Since previous mischaracterizations of findings pertinent to the subject
heading have been distributed widely (on the above newsgroups), this
update was felt to be appropriately included in the same breadth of
distribution.

I have researched the background of the so-called citicism of the "German
study on Transcendental Meditation (TM)" by Steve Guich, and have to report
a tremendous twisting and bending of truth.

The tactics is very simple. S.G takes very specifically chosen parts of
German texts and "translates" them according to his wishes.

I am not a translator. Therefore I give you the correct German texts here
with a few remarks to the translation. I believe the reader can trust his/
her own eyes and if there are questions we may discuss them.
I read on Soc.Culture.German.

But I do not want to discuss the useage of German words in German Court's
texts that deal with german society in lengthy postings; as done by some
TM-members who want to dicuss with me that the wording "Jugendsekte" in the
Germany of 1987 does not coincide with the wording "Totalitaerer Kult" or
"Psychokult" in 1996. We better leave that discussio to Germanists. I use
the term "destructive cult" here because that term is used in Steve Hassans
book about the "Mind Control" and because it is translated by "Totalitaerer
Kult" which replaced the term "Jugendsekte" in the last 10 years.

to remind you: S.G (indicated by > )

Betreff    : Court finds German TM "study" biased/unscientific
Datum      : Do 25.01.96, 13:46  (erhalten: 26.01.96)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
(...)

I already stated in an earlier posting that this in not quite correct.
(The OVG court decision stated:) In February 1978 there was a "Fachtagung"
(specialists meeting) at Hannover with the theme " Probleme im Zusammenhang
mit den sog. Jugendreligionen" (problems with destructive cults) where the
Bensheim group (singular!) presented its findings in form of a documentation.

No, that is in fact true:
this study (singular!) was *presented* *at* *a* *specialists* *meeting*
instead. Such a consortium is of course not a "established forum" in the
TM-sense.

Before that report, several publications of the ministery had already been
presented to the German public:

- July 1978 a report on destructive cults
  This one referred to a documentation of the AgpF (Bonn) with a "eindrucks-
  volle Dokumentation von Erfahrungsberichten betroffener Eltern und
  Sektenangehoeriger" (impressive documentation of affected parents and of
  cult-members). At the 10th of July the state-secretary gave that study to
  the press.

- after the mass-suicide of the Jones-Cult the state secretary gave an
  Interview about destructive cults, where he adressed TM as being a
  "fanatische Sekte" (fanatic sect).

- in June 1979 the state secretary answered an official question at the
  perliament where he stated that TM was a danger.

- In December 1979 the Minister for Youth, Family and Health presented a
  report in front of the Parliamentary Petetition Committee which was
  published in February 1980 under the titel "Jugendreligionen in der
  Bunderrepublik Deutschland" (destructive cults in the FRG).

This is a simple 180 degree turn from truth. Art 140 GG (136 ff. WV) defines
a clear constitutional separation of church and state inm the German
constitution.

the original wording is:

"Die von den Beteiligten im Verfahren vorgelegten Belege ergeben nicht,
dass Menschen, die sich in der TM-Bewegung engagieren oder auch nur nach
der TM Technik meditieren, tatsaechlich in einer gegenueber dem durch-
schnittlichen Prozentsatz hoeheren Quote psychisch erkranken."
The documents submitted by the parties of the proceeding
does not turn out that individuals who are actively involved in
the TM movement, or who meditate only according to the TM technique,
will not actually fall ill psychically, at a rate that is higher then
the average percentage of the population.

The actual wording is:

Die "Dokumentation (...)" der "Aktion (...)" und die "Dokumentation(...)"
sowie die Studie "Differenziaelle Wirkungen (...)" des "Instituts(...)",
Bensheim,  lassen repraesentative Aussagen nicht zu.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The underlined reads:
           "*allows* *no* *representative* *statements*"

please note that this is completely different from S.G.'s:

           "are *not* *based* *on* *a* *scientific* *sampling*"

*which* *is* *added* *by* free* *will* to the court's
findings. Here S.G. is *telling* a very *special* *truth* -
the "TM-truth".

