[FairfieldLife] Re: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > > > Welll Since he doesn't mention the ME in the title OR the body > > of the text, perhaps > > > you're reading something into it that isn't there? > > > > > > No, you're right. He clearly is defending the ME: > > > > I am not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic. > > He's not. He's acknowledging he was in error. > > He already said he had no argument against your > analysis. What's your problem? um "I am not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic." Its an honest question. He sometimes is sarcastic (of a witty vein). Did you not read my post? (oops, thats sarcastic / satire on you. :)) 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > Welll Since he doesn't mention the ME in the title OR the body > of the text, perhaps > > you're reading something into it that isn't there? > > > > No, you're right. He clearly is defending the ME: > > I am not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic. He's not. He's acknowledging he was in error. He already said he had no argument against your analysis. What's your problem? 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > Welll Since he doesn't mention the ME in the title OR the body of the text, perhaps > you're reading something into it that isn't there? > > No, you're right. He clearly is defending the ME: I am not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic. If so, you are failing. Or I fail to get it. Please explain what you are actually trying to say. > "This effect And this "effect is only in DOJs mind. Or in the swiftness of his slight of hand for quick skimmers. The effect DOES NOT EXIST in the data DOJ presents. He either ineptly, or with malintent, switches the base years. Its bad or fraudulent analysis. Take your pick. I am not sure which is worse for a guy who did or oversaw a majority of TMO research. > can not be explained by the increased population of the meditators in the > town at that time. Though as i have pointed out in the oringinal post on this thread, re-read it if you missed it, he SHOULD take into account the new infusions of TMers -- that is subtract that from the per/capita denominator if he is legitimately trying to show an ME effect. If he is only trying to show that demographic changes effect crime -- well ok. But so what. Thats not news. What is surprising, he is unable to even demonstrate that (with an accurate use and application of the data.) > The following population figures from the Census Bureau for the > transition period, which were used in INCORRECTLY > calculating the crime rates for Fairfield for those > years, show that an increase in the population figures cannot > explain the reduction in > crime rate." A reduction that DOES NOT EXIST. Men on the moon can't explain an effect that has not been demonstrated either. (Non-existing if there is competenet and honest use of the data) Spraig. LOOK AT THE CHARTS FOR MORE THAN 5 SECONDS. As you say, "THINK ABOUT IT". Read his claims. THEY DO NOT MATCH THE DATA IN THE CHARTS. Read my original post if you still don't see the fraud or ineptness in his so-called "study". 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I read DOJ's analysis. Its distrurbing that it is so shallow > and has > > > > > > so many unaddressed (or only partially addressed) questionable > > > > > > metheodological issues. > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you email him your analysis and see if > > > > > he has a rebuttal? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I didn't see his webpage as presenting any massively > > > persuasive evidence of the > > > > ME in Fairfield and I suspect he doesn't either. > > > > > > He closes, "it can be seen from this study that MIU/MUM had a > > > consistent, dramatic effect on Fairfield crime for almost 20 years." I > > > interpret that as he is pretty convinced of an ME effect in FF. A > > > higher level of conviction than you appear to have. > > > > > > > He didn't say "ME has had effect," but "MIU/MUM had effects." > Perhaps hge meant that the > > ME had the effect, but I noted the phrasing. > > > > Perhaps its "good" spinning, parsing, wiggle-room carving and slight > of hand. > > Perhaps like ~"I was not [totally] naked [when I sought sex from that > young staffer.] Unstressing is not an excuse [but i am hoping you will > make an exception here] but it happens [in its debilitating --lets do > wild and crazy things-- form, mostly on long courses, but these people > are probably too dense slow to make the distiction]. > > What is the distiction implied or connated by the different wordings > (ME vs MUM)? That he wants to include 3000+ sidha's entry into the > population as part of the effect? (which by default he does). > Thats not ME, its a study of demographic change effects on crime. > > The title of his study -- or the question he is responding to is: > "Has the presence of Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield > Iowa created coherence in the collective consciousness of Fairfield? " > > Sounds more MEish than demographic changish. > Welll Since he doesn't mention the ME in the title OR the body of the text, perhaps you're reading something into it that isn't there? No, you're right. He clearly is defending the ME: "This effect can not be explained by the increased population of the meditators in the town at that time. The following population figures from the Census Bureau for the transition period, which were used in calculating the crime rates for Fairfield for those years, show that an increase in the population figures cannot explain the reduction in crime rate." 