-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
(Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?
Why people like you don't like me, you mean? Not
for a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:08 AM, authfriend wrote:
Vaj, I'm close to my limit for the week. I'll get to your
deceitful bafflegab about the TM research on Saturday.
In the meantime, I'll deal with *this* piece of deceit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a side note, what's interesting about this BBC synopsis on the show,
and the BBC show it self - is how the BBC now feel the need to dumb-down
everything and add drama all the time.
They make it seem like research
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 3:28 PM, sparaig wrote:
Well, the 2004 study and its sister study on the same subjects was
done on people
reporting 24 hour a day witnessing for at least one year.
Obviously, since they are
On Apr 4, 2008, at 6:26 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 3:28 PM, sparaig wrote:
Well, the 2004 study and its sister study on the same subjects was
done on people
reporting 24 hour a day witnessing for at least one
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just finished watching it and I share some of your observatiosn but
really thought the perfect TM family and the whole TM experience
came
across as pretty weird.
Ah, weird - Vaj's buzzword.
The weirdest person around
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 4, 2008, at 6:26 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 3:28 PM, sparaig wrote:
Well, the 2004 study and its sister study on the same subjects
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
But it does still say it on there somewhere! I went there to
check I was
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad
data and
On Apr 2, 2008, at 3:28 PM, sparaig wrote:
Well, the 2004 study and its sister study on the same subjects was
done on people
reporting 24 hour a day witnessing for at least one year.
Obviously, since they are already
IN what the reserachers considered CC, expecting them to enter it
at
Just finished watching it and I share some of your observatiosn but
really thought the perfect TM family and the whole TM experience came
across as pretty weird.
On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:02 PM, gruntlespam wrote:
Just finished watching the program...
If you are in the UK you can watch the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just finished watching it and I share some of your observatiosn but
really thought the perfect TM family and the whole TM experience came
across as pretty weird.
On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:02 PM, gruntlespam wrote:
Just
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@
wrote:
Has had published, in major physics journals. (This
was pre-MUM, but
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote:
Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had
assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well
established. But I came across this 2007
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
snip
Another nice review of meditation research can be found in
The Cambridge Handbook of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that
do show methodologies and results they would accept
for any meditation practice?
How could we answer that, since we're not the researchers in question?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Presumably you've read the thing and know what their
criteria were for rejecting the ones they did reject.
They've got a whole list and they state their reasons
briefly. Criteria also emerge from their own
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
snip
Well, most people who push the Consciousness as teh Unified
Field
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:08 AM, gruntlespam wrote:
On a side note, what's interesting about this BBC synopsis on the
show,
and the BBC show it self - is how the BBC now feel the need to dumb-
down
everything and add
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, dhamiltony2k5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great summary links. Thanks.
With all those descriptive parts directly written about other
techniques in these papers, anyone in the dome probably ought to have
their badges revoked immediately for just reading
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, uns_tressor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
I thought she should have learned TM as she tried the
others, but you don't know what went on behind the scenes,
she may have asked to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam
gruntlespam@
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote:
And of course the study in question only lists the studies
they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known
as the APA style, common in almost all research for
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:29 PM, claudiouk wrote:
How about:
Transcendental Meditation Effective In Reducing High Blood Pressure,
Study Shows
ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) � People with high blood pressure may
find
On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:29 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote:
And of course the study in question only lists the studies
they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known
as the APA
On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:47 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:29 PM, claudiouk wrote:
How about:
Transcendental Meditation Effective In Reducing High Blood
Pressure,
Study Shows
ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) — People
On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:
Sorry, about that last truncated message that got sent
by accident before I finished typing it.
So, what I was gonna say was Well, then, I'd like an
explanation for why they would just ignore twenty
years worth of research. If true, that is
On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:44 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote:
Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had
assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well
On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:53 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that
do show methodologies and results they would accept
for any meditation practice?
How could we answer that,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
Has had published, in major physics journals. (This
was pre-MUM, but Lawson's point is that he was already
doing professional-level work in this
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
snip
Has had published, in major physics journals. (This
was pre-MUM, but Lawson's
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
I thought that might be the case. Hugheshugo has the
Hagelin's D.C. study confused with Orme-Johnson et al.'s
Jerusalem study.
Well you
On Apr 2, 2008, at 8:46 AM, hugheshugo wrote:
God, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, I'm starting to feel guilty.
I know how you feel!
On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote:
So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for?
