[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-12 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
snip
  Bear in mind that there's nobody on this forum in a
  position to defend the ME studies.  It's easy to make
  folks think you've debunked something when they aren't
  able to see a response to the debunking.
 
 Of course, official MUM policy appears to guarantee that we won't 
 have anyone in-the-know defending it, either...

Kurt Arbuckle had quite a bit to say on alt.m.t
about Markovsky's critique of the Jerusalem study,
and how Markovsky had fouled up his statistics.
If I have a chance I'll see if I can dig up some
of his old posts on it.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread L B Shriver 
Response below.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
 snip
  Personality issues should not enter into it and MIU should 
  have honored a request from an adjacent and major 
  university.
 
 It would have been a little like handing him a gun
 so he could shoot them.



Judy, this strikes me as a really odd thing to say.
   
   Well, actually I think you have a really odd way
   of interpreting it.  Self-serving, even.
  
  
  
  Self-serving? This strikes me as ad hominem, the type of argument
  you so famously abhor.
 
 It's only ad hominem argumentation if it's a
 *substitute* for reasoned argument.  And I wasn't
 using it as part of my argument in any case; it was
 just an observation (which I stand by).
 
  What I am trying to point out here is that for some reason you 
  appear to be arguing in favor of with-holding information, which 
  immediately invalidates any scientific research, 
  which by nature is only accepted if it is open to public scrutiny.
 
 Not arguing in favor of it, of course (speaking of
 straw men).  Just pointing out that in this case
 the fact that they did withhold information does not
 necessarily mean they had something to hide; there
 were other considerations as well.
 
  
   
Only a loaded gun can shoot someone, and only one kind of
ammunition could have hurt MIU: evidence that their conclusions 
were not vald.
   
   Or *apparent* evidence.  It's really pretty
   amusing that you're so sure the TM researchers
   massaged the data to show results that didn't
   exist, yet you can't conceive of a hostile
   researcher massaging data that shows real
   results so it ends up looking as if there are
   none.
  
  
  
  Now you are resorting to the straw man, and Big Time, if I may say
  so.
 
 Well, no, I'm not at all resorting to the straw man,
 sorry.  You need to refresh your understanding of
 rhetorical fallacies and perhaps take a look at your
 own words again.
 
  Regarding my certainty that massaging took place:
 
 I wasn't questioning that.
 
 snip long justification for certainty
 
  Now, as for your remark that I can't conceive of a hostile  
  researcher massaging data that shows real results so it ends up 
  looking as if there are none: 
  
  I have made no statements anywhere near that ball park.
 
 Oh, sure you did:  Only one kind of ammunition
 could have hurt MIU: evidence that their conclusions 
 were not vald.
 
  To this point, I have not even mentioned Markovsky. So while we're 
  on the subject, let me remove all doubt about it. 
  Markovsky does seem biased in some respects, and may even exhibiit 
  some form of David/Goliath complex, but that doesn't mean that none 
  of his criticisms are valid. They must be examined on the basis of 
  their merit, and that cannot be done unless all the evidence is 
  available.
 
 Actually the criticisms he has made, since he made them
 on the basis of what was published and not on the
 unpublished data, can be evaluated on the basis of their
 merit by examining the published study, i.e., what he
 was working with.
 
 I agree, some of his criticisms do appear to be quite
 valid (although, of course, we haven't heard a
 rebuttal from the researchers; I seem to remember
 something about the journal refusing to publish one,
 but I'm not positive about that).
 
  
  
   I don't know whether the TM researchers fudged
   the data when they massaged it.  I do know that
   they had very good reason not to give the data to
   Markovsky even if the massaging was legitimate and
   the results were genuine and everything was pure
   as the driven snow, because he had the motivation
   and the knowhow to make it *look* like garbage.
  
  
  
  It is not uncommon in the public discourse of science for
  competitors to try to descredit each other. The whole concept of 
  science as a public discipline is that the process will 
  ultimately support truth. But not if the data are  hidden.
 
 Well, but if this isn't the case, if the discrediting
 actually *suppressed* truth sometimes, we'd never know
 it, would we?  All we see are the instances in which 
 truth did win out.  So I don't think you can say this
 with such certainty.
 
  
   
That is, if they had nothing to fear, 
why not hand over the empty gun?
   
   Because Markovsky had his own bullets and powder,
   of course.
  
  
  
  As I said before, the only information that can hurt a researcher 
  is false information.
 
 I think you mean here what you said before about
 evidence that the researchers' conclusions were
 not valid (otherwise, I'd point out that false or
 at least distorted information is exactly what
 they expected from Markovsky).
 
  If MIU's

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 Science succeeds or fails as a public enterprise. Its conventions
 are agreed to by all. Like the justice system, it is as flawed as 
 the people who practice it; science sometimes fails in the same way 
 that justice sometimes fails. However, its only chance for success 
 is that people continue to participate in good faith.
 
 The movement and Markovsky have fallen into an adverasarial 
 relationship. However, I do not see how this invalidates my central 
 argument.

It doesn't, of course, nor did I suggest it did.  I
*agree* with your central argument.  I simply note
that there may be cases in which good faith can be a
pitfall rather than a benefit (as you seem to concede
when you say the enterprise sometimes fails) when
hostile researchers who are not acting in good faith
are involved.

My *only* point has been that the fact that the TM
researchers refused to give their data to Markovsky
does not automatically mean they had something to
hide, contrary to what you had suggested.  They had
good reason to fear that if they gave Markovsky the
full details of their research, he would do them and
the cause of TM, as well as the perceived promise of
the Maharishi Effect, serious damage by essentially
misrepresenting their work.

They may *also* have had something to hide; I have no
way of knowing that.  However, they had been cooperating
with him before they realized he had been out to do them
damage from the start.

And they handed Markovsky, if not a gun, at least a
cream pie to throw at them by withholding the data,
exactly because of the way it would be interpreted.
It could not have been a pleasant choice.

 The data themselves are the sine qua non of the public aspect of
 science. People can—and do—argue about how the data are processed, 
 manipulated, etc, but that argument is part of the  public process 
 of science. The underlying facts, the data themselves have to be 
 open to verification.

Yes.  And as I said, if a fair-minded researcher had
asked to see the data and the TM researchers had
refused, it would be unequivocally damning.
 
 In my experience and observation, the movement does not really care
 about science. There are of course, some scientists in the movement 
 who do, and who struggle to maintain their professional integrity, 
 but the integrity of science itself is not considered important 
 in comparison with the agenda of furthering the movement's aims.

Unfortunately true, because the good is dismissed along
with the bad.

 This is widely 
 perceived within and without the movement, and is just one reason 
why this discussion is 
 moot.
 
 While I do understand the position you have taken, and the 
 arguments in support of it, nevertheless it reminds me slightly 
 about the controversy over torturing prisoners. The president 
 says We don't torture while his administration battles against 
 legislation which would make torture illegal. The movement says it 
 has scientific proof for the benefit of its programs, but doesn't 
 want its proof examined too closely.

Well, in one case, at any rate.  More broadly, there
hasn't been enough interest on the part of science to
give TM researchers the opportunity to *show* whether
they were willing to have their evidence closely
examined.

 As I said before, the demonstration demonstrated nothing, except
 for its participants. I was a participant myself, and considered 
 the event one of the great experiences of my life, but I am 
 comfortable accepting the fact that its impact on the scientific 
 community and the public at large was next to nil.

*If* there really is a Maharishi Effect, it's hard to
see how it could be considered anything less than a tragedy
that the project and the study had no impact.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread L B Shriver 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


snip
 
 *If* there really is a Maharishi Effect, it's hard to
 see how it could be considered anything less than a tragedy
 that the project and the study had no impact.



I start to agree, then I wonder how important any of this really is in the Big 
Picture.

L B S









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread markmeredith2002 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 snip
  
  *If* there really is a Maharishi Effect, it's hard to
  see how it could be considered anything less than a tragedy
  that the project and the study had no impact.
 
 
 
 I start to agree, then I wonder how important any of this really is
in the Big Picture.
 
 L B S

A realistic impact of the course/study would have been to inspire some
other group of academics or public policy people to investigate
further with their own research.  I don't think that was the atttude
of the tmo - their attitude was 'we did this study which proves our
case, now give us a $billion in public funds to support levitators or
maybe hindu priests'.

Actually I remember being befuddled at the end of the course when MMY
on the teleconference had no interest in talking about the courese and
its effect at all - he had some huckster from south america with him
and a plan for sidhas to move to brazil to become farmers.  There was
the slogan '40 hectares for world peace or something like that.  It
was really disappointing to me after so many of us interrupted their
lives to do the course and try to prove the ME once and for all.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread Peter 


--- markmeredith2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  snip
   
   *If* there really is a Maharishi Effect, it's
 hard to
   see how it could be considered anything less
 than a tragedy
   that the project and the study had no impact.
  
  
  
  I start to agree, then I wonder how important any
 of this really is
 in the Big Picture.
  
  L B S
 
 A realistic impact of the course/study would have
 been to inspire some
 other group of academics or public policy people to
 investigate
 further with their own research.  I don't think that
 was the atttude
 of the tmo - their attitude was 'we did this study
 which proves our
 case, now give us a $billion in public funds to
 support levitators or
 maybe hindu priests'.
 
 Actually I remember being befuddled at the end of
 the course when MMY
 on the teleconference had no interest in talking
 about the courese and
 its effect at all - he had some huckster from south
 america with him
 and a plan for sidhas to move to brazil to become
 farmers.  There was
 the slogan '40 hectares for world peace or
 something like that.  It
 was really disappointing to me after so many of us
 interrupted their
 lives to do the course and try to prove the ME once
 and for all.


Perhaps MMY has Cosmic ADHD? ;-)




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ~-- 
 Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
 Yahoo! your home page

http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM

~-
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!' 
 Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 




__ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread akasha_108 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Perhaps MMY has Cosmic ADHD? ;-)
 

Like a stick through water, perhaps. A minute later, what stick?







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread Peter 


--- akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Perhaps MMY has Cosmic ADHD? ;-)
  
 
 Like a stick through water, perhaps. A minute later,
 what stick?

Exactly! Who told you to use the stick? At least it's
not Alzheimers where you forget what a stick is. With
ADD you struggle to organize the parts across time.
With Alzheimers you forget what the parts are.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ~-- 
 Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
 Yahoo! your home page

http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM

~-
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!' 
 Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 






__ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread Peter 


--- L B Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

LB, your last post in this thread was truncated, so I
couldn't include it, but I wanted to compliment you on
your observations. As you note, science is, at its
best, an international, public discourse. I can
understand MIU's reluctance to hand over the raw data
for reasons that have nothing to do with this
discourse. All movement research is for one purpose
only: to promote the teaching of TM/TM-Siddhis. It's
for PR only. Those in charge, MMY, aren't interested
in developing a coherent theory of the field effects
of consciousness. They just want to sell TM. The MIU
researchers won't hand over the raw data because the
ME is very weak, almost noise, not pattern. It can
easily be shown not to exist using alternative, and
more traditional, statistical methods used in this
type of research.




__ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread akasha_108 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 
 --- akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Perhaps MMY has Cosmic ADHD? ;-)
   
  
  Like a stick through water, perhaps. A minute later,
  what stick?
 
 Exactly! Who told you to use the stick? At least it's
 not Alzheimers where you forget what a stick is. With
 ADD you struggle to organize the parts across time.
 With Alzheimers you forget what the parts are.

yes -- in general.

But I took care of my mom with advanced Alzhiemers for 3 years before
it did her in. Its interesting to watch the disease progress. It
wasn't that she forgot the stick in many cases -- but she could not
verbalize it. For example, she may have forgotten her dogs names, but
she knew them and was loving towards them. She couldn't tell you who
Cary Grant was, but she loved watching his movies on a big screen TV.
And sometimes, she was stuck in the past as a girl or teen with very
clear memories of such times. And they dominated at times. For
periods, she was insistant that she had to go home because her
mother was waiting for her. She could talk in detail about her
(childhood) house and mother -- but had no recognition of her
present house of 20 years. It was very clear to her that her home
(childhood) was just down the road a bit, and she would strike out,
walking down the road to go home. (under watchful eye -- trying to
dissuade her was next to impossible, a la I HAVE to get home. Mother
is waiting!)


 





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread akasha_108 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 
 --- L B Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 LB, your last post in this thread was truncated, so I
 couldn't include it, but I wanted to compliment you on
 your observations. As you note, science is, at its
 best, an international, public discourse. I can
 understand MIU's reluctance to hand over the raw data
 for reasons that have nothing to do with this
 discourse. All movement research is for one purpose
 only: to promote the teaching of TM/TM-Siddhis. It's
 for PR only. Those in charge, MMY, aren't interested
 in developing a coherent theory of the field effects
 of consciousness. They just want to sell TM. The MIU
 researchers won't hand over the raw data because the
 ME is very weak, almost noise, not pattern. It can
 easily be shown not to exist using alternative, and
 more traditional, statistical methods used in this
 type of research.


Yes. 

And in statistical methods such as multi-variate regression (and ARIMA
which they used -- which can be thought of as a specialized subset of
of regression methods), a large number of model specifications can
be developed and tested. 

(A model specification being the articulation of dependent variable
with various control and explanatory variables aka independent
variables. Such as: crime is a function of weather, LE funding and
unemployment. OR, crime = f(weather, lagged abortion rates, education
levels) OR, crime = f(severity of punisment levels, conviction rates
(agressive prossecution), police on the street. OR crime = f(lagged
head start programs, lagged pre-natal care, lagged school lunch
programs, and lagged classroom size).

Many, many model specifications can be tested. A good analyst and
research team will look to at least half a dozen key parameters to
evaluate how well each model explains the variations in the dependent
variable: i) overall model fit via R^2 and global F test, ii) the
significance of each independent (control) variable, aka t-tests,
i.e., was it a random effect?, iii) were the independent variables
correlated with each other (a bad thing, called multi-collinearity),
iv) are the variables correlated with past values of themselves aka
autocorrelation (a bad thing), v) are the residuals random or skewed
relative to the dependent variable aka hetroscadisity, (a bad thing),
is the model specification consistent with theory, aka does it tell
a reasonable and plausible story -- or were a million independent
variables tested, and chosen ONLY due to good fit (aka, which chan
happen via 'spurious corrleation but really are just randome effects,
vii) is the data good, viii, were the number of independent
varibales less than 10-20x the number of observations, etc.  

Either by inexperience, or via intent to manipulate and arrive at a
pre-selected result, a researcher can shoose model specifications that
show a particular effect, via one paramenter, but are weak in other
parameters. But these parameters or diagnostics (like the eight above)
 can be swept under the carpet and not cited in the research results,
or worded in a best-spin sort of way (characteristic of some TMO
reseaarchers, IMO). 
 
Thus, its critical to make the full original dataset available to
other researchers to test the hypothesis via their approach to model
specification and selection. If a suboptimal specification were chosen
by the original researchers, because one or two paramenters shined,
but others sucked, this illusion can be uncovered by indepedendent
analysis and comparision of the results of different model
specifications -- and the full spectrum of the relevant parameters and
diagnostics associated with them. Or it may be found that alternative
model specifications, strong on all levels, produces a different
conclusion than the original research. This may indicates something
important is missing in one or both models, and more analysis is
necessary.










