[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, drpetersutphen drpetersutphen@ wrote: I missed this post. And apparently didn't read it when you did see it. Every one of the commenters Brian quotes--and Brian himself--pointed out that the study couldn't be taken as conclusive because the sample size was too small to be statistically significant. They all said further study would be needed. This research means nothing because it is methodologically flawed. How were the measures taken? What was the control period. Well, actually you don't know whether it was methodologically flawed, other than the small sample size, because Brian didn't say how the measures were taken (although he did explain the control period; apparently you didn't read that part). You have to *know what the methodology was* before you can say whether it was flawed. Anyone with even a little training in doing this type of research will see huge holes in it. Again, other than the small sample size, they won't see huge holes in it from this post because the post doesn't give any of the methodological details. You can tell from the post that the study is methodologically flawed beyond any sample size problem.For example, according to the post people knew when the so called control period ran and what was the period people were meditating--the research wasn't blinded. For goodness sakes, they used the police recreation club! Everybody had to know the meditators were in town. If they had reported bang up positive results I would question them because of the defective design. The community may have put more police on the streets when the meditators were in town. Or people could have been on good behavior because company was around. I would be especially concerned about confounding variables because the post quoted by you and Peter said: I compiled this list for a proposal to the Bermuda Police Commissioner when I was living there. He was so impressed with the research he offered in-kind support from the Bermuda Police for a demonstration of the Maharishi Effect. Correlation research is problematic anyway. They just added to the problems with their poor design. And that is just one glaring problem. There are others as well. Another example, which is raised in the linked materials, is that the crime rate in the area is to small to yield statistically significant results in a short time period. If that is the case they should have known that going in and thus the design was flawed for that reason alone. Any number of things could have occurred to confound the results. No conclusions can be drawn about anything, not even as a pilot study worthy of further research. It doesn't even rise to the level of being inconclusive. Well, I am off again after a quick check-in.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, drpetersutphen drpetersutphen@ wrote: I missed this post. And apparently didn't read it when you did see it. Every one of the commenters Brian quotes--and Brian himself--pointed out that the study couldn't be taken as conclusive because the sample size was too small to be statistically significant. They all said further study would be needed. This research means nothing because it is methodologically flawed. How were the measures taken? What was the control period. Well, actually you don't know whether it was methodologically flawed, other than the small sample size, because Brian didn't say how the measures were taken (although he did explain the control period; apparently you didn't read that part). You have to *know what the methodology was* before you can say whether it was flawed. Anyone with even a little training in doing this type of research will see huge holes in it. Again, other than the small sample size, they won't see huge holes in it from this post because the post doesn't give any of the methodological details. You can tell from the post that the study is methodologically flawed beyond any sample size problem. For example, according to the post people knew when the so called control period ran and what was the period people were meditating--the research wasn't blinded. For goodness sakes, they used the police recreation club! Everybody had to know the meditators were in town. Right, so all the criminals might have been on their best behavior during the demonstration period and then very busy during the control period. Sure, Ruth. If they had reported bang up positive results I would question them because of the defective design. The community may have put more police on the streets when the meditators were in town. Or people could have been on good behavior because company was around. I have to say, this is the first I've ever heard that argument used against an ME study. It almost beats the one about how ME projects were unethical because they didn't obtain the informed consent of the population being studied. (Come to think of it, the two negate each other. Oh, well.) Typically, police forces are highly skeptical of any such crime-reduction approach. If anything, they'd be expected to want to sabotage it, not help it succeed. That the police commissioner in this case was in favor of it is highly unusual, but since the perceived *need* for such an approach doesn't reflect well on his department's policing abilities, I'd be dubious he was able to get the rest of the force behind him. I would be especially concerned about confounding variables because the post quoted by you and Peter said: I compiled this list for a proposal to the Bermuda Police Commissioner when I was living there. He was so impressed with the research he offered in-kind support from the Bermuda Police for a demonstration of the Maharishi Effect. Correlation research is problematic anyway. They just added to the problems with their poor design. And that is just one glaring problem. There are others as well. Mmm-hmmm. Got any others that could actually be determined from what was posted? Another example, which is raised in the linked materials, is that the crime rate in the area is to small to yield statistically significant results in a short time period. Right, which all the folks quoted, Brian, Peter, and I mentioned. What I said was that *aside* from that one, you couldn't tell what the flaws were, you see. I was NOT arguing that the project showed anything hopeful. I don't believe that even if the ME exists, it could ever be demonstrated scientifically. My point was that Peter declared the methodology flawed *without knowing anything about the methodology*. And now you've joined him. If that is the case they should have known that going in and thus the design was flawed for that reason alone. Any number of things could have occurred to confound the results. Which is why I don't think a scientific demonstration is possible, no matter how sound the study design. No conclusions can be drawn about anything, Including whether the study design had any flaws. not even as a pilot study worthy of further research. It doesn't even rise to the level of being inconclusive. Not sure that's even possible. Bit of derisive hyperbole based on facts not in evidence. Well, I am off again after a quick check-in. Yes, leave fast, before anybody can challenge you!