Proof of Life After Death!!

[meg]

OK people, let me walk you through one of Meg's GLARING and DELIBERATE misrepresentations of my stories. First you must reread my blog, "Is It Just a Dream... Or Something More." Here's the link:

http://yorktown-somers.patch.com/blog_posts/is-it-just-a-dreamor-something-more

K, have you read it yet?

Now, how does what I wrote in that blog about my Nana's message to me that "slippers" would be the proof that she really did visit me match Meg's accurate and thoughtful description of it in #2?
Meg wrote , "She dreamt about her Nana and some slippers. Turns out her Nana actually HAD some slippers."
Now you tell me, how is what Meg wrote in that second sentence NOT glaringly and deliberately completely misrepresenting the point of my story? My proof was never that my Nana actually HAD some slippers. My proof was the "Gray Slippers" article that my Mom had read and saved to show me...because the story reminded her of Nana!
Now, also notice how Meg chose to capitalize the word HAD in "Turns out her Nana actually HAD some slippers." Why the capitalizing and emphasizing of the word "HAD" especially given the fact that my Nana actually having slippers was not what "turned out" happening AT ALL. What reason could Meg have possibly had to actually capitalize the word "HAD?" Hmmmmmmmmm. I'm SURE she meant it in a nice way. Nice touch, Meg. What actually "turned out" happening was the "Gray Slippers" article...NOT that my Nana "actually HAD some slippers." I never said anything about my Nana having slippers AT ALL in that blog. In fact I said something quite different..I said my Nana telling me to remember the "slippers," at first, had absolutely NO meaning to me at all. I couldn't figure out why Nana would say "slippers" would be the proof. Until...the "Gray Slippers" article.
And yes, I could spoon feed you more examples just like this, but quite honestly, I no longer believe you are worth the time I would have to put into it..and of course, you wouldn't "get it" anyway. And please let me be very clear that with my last statement I am excluding once again the people who disagreed with me, argued with me, bantered with me, and even joked with me... but yet managed to stay honest and kind and respectful through it all. I appreciate it...and you. Very much.
Oh and also, as for the rest of you, don't even bother trying to engage me anymore...I wouldn't come back here if John Edward paid me.

Yep. Robin, you are right.

I completely botched that part regarding your dream about slippers. My post was a list of all the stories I remembered from reading the thread and from reading your blog three months prior.

You know, it's funny, because I could have sworn on Feb 20 that your story, which I read in November of 2012, ended with your mother telling you she had saved your Nana's gray slippers.

Weird how bad our memory can be isn't it?

Oh wait, no it isn't. That's what we've all been telling you for months.

..I wouldn't come back here if John Edward paid me.

If I predict right now that Robin will be back again within the next 30 days, do I get the million?

 

[Pixel42]

Yep. Robin, you are right.

I completely botched that part regarding your dream about slippers.

What I don't understand is why Robin thinks it makes a blind bit of difference. Yes, you misremembered a detail of one of her stories. That doesn't change the fact that the story, shorn of the huge significance she inexplicably places on it, is still utterly unremarkable.

 

[pakeha]

ExMinister, ... Seems to me like you have truly lost your way and you don't even know it.

Robin1, please address the argument and not insult the poster.

OK people, let me walk you through one of Meg's GLARING and DELIBERATE misrepresentations of my stories. First you must reread my blog, "Is It Just a Dream... Or Something More?" ...

Robin1, please stop spamming your blog here.

...If I predict right now that Robin will be back again within the next 30 days, do I get the million?

Nope. You messed up on the slippies. No prize for you meg, just a TLA.

 

[anazgnos]

When somebody believes that their interior mental process is influencing the external environment, and that random, mundane events have incredible significance solely because of what was going on in their head at the time, it could be indicative of something beyond mere magical thinking or lack of critical thinking skills.

 

[pakeha]

Good point.

 

[deaman]

When somebody believes that their interior mental process is influencing the external environment, and that random, mundane events have incredible significance solely because of what was going on in their head at the time, it could be indicative of something beyond mere magical thinking or lack of critical thinking skills.

An ego, placting fear?

 

[Pixel42]

All through the years I've been posting here I have seen people periodically come to this forum absolutely sure that they have the proof that will convince even us hardened sceptics of the existence of the paranormal. Every single time, this "proof" has boiled down to their own failure to grasp just how often coincidences can be expected to occur - how often they must occur. Whatever the particular belief they've bought into - astrology, psychics, dowsing, telepathy - this has always turned out to be at the bottom of it.

But no matter how politely and clearly elementary probability theory and the law of large numbers is explained to them they angrily reject all attempts to educate them, insisting it is us who are being close minded by not seeing the significance of the mundane coincidences which they have experienced. Eventually they go off in a huff, having learned absolutely nothing from their time here.

I honestly don't know what the solution is. Better education in maths, logic and critical thinking might help but I suspect there will always be people who are either incapable of grasping the basic concepts, or so emotionally invested in their beliefs that they will not let themselves do so. Such people will probably always be stuck in the rut of magical thinking.

