On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:29 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote:
And of course the study in question only lists the studies
they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known
as the APA style, common in almost all research for
publication.
More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not
refer to those later studies *because they did not
look at them*.
As in previous desperate attempts to somehow make a state of
the art paper look bad, this one falls on all but other TB ears
as BS Judy. In no decently written papers of this kind have I
seen wanton referral to research that is not directly linked to
something included in the paper.
No, this is yet more disingenuity.
One more time: The Buddhist researchers purport
to have evaluated TM research, but they ignored
the two most recent decades' worth of published
studies.
That's absurd on its face. Has nothing to do with
"APA form," as you know, or any of the other red
herrings and flimflam you've tried to throw in.
It would have made sense for them to have ignored
the *earier* studies and focused entirely on the
most recent ones that dealt with the topics they
chose to discuss.
You clearly have little background in or understanding of science.
I'm sorry Judy, you're TB faith in TM research, all it tells me is
that you believe what you're told, with little critical comprehension
or understanding. Nothing any of of us can say or do will shake your
belief in the bible of McMeditation "research", so I won't pretend to
be surprised at your wind-up doll retorts.
But thanks anyway. :-)
