Conference hydra::dejavu

    I'm not so sure that it's a monster. I heard The Amazing Randi on NPR's
    Fresh Air. I like the man. I like what he stands for and I like the way
    he does it. When he does find something truly para-normal he won't
    hesitate to admit it. 
    
    Publications such as this are extremely valuable to us who dabble in
    the mystical realms. Why? Because it keeps us honest and let's us
    _know_ when we're growing "crazy trees"; when we are departing from the
    normal concensus reality. Please don't get me wrong. It's good to tread
    the path of the mystic. It also a real good idea to know where
    concensus reality is so we can return. 
                
    I also like the fact that they generate controversy, even among
    themselves. Sorta' like Dejavu.

    re: -.1
         I do not wish to lookfor an argument, however, the statement
    you make saying that you "can return to the consensus reality" (or
    some such) is precisely, from my perspective, what keeps not only
    you but most of us from attaining what lies across the "bridge across
    belief."  The point is, who wants to return to a consensus reality?
    Of course we know it's there, and it seems to be going nowhere.
    (For a case in point, please read the wonderful little book called
    "Hope for the Flowers" mentioned in the favorite books topic...when
    you do, notice the consensus [the pillars of caterpillars] reality
    versus the *heroes* of the story...this is precisely the point,
    or should I say the counterpoint, to the message you have put out.)
      
    Frederick
    

.0 Like sending a laxative to a man w/diarhea ;')

    re .3:
    
    I think of a better reason.  "If you're gonna do a job, do it right."
    
    Maybe she was thinking in terms of correspondence courses. :-P
    
    Re .0:
    
    John, there's a _Note_ on _The Skeptical Inquirer_ in this conference
    (109 or thereabouts).  Try some of the earlier notes; you might be 
    surprised at what you find there....
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    To summarize some of the previous points previously made about the
    SI.  It is a very interesting magazine full of good information.
    Unfortunately, one can never know in the SI when one is going to
    get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  Its goals
    are to eliminate "irrationality" by which is meant unorthodoxy.
    Anything moderately well written, not to obviously libelous and
    which supports orthodox beliefs is accepted.  NOTHING which supports
    a contrary opinion is published (the only exception I know of is
    the Helmut Schmidt was allowed a half-page "rebuttal" to a 30 page
    article full of misinformation about his work and personal attacks
    against him -- I suspect that this was in response to a threat of
    legal action).  Marcello Truzi, the original editor (it was then
    called The Zeitic, or The Zeititic Scholar, I forget which -- Truzi
    now edits the one with the other title) was forced out because he
    was "soft on mystics" which meant he tried to provide arguments
    on both sides and allowed the reader to decide.  The Weekly World
    Sun may have considerably worse information, but it is *more* even
    handed (I have a marvelous article from a few weeks ago about a
    "miraculous portrait of Jesus" which turned out to be an old poster
    of Willie Nelson which had been painted over -- when the whitewash
    faded a bit -- voila Jesus.  The tip off was when Julio Englesias
    (sp?) appeared a few weeks later).
    
    As for Randi -- his apparent sincerity is part of his stock in trade
    (as he will tell you it is for any magician).  The only distinctions
    I see between Randi and, say Geller, is that Randi is better at
    it and has chosen to use his magician's tricks of deception in support
    of the "other side".  Listen to him well -- he always tells you
    how he is fooling you (e.g., "a scientist is the easiest person to
    fool").  I don't know whether or not he has the ethics to actually
    report what he considered to be proof of the paranormal if he was
    confronted with it, I do know that he has shown no real indication
    of looking for it.
    
    CSICOP and the SI support current scientific orthodoxy and oppose
    science.
    
    					Topher

    Thanks Topher.  

    Re .7:
    
    >1) Events of the paranormal, more often than not, will not be verifiable
    >through scientific techniques that the West has come to know for such
    >a long time.    ... [Examples]
    
    Perhaps, but that's almost beside the point.  If, to use the SI
    example, a UFO landed on the White House lawn using an unknown means
    of propulsion, was covred by live telecasts, and left any alien
    artifact, whether it could be used or not, that certainly would
    be convincing evidence, whether or not we got a space drive.  The
    point is that there _are_ paranormal investigators who are scientists,
    but who are open-minded rather than skeptical.
    
