEs, sharing our experiences and learning from each other. Now we're wasting all this in a useless debate, or in replying to this bunch of people. Let's just focus on what we *want* this NG to be, what it was because they came in. Back then, we didn't feel the need to convince anyone about the validity of OOBEs. We knew that here we could find other fellows who had similar beleifs to ours. That was the reason we were coming here! Because in real life, we are surrounded by sceptics, and we wanted to talk to some people who believed and had experienced what we believe and experience, and we knew such people could be found here. If this NG was only a continous debate, we wouldn't feel a need to check it. Personally, if I was a newcomer and I found about the NG *now*. I think I'd drop it immediately. I think something needs to be done here. I will, again, prospose the creation of a new newsgroup about discussing the validity of out of body experiences. I think that even if we vote, we will see that are enough people who do respond to this debate to form a new NG. (Sceptics, please, don't butt in at this point threatening us about what the usenet will say blah, blah...) Why don't we start an unofficial poll right now? Let's make a list. Everyone can write their name in the appropriate category. I'll make a start. UNOFFICIAL POLL ====================================================== CATEGORY A: Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should be taken to some other (probably new) NG: ---------------------------------------------------- Panayiotis CATEGORY B: Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should remain in this NG: ---------------------------------------------------- ====================================================== Please take the time to add your name in the proper list. If the majority of people belong in category A, we should do something about it. If not, I won't say anything again about moving this debate elsewhere. Please, don't go off topic (sceptics) and start talking about HOW this something could be done, I'm asking people if they feel something MUST be done, regardless of the how part. Leave that how part for later. I hope this will lead us somewhere, before more and more OOBERs leave the NG for the sake of this debate. Thank you all and I really hope that this action will help the NG. Panayiotis ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: 27 Jan 2000 22:19:52 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 156 Message-ID: <6u66wf8b5z.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 949007992 445 10.0.3.2 (27 Jan 2000 21:19:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Jan 2000 21:19:52 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31351 esoterica4@yahoo.com (Panayiotis) writes: > After reading to Jerry Adams' post, I'd first want to say that I > totally compensate with him. I remember how this NG once was. It's sad > now to see every new post to become a loop of flaming. I think we have > lost the meaning here. We? Who is this "we"? A few (very few) are actually discussing with them. > Some people feel that having a *civilised* conversation with the > sceptics can do good to both. For them doing it it obviously does, else they would not be doing it. > I would say that since these people feel > this way, let this debate take place in one thread. Name the thread > "Debate whether OOBEs are real". Usenet is anarchy. That will never work. And quite apart from it: what good is changing the title? A thread is a thread is a thread, no matter what lable is attached to it. > or the real thing?". If is was only this thread that was being > affected by the arrival of the sceptics, I wouldn't mind that much, > but now almost every post becomes a flame war. Even if it is mutliple threads, what does that matter? Just avoid all of them. > things are now are becoming intolerable, and people like Jerry are > forced to leave, because a bunch of people came in to turn the place > upside down! Why doesn't he and everyone else who dislikes the scepti-flaming just killfile them threads? It is not as if they are constantly renaming the threads (as they sometimes do on a.p). So plonking those threads is easy. > Why are we letting them do this? How says we are "letting" them? They are simply doing it. > When you're in a bar and > some drunk idiot comes in, asking for trouble, you know that you'd > better not pay attention to him, nor talk to him, because then it's > trouble you get. You can equally get trouble without doing something if it is an amok runner coming in. Trouble does not require own action. > You know that all you have to do is ignore him and > avoid contact. Why don't we do the same with the people? The only We? Which "we"? Perhaps because some here want to discuss with them? > Even if the conersation with them isn't bad, you're wasting all of > your energy (and bandwidth, but who cares aboud bandwidth) about this > debate. "Waste" according to whose definition? If someone wants a skepti-flaming then it is per definition not a waste for them. If you don't want it then don't look at it. If you don't want to have to delete it then have your computer do so for you. That is what killfiles were designed for. > more than 20 will be about this debate. Once we were spending our time > on the NG, our evergy, our thoughts about OOBEs, sharing our > experiences and learning from each other. Then spend your time on OBEs and share with the others doing so. > they came in. Back then, we didn't feel the need to convince anyone > about the validity of OOBEs. Today apparently some do, or they would not be doing it. > We knew that here we could find other > fellows who had similar beleifs to ours. We can still today. Just focus on them. Your computer will surely help you in doing so, if you tell it what you want it to do. > coming here! Because in real life, we are surrounded by sceptics, and > we wanted to talk to some people who believed and had experienced what > we believe and experience, and we knew such people could be found > here. They can still. They are still here, reading and posting. > I think something needs to be done here. I will, again, prospose the > creation of a new newsgroup about discussing the validity of out of > body experiences. As told many times (including some to you): THAT WILL NOT WORK. The skeptics will simply stay here because the audience is here. NG splitting only works if two subgroups of a group BOTH agree on splitting. I doubt the skepti-trolls will do that. > Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should > remain in this NG: Neil Franklin, total anti-skeptix > I hope this will lead us somewhere, before more and more OOBERs leave > the NG for the sake of this debate. Better spend your effort on educating then to USE the killfile abilities their news software comes with. Dammit! Killfiling really isn't difficult. It is not obscene either, it is not rude (no more rude than ignoring someone, and you do that daily), it is not an act of aggression, it is not criminal, it will not send you to hell. It will make your life peacefull, it will lower your frustration, it will return the group to normal. Why do so many DORKS here on the net have such reservations against doing it? WWWWHHHHYYYY????!!!! You can begin with answering the question, why you are not killfiling the skepti-threads. > Thank you all and I really hope that this action will help the NG. I hope that my post will stop such "split the group" posts. But I suppose this hope is futile. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Unix Wizzard and Guru, Hacker, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, Mystic Computer: toy that speeds work, so you have more time to play with it ###### Message-ID: <389096A3.385E4322@microsoft.com> From: "Dr. Bonzo" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.36 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 132 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:04:03 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.124.10.44 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 949000129 206.124.10.44 (Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:08:49 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:08:49 MDT Organization: Dimensional Communications Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31379 Panayiotis wrote: > > Hello all. > > After reading to Jerry Adams' post, I'd first want to say that I > totally compensate with him. I remember how this NG once was. It's sad > now to see every new post to become a loop of flaming. I think we have > lost the meaning here. > > Some people feel that having a *civilised* conversation with the > sceptics can do good to both. I would say that since these people feel > this way, let this debate take place in one thread. Name the thread > "Debate whether OOBEs are real". Currently, it's named "hallucinations > or the real thing?". If is was only this thread that was being > affected by the arrival of the sceptics, I wouldn't mind that much, > but now almost every post becomes a flame war. > > Please, let's limit the debate to one or a few threads. But the way > things are now are becoming intolerable, and people like Jerry are > forced to leave, because a bunch of people came in to turn the place > upside down! Why are we letting them do this? When you're in a bar and > some drunk idiot comes in, asking for trouble, you know that you'd > better not pay attention to him, nor talk to him, because then it's > trouble you get. You know that all you have to do is ignore him and > avoid contact. Why don't we do the same with the people? The only > difference is that they're not drunk (or at least I hope so). > > Even if the conersation with them isn't bad, you're wasting all of > your energy (and bandwidth, but who cares aboud bandwidth) about this > debate. There are about 30 new posts every time I check in, from which > more than 20 will be about this debate. Once we were spending our time > on the NG, our evergy, our thoughts about OOBEs, sharing our > experiences and learning from each other. Now we're wasting all this > in a useless debate, or in replying to this bunch of people. > > Let's just focus on what we *want* this NG to be, what it was because > they came in. Back then, we didn't feel the need to convince anyone > about the validity of OOBEs. We knew that here we could find other > fellows who had similar beleifs to ours. That was the reason we were > coming here! Because in real life, we are surrounded by sceptics, and > we wanted to talk to some people who believed and had experienced what > we believe and experience, and we knew such people could be found > here. If this NG was only a continous debate, we wouldn't feel a need > to check it. Personally, if I was a newcomer and I found about the NG > *now*. I think I'd drop it immediately. > > I think something needs to be done here. I will, again, prospose the > creation of a new newsgroup about discussing the validity of out of > body experiences. I think that even if we vote, we will see that are > enough people who do respond to this debate to form a new NG. > > (Sceptics, please, don't butt in at this point threatening us about > what the usenet will say blah, blah...) > > Why don't we start an unofficial poll right now? Let's make a list. > Everyone can write their name in the appropriate category. > > I'll make a start. > > UNOFFICIAL POLL > ====================================================== > CATEGORY A: > Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should > be taken to some other (probably new) NG: > ---------------------------------------------------- > Panayiotis > > CATEGORY B: > Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should > remain in this NG: > ---------------------------------------------------- > > ====================================================== > > Please take the time to add your name in the proper list. If the > majority of people belong in category A, we should do something about > it. If not, I won't say anything again about moving this debate > elsewhere. > > Please, don't go off topic (sceptics) and start talking about HOW this > something could be done, I'm asking people if they feel something MUST > be done, regardless of the how part. Leave that how part for later. > > I hope this will lead us somewhere, before more and more OOBERs leave > the NG for the sake of this debate. > > Thank you all and I really hope that this action will help the NG. > > Panayiotis Panayiotis, I'm sorry but I can't agree with you here, although I think I understand how you feel. I don't think a new newsgroup would solve the perceived problem, unless you took great pains to keep it a secret the skeptics would just follow you there. I think the problem basically boils down to a fundamental difference in methodology between the "skeptics" and the "believers". The "believers" seem to want to foster a supportive atmosphere of open acceptance, where encouragement is more important than criticism. As PZ noted in an earlier post, the scientific method seems to be to hypothesize, experiment, draw conclusions, and then rip the shit out of each other (also known as peer review) to ensure that those conclusions are valid. It's understandable that those two approaches (each very valuable and useful in their own way) will have a hard time co-existing, but nevertheless I think we should keep trying. I really enjoy reading people's accounts of their OOBEs; I find them inspiring and fascinating, as well as often beautiful prose in their own right (there are some excellent writers in this group!). I also enjoy reading the comments of the skeptics, who have spent a great deal of time acquiring specialized knowledge in scientific fields that relate directly to the experiences of the "believers". While the scientific/materialist world view can feel somewhat "deflating" at times, it offers it's own rewards in mental stimulation. And if these experiences are ever to become common and easy to achieve for everyone, not just the 'gifted', it will probably be due in large part to a scientific understanding of their causes. When I feel like I'm getting too depressed by the scientific-materialist world view, I just stop and try on the mystic world view, willfully suspending disbelief. When I feel like I'm getting too "out there", I stop and try the rationalist world view back on. I love this newsgroup because it gives me a good sampling of both. I think the flames are dying down a bit now too. Let's give it another chance. -bonzo ###### From: Haunter@castles.com (Haunter) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:04:37 GMT Organization: AlteredState Imaging/Psi App/WCS Lines: 47 Message-ID: <38909687.1479596@cnews.newsguy.com> References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-517.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 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!howland.erols.net!news.pbi.net.MISMATCH!cyclone.pbi.net!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31410 On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:23:06 GMT, esoterica4@yahoo.com (Panayiotis) wrote: >Hello all. > >UNOFFICIAL POLL >====================================================== >CATEGORY A: >Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should >be taken to some other (probably new) NG: >---------------------------------------------------- >Panayiotis >Haunter, grinning, knowing how they're loving this :) > > > >CATEGORY B: >Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should >remain in this NG: >---------------------------------------------------- > > > > >====================================================== > > > >Please take the time to add your name in the proper list. If the >majority of people belong in category A, we should do something about >it. If not, I won't say anything again about moving this debate >elsewhere. > >Please, don't go off topic (sceptics) and start talking about HOW this >something could be done, I'm asking people if they feel something MUST >be done, regardless of the how part. Leave that how part for later. > >I hope this will lead us somewhere, before more and more OOBERs leave >the NG for the sake of this debate. > >Thank you all and I really hope that this action will help the NG. > >Panayiotis ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> <389096A3.385E4322@microsoft.com> Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Lines: 142 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:14:19 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.77.205.194 X-Trace: news3.mia 949000493 216.77.205.194 (Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:14:53 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:14:53 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!newsfeed.tli.de!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news3.mia.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31363 I agree with Dr Bonzo Pan, I know where you are coming from but seperation from conflicts and disagreements is not the answer. I think trying to understand each other and LISTEN well might be.... and just ignore the posts by the trolling ones! Lorene Dr. Bonzo wrote in message <389096A3.385E4322@microsoft.com>... :Panayiotis wrote: :> :> Hello all. :> :> After reading to Jerry Adams' post, I'd first want to say that I :> totally compensate with him. I remember how this NG once was. It's sad :> now to see every new post to become a loop of flaming. I think we have :> lost the meaning here. :> :> Some people feel that having a *civilised* conversation with the :> sceptics can do good to both. I would say that since these people feel :> this way, let this debate take place in one thread. Name the thread :> "Debate whether OOBEs are real". Currently, it's named "hallucinations :> or the real thing?". If is was only this thread that was being :> affected by the arrival of the sceptics, I wouldn't mind that much, :> but now almost every post becomes a flame war. :> :> Please, let's limit the debate to one or a few threads. But the way :> things are now are becoming intolerable, and people like Jerry are :> forced to leave, because a bunch of people came in to turn the place :> upside down! Why are we letting them do this? When you're in a bar and :> some drunk idiot comes in, asking for trouble, you know that you'd :> better not pay attention to him, nor talk to him, because then it's :> trouble you get. You know that all you have to do is ignore him and :> avoid contact. Why don't we do the same with the people? The only :> difference is that they're not drunk (or at least I hope so). :> :> Even if the conersation with them isn't bad, you're wasting all of :> your energy (and bandwidth, but who cares aboud bandwidth) about this :> debate. There are about 30 new posts every time I check in, from which :> more than 20 will be about this debate. Once we were spending our time :> on the NG, our evergy, our thoughts about OOBEs, sharing our :> experiences and learning from each other. Now we're wasting all this :> in a useless debate, or in replying to this bunch of people. :> :> Let's just focus on what we *want* this NG to be, what it was because :> they came in. Back then, we didn't feel the need to convince anyone :> about the validity of OOBEs. We knew that here we could find other :> fellows who had similar beleifs to ours. That was the reason we were :> coming here! Because in real life, we are surrounded by sceptics, and :> we wanted to talk to some people who believed and had experienced