In fact the court did *not* state that the prepared documents were not
based on a scientific sampling. It simply stated that a generalization
of the reports' findings towards representative statements are not
allowed (zugelassen). BTW: "are not based on a scientific sampling"
would read "beruhen nicht auf einer wissenschaftlichen Auswahl".

"Sie behandeln nur Einzelfaelle; es kommen nur negativ Eingestellte
zu Wort." Please note that S.G. translates "Einzelfaelle" to "isolated
cases" whereas the correct term is "individual cases".

"Diese Arbeiten sind von religioes-weltanschaulichen Gegnern
der TM-Bewegung verfasste Tendenzschriften."
These works are "biased documents" that are written by religious-ideo-
logical opponents.

S.G. translates the term "*Tendenzschrift*" to "are obvious bisased" .

"Tendenz" is "tendency" or "bias". "Schrift" is "writing" or "document".

The court thus refers to a document that has a tendencay. S.G. - in the
following part" comes back twice to the word *"obvious"* - which in fact
does *not* *appear* in the court's decision.

I have absolutely no idea why S.G. puts the word "obvious" here, which does
not occur at the court's text, entre paranthese.

I have absolutely no idea from which wording S.G. concludes the "lack of
sound scientific methodologies". Perhaps he does so, because he invented
the wordings himself (see "TM-Truth" above) when he translated
"representative statement to "scientific sampling".

I like to remember the reader to the simple *fact*
that the FRG (and the studies) did not (REPEAT *NOT*) state a general
overall principle that an inevitable, unavoidable causal nexus
leads to mental illness when TM is practized. The "scientific
methodologies" argument is a *strawman*. And S.G. knows it because he
read the decision of he High Constitutional Court, where the Court
complains the *constant* *ignorance* *of* *TM* to accept the fact
that the FRG did *no* general statement abaut that inevitable,
unavoidable causal-nexus.

The core of this scandalous statement is, that the findings and
decisions of two High Courts (The Bundeverwaltungsgericht ...

read more »

(...)

Wow. Amazing piece of work. It shows that Steve's weird logic about the
separation of Church and State goes thru his full document.

Tilman

I haven't seen the post you quote (if you or someone else could
email it to me, I'd be much obliged).

However, considering Bernd's presistent twisting of the truth and
the utter lack of logic in his previous posts, I would think
twice before giving much credence to any "research" he claims to
have performed.

An "amazing piece of work," perhaps.  That's certainly an apt
characterization of Bernd, at any rate.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hello Tilman

Thank you for the flowers :-)

I believe that the TMers will now use the original wording of the texts  
that I cited here to use the technique of *arbitrary* *exegesis* which I  
described in some of my earlier postings.

When the original stated:

"Die Dokumentationen (...) lassen repraesentattive Aussagen nicht zu"
"The Documents (...) do not allow representative statements"

the TMers will claim that the above sentnece *intended*
"The Documents (...) are not based on a scientific sampling".

And then this *intension* will be further developed until the intension  
becomes: "the lack of sound scientific methodologies of these studies".

After some further steps of arbitrary exegesis it then reads:

"German courts (..) calling it unscientific".

You see: That is how TM-science works:

Arbitrary exegesis.
half-truths.
Lies.

(all english citations from TM-scientist Steven Guich. German citation  
from Court decision OVG Muenster 5 A 1125/84).

Next step will be a severe critizism to my "translations", I suppose.

But I am not willing to discuss the finesse of German wording in englisch.  
If someone wants to discuss the wordings of the courts' decisions with me,  
s/he shall do that in German.

I am fed up with the heap of stinking lies that arises from the postings  
of TM scums. No matter how detailed we post the German point of view -  
including decisions from our High Courts - the scums will still continue  
to post their lies: ending up with the comparison of their own *financial*  
interests with the fate of our jewish population during the "3rd Reich".

They are acting like they never ever see objective opinions concerning TM  
- they are *unable* to recognize it: it is a kind of *filter* *to*  
*reality*.