The only thing that keeps me trying again with every Robin who comes here is that I know it is possible for people to extracate themselves from the mire of woo, because there are regular posters here who have done it. I just hope I'll see it happen myself one day.

 

[torifrog]

Just in case you come back, Robin ... I haven't "met" you - but I haven't met most who post here yet due to my "newness". I wanted to give you, Robin, a little background of where I'm coming from. When I was 32, my mother died. Then, 18months later when I was 34, my father died. About 28mths later, when I was 36, one of my two sisters died (I had two sisters and no brothers).

Unsurprisingly, I found it very difficult to lose 3/4 of my immediate family in less than 5 years - and I started to look for answers. I wanted to believe that maybe - just maybe - they would send me messages from beyond. And you know what? They didn't.

No matter how much I tried to identify coincidences with them .. it just didn't eventuate.

Personally, I like to believe when we die, we go to some "space" where we are happy and content, but we have no way of contacting this realm. I've had a few NDEs (long story) and have never had an OBE or seen a tunnel, just a feeling of peace; and my family members, during the last week of life, saw members of their family visit, who were long dead.. so I am NOT against the belief there might be "something more". I just don't believe proclaimed psychics can show us what that is.

I've read your blog (both topics) plus all comments and all of them here - and I want to suggest to you that instead of spending money on psychics (etc), you spend that money in honouring your father and/or grandmother in a suitable way. Maybe a plaque, or a plant that recognises them.

I am so sorry you've been fooled by JE and by your own beliefs connected to him. I hope you come through this healthy and happy.

 

[pakeha]

...The only thing that keeps me trying again with every Robin who comes here is that I know it is possible for people to extracate themselves from the mire of woo, because there are regular posters here who have done it. I just hope I'll see it happen myself one day.

You may and you may not.
That awakening from woo-ish illusions is a result of numerous nudges and it's hard to know which specific nudge did the trick.
It's the same for any victims of conmen, IMO.

 

[deaman]

I think it's important to keep talking.

We do influence one another. Eventually, memory keeps kicking in about our experiences, and things we've read and heard about, or conversed about.

It is inevitable when it keeps getting reinforced.

 

[The Norseman]

OK, I'm out too.

I will take my "purposely dishonest and hurtful behavior" elsewhere.

I would flounce but I don't do flouncing well (and no that is not a mock, that is a joke). You good people carry on.

"Don't sell yourself short ExMinister, you're a tremendous flounce."

 

[Garrette]

OK people, let me walk you through one of Meg's GLARING and DELIBERATE misrepresentations of my stories. First you must reread my blog, "Is It Just a Dream... Or Something More?" Here's the link:

http://yorktown-somers.patch.com/blog_posts/is-it-just-a-dreamor-something-more

K, have you read it yet?

Now, how does what I wrote in that blog about my Nana's message to me that "slippers" would be the proof that she really did visit me match Meg's accurate and thoughtful description of it in #2?
Meg wrote , "She dreamt about her Nana and some slippers. Turns out her Nana actually HAD some slippers."
Now you tell me, how is what Meg wrote in that second sentence NOT glaringly and deliberately completely misrepresenting the point of my story? My proof was never that my Nana actually HAD some slippers. My proof was the "Gray Slippers" article that my Mom had read and saved to show me...because the story reminded her of Nana!
Now, also notice how Meg chose to capitalize the word HAD in "Turns out her Nana actually HAD some slippers." Why the capitalizing and emphasizing of the word "HAD" especially given the fact that my Nana actually having slippers was not what "turned out" happening AT ALL. What reason could Meg have possibly had to actually capitalize the word "HAD?" Hmmmmmmmmm. I'm SURE she meant it in a nice way. Nice touch, Meg. What actually "turned out" happening was the "Gray Slippers" article...NOT that my Nana "actually HAD some slippers." I never said anything about my Nana having slippers AT ALL in that blog. In fact I said something quite different...I said my Nana telling me to remember the "slippers," at first, had absolutely NO meaning to me at all. I couldn't figure out why Nana would say "slippers" would be the proof. Until...the "Gray Slippers" article.
And yes, I could spoon feed you more examples just like this, but quite honestly, I no longer believe you are worth the time I would have to put into it...and of course, you wouldn't "get it" anyway. And please let me be very clear that with my last statement I am excluding once again the people who disagreed with me, argued with me, bantered with me, and even joked with me... but yet managed to stay honest and kind and respectful through it all. I appreciate it...and you. Very much.
Oh and also, as for the rest of you, don't even bother trying to engage me anymore...I wouldn't come back here if John Edward paid me.

[/quote]Thank you, Robin. This gets much closer to what we mean by actual discussion. I disagree with some of your points, especially your interpretation of intent on meg's part and the degree of severity of her mistake, but that is why we discuss -- to talk about the disagreements with specifics.

And here you see an excellent example of what a truly open minded person does when discussion occurs and facts are placed before her:

Yep. Robin, you are right.

I completely botched that part regarding your dream about slippers. My post was a list of all the stories I remembered from reading the thread and from reading your blog three months prior.

