Why cynics the insightful
Edmond H. Wollmann
your society, when you are interacting with beings from other societies
in that way, no matter what level you are interacting with them, the
reason that many of those fears occur is because-let us say-and again in
no way, shape, or form, is this meant to be a comparative judgement that
you are any less than any other being. But the way you create yourselves
to be, the way you have been taught to think of yourselves, creates
within you the ability to hide and suppress many portions of your
consciousness from yourselves, and in doing so you function on a lower
vibratory frequency very often. When you come in contact with a being
that operates on a very high vibratory frequency because it is willing
to know itself as completely as it can, then those two frequencies when
they come together, will usually create the effect of the higher
frequency in a sense overwhelming the lower frequency, and forcing the
lower frequency to rise in pitch. In forcing the lower frequency to
raise in pitch, that will bring to the surface all the things that you
have been keeping buried within you, and bringing those things to the
surface when you are not ready to face them, can be a very fearful
experience for many of you. That is where the fear comes from."
Bashar discussing alien interaction on other levels "Perfection" 2/21/87
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
ethan...@my-deja.com
of souls.
I would also like to add that the very meeting of these souls (higher
and lower frequencies) is not by accident. Only specific circumstances
provide for such an exchange to take place. Kinda like we don't launch
fireworks on just any holiday, but on the 4th of July.
Higher vibrations generally don't like to spend their time becoming
lower (slower) vibrations, so they don't look for it too much. That's
why when it does, it is for a greater reason.
Ethan Walker
anonym™
>
SNIP!
> Bashar discussing alien interaction on other levels "Perfection" 2/21/87
Bashar's as full of shit as you and just as off-topic, asshole.
Move along.
Cathy Credulous
Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message <7ls3ik$4v9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>interacting with beings from other societies
>vibratory frequency
>...very high vibratory ...
>two frequencies ...
>they come together...
>effect of the higher frequency ...
>overwhelming the lower frequency, and forcing the
>buried within you, ...
>can be a very fearful...
>That is where the fear comes from."
Well, that sure scares the hell out of ME!
>Bashar discussing alien interaction on other levels "Perfection" 2/21/87
What a nut.
Cathy
twi...@worldnet.att.net
<snipo>
>When you come in contact with a being
>that operates on a very high vibratory frequency because it is willing
>to know itself as completely as it can, then those two frequencies when
>they come together, will usually create the effect of the higher
>frequency in a sense overwhelming the lower frequency, and forcing the
>lower frequency to rise in pitch. <snipo>
Wow!
This is even funnier than Ed's "Orion is a star" or his
claim that Tau Ceti is in Taurus.
Pray, n. To ask the laws of the universe be annulled
on the behalf on a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.
Ambrose Bierce
PZ Myers
>This is a great example of the scientific process behind the interaction
>of souls.
No, it isn't. Making up phrases using new-age buzzwords like "vibration"
is not at all scientific.
>
>I would also like to add that the very meeting of these souls (higher
>and lower frequencies) is not by accident. Only specific circumstances
>provide for such an exchange to take place. Kinda like we don't launch
>fireworks on just any holiday, but on the 4th of July.
>
>Higher vibrations generally don't like to spend their time becoming
>lower (slower) vibrations, so they don't look for it too much. That's
>why when it does, it is for a greater reason.
Please do explain what "vibrations" you are talking about. What are you
measuring when you say one person has a higher frequency than another?
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Edmond H. Wollmann <E...@astroconsulting.com> wrote:
>
><snipo>
>>When you come in contact with a being
>>that operates on a very high vibratory frequency because it is willing
>>to know itself as completely as it can, then those two frequencies when
>>they come together, will usually create the effect of the higher
>>frequency in a sense overwhelming the lower frequency, and forcing the
>>lower frequency to rise in pitch. <snipo>
>
>Wow!
>
>This is even funnier than Ed's "Orion is a star" or his
>claim that Tau Ceti is in Taurus.
Yes -- total nonsense all the way through. These guys just make up this
crap, obviously...but I notice somebody replied to this as if it were
credible.
By the way, there are creatures that can be characterized by an emitted
frequency. Mormyrid electric fishes are a good example. Individuals have
a characteristic electric organ discharge frequency that they use to
signal one another and to sense their environment. When two meet, though,
they don't vary their frequencies to synchronize to the higher, they shift
to avoid conflict, which is just as likely to involve a reduction in
frequency as an increase.
People do not have anything comparable.
--
PZ Myers
Ethan Walker
>>This is a great example of the scientific process behind the interaction
>>of souls.
>
>No, it isn't. Making up phrases using new-age buzzwords like "vibration"
>is not at all scientific.
If your not going to comment about my specific post, please don't ask me to
respond to yours. I don't make up the word vibration, I use it.
>
>>
>>I would also like to add that the very meeting of these souls (higher
>>and lower frequencies) is not by accident. Only specific circumstances
>>provide for such an exchange to take place. Kinda like we don't launch
>>fireworks on just any holiday, but on the 4th of July.
>>
>>Higher vibrations generally don't like to spend their time becoming
>>lower (slower) vibrations, so they don't look for it too much. That's
>>why when it does, it is for a greater reason.
>
>
Please do explain what "vibrations" you are talking about.
Ok. Vibrations are the reflection of thought in the material world in this
case. Of course there are all kinds of vibes, light, sound, etc....
What are you
>measuring when you say one person has a higher frequency than another?
Woops, you just used the wrong word. Vibrations in this case are not
measured, they are felt and experienced. Whether or not you can measure
them has no impact on their existence or their use by some.
The rate and impact of certain people's thoughts and feelings is very high.
As thoughts are lifted to higher frequencies (not sheer amount, but
frequency) they become more bouyant. They "float" into subtler and sublter
realms of thinking. Ideas that never popped in your head suddenly appear
regarding everything from the complex to the simple.
When someone of denser (more negative/destructive) vibration comes in
contact with someone in higher frequency, often there is a great conflict,
both enrgies balance out and the lower vib. is taught a good lesson, and
brought up to a higher plane temporarily.
The difference is that the high freq. then returns using applied spiritual
methods, while the lower vibration can fall again base on their own
negativity. This happens in relationships all the time. Often the "high"
vib. is the one doing the dumping.
Vibrations exist on levels other than the physical. This is proven by
science and through spritiual practices. Frankly I am suprised at your
questioning this. I figured it was kinda a prerequisite for understanding
"spirituality" at all. Maybe some more research?
Of course anybody can be skeptical, those are only words, but proving a
theory takes real skill and experimentation, not just mere words. You will
never understand and know what a vibration is on anything more than a
physical measuring device, unless you develop the scientific process to
discover them beyond your own mind. Very few people actually do this. This
is the meaning behind spirituality. It is a scientific process to
understand things beyond the physical.
Ethan Walker
>
>--
>PZ Myers
anonym™
Jason Mathews
>that operates on a very high vibratory frequency because it is willing
>to know itself as completely as it can, then those two frequencies when
>they come together, will usually create the effect of the higher
>frequency in a sense overwhelming the lower frequency, and forcing the
>raise in pitch, that will bring to the surface all the things that you
>have been keeping buried within you, and bringing those things to the
>surface when you are not ready to face them, can be a very fearful
<snikt>
Chronosynclastic Infindibulum Enterprises Limited Presents:
The Multipurpose Holographic Vibrational Frequency Bandpass Filter!
Now in LIME color!
Beset by spinics? Constantly feel as if your inner vibrational
frequency is brought down by those of the lower vibrational caste?
Or are you the cynical type, always in a state of fear from beings
with a higher frequency than yours?
Then wait no longer, and line up to purchase your own personal, portable,
BATTERY FREE Multipurpose Holographic Vibrational Frequency
Bandpass Filter! Hang it around your neck and cast off those unwanted
amplitude reinforcements from other realities!
Scientists work around the clock at our laboratories to provide you
the latest in this metaphysical breakthrough. Using the laws defined
by quantum physics, our product filters out all undesirable vibrational
emissions from other beings, whether they be high or low, so you can
rest in comfort.
YOU HAVE TO BE STUPID NOT TO USE THIS!
Don't take OUR word for it! Try it FREE, for 30 days, and if you feel
that the Multipurpose Holographic Vibrational Frequency Bandpass
Filter doesn't do the job, return it free for a FULL REFUND.
Act now, and you can get this STYLISH carrying case, made of real
tinted, all natural polyethelyne. A $75 value, FREE!
Don't waste time in needless delay! Act now! Operators are standing
by!
--
Desktop Mercenary |First Prophet, Paranoid Network Intruder Ministry
xi...@swbell.net |SKEP-TI-CULT Member #81-17642-003
|A SICK EVIL CULTIST ILK Production
Obligatory Website http://deskmerc.simplenet.com
anonym™
SOUNDS INCREDIBLE!
But...
Is Chronosynclastic Infindibulum Enterprises Limited a division of Microsoft?
If so, I'll wait it out for a couple of versions.
My Hand-Cranked Bullshit Detector will get me by 'til then.
Avital Pilpel
[removed consciousness ngs, added sci.skeptic...]
> Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message <7ls3ik$4v9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >When you come in contact with a being
> >that operates on a very high vibratory frequency because it is willing
> >to know itself as completely as it can, then those two frequencies when
> >they come together, will usually create the effect of the higher
> >frequency in a sense overwhelming the lower frequency, and forcing the
> >lower frequency to rise in pitch. In forcing the lower frequency to
> >raise in pitch, that will bring to the surface all the things that you
> >have been keeping buried within you, and bringing those things to the
> >surface when you are not ready to face them, can be a very fearful
> >experience for many of you. That is where the fear comes from."
> <snikt>
>
> Chronosynclastic Infindibulum Enterprises Limited Presents:
> The Multipurpose Holographic Vibrational Frequency Bandpass Filter!
>
> Now in LIME color!
>
> Beset by spinics? Constantly feel as if your inner vibrational
> frequency is brought down by those of the lower vibrational caste?
>
> Or are you the cynical type, always in a state of fear from beings
> with a higher frequency than yours?
>
> Then wait no longer, and line up to purchase your own personal, portable,
> BATTERY FREE Multipurpose Holographic Vibrational Frequency
> Bandpass Filter! Hang it around your neck and cast off those unwanted
> amplitude reinforcements from other realities!
LEt me guess: the same company that makes the "gold ball finder", right?
> Scientists work around the clock at our laboratories to provide you
> the latest in this metaphysical breakthrough. Using the laws defined
> by quantum physics,
I *knew* it!
Remember, folks: if it has "qunatum mechanics" in it, it MUST be serious
science!
> Don't take OUR word for it! Try it FREE, for 30 days, and if you feel
> that the Multipurpose Holographic Vibrational Frequency Bandpass
> Filter doesn't do the job, return it free for a FULL REFUND.
>
> Act now, and you can get this STYLISH carrying case, made of real
> tinted, all natural polyethelyne. A $75 value, FREE!
>
> Don't waste time in needless delay! Act now! Operators are standing
> by!
I would be laughing, if this satire wasn't *Very* close to some real
advertisements.
Avital Pilpel
PZ Myers
>>>This is a great example of the scientific process behind the interaction
>>>of souls.
>>
>>No, it isn't. Making up phrases using new-age buzzwords like "vibration"
>>is not at all scientific.
>
>If your not going to comment about my specific post, please don't ask me to
>respond to yours. I don't make up the word vibration, I use it.
Incorrectly.
>>
>>>
>>>I would also like to add that the very meeting of these souls (higher
>>>and lower frequencies) is not by accident. Only specific circumstances
>>>provide for such an exchange to take place. Kinda like we don't launch
>>>fireworks on just any holiday, but on the 4th of July.
>>>
>>>Higher vibrations generally don't like to spend their time becoming
>>>lower (slower) vibrations, so they don't look for it too much. That's
>>>why when it does, it is for a greater reason.
>>
>>
>Please do explain what "vibrations" you are talking about.
>
>Ok. Vibrations are the reflection of thought in the material world in this
>case. Of course there are all kinds of vibes, light, sound, etc....
This is nonsense.
Electromagnetic vibrations I can accept. "Thought" vibrations are nothing
but pseudoscientific twaddle.
>
> What are you
>>measuring when you say one person has a higher frequency than another?
>
>Woops, you just used the wrong word.
No, I used the precisely correct word. If you want to make the claim that
these vibrations are in some sense "scientific", they darn well better be
measurable.
>Vibrations in this case are not
>measured, they are felt and experienced. Whether or not you can measure
>them has no impact on their existence or their use by some.
>
>The rate and impact of certain people's thoughts and feelings is very high.
>As thoughts are lifted to higher frequencies (not sheer amount, but
>frequency) they become more bouyant. They "float" into subtler and sublter
>realms of thinking. Ideas that never popped in your head suddenly appear
>regarding everything from the complex to the simple.
I can tell you are just making this up as you go along. You aren't very
convincing.
>
>When someone of denser (more negative/destructive) vibration comes in
>contact with someone in higher frequency, often there is a great conflict,
>both enrgies balance out and the lower vib. is taught a good lesson, and
>brought up to a higher plane temporarily.
>
>The difference is that the high freq. then returns using applied spiritual
>methods, while the lower vibration can fall again base on their own
>negativity. This happens in relationships all the time. Often the "high"
>vib. is the one doing the dumping.