 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread Peter 


--- akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

snip

  
 Thus, its critical to make the full original dataset
 available to
 other researchers to test the hypothesis via their
 approach to model
 specification and selection. If a suboptimal
 specification were chosen
 by the original researchers, because one or two
 paramenters shined,
 but others sucked, this illusion can be uncovered
 by indepedendent
 analysis and comparision of the results of different
 model
 specifications -- and the full spectrum of the
 relevant parameters and
 diagnostics associated with them. Or it may be found
 that alternative
 model specifications, strong on all levels, produces
 a different
 conclusion than the original research. This may
 indicates something
 important is missing in one or both models, and more
 analysis is
 necessary.

And in good science this discourse goes back and forth
with re-analysis of data, arguments for and against
stated conclusions and out of this seeming mess really
good, scientific advances come about. (On a side note,
if you follow the topics in scientific journal
articles  it is amusing how rival camps all but call
each other assholes in their publcations)
Unfortunately the TMO is not interersted in having its
ME research looked at because they know it is not
robust. It's a very faint whisper of pattern in a sea
of random noise that can only be seen if you look at
it in a very particular way.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ~-- 
 Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
 Yahoo! your home page

http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM

~-
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!' 
 Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 




__ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread akasha_108 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 
 --- akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 snip
 
   
  Thus, its critical to make the full original dataset
  available to
  other researchers to test the hypothesis via their
  approach to model
  specification and selection. If a suboptimal
  specification were chosen
  by the original researchers, because one or two
  paramenters shined,
  but others sucked, this illusion can be uncovered
  by indepedendent
  analysis and comparision of the results of different
  model
  specifications -- and the full spectrum of the
  relevant parameters and
  diagnostics associated with them. Or it may be found
  that alternative
  model specifications, strong on all levels, produces
  a different
  conclusion than the original research. This may
  indicates something
  important is missing in one or both models, and more
  analysis is
  necessary.
 
 And in good science this discourse goes back and forth
 with re-analysis of data, arguments for and against
 stated conclusions and out of this seeming mess really
 good, scientific advances come about. (On a side note,
 if you follow the topics in scientific journal
 articles  it is amusing how rival camps all but call
 each other assholes in their publcations)
 Unfortunately the TMO is not interersted in having its
 ME research looked at because they know it is not
 robust. It's a very faint whisper of pattern in a sea
 of random noise that can only be seen if you look at
 it in a very particular way.
 

Yes. 

Its amusing how some hold that publication in a peer-reviewed journal
is the end-all and be-all of research. Its really an initial screening
for obvious errors. And depending on the status of the journal, the
degree and depth of review by peers may vary substantially from
journal to journal. Regardless, publication is the beginning of the
process, not the end. Its when the real peer review happens: a wider
audience reads the paper, sends comments and issues to letters to the
editor, and often quite a tossle of view proceeds. Which strengthens
subsequent analysis. 

A second level of substantiation of a pulished article is does it
generate enough interest so that more original research is conducted
in the topic area. And is the analysis and methodology strong enough
in the original publication to generate funding for the additional
research.

Since the publication of ME research, it has not, to my knowledge,
generated any non-TMO reasreach or funding. That speaks to the
strength and credibility of the original research.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
snip
 Thus, its critical to make the full original dataset available to
 other researchers to test the hypothesis via their approach to 
 model specification and selection.

Just to make sure several different things don't
get conflated here (again):

The issue L.B. and I have been discussing concerning
the researchers not allowing Markovsky to have their
data was in regard to a different study than the D.C.
study you've been examining.  Markovsky wanted data
for the Jerusalem study.

The raw data--the crime and other stats--used in *both*
studies, however, were publicly available.

That wasn't what Markovsky was asking for with regard
to the Jerusalem study.  He wanted to see the data
produced by the researchers' analysis--what came out of
the computer after the raw data had been input and run
through whatever statistical routines they were using
(as well, presumably, as the statistical routines
themselves).

This is not a case, in other words, where the raw data
were available only to the researchers, as in, say, the
clinical trials of a new drug; or a good bit of the
other TM research on the effects of TM where subjects
were brought into a lab to be tested or were asked to
fill out questionnaires or whatever.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
snip
 Unfortunately the TMO is not interersted in having its
 ME research looked at because they know it is not
 robust. It's a very faint whisper of pattern in a sea
 of random noise that can only be seen if you look at
 it in a very particular way.

Peter, you don't *know* this.  You may be right, but
it's your opinion, not an established fact.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread Rick Archer 
on 11/11/05 11:44 AM, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 And in good science this discourse goes back and forth
 with re-analysis of data, arguments for and against
 stated conclusions and out of this seeming mess really
 good, scientific advances come about. (On a side note,
 if you follow the topics in scientific journal
 articles  it is amusing how rival camps all but call
 each other assholes in their publcations)
 Unfortunately the TMO is not interersted in having its
 ME research looked at because they know it is not
 robust. It's a very faint whisper of pattern in a sea
 of random noise that can only be seen if you look at
 it in a very particular way.

And yet Hagelin brags repeatedly that the ME is the most verified thing in
the history of science. Only one in a gazillion odds that it could be
chance. P values to 25 decimal places or some such thing.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 Since the publication of ME research, it has not, to my knowledge,
 generated any non-TMO reasreach or funding. That speaks to the
 strength and credibility of the original research.

It speaks at least as much to the unorthodox nature
of the hypothesis, actually.  Probably more, because
it's easy to dismiss an unorthodox hypothesis out of
hand as too vanishingly unlikely to make it even worth
making the effort to look closely enough at the
research to see how much strength and credibility it
has.  It's INcredible right out of the box, as far as
most scientists are concerned.

(And by unorthodox, I mean what, for all practical
purposes, amounts to a claim to be able to do magic.)






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 Since the publication of ME research, it has not, to my knowledge,
 generated any non-TMO reasreach or funding. That speaks to the
 strength and credibility of the original research.

One additional point: It isn't inconceivable that
some more open-minded independent researchers or
funders could have an interest in pursuing the
Maharishi Effect but don't dare do so because it
would not be good for their reputations in the
scientific community.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread akasha_108 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
 snip
  Thus, its critical to make the full original dataset available to
  other researchers to test the hypothesis via their approach to 
  model specification and selection.
 
 Just to make sure several different things don't
 get conflated here (again):
 
 
 The raw data--the crime and other stats--used in *both*
 studies, however, were publicly available.


Well, just to make sure several different things don't
get conflated here (again):


You seem to equate public availabilty of FBI crime stats with all the
raw data .. were publically available. First, there is a differnece
between publically available and easily accessable. As I have stated
in prior posts, the weekly FBI stats are not available on line prior
to 1995. While they are probably is some library, finding them copying
them, and keyboard entering them into a research data set is time
consuming and restricive -- and not what is meant by make the full
original dataset available to other researchers.

Second the research data set includes much more than crime stats. It
includes weather data (again hard to find 12-20 years later in a
weekly form) and the socio-economic and LE data used as control
variables. Locating such data is more difficult than obtaining the
crime statistics which are per your words, publically available.

When a data set from a study is made available it is either put on
line, or sent in digital form, on CD for example. At a minimum, a hard
copy of the data is provided -- though this is a bit of a
constsraining option -- a hurdle placed on new researchers wishing to
duplicate or extend the analysis.

As far as computer output from the modeling, its standard to at least
provide a detailed summary of key diognastics and paramters for the
final model specificatation, and for key rejected specifications, and
the reasoning for rejection (e.g, high multi-colineearity or
hetroscadasity.) Full sets of computer output are not required, though
in this age of easy mass archiving -- on-line or CDs, there is no good
reason not to. Regardless, an independent researcher, if they have the
dataset, can rerun the analysis, and obtain all the intermediate steps
and diagnostics they care to analyze.

I hope this clears up this issue so we don't have to keep repeating it.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread akasha_108 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 on 11/11/05 11:44 AM, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  And in good science this discourse goes back and forth
  with re-analysis of data, arguments for and against
  stated conclusions and out of this seeming mess really
  good, scientific advances come about. (On a side note,
  if you follow the topics in scientific journal
  articles  it is amusing how rival camps all but call
  each other assholes in their publcations)
  Unfortunately the TMO is not interersted in having its
  ME research looked at because they know it is not
  robust. It's a very faint whisper of pattern in a sea
  of random noise that can only be seen if you look at
  it in a very particular way.
 
 And yet Hagelin brags repeatedly that the ME is the most verified
thing in the history of science. Only one in a gazillion odds that it
could be chance. P values to 25 decimal places or some such thing.

Which crappy model spcifications and bad out of whack parameters in
other areas can create. See my adjacent post on this. Thats why you
need to look at the full range of relevant parameters and makes sure
they are witnin acceptable bounds.









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  snip
   Thus, its critical to make the full original dataset available 
to
   other researchers to test the hypothesis via their approach 
to 
   model specification and selection.
  
  Just to make sure several different things don't
  get conflated here (again):
  
  The raw data--the crime and other stats--used in *both*
  studies, however, were publicly available.
 
 Well, just to make sure several different things don't
 get conflated here (again):
 
 You seem to equate public availabilty of FBI crime stats with 
all the
 raw data .. were publically available. First, there is a differnece
 between publically available and easily accessable. As I have stated
 in prior posts, the weekly FBI stats are not available on line prior
 to 1995. While they are probably is some library, finding them
 copying them, and keyboard entering them into a research data set 
 is time consuming and restricive -- and not what is meant by make 
 the full original dataset available to other researchers.
 
 Second the research data set includes much more than crime stats. It
 includes weather data (again hard to find 12-20 years later in a
 weekly form) and the socio-economic and LE data used as control
 variables. Locating such data is more difficult than obtaining the
 crime statistics which are per your words, publically available.

Hmm, let me see...gee, I could have sworn I wrote
crime AND OTHER STATS.  looking up at the top
Yes, actually that is exactly what I wrote (minus
the caps for emphasis so you wouldn't miss those
words again).

Your various quibbles aside, my *point* was that the
data were not proprietary, as I went on to say (and
you snipped).






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
  on 11/11/05 11:44 AM, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
   And in good science this discourse goes back and forth
   with re-analysis of data, arguments for and against
   stated conclusions and out of this seeming mess really
   good, scientific advances come about. (On a side note,
   if you follow the topics in scientific journal
   articles  it is amusing how rival camps all but call
   each other assholes in their publcations)
   Unfortunately the TMO is not interersted in having its
   ME research looked at because they know it is not
   robust. It's a very faint whisper of pattern in a sea
   of random noise that can only be seen if you look at
   it in a very particular way.
  
  And yet Hagelin brags repeatedly that the ME is the most verified
 thing in the history of science. Only one in a gazillion odds that 
it
 could be chance. P values to 25 decimal places or some such thing.
 
 Which crappy model spcifications and bad out of whack parameters in
 other areas can create. See my adjacent post on this. Thats why you
 need to look at the full range of relevant parameters and makes sure
 they are witnin acceptable bounds.

Bear in mind that there's nobody on this forum in a
position to defend the ME studies.  It's easy to make
folks think you've debunked something when they aren't
able to see a response to the debunking.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread Jason Spock 
use, indicating the power of the technique in normalizing physiological and psychological imbalances.
When we consider the billions of dollars spent every year on tranquilizers and antihypertensive medication, and add the toll to the national budget that cigarettes, alcohol and drug abuse take, the clear conclusion from these meta-analyses is that the TM programme is not only highly effective-it's the biggest bargain in America!" 
David Orme-Johnson, Ph.D., is the founding chairman of the Psychology Department at Maharishi University of Management. He has published over 50 papers and is an internationally recognized expert on the effects meditation.
*Orme-Johnson DW, Walton KG. All Approaches to Preventing and Reversing the Effects of Stress Are Not the Same. American Journal of Health Promotion 1998; (5):297-299

---OriginalMessage--
From: "Markmeredith2002" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:16:34 -0000 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion  the DC study 
 A realistic impact of the course/study would have been to inspire some other group of academics or public policy people to investigate further with their own research. I don't think that was the atttude of theTMO - their attitude was 'we did this study which proves our case, now give us a $billion in public funds to support levitators or maybe hindu priests'.
 Actually I remember being befuddled at the end of the course when MMY on the teleconference had no interest in talking about the courese and its effect at all - he had some huckster from south america with him and a plan for sidhas to move to brazil to become farmers. There was the slogan '40 hectares for world peace" or something like that. It was really disappointing to me after so many of us interrupted their lives to do the course and try to prove the ME once and for all.


 

		 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

 

 





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread akasha_108 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  wrote:
  
   on 11/11/05 11:44 AM, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

And in good science this discourse goes back and forth
with re-analysis of data, arguments for and against
stated conclusions and out of this seeming mess really
good, scientific advances come about. (On a side note,
if you follow the topics in scientific journal
articles  it is amusing how rival camps all but call
each other assholes in their publcations)
Unfortunately the TMO is not interersted in having its
ME research looked at because they know it is not
robust. It's a very faint whisper of pattern in a sea
of random noise that can only be seen if you look at
it in a very particular way.
   
   And yet Hagelin brags repeatedly that the ME is the most
verified  thing in the history of science. Only one in a gazillion
odds that it  could be chance. P values to 25 decimal places or some
such thing.
  
  Which crappy model spcifications and bad out of whack parameters
in other areas can create. See my adjacent post on this. Thats why you
need to look at the full range of relevant parameters and makes sure
they are witnin acceptable bounds.
 
 Bear in mind that there's nobody on this forum in a
 position to defend the ME studies.  It's easy to make
 folks think you've debunked something when they aren't
 able to see a response to the debunking.


I simply made  a general statement, not support or debunking any
particular study. The operative word is can. 

General statement: A crappy model specification can create the false
appearance of high t values (e.g., p.0xx). 

Specific statment about a specific model: none

The general statement may or may not apply to the ME study or any
other study. One would have to look at the specifics of the study. 

The point being, a p .xxx is not necessary golden. One
needs to look at all the parameters coming out of the analysis.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread markmeredith2002 
properly controlled trial of stress reduction that has shown
effectiveness in reducing blood pressure among people with hypertension. 
 
 The other four meta-analyses we used were the work of Charles,
Maxwell Rainforth, and colleagues. Their 1991 paper in the Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality shows that the Transcendental
Meditation technique is far superior to other meditation and
relaxation technique in increasing self-actualization because it
provides the experience of Transcendental Consciousness. Their 1994
paper in the Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly included three
meta-analyses showing that the TM technique is highly effective in
reducing cigarette, alcohol, and drug abuse, indicating the power of
the technique in normalizing physiological and psychological imbalances.
 
 When we consider the billions of dollars spent every year on
tranquilizers and antihypertensive medication, and add the toll to the
national budget that cigarettes, alcohol and drug abuse take, the
clear conclusion from these meta-analyses is that the TM programme is
not only highly effective-it's the biggest bargain in America! 
 
 David Orme-Johnson, Ph.D., is the founding chairman of the
Psychology Department at Maharishi University of Management. He has
published over 50 papers and is an internationally recognized expert
on the effects meditation.
 
 *Orme-Johnson DW, Walton KG. All Approaches to Preventing and
Reversing the Effects of Stress Are Not the Same. American Journal of
Health Promotion 1998; (5):297-299
 
  
 ---OriginalMessage--
 From: Markmeredith2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005
16:16:34 - 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion  the
DC study 
 
   A realistic impact of the course/study would have been to inspire
some other group of academics or public policy people to investigate
further with their own research.  I don't think that was the atttude
of the TMO - their attitude was 'we did this study which proves our
case, now give us a $billion in public funds to support levitators or
maybe hindu priests'.
 
