Jim does good posts and I like them

[Guest guest]

, " William Leigh "

<william4x5 wrote:

>

> Other than the whining and the restating what I said, I thought this post was

pretty good.

 

I like and appreciate Jim's posts.

 

He's been here for a long time and has a proven history of expertise.

 

His posts are full of his study, experiences and off-color humor.

 

And I'm curious to why you refer to a great post as whining and restating when

he really did a great job of clarifying what you said and added to it in a

meaningful way.

 

Sam

 

> Wm

>

> , Jim Knippenberg

<erommel@> wrote:

> >

> > Was this with wikipedia or some other wiki?

> >

> > Wikipedia (and most wikis) are compiled by volunteers. Volunteers who want

everyone to see what they wrote.

> >

> > Some of them don't know squat.

> >

> > For example, the people who wrote the wikipedia entry for remote viewing

obviously started with their own conclusions and didn't bother to get any

EVIDENCE from any of the people who CAN do remote viewing.

> >

> > This reminds me of a Mythbusters episode where they thought that being able

to throw a coin up in the air and shoot it with a gun while in midair was a

bunch of hype and fantasy that makes for a good western dime novel but " didn't

really happen. "

> >

> > But they were open minded enough to do the experiments.

> >

> > So they set up their own equipment and could not do it with any of their

hi-tech stuff. So they were about to call it a busted myth, when lo and behold,

they FOUND people who could actually do it.

> >

> > And History channel has had people who could do it with a handgun, people

who could do it with a .22 rimfire rifle, and they had a knife thrower on there

who could throw a knife at and slice a grape in half that his (super-hot)

assistant for the show tossed in to the air.

> >

> > So just cuz some body said something is or isn't possible don't make it so.

> >

> > What's their credentials BESIDES they appeared on a wiki?

> >

> > Anyway, intuition seems to come from learning, training, experience, and

calibration. Even intuitions where we have no prior knowledge in this lifetime

of the situation.

> >

> > This could be from past life experiences regarding the person or the type of

information.

> >

> > Or it could be as simple as an isomorphic situation where another isomorphic

instance turned out good or bad.

> >

> > Or it could be a real good calibration of the " good decision / bad decision "

energies.

> >

> > Intuition using the calibration of good decision / bad decision IS a

comparison of two different examples, and is based on submodalities, so it could

include the location of pictures, could include a type of feeling, location of

feeling, direction the feeling goes, etc.

> >

> > Even instances where I've had an " instant knowing " are a calibration from

previous instances of " instant knowing. " There are huge differences between a

mental impression / intution / instant knowing versus just having a thought

about something. Most people just aren't aware of those differences so they can

calibrate correctly.

> >

> >

> > Sincerely,

> > Jim Knippenberg