--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:29 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote: > >> [...] > >> 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. :-) >
But, the section of the paper that examines TM research was in fact, examining TM research as the topic of that section, so to ignore the 20 years most recent research in the section examining TM research IS to ignore 20 years of research on the topic of that section... Lawson
