SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

"a glossa is never a human language"

Chock

This was stated in a context that was specifically referencing modern examples. I don't think it was ever meant as a reference to Acts 2....I'm just sayin'.

Wow. A quote was taken out of context and applied to something we weren't discussing? That just stuns me. It is so unlike anything we've seen a billion times on this thread already.

You are absolutely correct, Waysider. Samarin was not testing or discussing Acts 2, and I am not questioning it.

I did get the quote wrong, though. It was "a glossa is never a natural language." Samarin also distinguished between the hypothetical real case of xenoglossia and glossolalia. The difference? One produces a language. The other does not. In Samarin's later works, he is more explicit about this finding. But he's a hack who doesn't know a devil spirit from the holy spirit. We should be trusting Landry. There's an unbiased researcher we can trust!

I haven't read Chockfull's latest posts and don't intend to. Sorry. Done.

But I do want to clarify something I said yesterday regarding the scientific method and what scientists do when they classify unknown objects or phenomena according to their properties.

To the best of my knowledge, all science, including classification, employs the scientific method. I hope I was clear in saying that the scientific method of hypothesis testing is an element of classification that is present in every step of that process. It's just not always a big explicit thing where you formulate the question, state the hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze the data and draw a conclusion. It's an implicit thing.

Anyway, it's tedious to go through it step by step, but you need to understand that I am not denying the use of the scientific method as a fundamental element of the classification process. It's there, in every step.

When you sniff a carton of milk (or a bottle, most of the time these days) to determine whether it's gone bad, you've employed the scientific method. You haven't drawn a big chart. You haven't outlined every step. But if you had to go back and break it down, you will be able to identify the scientific method at work.

Is this milk good?

Hypothesis: This milk is good.

Prediction: Good milk doesn't smell like a dead rat.

Test: You smell the milk.

Analysis: This smells like a dead rat.

Conclusion: This milk is not good.

Classification works the same way. So if I left you with the impression that classification does not employ the scientific method, that is my error of wording and not an error of understanding.

Chockfull wants a null hypothesis test of the question "there is no difference between glossolalia and free vocalization." There is no way to put such a test together that will satisfy him, me or anyone else. There is no way to reach a confidence interval that will satisfy anyone because it's an all or nothing proposition. The simpler thing to do is subject every glossa to the scientific method to properly classify it. Scientists, particularly linguists, have done this. Without exception, they find that glossolalia does not produce a known language. You can quibble about their methods and reject them on any grounds you want. I'm not interested in arguing about that anymore. This isn't a trial. I'm not the judge. Let the readers decide whether to trust the results or mistrust them based on Chockfull's objections.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I did it just to stir the pot.

That's hilarious. But wouldn't it be more accurate to pull your vote and not cast one at all due to uncertainty? I mean, you don't really agree with me. I mean, if you're sure you faked it and are fessing up, great. Welcome to the club. But wouldn't the option right before the last option be the correct one for you? I can't have convinced you that it's all fake, have I? Not with such shoddy research as I've been citing?

[chockfull]

Wow. A quote was taken out of context and applied to something we weren't discussing? That just stuns me. It is so unlike anything we've seen a billion times on this thread already.

It matches well with your practice of ASSUMING the context is there for every single time you repeat opinion as fact. Just repeat that line over and over again. OH, NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT the context of Samarin's opinion. All the other times you quoted it, the context was NOWHERE NEAR, and just ASSUMED TO BE TRUE.

I am just pointing out that without the context of what you are talking about, it is a completely ignorant statement because you can't rule out it's talking about Acts, or any genuine SIT account.

I did get the quote wrong, though. It was "a glossa is never a natural language." Samarin also distinguished between the hypothetical real case of xenoglossia and glossolalia. The difference? One produces a language. The other does not. In Samarin's later works, he is more explicit about this finding. But he's a hack who doesn't know a devil spirit from the holy spirit. We should be trusting Landry. There's an unbiased researcher we can trust!

Just wanted to point out that when Raf paraphrases, it's not really an accurate representation of the study. You have to understand, it has to go through Raf's filter of "how strongly does this prove all SIT is faking it", had selection applied, and also do a little spin control of the way we are phrasing sentences too.

