few people are going to follow the discussion as closely as yourself, and its not about you personally and what you find persuasive or a preferable style
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcg...@...> wrote: > > Judy, > > You're probably the smartest person in the room. > > But it takes away from both your dignity and your reputation of high > intelligence when you DECLARE someone to be lying or that you have THE TRUTH > about this or that situation. > > You sound like Rush Limbaugh who continually tells us he has access to THE > TRUTH; same absolutism, different side of the spectrum. > > Like I've suggested to you before: if you want to win friends and influence > people, don't TELL me that Vaj is lying; give me the facts as you see them > and order the telling of them in such a way that I will come to that > conclusion myself. > > Much more powerful. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Vaj wrote: > > <snip> > > > >> The much touted study by Schneider on > > > >> Cardiac health in African Americans that's > > > >> been pushed all over the internet and posted > > > >> all over the place--I've received over 30 > > > >> emails on this one study--not only was never > > > >> published (let alone peer reviewed) that I > > > >> can find, it isn't even listed in on the AHA > > > >> website for the conference it was supposedly > > > >> presented at. No PDF available. > > > > > > > > It was never published? I was wondering > > > > about that too...I've also gotten several > > > > emails touting it. > > > > Stupid Sal's been thoroughly skunked by Vaj. > > > > > No. > > > > As I noted on Wednesday, of course it hasn't been > > published--it was only just completed. Vaj knows > > this, even if stupid Sal couldn't figure it out. > > > > But (as Vaj also knows) Schneider *has* published > > at least half a dozen studies on the effect of TM > > on heart health in African Americans, many of > > which have been "pushed all over the internet and > > posted all over the place." > > > > > It was just to be presented at the American > > > Heart Association scientific conference last > > > month. No mention, no paper, no abstract, > > > nothing on their website. > > > > And as I also noted, it is indeed listed on the > > AHA conference Web site; it's in the program. I > > gave the page number and event number in my post > > on Wednesday. > > > > There are no abstracts, PDFs, or anything else > > for that conference on the Web site that would > > be accessible to the general public, only to > > professional AHA members. So this is another > > deliberately disingenuous red herring from Vaj. > > > > > >> Maybe the Journal of Scientific Exploration > > > >> will take it? Maybe they could consider > > > >> African-Americans "extraterrestrial"? : > > > > > > > > I don't know...is that peer-reviewed and > > > > respected? > > > > > > No it's a fringe/UFO and pseudoscience journal > > > that David Orme-Johnson got his recent paper > > > in! If you were a respected scientist it would > > > be one of the last journals you'd ever want to > > > be published in, if anyone was to take you > > > seriously again. But it is peer-reviewed. :-) > > > > Not only is it not a UFO or "pseudoscience" > > journal, it's also a lie that respected > > scientists aren't published in it. Taking a quick > > look at the list of recent authors at the JSE > > site, I found five names that I recognized, all > > of whom are most definitely in the "respected" > > class: > > > > Elizabeth Loftus > > Robert G. Jahn > > Dean Radin > > Ian Stevenson > > Michael Persinger (Ironic, because Persinger is > > the author of the distinctly anti-TM book "TM and > > Cult Mania" and has published a couple of papers > > dealing with TM in other journals that TM critics > > are constantly touting as "proving" how dangerous > > TM is.) > > > > Vaj would have us believe that papers are > > published in JSE because they're so poorly done > > no reputable journal would accept them. It's most > > likely true that no other reputable journal would > > accept them, but not necessarily because they're > > poorly done; it's the subject matter that's the > > problem. Even the most beautifully done, > > brilliantly written, airtight study on a topic > > considered "fringe" is unlikely to be published > > in a mainstream journal. It's unlikely even to be > > *read* by the editors of such a journal. > > > > The paper TM published in JSE is a response to a > > paper by Sales and Markovsky published in a > > sociology journal that purportedly debunks the > > famous TM Journal of Conflict Resolution study. > > The sociology journal refused to publish TM's > > rebuttal to Sales and Markovsky's paper. The > > journal is happy to publish papers that claim to > > debunk nonmainstream theories, but not papers > > that support such theories or rebut the claimed > > debunkings. What wonderful scientific ethics. > > > > Has Vaj read the paper he's so scornful of, or is > > his only basis for scorn the fact that it was > > published in a journal that examines topics > > mainstream science doesn't dare deal with? > > > > If JSE published a paper touting some unusual > > effects of Buddhist meditation, would he be > > scornful of it because of the nature of the > > journal? > > > > The *fact* is that Vaj himself has made all > > kinds of claims that would be considered > > "fringe," if not patently crazy, by mainstream > > science. Vaj isn't against all things "fringe"; > > he's just against TM. He smears a journal that > > does a highly responsible job of publishing > > solid scholarly examinations of nonmainstream > > claims because he's so intent on smearing TM. > > >