   Actually I remember being befuddled at the end of the course when
MMY on the teleconference had no interest in talking about the courese
and its effect at all - he had some huckster from south america with
him and a plan for sidhas to move to brazil to become farmers.  There
was the slogan '40 hectares for world peace or something like that. 
It was really disappointing to me after so many of us interrupted
their lives to do the course and try to prove the ME once and for all.
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 -
  Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 
 
 --- L B Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 LB, your last post in this thread was truncated, so I
 couldn't include it, but I wanted to compliment you on
 your observations. As you note, science is, at its
 best, an international, public discourse. I can
 understand MIU's reluctance to hand over the raw data
 for reasons that have nothing to do with this
 discourse. All movement research is for one purpose
 only: to promote the teaching of TM/TM-Siddhis. It's
 for PR only. Those in charge, MMY, aren't interested
 in developing a coherent theory of the field effects
 of consciousness. They just want to sell TM. The MIU
 researchers won't hand over the raw data because the
 ME is very weak, almost noise, not pattern. It can
 easily be shown not to exist using alternative, and
 more traditional, statistical methods used in this
 type of research.
 

You may be correct, but your evidence of this is...?





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread Vaj 

On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:20 PM, sparaig wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:



 --- L B Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 LB, your last post in this thread was truncated, so I
 couldn't include it, but I wanted to compliment you on
 your observations. As you note, science is, at its
 best, an international, public discourse. I can
 understand MIU's reluctance to hand over the raw data
 for reasons that have nothing to do with this
 discourse. All movement research is for one purpose
 only: to promote the teaching of TM/TM-Siddhis. It's
 for PR only. Those in charge, MMY, aren't interested
 in developing a coherent theory of the field effects
 of consciousness. They just want to sell TM. The MIU
 researchers won't hand over the raw data because the
 ME is very weak, almost noise, not pattern. It can
 easily be shown not to exist using alternative, and
 more traditional, statistical methods used in this
 type of research.


 You may be correct, but your evidence of this is...?

Wake Up and smell the Raja's Cup. It's been in front of us all the time.

How could we miss it?



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  
  
  --- akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  snip
  

   Thus, its critical to make the full original dataset
   available to
   other researchers to test the hypothesis via their
   approach to model
   specification and selection. If a suboptimal
   specification were chosen
   by the original researchers, because one or two
   paramenters shined,
   but others sucked, this illusion can be uncovered
   by indepedendent
   analysis and comparision of the results of different
   model
   specifications -- and the full spectrum of the
   relevant parameters and
   diagnostics associated with them. Or it may be found
   that alternative
   model specifications, strong on all levels, produces
   a different
   conclusion than the original research. This may
   indicates something
   important is missing in one or both models, and more
   analysis is
   necessary.
  
  And in good science this discourse goes back and forth
  with re-analysis of data, arguments for and against
  stated conclusions and out of this seeming mess really
  good, scientific advances come about. (On a side note,
  if you follow the topics in scientific journal
  articles  it is amusing how rival camps all but call
  each other assholes in their publcations)
  Unfortunately the TMO is not interersted in having its
  ME research looked at because they know it is not
  robust. It's a very faint whisper of pattern in a sea
  of random noise that can only be seen if you look at
  it in a very particular way.
  
 
 Yes. 
 
 Its amusing how some hold that publication in a peer-reviewed 
journal
 is the end-all and be-all of research. Its really an initial 
screening
 for obvious errors. And depending on the status of the journal, the
 degree and depth of review by peers may vary substantially from
 journal to journal. Regardless, publication is the beginning of the
 process, not the end. Its when the real peer review happens: a wider
 audience reads the paper, sends comments and issues to letters to 
the
 editor, and often quite a tossle of view proceeds. Which 
strengthens
 subsequent analysis. 
 
 A second level of substantiation of a pulished article is does it
 generate enough interest so that more original research is conducted
 in the topic area. And is the analysis and methodology strong enough
 in the original publication to generate funding for the additional
 research.
 
 Since the publication of ME research, it has not, to my knowledge,
 generated any non-TMO reasreach or funding. That speaks to the
 strength and credibility of the original research.


Please. The PEAR research is far more well-documented than the ME 
research but no-one takes it seriously either. The findings are too 
far outside the paradigm to be attractive to serious researchers.

In a strange sense, it's like the proof of Fermat's Last Theorm: it 
proves nothing about anything else and only a handful of people are 
interested in slogging through it.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 on 11/11/05 11:44 AM, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  And in good science this discourse goes back and forth
  with re-analysis of data, arguments for and against
  stated conclusions and out of this seeming mess really
  good, scientific advances come about. (On a side note,
  if you follow the topics in scientific journal
  articles  it is amusing how rival camps all but call
  each other assholes in their publcations)
  Unfortunately the TMO is not interersted in having its
  ME research looked at because they know it is not
  robust. It's a very faint whisper of pattern in a sea
  of random noise that can only be seen if you look at
  it in a very particular way.
 
 And yet Hagelin brags repeatedly that the ME is the most verified 
thing in
 the history of science. Only one in a gazillion odds that it could 
be
 chance. P values to 25 decimal places or some such thing.


Well, he helped with the analysis, I'm sure, but his expertise is in 
theoretical physics, not social sciences. Also, on its face, its a 
silly assertion, since ANY newtonian experiment has an effect-size 
lightyears beyond any ME effect claim.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  wrote:
  
   on 11/11/05 11:44 AM, Peter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

And in good science this discourse goes back and forth
with re-analysis of data, arguments for and against
stated conclusions and out of this seeming mess really
good, scientific advances come about. (On a side note,
if you follow the topics in scientific journal
articles  it is amusing how rival camps all but call
each other assholes in their publcations)
Unfortunately the TMO is not interersted in having its
ME research looked at because they know it is not
robust. It's a very faint whisper of pattern in a sea
of random noise that can only be seen if you look at
it in a very particular way.
   
   And yet Hagelin brags repeatedly that the ME is the most 
verified
  thing in the history of science. Only one in a gazillion odds 
that 
 it
  could be chance. P values to 25 decimal places or some such thing.
  
  Which crappy model spcifications and bad out of whack parameters 
in
  other areas can create. See my adjacent post on this. Thats why 
you
  need to look at the full range of relevant parameters and makes 
sure
  they are witnin acceptable bounds.
 
 Bear in mind that there's nobody on this forum in a
 position to defend the ME studies.  It's easy to make
 folks think you've debunked something when they aren't
 able to see a response to the debunking.


Of course, official MUM policy appears to guarantee that we won't 
have anyone in-the-know defending it, either...





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-11 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:20 PM, sparaig wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  wrote:
 
 
 
  --- L B Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  LB, your last post in this thread was truncated, so I
  couldn't include it, but I wanted to compliment you on
  your observations. As you note, science is, at its
  best, an international, public discourse. I can
  understand MIU's reluctance to hand over the raw data
  for reasons that have nothing to do with this
  discourse. All movement research is for one purpose
  only: to promote the teaching of TM/TM-Siddhis. It's
  for PR only. Those in charge, MMY, aren't interested
  in developing a coherent theory of the field effects
  of consciousness. They just want to sell TM. The MIU
  researchers won't hand over the raw data because the
  ME is very weak, almost noise, not pattern. It can
  easily be shown not to exist using alternative, and
  more traditional, statistical methods used in this
  type of research.
 
 
  You may be correct, but your evidence of this is...?
 
 Wake Up and smell the Raja's Cup. It's been in front of us all the 
time.
 
 How could we miss it?


My nose must be clogged...






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread markmeredith2002 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
  But he hasn't seen the study.  It used highly
  sopisticated statistical methodology, and I don't
  think it's even possible to speculate about what
  was done on that level of sophistication.
 
 Well, its not magic. Based on a survey of available data, constraints
 on such and all, I can speculate with some degree of reasonablness as
 to what issues they faced, and how they approached the problems
 methodologically. I have been there.

ExxonMobil scientists use highly sophisticated statistical methodology
to prove global warming doesn't exist, creationists use it to prove
evolution is a hoax.  Highly sophisticated statistical methodology is
useless within a bad study design.  

My real pt - you have to be skeptical of studies which (1) support the
marketing of products made by the organization which is paying the
scientists to do the studies, and (2) support the particular religious
worldview of the scientists conducting the study.  In the case of the
M-effect studies, you have both at work.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
snip
  They never even considered looking at nonviolent
  crime.  That isn't what they were out to prove.
 
 But they WOULD have mentioned it if the stats had warranted it.

If they had looked at the nonviolent stats!
They were having enough trouble getting the
*violent* stats in a form they could use.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
   But he hasn't seen the study.  It used highly
   sopisticated statistical methodology, and I don't
   think it's even possible to speculate about what
   was done on that level of sophistication.
  
  Well, its not magic. Based on a survey of available data, 
  constraints on such and all, I can speculate with some degree of 
  reasonablness as to what issues they faced, and how they 
  approached the problems methodologically. I have been there.
 
 ExxonMobil scientists use highly sophisticated statistical 
 methodology to prove global warming doesn't exist, creationists use 
 it to prove evolution is a hoax.  Highly sophisticated statistical 
 methodology is useless within a bad study design.  
 
 My real pt - you have to be skeptical of studies which (1) support
 the marketing of products made by the organization which is paying 
 the scientists to do the studies, and (2) support the particular 
 religious worldview of the scientists conducting the study.  In the 
 case of the M-effect studies, you have both at work.

I completely agree on all counts.  I was not using
sophisticated to mean unassailable.  It may
even be the case that the more sophisticated the
methodology, the more opportunities to do some
sophisticated fudging that would only become evident
if you did an exhaustive examination of everything
that went into and came out of the computer.

But by the same token, the more sophisticated the
methodology, if you don't have access to all the
details, the less likely a *speculation* on what the
researchers were doing (honestly or otherwise) is to
be on target.

In other words, I don't believe akasha is in a
position even to guess at flaws in the study or to
say the results didn't reflect the reality unless he
knows *exactly* what methodology the researchers
used.  He has to be able to see the published study
before he can make a relevant evaluation.

I'm not at all sure he can come up with his own
method, run all the numbers, get different results,
and on that basis, without knowing what methodology
they were using, say there was something wrong with
their results.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread Peter 


--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 markmeredith2002 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  
But he hasn't seen the study.  It used highly
sopisticated statistical methodology, and I
 don't
think it's even possible to speculate about
 what
was done on that level of sophistication.
   
   Well, its not magic. Based on a survey of
 available data, 
   constraints on such and all, I can speculate
 with some degree of 
   reasonablness as to what issues they faced, and
 how they 
   approached the problems methodologically. I have
 been there.
  
  ExxonMobil scientists use highly sophisticated
 statistical 
  methodology to prove global warming doesn't exist,
 creationists use 
  it to prove evolution is a hoax.  Highly
 sophisticated statistical 
  methodology is useless within a bad study design. 
 
  
  My real pt - you have to be skeptical of studies
 which (1) support
  the marketing of products made by the organization
 which is paying 
  the scientists to do the studies, and (2) support
 the particular 
  religious worldview of the scientists conducting
 the study.  In the 
  case of the M-effect studies, you have both at
 work.
 
 I completely agree on all counts.  I was not using
 sophisticated to mean unassailable.  It may
 even be the case that the more sophisticated the
 methodology, the more opportunities to do some
 sophisticated fudging that would only become evident
 if you did an exhaustive examination of everything
 that went into and came out of the computer.
 
 But by the same token, the more sophisticated the
 methodology, if you don't have access to all the
 details, the less likely a *speculation* on what the
 researchers were doing (honestly or otherwise) is to
 be on target.
 
 In other words, I don't believe akasha is in a
 position even to guess at flaws in the study or to
 say the results didn't reflect the reality unless he
 knows *exactly* what methodology the researchers
 used.  He has to be able to see the published study
 before he can make a relevant evaluation.
 
 I'm not at all sure he can come up with his own
 method, run all the numbers, get different results,
 and on that basis, without knowing what methodology
 they were using, say there was something wrong with
 their results.

Does someone have a link for the published study so we
can all look at the methodolgy section?




 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ~-- 
 Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
 Yahoo! your home page

http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM

~-
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!' 
 Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 




__ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
snip
 Does someone have a link for the published study so we
 can all look at the methodolgy section?

It isn't on the Web (or we'd have been looking at it long
since).








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  
   But he hasn't seen the study.  It used highly
   sopisticated statistical methodology, and I don't
   think it's even possible to speculate about what
   was done on that level of sophistication.
  
  Well, its not magic. Based on a survey of available data, 
constraints
  on such and all, I can speculate with some degree of 
reasonablness as
  to what issues they faced, and how they approached the problems
  methodologically. I have been there.
 
 ExxonMobil scientists use highly sophisticated statistical 
methodology
 to prove global warming doesn't exist, creationists use it to prove
 evolution is a hoax.  Highly sophisticated statistical methodology 
is
 useless within a bad study design.  
 
 My real pt - you have to be skeptical of studies which (1) support 
the
 marketing of products made by the organization which is paying the
 scientists to do the studies, and (2) support the particular 
religious
 worldview of the scientists conducting the study.  In the case of 
the
 M-effect studies, you have both at work.


Absolutely.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
 snip
   They never even considered looking at nonviolent
   crime.  That isn't what they were out to prove.
  
  But they WOULD have mentioned it if the stats had warranted it.
 
 If they had looked at the nonviolent stats!
 They were having enough trouble getting the
 *violent* stats in a form they could use.


M... The FBI uniform crime stats were eventually available for 
all sorts of crime types. If there had been a correlation with the 
ME, they would have mentioned it, if only in a subsequent article...

Look at how long they've been milking the results of the cardiology 
studies, and the study on the elderly that was first done in the 
1980's. Followups to that study are still being published 10+ years 
later by MUM scientists.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread akasha_108 
authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 In other words, I don't believe akasha is in a
 position even to guess at flaws in the study or to
 say the results didn't reflect the reality unless he
 knows *exactly* what methodology the researchers
 used.  He has to be able to see the published study
 before he can make a relevant evaluation.

The summary appears quite clear -- they did not use the control
variables in the primary analysis. I don't need to read the full
study, which I seek to, to raise concerns about that and other things
stated in the summary. And I can speculate as to the data issues they
faced, having climbed that hill many times in various analysis
projects, and why they did what they did (as outlined in the summary).
 Speculation is not exactly a searing critique.

On the same token, I suppose its hard for you to defend the study
without having it at hand. 

(Just curious, did you read the full study in the past? But no longer
have a copy?)
 
 I'm not at all sure he can come up with his own
 method, run all the numbers, get different results,
 and on that basis, without knowing what methodology
 they were using, say there was something wrong with
 their results.

I guess, if thats what i were doing, above. Which I am not. Nice
strawman. First I am using the most standard and conventional methods
for this type of study -- multi-variate regression. I did not suddenly
invent regression for this analysis. Second, who knows if I will get
the same or a different result than them. Its a work in progress. I
shared some preliminary exploratory results, based on a surprising
strong little initial model. As I get better data, I will undoubtedly
be able to develop better models. Third, I am approaching the analysis
from different angles, more angles perhaps, than they did. Thats a
good thing. For example, looking at personal crimes, using a unified
model for the complete analysis, etc. Fourth, I am not using my
analysis as a basis to critique the oringinal study. I am doing it to
understand the ME and verify or reject it based on the actual numbers.
For now, I would rather debate my own analysis than some analysis done
12 years ago in which the data used is not apparently readily
available, nor the study itself. 







