>There is no measure, and this line of approach is just asking people to create fiction.

If you set up a clear standard for Resistance, then you can measure and avoid fiction, no?  If you can't measure, you don't know if you are making progress.

>>I have suggested this a number of times, but nobody wants to bell the cat. There are too many lawyers waiting for something like this.

You circumvent the lawyers by adding a clause: your actual results can vary.  This is not avoiding responsibility.  If the producer states how he check resistance and keep records of what he does that are open, he's covered.

>>for, say, 5 years, they should be identified.
>I think this is a bogus criterion, and subject to exploitation and 
misunderstanding.

Why?  I don't know if anyone is making that claim - although Dee says she's not using treatments - but if you 100% resistance that you don't need to treat.  Anything less than 100% resistance implies treating.

>>It is also IMO excessively idealistic and unrealistic, 
and idealism, rather than pragmatism has polarized and clouded the whole issue for too long.

Was resistance to TM idealistic?  Those that stayed with it in a disciplined way seem to have it.  It's unrealistic until you have achieved it.  A. cerana supposedly has.

Waldemar 

____________________________________________________________
Looking for insurance?  Click to compare and save big.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUOPa4YxEOnsjvABiqjdbMPEJrdQEKPcGOnciE8V1anSsKuSMtrPa/

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned 
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html