User talk:THC LOADEE

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, THC LOADEE. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

If you're going to make major (partisan) alterations to an article, it is polite to discuss on the talk page FIRST.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 12:43, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Meh, I've redone the article to be slightly more balanced, sort of in between the edits and the last revision I did. I think it's just the case of the snark level being a bit much for a newer user to handle :P (I am NOT going to edit war this). ArmondikoV^sshole 12:48, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Notice you're not a one trick pony.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 13:38, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Hi, THC! Welcome to the international house of brickbats! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:02, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Look, stop it already.

If you continue I will vandal bin you. Wisest evil Phantom Hoover! 12:46, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Fine, then I will just come back under a new ID and a new IP address. I thought this was a rational wiki, not a narrow-minded, dogmatic, fascist rant page. THC LOADEE 11:16, 2 February 2009 (EST)THC LOADEE

We are rational, which is why we won't let you put BS into pages. Wisest evil Phantom Hoover! 11:21, 2 February 2009 (EST)

(I binned him)  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 11:26, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I apologize. I did not understand the concept of this site. Thanks for taking the time to fuck with my account. THC LOADEE 18:58, 2 February 2009 (EST)THC LOADEE

You might find it easier to play the victim if your first contribution to the site wasn't an edit war. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 19:05, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I'm only a victim of myself. THC LOADEE 19:28, 2 February 2009 (EST)THC LOADEE

Copied from talk:Gary Null

You are "paroled" - try not to make me look stupid for trusting you.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 17:38, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Thank you. THC LOADEE 02:21, 5 February 2009 (EST)THC LOADEE

Copied from talk:Gary Null

No, my position is the same. You are making assumptions about my statements. As "rationals" I thought you guys might actually read what I say instead of making assumptions colored by your own views. There are countless varieties of quackery out there, but to throw out the baby with the bath water seems just as idiotic to me as marginalizing ALL "Alternative," "traditional," or "ancient" medicine." Are chiropractors quacks? Is it the general opinion of RationalWiki that meditation is bunk? What about yoga? These are all examples of CAM. P.S. I read the info pages here at RationalWiki and I will no longer try to edit the Gary Null entry. I made assumptions about what I thought Rational Wiki was supposed to be doing. I was trying to remove bias when in fact that is what is encouraged here at this site, so, I apologize. P.P.S. It's rather hard to respond to criticism when I can't edit a page. How about removing the block so I don't have to use multiple PC's to make comments? THC LOADEE 17:20, 2 February 2009 (EST)THC Loadee

And yes, chiropractors are quacks. As for meditation and yoga, it depends on what you think you're getting out of them. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:47, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I am so sorry you have such a cynical perspective when it comes to chiropractors. My whole family, including myself, several friends and multiple co-workers all consider chiropractors to be valuable. I have been to many chiropractors and can say that the ones who adjust individual vertebrae (not many at once) are excellent at treating back, neck and leg pain. Also, I am talking about real meditation and yoga, not some fad-type crap called yoga. The same yoga and meditative practices that have been handed down throughout the millennia. THC LOADEE 18:12, 2 February 2009 (EST)THC Loadee

I think our article on chiropractic does a good job of deconstructing that, so I'll address the yoga/meditation comment. First off, something's age doesn't grandfather it into rationality, much less usefulness. But I'm not dismissing it as "bunk" because I don't know what you're claiming. What I am really asking is what you think the meditation/yoga is accomplishing. Do I believe in yoga? It's not a matter of belief. Yoga exists. People do yoga everyday. The question of what yoga actually accomplishes is another matter entirely. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 18:53, 2 February 2009 (EST)

You have missed the point. I not saying that because yoga is old means that it is useful. I'm saying that because yoga has been passed down through the millennia is testament to it's usefulness. Of course, from my point of view it would seem that you have limited knowledge of yoga and it's applications. I say yoga but what I mean specifically is Hatha yoga, Raja yoga or Bikram yoga. Perhaps you have book knowledge but no practical experience. I suppose the same could be said for your experience with chiropractic. At any rate, I am not attempting to insult you. I am merely trying to say, to borrow a cliche, that knowing the path and walking the path are two different things. I have wlaked these paths and I find them to be extremely useful. In fact, most folks should practice some type of yoga for health and happiness.THC LOADEE 11:49, 3 February 2009 (EST)THC Loadee

I've both been to a chiropractor and done yoga. You're not answering my question, however. I believe meditation/yoga can be good for a person. But what benefits are you claiming yoga has? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 12:09, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I am not familiar with these. Is there only anecdotal evidence to support them, or are there any reliable, double-blind trials which have shown them to be effective? If there are many such trials, have they been subjected to an impartial meta analysis, and, if so, what was the conclusion?--Bob^{bing up} 13:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Bob, what are "these."THC LOADEE 13:46, 3 February 2009 (EST)THC Loadee