    Analogy: when I was in high school, I used tables of logarithms
    and tables of trigonometric functions.  I didn't know how any table
    came to be generated (then), but they were things I could use, and
    _did_ use.  Now, analogously, suppose I had the ability to dowse.
    Nobody has a clear scientific explanation of how dowsing works,
    but if it's shown to work, it can be used.  
    
    >When it comes to this kind of proof, we'll never find it to the
    >extent that we all can agree. 
    
    Some of the instruments you allude to _might_ be developed someday
    (assuming all your examples exist); or there may be other ways to
    determine these things; no matter.
    
    >Faith in the possibility, alone, is worth having, even if there is 
    >nothing to this whole paranormal thing. 
    
    Insufficient.  Not wet-blanketedly, the average sailor on Columbus'
    ship had faith that the earth was flat (not just belief).  Faith
    is a good first step, but faith alone isn't enough.
    
    >Maybe I'll suggest this to the Skeptical Inquirer.
    
    Don't hold your breath; the very title of their journal has a "guilty
    [of fraud] until proven innocent" attitude to it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    
    

RE: .7 (Steve)

    > Don't hold your breath; the very title of their journal has a "guilty
    [of fraud] until proven innocent" attitude to it. < 

    What's wrong with that?  "Guilty until proven innocent" works just as
    well as the converse and is favored in some countries.  It is good that
    the magazine should take such a stance, since most magazines will go
    with whatever "news" is the most sensational.  Facts don't sell copy!
    The Shroud of Turin is a prime example; there is data that strongly
    suggests the shroud is not a miraculous product, but nobody is
    interested it *that.*   To assume that such fantastic stories are
    automatically valid unless proven otherwise is folly and an impediment
    to true knowledge. 

    The current cloud of vapid New Age positivism and gullibility have
    created a climate in which even the most incredible stories can be
    printed.  I, for one, would like to see magazines such as The Skeptical
    Inquirer at every grocery check-out stand. 
                       
    
    John M. 

    
    re: .3
         Thanks for my best laugh of the day!
        
         Steve, do you suppose that John was traipsing around King
    Richard's Fair ahead of you last weekend (after consuming his 
    laxative, that is?)  (tee-hee!)
      
      
    re: .9
         I couldn't help but feel somewhat saddened after reading your
    reply.  "Vapid New Age Positivism" is a perspective that for me
    would truly be worthy of pity.  Maybe you're right...maybe magazines
    like that would be well-placed at checkout counters perhaps alongside
    some other enlightened publications such as "Soldier of Fortune"
    and other *well-meaning* magazines.  I still hold, John, that
    positivism is a much healthier and more fun attitude to foist upon
    the world than what you imply to be the converse, i.e., magazines
    that squelch possibilities that hold for joyous and optimistic futures.
    If this were "Laugh-in", I'd give you the fickle finger award for
    the day.
    
    
    Frederick
    
    

RE: .7 (Rick)

    > When 100,000 UFO reports (don't quote me on the actual number, but
    it's big) come in from all over the world for years and years... and
    their accounts are all strikingly similar, down to the shape of the
    space ship or the description of the beings, then what do we make of
    all this?  < 

Not much.  The accounts *aren't* strikingly similar!  Far too many of them
have a "nebulous" quality that is easily explained.  As for the description
of the beings, why are they always humanoid?  The archetype seems to be
large, slanted eyes, small stature, and smooth, hairless skin.....a much
publicized archetype!

    >  And when people who claim to have been abducted by
    extra-terrestrials, and have strikingly similar scars whose locations
    and descriptions have been verified by doctors all over the world, what
    do we make of this? < 

Where did you get this information?  Sounds a little sensationalist to me.


    >  Still not enough evidence for you? < 

No.

    >  What about abductees who now appear to have a new organ growing in
    their bodies which has been verified through x-rays? < 

Again, what are your sources?  Why have none of these "organs" been surgically
explored (as ANY good doctor would insist upon)?


    >  Not enough? < 

NO! 

    > What about the perfectly surgically performed cattle mutilations on
    ranches in different parts of the world? < 

Bullbleep!  I *challenge* you to present a single, well-documented "cattle
mutilation" story.  These are little more than urban legends that the press
likes to kick around from time-to-time.  OK, so someone finds a dead cow with
no brain and makes a big deal out of it.  Such people are not aware that the
brain is the first thing to go in a dead animal!  It has far less structural
integrity than other organs (because it is protected by the skull) and tends to
liquefy and leak out not too long after death.  It is also quite accessible to
insects and is among the first things they will devour.  Then there are stories
about dead cattle with their internal organs removed.  Again, this is a
perfectly natural occurrence; small scavenging animals frequently chew their
way inside the dead steer through the anus and eat it from the inside out [not
pretty, but true].  There are also insects called razor flies, I believe, that
do an exceptional job of "surgically" removing flesh.  And of course, there is
absolutely NOTHING from keeping sick *people* from mutilating cattle...
particularly when their actions receive media attention, and so feed the hoax. 


