--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > TM critics like Barry and Vaj and Paul and John > > > Knapp and Andrew Skolnick think it's perfectly OK > > > to misrepresent the TM "party line" in the > > > interests of making it look worse than it actually > > > is. > > > > Don't fool yourself. Andrew Skolnick is, was and always > > will be convinced that the TM organization he sees is > > the only one that exists. True Believers who say otherwise > > are either insane, or part of the conspiracy. > > Some of his misrepresentations, though, were just > too crafty to have been anything but deliberate. > > He may not have thought he was making the TMO look > worse than it actually is (in his view of what it > is), but he did exaggerate and distort various > completely innocent aspects to make them contribute > to that picture because he didn't have enough solid > evidence of real malfeasance. > > He was convinced of his view of the TMO, in other > words, and deliberately bent the data he did have to > support that view. Ends justify the means, and > all that. >
Sure. And when an MUM faculty member who anonymously contributes to the TM article on wiki requested mediation, Skolnick magically disappeared. There's a NEW guy who accuses the TMers of having conflict of interest, implying that we shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the article. His reasoning: the MUM faculty member (or members?) receive room, board, health insurance and a monthly stipend of about $400, so they've got "serious conflicts of interest," while *I* have a COI because I practice TM. Don't get him started on John Hagelin. He can't tell the difference between philosphical rambling, science and pseudoscience (of course, a case can be made that neither can John).
