I agree with youk Paddymac, when you say: First, many people(s) seem to be most uncomfortable accepting the existance of something unknown. Such difficulty might flow from any number of sources. Whatever its origin, it creates some degree of angst, and the simplest way to resolve that angst is to create an "explanation" for the unknown, thereby converting it to "known". But do you agree that that that statement applies equally to both sides?

Skeptic, I'm sorry, I was being a bit flippant when I used 'turned on'. What I was implying is that even explanations tend to be trendy. As more information is gathered, explanations change.

But when you say: As a skeptic, I would look at your experience, ask a series of questions, see if there was a way to reproduce the experience, maybe suggest a way to test it. Look at how the various explanations fit with the rest of what is known about the nature of reality.what are you saying? Are you saying that my experiences on the telephone (about 15 years apart) are repeatable/testable/explainable?

I think that one reason that 'skeptics' so often charge gullibility, bad memory, suggestibility, whatever turns you on *BG*, to the people who report these things is because skeptics are uncomfortable with the unknown, that they may never have investigated, never allowed themselves to think about, the odd things that have happened to themselves personally. Because if we're open and aware, these things do happen.

Ebbie