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: snip I was NOT arguing that the project showed anything hopeful. I don't believe that even if the ME exists, it could ever be demonstrated scientifically. My point was that Peter declared the methodology flawed *without knowing anything about the methodology*. And now you've joined him. You are simply wrong.We know there are problems with the methodology. I mentioned the lack of control of confounding variables and the problems with the low crime rate.Any student who designed a study consistent with the presented facts would get an F. I am sure any scientists here would agree. Ruth said: If that is the case they should have known that going in and thus the design was flawed for that reason alone. Any number of things could have occurred to confound the results. Judy said: Which is why I don't think a scientific demonstration is possible, no matter how sound the study design. Huh? I thought you just said that we don't know anything about the methodology and then you quote my complaints about the methodology. The point is that the study design was not sound. Ruth said: No conclusions can be drawn about anything, Judy said: Including whether the study design had any flaws. I can't believe you said this. You acknowledged there are flaws. Are you just baiting me into a discussion? Ruth said: not even as a pilot study worthy of further research. It doesn't even rise to the level of being inconclusive. Judy said: Not sure that's even possible. Bit of derisive hyperbole based on facts not in evidence. The derision is deserved and is based solely on the facts reported. Ruth said: Well, I am off again after a quick check-in. Judy said: Yes, leave fast, before anybody can challenge you! Anybody? It would only be you. I was curious as to what you would say and how you would say it. Anyway, I see Curtis has been around so I'll check out his posts and then I'm out of here. Too much time here is like having MRSA lurking on my skin.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I was NOT arguing that the project showed anything hopeful. I don't believe that even if the ME exists, it could ever be demonstrated scientifically. My point was that Peter declared the methodology flawed *without knowing anything about the methodology*. And now you've joined him. You are simply wrong.We know there are problems with the methodology. No, we don't know enough about the methodology to say that. I mentioned the lack of control of confounding variables You didn't mention any variables, first, and you can't say whether they were controlled for because what was posted here didn't discuss controls. For all you know, there were all kinds of controls. You made the absurd suggestion that because the test was announced in advance, everybody would be on their best behavior during the demonstration and (presumably) on their worst during the control period. You speculated that the police department might have put more police on the street during the demonstration to get a good result, without taking into account that police would be very unlikely to want this kind of approach to succeed. And for all you know, the study design may have required that no extra police be put on the street. What was posted here said nothing about that either way. and the problems with the low crime rate. Yes, that's already been stipulated. Any student who designed a study consistent with the presented facts would get an F. I am sure any scientists here would agree. No teachers or scientists who wanted to be fair and honest would do so, because they wouldn't have enough information. Ruth said: If that is the case they should have known that going in and thus the design was flawed for that reason alone. Any number of things could have occurred to confound the results. Judy said: Which is why I don't think a scientific demonstration is possible, no matter how sound the study design. Huh? I thought you just said that we don't know anything about the methodology and then you quote my complaints about the methodology. Right. No contradiction there, sorry to disappoint. The point is that the study design was not sound. No, we don't know enough about the study design to say that. Ruth said: No conclusions can be drawn about anything, Judy said: Including whether the study design had any flaws. I can't believe you said this. You acknowledged there are flaws. The only flaw I acknowledged was the small sample size, which everybody stipulated from the beginning. There may well have been other flaws, but neither of us can tell that from what was reported. Are you just baiting me into a discussion? Hmm, you went on to say, I was curious as to what you would say and how you would say it. Oooopsie. Who was baiting whom, again? Ruth said: not even as a pilot study worthy of further research. It doesn't even rise to the level of being inconclusive. Judy said: Not sure that's even possible. Bit of derisive hyperbole based on facts not in evidence. The derision is deserved and is based solely on the facts reported. As I said, facts not in evidence. You haven't cited *one* reported fact about the study design as a flaw, except that the study was announced in advance. Oddly enough, the initial ME studies were *criticized* because they hadn't been announced in advance. Subsequent studies were announced in advance specifically to address this criticism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
So, some 'heavy hitters' of the spiritual world have written a book about your guru, the Maharishi? Joe: No, you've *wildly* distorted the point I was making, very deliberately. You may not be psychotic, but you're almost as dishonest as Barry and Vaj. Barry and Vaj are dishonest?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
Joe: According to my sources, yes. Not everyone that lives in Texas is Latino, Joe. Silly Willie is still smarting from the waxing he got from Judy yesterday. Brazilian?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfiend jstein@ wrote: Unbelievable. Having been shown to be totally wrong, she just keeps on fabricating accusations. And *everybody here thinks that's just fine*. So you think *everybody here* is a liar and hypocrite. Rght. What is unbelievable is that an almost-70-year-old woman is incapable of controlling the hatred she feels for another woman on this forum (Sal), hatred that in my considered opinion she feels for no more intelligent reasons than 1) Sal continually laughs at Judy, 2) Sal can't be lured into the arguments that Judy feeds on like a vampire, and 3) other people actually *like* and care about Sal, whereas almost no one pays any attention *whatsoever* to Judy any more. She has finally achieved Willytex Level. It's fascinating, just dropping in long enough to scan what's been going on, that Brian (who won't be missed whether the door hit him in the ass on his way out or not) complained about people trying to score points here but missed the person who started that whole routine on FFL in the first place and who now seemingly cannot live without it. I go on vacation, Vaj lays low, Curtis gets bored within a week, and so Judy finds herself with nothing to talk about (because she hasn't had a creative thought in decades) and no one to argue with (because the other folks here are too sane to bother with her). So what does she do? She makes up a battle between her- self and Sal *that never existed except in her mind*, and then declares Sal the loser of this battle. How SAD. What a commercial for TM that this sad old bag lady from New Jersey and a similarly sad German now living in Norway are what the TMO trots out here as its defenders. I suspect Brian bailed because he belatedly realized that if Judy and Nabby were the best he had on his side he'd better get out while the gettin' was good. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
Brian deserves kudos for maintaining a civil tone even though he was attacked in a very rude and unfair way. He did not fabricate anything. He also brought attention to a very small ME study that I had not heard of before, and gave interesting details about it. People should also read his post here and take note. He is right. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brian64705 no_re...