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > > > > > > I read DOJ's analysis. Its distrurbing that it is so shallow and has > > > > > so many unaddressed (or only partially addressed) questionable > > > > > metheodological issues. > > > > > > > > Why don't you email him your analysis and see if > > > > he has a rebuttal? > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I didn't see his webpage as presenting any massively > > persuasive evidence of the > > > ME in Fairfield and I suspect he doesn't either. > > > > He closes, "it can be seen from this study that MIU/MUM had a > > consistent, dramatic effect on Fairfield crime for almost 20 years." I > > interpret that as he is pretty convinced of an ME effect in FF. A > > higher level of conviction than you appear to have. > > > > He didn't say "ME has had effect," but "MIU/MUM had effects." Perhaps hge meant that the > ME had the effect, but I noted the phrasing. > Perhaps its "good" spinning, parsing, wiggle-room carving and slight of hand. Perhaps like ~"I was not [totally] naked [when I sought sex from that young staffer.] Unstressing is not an excuse [but i am hoping you will make an exception here] but it happens [in its debilitating --lets do wild and crazy things-- form, mostly on long courses, but these people are probably too dense slow to make the distiction]. What is the distiction implied or connated by the different wordings (ME vs MUM)? That he wants to include 3000+ sidha's entry into the population as part of the effect? (which by default he does). Thats not ME, its a study of demographic change effects on crime. The title of his study -- or the question he is responding to is: "Has the presence of Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield Iowa created coherence in the collective consciousness of Fairfield? " Sounds more MEish than demographic changish. 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And if there is no ME in FF, after almost 30 years of YF and BIG ME > courses, 30+ years of large numbers of meditators and rounders, > exceeding 1% and SR of 1%, then you are not going to find it anywhere. > > Yes, this entire subject can be abandoned and forgotten about as there is obviously no such thing as the ME, just look at the state of the world and think how many pundits are supposedly creating harmony in world consciousness. I think it was good science though, testing the theory is important and if the facts don't fit the theory the theory must be wrong! At least all the TM donors will save a few dollars knowing they don't have to support this stuff anymore. Actually, I seem to remember a money back guarantee if it didn't work, any takers we know of? 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > > > > I read DOJ's analysis. Its distrurbing that it is so shallow and has > > > > so many unaddressed (or only partially addressed) questionable > > > > metheodological issues. > > > > > > Why don't you email him your analysis and see if > > > he has a rebuttal? > > > > > > > Of course, I didn't see his webpage as presenting any massively > persuasive evidence of the > > ME in Fairfield and I suspect he doesn't either. > > He closes, "it can be seen from this study that MIU/MUM had a > consistent, dramatic effect on Fairfield crime for almost 20 years." I > interpret that as he is pretty convinced of an ME effect in FF. A > higher level of conviction than you appear to have. > He didn't say "ME has had effect," but "MIU/MUM had effects." Perhaps hge meant that the ME had the effect, but I noted the phrasing. 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
And if there is no ME in FF, after almost 30 years of YF and BIG ME courses, 30+ years of large numbers of meditators and rounders, exceeding 1% and SR of 1%, then you are not going to find it anywhere. If there is no ME in FF then the fat lady has sung. The ball game is over. Finito. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > > > > I read DOJ's analysis. Its distrurbing that it is so shallow and has > > > > so many unaddressed (or only partially addressed) questionable > > > > metheodological issues. > > > > > > Why don't you email him your analysis and see if > > > he has a rebuttal? > > > > > > > Of course, I didn't see his webpage as presenting any massively > persuasive evidence of the > > ME in Fairfield and I suspect he doesn't either. > > He closes, "it can be seen from this study that MIU/MUM had a > consistent, dramatic effect on Fairfield crime for almost 20 years." I > interpret that as he is pretty convinced of an ME effect in FF. A > higher level of conviction than you appear to have. > 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > > I read DOJ's analysis. Its distrurbing that it is so shallow and has > > > so many unaddressed (or only partially addressed) questionable > > > metheodological issues. > > > > Why don't you email him your analysis and see if > > he has a rebuttal? > > > > Of course, I didn't see his webpage as presenting any massively persuasive evidence of the > ME in Fairfield and I suspect he doesn't either. He closes, "it can be seen from this study that MIU/MUM had a consistent, dramatic effect on Fairfield crime for almost 20 years." I interpret that as he is pretty convinced of an ME effect in FF. A higher level of conviction than you appear to have. 