Now that Raf has another Samarin book that nobody else does, we're going to hear veiled references to this book along with Raf's insults. But never just direct quotes that you can read for yourself and form your own opinion. No, the Anti-Tongues Justice League (ATJL) HAS to paraphrase, dear reader. Because they think they are smarter than you.

I haven't read Chockfull's latest posts and don't intend to. Sorry. Done.

Meaning, I've read every one of chockfull's latest posts, and really don't like the fact that he isn't letting my insults slide any more but is responding in kind.

But I'm going to pretend I'm above the matter, and not the one making continual snide insulting comments.

To the best of my knowledge, all science, including classification, employs the scientific method. I hope I was clear in saying that the scientific method of hypothesis testing is an element of classification that is present in every step of that process. It's just not always a big explicit thing where you formulate the question, state the hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze the data and draw a conclusion. It's an implicit thing.

LMAO!!!!! This guy gets funnier every post! So we have a new way of proving things, called "classification". It "employs the scientific method" along with "all science". Hypothesis testing apparently is an element of classification present "in every step of that process". It's just that we don't actually DO the formulation, or any of the actual steps that are involved in hypothesis testing. And we certainly wouldn't write about all that work - like the Newburg study. No, we just write our opinion and not any of the actual research!! Hilarious!!!! It's an implicit thing!!!! Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!

When you sniff a carton of milk (or a bottle, most of the time these days) to determine whether it's gone bad, you've employed the scientific method. You haven't drawn a big chart. You haven't outlined every step. But if you had to go back and break it down, you will be able to identify the scientific method at work.

And here is where it is SIMPLE to see the difference between how a RESEARCHER thinks, and how RAF thinks. To Raf, the scientific method is like sniffing a carton of milk. Nothing recorded, one act, one "impression". But somehow it's still the scientific method. Hahahahahaha!!!!!!

To a RESEARCHER, the important part is RECORDING THE DATA. I mean, like actually DOING the hypothesis test. Why is this? Because if it's done correctly, then further studies can be done expanding upon it. Not just the 1000th idiot in a long line sniffing a carton.

Classification works the same way. So if I left you with the impression that classification does not employ the scientific method, that is my error of wording and not an error of understanding.

No, you left me with the impression that you are completely clueless when it comes to just about any aspect of the scientific method, and that if I want to find out a true definition of these terms, I should start with an internet search. That way I know I won't be led in the opposite direction of truth.

Chockfull wants a null hypothesis test of the question "there is no difference between glossolalia and free vocalization." There is no way to put such a test together that will satisfy him, me or anyone else. There is no way to reach a confidence interval that will satisfy anyone because it's an all or nothing proposition. The simpler thing to do is subject every glossa to the scientific method to properly classify it. Scientists, particularly linguists, have done this. Without exception, they find that glossolalia does not produce a known language. You can quibble about their methods and reject them on any grounds you want. I'm not interested in arguing about that anymore. This isn't a trial. I'm not the judge. Let the readers decide whether to trust the results or mistrust them based on Chockfull's objections.

I want people to stop being liars. A liar is a hypocrite. A hypocrite says "this is proven", but has zero evidence of methodology that is REQUIRED in every field of science to use the term "proven".

So no, I don't require a positive result on an alternative hypothesis (Raf can't even get the terminology right when trying to state my viewpoint) to show the difference between a faker and a genuine SIT speaker. I just want people to not be liars and to not use lying terms and phrases.

[Raf]

If anyone thinks a good point has been made that deserves a response, please copy and paste it, and I will be happy to do so. I am not wasting my time on this anymore. Sow-weeee.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

If anyone thinks a good point has been made that deserves a response, please copy and paste it, and I will be happy to do so. I am not wasting my time on this anymore. Sow-weeee.

Yes, other readers of the thread. I feel the same way. If Raf has something that deserves a response, please quote it for me. I've wasted far too much time already on this argument, and I have no common ground any more with Raf on the logical aspects of this topic...

[chockfull]

When you sniff a carton of milk (or a bottle, most of the time these days) to determine whether it's gone bad, you've employed the scientific method. You haven't drawn a big chart. You haven't outlined every step. But if you had to go back and break it down, you will be able to identify the scientific method at work.

Is this milk good?

Hypothesis: This milk is good.

Prediction: Good milk doesn't smell like a dead rat.

Test: You smell the milk.

Analysis: This smells like a dead rat.

Conclusion: This milk is not good.