Does TM harm to people ?? *YES* you can observe the results of TM at Frau  
Stein and Herr English - a complete loss of reality. Again and again they  
are claiming that all objective findings are "lies". Simply look at the  
statements of Stein/English from today.
*I* posted the *original* *wording* of the German Court's decisions and  
showed and *proved* *in* *detail* that Guichs statements were *false* -  
free inventions to discredit the German government on behalf of supression  
of churches.
But the TMers do not mind. They do not mind the *originals* and are  
telling their lies, developed from *hoaxed* *documents*, again and again.

As I told here I am not willing to *dispute* with scums. I am using a  
standard text instead now, to remind the reader that the scums are just  
playing around:

-------------------------------standard text----------------------------
.... SPAM  SPAM  SPAM  SPAM ...
[rest of XXX's irrelevant and meaningless {*filter*} and cheap eristic tricks
deleted]

Again you are *playing* around with words.....

You are twisting the truth autocratically on your own will. You need
several kB of worthless desinformation just to camouflage the simple fact
that charlatanes are regarded as *charlatanes* in Germany - and that the
German government has the right to warn its population.

Please accept the simple truth. You and your charlatane friends have lost
a case where *you* *tried* *to* *suppress* *the* *following* *truths*:

TM is a "Jugendsekte" (destructive cult).
TM is harming people.
TM teachers are not accordingly trained.
TM is acting dishonsetly.

All your kBytes of fanatic foam from your mouth (hands?) are worthless.
Look at the reality! *You* (i.e. "Jugendesekte" (destructive cult) TM)
*lost* the case.

*YOUR* *very* *special* kind of truth I cannot tell. No honorable wo/man
could or would tell that kind of truth....
XXX -  People that are *comparing* their actual decrease of *financial*
*interests* with the *merciless* *horror* of the German jewish population
during the Third Reich are *scums*.

Whatever names a *scum* calls me, is of no relevance at all.
No wo/man with a sense of honor will dispute on that scum level ...

If all TMers are like you, then it is a very urgent need to wipe out that
scum organization (and similar criminal ones)...

Ecrasez l'infame!
-----------------------end of standard text------------------------------

[I am preparing a translation about a study on TM-science (R. Hauth in AA  
I/91 p. 4 ff) or the way TM scums look at real (objective) science in  
Germany.]

I wonder if the TMers are telling lies by free will or if their mind is  
controlled by external forces ...

("UFO/TM circle event"   ??? :-))         )

und wech :-)

-  erratic othography is intended to contribute to common amu{*filter*}t  -
"Ja, was ich hier geschrieben habe, macht im Einzelnen ueberhaupt nicht  
den Anspruch auf Neuheit; und darum gebe ich auch keine Quellen an (...)"

As we shall see, far from being "a tremendous twisting and
bending of truth," Steve Guich's presentation of the court case
does not vary significantly from Bernd's version.  The
differences Bernd perceives are based on his lack of knowledge of
English usage (his objection to using "isolated" instead of
"individual," e.g.) and his lack of understanding of scientific
sampling methodologies.

For the record, the translation was not done by Steve Guich.  I'm
not sure where he got it, and it would have been appropriate for
him to cite his source; it's unfortunate that he didn't.  But
comparing the translation he used with the original German
clearly shows it was accurate.

And you expect us to take your word for this?

At the VERY least, assuming what you say above is true, you
should have made it clear you had chosen to substitute a newer
term for the *actual* translations of "Jugendsekte" (youth sect)
and "Jugendsreligion" (youth religion), rather than pretending
these two terms were translated "destructive cult."

Talk about "translating according to his wishes"!

<snip>

No, "problems with youth religions" ("translating according to
his wishes").

And with what groups were the other specialists affiliated?  
Sounds to me as though there was more than one group involved in
this meeting.

It was certainly not an "established *scientific*" forum.  A
meeting to consider "the problems of destructive cults," even if
there are scientific specialists involved, is not a scientific
forum, as the topic is not scientific but social (including, in
this case, religious) and political.

And where is this "impressive documentation" to be found?  On
what basis is it called "impressive"?  Who conducted it?  Did it
undergo peer review, and was it published?  Or was it the same
kind of trash as the Bensheim study?

Well, this *clearly* indicates the state secretary, at least,
hadn't a clue about TM's nature.  Nobody who knows anything about
TM would DREAM of linking it to the Jones cult.