@... wrote: These posting problems here have been frustrating over the last 48 hours. Seems Yahoo Groups is getting overloaded. I think it's time for me to quit this group. It's also a downer to me to read so many posts that appear more interested in scoring points than sharing news and inspiration. There are 1376 members here, a few persistently negative voices launching ad hominem attacks in almost every post can really put people off participating. And the almost daily attacks on the moderator Rick are appalling to me! I think the whole nature of the forum is becoming outdated by more friendly interfaces such as Facebook. At least in Facebook most use their own names, show their faces, and give some personal info. It helps to keep discussion civil. Sal. You seem to be one of the most frequent to use ad hominem attacks. In this case by accusing me of fabrications several times. Simply because I didn't provide any links. Anyone can find the source I quoted with google. Just take the whole phrase, put in inverted commas and do a google search. The Gurr quote with ME has 7 hits - mostly in the UK. I provided the quotes I got from Bermuda business leaders on the ME project we did in Bermuda simply to show more testimonials. Is that selling an idea that's not welcome on FFL or offering further opinions of intelligent people who have studied the results of an ME demonstration? Probably because this issue is a paradigm breaker it arouses such strong adverse reactions. Interestingly John Davies's students could teach FFL a lot about how to resolve differences without aggression or ad hominem attacks. I had the pleasure of hosting John and his wife for a week in my home in Bermuda in the 90's and learned so much about the Maharishi Effect. And how he engaged the different audiences I had him speak to. In one lecture I remember him going through many different levels of approach to conflict resolution- I recall about 9. And the last he simply described as Being and gave the briefest mention of meditation before ending and opening for questions. It was the softest introduction to a discussion that ensued (in the question time) on the Maharishi Effect that I have ever heard. It was to a Rotary lunch and carried live on the radio and excerpted on the TV evening news. It's rare that I see discussion anywhere close to being this respectful or sincere on FFL. So for me this is goodbye and I wish you all the best on your individual journeys of discovery. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Can't we just respectfully disagree? But you're not respectfully disagreeing, Brian~~you're fabricating. And you're not providing any links, either. That is almost de rigeur internet etiquette when you post something. To not do so makes it look like you're hiding something. Or fabricating. As to the Maharishi Effect - it's certainly a paradigm breaking concept while we may not understand how it works - it's been shown to work many times and published in peer reviewed journals. Link, please. I could find no citations for this anywhere on the Web. And it's perfectly fine if you want to live in your own world, Brian, in which you get to set the rules~~daydreams are like that. No harm done unless you expect others to live by the same rules. And when you come to a place like this and make grandiose claims that you then can't back up~~don't expect others to swallow the garbage whole. And besides, if you really had found something you valued and it was working for you, you almost surely would not come around like a salesman trying to peddle it to others. Is it your impression none of us have heard these lines before? If you had bothered reading for 5 minutes before coming in here, you might have noted that there are a significant amount of people here very skeptical of *any* grandiose claims that can't be backed up. And so far, yours can't. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Can't we just respectfully disagree? But you're not respectfully disagreeing, Brian~~you're fabricating. Unbelievable. Having been shown to be totally wrong, she just keeps on fabricating accusations. And *everybody here thinks that's just fine*. Thanks for putting up the good fight, Judy. Sorry I'm not in a position to join you in calling out the untruths, but that's not the way I'm wired.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
On Jul 27, 2010, at 3:48 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: It's fascinating, just dropping in long enough to scan what's been going on, that Brian (who won't be missed whether the door hit him in the ass on his way out or not) complained about people trying to score points here but missed the person who started that whole routine on FFL in the first place and who now seemingly cannot live without it. I go on vacation, Vaj lays low, Curtis gets bored within a week, and so Judy finds herself with nothing to talk about (because she hasn't had a creative thought in decades) and no one to argue with (because the other folks here are too sane to bother with her). What's fascinating is watching Judy-logic at work. Instead of just coming out and saying, Yeah, it *was* misleading if not dishonest of Brian not to put links in or to admit the quotes he put down *might* not have been talking about the TMO she goes through a set of mental gymnastics that would give a professional contortionist pause. It reminds me of my all-time favorite in Judy-logic (that being defined as logic that only Judy and her followers can, um, follow) is proving that Kevin Costner was racist when the movie he directed, Dances With Wolves, had the audacity to show the Indian women with neat, pulled-back or braided hair, while the main white woman wore her hair in a a slatternly (Judy's actual word, I believe) manner. That, good friends, proves he was racist against ...the Indians! Jesus. If anyone can follow those contortions and actually make sense of them, they are doing a lot better than me. So what does she do? She makes up a battle between her- self and Sal *that never existed except in her mind*, and then declares Sal the loser of this battle. That's fine. Win or lose, it doesn't really much matter once I've had the opportunity to put down what I wanted to say. How SAD. What a commercial for TM that this sad old bag lady from New Jersey and a similarly sad German now living in Norway are what the TMO trots out here as its defenders. I think Brian may have come in here with erroneous ideas on how, since it was a site given over to discussing TM as well as other spiritual topics, that whoever responded would lap up his wisdom like a thirsty puppy. He could have saved himself the trouble if he'd bothered to just read a few of the posts from various posters before posting. Which I'm guessing he didn't do. Enjoy the rest of your vacation. It's the hottest summer on record everywhere else. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jpgillam jpgil...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Can't we just respectfully disagree? But you're not respectfully disagreeing, Brian~~you're fabricating. Unbelievable. Having been shown to be totally wrong, she just keeps on fabricating accusations. And *everybody here thinks that's just fine*. Thanks for putting up the good fight, Judy. Sorry I'm not in a position to join you in calling out the untruths, but that's not the way I'm wired. I have no idea how to interpret that comment, Patrick!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
On Jul 27, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Sal Sunshine wrote: What's fascinating is watching Judy-logic at work. Instead of just coming out and saying, Yeah, it *was* misleading if not dishonest of Brian not to put links in or to admit the quotes he put down *might* not have been talking about the TMO she goes through a set of mental gymnastics that would give a professional contortionist pause. And, I should have added, Brian's repeatedly ignoring my criticisms of his posting style and trying to drag the conversation into the whole area of personal attacks (which of course he posts no examples of) was another tactic that usually gets short shrift from Judy, when it's happening to her. She gets furious, in fact, when she feels someone is ignoring what she's written. You'd think with all that self-righteous anger, she's stand up for others when it happens to them, wouldn't you? But, no. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jpgillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Can't we just respectfully disagree? But you're not respectfully disagreeing, Brian~~you're fabricating. Unbelievable. Having been shown to be totally wrong, she just keeps on fabricating accusations. And *everybody here thinks that's just fine*. Thanks for putting up the good fight, Judy. Sorry I'm not in a position to join you in calling out the untruths, but that's not the way I'm wired. I have no idea how to interpret that comment, Patrick! Go for the default, Judy. Patrick was attacking you. Sadistically. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
