--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:08 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > Vaj, I'm close to my limit for the week. I'll get to your > > deceitful bafflegab about the TM research on Saturday. > > In the meantime, I'll deal with *this* piece of deceit > > from you: > > Don't bother unless you have some independent research on TM > you can share. I, like Ruth and others, really don't have > time for wasted posts responding to a constant barrage of > mischaracterizations which demand responses, strawmen/Judy's > golem arguments and red herrings. Such pervasive dishonesty > and consistent use of logical fallacy is something truly > worth ignoring.
Translation: Damn it, she keeps rubbing my nose in the inexplicable failure of my Buddhist researchers to take account of 20 years' worth of TM research. This failure makes them look really, really bad, and I don't have a coherent defense. > We already know you're horribly and frantically desperate to > try to prove that biased, TMO-sponsored research is just the > cats meow and that world class scientists who get published > in university textbooks just don't know what they're talking > about. Actually, what I'm interested in is having the TM research given a fair shake and evaluated by unbiased scientists who don't have a personal stake either in exalting it or finding it wanting. Unfortunately, we can't expect to hear about that kind of evaluation from Vaj. > But sadly for you, I really don't look to aging and > disgruntled text editors for scientific advice. LOL! Who's horribly and frantically desperate, again? Could it be the person who tries to discredit his opponent on the basis of her age? > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > >> > >> On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote: > >> > >>> So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for? > >> > >> It's for research that's considered laughable > > > > Oops, no, you didn't get that quite right, Vaj. > > > > From the Ig Nobel Web site: > > > > "The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make > > people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are > > intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative > > -- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and > > technology." > > > > http://www.ignobel.com/ig/ > > > > You've gotten this wrong before, and I've corrected you. > > Your repetition of your error means we can chalk up to > > your account one more deliberate attempt to mislead. > > > > (Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.) > > Actually I had it right before and and now. My response is > from the igNobel people as well. > > I always found your desperate attempts to try to prove otherwise, > shall I say, entertaining. > > Nice try, but no cigar. > > >> and "that cannot, or should not, be reproduced." > >> > >> Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of > >> pseudoscience. > > > > True dat. But "should not be reproduced" ain't quite > > the same thing, is it, now? > > Well actually the quote says "cannot or should not". Right. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word "or" in Mr. Dictionary (and in particular, its distinction from the word "and"). > So, in any event, the research you are referring to is > pseudoscience. In your opinion. It's fine by Marc Abrams that you have an opinion, positive or negative. You just can't use the fact of the research having been awarded an Ig Nobel as evidence for that opinion. He's very clear and quite firm about that. > Does anyone else find it hilarious this Judy-thrashing to try > to make the igNobel prizes look, uh, noble? Yeah, too bad I had to quote from the guy who founded and still runs them in order to do it, ain't it? <belly laugh> (Note, of course, that I wasn't trying to make them look "noble," simply pointing out that Vaj and Hugheshugo are wrong when they claim the Ig Nobels are intended as negative criticism.)