Sorry just had to get a quick capture of Raf's idea of the scientific method before it gets edited.

[Raf]

Tried to demonstrate the scientific method in terms so simple a first grader could follow along. Clearly I aimed too high.

[waysider]

[chockfull]

Tried to demonstrate the scientific method in terms so simple a first grader could follow along. Clearly I aimed too high.

Oh, don't sell yourself short. You show ALL the research skills of a first grader on this thread.

[Raf]

Well, I won't dumb it down any further for you.

[WordWolf]

Too bad you missed the point, but really, if I could have placed a bet on it, that's where I would

have placed it.

The scientific method is used at lots of levels. Wearing a white coat and being in a lab does not

guarantee one is using "the scientific method". Technobabble doesn't guarantee it, either.

For that matter, one can use the scientific method without being anywhere NEAR a lab, and that's

why the television show that most consistently uses the scientific method almost never uses a

lab, and is known for explosives, ballistics gel, and so on.

A simple example of a simple usage of the scientific method can be perfectly valid- and in this

case, it was. It was also clear enough for all readers to understand, which is helpful when

explaining science to a roomful of laymen. I'm no stranger to science, and I appreciate when

a speaker can speak at the layman's level.

So, most people could understand and follow when the differences were explained and an example

was given. It's a shame you just found it funny, but there's an obvious disconnect there.

BTW, if the explanation was in error or the example invalid, I would have called Raf on it

because I expect better from him. He was NOT in error, and no professor I've studied under

would have said he was wrong.

[WordWolf]

I'll save a minority of readers some time.

The following is a quote from Marjoe Gortner.

According to Wikipedia, he

"is a former revivalist and actor who first gained attention during the late 1940s when, aged four, he became the youngest-known ordained preacher. He then gained notoriety in the 1970s when he starred in Marjoe, an Oscar-winning behind-the-scenes documentary about the lucrative business of Pentecostal preaching. "

He did a movie about the experience. It can be seen in parts on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0B66318D2985FB0D

Ok, here's where I was going.

He gave some interviews and I'm going to quote one.

Since it was to an atheist and is posted on an atheist website,

some people will automatically dismiss it.

Those people can just scroll past to the next post.

===================================

"The hit song, however, is spiritual rebirth, the product of a time-tested recipe for religion to which the preacher and every member of the audience contribute some small but active ingredient. Then, according to Marjoe, the only fitting encore to the overwhelming moment of becoming saved is a personal demonstration of the power of that newfound faith. This is the motivating factor that prompts speaking in tongues, also known as the "receiving of the glossolalia." As Marjoe explained it, this well-known Evangelical tradition requires even greater audience participation on the part of the tongues recipient and the entire audience.

"After you've been saved," Marjoe continued, "the next step is what they call 'the infilling of the Holy Spirit.' They say to the new convert, 'Well, now you're saved, but you've got to get the Holy Ghost.' So you come back to get the tongues experience. Some people will get it the same night; others will go for weeks or years before they can speak in tongues. You hear it, you hear everyone at night talking in it in the church, and they're all saying, 'We love you and we hope you're going to get it by tonight.' Then one night you go down there and they all try to get you to get it, and you go into very much of a trance -- not quite a frenzy, but it is an incredible experience.

"During that moment the person forgets all about his problems. He is surrounded by people whom he trusts and they're all saying, 'We love you. It's okay. You're accepted in Christ. We're with you, let it go, relax.' And sooner or later, he starts to speak it out and go dut-dut-dut. Then everyone goes, 'That's it! You've got it!' and the button is pushed and he will in fact start to speak in tongues and just take off: dehan-dayelo-mosatay-leesaso ... and on and on."

Marjoe paused. Flo was dumbfounded by his demonstration, although he hadn't gone into the jerking, trance-like ecstasy that is commonly associated with the tongues movement. I'd seen the classic version in his movie, yet even in this restrained demonstration, Marjoe appeared to be triggering some internal releasing or babbling mechanism. I asked him how he brought it about.

"You'll never get with that attitude," he joked. Then he went on to explain the true nature of the experience. His perspective showed it to be a process that requires a great deal of effort to master.