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread Peter 
Akasha, did they use an interupted time series
analysis? I'm assuming with my baby stats background
that this would have been appropriate.  

--- akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  In other words, I don't believe akasha is in a
  position even to guess at flaws in the study or to
  say the results didn't reflect the reality unless
 he
  knows *exactly* what methodology the researchers
  used.  He has to be able to see the published
 study
  before he can make a relevant evaluation.
 
 The summary appears quite clear -- they did not use
 the control
 variables in the primary analysis. I don't need to
 read the full
 study, which I seek to, to raise concerns about that
 and other things
 stated in the summary. And I can speculate as to the
 data issues they
 faced, having climbed that hill many times in
 various analysis
 projects, and why they did what they did (as
 outlined in the summary).
  Speculation is not exactly a searing critique.
 
 On the same token, I suppose its hard for you to
 defend the study
 without having it at hand. 
 
 (Just curious, did you read the full study in the
 past? But no longer
 have a copy?)
  
  I'm not at all sure he can come up with his own
  method, run all the numbers, get different
 results,
  and on that basis, without knowing what
 methodology
  they were using, say there was something wrong
 with
  their results.
 
 I guess, if thats what i were doing, above. Which I
 am not. Nice
 strawman. First I am using the most standard and
 conventional methods
 for this type of study -- multi-variate regression.
 I did not suddenly
 invent regression for this analysis. Second, who
 knows if I will get
 the same or a different result than them. Its a work
 in progress. I
 shared some preliminary exploratory results, based
 on a surprising
 strong little initial model. As I get better data, I
 will undoubtedly
 be able to develop better models. Third, I am
 approaching the analysis
 from different angles, more angles perhaps, than
 they did. Thats a
 good thing. For example, looking at personal crimes,
 using a unified
 model for the complete analysis, etc. Fourth, I am
 not using my
 analysis as a basis to critique the oringinal study.
 I am doing it to
 understand the ME and verify or reject it based on
 the actual numbers.
 For now, I would rather debate my own analysis than
 some analysis done
 12 years ago in which the data used is not
 apparently readily
 available, nor the study itself. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ~-- 
 Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
 Yahoo! your home page

http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM

~-
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!' 
 Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 




__ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
   snip
 They never even considered looking at nonviolent
 crime.  That isn't what they were out to prove.

But they WOULD have mentioned it if the stats had warranted 
it.
   
   If they had looked at the nonviolent stats!
   They were having enough trouble getting the
   *violent* stats in a form they could use.
  
  M... The FBI uniform crime stats were eventually available 
for 
  all sorts of crime types.
 
 Yeah, but would they have *looked* at them?
 
  If there had been a correlation with the 
  ME, they would have mentioned it, if only in a subsequent 
article...
  
  Look at how long they've been milking the results of the 
cardiology 
  studies, and the study on the elderly that was first done in the 
  1980's. Followups to that study are still being published 10+ 
years 
  later by MUM scientists.
 
 Sure, but MMY lost interest in ME studies after the D.C.
 project.


PRobably because the results weren't nearly as nice asthey had hoped 
for.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread akasha_108 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Akasha, did they use an interupted time series
 analysis? I'm assuming with my baby stats background
 that this would have been appropriate.  

Yes, it appears they used an ARIMA / Box-Jenkins model. Which is
efficient for impact anlysis with highly seasonal and autocorrelated
data -- typically financial data. The crime data may have seasonality
but does not appear to be that strongly autocorrelated. And
traditioanlly, it requires 5-6 seasons of data to be reliable. Since
one of their models was only for 1993 data (from the summary) it
raises some questions. 

IMO, its too bad they did not use a more generalized regression
approach. Anything that can be done in ARIMA can be done in a
regression model specification -- by using differening and lagging of
variables, and use of dummy variables for impacts and seasonality.
ARIMA, IMO, is a bit of a black box, regression models are much more
transparent. And regression allows, at least is easier for, testing a
large number of independent control variables in a unified model. 

The summary states that temperature was the only control variable used
in the primary analysis for the 1 year and 5 year analysis. Then,
later, they tested a range of social / LE control variables to show,
per their satisfaction, that the contol variables were insignificant
in effecting the results of the 1 and 5 year models. Aside from being
methodologically weak, of not using  variables in the primary models,
 this findng is counter intuitive and contradicts many crime studies
where factors beyond temperature have a clear impact on crime levels. 

I suspect, they were forced to test the control variables outside the
primary analysis because of different time intervals for the relevant
data. Often the socio-economic / LE data is available in annual form,
and the impact analysis -- crime and temp data was weekly. When we
locate a copy of the study, we will have a better idea.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
snip
 On the same token, I suppose its hard for you to defend the study
 without having it at hand.

I'm not defending the study, as you must know
if you've been reading my posts.

 (Just curious, did you read the full study in the past? But no 
 longer have a copy?)

I read the preliminary study that was released (but
not published) a year or so after the project.  I've
never seen the final version.

  I'm not at all sure he can come up with his own
  method, run all the numbers, get different results,
  and on that basis, without knowing what methodology
  they were using, say there was something wrong with
  their results.
 
 I guess, if thats what i were doing, above. Which I am not. Nice
 strawman. First I am using the most standard and conventional 
 methods for this type of study -- multi-variate regression. I did 
 not suddenly invent regression for this analysis.

I suspect you're well aware that isn't what I meant.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread akasha_108 
authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   I'm not at all sure he can come up with his own
   method, run all the numbers, get different results,
   and on that basis, without knowing what methodology
   they were using, say there was something wrong with
   their results.
  
  I guess, if thats what i were doing, above. Which I am not. Nice
  strawman. First I am using the most standard and conventional 
  methods for this type of study -- multi-variate regression. I did 
  not suddenly invent regression for this analysis.
 
 I suspect you're well aware that isn't what I meant.

Ok. What did you mean by I'm not at all sure he can come up with his
own method? 

I assume you agree that the rest of your statement, I'm not at all
sure he can run all the numbers, get different results,  and on
that basis, without knowing what methodology they were using, say
there was something wrong with their results was misguided, per the
repsonse below.

-
Akasha full prior response:
I guess, if thats what i were doing, above. Which I am not. Nice
strawman. First I am using the most standard and conventional methods
for this type of study -- multi-variate regression. I did not suddenly
invent regression for this analysis. Second, who knows if I will get
the same or a different result than them. Its a work in progress. I
shared some preliminary exploratory results, based on a surprising
strong little initial model. As I get better data, I will undoubtedly
be able to develop better models. Third, I am approaching the analysis
from different angles, more angles perhaps, than they did. Thats a
good thing. For example, looking at personal crimes, using a unified
model for the complete analysis, etc. Fourth, I am not using my
analysis as a basis to critique the oringinal study. I am doing it to
understand the ME and verify or reject it based on the actual numbers.
For now, I would rather debate my own analysis than some analysis done
12 years ago in which the data used is not apparently readily
available, nor the study itself.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
I'm not at all sure he can come up with his own
method, run all the numbers, get different results,
and on that basis, without knowing what methodology
they were using, say there was something wrong with
their results.
   
   I guess, if thats what i were doing, above. Which I am not. Nice
   strawman. First I am using the most standard and conventional 
   methods for this type of study -- multi-variate regression. I 
did 
   not suddenly invent regression for this analysis.
  
  I suspect you're well aware that isn't what I meant.
 
 Ok. What did you mean by I'm not at all sure he can come up with 
his
 own method?

And I also suspect you know what I *did* mean.
 
 I assume you agree that the rest of your statement, I'm not at all
 sure he can run all the numbers, get different results,  and on
 that basis, without knowing what methodology they were using, say
 there was something wrong with their results was misguided, per the
 repsonse below.

Nope, don't agree.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread akasha_108 
akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
I'm not at all sure he can come up with his own
method, run all the numbers, get different results,
and on that basis, without knowing what methodology
they were using, say there was something wrong with
their results.
   
   I guess, if thats what i were doing, above. Which I am not. Nice
   strawman. First I am using the most standard and conventional 
   methods for this type of study -- multi-variate regression. I
did not suddenly invent regression for this analysis.

J:
  I suspect you're well aware that isn't what I meant.

A:
 Ok. What did you mean by I'm not at all sure he can come up with
his  own method? 

J:
 And I also suspect you know what I *did* mean.
 
A:
 I assume you agree that the rest of your statement, I'm not at all
 sure he can run all the numbers, get different results,  and on
 that basis, without knowing what methodology they were using, say
 there was something wrong with their results was misguided, per the
 repsonse below.


J:  Nope, don't agree.


A: 
 -
 Akasha full prior response:
I guess, if thats what i were doing, above. Which I am not. Nice
strawman. First I am using the most standard and conventional methods
for this type of study -- multi-variate regression. I did not suddenly
invent regression for this analysis. Second, who knows if I will get
the same or a different result than them. Its a work in progress. I
shared some preliminary exploratory results, based on a surprising
strong little initial model. As I get better data, I will undoubtedly
be able to develop better models. Third, I am approaching the analysis
from different angles, more angles perhaps, than they did. Thats a
good thing. For example, looking at personal crimes, using a unified
model for the complete analysis, etc. Fourth, I am not using my
analysis as a basis to critique the oringinal study. I am doing it to
understand the ME and verify or reject it based on the actual numbers.
For now, I would rather debate my own analysis than some analysis done
12 years ago in which the data used is not apparently readily
available, nor the study itself.


===
Akasha:

OK. aside from non-answers and short statements of disageements, you
you care to share why? You make strong accusations and then waffle
when asked to clarify.

1) What did you mean by I'm not at all sure he can come up with his 
own method?  It was not clear to me, thus I asked

2)Do you agree that multi-variate regression is a most standard and
conventional methods for this type of study? Or do  you have no basis
for knowing?

3) Do you realize that I don't know if I will get the same or a
different result than them, that its a work in progress? 


4) Do you understand that I am approaching the analysis from different
angles, more angles perhaps, than they did?


5) Do you understand that I am not using my analysis as a basis to
critique the oringinal study. I am doing it to understand the ME and
verify or reject it based on the actual numbers?

If you do understand any or all of the above, how can you say I'm not
at all sure he can run all the numbers, get different results, 
and on that basis, without knowing what methodology they were using,
say there was something wrong with their results? It appears to be
contradictory. Again I am curious as to your logic chain here. It
appears flawed. Enlighten me.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread bbrigante 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jamshad Ghanbar 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I need a favor
 Do you have access to a good quality picture of the 1993 peace 
creating group in Washington DC by any chance ?
 Please inform me on that and if possible attach the poster and mail 
it
 All the best
 Jamshad
 
***

21st century books in Fairfield might have this photo in stock:

http://www.21stbooks.com/help.html#2





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread L B Shriver 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [...]
  At this point, it would take a separate study, beginning from the raw 
 stats, to see if such a 
  reduction was obvious. As I said before, quite a lot of massaging was 
 required afterwards 
  to make the data look good.
 
 That may or may not be the case. The weather model, as Judy pointed 
 out, was always part of the study protocol. Perhaps the raw data wasn't 
 as nice as they had hoped, but the raw data DID show reductions from 
 the same time period a year ago.



I was on campus the whole time. I new some of the people who were working on 
the thing. 
I observed how the story was spun, how it changed as the months rolled by.

All this discussion about the weather model is ridiculous. The massaging went 
far beyond 
all that. And it stilll wasn't enough.

L B S






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread L B Shriver 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


snip

  Personality issues should not enter into it and MIU should have
  honored a request from an adjacent and major university.
 
 It would have been a little like handing him a gun
 so he could shoot them.



Judy, this strikes me as a really odd thing to say.

Only a loaded gun can shoot someone, and only one kind of ammunition could have 
hurt 
MIU: evidence that their conclusions were not valid. That is, if they had 
nothing to fear, 
why not hand over the empty gun?

L B S






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
 
 snip
 
   Personality issues should not enter into it and MIU should have
   honored a request from an adjacent and major university.
  
  It would have been a little like handing him a gun
  so he could shoot them.
 
 
 
 Judy, this strikes me as a really odd thing to say.

Well, actually I think you have a really odd way
of interpreting it.  Self-serving, even.

 Only a loaded gun can shoot someone, and only one kind of
 ammunition could have hurt MIU: evidence that their conclusions 
 were not vald.

Or *apparent* evidence.  It's really pretty
amusing that you're so sure the TM researchers
massaged the data to show results that didn't
exist, yet you can't conceive of a hostile
researcher massaging data that shows real
results so it ends up looking as if there are
none.

I don't know whether the TM researchers fudged
the data when they massaged it.  I do know that
they had very good reason not to give the data to
Markovsky even if the massaging was legitimate and
the results were genuine and everything was pure
as the driven snow, because he had the motivation
and the knowhow to make it *look* like garbage.

 That is, if they had nothing to fear, 
 why not hand over the empty gun?

Because Markovsky had his own bullets and powder,
of course.

Did you read what I said about Markovsky having
complained--in a scholarly journal, yet, as well
as endlessly on alt.m.t--that the TM researchers
were unethical because they didn't obtain informed
consent from the populations they were trying to
affect?

Does that say objective and unbiased to you?






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread L B Shriver 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  
  
  snip
  
Personality issues should not enter into it and MIU should have
honored a request from an adjacent and major university.
   
   It would have been a little like handing him a gun
   so he could shoot them.
  
  
  
  Judy, this strikes me as a really odd thing to say.
 
 Well, actually I think you have a really odd way
 of interpreting it.  Self-serving, even.



Self-serving? This strikes me as ad hominem, the type of argument you so 
famously 
abhor.

What I am trying to point out here is that for some reason you appear to be 
arguing in 
favor of with-holding information, which immediately invalidates any scientific 
research, 
which by nature is only accepted if it is open to public scrutiny.


 
  Only a loaded gun can shoot someone, and only one kind of
  ammunition could have hurt MIU: evidence that their conclusions 
  were not vald.
 
 Or *apparent* evidence.  It's really pretty
 amusing that you're so sure the TM researchers
 massaged the data to show results that didn't
 exist, yet you can't conceive of a hostile
 researcher massaging data that shows real
 results so it ends up looking as if there are
 none.



Now you are resorting to the straw man, and Big Time, if I may say so.

Regarding my certainty that massaging took place:

I lived on campus for the better part of 20 years, 7 as a student. I was in 
constant contact 
with people who were involved with TM research, including graduate students who 
worked 
on many of the published studies, including the one in question.

First, as a general point, I would like to say unequivocally that I was told on 
several 
occasions by graduate students in the sciences that such massaging did occur, 
often 
because Maharishi felt the results from studies were lack lustre and needed to 
be beefed 
up.

I also remember a discussion with a grad student from the MASCI who told me 
that a 
student who said that research studies had not supported the claim for improved 
eyesight 
based on TM practice was told by faculty that M had said vision improved, so if 
the study 
contradicted M it must be wrong.

With regard to the specific study in question, I have stated clearly on several 
occasions 
that it took considerable work after the fact to achieve the eventual claim of 
25% reduction 
of crime, and that I know this from numerous discussions with someone who was 
working 
on it at the time.

I have never said that I don't believe in the Maharishi Effect, nor have I 
said that nothing 
happened in the DC project. However, the movement has a long history of 
fudging 
studies, and this one appears to fall in that tradition. 

