--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course I had it on two layers in Photoshop with the opacity > blended before I posted it.
Huh?? I have no idea what you mean. In any case, what I'm suggesting is that instead of blowing up the blue one to the size of the black- and-white one, you reduce the black-and-white one to the size of the blue one, then superimpose them. That wouldn't work with the blue one blown up because of the pixellation. That is why I was amazed that you didn't see it > that way. Vaj's comment about the loss of resolution in the blue > version was right on and obvious in Photoshop. The blown-up version shouldn't have *lost* any resolution from the original version, should it? Rather, the low resolution of the original was made obvious when you blew it up and could see the actual pixels, right? Or does blowing it up in Photoshop decrease the original resolution? In that case, Vaj's comment is irrelevant because the differences between the charts can be seen clearly when the blue chart is its original size. They're harder to see in the blown-up version because of the pixellation, but they're still quite clear. > Try it yourself. Sorry, I don't have Photoshop. > About who started an argument... > > I had a point about what I saw as dishonesty in TM sidhi marketing. > You have a different point of view. I didn't feel like we were > having an argument, it all seemed civil to me. Arguments can be perfectly civil. The argument Barry and Vaj were referring to is the one we're having about whether the EEG tracings are the same or not, which is entirely different from the issue of whether the marketing was deceptive. They were insisting--erroneously and almost certainly knowingly so--that it was I who was prolonging that argument, when *you* had started it and were even more invested in it than I was, given the trouble you went to to do the Photoshopping and put up the comparison on your Web page. My point on the issue of deception--which you haven't addressed at all--is that *if* it was deceptive, it's entirely irrelevant from a marketing point of view, because nobody's going to decide to take the TM-Sidhis on the mistaken belief that high EEG coherence has been measured during actual hopping, as opposed to right before hopping. Plus which, we have no way of ruling out that the TM researchers did figure out a way to get rid of the artifacts, as O-J claims. So it's just a gigantic tempest in a teapot, it seems to me, a kind of desperate search for something, *anything*, to tar the TMo with. The ironic part is that there are so many other *legitimate* beefs about the TMO being less than totally straightforward. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