The things to which you refer in your post: "Hatha yoga, Raja yoga or Bikram yoga"--Bob^{bing up} 15:45, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Hatha yoga concerns flexibilty and strength. Raja yoga concerns meditation. Bikram yoga is a sub-type that includes asanas (postures) and pranayama (breathing) in a heated room. The research is out there. It shouldn't take you more than a few minutes to find a plethora of studies. Various types of yoga can be excellent for chronic pain, strength, increasing flexibilty, calming the mind, lowering blood pressure, balance. I could go on for a while. THC LOADEE 19:27, 3 February 2009 (EST)THC Loadee

Thank you. But I am talking about evidence. My question is - is there only anecdotal evidence to support them, or are there any reliable, double-blind trials which have shown them to be effective? If there are many such trials, have they been subjected to an impartial meta analysis, and, if so, what was the conclusion? You are making the claim - you may either support it or not.--Bob^{bing up} 02:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Bob, as I stated in the previous post, there numerous peer-reviewed studies on yoga. In thirty seconds you can find as many studies as you like. These articles are not difficult to find. Try:

http://www.healthandyoga.com/html/research_papers/

THC LOADEE 19:26, 4 February 2009 (EST)THC Loadee

Thanks for that I'll have a look. Actually the conversation did inspire me to have a look at, and write a stub on, Yogic flying. I wonder if you have any opinion on this or have ever practised it?--Bob^{bing up} 02:41, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Based on my experiences, yogic flying is a metaphor and those who actually think they can fly seem to me to be deluding themselves. Wouldn't it be nice to commute without ever getting into your car? THC LOADEE 12:08, 5 February 2009 (EST)THC Loadee

As far as I can see it's real flying. Invented by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - but you don't believe that then? :-( --Bob^{bing up} 13:14, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Since I'm at RationalWiki.com I'm going to assume you are speaking facetiously. If not, then I would say that what appears to be levitation in the photos is really just hopping in the lotus position. The source of some of those photos is a BBC documentary where it is claimed that no one has actually ever achieved stage 2 levitation. The rest are stage 1 hopping and stage 3 flying. THC LOADEE 19:22, 5 February 2009 (EST)THC LOADEE

I'm not sure what photos you refer to as the only link I provided went to a page which assured: "The third and final stage is real flying." (The pictures on that pare are pretty absurd, but that wasn't my point.) I thought you might be a believer as you have previously stated: "I'm saying that because yoga has been passed down through the millennia is testament to it's usefulness." and as yoigic flying maintains that: "Yogic Flying, an advanced aspect of the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs, was brought to the West by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi from the Vedic tradition of India, the world's most ancient continuous tradition of knowledge." then you might be a believer.

But I'm glad to see that you feel that people who believe in it are, in fact, deluded.--Bob^{bing up} 03:15, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I kind of figured you were setting me up, but that's OK, I probably would have done the same in your position. I think this yogic flying is an example of misinterpretation on the part of the purveyors and practitioners. I mean when Christians say Jesus turned water into wine, rational beings know this to be a figure of speech or a metaphor. The same goes for Yogic flying. The metaphor helps people to believe, helps them to get into the particular frame of mind necessary for that particular belief system. Of course, in the end we know that yogis can't fly, Jesus didn't turn water into wine, and Shaolin monks can't walk through walls. But, entertaining these ideas in spirit can be entertaining. P.S. All hype aside, performing yogic asanas, and pranayama will make you feel better and think better. No doubt. THC LOADEE 12:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)THC Loadee

Well its believers explicitly state that they think it's real flying. And I've not been able to find a site supportive of yogic flying interprets it as you do.--Bob^{bing up} 12:14, 10 February 2009 (EST)

...and Christians think that a priest turns bread into the flesh of a dead person and wine into blood. Does that make it real blood? No, because it's a metaphor. You probably won't find any sites that agree with my statements. The knowledge I speak of comes from reading an endless number of books. Specifically, books on esoteric philosophies and organizations, psychoanalysis, ideas and theories proposed by CG Jung, Wilhelm Reich and Robert Anton Wilson, etc. Try reading anything Aleister Croweley wrote on yoga (his mantra: "We place no faith in bird or pigeon. Our method is science, our aim is religion"). Perhaps an even better source for esoteric knowledge on yoga would be Alan Watts. His interpretations would go a long way towards explaining the metaphorical meanings of which I speak. Are you aware of such groups like the Freemasons or Rosicrucians? If so, then are you aware of their esoteric teachings? These are good places to start. THC LOADEE 19:27, 11 February 2009 (EST)THC Loadee