--- In [email protected], "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >--- In [email protected], off_world_beings > ><no_reply@> > wrote:Stop saying that stuff about TM-jihad please. That is a > fundamentlist's term and I am only interested in research published > in peer-reviewed respected scientific journals. I consider religion > and other unproven philosophic ideas and techniques as a kind of > poison to science. It must be given strong evidence, or move out the > way. I don't care what it is, I only care about evidence under proper > scientific peer-review. > > Dear Off_World, whoever you are, i think it is a brilliant position > you take and try to entrench. I am with you on that. But, where is > its virtue if it is not coupled with social progress? It is like you > thrust with "peer review science" and then unable to stand up along > with the argument you run the other way taking its conclusions with > you. You could have been an ayatollah in the larger TM-jihad along > with the likes of Jon Hagelin but you drop the banner? What are you > afraid of in your thinking? That Rick or Alex might reveal your > identity here and that you would get banned from the Dome?>>
As I have said many times (MANY TIMES)My name is Tom Barlow, I live in Vermont. Nothing on planet earth can stop me going to the dome at the time and place of my choosing. > > I am intriqued with your seeming virtue, whoever you are. Your > seeming principle & cool humility. Just on the brink as you deploy > it, you then spurn TM-jihad by declining to lead it further. >> Lol ....no-one listens to me, and even if they did, one day I would screw it up by doing something stupid erratic, and then the anti- science crowd like you and Shemp and Turq, etc would smear the whole of science with the personality of one person. That is the way of the anti-science freaks. That does not degrade the veracity of my point though, and I do have plans to do something about it, over the long-term, not just a short term news-splash. The future belongs to proper peer-review. Why do you keep calling it a TM-jihad when it has nothing to do with TM, it is about research published in peer-reviwed journals. I think you are trying to smear the messenger instead of deal with the message. That is typical of anti-science freaks like Fox news, George Bush, Ted Haggard, Condi Rice, and the Neocons. Typical anti- science behaviour. > laid in your lap and you declined it. You could have been an > Ayatollah. A spiritual leader of jihad. A "Captain", a leader of > citizen Meditators for the Age of Enlightenment. But no, you decline > the power of your principle. [Power and even riches<You decline what > could be vast offshore bank accounts for you too?>] >> Deal with the points instead of engagingin a smear campaign. Typical anti-science behaviour. cline the > mantel of TM-jihad to hold only the rights of being ultra- > conservative orthodox Mr. peer-review science. Is this a noble thing > you argue here on principle and would give up everything else just to > secure it in isolation. But to what end do you demure? Are you not > up to such the power of your principle? You write here anonymously > and back-peddle as fast as you can. Where are you going with this, > with every fiber of your being? Have you an ambition with this and > are you not up to it? > > I admire your peer-review position but wonder really about where you > are with it in these times.> It is your own anti-science stance that you feel inside that you wonder about and you are afraid to admit it, and instead engage in a pathetic smear campaign without talking about my point, which is: only reaseach published in peer-reviewed scientific journals holds any clout in the 21st century, not your fundamantalist anti-science medieval ways of Ted Haggard, George Bush, Bill O'rielly, Billy graham etc. OffWorld