TurquoiseB What is unbelievable is that an almost-70-year-old woman is incapable of controlling the hatred she feels for another woman on this forum (Sal), hatred that in my considered opinion she feels for no more intelligent reasons than 1) Sal continually laughs at Judy, 2) Sal can't be lured into the arguments that Judy feeds on like a vampire, and 3) other people actually *like* and care about Sal, whereas almost no one pays any attention *whatsoever* to Judy any more. She has finally achieved Willytex Level. Don't you just hate that Willytex! It's fascinating, just dropping in long enough to scan what's been going on, that Brian (who won't be missed whether the door hit him in the ass on his way out or not) complained about people trying to score points So, this is how you score points. here but missed the person who started that whole routine on FFL in the first place and who now seemingly cannot live without it. I go on vacation, Vaj lays low, Curtis gets bored within a week, and so Judy finds herself with nothing to talk about (because she hasn't had a creative thought in decades) and no one to argue with (because the other folks here are too sane to bother with her). So, you went for a visit to flea-town. So what does she do? She makes up a battle between her- self and Sal *that never existed except in her mind*, and then declares Sal the loser of this battle. How SAD. What a commercial for TM that this sad old bag lady from New Jersey and a similarly sad German now living in Norway are what the TMO trots out here as its defenders. I suspect Brian bailed because he belatedly realized that if Judy and Nabby were the best he had on his side he'd better get out while the gettin' was good. :-) We thought maybe you were getting out for good' - now you're back in the fight? Don't you just hate that Judy!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
Can't we just respectfully disagree? Sal: But you're not respectfully disagreeing, Brian~~you're fabricating. feste37: Brian is quite correct in saying that these studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals. So, Brian wasn't fabricating anything, and so Judy waxed Sal real good - now the Turq wants to jump in the fight and get waxed himself. While all the rest of the informants just stay silent. Go figure. Maybe Sal should just keep her big pie hole shut and stop with all the name-calling and stop calling people 'fabricators' for no good reason. Apparently Sal does not want to discuss anything about the ME - she hates her ole guru, the Maharishi.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: snip What's fascinating is watching Judy-logic at work. Instead of just coming out and saying, Yeah, it *was* misleading if not dishonest of Brian not to put links in or to admit the quotes he put down *might* not have been talking about the TMO she goes through a set of mental gymnastics that would give a professional contortionist pause. Sal's not exactly the best person to analyze a logical argument; she seems totally immune to logic and has been since I first arrived here. I mean, anything is possible. It's possible a purple dragon with pink polka-dots is sitting on Sal's shoulder as she types, but that's so vanishingly unlikely it doesn't make much sense to say it might be the case. As Brian pointed out, those quotes have been around on various TM Web sites for many years, most of them dating from the Jerusalem study published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution in 1988. The quotes aren't linked to anything *on* the TM Web sites, so it's not clear what links Brian could have provided, except to those Web sites themselves, which wouldn't help any if one is determined to believe they're somehow fraudulent (and as Sal demonstrated, they're easy to look up on Google anyway). Plus which, in addition to Gurr, only one of them is from someone not associated with TM, so it's pretty strange to think the rest might be fraudulent. Folks associated with TM would be *expected* to support the Maharishi Effect, so their endorsement carries little weight. All that aside, the Gurr quote *clearly* refers to the Maharishi Effect, since the original quote (provided by Sal) uses the term coherence-creating groups. Sal finally was forced to admit there were no other groups that used the term, so why she's still accusing Brain of dishonesty is, to say the least, unclear. It's not exactly rocket science to make that observation, nor is it contorted or complicated. And then there's the rest of the quote referring to many studies that replicate the findings, which should make it extra-special-crystal-clear-even-to-a-total- idiot that Gurr is talking about the ME. So Sal has just shown us a sterling example of *her* logic... And what follows is a sterling example of her inability not just to grasp the logic of an argument, but to comprehend what the argument actually contended: It reminds me of my all-time favorite in Judy-logic (that being defined as logic that only Judy and her followers can, um, follow) is proving that Kevin Costner was racist Um, no. when the movie he directed, Dances With Wolves, had the audacity to show the Indian women with neat, pulled-back or braided hair, while the main white woman wore her hair in a a slatternly (Judy's actual word, I believe) manner. That, good friends, proves he was racist against ...the Indians! Jesus. If anyone can follow those contortions and actually make sense of them, they are doing a lot better than me. Here's my basic argument on this point from one of my first posts about it (#238192) (things got a *lot* more complicated when Barry contorted himself into a pretzel trying to claim my argument proved I wasn't a feminist): - I don't know, maybe they thought the messy hair kept her from looking too glamorous. But she was by far the most prominent woman in the film, and it gave the impression that she had somehow become wild and savage when she was taken in by the tribe, as if Indian women were naturally unkempt--except that the others weren't! It seemed as though the filmmakers hadn't thought it through, as if they couldn't quite cope mentally with the idea of a white woman becoming one of *them* without lowering herself and becoming uncivilized. No doubt all subconscious on the part of the filmmakers, but it was just rather unpleasant. - Actually, I loved the film, thought McDonnell did a great job. I'd seen it twice before my sister pointed out the hair thing to me. When I then saw it a third time, the incongruity was so obvious I couldn't imagine how I'd missed it the first two times. Didn't change my appreciation of the film, though. I just acquired a new awareness of how subtle and pernicious racism can be--including my own, since I didn't notice it until my sister called my attention to it. - (Note the last sentence in particular.) At the time, nobody here was able to come up with a reasonable alternate explanation for the incongruity. Sal certainly didn't (nor did she express any problems with mine). But I'm all ears if she'd like to suggest one now, or even reopen the debate. I think Brian may have come in here with erroneous ideas on how, since it was a site given over to discussing TM as well as other spiritual topics, that whoever responded would lap up his wisdom like a thirsty puppy. He could have saved himself the trouble if he'd bothered to just read a few of the posts from various posters before posting. Which