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > [...] > > These two factors could well explain the huge drop off in Violent > > crime from 1973 to 1974. Its far more compelling IMO, than a 1/4 year > > of a ME effect from 600 TMers 20 min 2x. Particularly given that the > > hypothesized ME did not change for violent crimes in the next several > > years when there was 4x+ the "cohenrence" effect of ME. > > > > I'm not challanging much of anything you say save to note that David DOES mentin that > Parson's left at that point and that could explain the abrupt change in the crime statistics. It's > obviously not his main explanation, of course, but he DOES mention it. He does mention it in a selctive, qualfied and weak way. He mentions it for property crimes but not violent crimes. "The reduction in property crime the year before MIU arrived might be attributable to Parsons College leaving." He focuses on one year -- and he doesn't acknowledge or explain the property crime reduction trend long underway prior to MIU, from 1970-76. He doesn't acknowledge that Parson's closure in mid 73 (with possible/probable "Parsons effects" through 73), was the vastly more plausible explanation for the 80% reduction of violent crimes in the Whole of 1974 the year MIU did arrive -- for only the last three months. And that the ME effect had no more crime reduction in 1975, with 4x the meditator "intensity" compared to 74. And in the next sentence he goes on to say, ignoring his Parsons closure caveat, says, "Property crime in Fairfield compared to other small U.S. cities was 64% lower in the years after MIU came to Fairfield than in the years before MIU arrived." And in the next paragraph, "In any event, it can be seen from this study that MIU/MUM had a consistent, dramatic effect on Fairfield crime for almost 20 years." Thus he acknowledges the 73 property crime reduction (PCR) may have been due to Parsons closing that year, and yet ignores that by asserting a 64 % ME PCR using 1970, apparently, as the base year. And this adds insult to injury - or confounds the delusion/illusion, since 1974 appears to be a far more appropriate base year than 1973. (That is 73 had parsons there for at least half a year, with a number of students probably lingering on for months after. 1974 only had 3 months of MEers.) Since the most appropriate base period would be when neither Parsons nor MIU was there -- just the native FF population, perhaps a 1/4*73 + 3/4 74 weighted average would approximate that better than either single year. 1970, DOJ's apparent choice, has NO relevance as the base year. Particularly since there is a definite pre-MIU PR 1970-1973, DOJ's above statements are such selectively biased spun, and unsupported that its disturbing that DOJ -- whose name is on most TMO / ME research -- has such a a loose and appaently biased approach to research. It makes me deeply wonder about the integrity of other reseach he was involved in. 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > I read DOJ's analysis. Its distrurbing that it is so shallow and has > > so many unaddressed (or only partially addressed) questionable > > metheodological issues. > > Why don't you email him your analysis and see if > he has a rebuttal? > Of course, I didn't see his webpage as presenting any massively persuasive evidence of the ME in Fairfield and I suspect he doesn't either. 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > These two factors could well explain the huge drop off in Violent > crime from 1973 to 1974. Its far more compelling IMO, than a 1/4 year > of a ME effect from 600 TMers 20 min 2x. Particularly given that the > hypothesized ME did not change for violent crimes in the next several > years when there was 4x+ the "cohenrence" effect of ME. > I'm not challanging much of anything you say save to note that David DOES mentin that Parson's left at that point and that could explain the abrupt change in the crime statistics. It's obviously not his main explanation, of course, but he DOES mention it. 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > I read DOJ's analysis. Its distrurbing that it is so shallow and has > > so many unaddressed (or only partially addressed) questionable > > metheodological issues. > > Why don't you email him your analysis and see if > he has a rebuttal? I probably will. A second draft. In re-reading it, some points could be sharpened. And a few more problems have occurred to me. Thus I would appreciate it if others do not forward this first draft to him. I sent him text and a link to the ME blog site I creatd. I recieved no response to that. (And i have not updated that for several weeks. See adjacent post of update on that.) 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I read DOJ's analysis. Its distrurbing that it is so shallow and has > so many unaddressed (or only partially addressed) questionable > metheodological issues. Why don't you email him your analysis and see if he has a rebuttal? 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: DOJ's Flawed Analysis of Sustained ME Effect on Crime Trends in FF