It's for research that's considered laughable and that cannot, or
should not, be reproduced.
Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of
pseudoscience.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
snip
I thought that might be the case. Hugheshugo has the
Hagelin's
Vaj, I'm close to my limit for the week. I'll get to your
deceitful bafflegab about the TM research on Saturday.
In the meantime, I'll deal with *this* piece of deceit
from you:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:08 AM, authfriend wrote:
Vaj, I'm close to my limit for the week. I'll get to your
deceitful bafflegab about the TM research on Saturday.
In the meantime, I'll deal with *this* piece of deceit
from you:
Don't bother unless you have some independent research on TM you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?
The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either Vaj or Hugheshugo
claim they are.
My claim was a quote from their website;
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
(Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?
The Ig Nobel Awards are not what either
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
[...]
Er, do you think, regardless of whether or not his theories are
valid (I'm not claiming that
his current theories are, BTW) that what he presents
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:44 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote:
Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
(Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
Do you ever
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:
Sorry, about that last truncated message that got sent
by accident before I finished typing it.
So, what I was gonna say was Well, then, I'd like an
explanation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 4:53 AM, sparaig wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
mailander111@ wrote:
Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that
do show methodologies and results they
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
Again, did you read John's math-laden papers on the subject?
They're philosophical in
nature, rather than scientific, but the insights he gained
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:29 PM, authfriend wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote:
[...]
As in previous desperate attempts to somehow make a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote:
So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for?
It's for research that's considered laughable and that cannot, or
should not, be reproduced.
Lacking
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
(Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
Do you ever wonder why people don't like you?
You barged into the bank and shouted,
I've got a mind
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
Again, did you read John's math-laden papers on the subject?
They're
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
(Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
Do you ever wonder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad data
and exaggerated claims,
How many years have you been peddling this unsubstabtiated BS here Vaj,
and how much more of your life will you waste on this
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
No TMO researchers have been caught a number of times with bad
data
and exaggerated claims,
How many years have you been peddling this
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just finished watching the program...
She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice-
over how that's not
even been established yet. Shame they could not get John Hagelin
to have a chat with
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam gruntlespam@
wrote:
Just finished watching the program...
She hears about the Unified Field Theory and remarks in the voice-
over how that's not
even
On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:10 PM, gruntlespam wrote:
Sorry - not sure why my lines are wrapping, I'm on a Mac.
Click on the subject at the top of my post, then show msg info,
then unwrap lines.
What's the secret to no line wrapping on a Mac??
Note - Stephen Fry is not in the show at all.
On a side note, what's interesting about this BBC synopsis on the show,
and the BBC show it self - is how the BBC now feel the need to dumb-down
everything and add drama all the time.
They make it seem like research is just starting, when it's been going on
for years. And the point about interest
On Apr 1, 2008, at 10:05 AM, claudiouk wrote:
Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had
assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well
established. But I came across this 2007 independent review which
doesn't appear to rate any of the meditation research..
Yes I think the cortex thikening is interesting. I must say I had
assumed that the evidence of health benefits of TM was well
established. But I came across this 2007 independent review which
doesn't appear to rate any of the meditation research.. (same one
cited on the programme?):
On Apr 1, 2008, at 9:08 AM, gruntlespam wrote:
On a side note, what's interesting about this BBC synopsis on the
show,
and the BBC show it self - is how the BBC now feel the need to dumb-
down
everything and add drama all the time.
They make it seem like research is just starting, when
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought she should have learned TM as she tried the
others, but you don't know what went on behind the scenes,
she may have asked to film
the teaching or asked for a freebie...
The fee would not have been an
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam
gruntlespam@
wrote:
Quantum physics and jyotish nuff said.
Well, most people who
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Another nice review of meditation research can be found in
The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for
neuroscientists from Cambridge University. It's section on
meditation and neurosceince objectively
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always thought his job is to hoodwink the party faithful by
blinding them with little understood, but vaguely familiar,
scientific concepts into thinking the knowledge is on stable
ground.
Bingo. There is no
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
snip
Another nice review of meditation research can be found in
The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, a textbook for
neuroscientists from Cambridge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote:
snip
Well, most people who push the Consciousness as teh Unified
Field idea don't understand Hagelin's writings about it. For
that matter, those that
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
snip
Another nice review of meditation research can be found in
The Cambridge Handbook of
Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that
do show methodologies and results they would accept
for any meditation practice?