what :> we believe and experience, and we knew such people could be found :> here. If this NG was only a continous debate, we wouldn't feel a need :> to check it. Personally, if I was a newcomer and I found about the NG :> *now*. I think I'd drop it immediately. :> :> I think something needs to be done here. I will, again, prospose the :> creation of a new newsgroup about discussing the validity of out of :> body experiences. I think that even if we vote, we will see that are :> enough people who do respond to this debate to form a new NG. :> :> (Sceptics, please, don't butt in at this point threatening us about :> what the usenet will say blah, blah...) :> :> Why don't we start an unofficial poll right now? Let's make a list. :> Everyone can write their name in the appropriate category. :> :> I'll make a start. :> :> UNOFFICIAL POLL :> ====================================================== :> CATEGORY A: :> Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should :> be taken to some other (probably new) NG: :> ---------------------------------------------------- :> Panayiotis :> :> CATEGORY B: :> Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should :> remain in this NG: :> ---------------------------------------------------- :> :> ====================================================== :> :> Please take the time to add your name in the proper list. If the :> majority of people belong in category A, we should do something about :> it. If not, I won't say anything again about moving this debate :> elsewhere. :> :> Please, don't go off topic (sceptics) and start talking about HOW this :> something could be done, I'm asking people if they feel something MUST :> be done, regardless of the how part. Leave that how part for later. :> :> I hope this will lead us somewhere, before more and more OOBERs leave :> the NG for the sake of this debate. :> :> Thank you all and I really hope that this action will help the NG. :> :> Panayiotis : :Panayiotis, : :I'm sorry but I can't agree with you here, although I think I understand :how you feel. I don't think a new newsgroup would solve the perceived :problem, unless you took great pains to keep it a secret the skeptics :would just follow you there. : :I think the problem basically boils down to a fundamental difference in :methodology between the "skeptics" and the "believers". The "believers" :seem to want to foster a supportive atmosphere of open acceptance, where :encouragement is more important than criticism. As PZ noted in an :earlier post, the scientific method seems to be to hypothesize, :experiment, draw conclusions, and then rip the shit out of each other :(also known as peer review) to ensure that those conclusions are valid. :It's understandable that those two approaches (each very valuable and :useful in their own way) will have a hard time co-existing, but :nevertheless I think we should keep trying. : :I really enjoy reading people's accounts of their OOBEs; I find them :inspiring and fascinating, as well as often beautiful prose in their own :right (there are some excellent writers in this group!). : :I also enjoy reading the comments of the skeptics, who have spent a :great deal of time acquiring specialized knowledge in scientific fields :that relate directly to the experiences of the "believers". While the :scientific/materialist world view can feel somewhat "deflating" at :times, it offers it's own rewards in mental stimulation. And if these :experiences are ever to become common and easy to achieve for everyone, :not just the 'gifted', it will probably be due in large part to a :scientific understanding of their causes. : :When I feel like I'm getting too depressed by the scientific-materialist :world view, I just stop and try on the mystic world view, willfully :suspending disbelief. When I feel like I'm getting too "out there", I :stop and try the rationalist world view back on. : :I love this newsgroup because it gives me a good sampling of both. : :I think the flames are dying down a bit now too. Let's give it another :chance. : :-bonzo ###### From: PZ Myers Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:44:18 -0500 Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) Lines: 89 Message-ID: References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp78.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: *`F&^X/f&n(#,P$B}<8pB!us}V6Y:WLg>3u+dA$5NqHe#nyY.FwhP$)rtW,rO#3MpsZBw_aUV~bJLL$b,|*->^G@m4L!'keI32*HsCyURaWJ6)*`lY;3blw*b>c+Y2 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!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.fast.net!yellow.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!netaxs.newsread.com!myers Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31496 In article <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr>, esoterica4@yahoo.com (Panayiotis) wrote: [snip censorious whining] > > I think something needs to be done here. I will, again, prospose the > creation of a new newsgroup about discussing the validity of out of > body experiences. I think that even if we vote, we will see that are > enough people who do respond to this debate to form a new NG. > > (Sceptics, please, don't butt in at this point threatening us about > what the usenet will say blah, blah...) Curious. Have you seen any skeptics threatening any one in any way so far? > > Why don't we start an unofficial poll right now? Let's make a list. > Everyone can write their name in the appropriate category. > > I'll make a start. > > UNOFFICIAL POLL > ====================================================== > CATEGORY A: > Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should > be taken to some other (probably new) NG: > ---------------------------------------------------- > Panayiotis > > > > > CATEGORY B: > Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should > remain in this NG: > ---------------------------------------------------- > PZ Myers > > > > ====================================================== > > > > Please take the time to add your name in the proper list. If the > majority of people belong in category A, we should do something about > it. If not, I won't say anything again about moving this debate > elsewhere. > > Please, don't go off topic (sceptics) and start talking about HOW this > something could be done, I'm asking people if they feel something MUST > be done, regardless of the how part. Leave that how part for later. Off topic? It's not off-topic, it's central to the question! You can't limit it. It wouldn't matter if a thousand people signed in under Category A, and only one under Category B -- you have no mechanism to enforce it. This is an unmoderated alt group. The only way you can manage this is to unilaterally go through the business of setting up a new group, alt.out-of-body.moderated, with one or a few people acting as policemen, determining which posts will be allowed and which won't. If you are interested, you might want to talk to Sherilyn, who has helped people with this in the past. I would warn you that there are a few problems with going to a moderated group. It usually takes a while for a new group to propagate, and you may lose a few regulars temporarily. It's also a fair amount of work for someone -- somebody has to read all the posts and stamp them yea or nay. Unless the moderator is particular colorless and objective, there may also be serious personality clashes. Finally, just about every moderated group I've seen is pretty stagnant. One of the things that can make a newsgroup lively and interesting is a diversity of opinion, and filtering that out can leave the group flat and dull. > > I hope this will lead us somewhere, before more and more OOBERs leave > the NG for the sake of this debate. > > Thank you all and I really hope that this action will help the NG. -- PZ Myers ###### Message-ID: <3890A5F1.E76AE41B@microsoft.com> From: "Dr. Bonzo" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.36 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 16 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:09:21 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.124.10.44 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 949004026 206.124.10.44 (Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:13:46 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 13:13:46 MDT Organization: Dimensional Communications 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!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31387 Hello all, Not trying to throw gasoline on the fire here, but I think Joseph Polanik already has a moderated OBE mailing list, "to make subscribers feel more comfortable sharing their experiences." Although I haven't heard back from him yet when I requested some more information (just a subtle hint if you're reading, Joseph ;-)). There's a web based signup form here: http://www.trionica.com/mlists.htm Again, I'm not yet on this list so I don't know anything about it other than what I've read on the above page. Anyone with more info? -bonzo ###### From: "Mark Baron" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:32:49 -0600 Organization: Mayo Foundation Lines: 37 Message-ID: <86q9ur$pj$1@tribune.mayo.edu> References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> NNTP-Posting-Host: rmtaccess32.mayo.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: tribune.mayo.edu 949005083 819 172.22.175.42 (27 Jan 2000 20:31:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@mayo.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Jan 2000 20:31:23 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) 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!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hardy.tc.umn.edu!mayonews.mayo.