No, "Youth religions in the FRG" ("translating according to his
wishes").  Where was this report published?

<snip>

(You have a double negative in there.  It should read either
"turns out that" or "will actually fall ill.")

The translation Steve used does not differ significantly from
yours in meaning.

The key here is "at a rate that is higher than the average
percentage of the population."  To demonstrate that TM practice
can be harmful, it has to be shown, at the very least, that the
percentage of TMers who "fall ill psychically" IS higher than
that in the general population.

And even this does not rule out the possibility that the group of
people who decide to learn TM are not as psychically healthy as
the general population to start with.  It's entirely possible
that people with psychological problems start TM *because* they
feel these problems will be helped by TM practice, whereas if
they did not have problems, they would not have felt the need to
start TM.

Thus, one might find a significantly higher percentage of people
with psychological problems among TMers even if TM itself not
only did no harm but actually helped reduce the incidence and
severity of those problems.

If one were to examine the records of those who entered
psychotherapy, one would probably find there was a very high
percentage with psychological problems.  Should one then conclude
these problems were *caused* by the psychotherapy?

Correlation does not prove causation.

In other words, merely determining that the percentage of TMers
with problems is higher than that in the general population does
not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between TM and
psychological harm.  More studies ruling out other possibilities,
such as that described above, would be required.

But the Bensheim study did not even demonstrate the preliminary
finding.

This is a quibble.  The reason the documentation did not allow
representative statements is *because* it was not based on a
scientific sampling.  When sampling is not scientific, no
representative statements can be made on the basis of findings
regarding the sample.

"Representative statements" means that the statements made about
the findings in the ...

read more »

              "lassen repraesentative Aussagen nicht zu."

*Arbitrary* *exegesis* - Statement by "implication" of meaning:

           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

.........................clearly implied .......... ROTFL

.... SPAM  SPAM  SPAM  SPAM ...
[rest of Judy's irrelevant and meaningless {*filter*} and cheap eristic tricks
deleted]

Again you are *playing* around with words.....

You are twisting the truth autocratically on your own will. You need
several kB of worthless desinformation just to camouflage the simple fact
that charlatanes are regarded as *charlatanes* in Germany - and that the
German government has the right to warn its population.

Please accept the simple truth. You and your charlatane friends have lost
a case where *you* *tried* *to* *suppress* *the* *following* *truths*:

TM is a "Jugendsekte" (destructive cult).
TM is harming people.
TM teachers are not accordingly trained.
TM is acting dishonsetly.

All your kBytes of fanatic foam from your mouth (hands?) are worthless.
Look at the reality! *You* (i.e. "Jugendesekte" (destructive cult) TM)
*lost* the case.

*YOUR* *very* *special* kind of truth I cannot tell. No honorable wo/man
could or would tell that kind of truth....
Judy -  People that are *comparing* their actual decrease of *financial*
*interests* with the *merciless* *horror* of the German jewish population
during the Third Reich are *scums*.

Whatever names a *scum* calls me, is of no relevance at all.
No wo/man with a sense of honor will dispute on that scum level ...

If all TMers are like you, then it is a very urgent need to wipe out that
scum organization (and similar criminal ones)...

Ecrasez l'infame!

-  erratic othography is intended to contribute to common amu{*filter*}t  -
"Ja, was ich hier geschrieben habe, macht im Einzelnen ueberhaupt nicht  
den Anspruch auf Neuheit; und darum gebe ich auch keine Quellen an (...)"

On Feb 27, 1996 20:14:00 in <alt.meditation.transcendental>,

Yes, clearly implied, as you'd realize if you had even a nodding
acquaintance with scientific methodology.

Findings are not representative = sampling was not scientific

Study of a scientific sampling of a group yields findings
representative of that group.

Study of a nonscientific sampling of a group yields findings not
representative of that group.

And if there were any uncertainty whatsoever on this point, it's
definitively removed by the statement following, which points out
that the persons in the sample studied were chosen on the basis
of their hostility to TM--i.e., a nonscientific sampling.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

<snip>

No, we'll use it to point out *your* arbitrary exegesis.