>
>Vibrations exist on levels other than the physical. This is proven by
>science
No, it's not. Is dishonesty part of standard New Age gooberism now?
>and through spritiual practices. Frankly I am suprised at your
>questioning this. I figured it was kinda a prerequisite for understanding
>"spirituality" at all. Maybe some more research?
>
>Of course anybody can be skeptical, those are only words, but proving a
>theory takes real skill and experimentation, not just mere words. You will
>never understand and know what a vibration is on anything more than a
>physical measuring device, unless you develop the scientific process to
>discover them beyond your own mind. Very few people actually do this. This
>is the meaning behind spirituality. It is a scientific process to
>understand things beyond the physical.
You keep throwing around that word "scientific", but it is rather clear that
you don't know what it means.
--
PZ Myers
Edmond Wollmann
>
> ..."but the idea many times of the reasons that those fears occur in
> your society, when you are interacting with beings from other societies
> in that way, no matter what level you are interacting with them, the
> reason that many of those fears occur is because-let us say-and again in
> no way, shape, or form, is this meant to be a comparative judgement that
> you are any less than any other being. But the way you create yourselves
> to be, the way you have been taught to think of yourselves, creates
> within you the ability to hide and suppress many portions of your
> consciousness from yourselves, and in doing so you function on a lower
> that operates on a very high vibratory frequency because it is willing
> to know itself as completely as it can, then those two frequencies when
> they come together, will usually create the effect of the higher
> frequency in a sense overwhelming the lower frequency, and forcing the
> lower frequency to rise in pitch. In forcing the lower frequency to
> raise in pitch, that will bring to the surface all the things that you
> have been keeping buried within you, and bringing those things to the
> surface when you are not ready to face them, can be a very fearful
> experience for many of you. That is where the fear comes from."
Headers corrected
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
Bob Officer
<cathycr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>Edmond H. Wollmann wrote in message <7ls3ik$4v9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>interacting with beings from other societies
>..
>>vibratory frequency
>>...very high vibratory ...
>>two frequencies ...
>>they come together...
>>effect of the higher frequency ...
>>overwhelming the lower frequency, and forcing the
>>lower frequency to rise ...
>>buried within you, ...
>>can be a very fearful...
>>That is where the fear comes from."
>
>Well, that sure scares the hell out of ME!
Looks like more vibs than a dildo salesman's conventions
>>Bashar discussing alien interaction on other levels "Perfection" 2/21/87
>
>
>What a nut.
you got that right...
Bob Officer
Warning! Reproduction without the writen permission in or on any other media than USENET NEWS GROUPS is
prohibited. All claims for copyright according to the BERN and UCC
Agreements are held by the writers. Quotes are allowed subject to Fair Use Rules of the above agreements.
anonym™
fined and put on probation wrote:
>
> Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
> >
SNIP of Bashar's bullshit.
>
> Headers corrected
They sure are.
PZ Myers
>In article <myers-06079...@bio-32.bio.temple.edu>,
>PZ Myers <my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu> wrote:
>
>>What are you
>>measuring when you say one person has a higher frequency than another?
>
>Isn't it the bank balance divided by the IQ?
Oops. My vibrational plane must be about rock bottom, then.
--
PZ Myers
Ethan Walker
Sorry you didn't get the jist of my post. You are simply not ready to apply
that knowledge to the body's measuring abilitys.
Good luck to you in the future. May you find what you are looking for.
By denying looking at the information in my post more carefully, you deny
obtaining anything new as far as knowledge goes.
Because of my understanding of vibration, I cannot get sick. That is but
one of an infinite amount of application of vibration.
You are using one of the lowest thought vibrations...denial. You deny
everything that you are faced with and wonder why you cn only see the
physical. Well enjoy it. You could never know my happiness unless you were
to experience it. To do that you would have to die to your self, first.
Ethan Walker
Teal
A Brief Comment on this Thread :
It's always uplifting to see people( like Ethan Walker) respond
with good intentions and helpful explanations,,,,especially to
those who belittle with insightful, complex answers like "This is
nonsense"
and who call spirituality "New Age gooberism."
It's a good thing we often learn in spite of ourselves!
Blessings to all,
Teal
--
"Heaven and Hell are not places, but only states
of mind."
Edmond Wollmann
True.
anonym™
fined and put on probation wrote:
>
> >
> > A Brief Comment on this Thread :
> >
> > It's always uplifting to see people( like Ethan Walker) respond
> > with good intentions and helpful explanations,,,,especially to
> > those who belittle with insightful, complex answers like "This is
> > nonsense"
> > and who call spirituality "New Age gooberism."
> >
> > It's a good thing we often learn in spite of ourselves!
> >
> > Blessings to all,
> > Teal
> > --
> > "Heaven and Hell are not places, but only states
> > of mind."
>
> True.
Prove it, you criminal.
Edmond Wollmann
>
> A Brief Comment on this Thread :
>
> It's always uplifting to see people( like Ethan Walker) respond
> with good intentions and helpful explanations,,,,especially to
> those who belittle with insightful, complex answers like "This is
> nonsense"
> and who call spirituality "New Age gooberism."
>
> It's a good thing we often learn in spite of ourselves!
>
> Blessings to all,
> Teal
> --
> "Heaven and Hell are not places, but only states
> of mind."
True.
anonym™
fined and put on probation wrote:
>
> >
> > A Brief Comment on this Thread :
> >
> > It's always uplifting to see people( like Ethan Walker) respond
> > with good intentions and helpful explanations,,,,especially to
> > those who belittle with insightful, complex answers like "This is
> > nonsense"
> > and who call spirituality "New Age gooberism."
> >
> > It's a good thing we often learn in spite of ourselves!
> >
> > Blessings to all,
> > Teal
> > --
> > "Heaven and Hell are not places, but only states
> > of mind."
>
> True.
You already posted this once, spammer.
Jason Mathews
>On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, Jason Mathews wrote:
>> Then wait no longer, and line up to purchase your own personal, portable,
>> BATTERY FREE Multipurpose Holographic Vibrational Frequency
>> Bandpass Filter! Hang it around your neck and cast off those unwanted
>> amplitude reinforcements from other realities!
>
>LEt me guess: the same company that makes the "gold ball finder", right?
It was an inspiration. The Weakly Whirled Nooz is full of nifty spiff
gadgets that do all this and more.
>> Scientists work around the clock at our laboratories to provide you
>> the latest in this metaphysical breakthrough. Using the laws defined
>> by quantum physics,
>
>I *knew* it!
>
>Remember, folks: if it has "qunatum mechanics" in it, it MUST be serious
>science!
Oh, but it IS!
Any scientific sounding babble is more than adequate to make a sale.
But the best ones sound consistant. F'rinstance, since the discussion
was about "vibrational frequencies", whatever that is (a paranormal
superstring?) I included a bandpass filter. Now I can cast an even
larger net to rake in the dough, because the halfway credulous can
be pushed over the brink and purchase one.
If I had merely said "this Atlantean crystal mined from the lava
flows of Therea will not only guide you, but prevent the unwanted
vibrational frequencies dark beings from troubling your inner light",
it would be dismissed by the somewhat clued as a scam.
But now it's been cloaked in the mysteries of stuff you might see
on a CNN science soundbite, or see on the cover of a Scientific
American magazine. And it's a bandpass filter! If someone built
a bandpass filter for the purpose of clearing out bad vibrations,
then the vibrations themselves MUST be true! Somehow, by saying all
of this, it short circuits a part of the brain that would otherwise
be skeptical.
Consistent bullshit ALWAYS pays better than inconsistent bullshit.
>> Don't waste time in needless delay! Act now! Operators are standing
>> by!
>
>I would be laughing, if this satire wasn't *Very* close to some real
>advertisements.
I know. Sometimes I wonder if I'm not in the wrong business.
el...@no.spam
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@xspam.net> wrote:
>Headers corrected
Now they are. How does it serve you to be
a kook?
Kevin Burnett
>In article <3782...@news1.jps.net>, "Ethan Walker" <nthu...@jps.net> wrote:
>>
>>Vibrations exist on levels other than the physical. This is proven by
>>science
>
>No, it's not. Is dishonesty part of standard New Age gooberism now?
What do you mean "now"? There's nothing new about that.
--
Kevin Burnett k...@catnip.org
http://www.s-light.demon.co.uk
"I see you have made yourself a brand new life
Such a cool blue star with a bright new shine
I see you wearing your checkered past just like a shining suit of gold
I know you think you look so special"
PZ Myers
>PZ,
>Sorry you didn't get the jist of my post. You are simply not ready to apply
>that knowledge to the body's measuring abilitys.
>
>Good luck to you in the future. May you find what you are looking for.
>
>By denying looking at the information in my post more carefully, you deny
>obtaining anything new as far as knowledge goes.
I looked very carefully. There was no information. There was a heap of
goofy fantasy, though.
>
>Because of my understanding of vibration, I cannot get sick. That is but
>one of an infinite amount of application of vibration.
Call the Amazing Randi, quick! Tell him that you will inhale a cocktail
of anthrax, cholera, HIV, and herpes simplex, and not get sick because
your vibrations will save you. I think that would be worth a million. It
would revolutionize modern medicine.
>
>You are using one of the lowest thought vibrations...denial. You deny
>everything that you are faced with and wonder why you cn only see the
>physical. Well enjoy it. You could never know my happiness unless you were
>to experience it. To do that you would have to die to your self, first.
Or dope myself silly with prescription tranquilizers.
--
PZ Myers
anonym™
>
> Dear PZ,
>
> I bow before your great intellect and scientific knowledge. Obviously you
> are far beyond any of us "spiritual" folk and know all there is to know.
> If you believe science is all that's needed to prove everything, perhaps
> you would stop posting on this Spiritual NG. Or do you need (as others) to
> puff yourself up and make yourself look good to...Who?
> Question: What NG do you post from? As most of these "biting" messages
> are cross-posted, I'm curious to know where all the Intellectual elite hang
> out.
> I'd ask you to chat with God for a dose of kindness, but as God hasn't
> been scientifically proven to exist, you probably couldn't.
> Do I sound contemptuous? I'm tired of those who think they know blasting
> anyone who doesn't agree with their narrow-minded thinking. So, tell me,
> PZ, who are you to cut down people that have differing beliefs? Do you
> think they'll change because of your ideas? Why can't you let others have
> their own beliefs, even if they're not scientific enough for you?
> Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and writing, "incorrect", and
> "goofy fantasy" just demonstrates your lack of tolerance for differing
> beliefs.
>
> Peace be with you,
> Gary . . .
You sound just like his wife!
anonym™
>
> In article <3786B646...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
>
> Your days are numbered spammer/stalker.
>
> --
> Edmord H. Wollmann, P.M.A.F.A
> © 1999 Altair Counseling, SAN 266-56O3
> Astrological Publications http://www.astrocons.com/
> Artworks http://www.astrocons.com/crayola/
> http://home.earthlink.net/arcturion/
> Not the Convicted Criminal like that other Asshole
> Plus I pay my rent and dont get evicted
Aren't everybodys?
PZ Myers
<GNF...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Dear PZ,
>
> I bow before your great intellect and scientific knowledge.
Obviously you
>are far beyond any of us "spiritual" folk and know all there is to know.
>If you believe science is all that's needed to prove everything, perhaps
>you would stop posting on this Spiritual NG. Or do you need (as others) to
>puff yourself up and make yourself look good to...Who?
> Question: What NG do you post from? As most of these "biting"
messages
>are cross-posted, I'm curious to know where all the Intellectual elite hang
>out.
> I'd ask you to chat with God for a dose of kindness, but as God hasn't
>been scientifically proven to exist, you probably couldn't.
Neither could you. He's a myth.
> Do I sound contemptuous? I'm tired of those who think they know
blasting
>anyone who doesn't agree with their narrow-minded thinking. So, tell me,
>PZ, who are you to cut down people that have differing beliefs?
Somebody who doesn't think that all beliefs are equal, that some ideas
are better than others, who thinks that there are good ideas and bad ideas.
And New Age boojum is a bad idea.
>Do you
>think they'll change because of your ideas?
No. Losers are losers. But I would hope that some would see that following
the easy path of making up lies and believing in nonsense can only earn
you scorn and derision. What do you want, for me to give prating idiots
a little hearty praise and encouragement?
>Why can't you let others have
>their own beliefs, even if they're not scientific enough for you?
Go ahead. Believe whatever you want. Express your beliefs freely. I'll
also believe what I want, and express my ideas freely. Why? Do you want
to discourage me from having *my* beliefs? Do you dislike them because
they are different from your own?
> Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and writing, "incorrect", and
>"goofy fantasy" just demonstrates your lack of tolerance for differing
>beliefs.
We recently saw a case in the news of a young man who believed that blacks
and jews and asians were inferior. Was that just a "differing belief" that
we should respect and tolerate?
A while back, a couple of fellows expressed their belief that being gay
was a crime against nature by beating up a gay man, tying him to a fence,
and leaving him to die. Maybe we should give those fellows a little more
credit, and not cut them down because they have differing beliefs.
I would hope that you would agree that not all ideas are deserving of equal
respect. Those are extreme examples, but the kind of stupidity I find in
ignorant people who babble about impalpable "vibrations" and ranking people
on the basis of their unmeasurable and subjective "frequency" is similarly
loathsome, if not of the same magnitude as the examples above. The poster
I criticize is exhibiting the kind of rank ignorance and airy, blithering
appropriation of pseudo-scientific terminology that I find particularly
repugnant. So, no, I'm not going to be tolerant of New Age crap fantasies.