    >  Events of the paranormal, more often than not, will not be
    verifiable through scientific techniques that the West has come to know
    for such a long time.  < 

Why not?  Many phenomena we now take for granted were at one time considered
"paranormal."  Magnetism, for example.  Just because something cannot be
verified NOW does not mean we should throw up our hands and assume it is beyond
normal understanding.  What is even more interesting is that I do not feel many
believers in the paranormal *want* rational explanations! This is a quirk of
human nature and is probably one we would do better without. 


    > How do you prove that there are "walk-ins" on this planet (people who
    have a different soul from that which they were born with, for the
    special purpose of preparing others for the decimation of our world
    population at the end of this century)?  < 

WHAT decimation?  Where do you get this information?  And as far as proof
goes, that is up to the person(s) making the claim to worry about.


    >  Is there a medical instrument which measures souls? < 

You can't measure something until you first prove that it exists.  That
burden rests on those who make a claim for the existence of a soul.


    >  What about reincarnation? You can't prove to others that you have
    lived before. etc, etc. < 

Maybe not,but you can come damn close.  Where did you live?  Who did you know?
How can we contact them?  Can you speak an ancient language? 


    >  But I'll suggest to you that faith just might be the best way to
    experience the paranormal, that the kinds of energies that we would
    need to give off or allow in in order to experience these kinds of
    things might come about through just a little bit of faith... < 


What are these "energies?"  How can you claim they are energy unless you have
a way of verifying your claim?  It's easy to talk about things that don't
exist as being real when one never has to prove them.  Forgive me for ranting
but I just can't STAND parascientific statements.  I would prefer the word
"attitudes" to "energies" since that is really what you are talking about.

Faith can move mountains, but not without a bulldozer.

John M.
                                                                   

    Reply to .2; Fredrick,
    
    There is nothing to fear in concensus reality. It's there and it
    is important. There is always a place called home from which we
    journey from. If you want to leave concensus reality, please go ahead.
    Don't assume that others don't need or want it though.

RE: .10

Being vegetarian means never having to use a laxative, thank you.

No, I was not *directly* responsible for the mess Steve sat in.  I did,
howe'er, materialize the poop long distance through psychokenesis.  Problem was
I was aiming for the Crystal booth and missed.  My apologies to Steve. 

And you thought I only did that through the net!  :-)


Frederick, Frederick, Frederick.  What AM I going to do with you?  I have
nothing against positivism; it is *vapid new age positivism* that rubs me
the wrong way.

And you put S.I. in the same league as "Soldier of Fortune?"  Give me a BREAK!

      

    >  I still hold, John, that positivism is a much healthier and more fun
    attitude to foist upon the world than what you imply to be the
    converse, i.e., magazines that squelch possibilities that hold for
    joyous and optimistic futures. < 

Positivism is healthy, but pseudoscience, lies, and charlatanism are not.
Trust me, one can have a "joyous and optimistic future" based on *reality.*
Fantasy is fun, but let's recognize it for what it is, OK?

John M.

    re .13
    
>>  Trust me, one can have a "joyous and optimistic future" based on *reality.*
>>  Fantasy is fun, but let's recognize it for what it is, OK?
  
    Many participants in this file do not accept your version of reality
    as the only one.  Perhaps *you* should trust *us* and recognize your
    own "scientific" fantasies for what they are.
    
    	bruce

Thank you for sharing that with me, Bruce.  However, please be advised that
there is no such thing as a "scientific fantasy." 

If it makes you feel any better, consider me to be not only scientific,
but *enlightened* (note absence of smiley face).


John M.

    re .15
    
    The fantasy is that there is any such thing as "objectivity," and
    that what's "out there" is manifested independently from the human 
    mind.
    
    I won't insist that you accept my religion if you don't insist that
    I accept yours.  Science is just *one* way of constructing a *model
    of* reality, and *rests on* as many unproven assumptions as any other
    (way of constructing such a model).
    