Of course, you didn't describe any arbitrary exegesis by TMers in
any of your previous postings, as I demonstrated in my responses.  
What you did prove is that your knowledge of English is
inadequate, that you are unable to follow a discussion, that you
lack understanding of the scientific method, and that you are
unable to think rationally.

Absolutely right. because (a) that's what "do not allow
representative statements" means, and (b) that's what the court
went on to point out, that the documents were not based on a
scientific sampling--according to your own translation.

That this was the intention was clear from what you yourself
posted.

No, only *one* court described the study as unscientific.

No, actually this is how Bernd-science works.

<snip>  

Yes, for instance, the part where you arbitrarily left out the
qualifications about the specific people the higher court said
might have negative experiences, i.e., young people who are
unstable and are confronting life crises.

Speaking of arbitrary exegesis.

The above example wasn't a matter of "finesse," it was a matter
of deliberate obfuscation.  You're incapable of "finesse."  
That's why your nonsense is so absurdly easy to refute.

<snip>  

We are not "scums," we are human beings, and we have not told any
lies, stinking or otherwise.  What we have beeen doing is
pointing out *your* stinking lies.

 No matter how detailed we post the German point of view -  

There's one of your stinking lies right there.  No TMer has ever
compared their financial interests with the fate of the Jews
under the Third Reich.

We certainly haven't seen any from *you*.

Quote *one* statement of mine or Lawson's in which either of us
called an objective finding a "lie."  You can't do it, because
your own statement is a lie.

Speaking of complete loss of reality.

 Simply look at the  

More lies.  First, the point of Steve's post was to document the
lies of "Honest" John Knapp.  Second, it has been documented
here in some detail that the German government *cooperates* with
the churches.  What it tries to suppress are "new religions."  
But even this doesn't apply to TM, because TM isn't a religion.

Third, you did not prove *any* statements of Steve's were false.  
You managed to come up with a few very minor, insignificant
quibbles about the translation he was using, but your English is
so poor and your understanding of scientific methodology so
lacking (not to mention your objectivity) that even those are
suspect.

No, we are telling no lies, nor are we using any "hoaxed
documents."  And I responded directly to your German texts and
translations.  There were no significant differences between your
translations (except where you deliberately omitted portions of
the original) and the translation Steve was using.

What this "standard text" reminds readers is that you're unable
to respond to any of my documentation of your lies,
misstatements, gross errors of understanding, and egregious bias.

It isn't that you're not willing to dispute with TMers, it's that
you haven't got the wherewithal.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I finally located my German dictionary (Harrap's Concise, 1982),
and I have a few more points to make with regard to Bernd's
translations.

<snip>

"Einzelfaelle" is translated in my dictionary as "isolated
cases," just as in the translation Steve Guich used.

<snip>

No.  In the context of opposing ideologies, as here, "Tendenz" is
a lot stronger than either "tendency" or "bias."  In English, it
would be translated "tendentious."

In other words, the court is saying these "studies" are advocacy
pieces, or anti-TM propaganda.  "Obviously biased" is an entirely
appropriate translation, but what the court said in German is
actually even more pointed.  The court wanted to get across the
idea that the authors never intended to conduct objective
scientific studies.

For a legal opinion, the court's language is rather strikingly
contemptuous.  The translation Steve used doesn't completely
convey this flavor.

No, in context:  These documents are propaganda (i.e., obviously
biased) pieces written by religious-ideological opponents of the
TM movement.

 S.G. - in the

A "Tendenzschrift" is a propaganda piece.  Propaganda pieces are
accurately characterized as "obviously biased."  Propaganda
*implies* obvious bias.  That's the defining characteristic of
propaganda.

<snip>

"It is possible that, when undertaken by young people,
identification with the goals and practices of the TM movement by
those who are unstable or going through a crisis will, in
isolated cases, lead to severe psychological disturbances...."

(This is what Bernd translated as "The possibility exists that
severe psychic damage may done to the people practizing TM.")

It appears the above is based on the testimony of the neutral
experts called by the lower court, who pointed out that
psychological disturbances could be triggered by TM in the same
way and to the same degree such disturbances can be triggered by
any major "life event," e.g., marriage.