Now, as for your remark that I can't conceive of a hostile  researcher 
massaging data 
that shows real results so it ends up looking as if there are none: 

I have made no statements anywhere near that ball park. To this point, I have 
not even 
mentioned Markovsky. So while we're on the subject, let me remove all doubt 
about it. 
Markovsky does seem biased in some respects, and may even exhibiit some form of 
David/Goliath complex, but that doesn't mean that none of his criticisms are 
valid. They 
must be examined on the basis of their merit, and that cannot be done unless 
all the 
evidence is available.



 
 I don't know whether the TM researchers fudged
 the data when they massaged it.  I do know that
 they had very good reason not to give the data to
 Markovsky even if the massaging was legitimate and
 the results were genuine and everything was pure
 as the driven snow, because he had the motivation
 and the knowhow to make it *look* like garbage.



It is not uncommon in the public discourse of science for competitors to try to 
descredit 
each other. The whole concept of science as a public discipline is that the 
process will 
ultimately support truth. But not if the data are  hidden.


 
  That is, if they had nothing to fear, 
  why not hand over the empty gun?
 
 Because Markovsky had his own bullets and powder,
 of course.



As I said before, the only information that can hurt a researcher is false 
information. If 
MIU's data were good, they had nothing to fear, in the long run, from 
disclosing. This is so 
fundamental I am surprised that it seems to need discussion.


 
 Did you read what I said about Markovsky having
 complained--in a scholarly journal, yet, as well
 as endlessly on alt.m.t--that the TM researchers
 were unethical because they didn't obtain informed
 consent from the populations they were trying to
 affect?
 
 Does that say objective and unbiased to you?



I have never, ever, said that Markovsky was objective and unbiased, and I 
defy you to 
demonstrate otherwise. As

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-10 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
snip
 Personality issues should not enter into it and MIU should 
 have honored a request from an adjacent and major 
 university.

It would have been a little like handing him a gun
so he could shoot them.
   
   
   
   Judy, this strikes me as a really odd thing to say.
  
  Well, actually I think you have a really odd way
  of interpreting it.  Self-serving, even.
 
 
 
 Self-serving? This strikes me as ad hominem, the type of argument
 you so famously abhor.

It's only ad hominem argumentation if it's a
*substitute* for reasoned argument.  And I wasn't
using it as part of my argument in any case; it was
just an observation (which I stand by).

 What I am trying to point out here is that for some reason you 
 appear to be arguing in favor of with-holding information, which 
 immediately invalidates any scientific research, 
 which by nature is only accepted if it is open to public scrutiny.

Not arguing in favor of it, of course (speaking of
straw men).  Just pointing out that in this case
the fact that they did withhold information does not
necessarily mean they had something to hide; there
were other considerations as well.

 
  
   Only a loaded gun can shoot someone, and only one kind of
   ammunition could have hurt MIU: evidence that their conclusions 
   were not vald.
  
  Or *apparent* evidence.  It's really pretty
  amusing that you're so sure the TM researchers
  massaged the data to show results that didn't
  exist, yet you can't conceive of a hostile
  researcher massaging data that shows real
  results so it ends up looking as if there are
  none.
 
 
 
 Now you are resorting to the straw man, and Big Time, if I may say
 so.

Well, no, I'm not at all resorting to the straw man,
sorry.  You need to refresh your understanding of
rhetorical fallacies and perhaps take a look at your
own words again.

 Regarding my certainty that massaging took place:

I wasn't questioning that.

snip long justification for certainty

 Now, as for your remark that I can't conceive of a hostile  
 researcher massaging data that shows real results so it ends up 
 looking as if there are none: 
 
 I have made no statements anywhere near that ball park.

Oh, sure you did:  Only one kind of ammunition
could have hurt MIU: evidence that their conclusions 
were not vald.

 To this point, I have not even mentioned Markovsky. So while we're 
 on the subject, let me remove all doubt about it. 
 Markovsky does seem biased in some respects, and may even exhibiit 
 some form of David/Goliath complex, but that doesn't mean that none 
 of his criticisms are valid. They must be examined on the basis of 
 their merit, and that cannot be done unless all the evidence is 
 available.

Actually the criticisms he has made, since he made them
on the basis of what was published and not on the
unpublished data, can be evaluated on the basis of their
merit by examining the published study, i.e., what he
was working with.

I agree, some of his criticisms do appear to be quite
valid (although, of course, we haven't heard a
rebuttal from the researchers; I seem to remember
something about the journal refusing to publish one,
but I'm not positive about that).

 
 
  I don't know whether the TM researchers fudged
  the data when they massaged it.  I do know that
  they had very good reason not to give the data to
  Markovsky even if the massaging was legitimate and
  the results were genuine and everything was pure
  as the driven snow, because he had the motivation
  and the knowhow to make it *look* like garbage.
 
 
 
 It is not uncommon in the public discourse of science for
 competitors to try to descredit each other. The whole concept of 
 science as a public discipline is that the process will 
 ultimately support truth. But not if the data are  hidden.

Well, but if this isn't the case, if the discrediting
actually *suppressed* truth sometimes, we'd never know
it, would we?  All we see are the instances in which 
truth did win out.  So I don't think you can say this
with such certainty.

 
  
   That is, if they had nothing to fear, 
   why not hand over the empty gun?
  
  Because Markovsky had his own bullets and powder,
  of course.
 
 
 
 As I said before, the only information that can hurt a researcher 
 is false information.

I think you mean here what you said before about
evidence that the researchers' conclusions were
not valid (otherwise, I'd point out that false or
at least distorted information is exactly what
they expected from Markovsky).

 If MIU's data were good, they had nothing to fear, in the long run, 
 from disclosing. This is so fundamental I am surprised that it 
 seems to need discussion.

I don't think you can dismiss the possibility that
researchers can be falsely

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Robert Gimbel 
Back in December, 1983, Maharishi arrived for the 
Taste of Utopia Course.
That evening, the temperature in Fairfield plunged to about 15 
degrees below zero;
The local press, made a big deal of all the meditators, standing 
outside the dome, in the freezing temperatures, for a glimpse of 
Maharishi.
I don't know what the crime rate was then,
But I know it was too damn cold to think about anything, besides 
staying warm...  



 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
 

So why did they have a pre and post period?
   
   ??  Why not?
  
  HAHAHA. Just for fun I suppose. jeez.
  
  
  
 Pre and post aren't control periods because they
 take place at *different times of the year*.

So they did not use pre and post periods?
   
   OK, you don't want to discuss this in good faith,
   for some reason.
  
  Why do you think I am not discussing this in good faith?
 
 Oh, please.  You're a lot more transparent than
 you think.
 
  I am trying
  to get basic answers about the study. You, IMO, keep jumping 
around
  the answers.
 
 I do not.  When I know something, I tell you.  When
 I don't, I say so.
 
  Its clear you don't have much knowledge of the study,
 
 I have more knowledge of the study than you do, that's
 for sure.
 
  thats fine. No foul, no crime. I was simply temporarily diverted 
by
  your IMO emphatic answers, as a sign that you knew something of
  substance about the study. I was incorrect.
 
 No, you were correct, actually.  What I don't know
 is the details of the statistical methodology.
 
 
 
  Lets move on.
  
  
   
   Forget it.
  
  um ok.
 







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Peter 
The coldest it got was 25 below. When you walked in
the snow it sqweeked.

--- Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Back in December, 1983, Maharishi arrived for the 
 Taste of Utopia Course.
 That evening, the temperature in Fairfield plunged
 to about 15 
 degrees below zero;
 The local press, made a big deal of all the
 meditators, standing 
 outside the dome, in the freezing temperatures, for
 a glimpse of 
 Maharishi.
 I don't know what the crime rate was then,
 But I know it was too damn cold to think about
 anything, besides 
 staying warm...  
 
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  
 
 So why did they have a pre and post period?

??  Why not?
   
   HAHAHA. Just for fun I suppose. jeez.
   
   
   
  Pre and post aren't control periods
 because they
  take place at *different times of the
 year*.
 
 So they did not use pre and post periods?

OK, you don't want to discuss this in good
 faith,
for some reason.
   
   Why do you think I am not discussing this in
 good faith?
  
  Oh, please.  You're a lot more transparent than
  you think.
  
   I am trying
   to get basic answers about the study. You, IMO,
 keep jumping 
 around
   the answers.
  
  I do not.  When I know something, I tell you. 
 When
  I don't, I say so.
  
   Its clear you don't have much knowledge of the
 study,
  
  I have more knowledge of the study than you do,
 that's
  for sure.
  
   thats fine. No foul, no crime. I was simply
 temporarily diverted 
 by
   your IMO emphatic answers, as a sign that you
 knew something of
   substance about the study. I was incorrect.
  
  No, you were correct, actually.  What I don't know
  is the details of the statistical methodology.
  
  
  
   Lets move on.
   
   

Forget it.
   
   um ok.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ~-- 
 Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
 Yahoo! your home page

http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM

~-
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!' 
 Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 





__ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Vaj 


On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:15 AM, authfriend wrote:It's important to understanding the study.  It's being used as a way to suggest they changed things around after seeing the data to get a better result, which isn't what happened.  And you're using it to construct all kinds of speculations about their methodology.  It's just ridiculous.  They may have changed *other* things around, for all any of us know, but they didn't just introduce the weather after the fact. Why do you think they MIU researchers refused to share their raw data with the University of Iowa?





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread L B Shriver 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 LB, (or anyone familiar with the study)
 
 Per your prior note, 
 
 What was added in the 25% second round of analysis, relative to the
 first round, the 17% results? Was it the weather variables or Index? 
 
 Or was weather  included in the first round of analysis? If weather
 was in the first round. what was added in the second round. 
 
 When where the other control variables, other crime factors such as
 police on the street, police practices, LE funding, etc introduced?



Clearing up a minor point on my own initial lowball estimate of 17%:

PANDITS HAD BEEN PART OF THE  ORIGINAL PROTOCOL. They had been bought and paid 
for. Then they didn't show. So the group that participated was not as powerful 
as the 
group that had originally been anticipated.

After the scaling back of original reports claiming 25% reduction (might have 
been 20% 
come to think of it), there was an ongoing effort of several months to make the 
data fit. 
My graduate student friend Mark __ (last name still not remembered) was a 
part of 
this. I had a standing joke with him about it: whenever I bumped into him I 
would ask, 
Seen any good statistics lately? Then he would give me an informal update. 
Let me be 
clear that this was not a conspiratorial relationship. Mark was completely sold 
on the 
program and convinced that the correct interpretation of the data would reveal 
the results. 
I was just an innocent bystander. Sort of.

Since I was not recording all the details for posterity at the time, only the 
impressions 
remain. The impressions indicated that it took quite an effort to rectify the 
findings 
based on their original model. I do not remember a single alteration or 
adjustment, but 
something more like a scavenger hunt.

It is interesting to me how we are all quibbling about the details. If anything 
is revealed 
here, it is that the demonstration demonstrated nothing. Except, perhaps, to 
the 
participants.

Personally, I thought the course was a great experience. I doubt if anyone 
outside the 
course even remembers it. Certainly it is not being cited in all the journals 
as a profound 
feat of engineering in the domain of collective consciousness. Needless to say, 
this is a 
typical cult phenomenon—the insiders believing that their every breath shakes 
the world, 
the outsiders not even noticing.

L B S






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Vaj 


On Nov 8, 2005, at 10:54 PM, akasha_108 wrote:You don't see how possibly "a single well constructed model would control for weather,  sociological and crime-factor variabes, and the intervention  variable, ALL AT THE SAME TIME."?  If you don't understand this, then what can I say. You have no background or knowledge of regression, ARIMA  and modeling. Why you are trying to interject points with no basis in knowledge is astounding. This is a constant in the TB mentality: *sound* like you know what you are talking about and hope that if you repeat it many times, people will believe you. I find this to be a rather common phenom in movement type and it is a subtle and continuous form of disinformation. When it becomes pervasive, that is, everyone around you or that you hang out with or listen to is parroting the same disinformation, it *becomes your reality*.  It's also the danger of trying to use a scientific methodology NOT as an attempt to find the truth, but as a marketing tool disguised as looking for the truth.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Vaj 


On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:03 AM, sparaig wrote: So what's going to be the practical result of all these half or 3/4 baked M-effect studies?   Millionaires giving MMY lots of money? The birth of a really creative marketing tool: make people think they are actually getting a meditation technique that leads to world peace. I mean, who could say no to that! If you were marketing something aimed at the 60's/boomer generation, what else would you need? It's not unlike the CEO that does *whatever* he can to keep that stock price up. In that sense, CEO Mahesh is the "spiritual" Dennis Kozlowski.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   snip
To recap: my guesstimation was indeed intutional, and based 
on 
 the
circumstance that the pundits were not actually going to 
appear 
  for 
the course
   
   No pundits were *scheduled* to appear for the course.
  
  ???OF course there were. Theynever showed and it was all done in-
  house by civilian sidhas.
 
 Of course??
 
 There was *nothing* in any of the literature or PR about
 the study--starting from months beforehand--that mentioned
 pundits, no buzz about it at the Manhattan center. This is
 the first I've heard anything about pundits in connection
 with the demonstration project, and I followed it very
 closely at the time.
 

I guess I was aware of things earlier than the announcements you 
heard. I was hearing things via the MUM grapevine via contacts with 
MUM professors and so on, IIRC.


 
   What are you talking about?  It was just your everyday
   TM-Sidhis practitioners (probably some Mother Divine and
   Purusha, though).
  
  The initial call was forpundits to fly in (via airplane) but they 
  couldn't make it happen.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 snip
  The FBI uniform crime statistics were used for the study. The data 
  is  publicly available from the FBI, but not the researchers, a 
  chief complaint by Barry M.
 
 No, that was the data for the Jerusalem study he was
 complaining about.


Ah, that's right. He couldn't complain about the non-public 
availability of the DC study because it was from a publicly available 
source already...






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:15 AM, authfriend wrote:
 
  It's important to understanding the study.  It's being
  used as a way to suggest they changed things around
  after seeing the data to get a better result, which isn't
  what happened.  And you're using it to construct all kinds
  of speculations about their methodology.  It's just
  ridiculous.
 
  They may have changed *other* things around, for all any
  of us know, but they didn't just introduce the weather
  after the fact.
 
 Why do you think they MIU researchers refused to share their raw 
data  
 with the University of Iowa?


As Judy pointed out,that was for the Jerusalem study. The DC study 
crime data comes from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, a book 
published yearly by... the FBI. The other data was also from public 
sources.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  LB, (or anyone familiar with the study)
  
  Per your prior note, 
  
  What was added in the 25% second round of analysis, relative to 
the
  first round, the 17% results? Was it the weather variables or 
Index? 
  
  Or was weather  included in the first round of analysis? If 
weather
  was in the first round. what was added in the second round. 
  
  When where the other control variables, other crime factors such 
as
  police on the street, police practices, LE funding, etc 
introduced?
 
 
 
 Clearing up a minor point on my own initial lowball estimate of 
17%:
 
 PANDITS HAD BEEN PART OF THE  ORIGINAL PROTOCOL. They had been 
bought and paid 
 for. Then they didn't show. So the group that participated was not 
as powerful as the 
 group that had originally been anticipated.
 
 After the scaling back of original reports claiming 25% reduction 
(might have been 20% 
 come to think of it), there was an ongoing effort of several months 
to make the data fit. 
 My graduate student friend Mark __ (last name still not 
remembered) was a part of 
 this. I had a standing joke with him about it: whenever I bumped 
into him I would ask, 
 Seen any good statistics lately? Then he would give me an 
informal update. Let me be 
 clear that this was not a conspiratorial relationship. Mark was 
completely sold on the 
 program and convinced that the correct interpretation of the data 
would reveal the results. 
 I was just an innocent bystander. Sort of.
 