    This discussion has taken place countless times before, so we needn't
    repeat it.  Honest people can disagree.
    
    	bruce

Reality is all relative.

		Dave

Hi.
     I like my world to be a place where wonder and mystery exist.  Feelings
are the juice, the elixir that make life worth living.  If you are catatonic, 
then making love to the most attractive person in the world, if it were pos-
sible, or winning the lottery, or whatever your version is of a great time,
would be pointless.
     I think I feel like my favorite version of "human" when I experience
wonder at the things I see and that the universe exists to begin with.
I think my problem with science has to do with balancing right and left
brain functioning.  Ideally, science and scientists would be making use
of both parts in exploring reality and expanding the boundaries of know-
ledge.  I've seen some stuff on Nova, for instance, that just does it for
me, that turns me ON to wonder.
  Part of my perception of and some of my feelings about science are pretty 
negative, however.  I feel like some things get killed by analysis.  It's 
pretty left brain to look at what's happening chemically in the body during 
an orgasm, and probably useful in helping impaired people reach that state.  
But some of the magic would go out of it for me if I knew it to be "merely" 
a result of some chemical on the pleasure center in my brain.  Analyzing
what makes people like music, dance, and art makes sense from the left brain, 
but defiles my right brain's view of things.
     It seems to me to be inescapable that people want to feel good--axiomatic,
in fact.  It also seems that analysis, reasoning, and knowledge are of
prime value and use in surviving and in helping us to feel good.  I think,
(without knowing most of the important facts), that parts of the scientific
culture have employed reason, analysis, and the whole left brain arsenal
without regard to the feeling, dreaming, intuitive sides of us.  Somehow
we come out afterward with fewer possibilities, less wonder, less magic
as a result.  We have more people alive, but sometimes it looks like they
have fewer reasons for being alive.  We also have really efficient ways
of getting rid of the excess when it gets to be too much!
     So, this is taking a lop-sided view of things, a caricature of reality
to an extent.  A caricature takes what is there and emphasizes it to the
point of absurdity.  People recognize what exists due to the caricature.
     I think interest in the paranormal, for some people, has to do with
trying to swing away from a culture that over-emphasizes analysis and
abstraction, and towards getting more wonder, intuition, and mystery into
their lives.  I think that's part of why people argue with John Mitchell
here.  To me it looks like the cultural pendulum has swung out too far to
oneside, so some people are over on the other extreme side trying to bal-
ance that out.  Then there are people trying to balance out THAT extreme
position -- like John for instance.
     At the current time, if God came down on a cloud and said, "EAT
OREO COOKIES ON MONDAYS!", somehow that would wind up being assimilated
into science.  It might make it stretch a little, but it could be done.
Science is supposed to be about reality.  If it's real let's get some
more knowledge about it.  If ESP, UFOs, life-after-death, etc. etc.
are real, then someday they will be part of science, hopefully.  My
bitch would be that there should be ample room for wonder, and for
ALL of what makes us human in a universe this big.  If we don't use
the one part of ourselves to such an extent, then there won't be so
many people who NEED paranormal things to be true, so that they can
have an escape from an analytical, technological culture.
     I don't think everybody who has an interest in the paranormal
NEEDS to.  I think some do, and I have no idea how many.  Personally
I'm sure that ESP is real, and I think there's life after death.  All
I'm doing here is looking at thinking vs. feeling, which has been done
before by more knowledgeable and better writers.  I can't help but think
that this is part of what this discussion is about.

RE .18   Elequent ...

I reserve the right for anybody to believe as he or she chooses.  However,
some initiates are not satisfied with just the belief and attempt to
"prove" some position, philosophy, religion, experience, etc, with
pseudo-science, malapropian jargon, and just plain nonsense.  The best
and most literal case of this that I have experienced concerned the
library at the university I attended.  There was a selection of books
on display that had been donated to but not accepted by the library.
One of them was a 30-page pamphlet by a Spanish gentleman that "proved"
the existence of god.  In essence, the pamphlet was a gigantic equation,
with the left side (pages of it) filled with Algebra, integrals, summations,
etc, while the remainder of the equation was simply:

	= Deus

My personal belief is that there is much, much more than consensus reality,
but that which is beyond reality is beyond the discursive intellect.

