--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 17, 2006, at 8:02 AM, dhamiltony2k5 wrote: > > > FF essayist Thom Krystofiak, who used to write frequently and post on > > FFL, has a piece published in this week's FF Weekly Reader. Entitled > > Sanitizing the Fairfield Story. About the pr-people of the TMorg > > taking the Washington Post's glowing uncritical article about > > Maharishi's MUM, Vedic City and TM- Fairfield and their taking the > > article, re-publishing it and sanitizing it further. More than a > > couple of touch-up evidently as Thom reviews further what was done. > > > > What are they thinking when they do that? They really did not need > > to, but the damage, to their credibility of anything else they say or > > write becomes material. Their peer-review stuff,, their own press- > > releases, their own explainations about what they do with the money, > > their own explainations about what they may be doing for world peace > > to what end. > > > > What were they thinking in their needing to sneak re-write that > > Washington Post article without attribution? In itself it is just so > > revealing about the cult of their culture up there inside. Is > > stunning to watch them do it. Would be interesting to hear them try > > to explain their actions in a critical interview. > > > > "What Maharishi is doing is more important than anything anyone else > > is doing...", thus justifying anything they may do, to his end? > > Becomes the take-off point where good people can do bad things they > > may not otherwise do. Seeing this again with the TMorg and our > > friends up there? It does become about the moral integrity of those > > doing it and their cause they represent. The sanitizing of the > > Washington Post story is pretty poor which crosses over to being > > pretty bad. > > Seems pretty clear they're willing to sanitize *anything*, even > research they claim is scientific. >
Cites? Which research published in peer-reviewed journals, has been sanitized?