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: snip And, I should have added, Brian's repeatedly ignoring my criticisms of his posting style and trying to drag the conversation into the whole area of personal attacks (which of course he posts no examples of) Other than Sal's personal attacks on Brian, Sal means. was another tactic that usually gets short shrift from Judy, when it's happening to her. She gets furious, in fact, when she feels someone is ignoring what she's written. You'd think with all that self-righteous anger, she's stand up for others when it happens to them, wouldn't you? But, no. I thought I came down pretty strongly on Sal for her personal attacks on Brian. Maybe she missed all those posts...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip What is *unbelievable is that an almost-70-year-old woman is incapable of controlling the hatred she feels for another woman on this forum (Sal), hatred that in my considered opinion she feels for no more intelligent reasons than 1) Sal continually laughs at Judy, 2) Sal can't be lured into the arguments that Judy feeds on like a vampire Uh-oh, Barry's memory is on the fritz big-time. What he's forgotten is how *Sal* used to constantly pick fights with *me*, completely out of the blue. When she finally realized she wasn't having any success drawing blood and was just making herself look STOPID, she decided to stop interacting with me at all and just lob cowardly little spitballs from time to time. Which is fine with me. But it doesn't mean I have to stop criticizing her for her equally STPID attacks on others. , and 3) other people actually *like* and care about Sal, whereas almost no one pays any attention *whatsoever* to Judy any more. She has finally achieved Willytex Level. Doesn't Barry just wish! It's fascinating, just dropping in long enough to scan what's been going on, that Brian (who won't be missed whether the door hit him in the ass on his way out or not) complained about people trying to score points here but missed the person who started that whole routine on FFL in the first place BWAHAHAHA. This from the dude who was trying to score points against me here before I ever even *showed up*. and who now seemingly cannot live without it. I go on vacation, Vaj lays low, Curtis gets bored within a week, and so Judy finds herself with nothing to talk about (because she hasn't had a creative thought in decades) and no one to argue with (because the other folks here are too sane to bother with her). Except for those who aren't, of course. And Barry seems to have missed Sal's announcement that she was going to take over for Barry while he was away. If her attacks on the newbie, raunchy, me, and Brian are any indication, she certainly isn't going to be improving on his success rate. So what does she do? She makes up a battle between her- self and Sal *that never existed except in her mind*, Er, Barry seems to be confusing me with Brian... and then declares Sal the loser of this battle. ...and hallucinating declarations from me that I never made. If anything, the post Barry's responding to is a declaration that *Sal* has won, since (as I said) nobody here but me thinks there's anything wrong with her behavior. How SAD. What a commercial for TM that this sad old bag lady from New Jersey and a similarly sad German now living in Norway are what the TMO trots out here as its defenders. Oh, my goodness, the old nutcase paranoia from alt.m.t about TMers participating at the behest of the TMO. Barry, your vacation doesn't seem to be doing your coherence any good. You really need to go cold turkey on FFL for a while.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfiend jstein@ wrote: Unbelievable. Having been shown to be totally wrong, she just keeps on fabricating accusations. And *everybody here thinks that's just fine*. So you think *everybody here* is a liar and hypocrite. Time for your refresher course in reading comprehension, looks like. There are liars and hypocrites here other than Sal (you, for instance); the rest just aren't bothered by lies and hypocrisy from those who indulge in them. Get it now? Or would it help if I typed it again more slowly?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
Silly Willie is still smarting from the waxing he got from Judy yesterday. He's clearly still upset about this. (And, he's feeling mighty lonely to boot!) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: TurquoiseB What is unbelievable is that an almost-70-year-old woman is incapable of controlling the hatred she feels for another woman on this forum (Sal), hatred that in my considered opinion she feels for no more intelligent reasons than 1) Sal continually laughs at Judy, 2) Sal can't be lured into the arguments that Judy feeds on like a vampire, and 3) other people actually *like* and care about Sal, whereas almost no one pays any attention *whatsoever* to Judy any more. She has finally achieved Willytex Level. Don't you just hate that Willytex! It's fascinating, just dropping in long enough to scan what's been going on, that Brian (who won't be missed whether the door hit him in the ass on his way out or not) complained about people trying to score points So, this is how you score points. here but missed the person who started that whole routine on FFL in the first place and who now seemingly cannot live without it. I go on vacation, Vaj lays low, Curtis gets bored within a week, and so Judy finds herself with nothing to talk about (because she hasn't had a creative thought in decades) and no one to argue with (because the other folks here are too sane to bother with her). So, you went for a visit to flea-town. So what does she do? She makes up a battle between her- self and Sal *that never existed except in her mind*, and then declares Sal the loser of this battle. How SAD. What a commercial for TM that this sad old bag lady from New Jersey and a similarly sad German now living in Norway are what the TMO trots out here as its defenders. I suspect Brian bailed because he belatedly realized that if Judy and Nabby were the best he had on his side he'd better get out while the gettin' was good. :-) We thought maybe you were getting out for good' - now you're back in the fight? Don't you just hate that Judy!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
Joe: Silly Willie is still smarting from the waxing he got from Judy yesterday. He's clearly still upset about this. Which one? Today is the July 27th, right? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/253087 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/253107 (And, he's feeling mighty lonely to boot!) Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to, Joe. But, it would be better if you would actually read the posts BEFORE you make your comments! You and Sal make a good debating pair - both really stooopid! LOL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jpgillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Can't we just respectfully disagree? But you're not respectfully disagreeing, Brian~~you're fabricating. Unbelievable. Having been shown to be totally wrong, she just keeps on fabricating accusations. And *everybody here thinks that's just fine*. Thanks for putting up the good fight, Judy. Sorry I'm not in a position to join you in calling out the untruths, but that's not the way I'm wired. I have no idea how to interpret that comment, Patrick! Go for the default, Judy. Patrick was attacking you. Sadistically. :-) ;-) I mean I appreciate Judy posts that point out inconsistencies, rationalizations and outright falsehoods - editor stuff, in other words. I read such posts, but I seldom write them.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
On Jul 27, 2010, at 9:41 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Thanks for putting up the good fight, Judy. Sorry I'm not in a position to join you in calling out the untruths, but that's not the way I'm wired. I have no idea how to interpret that comment, Patrick! Go for the default, Judy. Patrick was attacking you. Sadistically. :-) You may have meant this humorously, Barry, but I think it's pretty close to the truth. Judy's default position really *does* seem to be, that if you're not defending her or proclaiming her wisdom to the heavens, that you are by default attacking her. Because while that may not be what you intended at all, she *knows* what you are thinking, (better than you do yourself, of course) she *knows* when you're awake...and well, you know the rest. :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