 Since I was not recording all the details for posterity at the 
time, only the impressions 
 remain. The impressions indicated that it took quite an effort 
to rectify the findings 
 based on their original model. I do not remember a single 
alteration or adjustment, but 
 something more like a scavenger hunt.
 
 It is interesting to me how we are all quibbling about the details. 
If anything is revealed 
 here, it is that the demonstration demonstrated nothing. Except, 
perhaps, to the 
 participants.
 
 Personally, I thought the course was a great experience. I doubt if 
anyone outside the 
 course even remembers it. Certainly it is not being cited in all 
the journals as a profound 
 feat of engineering in the domain of collective consciousness. 
Needless to say, this is a 
 typical cult phenomenon—the insiders believing that their every 
breath shakes the world, 
 the outsiders not even noticing.

This is a valid point, but there are plenty of examples in the 
scientific community of a study or even a mathematical technique 
being ignored for years, decades (or even a century in the case of 
the math) that later on are seen as ground-breaking.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:03 AM, sparaig wrote:
 
 
  So what's going to be the practical result of all these half or 
3/4
  baked M-effect studies?
 
 
 
  Millionaires giving MMY lots of money?
 
 The birth of a really creative marketing tool: make people think 
they  
 are actually getting a meditation technique that leads to world  
 peace. I mean, who could say no to that! If you were marketing  
 something aimed at the 60's/boomer generation, what else would you  
 need? It's not unlike the CEO that does *whatever* he can to keep  
 that stock price up. In that sense, CEO Mahesh is the spiritual  
 Dennis Kozlowski.


Of course, perhaps TM and the TM-Sidhis really DO lead to world 
peace...







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread L B Shriver 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


snip


  Personally, I thought the course was a great experience. I doubt if 
 anyone outside the 
  course even remembers it. Certainly it is not being cited in all 
 the journals as a profound 
  feat of engineering in the domain of collective consciousness. 
 Needless to say, this is a 
  typical cult phenomenon—the insiders believing that their every 
 breath shakes the world, 
  the outsiders not even noticing.
 
 This is a valid point, but there are plenty of examples in the 
 scientific community of a study or even a mathematical technique 
 being ignored for years, decades (or even a century in the case of 
 the math) that later on are seen as ground-breaking.



True enough, point well taken. In a general sense, I think the consciousness 
movement 
will look better in retrospect than at its beginnings. On the other hand, I 
doubt that many 
of the other examples you refer to have had an amply-funded PR organization 
touting 
them, either.

L B S







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Vaj 


On Nov 9, 2005, at 8:06 AM, sparaig wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:03 AM, sparaig wrote:   So what's going to be the practical result of all these half or  3/4 baked M-effect studies?Millionaires giving MMY lots of money?  The birth of a really creative marketing tool: make people think  they   are actually getting a meditation technique that leads to world   peace. I mean, who could say no to that! If you were marketing   something aimed at the 60's/boomer generation, what else would you   need? It's not unlike the CEO that does *whatever* he can to keep   that stock price up. In that sense, CEO Mahesh is the "spiritual"   Dennis Kozlowski.   Of course, perhaps TM and the TM-Sidhis really DO lead to world  peace... Of course it is *possible*. Improbable IMO since TM or TMSP does not work at pacification and taming of the mind (in the yogic sense). However I find M.'s comments to Earl Kaplan to be rather telling. Even he doesn't believe it.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:15 AM, authfriend wrote:
 
  It's important to understanding the study.  It's being
  used as a way to suggest they changed things around
  after seeing the data to get a better result, which isn't
  what happened.  And you're using it to construct all kinds
  of speculations about their methodology.  It's just
  ridiculous.
 
  They may have changed *other* things around, for all any
  of us know, but they didn't just introduce the weather
  after the fact.
 
 Why do you think they MIU researchers refused to share their raw
 data with the University of Iowa?

I've explained this before.  The researcher who asked,
Barry Markovsky, had initially presented himself as an
objective, unbiased researcher who was interested in
their work.  They believed him and shared what they 
were doing with him.

Then they discovered he was making derogatory public
comments to the media and was strongly biased *against*
the whole enterprise.  When he demanded to see their
data, they were concerned that he would twist it and
misrepresent their findings.  They no longer trusted
him to give an honest account.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 PANDITS HAD BEEN PART OF THE  ORIGINAL PROTOCOL.

They were not any part of the protocol that was made
public, nor any part of the discussion and planning
by the independent review board that was made public.
I got on the mailing list for everything that was
released about the study from its early stages, and
there was no mention of pandits anywhere in it.

 They had been bought and paid 
 for. Then they didn't show. So the group that participated was not 
 as powerful as the group that had originally been anticipated.
 
 After the scaling back of original reports claiming 25% reduction 
 (might have been 20% come to think of it),

Yes, it was 20 percent.

 there was an ongoing effort of several months to make the data fit. 
 My graduate student friend Mark __ (last name still not 
remembered) was a part of 
 this. I had a standing joke with him about it: whenever I bumped 
into him I would ask, 
 Seen any good statistics lately? Then he would give me an 
informal update. Let me be 
 clear that this was not a conspiratorial relationship. Mark was 
completely sold on the 
 program and convinced that the correct interpretation of the data 
would reveal the results. 
 I was just an innocent bystander. Sort of.
 
 Since I was not recording all the details for posterity at the 
time, only the impressions 
 remain. The impressions indicated that it took quite an effort 
to rectify the findings 
 based on their original model. I do not remember a single 
alteration or adjustment, but 
 something more like a scavenger hunt.
 
 It is interesting to me how we are all quibbling about the details.
 If anything is revealed here, it is that the demonstration 
 demonstrated nothing. Except, perhaps, to the participants.

Even the *raw data*--the crime rate statistics--showed
a very significant reduction from the rate the previous
year for that period, considerably more than would have
been expected from the overall crime trend.

What's more, that reduction occurred only during the
demonstration period and for a few weeks afterward.
Then it went right back up.

One of the problems the researchers encountered was
obtaining the crime data in the way they had
originally anticipated.  They had apparently been
told by law enforcement (FBI or DC police, not sure
which) that they would get it in a certain form, 
broken down into certain categories, and they
constructed their methodology around that understanding.

Whether they misunderstood or had been misinformed isn't
clear, but a good deal of the fumfing around they had to
do afterwards involved redoing the analysis to deal with
the form in which they *did* get the data.  Plus which,
there was a long delay in obtaining one major part of
the data.

I don't remember the details, just the general outline.
Some of this may be described in the study itself.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Nov 8, 2005, at 10:54 PM, akasha_108 wrote:
 
  You don't see how possibly a
  single well constructed model would control for weather,
  sociological and crime-factor variabes, and the intervention
  variable, ALL AT THE SAME TIME.?
 
  If you don't understand this, then what can I say. You have no
  background or knowledge of regression, ARIMA  and modeling. Why 
  youare trying to interject points with no basis in knowledge is  
  astounding.
 
 This is a constant in the TB mentality: *sound* like you know what  
 you are talking about and hope that if you repeat it many times,  
 people will believe you.

For the record--since Vaj is responding to comments
akasha has made about me, I assume I'm included by
Vaj in the TB mentality--I am most definitely *not*
a TB with regard to the Maharishi Effect.  I've said
from the outset, moreover, that I have almost no
knowledge of the statistical methodology used in the
study, nor of statistics in general, beyond an
intelligent layperson's understanding.

I'm also on the record many times as saying that even
if the ME *does* exist, I don't think it can be
conclusively demonstrated scientifically.

Plus which, I've said several times in this discussion
that my interest is *not* in showing the study to be
valid but rather in trying to make sure the broad
outlines of what they were doing are correctly
understood so that if criticisms are made, they aren't
made of a straw man based on misconceptions.

For example, in another post akasha complains that
only violent crime statistics were studied and
expresses suspicion that the researchers left out
statistics on nonviolent crime because they didn't
demonstrate any effect.

That's just a mistake.  The study was *always* to
be about violent crime *only*.  That is clearly
stated in the protocol that was publicly announced
before the demonstration project even began.

Then we've also seen the claim that they decided to
use weather as a control after the fact in order to
get the data to say what they wanted.  That is false;
the use of the weather was part of the publicly
announced protocol as well.

This is the kind of misunderstanding I'd like to
clear up.

With regard to akasha's comment above about a single
model, the way he states it makes me think he does
not understand how the study was done and why.  I
certainly could be wrong.  I didn't say it *couldn't*
be the case that a single model could do what the
researchers intended, only that I didn't see *how*
it could.  akasha's explanations are not on a level
that I can comprehend, nor has he made much of an
effort to help me out.

But he hasn't seen the study.  It used highly
sopisticated statistical methodology, and I don't
think it's even possible to speculate about what
was done on that level of sophistication.

 I find this to be a rather common phenom in  
 movement type and it is a subtle and continuous form of  
 disinformation. When it becomes pervasive, that is, everyone 
 around you or that you hang out with or listen to is parroting the 
 same disinformation, it *becomes your reality*.  It's also the 
 danger of trying to use a scientific methodology NOT as an attempt 
 to find the truth, but as a marketing tool disguised as looking for 
 the truth.

I'm sure there are true believers in the Maharishi
Effect to whom this applies.  But in my case, it's
just offensive and deliberately insulting bullshit,
and my posts on this topic make that crystal clear.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
  Why do you think they MIU researchers refused to share their raw 
  data with the University of Iowa?
 
 As Judy pointed out,that was for the Jerusalem study. The DC study 
 crime data comes from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, a book 
 published yearly by... the FBI. The other data was also from public 
 sources.

Actually, the data for the Jerusalem study were
also publicly available.  What Markovsky wanted
was not the raw data but the data from their
statistical analysis.  He wanted to see all their
calculations, in other words--what went into their
study that was not reported in the published paper.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread L B Shriver 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 snip
  PANDITS HAD BEEN PART OF THE  ORIGINAL PROTOCOL.
 
 They were not any part of the protocol that was made
 public, nor any part of the discussion and planning
 by the independent review board that was made public.
 I got on the mailing list for everything that was
 released about the study from its early stages, and
 there was no mention of pandits anywhere in it.



Protocol might have been a poor choice of words here, given its specific 
meaning with 
respect to scientific research. However, the pandits were indeed a central part 
of the pland 
for the course, and their absence was widely noted when they failed to show.

With all due respect, the fact that you do not recall this at all raises some 
question about 
the accuracy of other points you have raised.



  They had been bought and paid 
  for. Then they didn't show. So the group that participated was not 
  as powerful as the group that had originally been anticipated.
  
  After the scaling back of original reports claiming 25% reduction 
  (might have been 20% come to think of it),
 
 Yes, it was 20 percent.
 
  there was an ongoing effort of several months to make the data fit. 
  My graduate student friend Mark __ (last name still not 
 remembered) was a part of 
  this. I had a standing joke with him about it: whenever I bumped 
 into him I would ask, 
  Seen any good statistics lately? Then he would give me an 
 informal update. Let me be 
  clear that this was not a conspiratorial relationship. Mark was 
 completely sold on the 
  program and convinced that the correct interpretation of the data 
 would reveal the results. 
  I was just an innocent bystander. Sort of.
  
  Since I was not recording all the details for posterity at the 
 time, only the impressions 
  remain. The impressions indicated that it took quite an effort 
 to rectify the findings 
  based on their original model. I do not remember a single 
 alteration or adjustment, but 
  something more like a scavenger hunt.
  
  It is interesting to me how we are all quibbling about the details.
  If anything is revealed here, it is that the demonstration 
  demonstrated nothing. Except, perhaps, to the participants.
 
 Even the *raw data*--the crime rate statistics--showed
 a very significant reduction from the rate the previous
 year for that period, considerably more than would have
 been expected from the overall crime trend.
 
 What's more, that reduction occurred only during the
 demonstration period and for a few weeks afterward.
 Then it went right back up.



I think that the movement spin machine frames it that way, but as I remember, 
the police 
in DC, who had been very cooperative with the study, found the results to be 
ambiguous 
at best.

At this point, it would take a separate study, beginning from the raw stats, to 
see if such a 
reduction was obvious. As I said before, quite a lot of massaging was required 
afterwards 
to make the data look good.


 
 One of the problems the researchers encountered was
 obtaining the crime data in the way they had
 originally anticipated.  They had apparently been
 told by law enforcement (FBI or DC police, not sure
 which) that they would get it in a certain form, 
 broken down into certain categories, and they
 constructed their methodology around that understanding.
 
 Whether they misunderstood or had been misinformed isn't
 clear, but a good deal of the fumfing around they had to
 do afterwards involved redoing the analysis to deal with
 the form in which they *did* get the data.  Plus which,
 there was a long delay in obtaining one major part of
 the data.
 
 I don't remember the details, just the general outline.
 Some of this may be described in the study itself.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Vaj 


On Nov 9, 2005, at 9:29 AM, authfriend wrote:I'm also on the record many times as saying that even if the ME *does* exist, I don't think it can be conclusively demonstrated scientifically. Well, two comments. One, I think it can be demonstrated and has--but it was not called the "Maharishi effect" and Two, I don't believe anyone did any scientific research when it did. There may have been some sociological research. One example was one of the former Soviet republics which slowly converted to Buddhism and there was a huge upsurge in people practicing meditation and taming their own minds. It became a peaceable country. They also integrated western medicine with Tibeto-Ayurvedic medicine.The downside of course was, their neighbors didn't.In the case I'm thinking of, and I'll have to try and relocate the article I had read on this as it might interest some here, no "research" was necessary. It was obvious that this positively affected their entire population. High level of Gross National Happiness.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Rick Archer 
on 11/9/05 4:41 AM, Robert Gimbel at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Back in December, 1983, Maharishi arrived for the
 Taste of Utopia Course.
 That evening, the temperature in Fairfield plunged to about 15
 degrees below zero;
 The local press, made a big deal of all the meditators, standing
 outside the dome, in the freezing temperatures, for a glimpse of
 Maharishi.
 I don't know what the crime rate was then,
 But I know it was too damn cold to think about anything, besides
 staying warm...  

With the wind chill it was 50 below. I saw a guy walking through the snow
across campus with sandals on.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Peter 


--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 snip
   Why do you think they MIU researchers refused to
 share their raw 
   data with the University of Iowa?
  
  As Judy pointed out,that was for the Jerusalem
 study. The DC study 
  crime data comes from the FBI Uniform Crime
 Statistics, a book 
  published yearly by... the FBI. The other data was
 also from public 
  sources.
 
 Actually, the data for the Jerusalem study were
 also publicly available.  What Markovsky wanted
 was not the raw data but the data from their
 statistical analysis.  He wanted to see all their
 calculations, in other words--what went into their
 study that was not reported in the published paper.

In any published paper the methodology and the type of
statistical analysis along with the rational for that
particular analysis used is discussed in the paper. My
understanding is that Markovsky wanted to see the raw
data that was crunched by that analysis. I view
Markovsky attitude toward the ME has healthy
skepticism considering its radical nature and MIU's
refusal to share raw data was based more on the
weakness of the ME than on any bias on his part. They
were concerned that the raw data could be crunched to
show no ME. And their concern was correct. 