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31395 ---------- In article <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr>, esoterica4@yahoo.com (Panayiotis) wrote: > Some people feel that having a *civilised* conversation with the > sceptics can do good to both. I would say that since these people feel > this way, let this debate take place in one thread. Name the thread > "Debate whether OOBEs are real". Currently, it's named "hallucinations > or the real thing?". If is was only this thread that was being > affected by the arrival of the sceptics, I wouldn't mind that much, > but now almost every post becomes a flame war. IMHO I think things are turning around thanks to Trish, Haunter, other regulars and Wally, PZ, and Ian. It seems now that everyone knows each other we are becoming more polite. I understand how you and Jerry feel. I've unsubscribed from aoob when posts have turned into flames. It can be entertaining, but I'm here to read other peoples ideas about what's going on with OBEs and what others are experiencing. I also want to get some tips on how to do OBEs. There may be an easy alternative to making another usenet group. There are internet boards that will allow you to register and make any group you want. They are set up with swear filters and are usually moderated when things get hot. You must be registered to post. Ezboard is one I've been to. There are others also. Just a thought. I'd like to see us learn from each other. I honestly think we can all be together. Maybe it would be best to start new threads when they get away from the header topic. And a good rule of thumb for everyone would be to ignore any post that begins to smell like smoke. 8^) -Mark "Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason." ###### From: "Lucianarchy" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:34:10 -0000 Organization: Customer of Planet Online Lines: 62 Message-ID: <86qae4$sov$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-77.curium.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news8.svr.pol.co.uk 949005572 29471 62.136.67.205 (27 Jan 2000 20:39:32 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Jan 2000 20:39:32 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 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!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!newspost.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31442 PZ Myers wrote in message news:myers-BBBCE4.14441827012000@netnews.netaxs.com... > In article <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr>, esoterica4@yahoo.com > (Panayiotis) wrote: > > Please, don't go off topic (sceptics) and start talking about HOW this > > something could be done, I'm asking people if they feel something MUST > > be done, regardless of the how part. Leave that how part for later. > > Off topic? It's not off-topic, it's central to the question! > > You can't limit it. It wouldn't matter if a thousand people signed in > under Category A, and only one under Category B -- you have no mechanism > to enforce it. > > This is an unmoderated alt group. The only way you can manage this is to > unilaterally go through the business of setting up a new group, > alt.out-of-body.moderated, with one or a few people acting as policemen, > determining which posts will be allowed and which won't. This is true. The *is* an alt. group. It is often a harsh lesson to accept for people who are new to usenet ( I'm not saying you are a newbie ). More or less anything goes. You need to check with your Internet Service Provider to see what you are allowed to post, but the principle of free speech lies at the heart of the internet. > If you are > interested, you might want to talk to Sherilyn, who has helped people > with this in the past. This is also true. PZ Myers and Sherilyn were present in alt.astrology and alt.paranormal before the 'regular' proponents of those groups decided to form a 'moderated' group in order to escape what they saw as ever increasing flamage and insults. Sherilyn was very helpful in offering advice and technical assistance to enable these people to leave. > I would warn you that there are a few problems with going to a moderated > group. It usually takes a while for a new group to propagate, and you > may lose a few regulars temporarily. It's also a fair amount of work for > someone -- somebody has to read all the posts and stamp them yea or nay. > Unless the moderator is particular colorless and objective, there may > also be serious personality clashes. Finally, just about every moderated > group I've seen is pretty stagnant. One of the things that can make a > newsgroup lively and interesting is a diversity of opinion, and > filtering that out can leave the group flat and dull. > > > > I hope this will lead us somewhere, before more and more OOBERs leave > > the NG for the sake of this debate. > > > > Thank you all and I really hope that this action will help the NG. I hope you stay. I enjoy reading your posts. FWIW, most people know PZ has the social grace of pig-shit. ( I think he claims to be a professor at Temple University ; ) ) He can still be a funny guy ( although he may not realise at which point the laughs are *actually* coming ) and he knows his onions, as they say. > -- > PZ Myers ###### From: esoterica4@yahoo.com (Panayiotis) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 22:26:07 GMT Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer Lines: 132 Message-ID: <3890bad5.549406@news.otenet.gr> References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> NNTP-Posting-Host: thes530-b037.otenet.gr X-Trace: newssrv.otenet.gr 949012152 8625 195.167.117.37 (27 Jan 2000 22:29:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@otenet.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Jan 2000 22:29:12 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!news.otenet.gr!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31388 On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:44:18 -0500, PZ Myers wrote: >In article <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr>, esoterica4@yahoo.com >(Panayiotis) wrote: > >[snip censorious whining] > >> >> I think something needs to be done here. I will, again, prospose the >> creation of a new newsgroup about discussing the validity of out of >> body experiences. I think that even if we vote, we will see that are >> enough people who do respond to this debate to form a new NG. >> >> (Sceptics, please, don't butt in at this point threatening us about >> what the usenet will say blah, blah...) > >Curious. Have you seen any skeptics threatening any one in any way so >far? I've seen someone (whos name I don't remember at the moment and I'm bored enough to find out at the moment) trying to frighten us about the consecquences such an action would have... wow... well, being more than a novice in the world of networks I wasn't scared, I must confess. > >> >> Why don't we start an unofficial poll right now? Let's make a list. >> Everyone can write their name in the appropriate category. >> >> I'll make a start. >> >> UNOFFICIAL POLL >> ====================================================== >> CATEGORY A: >> Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should >> be taken to some other (probably new) NG: >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> Panayiotis >> >> >> >> >> CATEGORY B: >> Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should >> remain in this NG: >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> > >PZ Myers > > >> >> >> >> ====================================================== >> >> >> >> Please take the time to add your name in the proper list. If the >> majority of people belong in category A, we should do something about >> it. If not, I won't say anything again about moving this debate >> elsewhere. >> >> Please, don't go off topic (sceptics) and start talking about HOW this >> something could be done, I'm asking people if they feel something MUST >> be done, regardless of the how part. Leave that how part for later. > >Off topic? It's not off-topic, it's central to the question! > >You can't limit it. It wouldn't matter if a thousand people signed in >under Category A, and only one under Category B -- you have no mechanism >to enforce it. I didn't say I would enforce it, I'm basing it at the kindness of the people who want to have this debate going on (probably forever) to do it in some more proper and *specific* place. >This is an unmoderated alt group. The only way you can manage this is to >unilaterally go through the business of setting up a new group, >alt.out-of-body.moderated, with one or a few people acting as policemen, >determining which posts will be allowed and which won't. If you are >interested, you might want to talk to Sherilyn, who has helped people >with this in the past. You didn't understand what I was talking about. I'm not talking about moderated newsgroups. Let me put this way (maybe you can understand it better): alt.out-of-body: people who want to share their OOBE experiences (believers) alt.out-of-body.proof: people who want to study/argue/debate/prove the validity of the OOBE (tha name of the NG can be anywhere). Since there would be a NG *specifically* for this debate, wouldn't it be the right thing for those who want to have it to go there? The same way that people who want to talk about *lucid* dreams would go to alt.dreams.lucid and not alt.dreams. >I would warn you that there are a few problems with going to a moderated >group. It usually takes a while for a new group to propagate, and you >may lose a few regulars temporarily. It's also a fair amount of work for >someone -- somebody has to read all the posts and stamp them yea or nay. >Unless the moderator is particular colorless and objective, there may >also be serious personality clashes. Finally, just about every moderated >group I've seen is pretty stagnant. One of the things that can make a >newsgroup lively and interesting is a diversity of opinion, and >filtering that out can leave the group flat and dull. You just did what I asked you not to do, cared on the HOW part, and even for something that I never proposed (I never proposed a moderated NG). What I'm saying is this: if so many people believe this debate must be carried on, till both ends meet, this will take centuries. So why not *move* this conversation to a more specific place? Same way atheists wouldn't go to alt.christianity to argue about the validity of the Christian God (just an example). >> >> I hope this will lead us somewhere, before more and more OOBERs leave >> the NG for the sake of this debate. >> >> Thank you all and I really hope that this action will help the NG. > >-- >PZ Myers Why is it so hard for you to understand what I'm proposing? It's simple and honest IMO. Panayiotis ###### From: esoterica4@yahoo.com (Panayiotis) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 22:26:08 GMT Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer Lines: 222 Message-ID: <3890bd0a.1113856@news.otenet.gr> References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> <6u66wf8b5z.