I missed this post. This research means nothing because it is methodologically flawed. How were the measures taken? What was the control period. Anyone with even a little training in doing this type of research will see huge holes in it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: Rick I have sent this 4 times today to FFL but it's not posting. Any suggestions why? Could you post for me? thanks! Brian Sal, My understanding from Ted Gurr's colleague John Davies is that he stands by his quote but is not involved with TM or TM research and does not want to comment further on it. All of the quotes I listed were published in articles and websites reviewing the Maharishi Effect research. The authors of these quotes are well known and the quotes have been around for 10 years or more. If any were not correct the authors have had plenty of time to challenge them or withdraw them. None have, including Prof Gurr. I compiled this list for a proposal to the Bermuda Police Commissioner when I was living there. He was so impressed with the research he offered in-kind support from the Bermuda Police for a demonstration of the Maharishi Effect. We were given exclusive use of the Bermuda Police Recreation Club for 2 weeks. With Maharishi's approval we gathered 50 Sidhas in Bermuda in March of 2000 for 2 weeks. And we had a 10 member Review Board of persons with significant positions in the community. These included the President of the Chamber of Commerce, The Vice President of the Senate, The Commissioner of Prisons, The Director of the Natural History Museum, The President of the Bermuda Employers Council and other well known persons. The Review Board were asked to witness our prediction we would reduce violent crime by at least 20% for the 2 weeks of the experiment, compared to a control period which we specified in advance would be the weekly violent crime for the 4 weeks prior to the experiment. The results we found were; Violent Crimes % Change Prior 4 weeks Average 9 - Week 1 of experiment 7 -22.2% Week 2 of experiment 6 -33.3% Week 1 after 4 -55.6% Week 2 after10 +11.1% Bermuda is very small place and these numbers are too small to be considered statistically significant. So this study does not rank amongst the 40 or so peer reviewed studies of the Maharishi Effect. But it was impressive enough to our Review Board that they all provided comments supportive of doing further experiments of the Maharishi Effect in Bermuda. The participants in the course all reported that this was one of the most fulfilling WPA's they'd ever participated in, and I still get comments to this effect. I personally feel that when the super radiance number of a country is reached for the first time it creates a huge wave of bliss in the participants. It was certainly so in Bermuda in 2000. Sal, I don't know why you feel to attack so strongly people with whom you disagree. Can't we just respectfully disagree? As to the Maharishi Effect - it's certainly a paradigm breaking concept while we may not understand how it works - it's been shown to work many times and published in peer reviewed journals. Bermuda Creating Coherence Project (March 2000) Review Board Members' Comments Senator Walton Brown Jr., President, Research Innovations Limited: In my view the link between the onset of the project and the demonstrated decline in criminal activity clearly merits greater attention, if only because this is what was predicted. More importantly, if there is a genuine correlation between the Creating Coherence Project and diminished criminal activity -however this might be explained -there is a clear public policy dimension involved here. In order to lend greater support to what is suggested by these initial findings, I believe it is important to conduct more studies of the same nature and over different time periods. In this way, one will be able to determine whether or not a pattern exists, or if it is simply part of the normal variance. With more information, and if this continues to support the argument, you will have a compelling story to tell and quite likely influence public policy on these and related issues. Cris Valdes Dapena, President, Bermuda Chamber of Commerce: The achievement of attaining a hoped-for and predicted goal is considerable and appears to earn the respect even of those versed in statistical sciences -despite the fact that the inevitably small sample sizes undermine the possibility of 'statistical significance'. I suggest the local results be more widely publicised within Bermuda, with the contextual element of other, larger scale studies as a background. The fact that this work has
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, drpetersutphen drpetersutp...@... wrote: I missed this post. And apparently didn't read it when you did see it. Every one of the commenters Brian quotes--and Brian himself--pointed out that the study couldn't be taken as conclusive because the sample size was too small to be statistically significant. They all said further study would be needed. This research means nothing because it is methodologically flawed. How were the measures taken? What was the control period. Well, actually you don't know whether it was methodologically flawed, other than the small sample size, because Brian didn't say how the measures were taken (although he did explain the control period; apparently you didn't read that part). You have to *know what the methodology was* before you can say whether it was flawed. Anyone with even a little training in doing this type of research will see huge holes in it. Again, other than the small sample size, they won't see huge holes in it from this post because the post doesn't give any of the methodological details. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@ wrote: Rick I have sent this 4 times today to FFL but it's not posting. Any suggestions why? Could you post for me? thanks! Brian Sal, My understanding from Ted Gurr's colleague John Davies is that he stands by his quote but is not involved with TM or TM research and does not want to comment further on it. All of the quotes I listed were published in articles and websites reviewing the Maharishi Effect research. The authors of these quotes are well known and the quotes have been around for 10 years or more. If any were not correct the authors have had plenty of time to challenge them or withdraw them. None have, including Prof Gurr. I compiled this list for a proposal to the Bermuda Police Commissioner when I was living there. He was so impressed with the research he offered in-kind support from the Bermuda Police for a demonstration of the Maharishi Effect. We were given exclusive use of the Bermuda Police Recreation Club for 2 weeks. With Maharishi's approval we gathered 50 Sidhas in Bermuda in March of 2000 for 2 weeks. And we had a 10 member Review Board of persons with significant positions in the community. These included the President of the Chamber of Commerce, The Vice President of the Senate, The Commissioner of Prisons, The Director of the Natural History Museum, The President of the Bermuda Employers Council and other well known persons. The Review Board were asked to witness our prediction we would reduce violent crime by at least 20% for the 2 weeks of the experiment, compared to a control period which we specified in advance would be the weekly violent crime for the 4 weeks prior to the experiment. The results we found were; Violent Crimes % Change Prior 4 weeks Average 9 - Week 1 of experiment 7 -22.2% Week 2 of experiment 6 -33.3% Week 1 after 4 -55.6% Week 2 after10 +11.1% Bermuda is very small place and these numbers are too small to be considered statistically significant. So this study does not rank amongst the 40 or so peer reviewed studies of the Maharishi Effect. But it was impressive enough to our Review Board that they all provided comments supportive of doing further experiments of the Maharishi Effect in Bermuda. The participants in the course all reported that this was one of the most fulfilling WPA's they'd ever participated in, and I still get comments to this effect. I personally feel that when the super radiance number of a country is reached for the first time it creates a huge wave of bliss in the participants. It was certainly so in Bermuda in 2000. Sal, I don't know why you feel to attack so strongly people with whom you disagree. Can't we just respectfully disagree? As to the Maharishi Effect - it's certainly a paradigm breaking concept while we may not understand how it works - it's been shown to work many times and published in peer reviewed journals. Bermuda Creating Coherence Project (March 2000) Review Board Members' Comments Senator Walton Brown Jr., President, Research Innovations Limited: In my view the link between the onset of the project and the demonstrated decline in criminal activity clearly merits greater attention, if only because this is what was predicted. More importantly, if there is a genuine correlation between the Creating Coherence Project and diminished criminal activity -however this might be explained -there is a clear public policy dimension involved here. In order to lend greater support to what is suggested by
