On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:08 AM, authfriend wrote:
Vaj, I'm close to my limit for the week. I'll get to your
deceitful bafflegab about the TM research on Saturday.
In the meantime, I'll deal with *this* piece of deceit
from you:
Don't bother unless you have some independent research on TM you can
share. I, like Ruth and others, really don't have time for wasted
posts responding to a constant barrage of mischaracterizations which
demand responses, strawmen/Judy's golem arguments and red herrings.
Such pervasive dishonesty and consistent use of logical fallacy is
something truly worth ignoring.
We already know you're horribly and frantically desperate to try to
prove that biased, TMO-sponsored research is just the cats meow and
that world class scientists who get published in university textbooks
just don't know what they're talking about.
But sadly for you, I really don't look to aging and disgruntled text
editors for scientific advice.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote:
So...what *do* you think the Ig Nobels are awarded for?
It's for research that's considered laughable
Oops, no, you didn't get that quite right, Vaj.
From the Ig Nobel Web site:
"The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make
people laugh, and then make them think. The prizes are
intended to celebrate the unusual, honor the imaginative
-- and spur people's interest in science, medicine, and
technology."
http://www.ignobel.com/ig/
You've gotten this wrong before, and I've corrected you.
Your repetition of your error means we can chalk up to
your account one more deliberate attempt to mislead.
(Hugheshugo, I suspect, is simply misinformed.)
Actually I had it right before and and now. My response is from the
igNobel people as well.
I always found your desperate attempts to try to prove otherwise,
shall I say, entertaining.
Nice try, but no cigar.
and "that cannot, or should not, be reproduced."
Lacking reproducibility of course is one of the hallmarks of
pseudoscience.
True dat. But "should not be reproduced" ain't quite
the same thing, is it, now?
Well actually the quote says "cannot or should not".
So, in any event, the research you are referring to is pseudoscience.
Does anyone else find it hilarious this Judy-thrashing to try to make
the igNobel prizes look, uh, noble?