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: thes530-b037.otenet.gr X-Trace: newssrv.otenet.gr 949012154 8625 195.167.117.37 (27 Jan 2000 22:29:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@otenet.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Jan 2000 22:29:14 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!news.otenet.gr!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31392 On 27 Jan 2000 22:19:52 +0100, Neil Franklin wrote: >esoterica4@yahoo.com (Panayiotis) writes: > >> After reading to Jerry Adams' post, I'd first want to say that I >> totally compensate with him. I remember how this NG once was. It's sad >> now to see every new post to become a loop of flaming. I think we have >> lost the meaning here. > >We? Who is this "we"? A few (very few) are actually discussing with them. Most of the experienced in OOBEs do. >> Some people feel that having a *civilised* conversation with the >> sceptics can do good to both. > >For them doing it it obviously does, else they would not be doing it. So we agree. >> I would say that since these people feel >> this way, let this debate take place in one thread. Name the thread >> "Debate whether OOBEs are real". > >Usenet is anarchy. That will never work. Anarchy doesn't mean that good will does not exist in people. >And quite apart from it: what good is changing the title? A thread is >a thread is a thread, no matter what lable is attached to it. But tons of threads is more noise to the NG. >> or the real thing?". If is was only this thread that was being >> affected by the arrival of the sceptics, I wouldn't mind that much, >> but now almost every post becomes a flame war. >Even if it is mutliple threads, what does that matter? Just avoid all >of them. If most threads tend to become like that, if I avoid them then I'll have 2 or 3 interesting posts each day, instead of 30. >> things are now are becoming intolerable, and people like Jerry are >> forced to leave, because a bunch of people came in to turn the place >> upside down! >Why doesn't he and everyone else who dislikes the scepti-flaming just >killfile them threads? It is not as if they are constantly renaming >the threads (as they sometimes do on a.p). So plonking those threads >is easy. For the same reason I mentioned before. Plus, if most OOBErs spend their time on the net and their energy debating, there won't be any posts about OOBEs! It is already obvious than once they were writting about their experiences while now they're writting replies to the skeptics. >> Why are we letting them do this? >How says we are "letting" them? They are simply doing it. And we're helping them do it by feeding them with what they need; debate. >> When you're in a bar and >> some drunk idiot comes in, asking for trouble, you know that you'd >> better not pay attention to him, nor talk to him, because then it's >> trouble you get. >You can equally get trouble without doing something if it is an amok >runner coming in. Trouble does not require own action. But it's definite that you *will* have trouble if you bug these specific people (your counter-example was a failure IMO), that's the point. >> You know that all you have to do is ignore him and >> avoid contact. Why don't we do the same with the people? The only >We? Which "we"? Perhaps because some here want to discuss with them? They're many, not only some. >> Even if the conersation with them isn't bad, you're wasting all of >> your energy (and bandwidth, but who cares aboud bandwidth) about this >> debate. >"Waste" according to whose definition? If someone wants a >skepti-flaming then it is per definition not a waste for them. To me and the rest who don't agree with this. I'd love to see those people posting about OOBEs and not trying to prove OOBEs. >If you don't want it then don't look at it. If you don't want to have >to delete it then have your computer do so for you. That is what >killfiles were designed for. Once again: I can killfile them. That's not the problem. The real problem is that the point of this NG is being shifted from talking about our experiences into trying to prove their validity. If this happens, then this NG will be of no interest to those who want to discuss their experiences and don't care about evidence or proof. >> more than 20 will be about this debate. Once we were spending our time >> on the NG, our evergy, our thoughts about OOBEs, sharing our >> experiences and learning from each other. >Then spend your time on OBEs and share with the others doing so. That's what I'm saying. The NG will have much less to offer, in the name of this debate. Why? >> they came in. Back then, we didn't feel the need to convince anyone >> about the validity of OOBEs. > >Today apparently some do, or they would not be doing it > > >> We knew that here we could find other >> fellows who had similar beleifs to ours. > >We can still today. Just focus on them. Your computer will surely help >you in doing so, if you tell it what you want it to do. >> coming here! Because in real life, we are surrounded by sceptics, and >> we wanted to talk to some people who believed and had experienced what >> we believe and experience, and we knew such people could be found >> here. > >They can still. They are still here, reading and posting. About evidence or their experiences? >> I think something needs to be done here. I will, again, prospose the >> creation of a new newsgroup about discussing the validity of out of >> body experiences. > >As told many times (including some to you): THAT WILL NOT WORK. Who knows? I'm just proposing it. >The skeptics will simply stay here because the audience is here. NG >splitting only works if two subgroups of a group BOTH agree on >splitting. I doubt the skepti-trolls will do that. The thread "hallucinations or the real thing?" has more than a hudred replies, why not move it there? They would still reply, but not here. >> Those who believe that the debate about the validity of OOBEs should >> remain in this NG: > >Neil Franklin, total anti-skeptix > > >> I hope this will lead us somewhere, before more and more OOBERs leave >> the NG for the sake of this debate. > >Better spend your effort on educating then to USE the killfile abilities >their news software comes with. Once again, you didn't get the point. I know how to shut my eyes and ears to them, that's not the problem. I won't say again what I think the problem is, I guess you got it from what I said before. > >Dammit! > >Killfiling really isn't difficult. It is not obscene either, it is >not rude (no more rude than ignoring someone, and you do that daily), >it is not an act of aggression, it is not criminal, it will not send >you to hell. > >It will make your life peacefull, it will lower your frustration, it >will return the group to normal. I don't care about killing these posts. I don't mind about bandwidth nore hard drive space I just ignore them. >Why do so many DORKS here on the net have such reservations against >doing it? WWWWHHHHYYYY????!!!! I don't know, why do you ask me instead of one of them??? > > >You can begin with answering the question, why you are not killfiling >the skepti-threads. I explained it above. > > >> Thank you all and I really hope that this action will help the NG. > >I hope that my post will stop such "split the group" posts. But I >suppose this hope is futile. Usenet is anarchy. That won't work. > > >-- >Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ >Nerd, Geek, Unix Wizzard and Guru, Hacker, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, Mystic >Computer: toy that speeds work, so you have more time to play with it Wow.... Let me ask you one question: what's your problem with what I propose? if you don't like it, just killfile the post or the whole thread. Excuse me Mr. UNIX Wizard and Guru (your highness), what defines a dork as someone who is proposing something so simple? Maybe you'd better look up the definition again... I didn't offend you. If you don't like what I say, killfile me. (Why do so many DORKS here on the net have such reservations against doing it? WWWWHHHHYYYY????!!!!) Panayiotis ###### From: PZ Myers Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:13:17 -0500 Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) Lines: 113 Message-ID: References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> <3890bad5.549406@news.otenet.gr> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp75.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: *`F&^X/f&n(#,P$B}<8pB!us}V6Y:WLg>3u+dA$5NqHe#nyY.FwhP$)rtW,rO#3MpsZBw_aUV~bJLL$b,|*->^G@m4L!'keI32*HsCyURaWJ6)*`lY;3blw*b>c+Y2 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!