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jul 27, 2010, at 9:41 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Thanks for putting up the good fight, Judy. Sorry I'm not in a position to join you in calling out the untruths, but that's not the way I'm wired. I have no idea how to interpret that comment, Patrick! Go for the default, Judy. Patrick was attacking you. Sadistically. :-) You may have meant this humorously, Barry, but I think it's pretty close to the truth. Judy's default position really *does* seem to be, that if you're not defending her or proclaiming her wisdom to the heavens, that you are by default attacking her. No, that's not my default position, or my position any other way. Wrong again, Sal. Because while that may not be what you intended at all, she *knows* what you are thinking, (better than you do yourself, of course) she *knows* when you're awake...and well, you know the rest. :) Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: snip Because while that may not be what you intended at all, she *knows* what you are thinking, (better than you do yourself, of course) she *knows* when you're awake...and well, you know the rest. :) Plus which, notice that Sal is commenting on a post in which I told Patrick I had no idea how to interpret what he said! Fish in a barrel, folks, fish in a barrel.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
You can always tell that Judy is losing it when she feels that it requires two posts in a row from her to properly respond to one post from another woman. Another woman like Sal. Or Ruth. If you're into B movies, there is a real Queen-dyke-in-a-womens-prison vibe to Judy's responses when she gets into this mode. Real work of art stuff, Roger Corman-wise. Not to be missed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: snip Because while that may not be what you intended at all, she *knows* what you are thinking, (better than you do yourself, of course) she *knows* when you're awake...and well, you know the rest. :) Plus which, notice that Sal is commenting on a post in which I told Patrick I had no idea how to interpret what he said! Fish in a barrel, folks, fish in a barrel.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
Fish in a barrel, folks, fish in a barrel. TurquoiseB: You can always tell that Judy is losing it when she feels that it requires two posts in a row from her to properly respond to one post from another woman. You can always tell that Turq is losing it when he feels that it requires 9 posts in one day (so far) to comment on Judy, to get her to properly wax him really good, one more time. Turq can't seem to hit a fish in a barrel - Turq is obviously floundering! What was he smoking on his vacation up in Flea Town?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
Even though my post was delayed, you're clearly still smarting from this one: Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: authfriend: snip You know, along these lines: I have noticed that the 'heavy hitters' of the spiritual world tended towards DIY -- Do It Yourself... So, some 'heavy hitters' of the spiritual world have written a book about your guru, the Maharishi? No, you've *wildly* distorted the point I was making, very deliberately. You may not be psychotic, but you're almost as dishonest as Barry and Vaj. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Joe: Silly Willie is still smarting from the waxing he got from Judy yesterday. He's clearly still upset about this. Which one? Today is the July 27th, right? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/253087 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/253107 (And, he's feeling mighty lonely to boot!) Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to, Joe. But, it would be better if you would actually read the posts BEFORE you make your comments! You and Sal make a good debating pair - both really stooopid! LOL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
He's frothing at the mouth because I caught him contradicting his own comments last year about French women, this year attributing the same characteristics to Dutch women and saying French women are lacking in them. He could be sitting in a cave writing all this crap. It has nothing to do with where he is or which women he's comparing. It's the same spiel every time. If he were really *observing* and *thinking* rather than just arranging words prettily on his monitor, he wouldn't forget about what he'd said previously and say it all over again about different women. (Not surprisingly, he's been quite consistent in what he says about *American* women. Whatever other women he's talking about, American women have to be at the very bottom of the heap. So much for nonhierarchical thinking...) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Fish in a barrel, folks, fish in a barrel. TurquoiseB: You can always tell that Judy is losing it when she feels that it requires two posts in a row from her to properly respond to one post from another woman. You can always tell that Turq is losing it when he feels that it requires 9 posts in one day (so far) to comment on Judy, to get her to properly wax him really good, one more time. Turq can't seem to hit a fish in a barrel - Turq is obviously floundering! What was he smoking on his vacation up in Flea Town?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfr...@... wrote: Silly Willie is still smarting from the waxing he got from Judy yesterday. Brazilian?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
According to my sources, yes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Silly Willie is still smarting from the waxing he got from Judy yesterday. Brazilian?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Can't we just respectfully disagree? If you had bothered reading for 5 minutes before coming in here, you might have noted that there are a significant amount of people here very skeptical of *any* grandiose claims that can't be backed up. Right. The significant amount of people Sal reffers to are Barry and Vaj. Both professional TM-haters and socalled Buddisths with strong agendas towards the TMO. Sal is known for several things on this forum. Brightness is not one of them. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Can't we just respectfully disagree? But you're not respectfully disagreeing, Brian~~you're fabricating. Unbelievable. Having been shown to be totally wrong, she just keeps on fabricating accusations. And *everybody here thinks that's just fine*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