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
How about:
Transcendental Meditation Effective In Reducing High Blood Pressure,
Study Shows
ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) People with high blood pressure may
find relief from transcendental meditation, according to a definitive
new meta-analysis of 107 published studies on stress reduction
Great summary links. Thanks.
With all those descriptive parts directly written about other
techniques in these papers, anyone in the dome probably ought to have
their badges revoked immediately for just reading these papers.
Worst than confusing, this material is outright corrupting to the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that
do show methodologies and results they would accept
for any meditation practice?
It would be up to them to accept them or not,
obviously.
---
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
mailander111@ wrote:
Can you cite studies that these folks have missed that
do show methodologies and results they would accept
for any meditation practice?
Presumably you've read the thing and know what their
criteria were for rejecting the ones they did reject.
They've got a whole list and they state their reasons
briefly. Criteria also emerge from their own
procedures. If you're knowledgeable about these
things, why not just cite the studies?
On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote:
And of course the study in question only lists the studies
they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known
as the APA style, common in almost all research for
publication.
More disingenuity. The *problem* is that they did not
refer to
On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:29 PM, claudiouk wrote:
How about:
Transcendental Meditation Effective In Reducing High Blood Pressure,
Study Shows
ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) — People with high blood pressure may
find relief from transcendental meditation, according to a definitive
new meta-analysis of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Presumably you've read the thing and know what their
criteria were for rejecting the ones they did reject.
They've got a whole list and they state their reasons
briefly. Criteria also emerge from their own
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:02 PM, authfriend wrote:
And of course the study in question only lists the studies
they specifically refer to! This is part of what is known
as the APA style, common in almost all research for
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 1, 2008, at 2:29 PM, claudiouk wrote:
How about:
Transcendental Meditation Effective In Reducing High Blood
Pressure,
Study Shows
ScienceDaily (Dec. 5, 2007) People with high blood pressure may
find
well, then, I'd like an
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela
Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Presumably you've read the thing and know what
their
criteria were for rejecting the ones they did
reject.
They've got a whole list and
Sorry, about that last truncated message that got sent
by accident before I finished typing it.
So, what I was gonna say was Well, then, I'd like an
explanation for why they would just ignore twenty
years worth of research. If true, that is suspect on
the face of it.
Whaddaya say, Vaj?
---
Just finished watching the program...
If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go
to the
iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you
are outside the
UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC
Sorry - not sure why my lines are wrapping, I'm on a Mac.
Click on the subject at the top of my post, then show msg info, then unwrap
lines.
What's the secret to no line wrapping on a Mac??
Note - Stephen Fry is not in the show at all. Could be another show.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sorry - not sure why my lines are wrapping, I'm on a Mac.
Click on the subject at the top of my post, then show msg info, then
unwrap lines.
What's the secret to no line wrapping on a Mac??
Note - Stephen Fry is
Just finished watching the program...
If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go
to the
iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you
are outside the
UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC
Just finished watching the program...
If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go
to the
iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you
are outside the
UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC
Just finished watching the program...
If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go
to the
iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you
are outside the
UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry - not sure why my lines are wrapping, I'm on a Mac.
Click on the subject at the top of my post, then show msg info, then
unwrap
lines.
What's the secret to no line wrapping on a Mac??
I had the same
Just finished watching the program...
If you are in the UK you can watch the program online at the BBC's website - go
to the
iPlayer section. But you MUST be in the UK - ie. with a UK IP address. If you
are outside the
UK, you will need to go via a UK proxy server, this will fool the BBC
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist
meditations, and
then
been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a simple and un-strange
environment. It
would
have been great to see what
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam gruntlespam@ wrote:
[...]
How amazing it would have been if she'd tried these other buddhist
meditations, and
then
been able to learn TM for say just $100 in a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, gruntlespam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Good points - but do you think they would have insisted on charging
her the $2,500? Would they have perhaps made an exception as she
was a journalist? I don't think so - but I could be wrong.
If you attend the
Good points - but do you think they would have insisted on charging
her the $2,500? Would they have perhaps made an exception as she
was a journalist? I don't think so - but I could be wrong.
It's considered to be unethical by major newspapers to accept freebies
or
Good synopsis and points. Actually the TM part seemed rather
insubstantial and the general impression came across that all the
scientific claims for TM (for cardiovascular effects, for instance)
did not amount to much when properly reviewed. The following piece
from BBC Health News is all about
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
