--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <lengli...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You asked if I was someone named Tim Guy posting
> > > to Space City Skeptics, claiming that our writing
> > > styles and background are similar.
> > >
> > > http://spacecityskeptics.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/how-to-design-a-
> > positive-study-
> > > meditation-for-childhood-adhd/#comment-296
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/copqlw
> > >
> > > Do you really perceive my style and background as
> > > the same as, or even similar to, Mr Guy's?
> > >
> > > Goodness. I mean, we both appear to be native
> > > English speakers, but beyond that?
> > >
> > > Seriously.
> >
> > Unbelievable. Apparently she thinks this because
> > Tim Guy makes a couple of the same points you have.
> > Of course, there couldn't possibly be *two* people
> > who have looked at the research in question and come
> > to the same conclusions independently, now, could
> > there?
>
> Thing is, Ruth claimed that our writing styles were similar.
>
> I guess I could write like Mr. Guy. It wouldn't be that hard.
> All I would need to do is type properly. Then I would need
> to write in short sentences with no commas. Or very few.
>
>
> Actually, it's harder than it looked: I have a tendency to
> think parenthetically, and trying to marshal my words in
> a way that duplicates his style, really cramps mine, I found.
>
>
> Not to mention that my arguments would have more meat to them,
> seeing that I've argued with Skeptics on their home turf before,
> and know the language they use.
>
>
>
> >
> > An interesting feature of the discussion, BTW, is
> > that while Vaj accuses Tim Guy of <horrors> being
> > a TMer (and therefore incapable of either honesty
> > or objectivity), Vaj fails to identify himself as
> > a former TMer-turned-TM-critic, leaving the highly
> > misleading impression that he is simply an
> > independent outside observer with no axe to grind.
> >
>
> Well, had the subject been Buddhist meditation research, Vaj's
> handle would have evoked a response. Skeptics are great
> at being mono-thematic when discussing things.
>
> > This is particularly ironic when he makes one claim
> > after another about how TM research has been
> > conclusively debunked, when the *most* that can be
> > said is that some of it has been called in question.
> >
> > Also fascinating that, as Tim Guy points out, Vaj
> > confuses the hypotheses about EEG coherence with the
> > ME hypothesis--and Ruth actually backs Vaj up!
> >
>
> What leapt out at me was Ruth using silly arguments to counter
> some of the same points about the Cambridge Handbook that
> I've made in this forum. I may be mistaken but I don't recall her
> responses being quite as simplistic and full of holes as they were
> in the Skeptics forum.
>
> Ruth: surely you can see that TIm Guy and I are not the same person?
>
>
> Or do you REALLY assume that anyone who disagrees with you on a
> different forum, despite the different rhetorical style, must be the
same
> person because there can't be more than one semi-erudite pro-TM research
> poster?
>
>
> BTW, to claim that we have similar backgrounds is rather odd. I am a
massive
> underachiever: taught myself Calculus when I was 15 by reading a
book. Surely
> you had to notice that our respective perspectives concerning the
Science
> were at two levels of sophistication? Or, again, perhaps you simply
assume that
> anyone who disagrees with you must be ineddicated.
>
>
> Sheesh.
>
>
> L
>
Pardon me. You both appear to have some insider knowledge about some
studies and both have made similar arguments. So I was curious if you
were him. I am not a mind reader so I asked. I certainly meant no
insult and I inquired via pm in any event. I've tired of all of the
back and forth so I won't bother to ask you to outline what you found
silly about my arguments. However, the one thing that bugged me about
both you and Tim Guy was the assumption, contrary to what was said by
the authors, that evidence in the last 20 years was ignored. They
only reported what they found relevant but they read all the studies.