    
    I like the attitude expressed in .18, however I feel that scepticism
    is a requirement as reality is populated with charlatans, poseurs,
    ill, and just plain confused people.  My ability to embrace someone's
    unusual experience/philosophy is related to my perception of their
    integrity, lucidity, and equanimity.  To put it another way, the
    harder the sell, the less I listen ...

    RE: .18, .19
    
    Frankly, I agree with both of you.
    
    
    FWIW: my model for what a scientist should be is Da Vinci or Jacob
    Bronowski.
    
    John M.

RE: .21, .22, .23 (Rick)

RE: archetypes

You missed the point.  The reason they sound so similar is because this
has become the "standard" description.  Believe me, if I wanted to describe
alien beings, I would pick the "Close Encounters" configuration as well.
The other problem is that, evolutionarily speaking, it is EXTREMELY unlikely
that such creatures would be humanoid in appearance.

Remember Betty Hill?  Hers was one of the most famous UFO abduction stories.
But if you have read some of the things she has said, the woman sounds
downright insane!  I'll have to dig out my article on her...
    
Oh yes.  Lie detectors can be fooled (polygraphs are not really "scientific
instruments" anyway, but that is another argument). And people can lie as
well under hypnosis as normally.  Not that I'm saying all such people
are publicity hounds.  But if a person *believes* something...true or no...
they will believe it under hypnosis as well.


    > (of course, it's easier for me to believe it 'cause I've seen the
    ships up close myself, albeit not the aliens themselves). < 

If you've seen a UFO close-up, you *must* be cracked!  ;-)  Care to give
us more info?


    > I remember reading in one particular case that the person was afraid
    that if surgery were performed on the organ, she might die.  That
    concern seems perfectly valid to me, if I put myself in her shoes.  < 

Uh-huh.... I'll bet.  I don't believe that story for one microsecond.  Need
I remind you that The Amityville Horror was once billed as a true story?
The more believable reaction of the woman would be to fear she would die
from something strange growing inside her.  I'd hate to see her reaction
should she be diagnosed with a tumor.  I'm sorry, this story smacks of
falsehood.

I have read sections of Communion, and it reads like a novel (which I strongly
suspect it is).  As I recall, even the author says the "visitors" may not
have been space aliens...

    >  I'm going north and west, away from the coast lines, in 1999.  If it
    doesn't happen, I'll come back.  No problem. < 

Well, since I live in the Northwest, perhaps you can stay with me.  :-)

BTW, the Bible says nothing about decimation at the end of this century.

    
    >    You obviously haven't been reading the literature.  < 

I wouldn't bet on that.  I just don't believe everything I read.
    

    >  What I mean is that in this enormous universe we find ourselves in,
    isn't it in a way ILLOGICAL to think that we are born, live for 75
    years or so, and then die...and that's it?  That's what the physical,
    scientific evidence shows us, doesn't it?  < 


That's right.  As a matter of fact, it's what our five senses tell us. 
Those senses are all we need to interpret reality as it is.  I daresay you
are guilty of species-specific thinking.  What's so great about humans that
they should be recycled?  Why should you not share the same lot as the rest
of animal creation?  If humans are reincarnated, then earthworms are too.
Anyway, I have as yet to hear anyone give a good reason for reincarnation.  We
are often told it is to "learn lessons."  To what end? 
    
    > The only difference in believing reincarnation is that you start to
    change your lifestyle (some do) by  making it a point to work on your
    Karma more earnestly.  < 

I'll have to let Mother Theresa know that.

    
    >   Think of it! Some of our most avid skeptics might have once been
    witches in a previous lifetime, but they can't remember. < 

If they can't remember, then the lesson is wasted (but let's not get into
that here...).


    >    How do you know that DaVinci didn't have psychic dreams, and that
    some of his inventions, such as helicopters, didn't come from seeing
    images from the future?  I don't know either, but if this were true,
    you might not like him so much.  < 

DaVinci was a scientist in the true sense of the word (and a devout
vegetarian!).   From what I know of him, his knowledge came through careful
study and observation.  And trust me, I wouldn't like him any less if his
intuition came from some other source.  You are, afterall, talking to a
believer in spontaneous knowledge (I'll shut up on that now and let you
guys wonder).

    > This thing about seeing into the future, John, is not poppy-cock.
    I've had several such experiences, being fully awake. < 

So have I.  Whatsay we bill ourselves as "stereo channelers" and make a
few quick bucks?  ;-)  Now, come on Rick; when did I say that seeing into
the future was poppycock?  If you can show me where I said that, I'll send
$5.00 to Lazaris.


