Is that so? (snicker)
Barry, don't try to figure out what I'm "trying to say," OK? You aren't smart enough. And remember your principled objection to the term "cultist" from awhile back here: "The word 'cult,' when used by *anyone*, is a thought-stopper. I'm fairly sensitive to it because I've had to fight such epithets, and more concrete issues such as blacklisting, on the front lines. "It's sorta like calling any American who was against the rush to war after 9/11 a 'traitor.' The intent of hurling the epithet is to demean the person being called the name, to encourage other people in the audience to brand the person with that label, and thus to undercut anything that the targeted victim says by calling his or her credibility into question. "You wouldn't like it much if the epithet 'cultist' was applied to you, right? If that's so, you might think about not trying to brand others with it. Just my opinion..." ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote: I think what she's trying to say is that the scientists left out The Woo Factor. Cultists always need The Woo Factor. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > This seems like it may explain out-of-my-body-into-somebody-else's-body experiences, but not just plain old out-of-body experiences. > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > no_re...@yahoogroups.com mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: > > http://www.livescience.com/41128-out-of-body-experiences-explained.html http://www.livescience.com/41128-out-of-body-experiences-explained.html >