These posting problems here have been frustrating over the last 48 hours. Seems Yahoo Groups is getting overloaded. I think it's time for me to quit this group. It's also a downer to me to read so many posts that appear more interested in scoring points than sharing news and inspiration. There are 1376 members here, a few persistently negative voices launching ad hominem attacks in almost every post can really put people off participating. And the almost daily attacks on the moderator Rick are appalling to me! I think the whole nature of the forum is becoming outdated by more friendly interfaces such as Facebook. At least in Facebook most use their own names, show their faces, and give some personal info. It helps to keep discussion civil. Sal. You seem to be one of the most frequent to use ad hominem attacks. In this case by accusing me of fabrications several times. Simply because I didn't provide any links. Anyone can find the source I quoted with google. Just take the whole phrase, put in inverted commas and do a google search. The Gurr quote with ME has 7 hits - mostly in the UK. I provided the quotes I got from Bermuda business leaders on the ME project we did in Bermuda simply to show more testimonials. Is that selling an idea that's not welcome on FFL or offering further opinions of intelligent people who have studied the results of an ME demonstration? Probably because this issue is a paradigm breaker it arouses such strong adverse reactions. Interestingly John Davies's students could teach FFL a lot about how to resolve differences without aggression or ad hominem attacks. I had the pleasure of hosting John and his wife for a week in my home in Bermuda in the 90's and learned so much about the Maharishi Effect. And how he engaged the different audiences I had him speak to. In one lecture I remember him going through many different levels of approach to conflict resolution- I recall about 9. And the last he simply described as Being and gave the briefest mention of meditation before ending and opening for questions. It was the softest introduction to a discussion that ensued (in the question time) on the Maharishi Effect that I have ever heard. It was to a Rotary lunch and carried live on the radio and excerpted on the TV evening news. It's rare that I see discussion anywhere close to being this respectful or sincere on FFL. So for me this is goodbye and I wish you all the best on your individual journeys of discovery. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Can't we just respectfully disagree? But you're not respectfully disagreeing, Brian~~you're fabricating. And you're not providing any links, either. That is almost de rigeur internet etiquette when you post something. To not do so makes it look like you're hiding something. Or fabricating. As to the Maharishi Effect - it's certainly a paradigm breaking concept while we may not understand how it works - it's been shown to work many times and published in peer reviewed journals. Link, please. I could find no citations for this anywhere on the Web. And it's perfectly fine if you want to live in your own world, Brian, in which you get to set the rules~~daydreams are like that. No harm done unless you expect others to live by the same rules. And when you come to a place like this and make grandiose claims that you then can't back up~~don't expect others to swallow the garbage whole. And besides, if you really had found something you valued and it was working for you, you almost surely would not come around like a salesman trying to peddle it to others. Is it your impression none of us have heard these lines before? If you had bothered reading for 5 minutes before coming in here, you might have noted that there are a significant amount of people here very skeptical of *any* grandiose claims that can't be backed up. And so far, yours can't. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Jul 26, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Rick Archer wrote: Can't we just respectfully disagree? But you're not respectfully disagreeing, Brian~~you're fabricating. And you're not providing any links, either. That is almost de rigeur internet etiquette when you post something. To not do so makes it look like you're hiding something. Or fabricating. As to the Maharishi Effect - it's certainly a paradigm breaking concept while we may not understand how it works - it's been shown to work many times and published in peer reviewed journals. Link, please. I could find no citations for this anywhere on the Web. Try this URL from David Orme-Johnson's site. You can download a pdf file that lists all the ME studies that have been done: http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/SocietalEffects/Rationale-Research/index.cfm Brian is quite correct in saying that these studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Bermuda Creating Coherence Project (March 2000) Review Board Members' Comments Senator Walton Brown Jr., President, Research Innovations Limited: In my view the link between the onset of the project and the demonstrated decline in criminal activity clearly merits greater attention, if only because this is what was predicted. More importantly, if there is a genuine correlation between the Creating Coherence Project and diminished criminal activity however this might be explained there is a clear public policy dimension involved here. In order to lend greater support to what is suggested by these initial findings, I believe it is important to conduct more studies of the same nature and over different time periods. In this way, one will be able to determine whether or not a pattern exists, or if it is simply part of the normal variance. With more information, and if this continues to support the argument, you will have a compelling story to tell and quite likely influence public policy on these and related issues. Cris Valdes Dapena, President, Bermuda Chamber of Commerce: The achievement of attaining a hoped-for and predicted goal is considerable and appears to earn the respect even of those versed in statistical sciences despite the fact that the inevitably small sample sizes undermine the possibility of `statistical significance'. I suggest the local results be more widely publicised within Bermuda, with the contextual element of other, larger scale studies as a background. The fact that this work has had a measurable effect in other locations would undoubtedly come as news to most people and render the local results more credible in many minds. I am supportive of the project and of its being repeated or, ideally, continued in some fashion on an ongoing basis in the future. Clare Hatcher, Barrister and Attorney, Francis Forrest: it has been my view since the preliminary results came out that, even though the study in the 1980's also had positive results, a longer study would probably be needed if wider support for the TM method in reducing crime levels is to be garnered. There seem to be no real downsides to such further study or studies save for the enormous amount of organisational work involved and the cost and the advantages may well include (on the basis of past prediction and experience here and elsewhere) the immeasurable community benefit of reduced crime rates for the relevant period. I think the approach of the BCCP is exciting and fitting for the new century. I think the energy and enthusiasm that has been put into it is quite amazing and that the existence of the possibility of channeling of that energy into any future projects augurs well for the future of the project and for Bermuda as a whole. Sen. Dr. Idwal W. Hughes, Vice President of the Senate: My concerns over the small sample size and the lack of replications still make me skeptical of the claimed correlation. I share the views of Jamsheed Khan that repeating the project in Bermuda over a longer period of time is the best way to support the claim that group meditation can indeed bring about statistically significant and reproducible reductions in violent crimes. Jamsheed Khan, Statistician, Bank of Bermuda: The low weekly counts of crime statistics for the BCCP mean that standard statistical tests of significance, such as the Student's Ttest will not be applicable in this case. More sophisticated techniques using time series analysis are generally not applicable when the data counts fall below 30. Repeating the project in Bermuda over a longer period is the best way to lend support to the theory that meditating groups can lower violent crime. The fact that the results were what was expected, by itself, warrants further study/investigation it will be
[FairfieldLife] Re: Posting for Brian
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfiend jst...@... wrote: Unbelievable. Having been shown to be totally wrong, she just keeps on fabricating accusations. And *everybody here thinks that's just fine*. So you think *everybody here* is a liar and hypocrite. Rght.