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nac.net!yellow.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!netaxs.newsread.com!myers Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31490 In article <3890bad5.549406@news.otenet.gr>, esoterica4@yahoo.com (Panayiotis) wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:44:18 -0500, PZ Myers wrote: > > >In article <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr>, esoterica4@yahoo.com > >(Panayiotis) wrote: [snip] > > > >You can't limit it. It wouldn't matter if a thousand people signed in > >under Category A, and only one under Category B -- you have no mechanism > >to enforce it. > > I didn't say I would enforce it, I'm basing it at the kindness of the > people who want to have this debate going on (probably forever) to do > it in some more proper and *specific* place. Where ever did you get the bizarre notion that people like me have a single scrap of "kindness"? We don't, you know. We get every bit of sympathy and emotion burned out of us with the hot pokers wielded by the prison guards at Skepticism School. > > >This is an unmoderated alt group. The only way you can manage this is to > >unilaterally go through the business of setting up a new group, > >alt.out-of-body.moderated, with one or a few people acting as policemen, > >determining which posts will be allowed and which won't. If you are > >interested, you might want to talk to Sherilyn, who has helped people > >with this in the past. > > You didn't understand what I was talking about. I'm not talking about > moderated newsgroups. Let me put this way (maybe you can understand it > better): > > alt.out-of-body: people who want to share their OOBE > experiences (believers) > alt.out-of-body.proof: people who want to study/argue/debate/prove > the validity of the OOBE (tha name of the NG can be anywhere). Ridiculous. Do you really think that all the people who truly believe would only post in alt.out-of-body, while all the skeptics would move to alt.out-of-body.proof? No. The skeptics would browse alt.out-of-body.proof, quickly find that only people who think it's a load of baloney are there, and say, "hey, let's go ask some believers how this stuff" works...and guess what? You'd be right back where you are now, with nothing to show for it but a dead newsgroup and the skeptics asking questions where the believers are. Why not just call it alt.out-of-body.gulag-for-people-we-don't-want-in-alt.out-of-body? You don't understand. You can't stop people you don't want from posting in any group, unless it's moderated. > > Since there would be a NG *specifically* for this debate, wouldn't it > be the right thing for those who want to have it to go there? The same > way that people who want to talk about *lucid* dreams would go to > alt.dreams.lucid and not alt.dreams. > > >I would warn you that there are a few problems with going to a moderated > >group. It usually takes a while for a new group to propagate, and you > >may lose a few regulars temporarily. It's also a fair amount of work for > >someone -- somebody has to read all the posts and stamp them yea or nay. > >Unless the moderator is particular colorless and objective, there may > >also be serious personality clashes. Finally, just about every moderated > >group I've seen is pretty stagnant. One of the things that can make a > >newsgroup lively and interesting is a diversity of opinion, and > >filtering that out can leave the group flat and dull. > > You just did what I asked you not to do, cared on the HOW part, You have this odd idea that I care about what you ask me to do... > and even for something that I never proposed (I never proposed a moderated > NG). > > What I'm saying is this: if so many people believe this debate must be > carried on, till both ends meet, this will take centuries. So why not > *move* this conversation to a more specific place? Same way atheists > wouldn't go to alt.christianity to argue about the validity of the > Christian God (just an example). I don't think there is an alt.christianity...there's an alt.christnet, however. And you'd be surprised. There are a lot of atheists posting there, because fanatical christians like to crosspost hate mail into alt.atheism. There is some quite vigorous discussion of the validity of the christian god going on! > > >> > >> I hope this will lead us somewhere, before more and more OOBERs leave > >> the NG for the sake of this debate. > >> > >> Thank you all and I really hope that this action will help the NG. > > > >-- > >PZ Myers > > Why is it so hard for you to understand what I'm proposing? It's > simple and honest IMO. I understand perfectly what you are proposing -- I'm just telling you it's futile and stupid. -- PZ Myers ###### Message-ID: <38912D1B.3C70@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> <3890F7C0.359DA754@Home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 10 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: tw11.nn.bcandid.com 949038332 207.103.34.8 (Thu, 27 Jan 2000 22:45:32 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 22:45:32 MST Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 05:45:33 GMT 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!europa.netcrusader.net!206.132.58.120!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!tw11.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31352 TienYen wrote: > > Panayiotis wrote: >> Personally, if I was a newcomer and I found about the NG > > *now*. I think I'd drop it immediately. > > As some have. Personally, I am a newcomer and finding it all quite fascinating - the social and psychological dynamics even more so than the debates. ###### From: "dorothy dunne" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> <86q9ur$pj$1@tribune.mayo.edu> Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 22:55:33 -0800 Lines: 21 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser1017.bossig.com Message-ID: <38913b99@nntp-out.newsnerds.com> X-Trace: 28 Jan 2000 00:47:53 -0600, sanduser1017.bossig.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!uunet!ams.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!lax.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!nntp-out.newsnerds.com!sanduser1017.bossig.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31433 Mark Baron wrote in message news:86q9ur$pj$1@tribune.mayo.edu... > There may be an easy alternative to making another usenet group. There are > internet boards that will allow you to register and make any group you want. > They are set up with swear filters and are usually moderated when things get > hot. You must be registered to post. Ezboard is one I've been to. There are > others also. Just a thought. There is also ICQ, which can be fun to use. I'm wondering if anyone from aoob has ever organized an icq chat group??? Dorothy ###### From: "Mark Baron" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 07:48:08 -0600 Organization: Mayo Foundation Lines: 16 Message-ID: <86s6mp$rs5$1@tribune.mayo.edu> References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> <86q9ur$pj$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <38913b99@nntp-out.newsnerds.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: baron.mayo.edu X-Trace: tribune.mayo.edu 949067289 28549 129.176.218.141 (28 Jan 2000 13:48:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@mayo.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jan 2000 13:48:09 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hardy.tc.umn.edu!mayonews.mayo.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31402 dorothy dunne wrote in message > > There is also ICQ, which can be fun to use. I'm wondering if anyone from > aoob has ever organized an icq chat group??? > > Dorothy > I'm not familiar with ICQ. I chatted once on Yahoo. I prefer newsgroup posting. My brain to keyboard link just doesn't go fast enough on the chats. :-) -Mark ###### From: soulwords@my-deja.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:03:42 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 36 Message-ID: <86sllp$gei$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> <3890F7C0.359DA754@Home.com> <38912D1B.3C70@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.206.34.133 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 28 18:03:42 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.01Gold (Win95; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 167.206.34.133 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsoulwords 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!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31382 In article <38912D1B.3C70@not-here.net>, Janice wrote: > TienYen wrote: > > > > Panayiotis wrote: > >> Personally, if I was a newcomer and I found about the NG > > > *now*. I think I'd drop it immediately. > > > > As some have. > > Personally, I am a newcomer and finding it all quite fascinating - the > social and psychological dynamics even more so than tthe debates. as a newbie to this group, but not to others, it is going through a predictably common phase. There are going to be a few OBE'ers who will choose to engage skeptics in debate, and others who won't. A NG cannot be a pristine entity. I already admire many of you, and hope to engage in fruitful discussions. (BTW, any of you in the New York City area, please feel free to email me privately). Some at the other NG left; some engaged the skeptics; others tried to form a group bent on totally ignoring them. My own style is to use humor to indirectly deflect skepticism on occasion, but usually to focus my attention on the wealth of knowledge and support which exists on that NG and, I beleive, on this one too! Speaking of humor: Nursery Song for OBE children: My body lies over the ocean My body lies over the sea Some skeptic is spouting the notion My body is all that is me! Best, David Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Date: 28 Jan 2000 23:55:41 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 235 Message-ID: <6uwvothklu.