Tough, isn't it?
--
PZ Myers
Gary Frank
I bow before your great intellect and scientific knowledge. Obviously you
are far beyond any of us "spiritual" folk and know all there is to know.
If you believe science is all that's needed to prove everything, perhaps
you would stop posting on this Spiritual NG. Or do you need (as others) to
puff yourself up and make yourself look good to...Who?
Question: What NG do you post from? As most of these "biting" messages
are cross-posted, I'm curious to know where all the Intellectual elite hang
out.
I'd ask you to chat with God for a dose of kindness, but as God hasn't
been scientifically proven to exist, you probably couldn't.
Do I sound contemptuous? I'm tired of those who think they know blasting
anyone who doesn't agree with their narrow-minded thinking. So, tell me,
PZ, who are you to cut down people that have differing beliefs? Do you
think they'll change because of your ideas? Why can't you let others have
their own beliefs, even if they're not scientific enough for you?
Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and writing, "incorrect", and
"goofy fantasy" just demonstrates your lack of tolerance for differing
beliefs.
ethan...@my-deja.com
Those are extreme examples, but the kind of stupidity I find in
> ignorant people who babble about impalpable "vibrations"
Many people are able to sense the same concept. yet you are not. YOu
are not evolved to handle it yet. I can understand your point
perfectly, but you can't understand mine. You like to swim in the
sewer, I like the ocean. Both are made of water, yet one is much
clearer than the other. You are doing an excellent job at discovering
your abilities to be sarcastic, and skeptical. I love the occassional
hibrow word that you use once in a while, too. I have college degrees
too. How did you get to decide who's stupid? After all my research, I
still experience more vibration levels than you. You have a lot of
work to do to really understand this concept.
Lots of people drive their cars with out knowing how they work. You
use these same vibrations, but you have no idea what they are, beyond a
means to argue.
and ranking people
> on the basis of their unmeasurable and subjective "frequency" is
similarly
> loathsome, if not of the same magnitude as the examples above.
I love lower vibrating souls. They are evolving just like me. This
has to do with energy, not intelligence. Many can have great
intelligence and no EQ.
The poster
> I criticize is exhibiting the kind of rank ignorance and airy,
blithering
> appropriation of pseudo-scientific terminology that I find
particularly
> repugnant. So, no, I'm not going to be tolerant of New Age crap
fantasies.
Great. But where's the intolerance? You aren't even trying very hard
at that. You aren't taking the points. You aren't clarifying
anything, you aren't providing any evidence, just nothing. Pretty lame
effort at intolerance really. If ya gonna do something, do it man.
Your skepticism is about as weak as the mind hug fodder we usually find
these groups. It just don't have anything behind it. Just nothing.
>
> Tough, isn't it?
Try harder. I'm listening.
Ethan Walker
The Ultimate Skeptic
>
> --
> PZ Myers
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
ethan...@my-deja.com
> >
> > I'd ask you to chat with God for a dose of kindness, but as
God hasn't
> >been scientifically proven to exist, you probably couldn't.
>
Myths and thoughts have power over matter. I have power over matter.
You do not. You barely have power over your own words.
>
> > Do I sound contemptuous? I'm tired of those who think they
know
> blasting
> >anyone who doesn't agree with their narrow-minded thinking. So,
tell me,
> >PZ, who are you to cut down people that have differing beliefs?
Ooh, Gary's pissed. I don't think you do a very good job of cutting
down people, though. I've seen better.
>
> Somebody who doesn't think that all beliefs are equal, that some ideas
> are better than others, who thinks that there are good ideas and bad
ideas.
> And New Age boojum is a bad idea.
Ideas are pointless. They are just myths. And you beleive in them.
Try real life.
>
> >Do you
> >think they'll change because of your ideas?
>
> No. Losers are losers. But I would hope that some would see that
following
> the easy path of making up lies and believing in nonsense can only
earn
> you scorn and derision.
Actually it earns that and things you just wouldn't understand, yet.
Your not ready.
What do you want, for me to give prating idiots
> a little hearty praise and encouragement?
You can't even cut them down very well. Why tread new territory,
before mapping out the homeland...
>
> >Why can't you let others have
> >their own beliefs, even if they're not scientific enough for you?
>
> Go ahead. Believe whatever you want. Express your beliefs freely. I'll
> also believe what I want, and express my ideas freely. Why? Do you
want
> to discourage me from having *my* beliefs? Do you dislike them because
> they are different from your own?
This is a great point here. I commend you for saying it. Confessing
your beleifs. Try reality for a change, it has nothing to do with
beleifs.
>
> > Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and writing,
"incorrect", and
> >"goofy fantasy" just demonstrates your lack of tolerance for
differing
> >beliefs.
Excellent retort! Bravo. Well said! I commend thee!
>
> We recently saw a case in the news of a young man who believed that
blacks
> and jews and asians were inferior. Was that just a "differing belief"
that
> we should respect and tolerate?
We are different as races. Could the sum total of lesser and greater
differences between the races actually add up to a total of "less" than
White? Inferior is too broad a concept to really get your point across
here.
>
> A while back, a couple of fellows expressed their belief that being
gay
> was a crime against nature by beating up a gay man, tying him to a
fence,
> and leaving him to die. Maybe we should give those fellows a little
more
> credit, and not cut them down because they have differing beliefs.
>
> I would hope that you would agree that not all ideas are deserving of
equal
> respect.
I would lump some of your unthought out, non-scientific aggressive
opposing-just-to-be-cute replys in that category.
Those are extreme examples, but the kind of stupidity I find in
> ignorant people who babble about impalpable "vibrations" and ranking
people
> on the basis of their unmeasurable and subjective "frequency" is
similarly
> loathsome,
Ha! This effect is the result of vibration. You just proved my theory.
if not of the same magnitude as the examples above. The poster
> I criticize is exhibiting the kind of rank ignorance and airy,
blithering
> appropriation of pseudo-scientific terminology that I find
particularly
> repugnant.
Again, excellent proof!
So, no, I'm not going to be tolerant of New Age crap fantasies.
God, get some real skepticism...your version is about as substantial as
a twinkie.
>
> Tough, isn't it?
Not really. I've seen and talked to much tougher. Keep up the effort
though. You were so right about Gary's point of view. Getting pissed
really clouds the discussion, don't it?
Ain't it Real?
Ethan Walker
Ethan Walker
> >>>This is a great example of the scientific process behind the
interaction
> >>>of souls.
> >>
> >>No, it isn't. Making up phrases using new-age buzzwords like "vibration"
> >>is not at all scientific.
I never made up the word. I use it to describe something, though. You are
creating a fantasy - "Making up phrases using new-age buzz words...."
Careful reading of a post is helpful in response. You need lots of
practice, so here's some more.
> >
> >If your not going to comment about my specific post, please don't ask me
to
> >respond to yours. I don't make up the word vibration, I use it.
I use the vibrations. It stands for vibrations. Sorry that wasn't clear to
you.
>
> Incorrectly.
You don't even know how, and you are already commenting on my use of them.
How absurd!
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>I would also like to add that the very meeting of these souls (higher
> >>>and lower frequencies) is not by accident. Only specific circumstances
> >>>provide for such an exchange to take place. Kinda like we don't launch
> >>>fireworks on just any holiday, but on the 4th of July.
> >>>
> >>>Higher vibrations generally don't like to spend their time becoming
> >>>lower (slower) vibrations, so they don't look for it too much. That's
> >>>why when it does, it is for a greater reason.
> >>
> >>
> >Please do explain what "vibrations" you are talking about.
> >
> >Ok. Vibrations are the reflection of thought in the material world in
this
> >case. Of course there are all kinds of vibes, light, sound, etc....
>
Has science found all the vibrations in the universe, yet? Nope. Do some
more research. String theory...ring a bell?
> This is nonsense.
>
> Electromagnetic vibrations I can accept.
These are primative concepts of vibration at the least. Even science has
progressed beyond this ancient term. Get current!
"Thought" vibrations are nothing
> but pseudoscientific twaddle.
Actually lots of research on this and results. Most of which you havn't
found yet because you are so ignorant of the facts out there.
>
> >
> > What are you
> >>measuring when you say one person has a higher frequency than another?
> >
> >Woops, you just used the wrong word.
>
> No, I used the precisely correct word. If you want to make the claim that
> these vibrations are in some sense "scientific", they darn well better be
> measurable.
Scientific experiments and quantifying results are great. Vibrations on the
more subtle levels can be quantified measured (using mantras, and vibration
words and sounds) and most of all....drum roll please......the results are
duplicatable! All you have to do is perform the experiement yourself. Of
course you don't even know what the experiement is! Ya gotta long way to
go...
>
> >Vibrations in this case are not
> >measured, they are felt and experienced. Whether or not you can measure
> >them has no impact on their existence or their use by some.
> >
> >The rate and impact of certain people's thoughts and feelings is very
high.
> >As thoughts are lifted to higher frequencies (not sheer amount, but
> >frequency) they become more bouyant. They "float" into subtler and
sublter
> >realms of thinking. Ideas that never popped in your head suddenly appear
> >regarding everything from the complex to the simple.
>
> I can tell you are just making this up as you go along. You aren't very
> convincing.
I can tell when you make up your quasi skeiptical statements, too. Not even
amusing much less convincing.
>
> >
> >When someone of denser (more negative/destructive) vibration comes in
> >contact with someone in higher frequency, often there is a great
conflict,
> >both enrgies balance out and the lower vib. is taught a good lesson, and
> >brought up to a higher plane temporarily.
> >
> >The difference is that the high freq. then returns using applied
spiritual
> >methods, while the lower vibration can fall again base on their own
> >negativity. This happens in relationships all the time. Often the
"high"
> >vib. is the one doing the dumping.
> >
> >Vibrations exist on levels other than the physical. This is proven by
> >science
>
> No, it's not.
Actually it is. Photon/Particle theory. Lots of particles without mass
have wave functions. Go read some more then we talk. Physical in my terms
here denotes "definite mass" and the vibrations or motion associated with
that mass.
>
> >and through spritiual practices. Frankly I am suprised at your
> >questioning this. I figured it was kinda a prerequisite for
understanding
> >"spirituality" at all. Maybe some more research?
> >
> >Of course anybody can be skeptical, those are only words, but proving a
> >theory takes real skill and experimentation, not just mere words. You
will
> >never understand and know what a vibration is on anything more than a
> >physical measuring device, unless you develop the scientific process to
> >discover them beyond your own mind. Very few people actually do this.
This
> >is the meaning behind spirituality. It is a scientific process to
> >understand things beyond the physical.
>
> You keep throwing around that word "scientific", but it is rather clear
that
> you don't know what it means.
Maybe you could enlighten me?
Ain't it Real!
PZ Myers
>You wrote:
>Those are extreme examples, but the kind of stupidity I find in
>> ignorant people who babble about impalpable "vibrations"
>
>Many people are able to sense the same concept. yet you are not. YOu
>are not evolved to handle it yet. I can understand your point
>perfectly, but you can't understand mine. You like to swim in the
>sewer, I like the ocean. Both are made of water, yet one is much
>clearer than the other. You are doing an excellent job at discovering
>your abilities to be sarcastic, and skeptical. I love the occassional
>hibrow word that you use once in a while, too. I have college degrees
>too. How did you get to decide who's stupid? After all my research, I
>still experience more vibration levels than you. You have a lot of
>work to do to really understand this concept.
Bullpuckey.
You get to make up a load of BS about "vibrational levels", you mean. You
can't even explain what they are, or how to "experience" them.
>
>
> Lots of people drive their cars with out knowing how they work. You
>use these same vibrations, but you have no idea what they are, beyond a
>means to argue.
Actually, I do understand how a car works. And a car gets me places --
I can use the odometer to see how far it takes me, and the speedometer
to see how fast it gets me there.
Your "vibrations" have no mechanism, no rationale, and nobody (not even
you, who makes 'em up) understands how they work. They do nothing. There
is nothing to measure.
>
>and ranking people
>> on the basis of their unmeasurable and subjective "frequency" is
>similarly
>> loathsome, if not of the same magnitude as the examples above.
>
>I love lower vibrating souls. They are evolving just like me. This
>has to do with energy, not intelligence. Many can have great
>intelligence and no EQ.
And how do you determine that someone is a "lower vibrating soul"?
>
> The poster
>> I criticize is exhibiting the kind of rank ignorance and airy,
>blithering
>> appropriation of pseudo-scientific terminology that I find
>particularly
>> repugnant. So, no, I'm not going to be tolerant of New Age crap
>fantasies.
>
>Great. But where's the intolerance? You aren't even trying very hard
>at that. You aren't taking the points. You aren't clarifying
>anything, you aren't providing any evidence, just nothing. Pretty lame
>effort at intolerance really. If ya gonna do something, do it man.
>Your skepticism is about as weak as the mind hug fodder we usually find
>these groups. It just don't have anything behind it. Just nothing.
You expect *me* to provide the evidence? You are the bozo making wild
claims about "vibrational levels". Provide something concrete, and I'll
tackle it. As it is, you've got nothing but noise.
>>
>> Tough, isn't it?
>
>Try harder. I'm listening.