"Tongues is something you learn," he emphasized. "It is a releasing that you teach yourself. You are told by your peers, the church, and the Bible -- if you accept it literally -- that the Holy Ghost spake in another tongue; you become convinced that it is the ultimate expression of the spirit flowing through you. The first time maybe you'll just go dut-dut-dut-dut, and that's about all that will get out. Then you'll hear other people and next night you may go dut-dut-dut-UM-dut-DEET-dut-dut, and it gets a little better. The next thing you know, it's ela-hando-satelay-eek-condele-mosandrey-aseya ... and it's a new language you've got down."

Except that, according to Marjoe, it's not a real language at all. Contrary to most religious understanding, speaking in tongues is by no means passive spiritual possession. It must be actively acquired and practiced. Although the "gift" of tongues is a product of human and not supernatural origin, Marjoe displayed tremendous respect for the experience as an expression of spirituality and fellowship.

"I really don't put it down," he said. "I never have. It's just that I analyze it and look at it from a very rational point of view. I don't see it as coming from God and say that at a certain point the Holy Spirit zaps you with a super whammy on the head and you've 'gone for tongues' and there is it. Tongues is a process that people build up to. Then, as you start to do something, just as when you practice the scales on the piano, you get better at it."

====================================================

Me,

I still insist God Almighty is still in Heaven, Jesus is my Lord,

and people will lie to each other and themselves, whether they mean to or not.

So, even if modern SIT is all a fraud, God is still as Awesome as He always was.

[Raf]

Sorry, Word Wolf. Apparently making an observation, asking a question, formulating a hypothesis, predicting an outcome, testing the data, analyzing the test results and forming a conclusion is only the scientific method if you write it all down. If you don't write it all down, it's not the scientific method. Then it's just thinking, I guess. Never mind that the scientific method was developed as an articulation of the critical thinking process in the first place...

Anyone who thinks the milk example is not an easy to follow walk through the scientific method has no business lecturing me, Samarin or anyone else on its proper application. This is all so much easier than its been made out to be. When multiple scientists in multiple fields study the same phenomenon and come to the same conclusion, is your first instinct that they all failed to use the scientific method? Really? Ok.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

Raf - for what it's worth, I changed my vote because:

a) I truly am a smart a$$.

b) I am leaning towards SIT as taught by TWI is a fraud. In fact I am really leaning towards that all 9 manifestations as, as taught by TWI, is a fraud.

Why? I find the arguments against it logical and compelling. And it wasn't until I quit defending TWI's doctrine/practice in my own mind and separated that from God that I was able to think on the matter with an open mind.

Now, if you had added another option that didn't include lying the poll would have been easier to deal with. Granted, you admitted as much 40 some odd pages ago.

Edited November 2, 2012 by OldSkool

[Raf]

Understood. Too blunt and accusatory. Kudos to you for seeing past that.

We were manipulated by a cult whose erroneous doctrines and practices introduced error into every aspect of our lives. To admit just how far they were able to reach into your life and mine takes an uncompromising honesty. It wasn't the evidence of fakery that persuaded me. It was the absence of proof of veracity.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Sorry, Word Wolf. Apparently making an observation, asking a question, formulating a hypothesis, predicting an outcome, testing the data, analyzing the test results and forming a conclusion is only the scientific method if you write it all down. If you don't write it all down, it's not the scientific method. Then it's just thinking, I guess. Never mind that the scientific method was developed as an articulation of the critical thinking process in the first place...

Anyone who thinks the milk example is not an easy to follow walk through the scientific method has no business lecturing me, Samarin or anyone else on its proper application. This is all so much easier than its been made out to be. When multiple scientists in multiple fields study the same phenomenon and come to the same conclusion, is your first instinct that they all failed to use the scientific method? Really? Ok.

You are dishonestly trying to force feed us accepting that researchers DID this when they didn't write about any aspect of it, even at the level of your milk example. It's not my "first instinct" noticing it. It wasn't my second. It was after reading through their research and doing so over and over and wondering where the support for their conclusions was drawn. It certainly wasn't from any evidence that they communicated to the reader, like any normal research paper writeup would be. Basically what I see is they skipped that part. Except for Newberg, who did the work and wrote it all up.

And LOL at BOTH you AND WordWolf trying to get me to believe that any professor would give you a grade other than "F" for work that is not written down.