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> <6u66wf8b5z.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch > <3890bd0a.1113856@news.otenet.gr> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 949100143 643 10.0.3.2 (28 Jan 2000 22:55:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jan 2000 22:55:43 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31523 esoterica4@yahoo.com (Panayiotis) writes: > On 27 Jan 2000 22:19:52 +0100, Neil Franklin > wrote: > > >esoterica4@yahoo.com (Panayiotis) writes: > > > >> I would say that since these people feel > >> this way, let this debate take place in one thread. Name the thread > >> "Debate whether OOBEs are real". > > > >Usenet is anarchy. That will never work. > > Anarchy doesn't mean that good will does not exist in people. But it does mean that those of bad will, will do what they want, whether you or I or anyone else wants it or not. If a sceptic wants to post into a.oob he will, no matter whether a.oob.proof exists or not. > >And quite apart from it: what good is changing the title? A thread is > >a thread is a thread, no matter what lable is attached to it. > > But tons of threads is more noise to the NG. Filterable noise. > >> or the real thing?". If is was only this thread that was being > >> affected by the arrival of the sceptics, I wouldn't mind that much, > >> but now almost every post becomes a flame war. > > >Even if it is mutliple threads, what does that matter? Just avoid all > >of them. > > If most threads tend to become like that, if I avoid them then I'll > have 2 or 3 interesting posts each day, instead of 30. As far as I have seen it the skepti-threads are additional and separate. Most normal threads do not contain any skeptics. The "Entities" one being so far the second exception. Before we had about 30-50 posts a day, now it is 100-150. So the normal stuff is not being replaced, just about 200% new stuff added. Killfile that and you are back to the normal state. > Plus, if most OOBErs spend > their time on the net and their energy debating, there won't be any > posts about OOBEs! It is already obvious than once they were writting > about their experiences while now they're writting replies to the > skeptics. Now that is a possible thing to happen. But a NG split will not stop that. If they go over to a.oob.proof to argue the skeptics they will still be using an equal amount of time for it. A NG split will only direct traffic, not rearrange time use by writers. > And we're helping them do it by feeding them with what they need; > debate. Which would not change with a.oob.proof. The will be fed there as well, live well from it, and attract the same amout of time from those discussing with them. > >> You know that all you have to do is ignore him and > >> avoid contact. Why don't we do the same with the people? The only > > >We? Which "we"? Perhaps because some here want to discuss with them? > > They're many, not only some. Actually not that many. About 10 people in the skepti-threads, of then abotu 1/3 skeptics, 2/3 regulars. > >> Even if the conersation with them isn't bad, you're wasting all of > >> your energy (and bandwidth, but who cares aboud bandwidth) about this > >> debate. > > >"Waste" according to whose definition? If someone wants a > >skepti-flaming then it is per definition not a waste for them. > > To me and the rest who don't agree with this. I'd love to see those > people posting about OOBEs and not trying to prove OOBEs. Then you will have to convince them to re-allocate their time. A NG split will not effect that. And, yes, I have sent posts asking them to do that [1]. Did not seem to have had much effect. You may try repeating it, but I doubt you will have more success. [1] http://neil.franklin.ch/Usenet/alt.out-of-body/20000113_Stop_banging_your_heads_against_the_wall > The real > problem is that the point of this NG is being shifted from talking > about our experiences into trying to prove their validity. So long the good stuff still exists it is OK, just filter the chaff. If the good stuf is actually becoming less (which I doubt) then that would be bad. But to stop that you will need to convince them to change their priorities, not split the traffic into 2 NGs. > >> more than 20 will be about this debate. Once we were spending our time > >> on the NG, our evergy, our thoughts about OOBEs, sharing our > >> experiences and learning from each other. > > >Then spend your time on OBEs and share with the others doing so. > > That's what I'm saying. The NG will have much less to offer, in the > name of this debate. Why? That you will hae to ask them who spend their time debating the skeptics (you will notice that I have not done so, with exeption of 2 posts PLONKing GH and JMP). > >They can still. They are still here, reading and posting. > > About evidence or their experiences? Also about their experiences: See all the Astraldome stuff, the loss/gain of time thing, th brick technique, Julias novel, Barts moving, others. > >> I think something needs to be done here. I will, again, prospose the > >> creation of a new newsgroup about discussing the validity of out of > >> body experiences. > > > >As told many times (including some to you): THAT WILL NOT WORK. > > Who knows? I'm just proposing it. It has been tried many times (in other groups). I failled each of them. Flamers (any type) do not respect NG boundries, particularly the a.p crowd (just look at the cross-posting). > >The skeptics will simply stay here because the audience is here. NG > >splitting only works if two subgroups of a group BOTH agree on > >splitting. I doubt the skepti-trolls will do that. > > The thread "hallucinations or the real thing?" has more than a hudred > replies, why not move it there? Move it to your killfile. Has the same effect. Immediately. Without going through the work to establish a new group. > They would still reply, but not here. They would reply in both groups, with flames refering to "that point I have said in the other thread, not here"). Or even cross-posted between both groups. > >Better spend your effort on educating then to USE the killfile abilities > >their news software comes with. > > Once again, you didn't get the point. You were talking about NG splitting. Most people who do that do it because they want to get rid of unwanted traffic. So I assumed that to be the central point in your post and focused on that. > I know how to shut my eyes and > ears to them, that's not the problem. I won't say again what I think > the problem is, I guess you got it from what I said before. Better spend your effort on educating then to refocus their interests. Remind them of how much more fun OBEs are than flaming. > >Why do so many DORKS here on the net have such reservations against > >doing it? WWWWHHHHYYYY????!!!! > > I don't know, why do you ask me instead of one of them??? The question was aimed at all people complaining about it (including, but not exclusively you). This was after all a post, not a mail. > >Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ > >Nerd, Geek, Unix Wizzard and Guru, Hacker, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, Mystic > >Computer: toy that speeds work, so you have more time to play with it > > Let me ask you one question: what's your problem with what I > propose? It causes lots of work for the NG admins. It splits the group. It generates confusion among readers. And...it doesn't work (neither for directing traffic not for changing discussion priorities). > if you don't like it, just killfile the post or the whole thread. You asked for peoples views on splitting, so I answered. As for killfilling: why? I do not mind the thread, else I would have ignored it, not answered (twice now). > Excuse me Mr. UNIX Wizard and Guru (your highness), what defines a > dork as someone who is proposing something so simple? Maybe you'd > better look up the definition again... At least around here where I live a dork is defined as someone who simply does not get a/the point. There have been multiple references to using killfiles instead of complaining, and I had interpreted you as someone who had not got that point. > I didn't offend you. If you don't like what I say, killfile me. I dislike your suggestion. So I brought up the arguments against it. P.S. I am offline (due to holiday) from tomorrow on. Answers in 8 days, assuming my newsfeed still has your answer by then. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Unix Wizzard and Guru, Hacker, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, Mystic Computer: toy that speeds work, so you have more time to play with it ###### Message-ID: <38927A19.2A36@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> <3890F7C0.359DA754@Home.com> <38912D1B.3C70@not-here.net> <86sllp$gei$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 17 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: tw11.nn.bcandid.com 949123577 207.103.34.8 (Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:26:17 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 22:26:17 MST Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 05:26:17 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!cyclone-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!news-east.rr.com!portc05.blue.aol.com!gw12.bcandid.com.MISMATCH!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!tw11.