I mean one thing that has amazed me about Skeptiko, is that none of the skeptical contributors seem to want to engage in real discussion as opposed to verbal fencing - usually in the form of short quips.
Since I've been posting again at Skeptiko, I haven't seen any of this "real discussion" on topics that I've contributed to. Let me summarise:
I posted a thread about Stephan Schwartz's psychic archaeology. The only response was to refer me to some other, far more obscure researcher's use of psychic archaeology. No one wanted to discuss Schwartz's work.
I wrote about Project Star Gate, offering documentation to back up my claims that most of the hits claimed by various remote viewers were heavily fictionalised. The response was "That evidence is all forged!" (even though, after ten years, no one from the RV project itself has suggested the declassified papers are forged).
I debunked (quite soundly, I think) Gary Schwartz's Arizona Experiment, and nothing changed. The people who'd supported the experiments just sort of wandered off.
I discussed the experiments of Charles Richet, who Radin references as an early pioneer of parapsychology. This time I got a decent discussion, but we could never get past the fact that we disagreed on the evidential value placed on results from the initial, poor methods. (I just remembered: this was on the Scientific Debates forum, not Skeptiko)
Now, certainly the fact that I know nothing about NDEs limits how much I can contribute to the various threads, but when people discuss things that I do know about and I can contribute to, I do not see great discussions from people who have thoroughly researched this topic.