>
>Ethan Walker
>The Ultimate Skeptic
Oh, right. Another one of those. Why do people with the most whacked-out
crackpot ideas rush to embrace the title of "skeptic"?
--
PZ Myers
Ethan Walker
Hey Pee Easy,
Here's some more for you to chew on, or not.
>>You wrote:
>>Those are extreme examples, but the kind of stupidity I find in
>>> ignorant people who babble about impalpable "vibrations"
>>
>>Many people are able to sense the same concept. yet you are not. YOu
>>are not evolved to handle it yet. I can understand your point
>>perfectly, but you can't understand mine. You like to swim in the
>>sewer, I like the ocean. Both are made of water, yet one is much
>>clearer than the other. You are doing an excellent job at discovering
>>your abilities to be sarcastic, and skeptical. I love the occassional
>>hibrow word that you use once in a while, too. I have college degrees
>>too. How did you get to decide who's stupid? After all my research, I
>>still experience more vibration levels than you. You have a lot of
>>work to do to really understand this concept.
>
>Bullpuckey.
Once again A response of the very highest caliber.
I explain.
You act like a 5 th grader (with very inferior name calling skills, too)
Chicken? Unable to grasp my points? Where's the fear?
>
>You get to make up a load of BS about "vibrational levels", you mean. You
>can't even explain what they are, or how to "experience" them.
Already explained them, and you have to ask how to experience them before I
tell you. You just arent' reading my posts very thoroughly, nor even
applying them very well. Again, not a very good skeptic.
>
>>
>>
>> Lots of people drive their cars with out knowing how they work. You
>>use these same vibrations, but you have no idea what they are, beyond a
>>means to argue.
>
>Actually, I do understand how a car works. And a car gets me places --
>I can use the odometer to see how far it takes me, and the speedometer
>to see how fast it gets me there.
OOOH wow! I'm so impressed. But I am really talking about breaking down
the engine and rebuilding using better parts. My car has been modified,
yours isn't. I can go faster, travel on mountains, and even modify other's
cars. OH, I'm sorry, is this too hard for you to understand? It's called
metaphor....I know its hard, but think A B S T R A C T...
>
>Your "vibrations" have no mechanism, no rationale, and nobody (not even
>you, who makes 'em up) understands how they work. They do nothing. There
>is nothing to measure.
Your absolutely right! Vibrations exist beyond mechanism, rationale. No
body makes them up, they are already there. There is a process to use them
though. They do everything, including sustain time/space, etc....Vibrations
measure vibrations themselves, so I can see your point about measuring. You
have primitive measuring device. Get a new kit, and you can have more fun
with the universe.
>
>>
>>and ranking people
>>> on the basis of their unmeasurable and subjective "frequency" is
>>similarly
>>> loathsome, if not of the same magnitude as the examples above.
>>
>>I love lower vibrating souls. They are evolving just like me. This
>>has to do with energy, not intelligence. Many can have great
>>intelligence and no EQ.
>
>And how do you determine that someone is a "lower vibrating soul"?
Ah, now we are getting some where. Here's where relativity comes in. It's
all a matter of perspective. After changing your own frequency, you can
"see" the lower state you "were" in. And the universe changes its
relationship back to you. You can "see" other people in that previous state
as well. But we cannot see "higher" states of mental frequency, because we
have to become them, not see them. But all of science is based on
hypothesis and inspiration. Where does inspiration come from? We dreamed
of lasers first then science found a way to prove them. I am giving you the
hypothesis, and you are refusing to experiment. You arent' even scratching
the surface of science, yet. Maybe you don't know, cuz your posts are very
non-inspiring as a skeptics advocate. You give skepticism such a bad name!
You need practice, lots and lots and lots and lots.
>
>>
>> The poster
>>> I criticize is exhibiting the kind of rank ignorance and airy,
>>blithering
>>> appropriation of pseudo-scientific terminology that I find
>>particularly
>>> repugnant. So, no, I'm not going to be tolerant of New Age crap
>>fantasies.
>>
>>Great. But where's the intolerance? You aren't even trying very hard
>>at that. You aren't taking the points. You aren't clarifying
>>anything, you aren't providing any evidence, just nothing. Pretty lame
>>effort at intolerance really. If ya gonna do something, do it man.
>>Your skepticism is about as weak as the mind hug fodder we usually find
>>these groups. It just don't have anything behind it. Just nothing.
>
>You expect *me* to provide the evidence? You are the bozo making wild
>claims about "vibrational levels". Provide something concrete, and I'll
>tackle it. As it is, you've got nothing but noise.
I already have, you just won't try it out. And *you* are the one not
providing evidence of any skepticism! Skepticism is a science unto itself.
You don't even have good name calling skills! You don't take a part
anything I say, you don't ask for specific proof on a specific concept. A
real skeptic knows how to question everything. So far, all I see is a
fainthearted attempt at best to question anything I've said. But maybe your
intelligence isn't capable of hadling that questioning. Maybe you jsut need
to get a book on name calling instead. At least if you could do that well,
I would get a good laugh. At best I am only getting good typing practice
out of this.
>
>>>
>>> Tough, isn't it?
>>
>>Try harder. I'm listening.
>>
>>Ethan Walker
>>The Ultimate Skeptic
>
>Oh, right. Another one of those. Why do people with the most whacked-out
>crackpot ideas rush to embrace the title of "skeptic"?
Like you. And you don't even practice skepticism. You just claim it and
call people names. You don't even know what it means to be one. That's
ok, pretending is about as fun as name calling, isn't it?
Ethan Walker
Skeptical of most Skeptics
anonym™
>
> Oh, right. Another one of those. Why do people with the most whacked-out
> crackpot ideas rush to embrace the title of "skeptic"?
You tell us. You're the one with the whacked-out crackpot idea that you
can tell what people are thinking.
PZ Myers
[snip empty twaddle. Gosh, it's all gone!]
I'll tell you what. You claim your blather about "vibrational frequencies"
is scientific. You give me a list of real papers about the topic, and
maybe even try to put together a coherent summary of what you think (and
no, just invoking "string theory" as a deus ex machina is not an explanation).
I'll sit quietly. I'll read it. I promise not to laugh, at least not until
after you've had a chance to put together a cogent story.
Do you think you can do that?
I'll be waiting.
--
PZ Myers
anonym™
You'll sit quietly until he provides you with a list of papers about the topic?
KEWL!
I imagine even your wife will be pleased to hear that!
Ethan Walker
Sorry.
So here's your response!
<little snip>
I've already done that.
But you haven't tried meditation. Nor have you provided any physical
evidence that you have even attempted to accomplish it. I already read all
the paperwork on Big science, big deal. I know you have too. But this
isn't the debate.
I know something, you don't. It's just that simple Pee easy.
And I know the way to get the knowledge, you don't. In fact others also
know the way to get this knowledge, but you don't. And you wont try
because your not capable of handling it yet.
In fact you havent' read the same books, nor applied it any kind of
practice. What have you done that takes practice? Skepticism certainly
isn't one of your practiced beleifs, or you would be better at it!
Papers are just papers. Books are just books. I have read your papers and
books, have you read mine?
You want to do battle, but wont fight with the same weapons, nor on the same
field! In fact you haven't even found the ring yet.....
You want to play? You got to come into my house first, then we talk...
Keep trying....
Ethan Walker
Ain't it Real!
anonym™
>
...
>
> You want to do battle, but wont fight with the same weapons, nor on the same
> field! In fact you haven't even found the ring yet...
Well, PZ does have a penchant for hiding in the bushes alongside the
arena and sniping from there.
PZ Myers
>I see by your big snip, that once again it was just too tough for you.
>Sorry.
>
>So here's your response!
>
><little snip>
>
>I've already done that.
>
>But you haven't tried meditation. Nor have you provided any physical
>evidence that you have even attempted to accomplish it. I already read all
>the paperwork on Big science, big deal. I know you have too. But this
>isn't the debate.
>
>I know something, you don't. It's just that simple Pee easy.
>
>And I know the way to get the knowledge, you don't. In fact others also
>know the way to get this knowledge, but you don't. And you wont try
>because your not capable of handling it yet.
>
>
>In fact you havent' read the same books, nor applied it any kind of
>practice. What have you done that takes practice? Skepticism certainly
>isn't one of your practiced beleifs, or you would be better at it!
>
>Papers are just papers. Books are just books. I have read your papers and
>books, have you read mine?
>
>You want to do battle, but wont fight with the same weapons, nor on the same
>field! In fact you haven't even found the ring yet.....
>
>You want to play? You got to come into my house first, then we talk...
>
>Keep trying....
>
>Ethan Walker
>Ain't it Real!
Oh, come off it.
I asked you to CITE the scientific publications that you claim support
your ideas. You haven't. I suspect they don't exist.
I asked you to explain your ideas. You haven't. You threw out some vague
aside about string theory, which is completely irrelevant, and that was
about it.
It's pretty clear that you've got nothing to 'fight' with.
--
PZ Myers
HungrySoul
>
> You sound just like his wife!
that's the funniest thing I read in a long time ... *L*
Larry
Is this science you are talking about the same science that proved the
world was flat, the earth was the center of the univers, bees can't
fly, porpoise can't swim over ten knots or dive over 100 feet, the atom
is the smallest object, etc.? Oh wait a minute I forgot they changed
there minds on all that old stuff.
Okay, okay, protons, neutrons and electrons are the smalls things, bees
can fly but they don't know how, porpoise can keep up with a ship going
over 20 knots but they don't have the musclature to do it, and it's
impossible for man to go to the moon. Oh oh, sorry again they changed
there minds on that too didn't they.
Let's try again. sub atomic particle are the smallest things, bee can
flex their wings to form vortexes that increase lift times ten,
porpoise form ripples with the skin preventing the formation of
vortexes decreasing drag and they have a cavity in their belly with
movable internal organs that allow them to equalize pressure at far
greater depts. The moon thing didn't really happen it was done with
movie fx.
I guess I just have to agree with you, there can be no energy or
vibration that science hasn't discovered or learned how to messure.
With love,
Larry
P.S. Did I mention that wacko theory that sub atomic particle are
effected by human thought? I guess the scientist working on that
forgot thoughts have no vibration or energy. Go figure.
PZ Myers
>Hello PZ,
>Is this science you are talking about the same science that proved the
>world was flat, the earth was the center of the univers, bees can't
>fly, porpoise can't swim over ten knots or dive over 100 feet, the atom
>is the smallest object, etc.? Oh wait a minute I forgot they changed
>there minds on all that old stuff.
>
>Okay, okay, protons, neutrons and electrons are the smalls things, bees
>can fly but they don't know how, porpoise can keep up with a ship going
>over 20 knots but they don't have the musclature to do it, and it's
>impossible for man to go to the moon. Oh oh, sorry again they changed
>there minds on that too didn't they.
>
>Let's try again. sub atomic particle are the smallest things, bee can
>flex their wings to form vortexes that increase lift times ten,
>porpoise form ripples with the skin preventing the formation of
>vortexes decreasing drag and they have a cavity in their belly with
>movable internal organs that allow them to equalize pressure at far
>greater depts. The moon thing didn't really happen it was done with
>movie fx.
Typical. You don't seem to realize that science doesn't deal with
absolute answers, it deals with a process. It's a matter of progressive
refinement, of striving for successively closer approximations to truth.
Pointing out that scientists have been wrong in the past and will be
wrong in the future is meaningless, because you neglect to mention that
it is *scientists*, not New Age mindless babblers, who test and
demonstrate error.
>
>I guess I just have to agree with you, there can be no energy or
>vibration that science hasn't discovered or learned how to messure.
There can be. But simply saying it is so does not make it so.
Inventing unfounded ideas out of whole cloth with no substantiating
evidence is one hallmark of a kook. Trying to make excuses for your
fabrications by hollering that science doesn't know everything is a
non sequitur, and strongly suggests that you are an idiot.
>
>With love,
You ought to change your signoff to be a little more honest. How about,
"With hypocrisy"?
>Larry
>
>P.S. Did I mention that wacko theory that sub atomic particle are
>effected by human thought? I guess the scientist working on that
>forgot thoughts have no vibration or energy. Go figure.
This sounds like a garbling of some fairly advanced concepts in physics,
by someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about.
I'll tell you the same thing I told Walker. Name the scientist. Cite
the work. Try to actually demonstrate some comprehension of the subject.
I bet you can't.
--
PZ Myers
Natalie
I am not for one moment taking up Ethans arguments with you but I have
always wanted to ask some one like you, don't you ever consider anything
that isn't a "proven" theory?
Didn't Einstein know his theories worked 15 years before he could "prove"
them?
Didn't he also say "It is this way because it is this way, isn't that
enough?" and "Great spirits often find violent opposition from mediocre
minds"?
The mind has a great capacity not to understand the nature of the universe
but to organize and categorize things, so that you can reduce this
limitless, shapeless meaningless experience into something that seems to
make sense and have order. In my experience there are things that are meant
to be experienced not understood.
I post this with sincerity if you choose to respond please do so in kind. I
have no interest in engaging you in a battle of wit or scientific knowledge
of which I assure you, you would win.
Natalie
PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote in message
news:myers-11079...@ppp46.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com...
PZ Myers
<natali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>PZ,
>
>I am not for one moment taking up Ethans arguments with you but I have
>always wanted to ask some one like you, don't you ever consider anything
>that isn't a "proven" theory?