[Raf]

An actual good question is raised here:

I posit that if the researchers found a sample of glossolalia that did not match the phonetic strata of the native language of the speaker (allowing for some "innovation" in borrowed sounds to which the speaker would have access without a full command of the language in question -- my Chanukkah example), that the researchers would then be able to take the phonetic strata of the glossa and compare it to known languages. We have no evidence that this activity was ever performed by any of the researchers. They sure as heck don't go into detail about it in the material we've been reviewing. WHY DIDN'T THEY DO THIS?

Does anyone have an answer? Anyone? Beuller? Frye?

Why, I have an answer. And it's an easy one. But does anyone else?

Edited November 2, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

I posit that if the researchers found a sample of glossolalia that did not match the phonetic strata of the native language of the speaker (allowing for some "innovation" in borrowed sounds to which the speaker would have access without a full command of the language in question -- my Chanukkah example), that the researchers would then be able to take the phonetic strata of the glossa and compare it to known languages. We have no evidence that this activity was ever performed by any of the researchers. They sure as heck don't go into detail about it in the material we've been reviewing. WHY DIDN'T THEY DO THIS?

I didn't see any of them state explicitly why they didn't do this. However, I did draw a conclusion about this. I surmised that if they were able to recognize the language then they DEFINITELY would have written about this. So they did not recognize the sample.

I also explained this in a previous post that I've never seen linguists claim to be able to take a sample of ANY known language and validate that it is a genuine sample in that language by phonemic pattern matching. I don't think they can do this, and don't think they claim to be able to do this.

[OldSkool]

Forgive my late entry in this little pi$$ing match.

Anywho, do we know with reasonable certainty that what the researchers studied was/is the same as we learned in TWI?

[Raf]

I think we can safely assume that it was not. I can only look at the research we have. I mentioned this oodles of pages ago.

There are some things that the researchers review that we can easily find commonality with in TWI. This is mostly in the descriptions of how people are led into tongues. There are clear doctrino-practical differences that any of us will recognize, as well as similarities. If you'd like me to list them, I will.

But I could not argue with anyone who chooses to dismiss these studies solely on the basis that they didn't study our peculiar (decent and in order, we do our own interpreting) brand of SIT. We were not the same as much of the rest of Christianity on this front. In fact, we were particularly proud of that fact.

But let's not lose the other question here: Why do the researchers not describe their efforts to match the glossa to known languages other than the native language of the speaker? Anyone? Anyone? Come on, it's easy.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

I think we can safely assume that it was not. I can only look at the research we have. I mentioned this oodles of pages ago.

There are some things that the researchers review that we can easily find commonality with in TWI. This is mostly in the descriptions of how people are led into tongues. There are clear doctrino-practical differences that any of us will recognize, as well as similarities. If you'd like me to list them, I will.

But I could not argue with anyone who chooses to dismiss these studies solely on the basis that they didn't study our peculiar (decent and in order, we do our own interpreting) brand of SIT. We were not the same as much of the rest of Christianity on this front. In fact, we were particularly proud of that fact.

But let's not lose the other question here: Why do the researchers not describe their efforts to match the glossa to known languages other than the native language of the speaker? Anyone? Anyone? Come on, it's easy.

No, I am not endeavoring to find an out to dismiss anything.

With that said, I am not so sure what TWI taught us was all that unique since it was pilfered from here to hell's half acre from extant sources.

My proposal is to contact one of the researchers (perhaps Samarin) and offer digital samples from those of who are willing to play ball. I'm game.

[cman]

this thread is not "about the way" anymore

if it ever was anyway

Please move it to SOAP.

Thank you.

[Raf]

Actually, while that would be interesting, our self-consciousness about the controversy might rule us out as test subjects.

I would rather gather up all those Gartmore Weekly Tapes on which the SIT and interpretation were actually recorded and widely distributed ("wide" being a relative term, since we have no idea what the circulation numbers ever were).

Of course, a language known to the speaker but unknown to the English speaking audience might be an easier thing to pull off in a European setting than in an American one. Multilingualism is far more common outside the U.S. Thus, we would not be able to rule out fakery even if we saw a known language in that particular setting unless we knew for a fact that the speaker had no prior knowledge of that language. And no, I would not put such a deception past Gartmore House. Sorry if that offends anyone, but if you think Chris Geer is above deceiving a crowd, you haven't been paying attention.

