What I mean about the argument is this: things like these are disputed by many sceptics, with many different arguments and other explanations for events like these happening. According to you, we should ignore any of those arguments because none of these people have experienced something like precognitive dreaming, for example. This leaves only the arguments fór precognitive dreaming, which results in an unfair discussion. If a sceptic is an expert in psychology, he might offer explanations from his field that are more likely to be true. If only the people that have experienced (or think they have experienced) something are seen as people who can give evidence, there is no room for this critique at all.

I will read up on the sources you gave me if I get the chance. I have taken the time to read your first dream, the one about the maggots, but to be honest with you, this is not convincing to me at all. You know you are having a Zimbabwean dinner party tomorrow, so you dreamt about a dinner were you were served you didn't know. I am moving soon, so I recently have dreams about moving. That's not precognitive, it's just what keep your mind occupied that sifts through in your dreams.

And as for the Deja Vu, I like to go with the neurological explanation: someone looks at something, but this image is 'saved' in the memory before the person is concious of the image. This seems more simple and logical to me, so that is what I believe as the most suitable explanations (Occam's razor)

Anyway, I am afraid we are never going to convince eachother.