Of course. Strictly speaking, nothing is ever proven -- all knowledge is
provisional and subject to revision.
Revision is not made simply on the basis of the say-so of somebody who
believes he can sense mystical vibrations, though.
>
>Didn't Einstein know his theories worked 15 years before he could "prove"
>them?
No.
>Didn't he also say "It is this way because it is this way, isn't that
>enough?"
I think so. So?
>and "Great spirits often find violent opposition from mediocre
>minds"?
Which does not, of course, mean that all opposition is from mediocrity,
or that experiencing opposition means one is a great mind.
>
>The mind has a great capacity not to understand the nature of the universe
>but to organize and categorize things, so that you can reduce this
>limitless, shapeless meaningless experience into something that seems to
>make sense and have order. In my experience there are things that are meant
>to be experienced not understood.
And that's fine. Go ahead and experience them. Get all mushy and gooey
inside, and shout "Halleluiah!" a few times -- there's nothing wrong with
that. But don't even try to pretend you are being 'scientific', or try to
rationalize your experience by incorrectly appropriating scientific terminology
and making bogus rationalizations...that's the path of weak-minded frauds.
And there will be people who belittle you not for experiencing things, but
for dishonestly misusing inappropriate concepts.
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
HungryScientist
when you bone your wife/girlfriend, how do you know she's not thinking
of a previous boyfriend ?
~~ JustSomeLurker
Cathy Credulous
HungryScientist wrote in message <3788AC24...@no-spam.com>...
>slight change of topic,
>
>when you bone your wife/girlfriend, how do you know she's not thinking
>of a previous boyfriend ?
I give up.
How *do* you tell?
Do you use astrology? Do you measure her vibrational frequencies?
Come on, give it up! Don't tease us like this!
Cathy
anonym™
anonym™
Gee! You sure do a lot of demanding of others! Why is that, when you run
away from requests that YOU provide information?
Isn't that pretty hypocritical?
I mean, you said that you and your family see Christmas as a lot of
"booshwa claptrap",(except that a tree goes up, presents are givien,
etc) yet your wife has webpages that fall all over themselves talking
about how tolerant and multicultural she is.
So which is it? Either your wife's a lying hypocrite just like you, or
you're the lying hypocrite she unfortunately married?
anonym™
>
>...nothing is ever proven.."
The transformation is complete.
anonym™
>
> slight change of topic,
>
> when you bone your wife/girlfriend, how do you know she's not thinking
> of a previous boyfriend ?
>
Easy. PZ doesn't "go for it" unless she's unconscious.
Bob Officer
Does he have bad teeth?
Toni turned him into a wollmann...
1 Bob Officer|Skepticult® #105-757897-285 | High Priest of the Church of Conic Section®
2 Tyler of the Order of the ILK | Official Cahooter(TM)#23| Warning! Reproduction without
3 the writen permission in or on any other media than USENET NEWS GROUPS is prohibited.All
4 claims of copyright according to the BERN & UCC Agreements are held by the writers.
Pamela Gross
<cathycr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>HungryScientist wrote in message <3788AC24...@no-spam.com>...
>>slight change of topic,
>>
>>when you bone your wife/girlfriend, how do you know she's not thinking
>>of a previous boyfriend ?
>
>
>I give up.
>
>How *do* you tell?
>
>Do you use astrology? Do you measure her vibrational frequencies?
>Come on, give it up! Don't tease us like this!
>
>Cathy
>
And whatever the method is...can we use it to tell if a male lover is
thinking of a previous girlfriend? Or a current one? ;)
Pam
now THAT I could market and sell
Pamela Gross
be...@ix.netcom.com
Rheumatic Disease Web Site:
http://www.silcom.com/~sblc
dreammin7
Jo
From RI
Natalie wrote in message ...
>PZ,
>
>I am not for one moment taking up Ethans arguments with you but I have
>always wanted to ask some one like you, don't you ever consider anything
>that isn't a "proven" theory?
>
>Didn't Einstein know his theories worked 15 years before he could "prove"
>them?
>Didn't he also say "It is this way because it is this way, isn't that
>enough?" and "Great spirits often find violent opposition from mediocre
>minds"?
>
>The mind has a great capacity not to understand the nature of the universe
>but to organize and categorize things, so that you can reduce this
>limitless, shapeless meaningless experience into something that seems to
>make sense and have order. In my experience there are things that are meant
>to be experienced not understood.
>
>I post this with sincerity if you choose to respond please do so in kind. I
>have no interest in engaging you in a battle of wit or scientific knowledge
>of which I assure you, you would win.
>
>Natalie
>
>
>
>
>PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote in message
>news:myers-11079...@ppp46.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com...
>> --
>> PZ Myers
>
>
Larry
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, I do understand science doesn't deal in absolutes, and continually
strive to update and further refine the data to achieve a greater truth.
I'm so glad you decided to prove my point. I wasn't trying to say
science was wrong in it's methods or it's concepts, only that it is in
a constant process of changing it's "truth" as methods of data
collection are improve or developed.
As far as making things up. Hasn't someone always "made" things up
before it was proven to be true. Everything from gravity to sub
atomics began as an unproven concept thought up by some "idiot" who had
no respect for the accepted truth of the day.
You are right that I can't give you the name of the scientists I spoke
of in your post. I read it about a year ago in a science journal in a
waiting room. Sorry, I didn't steal it just in case we had this
conversation now. I guess that was lousy fore thought on my part.
Do you honestly believe everything doesn't have a frequency that it
exists at? Every atom, element, molecule has a frequency that
identifies it form the densest matter through radio wave, light and
beyond. Everything vibrates at a specific frequency. Spectrometers
use these frequencies to identify the material. So I don't understand
why it is such a jump to think that people have specific frequencies as
well.
I also don't understand what your problem with my sign of is. I'm not
calling others names or attacking them as individuals. I may not agree
with there stated concepts, but that doesn't mean I don't care about
them or respect them personally. Then again love can't be prove by
scientific instrumentation either. Does that mean it doesn't exist as
well.
Thank you for being here, and for listening.
With love,
Larry
Gary Frank
In tonights episode of Fulcrum, we bring to light a current discussion on
science vs. psuedoscience vs. malarky vs. An angry child in the fifth row.
We now take a look and respond to comments made on the previous show.
We'll try our best to syphon off the stuff you already know. And now, the
episode:
First, Gary confronted PZ using pithy wit and agry sarcasm, questioning
PZ's need to abuse and insult. He also asked where PZ comes from in order
to better understand him. Here is one of the finer highlights of that
debate:
>Gary: I'd ask you to chat with God for a dose of kindness, but as God
hasn't
> >been scientifically proven to exist, you probably couldn't.
>PZ: Neither could you. He's a myth.
And now, some words from PZ with replies from Gary:
>Gary: PZ, who are you to cut down people that have differing beliefs?
>PZ: Somebody who doesn't think that all beliefs are equal, that some ideas
> are better than others, who thinks that there are good ideas and bad
ideas.
> And New Age boojum is a bad idea.
>
>Gary: Do you think they'll change because of your ideas?
>
> No. Losers are losers. But I would hope that some would see that
following
> the easy path of making up lies and believing in nonsense can only earn
> you scorn and derision. What do you want, for me to give prating idiots
> a little hearty praise and encouragement?
Gary (new commentary): Prating (?) idiots. I certainly don't believe
praise and encouragement is necessary, but blasting them is uncalled for.
There's nothing wrong with bringing up your own beliefs in a retort, but
calling them names and shouting isn't going to get your point across.
>Gary: Why can't you let others have their own beliefs, even if they're not
scientific enough for you?
>
> PZ: Go ahead. Believe whatever you want. Express your beliefs freely.
I'll
> also believe what I want, and express my ideas freely. Why? Do you want
> to discourage me from having *my* beliefs? Do you dislike them because
> they are different from your own?
Gary (New commentary): Have your beliefs! I would never suggest you do not
have your own set of beliefs and now, PZ, I don't dislike them because they
are different. I don't even know what your beliefs are, only that you have
to cut people down because you can't accept theirs. What are your beliefs?
>Gary: Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and writing, "incorrect",
and
> >"goofy fantasy" just demonstrates your lack of tolerance for differing
beliefs.
>
> PZ: We recently saw a case in the news of a young man who believed that
blacks
> and jews and asians were inferior. Was that just a "differing belief"
that
> we should respect and tolerate?
> A while back, a couple of fellows expressed their belief that being gay
> was a crime against nature by beating up a gay man, tying him to a fence,
> and leaving him to die. Maybe we should give those fellows a little more
> credit, and not cut them down because they have differing beliefs.
Gary (New commentary): Ha ha ha! I'm laughing body parts off! Different
beliefs and racial prejudice are so far apart they can't even be considered
the same! When beliefs lead to violence that's where the line gets drawn.
How can you compare beliefs in the unproven with prejudice? You consider
them on the same level? And obisously you do, based on the next little
helping of silliness.
> PZ: I would hope that you would agree that not all ideas are deserving of
equal
> respect. Those are extreme examples, but the kind of stupidity I find in
> ignorant people who babble about impalpable "vibrations" and ranking
people
> on the basis of their unmeasurable and subjective "frequency" is
similarly
> loathsome, if not of the same magnitude as the examples above. The poster
> I criticize is exhibiting the kind of rank ignorance and airy, blithering
> appropriation of pseudo-scientific terminology that I find particularly
> repugnant. So, no, I'm not going to be tolerant of New Age crap
fantasies.
Gary (New commentary): Certainly, not all ideas are deserving of equal
respect. Anyone who believes racial and gender prejudice is the same thing
as believing in the unproven can't be taken seriously. If you will not be
"tolerant of New Age crap fantasies", then why do you linger here?
Look, man, I understand parts of what you're saying. If a spiritual
conman buzzed through here claiming to have the answers to everything and
all we need do is send him $29.95 for his panacea, then fine, we have to
use our judgement to weed out the frauds. But as far as I can see, the
"poster" is selling nothing, he's not demanding anything of anyone and he's
not trying to harm anyone. I would think as adults we can all decide for
oursselves what to believe and what to pass on. I appreciate your policing
things for us, keeping us from spiritual malarky, but I think that's
bordering on censorship.
I can understand there are people who refuse to believe what can't be
sited, proven, etc. and goody for them. There are also those that believe
in love, faith and the unseen and unproven and we get along fine. Perhaps
we'll never see eye to eye, but you know what? That's the kind of world we
live in and name calling and shouting and jumping up and down with clenched
fists isn't going to change anyone's mind.
>PZ: Tough, isn't it?
Gary (New commentary): If you want to call that tough, be my guest. Me, I
consider it to be someone who'd rather condemn then experience. By the
way, what about Ethan's offer to experiment? You keep avoiding that? Hmm?
And there you have it! Another fine episode of Fulcrum, join us next
time, when the answers will be revealed and the Llama dancers will sing,
"My Way". Thank you and good night.
Peace and joy and where;s your sense of adventure and humor?
Gary . . .
Beej
spirituality and religion has often been abusive, violent, arrogant,
committed genocide and rape in the name of the lord , or god or
whatever..and we do not believe that is right..yet we are still
spiritual..looking for more accuracy and refinement...and truth..
you can pick sides, but do they really exist...does PZ's relationship with
his significant others need to be brought in....is this a spiritual
path.....
put a little ice on the back of your necks, just for you, all of you....The
disagreement can be without unkindness
and I leave you with a quote, not that I am uninclined to argue myself...
Crimson flames tied thru my ears rolling high and might traps
caught with fires on flaming roads using ideas as my maps
will meet on edges, soon said I
proud neath heated brow..
ah but I was so much older than, I'm younger than that now
-Bob Dylan, as close as I remember...
Bee
Larry wrote in message <7ma4fl$t8v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Hello PZ,
>Is this science you are talking about the same science that proved the
>world was flat, the earth was the center of the univers, bees can't
>fly, porpoise can't swim over ten knots or dive over 100 feet, the atom
>is the smallest object, etc.? Oh wait a minute I forgot they changed
>there minds on all that old stuff.
>
>Okay, okay, protons, neutrons and electrons are the smalls things, bees
>can fly but they don't know how, porpoise can keep up with a ship going
>over 20 knots but they don't have the musclature to do it, and it's
>impossible for man to go to the moon. Oh oh, sorry again they changed
>there minds on that too didn't they.
>
>Let's try again. sub atomic particle are the smallest things, bee can
>flex their wings to form vortexes that increase lift times ten,
>porpoise form ripples with the skin preventing the formation of
>vortexes decreasing drag and they have a cavity in their belly with
>movable internal organs that allow them to equalize pressure at far
>greater depts. The moon thing didn't really happen it was done with
>movie fx.
>
>I guess I just have to agree with you, there can be no energy or
>vibration that science hasn't discovered or learned how to messure.
>
>With love,
>Larry
>
>P.S. Did I mention that wacko theory that sub atomic particle are
>effected by human thought? I guess the scientist working on that
>forgot thoughts have no vibration or energy. Go figure.
>
>
Beej
Beej,
Larry
Thanks for the woops, but I knew what you meant.
With love,
Larry
PZ Myers
<GNF...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Good evening, my friends and fellow seekers.
>
> In tonights episode of Fulcrum, we bring to light a current
discussion on
>science vs. psuedoscience vs. malarky vs. An angry child in the fifth row.