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31546 soulwords@my-deja.com wrote: > > as a newbie to this group, but not to others, it is going through > a predictably common phase. There are going to be a few OBE'ers who > will choose to engage skeptics in debate, and others who won't. A NG > cannot be a pristine entity. I already admire many of you, and hope to > engage in fruitful discussions. (BTW, any of you in the New York City > area, please feel free to email me privately). > > Some at the other NG left; some engaged the skeptics; others tried to > form a group bent on totally ignoring them. My own style is to use > humor to indirectly deflect skepticism on occasion, but usually to > focus my attention on the wealth of knowledge and support which exists > on that NG and, I beleive, on this one too! Heck, I'm an experienced OBE'r *and* a skeptic! Skepticism per se shouldn't really be a problem. ###### From: "Wally Anglesea" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> <3890bad5.549406@news.otenet.gr> <38926874.C325080C@Home.com> Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Lines: 14 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: slwol53p02.ozemail.com.au X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 949201040 203.108.231.130 (Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:57:20 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:57:20 EST Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd, Australia Distribution: world Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 07:55:49 +1100 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.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!newsfeed.ozemail.com.au!ozemail.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31789 TienYen wrote in message news:38926874.C325080C@Home.com... > PZ Myers wrote: > > > > Where ever did you get the bizarre notion that people like me have a > > single scrap of "kindness"? > > Take note! TienYen, I think that was irony. ###### From: "Wally Anglesea" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38908b85.4032311@news.otenet.gr> <38939AD1.CAC9AF3C@Home.com> Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Lines: 26 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: slwol53p02.ozemail.com.au X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 949203400 203.108.231.130 (Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:36:40 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:36:40 EST Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd, Australia Distribution: world Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 14:36:39 +1100 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!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.concentric.net!newsfeed.ozemail.com.au!ozemail.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31801 TienYen wrote in message news:38939AD1.CAC9AF3C@Home.com... > Hi Joseph > > Joseph Polanik wrote: > > > I like the idea of confining the debate to a single thread. Any title > > would do, but 'Re: Hallucinations or the real thing?' already exists and > > sums up the core issue very well. > > > > If another thread veers off into a real/unreal debate, then anyone who > > replies could simply change the subject matter to 'Re: Hallucinations or > > the real thing?'. It'd be like using a filing system. > > But do responses to a new thread automatically get sent to the existing > 'Re: Hallucinations or the real thing?" or do they continue in the > original thread under a different header? If someone wants to come up with a thread that's less title offensive, how about something along the lines of "Can OOBE's have a "mundane" explanation". My 2cents ###### From: gallianoj@aol.com (GALLIANOJ) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Something must be done (Unofficial poll) Lines: 95 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 30 Jan 2000 16:05:11 GMT References: <86qae4$sov$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Message-ID: <20000130110511.29365.00000287@ng-fk1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.datacomm.ch!newscore.gigabell.net!unlisys!news.snafu.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:31807 >Let's just focus on what we *want* this NG to be, what it was because >they came in. Back then, we didn't feel the need to convince anyone >about the validity of OOBEs. We knew that here we could find other >fellows who had similar beleifs to ours. That was the reason we were >coming here! Because in real life, we are surrounded by sceptics, and >we wanted to talk to some people who believed and had experienced what >we believe and experience, and we knew such people could be found >here. I am with you 100% But the only way thru all of this is not to play... just respond to the posts that have meaning for you. If people didnt feel the need to defend themselvs about their OB or their OB curiosity this couldnt happen. It is human nature to want to be accepted and to want your experience to be valid but out of body experience just calls into question too many considerations religiously and philosophically. We cant cover them all and continue to defend ourselves without losing sight of the real work, which is; to Further Your Awareness and Abilities and to Understand the True Nature of what is actually happening to you during an OB. It is enough to handle these questions (and the actual OB's) within our own minds but the blessing of sharing these thoughts and experiences with other 'like-minded' individuals can help us progress onto the real prize, which is the knowing of your true Self and the eternal depth of you consciousness... Your astral body gives clarity to you Light body, which then reveals to you the nature of your Spirit Self, the true nature of who you are. This will come to you one day and OB is just one way of revealing it, one kind of gift, a shorcut that most people dont get the opportunity to experience. But if youve got it, you know it. Those that dont have it and cant perceive of it, just cannot understand it in any way, no matter what you say or how you put it. But they will have another way... The Universe provides WAY for everyone to find themselves. Accept your way and stop trying to prove yourself. You have real work to do and not forever to to do it. Think about this: If you had to explain THIS world to someone from another world, where would you start? How long would it take to create the picture of all the wonders of this world? How would you explain water, countries, politics, love, deer, lion, bird, architecture, children, art... or the variety of trees, flowers and vegitation? How would you describe a sunset or clouds? Community or family....History, and why? what it all means or is good for...? This is the task our own Guardians and Guides take on when trying to introduce us to the astral world(s). Therfore any glimpse into the astral is a priceless gift. To be accepted with gratitude, curiosity and thanks. The astral worlds are full of life, spirit(s) and explanation..they virtually cannot be explained in simple terms or if we take the rest of our lives here talking about it and not get any farther then the ancient Greeks or Egyptians. That is why we have poetry, religion, philosophy and art. These are the subjects the skeptics should be studying. We are Dreamers. Because in dream and dream-like states we can be fearless...and when we are fearless we can venture into the unknown to touch base with our inner or spiritual selves and all the worlds we belong to. OB happens at the place between awake an asleep or springs from a lucid dream. It happens when we are most relaxed or perhaps from spiritual intervention. We have evoloved to the place where we have developed meditations and exercises, created much literature, compared case studies and realized some of our potential. It is not our place to explain and defend it all, Humans have been philosophically debating since time immemorial. We are not here for that. We are here to talk about US. What is happening to us? What does it mean to us? Now, in the 21st century, we are leaving our bodies and having various experiences that are: religious, spiritual, frightening, awe inspiring and similar in many cases...what does all of this mean for us and for our society? These are the questions we should be dealing with. This NG has gotten way off track due to the need to defend our experiences. We are not here to defend or explain ourselves. OB on this level, that is with this many people experiencing it and actually havng the venue of the internet to talk about it accross cultures and boundary lines is a true breakthrough and blessing for us and for the entire civlilzation! It means alot. Get yourselves in control People!! THIS IS YOUR EXPERIENCE! Why would you let anyone trivialize it so? Does it realy matter what anyone thinks or believes when you are "OUT THERE"? Each of us alone has to deal with these expereinces, we are coming together here (or were) to compare notes, to study ourselves and others with this experience. This NG is about communication, not validation. We are not Philosophers, we are mostly just regular people with an extrodinary experience, and most of us are just trying to explain it to oursselves. So let the skeptics talk...they have far less to talk about then we do. Now, Ive been having a very interesting time leaving OB and entering scenes and situations from my past, 'way past as in other lives, that is... If anyone is interested in hearing about these experiences please respond to this thread... If not, then i do think it is time to research other options for OBers to communicate exclusively with one another. Thats right, i said "exclusively" that excludes all who do not have the experience or a genuine interest in it. All other will be ignored and left the unanswered Tartarus of their own darkness. jean galliano (category A)