The high court's language thus seems to support nothing more than
a warning that young people who are going through upheavals in
their lives should be aware that starting TM at that point might
possibly have negative consequences.

Not even TM would contest that.

What the high court is trying to do is find a way to characterize
the government's warning as innocuous.  If it's innocuous, then
there's no reason for TM to object to it, and no reason for the
government to be required to withdraw the warning.

Nowhere in anything Bernd posted is there any reference to the
Bensheim study per se by the high court, just as Steve originally
said.  The statements about "unstable" people and those going
through "crises" were based on the testimony of the lower court's
neutral experts, not on the Bensheim study.

Bernd translates:

"The High Administrational Court (BverwG) has stated in detail
*that* (and why) *this* *statement* *is* *justified*."

However, Bernd has *mistranslated* (quite deliberately) the
statement in question, as noted above, leaving out the
qualifications so as to make it sound as though the court is
asserting that *all* TMers are vulnerable to such damage, rather
than just unstable young people who are going through crises.  
The justification cited for the court's statement is not the
results of the studies but the testimony of the lower court's
neutral experts.

Bernd translates:

"Their findings are reproduceable and tenable and there are no
irrelevant or other considerations that hint to a disregardation
of the social context of the Bf. ( apellant = TM)."

(Bernd means "These" rather than "Their" at the beginning of this
sentence.)

Again, this refers to the possibility that in isolated cases,
unstable young people who are in crisis may experience negative
consequences from TM--the statement of the lower court's neutral
experts.  The court is not here referring to the Bensheim study.

Indeed, it appears that the court is tacitly admitting the
Bensheim study *was* biased.  It's saying, in effect, "Whether
the Bensheim study was biased is irrelevant, because neutral
experts have testified to the possibility the German government
was warning about"--i.e., a much more limited and qualified
possibility than what the Benshiem study's findings were claimed
by its authors to imply for TMers generally.

The high court, in other words, did not consider, much less
uphold, the Bensheim study, with regard either to its scientific
validity or to its objectivity.  The court found a different
justification for the government's warning, that being the
statements of the lower court's neutral experts, who didn't do
much more than decline to *rule out* the possibility that
unstable young people might suffer psychological disturbances
from starting TM, just as they might experience psychological
disturbances consequent to *any* significant "life event."

The high court effectively pulled a "bait and switch."

Better translation:

Especially, TM appears consistently to be unaware that the
federal government has not alleged a general or at any rate
significantly frequent established causal relationship between
membership in the TM movement and the arising of psychological
disturbances.

Since the Bensheim study *did* assert such a causal relationship,
the court is here implicitly saying the government is not basing
its warning on the Bensheim study.

Since it would be impossible to prove that the possibility of
psychological damage in isolated cases did NOT exist, this is a
fairly safe statement for the court to make.  The lower court's
neutral experts explicitly said the causes of such
disturbances--in any circumstances, not just TM--are not known.  
If the causes aren't known, TM can't be ruled out.

<snip>

Bernd's comment here is a total non sequitur.  "Cult" and "sect"
are not inherently pejorative, whereas "destructive cult," of
course, is *automatically* pejorative.  The court went out of
its way, as Steve said, to interpret the government's warning as
innocuous and as something TM should not be taking offense at.

Bernd seems to think "pejorative" means "untrue."  I suggest he
consult a good English dictionary.

He quoted the German, which stated, as Steve said, that TM was
not to assume that all statements made about cults and
sects--some of which *were* apparently pejorative--in the
government's report necessarily applied to TM.

There is no way one can read the meaning Bernd wishes to impose
above into the German high court's decision.  It's purely his own
invention.

<snip>

...

read more »

(Note: I'm trying not to make any judgement about the content of the debate,
only about the translations.  I am an American, but have done a fair share of
translating.  Still, I'm offering just an opinion based on the German texts
included in the post.)

I think in this context "individual cases" and "isolated cases" both seem
like feasible translations.  The trouble with translating from a dictionary
is that no language really translates word to word.  All language is
contextual, and translation is extremely difficult.

Tendenz cannot be taken to mean obviously biased.  Tendenzroman, for
instance, means a 'novel with a purpose.'  This would seem to mean a 'study
with a purpose.'