Let's see. I'm science, you're pseudoscience and malarky, but who's the angry
child?
>We now take a look and respond to comments made on the previous show.
>We'll try our best to syphon off the stuff you already know. And now, the
>episode:
> First, Gary confronted PZ using pithy wit and agry sarcasm, questioning
>PZ's need to abuse and insult. He also asked where PZ comes from in order
>to better understand him. Here is one of the finer highlights of that
>debate:
>
>>Gary: I'd ask you to chat with God for a dose of kindness, but as God
>hasn't
>> >been scientifically proven to exist, you probably couldn't.
>
>>PZ: Neither could you. He's a myth.
And your point in excerpting this bit is...?
>
> And now, some words from PZ with replies from Gary:
>
>>Gary: PZ, who are you to cut down people that have differing beliefs?
>
>>PZ: Somebody who doesn't think that all beliefs are equal, that some ideas
>> are better than others, who thinks that there are good ideas and bad
>ideas.
>> And New Age boojum is a bad idea.
>>
>>Gary: Do you think they'll change because of your ideas?
>>
>> No. Losers are losers. But I would hope that some would see that
>following
>> the easy path of making up lies and believing in nonsense can only earn
>> you scorn and derision. What do you want, for me to give prating idiots
>> a little hearty praise and encouragement?
>
>Gary (new commentary): Prating (?) idiots. I certainly don't believe
PRA'TING, ppr. Talking much on a trifling subject; talking idly.
>praise and encouragement is necessary, but blasting them is uncalled for.
In your opinion. In my opinion, there is far too much anti-scientific,
innumerate, illiterate, gullible nonsense babbled about, and it needs
active discouragement, not encouragement.
>There's nothing wrong with bringing up your own beliefs in a retort, but
>calling them names and shouting isn't going to get your point across.
You mean, like you've been doing?
>
>>Gary: Why can't you let others have their own beliefs, even if they're not
>scientific enough for you?
>>
>> PZ: Go ahead. Believe whatever you want. Express your beliefs freely.
>I'll
>> also believe what I want, and express my ideas freely. Why? Do you want
>> to discourage me from having *my* beliefs? Do you dislike them because
>> they are different from your own?
>
>Gary (New commentary): Have your beliefs! I would never suggest you do not
>have your own set of beliefs and now, PZ, I don't dislike them because they
>are different.
Ah, I can have my beliefs, as long as I don't express them where you might
hear them, huh?
>I don't even know what your beliefs are, only that you have
>to cut people down because you can't accept theirs. What are your beliefs?
I'm a scientist, a materialist, a rationalist, an atheist. Does that help?
>
>>Gary: Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and writing, "incorrect",
>and
>> >"goofy fantasy" just demonstrates your lack of tolerance for differing
>beliefs.
>>
>> PZ: We recently saw a case in the news of a young man who believed that
>blacks
>> and jews and asians were inferior. Was that just a "differing belief"
>that
>> we should respect and tolerate?
>> A while back, a couple of fellows expressed their belief that being gay
>> was a crime against nature by beating up a gay man, tying him to a fence,
>> and leaving him to die. Maybe we should give those fellows a little more
>> credit, and not cut them down because they have differing beliefs.
>
>Gary (New commentary): Ha ha ha! I'm laughing body parts off! Different
>beliefs and racial prejudice are so far apart they can't even be considered
>the same! When beliefs lead to violence that's where the line gets drawn.
>How can you compare beliefs in the unproven with prejudice? You consider
>them on the same level? And obisously you do, based on the next little
>helping of silliness.
>
No, they are not far apart at all. Racial prejudice is born out of ignorance
and lies about the other. You are defending a culture that revels in myth-
making and disparagement of science -- and is only a small step away from the
same kind of self delusion that motivates people like white supremacists.
Ethan Walker has already announced that he can 'tell' when people are of a
'lower frequency' and are 'less evolved'. He is apparently superior, having
a higher frequency of vibration. And he uses garbled terms from physics to
defend his beliefs.
That is bigotry. There is no objective basis for his claims, but you think
he should be free to be uncriticized for his pseudoscientific lies. Too bad.
>> PZ: I would hope that you would agree that not all ideas are deserving of
>equal
>> respect. Those are extreme examples, but the kind of stupidity I find in
>> ignorant people who babble about impalpable "vibrations" and ranking
>people
>> on the basis of their unmeasurable and subjective "frequency" is
>similarly
>> loathsome, if not of the same magnitude as the examples above. The poster
>> I criticize is exhibiting the kind of rank ignorance and airy, blithering
>> appropriation of pseudo-scientific terminology that I find particularly
>> repugnant. So, no, I'm not going to be tolerant of New Age crap
>fantasies.
>
>Gary (New commentary): Certainly, not all ideas are deserving of equal
>respect. Anyone who believes racial and gender prejudice is the same thing
>as believing in the unproven can't be taken seriously.
Oh, really? Not even when that unproven belief is an argument that certain
people are better than others? When someone claims to be able to see that
certain people are more "evolved" than others?
Take a look at some racist literature sometime. It does EXACTLY the same
thing that Walker was doing. It characterizes some people as inferior to
others, uses vague and unfounded rationalizations, and steals liberally and
incorrectly from scientific terminology to contrive authoritative-sounding
excuses.
>If you will not be
>"tolerant of New Age crap fantasies", then why do you linger here?
> Look, man, I understand parts of what you're saying. If a spiritual
>conman buzzed through here claiming to have the answers to everything and
>all we need do is send him $29.95 for his panacea, then fine, we have to
>use our judgement to weed out the frauds. But as far as I can see, the
>"poster" is selling nothing, he's not demanding anything of anyone and he's
>not trying to harm anyone. I would think as adults we can all decide for
>oursselves what to believe and what to pass on. I appreciate your policing
>things for us, keeping us from spiritual malarky, but I think that's
>bordering on censorship.
Baloney.
There is no censorship going on on my part. I have asked him to clarify his
ideas. I have not told him he shouldn't say that, that he shouldn't be
posting this stuff to newsgroups, or that he ought to get out of certain
groups -- that's what YOU have been doing.
You are angry because someone has DARED to criticize a New Age loon in your
pet newsgroup. Open criticism is something that withers your kind of
malarkey, and you know it and want it gone. You claim you are all adults
who can decide for yourselves...so why do you think people are incapable
of passing judgement of their own on what *I* say?
> I can understand there are people who refuse to believe what can't be
>sited, proven, etc. and goody for them. There are also those that believe
>in love, faith and the unseen and unproven and we get along fine.
What an ignorant, arrogant, presumptious asshole you are (and trust me,
as a charter member of the club, I can recognize arrogant assholes).
How dare you imply that I don't believe in love and faith...you have absolutely
no grounds for making that kind of stupid, prejudiced claim. Do you also
think atheists burn babies for breakfast? Anybody who understands science
is a blinkered robot? Maybe you really think that anybody who criticizes
some fraud who makes up lies to defend New Age crap is incapable of love?
This is so typical of the New Age nitwits I've met -- they assume the only
conceivable kind of spirituality anyone can experience is their peculiarly
ignorant brand.
>Perhaps
>we'll never see eye to eye, but you know what? That's the kind of world we
>live in and name calling and shouting and jumping up and down with clenched
>fists isn't going to change anyone's mind.
Oh, no. But pretending that people who disagree with you are unfeeling and
inhuman will. Or perhaps dismissing them as less evolved and of lower
frequency is fine, too.
>
>>PZ: Tough, isn't it?
>
>Gary (New commentary): If you want to call that tough, be my guest. Me, I
>consider it to be someone who'd rather condemn then experience. By the
>way, what about Ethan's offer to experiment? You keep avoiding that? Hmm?
No, I haven't avoided it at all -- he has. I've asked him to document his
claims that his wacko ideas are actually endorsed in the scientific literature.
He hasn't. I've also asked him to explain a little more concretely exactly
what he is suggesting. He hasn't.
I have no idea what kind of experiment he could possibly propose. He's going
to walk past a line of people and tell me what frequency they are vibrating
at? Boy, that would be convincing.
>
> And there you have it! Another fine episode of Fulcrum, join us next
>time, when the answers will be revealed and the Llama dancers will sing,
>"My Way". Thank you and good night.
>
>
>Peace and joy and where;s your sense of adventure and humor?
My adventures are carried out in the wide open domain of the real world, not
in self-serving fantasy. And I find nothing funny in the self-inflicted
crippling I see too many pseudo-scientific paranormalists perpetrating
on themselves, except perhaps in a kind of stoogish violent slapstick way.
Maybe if you said "Nyuck, nyuck" a few times, I'd be able to get more into
the spirit of your kind of humor.
--
PZ Myers
Charles Gregory
: Making up phrases using new-age buzzwords like "vibration"
: is not at all scientific.
So refering to electron 'shells' is not scientific? It was in my high
school chemistry text, but it's not at all accurate in describing what
electrons really do. The word "shell" evokes an *image* of a
three-dimensional shape which, while woefully inaccurate, is *functional*
in respect to defining certain forms of behaviour.
I'm sure that 'vibration' will likewise turn out to be woefully
inaccurate, but for now it provides a handy label that allows us to
attempt to describe the underlying basis for observed phenomena in a
manner that matches the different effects observed.
: Please do explain what "vibrations" you are talking about. What are you
: measuring when you say one person has a higher frequency than another?
It's been proven that the fundamental matter of our universe vibrates in
three dimensions. It's also been theoretically demonstrated that our
universe is made up of many more dimensions than just three. It's also
been demonstrated that light doesn't *really* come in waves, but that a
single particle (photon) possesses the characteristic of 'frequency' as a
quantum energy level - it has nothing to do with the distance between
photons (the classic definition of wavelength). Yet scientists still use
the term 'frequency' and 'wavelength' when descrbing light.
And those same scientists use quantum physics to describe vibrations that
are not in our 'physcial' three dimensions at all, but which still have a
visible effect upon them.
There is nothing 'unreasonable' about using the term 'frequency' or
'vibration' in speculation, or even a personal 'theory' about the nature
of paranormal phenomena. Reflect on the nature of a common radio
receiver. Even though *all* the radio energy is passing through the
receiver, we hear only one 'frequency' because part of the device is
designed to be 'tuned' to that frequency. For it, all others don't exist
and are only observed as 'harmonic interference'.
Now think about 'ghost reports'. Wispy, insubstantial, like the 'ghosts'
we see on TV when one channel causes interference on another. Everyone has
refered to the TV phenomenon as 'ghosts', but did anyone ever stop to
consider that the 'real thing' may in fact be the exact same *kind* of
'interference' but on a physical multi-dimensional level?
- Charles
Charlotte
Here are a couple of books that you might be interested in.. Actually they
are good books for any one of us to read. Especially if you have a
scientific mind.. I think you might like them too Ethan.
<<snip>>
>Oh, come off it.
>
>I asked you to CITE the scientific publications that you claim support
>your ideas. You haven't. I suspect they don't exist.
>
>I asked you to explain your ideas. You haven't. You threw out some vague
>aside about string theory, which is completely irrelevant, and that was
>about it.
>
>It's pretty clear that you've got nothing to 'fight' with.
>
>--
>PZ Myers
I am not trying to get into this,,although it does have it's entertainment
value,, I just thought that since you are looking for proof you may be
interested in these books.
1. "LOOKING IN,,SEEING OUT" ( Consciousness and Cosmos),,,by Menas Kafatos
and Thalia Kaftou ,,right down your alley hey?? you might even like it!!
2." Human Energy Systems" by Jack Schwarz
They both discuss these views that you are asking about. I think it is cool
that you are seeking" proof". Afterall that is how a scientific mind works.
You will find that the proof is not in the knowledge but in the
feeling,,,"The Truth is itself the truth" (from the GuruGita,,, it goes
something like that anyway)
Have you ever had a mate or a friend that you just knew was in areal rotten
mood :I hate Life" kinda mode? Couldn't you just feel that anger and
resentment?? That is an example of Vibration frequencies... Or how about
you are sitting in a bar and a sexy woman walks in,,not Just sexy mind you,,
but the kind that gives you boner right away??(pardon the expression) She
would be exuding her sexual energy,,,both are vibrations, you can feel them
not see them,I don't even know if they can be measured,but like I said the
proof is in the feeling.!!~ hehehe
Namaste'
MAY YOU FIND THE PROOF YOU ARE SEEKING,,MAY YOU LEARN TO LOOK INSIDE, THE
STARS ARE BUT A HINT TO WHAT RESIDES IN ALL OF US......Charlotte.....:-))
PZ Myers
(Charles Gregory) wrote:
>PZ Myers (my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu) wrote:
>: Making up phrases using new-age buzzwords like "vibration"
>: is not at all scientific.
>
>So refering to electron 'shells' is not scientific? It was in my high
>school chemistry text, but it's not at all accurate in describing what
>electrons really do. The word "shell" evokes an *image* of a
>three-dimensional shape which, while woefully inaccurate, is *functional*
>in respect to defining certain forms of behaviour.
>
>I'm sure that 'vibration' will likewise turn out to be woefully
>inaccurate, but for now it provides a handy label that allows us to
>attempt to describe the underlying basis for observed phenomena in a
>manner that matches the different effects observed.
What observed phenomena? That's where we part company. You are treating
the claims that people vibrate at different frequencies as a given; I'm
telling you it's not.
