--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > > Lawson is talking about a *theoretical* way of verifying 
> > > something he has never witnessed.  He's talking about a
> > > theoretical way that someone who believes in something
> > > could use to convince someone else that the something 
> > > is real.

No, he wasn't.  He was talking about MMY's criteria 
for real levitation.  *You* injected the idea of
proof for the purpose of convincing others.

> > > But don't let any of that stop you in your ongoing 
> > > attempts to impose what you believe on the world as some
> > > kind of "Truth."  *Somebody's* got to be the obligatory
> > > religious fanatic on this group...might as well be you.  :-)
> > 
> > Asking for independent confirmation of an alleged phenomenon is 
> > now called being a "religious fanatic?"
> My snippy remark was aimed at Judy, not you.  She's
> made a "career" out of trying to "prove" her point
> of view "correct" on the Internet.  You have not.

I've made a career of trying to prove that being
agnostic about levitation is correct?  Agnosticism is
religious fanaticism??

> My point with regard to your request for "independent
> confirmation" of the sidhis is based on my sincere
> belief that the quest for "independent confirmation" 
> of such things is pretty much equivalent to Don 
> Quixote's quest.  Nothing you ever find will "prove"
> anything.

And I challenged this argument in the part of my
earlier response that you decided you weren't able
to deal with.  It's not as black-and-white as you

> And when it comes to levitation, what would consitute
> "proof?"  Photographs?  In this age of Photoshop and
> digital touchups, photos are inadmissible in *court*
> in many states as "proof."  Same with film, in the age
> of Final Cut.  What, after all, does an easily-altered
> photo or film "prove?"  If you're committed to believing
> that levitation doesn't exist, neither of these things
> will "prove" the opposite to you.

Photos or film were not proposed (also in the part
of my earlier post you decided you weren't able to
deal with) as "proof" but rather as MMY's criteria
for levitation, i.e., that its nature is such that
it shows up on film, rather than just in one's mind.

As far as convincing others is concerned, it would
be a matter of seeing levitation "live."  As I said
in my earlier post, photos or film wouldn't cut it
because they can be too easily faked.

For more on why your argument about convincing others
is faulty, see the parts of my earlier post that you 
decided you weren't able to deal with.

> > No-one has said "your experience is invalid." All *I* have said 
> > is that its not what I define as "Yogic Flying, floating stage," 
> > since that is supposed to be independently verifiable.
> "Supposed to be?"  As if the person who told you that is
> infallible?  Are you looking to determine the truth of 
> the situation or to verify that person's opinion?  :-)

No, we're talking about a definition of, or criteria
for, real levitation.  *You* brought up the notion of
"proof" for the purposes of convincing others.  That's
a separate issue (one I dealt with in the parts of my
earlier post that you decided you weren't able to
deal with).

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to