 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ~-- 
 Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
 Yahoo! your home page

http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM

~-
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!' 
 Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 





__ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  snip
   PANDITS HAD BEEN PART OF THE  ORIGINAL PROTOCOL.
  
  They were not any part of the protocol that was made
  public, nor any part of the discussion and planning
  by the independent review board that was made public.
  I got on the mailing list for everything that was
  released about the study from its early stages, and
  there was no mention of pandits anywhere in it.
 
 
 
 Protocol might have been a poor choice of words here, given its 
specific meaning with 
 respect to scientific research.

Yup.

 However, the pandits were indeed a central part of the pland 
 for the course, and their absence was widely noted when they failed 
to show.
 
 With all due respect, the fact that you do not recall this at all 
raises some question about 
 the accuracy of other points you have raised.

No, of course it doesn't.  It just means I started keeping
track of it after the pundit possibility had gone down the
tubes and nobody was talking about it any more.

Or that for some reason pundits per se were never mentioned
in any of the literature I was sent.

snip
  Even the *raw data*--the crime rate statistics--showed
  a very significant reduction from the rate the previous
  year for that period, considerably more than would have
  been expected from the overall crime trend.
  
  What's more, that reduction occurred only during the
  demonstration period and for a few weeks afterward.
  Then it went right back up.
 
 
 
 I think that the movement spin machine frames it that way,

The raw data shows it.

 but as I
 remember, the police in DC, who had been very cooperative with the 
 study, found the results to be ambiguous at best.

The police representative on the independent review
board endorsed the results of the study (he was an
expert in crime stats), although he wouldn't commit
to the conclusion that the crime rate decline was the
result of the gathering.  But he said the methodology
appeared to be in order.

It's hardly surprising the police department wouldn't
find the notion that a bunch of people bouncing on
their rears could do anything to reduce crime very
appealing.

 At this point, it would take a separate study, beginning from the 
 raw stats, to see if such a reduction was obvious.

The raw stats *themselves* were obvious; there was
a sharp decline in violent crime during the gathering
compared to the same period the previous year.  The
issue is whether there was anything else that could
account for it.  The point of the study and all the
statistical analysis was to rule out other factors.

 As I said before, quite a lot of massaging was required afterwards 
 to make the data look good.

And as I said before, at least part of it had to do
with revamping the methodology and analysis to deal
with the form in which they got the statistics, which
wasn't what they had been expecting when they designed
them.

 
 
  
  One of the problems the researchers encountered was
  obtaining the crime data in the way they had
  originally anticipated.  They had apparently been
  told by law enforcement (FBI or DC police, not sure
  which) that they would get it in a certain form, 
  broken down into certain categories, and they
  constructed their methodology around that understanding.
  
  Whether they misunderstood or had been misinformed isn't
  clear, but a good deal of the fumfing around they had to
  do afterwards involved redoing the analysis to deal with
  the form in which they *did* get the data.  Plus which,
  there was a long delay in obtaining one major part of
  the data.
  
  I don't remember the details, just the general outline.
  Some of this may be described in the study itself.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Nov 9, 2005, at 9:29 AM, authfriend wrote:
 
  I'm also on the record many times as saying that even
  if the ME *does* exist, I don't think it can be
  conclusively demonstrated scientifically.
 
 Well, two comments.

How about an apology for grossly misrepresenting
my position?



 One, I think it can be demonstrated and has--but  
 it was not called the Maharishi effect and Two, I don't believe  
 anyone did any scientific research when it did. There may have 
been  
 some sociological research. One example was one of the former 
Soviet  
 republics which slowly converted to Buddhism and there was a huge  
 upsurge in people practicing meditation and taming their own 
minds.  
 It became a peaceable country. They also integrated western 
medicine  
 with Tibeto-Ayurvedic medicine.
 
 The downside of course was, their neighbors didn't.
 
 In the case I'm thinking of, and I'll have to try and relocate the  
 article I had read on this as it might interest some here, no  
 research was necessary. It was obvious that this positively  
 affected their entire population. High level of Gross National  
 Happiness.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 
 
 --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  snip
Why do you think they MIU researchers refused to
  share their raw 
data with the University of Iowa?
   
   As Judy pointed out,that was for the Jerusalem
  study. The DC study 
   crime data comes from the FBI Uniform Crime
  Statistics, a book 
   published yearly by... the FBI. The other data was
  also from public 
   sources.
  
  Actually, the data for the Jerusalem study were
  also publicly available.  What Markovsky wanted
  was not the raw data but the data from their
  statistical analysis.  He wanted to see all their
  calculations, in other words--what went into their
  study that was not reported in the published paper.
 
 In any published paper the methodology and the type of
 statistical analysis along with the rational for that
 particular analysis used is discussed in the paper.

But not the reams and reams of data produced by the
statistical analysis.  (That was noted by the editor
of the Journal of Conflict Resolution in his comment
published with the paper.)

 My
 understanding is that Markovsky wanted to see the raw
 data that was crunched by that analysis.

The raw data, again, were publicly available.  He wanted
to see the data *after* it had been crunched.

 I view
 Markovsky attitude toward the ME has healthy
 skepticism considering its radical nature

Healthy, objective skepticism is fine.  Markovsky was
also biased against the whole enterprise.  That's
obvious from his paper on the Jerusalem study, but
I could quote from many posts of his to alt.m.t that
make it crystal clear his intention from the start
was to debunk it.

You might find it of interest to read a lengthy
discussion that took place on alt.m.t in which he 
maintained the TM researchers were unethical because
they didn't obtain informed consent from the
populations they were trying to affect before
commencing the intervention.

 and MIU's
 refusal to share raw data was based more on the
 weakness of the ME than on any bias on his part. They
 were concerned that the raw data could be crunched to
 show no ME. And their concern was correct. 

I'm sure the raw data *could* be crunched to show no
ME, especially if that was what one was determined to
find.  That's surely what Markovsky wanted to do, as
I suggested.

In that respect their concern *was* correct, but not
necessarily because they were afraid the ME was weak.

Also on alt.m.t, TMer Kurt Arbuckle, who has some
expertise in statistics, posted some analyses that
indicated Markovsky either didn't understand or
was misrepresenting the TM researchers' statistical
methodology.

I'm in no position to evaluate the accuracy of Kurt's
thesis, but he's a pretty straightforward guy.
Markovsky, I'm afraid, is not.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Vaj 


On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:19 PM, authfriend wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   On Nov 9, 2005, at 9:29 AM, authfriend wrote:  I'm also on the record many times as saying that even if the ME *does* exist, I don't think it can be conclusively demonstrated scientifically.  Well, two comments.  How about an apology for grossly misrepresenting my position? Apologize for your hallucinations? Unlikely.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:19 PM, authfriend wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
  On Nov 9, 2005, at 9:29 AM, authfriend wrote:
 
 
  I'm also on the record many times as saying that even
  if the ME *does* exist, I don't think it can be
  conclusively demonstrated scientifically.
 
 
  Well, two comments.
 
 
  How about an apology for grossly misrepresenting
  my position?
 
 Apologize for your hallucinations? Unlikely.

Sez Vaj, continuing grossly and quite deliberately
to misrepresent.

And he complains about the purported dishonesty of
Maharishi and the TMO...

Can you say hypocrite?






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Vaj 


On Nov 9, 2005, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:19 PM, authfriend wrote:  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Nov 9, 2005, at 9:29 AM, authfriend wrote:   I'm also on the record many times as saying that even if the ME *does* exist, I don't think it can be conclusively demonstrated scientifically.   Well, two comments.   How about an apology for grossly misrepresenting my position?  Apologize for your hallucinations? Unlikely.  Sez Vaj, continuing grossly and quite deliberately to misrepresent.  And he complains about the purported dishonesty of Maharishi and the TMO...  Can you say "hypocrite"? Of course it's honest. It's honest because I've never even discussed "your position" in this regard.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Nov 9, 2005, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
  On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:19 PM, authfriend wrote:
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
 
 
 
  On Nov 9, 2005, at 9:29 AM, authfriend wrote:
 
 
 
  I'm also on the record many times as saying that even
  if the ME *does* exist, I don't think it can be
  conclusively demonstrated scientifically.
 
 
 
  Well, two comments.
 
 
 
  How about an apology for grossly misrepresenting
  my position?
 
 
  Apologize for your hallucinations? Unlikely.
 
 
  Sez Vaj, continuing grossly and quite deliberately
  to misrepresent.
 
  And he complains about the purported dishonesty of
  Maharishi and the TMO...
 
  Can you say hypocrite?
 
 Of course it's honest. It's honest because I've never even 
discussed  
 your position in this regard.

More misrepresentation.


On Nov 8, 2005, at 10:54 PM, akasha_108 wrote:

You don't see how possibly a single well constructed model would 
control for weather, sociological and crime-factor variabes, and the 
intervention variable, ALL AT THE SAME TIME.?

If you don't understand this, then what can I say. You have no
background or knowledge of regression, ARIMA  and modeling. Why you
are trying to interject points with no basis in knowledge is 
astounding.

Vaj commented:

This is a constant in the TB mentality: *sound* like you know what 
you are talking about and hope that if you repeat it many times, 
people will believe you. I find this to be a rather common phenom in 
movement type and it is a subtle and continuous form of 
disinformation. When it becomes pervasive, that is, everyone around 
you or that you hang out with or listen to is parroting the same 
disinformation, it *becomes your reality*.  It's also the danger of 
trying to use a scientific methodology NOT as an attempt to find the 
truth, but as a marketing tool disguised as looking for the truth.
-

Akasha, as you know, was responding to something I
had said, hence your comment appeared designed to
include me as one of the TBs you proceeded to
viciously attack.

If you would like to state for the record that you
did not mean to imply that I was included in those
you were so insultingly characterizing, fine, I'll
accept that.

If not, I stand by my assertion that you were
deliberately and offensively misrepresenting
my position.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Peter 
The latest round of tag team wrestling on FFL. Soon
Irmeli and I will jump in for you!

--- Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Nov 9, 2005, at 1:42 PM, authfriend wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
  On Nov 9, 2005, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote:
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
 
  On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:19 PM, authfriend wrote:
 
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  On Nov 9, 2005, at 9:29 AM, authfriend wrote:
 
 
 
 
  I'm also on the record many times as saying
 that even
  if the ME *does* exist, I don't think it can
 be
  conclusively demonstrated scientifically.
 
 
 
 
  Well, two comments.
 
 
 
 
  How about an apology for grossly
 misrepresenting
  my position?
 
 
 
  Apologize for your hallucinations? Unlikely.
 
 
 
  Sez Vaj, continuing grossly and quite
 deliberately
  to misrepresent.
 
  And he complains about the purported dishonesty
 of
  Maharishi and the TMO...
 
  Can you say hypocrite?
 
 
  Of course it's honest. It's honest because I've
 never even
 
  discussed
 
  your position in this regard.
 
 
  More misrepresentation.
 
  
  On Nov 8, 2005, at 10:54 PM, akasha_108 wrote:
 
  You don't see how possibly a single well
 constructed model would
  control for weather, sociological and crime-factor
 variabes, and the
  intervention variable, ALL AT THE SAME TIME.?
 
  If you don't understand this, then what can I say.
 You have no
  background or knowledge of regression, ARIMA  and
 modeling. Why you
  are trying to interject points with no basis in
 knowledge is
  astounding.
 
  Vaj commented:
 
  This is a constant in the TB mentality: *sound*
 like you know what
  you are talking about and hope that if you repeat
 it many times,
  people will believe you. I find this to be a
 rather common phenom in
  movement type and it is a subtle and continuous
 form of
  disinformation. When it becomes pervasive, that
 is, everyone around
  you or that you hang out with or listen to is
 parroting the same
  disinformation, it *becomes your reality*.  It's
 also the danger of
  trying to use a scientific methodology NOT as an
 attempt to find the
  truth, but as a marketing tool disguised as
 looking for the truth.
  -
 
  Akasha, as you know, was responding to something I
  had said, hence your comment appeared designed to
  include me as one of the TBs you proceeded to
  viciously attack.
 
  If you would like to state for the record that you
  did not mean to imply that I was included in those
  you were so insultingly characterizing, fine, I'll
  accept that.
 
  If not, I stand by my assertion that you were
  deliberately and offensively misrepresenting
  my position.
 
 
 sigh This email was not addressed to you nor was
 it meant to  
 specifically refer to you. It's not all about you
 Judy.
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ~-- 
 Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
 Yahoo! your home page

http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM

~-
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!' 
 Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 





__ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Vaj 


On Nov 9, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Peter wrote:The latest round of tag team wrestling on FFL. Soon Irmeli and I will jump in for you! Since Barry disappeared, it was inevitable. I'll remember to bring the Jello next time.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Nov 9, 2005, at 1:42 PM, authfriend wrote:
snip
  Akasha, as you know, was responding to something I
  had said, hence your comment appeared designed to
  include me as one of the TBs you proceeded to
  viciously attack.
 
  If you would like to state for the record that you
  did not mean to imply that I was included in those
  you were so insultingly characterizing, fine, I'll
  accept that.
 
  If not, I stand by my assertion that you were
  deliberately and offensively misrepresenting
  my position.
 
 sigh This email was not addressed to you nor was it meant to  
 specifically refer to you. It's not all about you Judy.

Was your insulting description of how TBs deal
with the scientific studies, in response to what
akasha had said to me, *include* me, Vaj?

akasha wrote:

If you don't understand this, then what can I say. You have no
background or knowledge of regression, ARIMA and modeling. Why you
are trying to interject points with no basis in knowledge is
astounding.

Vaj commented:

This is a constant in the TB mentality: *sound* like you know what
you are talking about and hope that if you repeat it many times,
people will believe you. I find this to be a rather common phenom in
movement type and it is a subtle and continuous form of
disinformation. When it becomes pervasive, that is, everyone around
you or that you hang out with or listen to is parroting the same
disinformation, it *becomes your reality*. It's also the danger of
trying to use a scientific methodology NOT as an attempt to find the
truth, but as a marketing tool disguised as looking for the truth.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Nov 9, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Peter wrote:
 
  The latest round of tag team wrestling on FFL. Soon
  Irmeli and I will jump in for you!
 
 Since Barry disappeared, it was inevitable.

Yeah, Vaj, you just couldn't bear to see me go
un-bashed for any length of time.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 The latest round of tag team wrestling on FFL. Soon
 Irmeli and I will jump in for you!

Sorry if it offends you, Peter, but there's entirely
too much indiscriminate bashing with the scornful TB
label of those who don't happen to buy into every
half-baked criticism of MMY and the TMO.

Usually I let it pass, but Vaj's comments were too
egregiously, outrageously false.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Vaj 


On Nov 9, 2005, at 2:36 PM, authfriend wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   On Nov 9, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Peter wrote:  The latest round of tag team wrestling on FFL. Soon Irmeli and I will jump in for you!  Since Barry disappeared, it was inevitable.  Yeah, Vaj, you just couldn't bear to see me go un-bashed for any length of time. Now I'm bashing you? Get a sense of humor while they're still free...I notice how you deliberately clipped out the part about the Jello! gasp





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'








  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Maharishi university of management
  
  
Maharishi mahesh yogi
  
  
Ramana maharshi
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread tazarmfune 
 Vaj commented:
 
 This is a constant in the TB mentality: *sound* like you know 
what
 you are talking about and hope that if you repeat it many times,
 people will believe you. I find this to be a rather common 
phenom in
 movement type and it is a subtle and continuous form of
 disinformation. When it becomes pervasive, that is, everyone 
around
 you or that you hang out with or listen to is parroting the same
 disinformation, it *becomes your reality*. It's also the danger of
 trying to use a scientific methodology NOT as an attempt to find 
the
 truth, but as a marketing tool disguised as looking for the truth.