>
>: Please do explain what "vibrations" you are talking about. What are you
>: measuring when you say one person has a higher frequency than another?
>
>It's been proven that the fundamental matter of our universe vibrates in
>three dimensions. It's also been theoretically demonstrated that our
>universe is made up of many more dimensions than just three. It's also
>been demonstrated that light doesn't *really* come in waves, but that a
>single particle (photon) possesses the characteristic of 'frequency' as a
>quantum energy level - it has nothing to do with the distance between
>photons (the classic definition of wavelength). Yet scientists still use
>the term 'frequency' and 'wavelength' when descrbing light.
Yes. And those terms accurately describe an aspect of the phenomenon that
is being measured. Whether it was done three hundred years ago or yesterday,
scientists measure the same oscillatory property of light and label it
wavelength; what is changing is our understanding of the meaning of that
phenomenon.
Do you understand? We start with a measurement, an observation. From there,
we go on to try and understand underlying properties of that observation,
and perhaps even completely revise our interpretations.
What Walker is doing is the exact opposite. He is *inventing* an observation.
He claims that people 'vibrate' in some way that can't be measured, but that
he can perceive. From that imaginary observation, he then goes on to cite
any mention of 'vibration' he can vaguely remember from pop sci explanations
of physics as a rationalization for his so-called observations. And now
you are doing exactly the same thing.
Nowhere does any of this conjecture touch on reality. There isn't one
replicable observation or measurement or quantification of a real world
phenomenon...just a lot of vague and imaginative guesswork.
>
>And those same scientists use quantum physics to describe vibrations that
>are not in our 'physcial' three dimensions at all, but which still have a
>visible effect upon them.
>
>There is nothing 'unreasonable' about using the term 'frequency' or
>'vibration' in speculation, or even a personal 'theory' about the nature
>of paranormal phenomena. Reflect on the nature of a common radio
>receiver. Even though *all* the radio energy is passing through the
>receiver, we hear only one 'frequency' because part of the device is
>designed to be 'tuned' to that frequency. For it, all others don't exist
>and are only observed as 'harmonic interference'.
Yes, it is *completely* unreasonable. Nobody has measured anything. You
are making analogies and pulling in irrelevant theories without justification
to claim that something (you don't know what) is vibrating at some rate
that you can't specify.
>
>Now think about 'ghost reports'. Wispy, insubstantial, like the 'ghosts'
>we see on TV when one channel causes interference on another. Everyone has
>refered to the TV phenomenon as 'ghosts', but did anyone ever stop to
>consider that the 'real thing' may in fact be the exact same *kind* of
>'interference' but on a physical multi-dimensional level?
That's gobbledygook. What is interfering with what? How do I see it, how
do I measure it? What is a "multi-dimensional level"?
--
PZ Myers
Ethan Walker
Ethan Walker has already announced that he can 'tell' when people are of a
'lower frequency'
Somehow you are saying that lower frequency means less. I don't think so.
Nor do I compare myself to other vibrations. In fact, if you had read
anything at all about spirituality, you would have gathered that the point
is to go beyond all vibration. Once again you have lumped me into your own
*mythological atheistic pseudoscientific theory*. It is false, And it is my
duty to point out your error, as much as you point psychobabble.
and are 'less evolved'.
Again, you reveal your complete inability to read. I never said anyone was
less evolved than me. And since you don't have any grasp on psycho matters,
you certainly aren't qualified to comment on the truth of my ego/arrogance,
and even if you were a PHD, you still wouldn't have enough "scientific"
evidence to make that judgement. This is complete heresay. Not scientific
at all as you claim. In fact you are creating the biggest, most unfounded
myths of anyone I have seen in a long time... Children have imaginations,
but part of growing up is looking at the *evidence* and forming concrete
theorys about the world. You are the pseudo scientist. And I am going to
point out everytime you use you halfwitted techniques.
He is apparently superior, having
a higher frequency of vibration.
And you are *apparently* superior, having the ability to lump my words in to
your own made up fantasy world of pseudo-science, which you haven't provided
any proof that you even know what atheism, or skepticism is anyway.
And he uses garbled terms from physics to
defend his beliefs.
Nope, my terms were clear and direct. I just didn't go into detail,
because, I don't reveal things that way. You have provided no evidence that
vibrations (as we have discussed) do not exist. The only evidence you've
given anyone is the fact that you have no evidence of anything, and the fact
that you are even a poor skeptic, is all the more evidence....
That is bigotry.
I'm not the one categorizing things. In fact if you were to re read my
posts, you would see that I made specific claim that there were "higher"
vibrations to be sought out. I am not there yet. But I have faith (as I
did in the past) than there is a better frequency than the one I am in. And
that faith helps me to evolve.
There is no objective basis for his claims
There is no objective basis for being skeptical. It has no foundation at
all.
, but you think
he should be free to be uncriticized for his pseudoscientific lies. Too bad.
Criticize, I love it. But so far I haven't seen anything very critical. If
the point system were allocated to the amount of sheer criticism and
skepticism in both our posts, topic for topic, I would win hands down.
Ethan Walker
Aint' it Real?
mel
Apparently humans vibrate at 7.85 hertz (info from uk tv station doing a
topic on
electromagnetism) (just my tuppence worth)
Love Mel
Larry <lc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7mbl80$big$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Brother Sri Knimba
I'm cutting to the chase here and clearing out the crap and whatevers.
First, thanks for enlightening me to prating; I was unfamiliar with the
word.
> In my opinion, there is far too much anti-scientific, innumerate,
> illiterate, gullible nonsense babbled about, and it needs
> active discouragement, not encouragement.
Where do you see this babble going on? If it's here, on the Spiritual
Circle, that may be due to the fact that we're not science oriented and
never claimed to be.
I will say my ego has thrashed about, dying to lash out at you for your
comments towards Ethan; in that case, I shall cease from name-calling so
that we may carry on a discussion instead of a session of senseless barbs.
I certainly don't mind hearing your beliefs and I'm certainly not offended
by them. When I suggested posting else where, it was because I noticed how
angry you were becoming and I thought it would alleviate that angry
bickering (by all parties). I'm open to anyone's beliefs as long as they
don't cause harm to others. I want to say, stay and share your heart and
mind, but I don't want you to take this as ordering you around; far from
it.
>
> I'm a scientist, a materialist, a rationalist, an atheist. Does that
help?
>
Yes, this does explain the perspective you're coming from. Thank you.
I see myself defending a culture that believes there's something more to
life than what science has offered us. I personally, do not indulge in the
"disparagement of science" as you so eloquently stated.
Let me ask you something. In a previous post you suggested that some
ideas deserve less respect than others. Does that carry to the individuals
stating those ideas, or just to the thought itself. I can see how you
interpret Ethan's comments as a small step away from superior/inferior, but
I don't tthink that's quite what Ethan was saying. Have you ever been
around someone who's so down they drain your energy; just being around them
gets tiresome? (I'm leaving myself open here) How do explain it? Maybe
frequency is off the mark; maybe energy level is better. Do you consider
yourself on the same state of being as monks in Tibet, or Albert Einstein?
Would you prefer smarter? I can see how it would be easy to take it to the
next step: We're better than you and we're taking over. But we don't do
it. Why not?
I can't speak for Ethan, he can do that quite well on his own.
Can you call something a lie because it hasn't been proven? Yes, if
something has been proven to the contrary--extreme example: If I say the
world is flat and go around touting it as my beliefs and everyone else is
wrong, than yes, I can see calling it a lie. But something that's
intanglible and not yet cited in scientific journals isn't a lie, it's just
not proven.
> Oh, really? Not even when that unproven belief is an argument that
certain
> people are better than others? When someone claims to be able to see that
> certain people are more "evolved" than others?
>
Ethan, did you say some people are better than others? I can't exactly
introduce reincarnation here, as that won't float too well. But I thought
Mr. Walker spoke on higher or lower vibrations and evolution, which doesn't
mean "better".
So why do you stay here? What is it you want here? I'm asking a real
question with the intent of a straight forward, practical answer, not to
disuade and debunk the liars. Eh-eh, won't do.
I'm angry because of your choice of debating. "I" statements are
beginnings of sharing beliefs and ideas. "I believe that vibrations a re a
product of your imagination." "You" statements set the other person on
automatic defense. "You're ideas about vibrations are wrong." Do you see
any difference in the approach?
Criticize away. My beliefs won't wither as they won't from pro-Jesus
people who think what I believe is "New Age crap". I shall not debate with
you on whether I'm openminded or not. I will admit I have come across as
arrogant and yes, I am sticking up for this group, because it's a damn good
one, full of open-minded people interested in all points of view when they
are presented in a peaceful manner. Sure, all life ain't roses, but it
doesn't have to be as cutting as I've seen here.
> > I can understand there are people who refuse to believe what
can't be
> >sited, proven, etc. and goody for them. There are also those that
believe
> >in love, faith and the unseen and unproven and we get along fine.
` I'm sorry you misinterpreted what I was saying here. What I was
suggesting is that love is energy, a force, that radiates from some people,
less from others. I was implying that as rational as you say you are,
something like radiating energy wouldn't sit well with you. Perhaps
instead of knifing right in, you could ask what I meant. Everyone is
capable of love, I had no intentions of passing any kind of judgement
against anyone. Again I'm sorry you misunderstood where I was coming from.
I pretend nothing, as you state, though I doubt anything I could say would
make you change your mind.
>
> And I find nothing funny in the self-inflicted crippling I see too many
> pseudo-scientific paranormalists perpetrating on themselves
Can you name any? I am curious.
And lastly, thank you for reminding me how out of control my ego can get.
I can't always see it until someone points it out. I am curious what you
want to see here, forgetting me and my thoughts. In the braoder sense,
what are you looking for?
Peace be with you . . .
Gary . . .
Gary Frank
Gary Frank.
Charles Gregory
: (Charles Gregory) wrote:
: >PZ Myers (my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu) wrote:
: > : Making up phrases using new-age buzzwords like "vibration"
: > : is not at all scientific.
: >inaccurate, but for now it provides a handy label that allows us to
: >attempt to describe the underlying basis for observed phenomena in a
: >manner that matches the different effects observed.
: What observed phenomena? That's where we part company. You are treating
: the claims that people vibrate at different frequencies as a given; I'm
: telling you it's not.
Frankly, I wasn't much concerned with the specifics of the phenomena
because I have no way to substantiate them. I simply wanted to remind
people that it is not 'unscientific' to use a term ('vibration') if it
provides at least a minimal description of the effects observed.
: What Walker is doing is the exact opposite. He is *inventing* an observation.
: He claims that people 'vibrate' in some way that can't be measured, but that
: he can perceive. From that imaginary observation......
I see nothing wrong with the argument that the observation could be
'imaginary', but that still doesn't stop the word 'vibration' from being
applied if it is sufficiently descriptive of that observation. If someone
claims to see bright colored auras, the differences in color represent
shifts in 'frequency' and that implies vibration. The word is proper,
regardless of the issue of veracity.
: , he then goes on to cite any mention of 'vibration' he can vaguely
: remember from pop sci explanations of physics as a rationalization for
: his so-called observations. And now you are doing exactly the same
: thing.
When dealing with the utterly bizarre, rationalization is a valid tool.
: Nowhere does any of this conjecture touch on reality. There isn't one
: replicable observation or measurement or quantification of a real world
: phenomenon...just a lot of vague and imaginative guesswork.
Actually, the evidence is there, but like all real science it is *small*,
boring, unexciting. Endless streams of numbers on printouts at Princeton.
Not the exciting showman con-game that some people try to pull off. Just
plain ordinary dull repetitive experiments that demonstrate anomalous
relationships between consciousness and matter.
: Yes, it is *completely* unreasonable. Nobody has measured anything.
It is unreasonable to think that applying a fancy term would 'validate' an
unsubstantiated measurement/observation. But using the term is not
unreasonable for the people who are trying to describe the phenomena they
*claim* to have witnessed.
: >Now think about 'ghost reports'. Wispy, insubstantial, like the 'ghosts'
: >we see on TV when one channel causes interference on another.
: That's gobbledygook. What is interfering with what?
"Interference" in this context is a weak signal which distorts or corrupts
the main signal. In this case, I propose a whimsical analogy that might
offer insight into the phenomena reported as 'ghosts'.
: How do I see it, how do I measure it?
Seeing is currently at the level of random observations. Measurements of
'ghost effects' are claimed by some, but are mostly just recordings with
no quantification of the data, and even the recordings are questionable in
their accuracy/veracity.
: What is a "multi-dimensional level"?
A pseudo-science-speak term which suggests a physical principle buried in
the higher levels of mathematics and quantum physics. We know from our
scientific 'gurus' that there are many more dimensions to matter than just
the four we perceive. To observe a phenomenon that *appears* distorted and
transparent is to suggest that something is not fully 'in' our three
dimensions. This opens the door to concepts of either 'tuning' into a
'parallel dimension' (not a theory I particularly endorse) or to a higher
level of physical dimensionality that relates to our physical level in
much the same way elctricity relates to magnetism.
- Charles
....None of this theorizing or speculation necessarily betokens acceptance
of any particular report, but rather indicates a general willingness to
suspend disbelief long enough to examine possibilities and ideas.
