QUOTE(jpatt @ Aug 4 2007, 04:39 PM)
I appreciate Boorite's response as well and acknowledge I, like anyone else, is prone to bias but worse, to not present a more thorough objective "case", but to make posts sometimes driven by frustration as much as any other ideal or intent.
Sure, me too.
QUOTE
As for ideomotor effect, I do still contend it accounts for 100% of all Ouija cases - I don't think it can be argued that the sitters/users are definitely the ones supplying the hands and muscles and in contact with the board and traveller. The origin of the impulses and such that are generated, I suppose, is really the issue.
Yes. To me, the question is, where is the information coming from? I'm virtually certain that it often comes from the minds of the board operators and nowhere else, and I wouldn't be too surprised if that were true in the vast majority of cases. On the other hand, I think we all acknowledge that this is not the case sometimes, and I wouldn't be too surprised if an unexpectedly large number of ouija sessions yielded information that is hard to explain in these trivial terms. We just don't know without systematic observation over a large number of trials in controlled circumstances.
QUOTE
These and various other experiences lead me to believe that on rare occasion, some psychic functioning (albeit spontaneously) may occur in relation to Ouija use, but, despite the fact that the house this took place in was directly across a barely two-lane country street from the local cemetery, I still find no evidence whatsoever to support any claims of ghosts or spirits or demons or anything of the sort. To me, you would apply the same rationality to an "entity" that you would anyone else.
I think this is a perfectly reasonable attitude. If I may paraphrase, I think all you are saying here is that you have used the ouija a lot and witnessed many sessions, and although some results were difficult to explain in terms of known science,
none, in your view, required an explanation involving ghosts, spirits, or demons. Furthermore, I think you're telling us that in all cases, there were far better explanations for what you saw, mostly having to do with psychic functioning on the part of those participating in the ouija session. That's very fair.
It leaves room for you to acknowledge a few things. One is that the opposite contention is not "nonsense" at all but is just as viable on the face of it. It could be that your hypothesis of psychic functioning on the part of living persons stands up to the evidence far better than any hypothesis involving, say, the surviving consciousness of dead persons. But what we all have to acknowledge is that such an analysis has to be carried out in order for us to say with any confidence which (if any) of our hypotheses is most likely to be true.
And such an analysis has not been carried out, and so we cannot say with any confidence. And even as we develop confidence, there is always, always, always room for doubt and for other viewpoints. The point of all this being that this is not and will never be a black-and-white issue. It certainly is not an issue of the ridiculous versus the obvious at this point in time. It is debatable and should be treated as such by all of us.
Which leads to a second point: Just because something has not happened to you, even over hundreds of trials, does not mean it doesn't happen to anyone anywhere anytime. There are ways to generalize from limited observations with varying degrees of confidence, but it has to be done systematically and with maximum caution. It is not enough to say "I haven't seen it, and therefore it does not exist."
I think your position as stated above leaves room for these important considerations and places all viable hypotheses on an equal footing in advance of analyzing the evidence.
QUOTE
Assuming one would be bold or obnoxious enough to just dial a random number on the telephone and start asking questions to the person on the other end, or to someone you stop in the street, or whatever other remotely similar scenario you'd care to imagine, there is only so much credence you give to the other person without some sort of concrete, objective confirmation and being able to gauge that person as consistent, trustworthy, etc. Con men, for example, are all about identity fraud and misrepresentation. Being that there are usually at least two living and creative human minds (capable of a lot of things we might not ordinarily do or think) at work with a Ouija board, it does not seem logical to assume or decide that a board personality is a ghost or spirit or whatever, because it says so, or even if it doesn't.
I think this is exactly the right attitude to take toward ouija communications. Even if the alleged entity "proves itself" by providing objective, verifiable information, predicting the future, performing feats of psychokinesis, or whatever, it is still important to keep in mind what Jpatt says here about con men. Con men are called "con men" because the way they operate is
to gain your confidence. They "prove themselves," get your trust, and only then can they take advantage of you. The annals of the paranormal are chock full of such otherworldly scam artists. The most common form these days seems to be the alien "space brothers." It is important to remember that spirits and "little people" throughout the ages have always been known as tricksters. So even if you're a "believer," there is every reason to be skeptical!
What it comes down to is, what are the best explanations for the observations, and what explanations fail?
To me, some purported afterlife communications appear to be genuine, whether they come through the ouija board or some other form of mediumship. Also, I'm unable to rule out the notion of the "demonic" as an explanation for what some have experienced, and so I'm inclined to look into it further, even though the idea appeals to me about as much as cancer. To explore why these notions seem viable would require an analysis of facts, both established and hypothetical. I think we're in a position to start carrying that out now.
...DE-NIAL ain't no river in Egypt cuz 
.....B
....B
....B