Or, they have a purpose of disproving TM.  That does suggest a bias, though
it doesn't mean that the studies themselves are wrong or inaccurate.

That does not follow from that small bit of German text presented here.  One
can have a study aimed at a purpose which is also scientific.  The American
Cancer Society may have a purpose of finding out how much cancer cigarettes
cause, but that does not make their study unscientific.  (The same can be
said for cigarette company studies trying to prove cigarettes safe, of
course).

No, I think you're reading into it.  If the full German wasn't in this post,
however, could you put in the rest of it and I'll see if I think the entire
context changes it.

Saying that a study or a document has a purpose does NOT make it necessarily
propaganda.  Again, you're reading a bit too much into it.

Here I think you have the better translation of the two offered.  Bernd's
translation makes it sound like anyone can be damaged.  The text limits the
chances of damage to those who are in a crisis or unstable.

The text did say instable people or people in a crisis (esp. young people,
but not JUST young people) are the ones in potential danger.  Presumably, the
warning takes into account that people in a crisis are perhaps more likely to
seek out something as TM, and that in such cases they are in danger.  That
seems like a reasonable cause to provide a warning of some sort. (One bit of
editorializing: I would probably apply a similar warning to every organized
religious belief system...)

(deletions)

Here, I think the second translation is indeed better.

(deletions)

OK, both of these seem to be saying the same thing.

-scott

Hello Scott

Exakt !

Genau :-)
I strictly believe that these people are a minority in real life. But here  
on the Net there are some nests....

Gute Idee !

1.
My english is very poor.

I am not able to translate "keine repraesentative Aussage" to  
"unscientific".  No matter what I use - the Merriam Websters or the New  
Oxford dictionary - it is always "no representative statement". I even  
looked up Wentworth/Flexner's dictionary of american slang - it still  
remains "no representative statement".

And I always thought "repreasentative Aussage" would be something like  
"representative statement". But now I have to find out that it really is  
"representative finding". Seems like "Aussage" means "Finding".  
Unfortunately my dictionaried are so old that I missed the new trends away  
from "statement"..

I therefore think it is better to discuss the juristic findings of a  
*German* court on the basis of the German texts.
Of course the remarks may be in english. This was the reason that I posted  
the original texts. But there is not much use in a dispute about the  
meaning of German words in texts of German Courts which handle a specific  
case of the German society.

Best example is the discussion about "Kausalzusammenhang". *German*  
*courts* (lawyers et. al.) think in terms of a bijective (surjevtive and  
injective) relations:
If A then B: Only if A then B. If B then the only cause is B.
There are many examples about that, when you look at decisions about  
radioactive emissions (and their effects) of nuclear power plants. I  
wonder if its the same in the US... The causality thus (as a bijective  
relation) is a unavoidable *law*. You have no chance to argue against  
it....
(In fact I cannot remember a case where such a causality was proven in  
juristical terms. Even at the products of the tobacco industry it reads:  
".. may cause .. ".) The anglo-saxonian histora of philosophy looks at  
that problem with a different point of view, I like to remind you at David  
Hume or Ludwig Wittgenstein.....

2.
Unfortunately I am completely unable to understand science.

I used to think that it is not allowed to make representative statements  
about Cosmology when using the scientific results of Quantum Mechanics  
(QM).

But now I had to learn that QM is *unscientific* because it is not allowed  
to make representative statements...

BTW: (You are the language expert)
What is the German translation for "{*filter*}wit" ??

mit freundlichem Grusse:       Bernd

-  erratic othography is intended to contribute to common amu{*filter*}t  -

<snip>

The full text is at TranceNet:
http://www.trancenet.org/research/index.html#german

If you do not have access to the Web, I may be able to send you text files.

J

---
http://www.trancenet.org. INFORMATION IS FREEDOM.

"I said whatever problems I might or might not have, TM is not making them better, it is making them worse and I decided to leave.... I felt like I was crossing from slavery into freedom." Mitch Kapor, Founder Lotus, Inc., EFF -- http://www.trancenet.org/personal

Except where noted, (C)1996 John M. Knapp. Permission automatically granted to repost or copy for any noncommercial purpose with this copyright notice. All other rights reserved.