Sounds like politicians and political parties.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Peter 
It doesn't offend me, Judy. I recognize that it has
much more importance for the participants then anyone
else. And I certainly have done the same thing many
times especially with Akasha and most recently with
Irmeli. I was attemting to inject a little levity into
the situation.

--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
 
  The latest round of tag team wrestling on FFL.
 Soon
  Irmeli and I will jump in for you!
 
 Sorry if it offends you, Peter, but there's entirely
 too much indiscriminate bashing with the scornful
 TB
 label of those who don't happen to buy into every
 half-baked criticism of MMY and the TMO.
 
 Usually I let it pass, but Vaj's comments were too
 egregiously, outrageously false.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
 ~-- 
 Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
 Yahoo! your home page

http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM

~-
 
 
 To subscribe, send a message to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Or go to: 
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
 and click 'Join This Group!' 
 Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  
 
 
 




__ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one
click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com



__ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread Vaj 


On Nov 9, 2005, at 2:46 PM, tazarmfune wrote:Vaj commented:  This is a constant in the TB mentality: *sound* like you know  what you are talking about and hope that if you repeat it many times, people will believe you. I find this to be a rather common  phenom in movement type and it is a subtle and continuous form of disinformation. When it becomes pervasive, that is, everyone  around you or that you hang out with or listen to is parroting the same disinformation, it *becomes your reality*. It's also the danger of trying to use a scientific methodology NOT as an attempt to find  the truth, but as a marketing tool disguised as looking for the truth.  Sounds like politicians and political parties. or a cult or just real life in samsara.





To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'





  




  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread jim_flanegin 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 The latest round of tag team wrestling on FFL. Soon
 Irmeli and I will jump in for you!


Also, can you guys adopt wrestler-type nicknames, like these:
http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/jasonsite/nicknames.html

It'll be a Spiritual Smackdown!!!

 
 --- Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  
  On Nov 9, 2005, at 1:42 PM, authfriend wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
  
   On Nov 9, 2005, at 1:05 PM, authfriend wrote:
  
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
  
  
   On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:19 PM, authfriend wrote:
  
  
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
   wrote:
  
  
  
  
  
  
   On Nov 9, 2005, at 9:29 AM, authfriend wrote:
  
  
  
  
   I'm also on the record many times as saying
  that even
   if the ME *does* exist, I don't think it can
  be
   conclusively demonstrated scientifically.
  
  
  
  
   Well, two comments.
  
  
  
  
   How about an apology for grossly
  misrepresenting
   my position?
  
  
  
   Apologize for your hallucinations? Unlikely.
  
  
  
   Sez Vaj, continuing grossly and quite
  deliberately
   to misrepresent.
  
   And he complains about the purported dishonesty
  of
   Maharishi and the TMO...
  
   Can you say hypocrite?
  
  
   Of course it's honest. It's honest because I've
  never even
  
   discussed
  
   your position in this regard.
  
  
   More misrepresentation.
  
   
   On Nov 8, 2005, at 10:54 PM, akasha_108 wrote:
  
   You don't see how possibly a single well
  constructed model would
   control for weather, sociological and crime-factor
  variabes, and the
   intervention variable, ALL AT THE SAME TIME.?
  
   If you don't understand this, then what can I say.
  You have no
   background or knowledge of regression, ARIMA  and
  modeling. Why you
   are trying to interject points with no basis in
  knowledge is
   astounding.
  
   Vaj commented:
  
   This is a constant in the TB mentality: *sound*
  like you know what
   you are talking about and hope that if you repeat
  it many times,
   people will believe you. I find this to be a
  rather common phenom in
   movement type and it is a subtle and continuous
  form of
   disinformation. When it becomes pervasive, that
  is, everyone around
   you or that you hang out with or listen to is
  parroting the same
   disinformation, it *becomes your reality*.  It's
  also the danger of
   trying to use a scientific methodology NOT as an
  attempt to find the
   truth, but as a marketing tool disguised as
  looking for the truth.
   -
  
   Akasha, as you know, was responding to something I
   had said, hence your comment appeared designed to
   include me as one of the TBs you proceeded to
   viciously attack.
  
   If you would like to state for the record that you
   did not mean to imply that I was included in those
   you were so insultingly characterizing, fine, I'll
   accept that.
  
   If not, I stand by my assertion that you were
   deliberately and offensively misrepresenting
   my position.
  
  
  sigh This email was not addressed to you nor was
  it meant to  
  specifically refer to you. It's not all about you
  Judy.
  
  
   Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  ~-- 
  Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make
  Yahoo! your home page
 
 http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
 
 ---
-~-
  
  
  To subscribe, send a message to:
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  Or go to: 
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
  and click 'Join This Group!' 
  Yahoo! Groups Links
  
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
   
  
  
  
 
 
 
   
   
 __ 
 Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
 http://mail.yahoo.com







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread authfriend 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Nov 9, 2005, at 2:36 PM, authfriend wrote:
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Nov 9, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Peter wrote:
  The latest round of tag team wrestling on FFL. Soon
  Irmeli and I will jump in for you!
 
  Since Barry disappeared, it was inevitable.
 
  Yeah, Vaj, you just couldn't bear to see me go
  un-bashed for any length of time.
 
 Now I'm bashing you?

Of course you were bashing me.  You've called me
a TB any number of times on alt.m.t; and here,
when I asked you if you would simply say you were
not including me in your attack on TBs, you
refused to do so.

 Get a sense of humor while they're still free...

Take some responsibility for your behavior for 
a change.



 
 I notice how you deliberately clipped out the part about the 
Jello!  
 gasp








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 snip
 
 
   Personally, I thought the course was a great experience. I 
doubt if 
  anyone outside the 
   course even remembers it. Certainly it is not being cited in 
all 
  the journals as a profound 
   feat of engineering in the domain of collective consciousness. 
  Needless to say, this is a 
   typical cult phenomenon—the insiders believing that their every 
  breath shakes the world, 
   the outsiders not even noticing.
  
  This is a valid point, but there are plenty of examples in the 
  scientific community of a study or even a mathematical technique 
  being ignored for years, decades (or even a century in the case 
of 
  the math) that later on are seen as ground-breaking.
 
 
 
 True enough, point well taken. In a general sense, I think 
the consciousness movement 
 will look better in retrospect than at its beginnings. On the other 
hand, I doubt that many 
 of the other examples you refer to have had an amply-funded PR 
organization touting 
 them, either.

AMply funded, but quite self-consciously home-grown, and therefore 
nowhere near as efficient as it could be.

And the scientific community itself is known for being babes inthe 
wood when handling PR. Look at the Creationism vs Evolution issue or 
the new thing with global warming vs Michael Chricton. I can 
guarantee you who will be believed, at least in the short run.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Nov 9, 2005, at 8:06 AM, sparaig wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
 
  On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:03 AM, sparaig wrote:
 
 
 
  So what's going to be the practical result of all these half or
 
  3/4
 
  baked M-effect studies?
 
 
 
 
  Millionaires giving MMY lots of money?
 
 
  The birth of a really creative marketing tool: make people think
 
  they
 
  are actually getting a meditation technique that leads to world
  peace. I mean, who could say no to that! If you were marketing
  something aimed at the 60's/boomer generation, what else would 
you
  need? It's not unlike the CEO that does *whatever* he can to keep
  that stock price up. In that sense, CEO Mahesh is the spiritual
  Dennis Kozlowski.
 
 
 
  Of course, perhaps TM and the TM-Sidhis really DO lead to world
  peace...
 
 Of course it is *possible*. Improbable IMO since TM or TMSP does 
not  
 work at pacification and taming of the mind (in the yogic sense).  
 However I find M.'s comments to Earl Kaplan to be rather telling.  
 Even he doesn't believe it.


He said, if Kaplan understood him correctly in the first place, that 
there was no proof that all the things that Kaplan thought would 
happen would happen if they implemented what Kaplan wanted. The 
context was that he was responding to a suggestion to blow all of the 
TMO capital on a project that would make sure that the TMO wouldn't 
survive if they were wrong.

The implication of the ME studies is that there is a shortcut to 
trying to teach everyone (or most people) in the world to meditate: 
get a small number meditating/hopping together will have the same 
global effect. But what if it didn't? Then the long-term goal of the 
TMO, to get everyone to meditate, would never happen.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  
  On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:15 AM, authfriend wrote:
  
   It's important to understanding the study.  It's being
   used as a way to suggest they changed things around
   after seeing the data to get a better result, which isn't
   what happened.  And you're using it to construct all kinds
   of speculations about their methodology.  It's just
   ridiculous.
  
   They may have changed *other* things around, for all any
   of us know, but they didn't just introduce the weather
   after the fact.
  
  Why do you think they MIU researchers refused to share their raw
  data with the University of Iowa?
 
 I've explained this before.  The researcher who asked,
 Barry Markovsky, had initially presented himself as an
 objective, unbiased researcher who was interested in
 their work.  They believed him and shared what they 
 were doing with him.
 
 Then they discovered he was making derogatory public
 comments to the media and was strongly biased *against*
 the whole enterprise.  When he demanded to see their
 data, they were concerned that he would twist it and
 misrepresent their findings.  They no longer trusted
 him to give an honest account.


That's not how Barry sees it, but given that he doesn't see his own 
biases very well, I'm not surprised.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 snip
  PANDITS HAD BEEN PART OF THE  ORIGINAL PROTOCOL.
 
 They were not any part of the protocol that was made
 public, nor any part of the discussion and planning
 by the independent review board that was made public.
 I got on the mailing list for everything that was
 released about the study from its early stages, and
 there was no mention of pandits anywhere in it.

I was getting stuff from MIU faculty well before the study was 
publicly announced and it WAS part of theprotocol.

 
  They had been bought and paid 
  for. Then they didn't show. So the group that participated was 
not 
  as powerful as the group that had originally been anticipated.
  
  After the scaling back of original reports claiming 25% reduction 
  (might have been 20% come to think of it),
 
 Yes, it was 20 percent.
 
  there was an ongoing effort of several months to make the data 
fit. 
  My graduate student friend Mark __ (last name still not 
 remembered) was a part of 
  this. I had a standing joke with him about it: whenever I bumped 
 into him I would ask, 
  Seen any good statistics lately? Then he would give me an 
 informal update. Let me be 
  clear that this was not a conspiratorial relationship. Mark was 
 completely sold on the 
  program and convinced that the correct interpretation of the data 
 would reveal the results. 
  I was just an innocent bystander. Sort of.
  
  Since I was not recording all the details for posterity at the 
 time, only the impressions 
  remain. The impressions indicated that it took quite an effort 
 to rectify the findings 
  based on their original model. I do not remember a single 
 alteration or adjustment, but 
  something more like a scavenger hunt.
  
  It is interesting to me how we are all quibbling about the 
details.
  If anything is revealed here, it is that the demonstration 
  demonstrated nothing. Except, perhaps, to the participants.
 
 Even the *raw data*--the crime rate statistics--showed
 a very significant reduction from the rate the previous
 year for that period, considerably more than would have
 been expected from the overall crime trend.

I don't know that very significant was the appropriate term. At the 
least, the rawdata was in the predicted data.

 
 What's more, that reduction occurred only during the
 demonstration period and for a few weeks afterward.
 Then it went right back up.
 
 One of the problems the researchers encountered was
 obtaining the crime data in the way they had
 originally anticipated.  They had apparently been
 told by law enforcement (FBI or DC police, not sure
 which) that they would get it in a certain form, 
 broken down into certain categories, and they
 constructed their methodology around that understanding.
 
 Whether they misunderstood or had been misinformed isn't
 clear, but a good deal of the fumfing around they had to
 do afterwards involved redoing the analysis to deal with
 the form in which they *did* get the data.  Plus which,
 there was a long delay in obtaining one major part of
 the data.
 
 I don't remember the details, just the general outline.
 Some of this may be described in the study itself.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 snip
   Why do you think they MIU researchers refused to share their 
raw 
   data with the University of Iowa?
  
  As Judy pointed out,that was for the Jerusalem study. The DC 
study 
  crime data comes from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, a book 
  published yearly by... the FBI. The other data was also from 
public 
  sources.
 
 Actually, the data for the Jerusalem study were
 also publicly available.  What Markovsky wanted
 was not the raw data but the data from their
 statistical analysis.  He wanted to see all their
 calculations, in other words--what went into their
 study that was not reported in the published paper.


Its a legitimate request, on the face of it. In fact, there are 
proposals floating around to make that information a formal part of 
any published study, given how cheap CD ROM burning is these days.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[...]
 At this point, it would take a separate study, beginning from the raw 
stats, to see if such a 
 reduction was obvious. As I said before, quite a lot of massaging was 
required afterwards 
 to make the data look good.

That may or may not be the case. The weather model, as Judy pointed 
out, was always part of the study protocol. Perhaps the raw data wasn't 
as nice as they had hoped, but the raw data DID show reductions from 
the same time period a year ago.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Nov 9, 2005, at 9:29 AM, authfriend wrote:
 
  I'm also on the record many times as saying that even
  if the ME *does* exist, I don't think it can be
  conclusively demonstrated scientifically.
 
 Well, two comments. One, I think it can be demonstrated and has--
but  
 it was not called the Maharishi effect and Two, I don't believe  
 anyone did any scientific research when it did. There may have 
been  
 some sociological research. One example was one of the former 
Soviet  
 republics which slowly converted to Buddhism and there was a huge  
 upsurge in people practicing meditation and taming their own 
minds.  
 It became a peaceable country. They also integrated western 
medicine  
 with Tibeto-Ayurvedic medicine.
 
 The downside of course was, their neighbors didn't.
 
 In the case I'm thinking of, and I'll have to try and relocate the  
 article I had read on this as it might interest some here, no  
 research was necessary. It was obvious that this positively  
 affected their entire population. High level of Gross National  
 Happiness.

But an entire country practicing meditation wouldn't be an example of 
the maharishi effect unless their practice DID have an effect on 
surrounding countries.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread sparaig 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[...]
 In any published paper the methodology and the type of
 statistical analysis along with the rational for that
 particular analysis used is discussed in the paper. My
 understanding is that Markovsky wanted to see the raw
 data that was crunched by that analysis. I view
 Markovsky attitude toward the ME has healthy
 skepticism considering its radical nature and MIU's
 refusal to share raw data was based more on the
 weakness of the ME than on any bias on his part. They
 were concerned that the raw data could be crunched to
 show no ME. And their concern was correct. 
 

1) Barry definitely has biases. He admitted to me that he could see 
WHY the TM researchers thought he had biases,and in fact, his own 
published comments show a ludicrous bias that he denied showed bias 
(the very definition of extreme bias, I think).

2) how do you know that the recrunching of the numbers would show no 
ME since no-one has apparently done so? This assumption on your part 
shows your OWN biases, obviously...






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Was Lynch - Now Crime, Abortion the DC study

2005-11-09 Thread akasha_108 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  Then they discovered he was making derogatory public
  comments to the media and was strongly biased *against*
  the whole enterprise.  When he demanded to see their
  data, they were concerned that he would twist it and
  misrepresent their findings.  They no longer trusted
  him to give an honest account.
 
 
 That's not how Barry sees it, but given that he doesn't see his own 
 biases very well, I'm not surprised.


Wasn't he requesting in his research role at th U of Iowa? ifso,
Personality issues should not enter into it and MIU should have
honored a request from an adjacent and major university.








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

  1   2   >