    > I'm a very stable, successful, intelligent, professional (software
    engineer), likable person, and if you were to meet me and were not
    aware that I claim to have had these experiences, you would never
    suspect that I was "one of those", as you might put it. < 

There is no such thing as an intelligent and stable software engineer.



Hey, just Kidding!! 

Really, one regret of mine is that I am located to far to meet any DEJAVUers.
I think it would be interesting and fun.  Indeed, if I did not have at least
SOME respect for others in this conference, I wouldn't waste my time noting
here.  

Although sometimes....


    > If you don't believe me, that's your choice.  But it's still true
    that I've had these experiences, as it might also be the case for
    Leonardo.  < 

Leonardo would agree with me.


John M.
                

    You people!
    
    Okay...now you've done it!  It's impossible to read through 23 replies
    in this topic and not wax philosophical...so here it goes... ;-)
    
    The scientific and non-scientific argument for the belief that people
    (as life forms go) are superior to all other life forms on the planet
    has always revolved around their unusually high intelligence, their
    ability not only to use tools...but to manufacture them, and their
    ability to experience emotions.  I would like to put this argument
    (and all reasonable counter-arguments) aside for a moment and focus
    in on concepts lower on the ladder of abstraction.  
    
    The *soul* some call it, the *spark* it is named by others:  it
    is the thing without which a living, moving, thinking entity is
    merely a pile of chemicals.
    
    If one can agree that there is a fundamental *spark* of life then
    one can argue that the *spark* is the same whether you are a human
    or you are an ant.  No matter which, you remain chemicals
    somehow (miraculously, maybe) endowed with an animating energy.
    On this level it would appear that the *spark* animating man
    is no less sacred than the *spark* in the ant.
    
    Now with my cards laid out...my point:
    
    It is perfectly logical to assume that a person's *spark* meets
    exactly the same end as the *spark* of the ant.  If the *sparks*
    starts and end the same way (whatever way that is) then can one's
    worth or purpose be judged more important than the other's?
    
    If not, you can logically deduce that either: 
    
    1.	It's all a matter of chemistry, biology and evolution.
    	(which is miraculous in itself) People are a species,
    	who are born and die in the span of time which to the world 
    	is but the blink of an eye, and assumes only that much importance.
    	It starts when you're born and it ends when you die.
    
    	This is a difficult concept for people to deal with.  The idea
    	we live only because we are alive is frightening.  For centuries
    	people have struggled with this issue.  Their battle cry in
    	the effort has always been, "There has to be more to life than
    	this!"  And people have not hesitated to kill each other in
    	their zeal to prove their principle; to prove that their life
    	really does have some greater meaning, some larger purpose.
    	"There most be someone, something, some energy, some greater
    	power out there somewhere that knows all, sees all, and is using
    	us to ensure the greater good."
    
    	It is, despite all noble efforts to prove the contrary, a perfectly
    	logical interpretation of the facts available.
    
    
    2.	The ant really IS as important as the human and that through
    	trans-migration of souls they both eventually share every possible
    	experience and then move to ever higher plains of existence.
	
    	This is also an arguably logical explanation given the premise
    	above.
    
    If on the other hand you cannot grant that an ant and a human are
    equal in lowest scheme of life.....I'll have to deal with you in
    a separate topic!
    
    
    Now....for my opinion....(I'm sure you've all been waiting for it
    ;-) )
    
    As was stated earlier...its a matter of belief.  People will always
    believe what they want to believe.  What makes them most comfortable.
    What fulfils their needs at the moment.  
    
    In these matters there is no proof...there is only belief...it would
    seem to me that the most appropriate response is to listen and to 
    wonder.  If it cannot be proved then (to misquote Shakespeare) this
    disscussion is "only air", suitable only for wondering.
    
    (whew!  he finally shut up!  :-)  )
     
    

    RE: .25 (an a few others)
    
    Well, if nothing else, one must agree that this topic has given rise to
    some very good writing!
    
    
    John M. 

    
    What have I done???  What HAVE I DONE?!?!?!?!
    
    Signed,
    
    Mary W. Shelley

.1>    he does it. When he does find something truly para-normal he won't
.1>    hesitate to admit it. 

	Has he found anything truly paranormal?
    
    -mike z

    Reply to .30; Mike Z,
    
    I don't think so...