Hello Scott

Thank you for your effort.

But I have to correct you. I did not make any *translations* of the  
court's findings. I just made a few remarks. (I explicitley stated that my  
remarks are no translations). I am not at treanslator. The remarks were  
nessesary to point to the content of the German texts as an aid for  
readers who are not that familiar with the German language...

My point was to present the *original* statements of the courts. I thought  
it was useful because TM-scums are using a techniques of "arbitrary  
exegesis" on *unauthorized* and *hoaxed* translations of German Courts  
decisions.

The technique of arbitrary exegesis is very simple. You have to take two  
different sentences (X and Y). It may as well happen that X contradicts Y  
or has no relationship at all. Then you have to state that Y *implied* X.

Example:

X : = "Z is not a statement that can be generalized"
Y : = "Z is unscientific"

As everyone can see that X is *not* Y, a trick is needed: the arbitrary  
exegesis. "Y implies X" therefore Y = X. If someone uses an argument that  
this is not correct, then the second trick follows: it is stated that you  
do not understand the basics of science ....

As I stated elswhere: I do not dispute with scums and I an fed up to read  
their stinking lies over and over agin. (Some cult-dealer/pusher claimed  
that s/he be a *human* an no scum. I don't know. I see only the postings  
here. And the postings are scum...)

Fortunately the scene in Germany is developing <freude!!>:

On friday (the 1st March) the *front* *page* of the "Kieler Nachrichten"  
(the biggest newspaper of Schleswig-Holstein) reported that it is intended  
to install a parliamentary enquete-comission about destructive cults  
(totalitaere Kulte) at the Bundestag (federal parliament). They will  
concentrate on the abuse of children by cults, this time. (It it assumed  
that about 80 000 children are under mind control of cults.)

I think it is a good sign that our government takes action again. :-))

mit freundlichem Grusse:       Bernd

-  erratic othography is intended to contribute to common amu{*filter*}t  -

                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^
                                           *statements*
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^
ROTFL.
.... SPAM  SPAM  SPAM  SPAM ...
[rest of Judy's irrelevant and meaningless {*filter*} and cheap eristic tricks
deleted]

Again you are *playing* around with words.....

You are twisting the truth autocratically on your own will. You need
several kB of worthless desinformation just to camouflage the simple fact
that charlatanes are regarded as *charlatanes* in Germany - and that the
German government has the right to warn its population.

Please accept the simple truth. You and your charlatane friends have lost
a case where *you* *tried* *to* *suppress* *the* *following* *truths*:

TM is a "Jugendsekte" (destructive cult).
TM is harming people.
TM teachers are not accordingly trained.
TM is acting dishonsetly.

All your kBytes of fanatic foam from your mouth (hands?) are worthless.
Look at the reality! *You* (i.e. "Jugendesekte" (destructive cult) TM)
*lost* the case.

*YOUR* *very* *special* kind of truth I cannot tell. No honorable wo/man
could or would tell that kind of truth....
Judy -  People that are *comparing* their actual decrease of *financial*
*interests* with the *merciless* *horror* of the German jewish population
during the Third Reich are *scums*.

Whatever names a *scum* calls me, is of no relevance at all.
No wo/man with a sense of honor will dispute on that scum level ...

If all TMers are like you, then it is a very urgent need to wipe out that
scum organization (and similar criminal ones)...

Ecrasez l'infame!

mit freundlichem Grusse:       Bernd

-  erratic othography is intended to contribute to common amu{*filter*}t  -

says...

Ja, das stimmt.

Sicher.  Wenn man zu lang wartet, dann passiert so etwas wie hier in den USA
vor ein paar Jahren in Waco, Texas (Kindermissbrauch, Kaempfe, usw) -- obwohl
es auch noch Leute gibt (besonders im Internet), die behaupten, dass die
Leute da nur ihre Rechte auf Waffenfreiheit und Religionsfreiheit ausgenuetzt
haben!  Unglaublich.
-scott

(Trotz des Crosspostings bin ich heute in der Laune, mein Deutsch zu
ueben...)