***

Depending on how old Samarin was at the time of his writing (late 1960s, mid 1970s) he could very easily have passed away by now. Wouldn't surprise me one whit.

But he's not the only linguist out there. I've e-mailed three asking for background on or copies of their published research OR to find out how ongoing research is progressing. Haven't heard back from them (nor would I expect to, but it's worth a shot).

***

No, I am not endeavoring to find an out to dismiss anything.

Oh, I didn't think you were. I just wouldn't be able to blame anyone who dismissed the research on that grounds. Assuming all the findings of all the research we've reviewed to be pointing to the truth, one could still say, "Well, they didn't test us." And I'd have no comeback to that.

***

Back to the question I posed in my last two posts: anyone? anyone?

this thread is not "about the way" anymore

if it ever was anyway

Please move it to SOAP.

Thank you.

Oh, but it is. SIT and TIP were central, crucial aspects of TWI theology. I contend it played a significant role in the cult's ability to ensnare us and keep us devoted to it in practice while we were there and in principle when we left.

It only needs to be moved to soap if good questions stop being raised. Good questions are still being raised.

Hey! Speaking of good questions... anyone? anyone?

Edited November 2, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

I didn't see any of them state explicitly why they didn't do this. However, I did draw a conclusion about this. I surmised that if they were able to recognize the language then they DEFINITELY would have written about this. So they did not recognize the sample.

And we disagree on why, but there are only two possibilities: It was a language, and they failed to recognize it; or it wasn't a language. They insist on the latter, and the former is speculative. You're entitled to the speculation. Not going to argue it anymore.

I also explained this in a previous post that I've never seen linguists claim to be able to take a sample of ANY known language and validate that it is a genuine sample in that language by phonemic pattern matching. I don't think they can do this, and don't think they claim to be able to do this.

Sure they can. I'm not sure HOW MANY languages. But phonemic inventories are not hard to come by, especially if this is your field of work. But it hasn't been an issue in the research we've been reviewing. WHY?

Edited November 2, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Actually, while that would be interesting, our self-consciousness about the controversy might rule us out as test subjects.

I would rather gather up all those Gartmore Weekly Tapes on which the SIT and interpretation were actually recorded and widely distributed ("wide" being a relative term, since we have no idea what the circulation numbers ever were).

If you've got them do it. This would be a more consistent sample than any I've read about in papers to date. And if you cut 3-4 min of audio from each tape to individual .wav files or .mp4 files, you could put a folder up on Dropbox that has all those files and a one page Word doc writing up the background of them, teaching position on how they teach TIP, and general description of the subjects (wouldn't have language backgrounds of speakers, but still would be better than what I've seen out there). Also, cutting 3-4 min out of an hour tape is well below the "acceptable use" threshold for copyright purposes.

That's a baseline that could be used to communicate with many linguists, theologians, etc.

And it's not EXACTLY what we commonly saw in TWI, but it's PRETTY CLOSE INDEED. Close enough I say that it would interest those on this site.

Of course, a language known to the speaker but unknown to the English speaking audience might be an easier thing to pull off in a European setting than in an American one. Multilingualism is far more common outside the U.S. Thus, we would not be able to rule out fakery even if we saw a known language in that particular setting unless we knew for a fact that the speaker had no prior knowledge of that language. And no, I would not put such a deception past Gartmore House. Sorry if that offends anyone, but if you think Chris Geer is above deceiving a crowd, you haven't been paying attention.

You can't rule out fakery, and anyone needing an example of Chris Geer's self-aggrandizing self-martyring ego filled diatribe, just read "Passing of a Patriarch" up in the GS archives. As a side note, I have heard stories about Geer that he used to go around running classes and bragging that "every single one of the people in his classes all manifested". So you also have the bully and intimidation factor there same as in TWI. And the legalism.

All that doesn't change the quality of those Gartmore teaching tape samples.

But he's not the only linguist out there. I've e-mailed three asking for background on or copies of their published research OR to find out how ongoing research is progressing. Haven't heard back from them (nor would I expect to, but it's worth a shot).

I'm sure you're on their "round tuit" list. If you had a clean sample out on Dropbox to share with them, potentially doing a good deal of the legwork involved in them investigating this, it may move you up that list dramatically.

As a matter of fact, I would be willing to bet that one of the biggest obstacles to those guys doing better research was the '70s. We have so much more available today to study this with technology and the internet.