RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: I would like to try an experiment in compassion

[mark robert]

From: Bob Brigante [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 1:37 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: I would like to try an experiment in compassion   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >  > > "Regarding your claim that TMers need more than TM to quit > smoking, that is not what research indicates" > > > > Thereby implying that 100% of TMers need no more than TM to quit > smoking. Therefore, as it stands, you have committed TWO > falsehoods: Not only what you claim you claimed is false, but > also your original is false. Care to dig your hole a little > deeper? Maybe the TMO should have asked all to abstain from > dishonesty for 3 weeks prior to being initiated (or at least > those who are addicted to it). > >  > > -Mark ********** 100%, or nearly so, of the TMers monitored in the scientific studies quoted who quit smoking did so because of the stress relief they experienced from TM, not from other stop-smoking programs (they would not have been allowed in the studies if they were participating in some stop-smoking program other than their practice of TM). Therefore, when I said above that "Regarding your claim that TMers need more than TM to quit smoking, that is not what research indicates," this is a true statement -- people in the studies who quit smoking did so only because of TM. Nobody made any claim about TM enabling everybody in the short run to quit smoking, and, once again, I will remind you that I quoted a scientific study to that effect: http://www.tm-online.org.za/faqs.html#11 ----------------   Bob,   You continue to attempt to escape responsibility for falsehood by spinning what you originally said. Now you claim it was this: “Almost all TMers, who quit smoking after starting TM, quit because of TM only and nothing else.” Whether that is the actual study or not is irrelevant. It is not your original representation of it.   Let’s take a detailed look at your original statement again:   "Regarding your claim that TMers need more than TM to quit smoking, that is not what research indicates" By simple reversal of the sentence construction and the positive-for-negative, we can see that your statement directly implies (says) this:   "research indicates that TMers need no more than TM to quit smoking, which is counter to your claim" Since you did not qualify the amount of TMers with a percent figure, you automatically imply that not only 100% of TMers who start TM quit smoking, but they need no more than the effect of the TM to do it. The first element of the statement is obviously false, and the second one is probably false. Even if the second one is true, it is irrelevant to this conversation. At best, ignoring your original and accepting your spin, your point is irrelevant.     -Mark     To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.