Excellent post "new morning"very thought provoking. Bill --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Bill (William)Simmons" > wrote: > > > > > > Fairfield itself offers an amazing case study. Because of the length > > > of time factor of the study group. > > > > > > 1. There would have been a crime rate prior to TM's introduction into > > > the community and should be verifable through past > > > public/police/court records. > > > > > > 2. Then the introduction of TM and its organization to the community. > > > > > > 3. And a 30 year study period in which the crime rate could be > > > tracted along with the steady growth of practising meditators. > > > > > > To my way of thinking. Thirty years of meditations by a steadily > > > increasing population of meditators (far exceeding the 1% cl;aimed > > > necessary to reverse rising crime rates) must result in a reduction > > > in Fairfield's crime rates or the whole ME therory is disproved. > > > > > > Has Fairfield itself ever been the subject of such a study. If > > > not,,,why not!!! How many crimminal offenses were reported in > > > Fairfield in the year TM meditators began in Fairfield and how many > > > reported offenses occured say last year? The trends should point to > > > a declining crime rate given the significant number of meditators in > > > the community. > > > > > > > > > For whatever it is worth: > > > > > http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/SocietalEffects/FairfieldCrime/inde x.cfm > > > > I read DOJ's analysis. Its distrurbing that it is so shallow and has > so many unaddressed (or only partially addressed) questionable > metheodological issues. > > Following is a quick list of five major obvious flaws -- there are > probably more: > > > 1) Base Year. > DOJ notes 74 as the year of the great migration (my term) to FF. And > uses 1973, and prior, as the base year(s) to compare the efffect of TM > etc on crime. > > The move occurred in middish Sept 1974. I was there. There was a lot > of chaos the first several weeks as things were unpacked, people moved > in, the place was cleaned, etc.,what I term "chaos effects" At a > minimum, starting in October -- probably later to give chaos effects > a chance to settle down, gives 1/4 of a year for TM effects. The other > 3/4s of the year were Pre-TM, same old unmitigated crime rate. > > So in 1975, we would expect to see 4x the effect of 1974 due to any ME > effect. The effect in 1975(and 76-77): no noticable change in violent > crimes, and only a small decrease in property crimes. But property > crimes was in a strong downward trend since 1970 through 1976. In > 77-79, in the period when YF began, and the number of meditators and > sidhas increased dramatically (as i recall -- anyone have data?), > DOJ's property crime index > actually increases, about 30% (visually). > > Is it reasonable to attribute this to 1/4 year of 600 or so 20 min 2x > TMers (no YF, no long rounding in that period)? And during a period > that was quite more relaxed than today with regards to many, what I > will term "satva factors" -- factors which the TMO apparently links to > purity/satva/being on the program: staying up late, unmarried > cohabitation on campus, lots of guys leaving womens dorms very late at > night or early in the morning, inorganic food, non SV buildings, old > Parsons vibes yet to be purified, some meat eating, etc. > > > Parsons Effects > Could other factors explain the very sharp decrease (around 80%+ > decrease) in violent crime in 1974? Lets look at Parsons College which > used the facilities until it formally closed in June 1973. See end of > post for details on Parsons. > > Given that there were probably 3-5000+ Parsons students at its peak, > plus faculty, administration and staff, probabably didn't all leave > town immediately. Its reasonable to assume that some lingered on > through the end of 1973, figuring out what to do next, since no other > colleges would apparently take them. However that essentially most > were gone by early 1974 is also a resonable assumption. And lets > assume the "flocking" -- "students from other communities would flock > to Fairfield to sample the atmosphere" stopped completely in 1973. > > These two factors could well explain the huge drop off in Violent > crime from 1973 to 1974. Its far more compelling IMO, than a 1/4 year > of a ME effect from 600 TMers 20 min 2x. Particularly given that the > hypothesized ME did not change for violent crimes in the next several > years when there was 4x+ the "cohenrence" effect of ME. > > Violent crimes are: murder, robbery, aggravated assault(usually > involving a weapon), unagravated assault (usually no weapon) and rape. > Given that up to 5000, 80% male, heavily partying, prone to drunkeness > students, plus
