Please read up on NPOV. Referring to James Randi as a "bigot" in his own articles does not count, sorry. If you continue adding provocative material to articles, you risk being blocked from this site. Pakaran. 02:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

moink 02:01, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your edit to Ten Commandments about boiling the kid in its mother's milk makes very little sense. Could you elaborate? I think you're confusing things. JFW | T@lk 00:01, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"If I gave away Palladino's lifting method it would spoil the magic." That's all fine, but leaving mystery like that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry on parapsychology, since parapsychology is a scientific field. (Please sign your talk posts with four tilda's.) Cortonin 22:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Folie a Deux

I think either you don't understand what "Folie a Deux" means, or you're just being a troll. Folie a Deux refers to a shared psychological disorder in which multiple people share in a similar delusion, usually related to prolonged isolation from the rest of society. Suggesting that Folie a Deux is one of the ESP phenomena beside telepathy, etc, makes no sense. If you want to suggest that Folie a Deux is a possible explanation for ESP, then you could do so if you could provide documentation that experiencers of ESP have prolonged isolation from the rest of society. Of course this would be impossible for you to do given the proportion of society which reports having ESP experiences. It is not correct to indicate that such a commonly reported experience is Folie a Deux, because that does not fit the definition of that psychological disorder. I suggest you consult Wikipedia's own page on Folie a Deux for a description of what it is, and stop incorrectly splattering the phrase all over the ESP and Parapsychology pages. --Cortonin 00:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Thoughts may be shared (telepathy) due to emotional contagion. We think we know what emotions are, but it is still unknown as to what emotions can do. What are their boundaries?

No need to go that far at all, if people can understand other people's emotional state, then you have a mechanism right there. This removes the "supernatural" from it to a large degree, it seems entirely reasonable to suggest that subconcious cues allow us to guess to some degree what other people are thinking.

Of course this removes the supernatural from it entirely. I would be entirely happy with this, but I think many who are interested in the field would not be.

BTW, you should really register... then you can tag with four tildes.

Maury 13:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)