An admission of error from a skeptic. That is what we are getting at; not the correctness of position, but the willingness to pursue truth regardless if it shows our own mistakes. With meg you get even more. You actually get an explanation (read: discussion):

You know, it's funny, because I could have sworn on Feb 20 that your story, which I read in November of 2012, ended with your mother telling you she had saved your Nana's gray slippers.

That's what she remembered so she typed it. When you verified she was wrong (note: not when you stomped your feet and insisted she was a meanie), she recanted.

Ah, but then it gets really valuable. meg turns it into a learning point for everyone, you included if you so choose, and emphasizes a key issue we have been talking about all along.

Weird how bad our memory can be isn't it?

Note the difference in responses, Robin.

meg, when confronted with a factual error, admits it and recants.

Robin, when confronted with factual inconsistencies in her multiple accounts, ignores them.

Oh wait, no it isn't. That's what we've all been telling you for months.

And here a little bit of attitude comes through, but if you compare this very mild tone to your foot stomping and complete avoidance of factual problems with your account, I think it is clear which one comes out as more willing to engage.

I fear you, Robin, will take this as another mean insult. No doubt it is tinged with a bit of an intent to jab, but I hope you see it for what it mostly is: a variation on a very common inside joke here at the JREF.

Change your mind, Robin -- not about your position, but about leaving the forum. You finally start to discuss; that is what we want. Stay and continue it.

 

[ExMinister]

"Don't sell yourself short ExMinister, you're a tremendous flounce."

Aw, thanks.

(Uh, is this good?)

Thank you, Robin. This gets much closer to what we mean by actual discussion. I disagree with some of your points, especially your interpretation of intent on meg's part and the degree of severity of her mistake, but that is why we discuss -- to talk about the disagreements with specifics.

And here you see an excellent example of what a truly open minded person does when discussion occurs and facts are placed before her:

An admission of error from a skeptic. That is what we are getting at; not the correctness of position, but the willingness to pursue truth regardless if it shows our own mistakes. With meg you get even more. You actually get an explanation (read: discussion):

That's what she remembered so she typed it. When you verified she was wrong (note: not when you stomped your feet and insisted she was a meanie), she recanted.

Ah, but then it gets really valuable. meg turns it into a learning point for everyone, you included if you so choose, and emphasizes a key issue we have been talking about all along.

Note the difference in responses, Robin.

meg, when confronted with a factual error, admits it and recants.

Robin, when confronted with factual inconsistencies in her multiple accounts, ignores them.

And here a little bit of attitude comes through, but if you compare this very mild tone to your foot stomping and complete avoidance of factual problems with your account, I think it is clear which one comes out as more willing to engage.


I fear you, Robin, will take this as another mean insult. No doubt it is tinged with a bit of an intent to jab, but I hope you see it for what it mostly is: a variation on a very common inside joke here at the JREF.

Change your mind, Robin -- not about your position, but about leaving the forum. You finally start to discuss; that is what we want. Stay and continue it.

She's still here. She's just been over in her rabies thread.

 

[The Norseman]

Aw, thanks.

(Uh, is this good?)

An homage to Caddyshack.

But I do like your posts, so please keep posting!

 

[carlitos]

Tanks for nuttin'

 

[meg]

She's still here. She's just been over in her rabies thread.

That's good. Perhaps if she spends a bit of time over in Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology and reads a few threads she will learn what words like "evidence" and "proof" really mean.

 

[abaddon]

That's good. Perhaps if she spends a bit of time over in Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology and reads a few threads she will learn what words like "evidence" and "proof" really mean.

I would not bet on that.

 

[The Norseman]

I would not bet on that.

I knew someone would say that!


You don't happen to have a refrigerator, do you? Is it cold inside? I betcha it's cold inside!

 

[MikeAparicio]

Wow, another completely closed-mind! "Not interested" in even reading my link? How does anyone expect to learn ANYTHING without being open to a new opinion and experience?

Don't be surprised Robin! Skepticism is basically doing like an ostrich, sticking the head in the ground, to avoid other's thoughts wile demanding "proof". Supposedly a skeptic does not believe a thing.... But they believe in skepticism as the best state of mind!

Life after death is also dependent on belief. If you believe in it you will live; if you don't you won't!
The subject is beyond proof.
The skeptic fundamental mistake is to deny what is impossible to prove. Don't try to change that...
The only thing capable of changing a skeptic is himself... So it is impossible.

 

[Resume]

Don't be surprised Robin! Skepticism is basically doing like an ostrich, sticking the head in the ground, to avoid other's thoughts wile demanding "proof". Supposedly a skeptic does not believe a thing.... But they believe in skepticism as the best state of mind!

Life after death is also dependent on belief. If you believe in it you will live; if you don't you won't!
The subject is beyond proof.
The skeptic fundamental mistake is to deny what is impossible to prove. Don't try to change that...
The only thing capable of changing a skeptic is himself... So it is impossible.

Interesting . . . do you have any evidence for an afterlife?