I'm not throwing a hissy fit, but it does frustrate me when you continually make accusations of arrogance, imply that I'm insulting people, deride my English, dismiss my arguments, reject my answers out-of-hand, etc. etc... anything, in other words, but engage in the discussion, instead relying on "this is childish". One way or another, this is playing the man and not the ball, which is usually regarded as bad form in debates. It isn't throwing "a hissy fit" to point this out.
In terms of those two points, they are two different aspects of the same position. The first point explains how consciousness being "energy" would in no way imply that it could outlast death. The second explains how the apparent visibility of "ghosts" would put them within the ability of current physics to analyse -- and, indeed, to reject if that is necessary. This would counter the suggestion that we have to wait for new technologies to be developed to be able to say anything about these phenomena. While you may not have said that in this thread, it's a point you've brought up elsewhere.
There is no contradiction between the two, and they are merely different aspects of the same position, which I have made clear earlier on in this thread and others. They are two different points, but why should this be a problem? They complement each other.