Rowyn Wood
Subject: Re: Hi...and maybe goodbye...for now
Date: July 13, 1999 10:51 AM
Hi PZ,
Sorry, I missed a lot of this thread, but if you are looking on information
about vibrations, I was reading a book with a lot of good information in it
called, "Vibrational Medicine". Sorry, I don't know the author as I've
misplaced it (yes, you could call that stupid :0) and hadn't got very far
into it. I can't quote any scientific studies offhand, but it could be a
place to start if you're really interested. I was reading it for a paper I'm
doing and found it very helpful on the the workings of energy healing.
I do Reiki (for myself and my family) and although I don't know much about
the scientific theories etc., I do know that I approached it with an open
mind when I was first introduced, and haven't looked back since. Give it a
try if you can find it.
--
Yours in Love and Light,
Rowyn
**********
A GAELIC BLESSING
Deep peace of the running wave to you,
Deep peace of the flowing air to you,
Deep peace of the quiet earth to you,
Deep peace of the shining stars to you,
Deep peace of the gentle night to you,
Moon and stars pour their healing light on you,
Deep peace of the Light of the World to you.
(Taken from "The Rune Cards" by Ralph H. Blum)
PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote in message
news:myers-10079...@ppp89.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com...
> In article <3787...@news1.jps.net>, "Ethan Walker" <nthu...@jps.net>
wrote:
>
> [snip empty twaddle. Gosh, it's all gone!]
>
> I'll tell you what. You claim your blather about "vibrational frequencies"
> is scientific. You give me a list of real papers about the topic, and
> maybe even try to put together a coherent summary of what you think (and
> no, just invoking "string theory" as a deus ex machina is not an
explanation).
> I'll sit quietly. I'll read it. I promise not to laugh, at least not until
> after you've had a chance to put together a cogent story.
>
> Do you think you can do that?
>
> I'll be waiting.
>
> --
> PZ Myers
Charlotte
Nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck
nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck
Hey sweetie it is possible to disagree with someone with out anger and
name calling..... But I am sure you know that.....:)
Nyuck nyuck nyuck nycuk nyuck nyuck.........hehehehehe
Namaste'
MAY YOU LEARN THAT WE ARE THE STARS AND THEIR LIGHT.....MAY YOU LEARN HOW TO
AGREE TO DISAGREE.......Charlotte..........:-))
anonym™
>
> Hey PZ,,
>
> Nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck
> nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck
>
> Hey sweetie it is possible to disagree with someone with out anger and
> name calling..... But I am sure you know that.....:)
>
> Nyuck nyuck nyuck nycuk nyuck nyuck.........hehehehehe
Apparently that's the way his wife operates, teaching multi-cultural
tolerance, but then PZ has said some things that indicate his wife might
be lying. He said that his whole family sees the Christian tradition of
celebrating Christmas as a "lot of booshwa claptrp", or something to
that effect.
I wish he would clarify the situation: is his wife really a boorish
intolerant asshole like himself, or did he lie about her?
James Truelove
Great thread!
If science is the rational way, what happened to the scientists theories
that
If a vehicle travelled at more than thirty miles an hour people would
suffocate!
The world is flat!
The universe revolved around the earth!
And more recently
Men would never travel to the planets!
Light travelled in waves, or is it particles, or is it both!
Gravity is a wave , or is it ?
Electricity, Gravity, Magnetism, Weak Nuclear force, Strong nuclear force
are all interconnected? perhaps, but still not proven!
Relativity theory states that time passes slower on a moving body than one
at rest, perhaps proven?
I am sure you can think of a lot more!!
What I am suggesting is that peoples theories, even if unproven, can
sometimes lead to the most astounding facts that eventually get accepted as
conventional scientific thinking.
The more advanced physics gets, the more mystical it seems.
Even though scientists before the fact often redicule the person with the
imagination to conjecture about the nature of the universe.
Einstein, Newton, Bell, Leonardo de' Vinci, all came up with ideas that were
before their time, can you be absolutely certain that the beliefs sometimes
expressed in this group are not people grasping at ideas that are
frustratingly just beyond their ability to express in ways that everyone can
understand, or even believe?
Does that mean that they are wrong?
Or does that mean that others have closed minds?
Not you of course, you obviously have a very open mind!!!!
--
Regards
James
"Even though quality cannot be defined, you know what it is."
From 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'
Charles Gregory <ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:7mega9$aa8$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
PZ Myers
>PZ has indicated an important clue to his thinking process.
>
>PZ will never be a Leonard, nor an Einstein, because he is too busy
>waiting for the stats to become available before he makes any
>conclusions. He is more concerned with the last step in the scientific
>method, the proof, when he doesn't even have the hypothesis right yet.
Sure. What is your hypothesis? What is your theory? I've lost track of
how many times I've asked you that -- it's like shouting down a well.
>In fact he keeps denying any other hypothesis because it has not been
>proven. Sound familiar? Galileo?
>
>Really great minds imagine first, prove later. They come up with the
>possibility...then make the numbers fit.
Uh, no. Great minds make observations, think about the data, and build
hypotheses on those observations. Do you really think Einstein and Galileo
built their work on a foundation of fantasy?
>
>Skeptics are like people wandering around shouting to every one they
>know "Hey you, I have no toungue! And you don't have any toungue,
>either!. There never was a toungue!". And all the while the answer
>was already there!
Gee, I *don't* have a toungue.
Oh, wait...you mean TONGUE. Never mind.
>
>It's quite obvious he know as little as anyone regarding contemporary
>physics because he has yet to refute a single theory. IN fact he is
>more busy ignoring the theory, or hypothesis than trying to prove
>anything. Scientists prove, skeptics deny. He is definitely not a
>scientist.
I'm still waiting patiently for you to tell me what this theory is
that I'm supposed to refute.
>
>
>I just love how all these so called "new agers" are so "uninformed"
>about science.
Well, I deplore it. It explains a lot if you love being uninformed.
>
>The best thing is that all the people reading these threads can be
>presented all this information in a less "condescendingly scientific"
>approach.
>
>As a musician, I have personally seen how vibration exists on more than
>three dimensions. I have moved entire audiences into tears, laughter,
>dancing, and even sexual arousal. So I have my own proof. I have seen
>others play the same music, same notes, with no vibration. And the
>audience didn't resond, either.
This audience isn't responding to your silly braggadacio, either. You
must not be vibrating right.
>
>I could demonstrate how I applied the scientific method to this
>practice as well, but I won't unless asked to save space.
I have asked you several times now. Please do.
I have also asked you to back up your claims that your ideas have scientific
support by citing some scientists and papers. Please do go ahead and do that,
too.
I have also asked you to explain just what this "theory" you've been bragging
about might be. Still waiting. Please do go ahead and tell me all about
that, while you're at it.
--
PZ Myers
anonym™
fined and put on probation as well as evicted with an Unlawful Detainer
filing on 3/6/96, violator of Federal Laws for practicing Falconry
without proper permits blithered:
>
Yada yada yada yada...
>
> Uranus and Neptune reflect this unconscious fear.
Bah
Lone
Knee
ethan...@my-deja.com
PZ will never be a Leonard, nor an Einstein, because he is too busy
waiting for the stats to become available before he makes any
conclusions. He is more concerned with the last step in the scientific
method, the proof, when he doesn't even have the hypothesis right yet.
In fact he keeps denying any other hypothesis because it has not been
proven. Sound familiar? Galileo?
Really great minds imagine first, prove later. They come up with the
possibility...then make the numbers fit.
Skeptics are like people wandering around shouting to every one they
know "Hey you, I have no toungue! And you don't have any toungue,
either!. There never was a toungue!". And all the while the answer
was already there!
It's quite obvious he know as little as anyone regarding contemporary
physics because he has yet to refute a single theory. IN fact he is
more busy ignoring the theory, or hypothesis than trying to prove
anything. Scientists prove, skeptics deny. He is definitely not a
scientist.
I just love how all these so called "new agers" are so "uninformed"
about science.
The best thing is that all the people reading these threads can be
presented all this information in a less "condescendingly scientific"
approach.
As a musician, I have personally seen how vibration exists on more than
three dimensions. I have moved entire audiences into tears, laughter,
dancing, and even sexual arousal. So I have my own proof. I have seen
others play the same music, same notes, with no vibration. And the
audience didn't resond, either.
I could demonstrate how I applied the scientific method to this
practice as well, but I won't unless asked to save space.
Ethan Walker
Tom Kerr
>PZ
>
>Great thread!
>If science is the rational way, what happened to the scientists theories
>that
>
>If a vehicle travelled at more than thirty miles an hour people would
>suffocate!
>The world is flat!
>The universe revolved around the earth!
Sure, these claims were made in the past, but the nice thing about science is
that its ideas advance with time. I doubt any scientist will claim that
science knows it all, or that scientific theroies are infallible. Quite
simply, they're not. However, science has self-correction as one of its
fundamentals.
>
> And more recently
>Men would never travel to the planets!
Well, they haven't yet;) Only to the Moon...
>Light travelled in waves, or is it particles, or is it both!
Light is seen to act as both depending on the experiment. In one way, light is
very well understood (we can predict what it will do under just about any
circumstance), but the nature of light itself is still not understood very
well. I don't see this as a criticism of science, more of an honest opinion
that science still has a long way to go. However, it still does a pretty damn
good job in many areas.
>Gravity is a wave , or is it ?
There is some strong circumstantial evidence for gravitational waves, but
until we can build decent gravitational wave detectors (which should be very
shortly), there's still no direct evidence.
>Electricity, Gravity, Magnetism, Weak Nuclear force, Strong nuclear force
>are all interconnected? perhaps, but still not proven!
True.
>Relativity theory states that time passes slower on a moving body than one
>at rest, perhaps proven?
Yes, experiments have been performed that show this very effect (using atmoic
clocks in airplanes and spacecraft).
>
>I am sure you can think of a lot more!!
>
>What I am suggesting is that peoples theories, even if unproven, can
>sometimes lead to the most astounding facts that eventually get accepted as
>conventional scientific thinking.
>The more advanced physics gets, the more mystical it seems.
I agree with this in a way, but I think it appears more mystical to people
who aren't physicists. However, quantum mechanics certainly predicts some
weird effects, although these are all explained quite nicely using maths.
Sometimes it's easier to simply believe what the maths and physics is telling
you, rather than trying to get your head around what's *really* happening.
>Even though scientists before the fact often redicule the person with the
>imagination to conjecture about the nature of the universe.
>Einstein, Newton, Bell, Leonardo de' Vinci, all came up with ideas that were
>before their time, can you be absolutely certain that the beliefs sometimes
>expressed in this group are not people grasping at ideas that are
>frustratingly just beyond their ability to express in ways that everyone can
>understand, or even believe?
>Does that mean that they are wrong?
>Or does that mean that others have closed minds?
>Not you of course, you obviously have a very open mind!!!!
>
New theories are often treated as being whacky. Actually, this is often a
*good* thing, as it makes scientists explore the theory carefully, often in an
attempt to disprove it. Every so often, the doubters are surprised.
However, you have to remember that in order for a theory to be accepted, there
has to be evidence to support it, and it also has to be falsifiable.
Tom
EHWollmann
society, when you are interacting with beings from other societies in that way,
no matter what level you are interacting with them, the reason that many of
those fears occur is because-let us say-and again in no way, shape, or form, is
this meant to be a comparative judgement that you are any less than any other
being. But the way you create yourselves to be, the way you have been taught to
think of yourselves, creates within you the ability to hide and suppress many
portions of your consciousness from yourselves, and in doing so you function on
a lower vibratory frequency very often. When you come in contact with a being
that operates on a very high vibratory frequency because it is willing to know
itself as completely as it can, then those two frequencies when they come
together, will usually create the effect of the higher frequency in a sense
overwhelming the lower frequency, and forcing the lower frequency to rise in
pitch. In forcing the lower frequency to raise in pitch, that will bring to the
surface all the things that you have been keeping buried within you, and
bringing those things to the surface when you are not ready to face them, can
be a very fearful experience for many of you. That is where the fear comes
from." Bashar "Perfection" Referring to alien other world interaction
Uranus and Neptune reflect this unconscious fear.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
(c)1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/tableof.htm
Charlotte
Obviously you missed the point of the post, please re read it,you might also
find it helpful. To be honest dear,I am not interested in what his wife has
to say,at this point, and I don't think it has any relevance here.
It was meant to bring a little Light Hearted Laughter, and a little
insight,,,,,not a stomping ground..Please refrain from telling me these
negative things about other people, they hold little or no value for me.
MAY YOU WALK IN GOD'S LIGHT AND LOVE....AND MAY YOU FIND THE SOURCE OF YOUR
BLOCK AND FREE YOUR SELF FROM IT .......TO LIVE IN YOUR
LIGHT......Charlotte......:-))
anonym™ wrote in message <378B7736...@pacbell.net>...
PZ Myers
<a1d6...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Hey PZ,,
>
>Nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck
>nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck
>
>Hey sweetie it is possible to disagree with someone with out anger and
>name calling..... But I am sure you know that.....:)
Why, soitenly, you knucklehead! Just like it's possible for Moe to poke
Larry in the eyes and never do any permanent damage -- do you see a lot
of anger in the Stooges? I don't. Nothing real, at any rate.
>
>Nyuck nyuck nyuck nycuk nyuck nyuck.........hehehehehe
This is a test, right? Find the "nyuck" that isn't like all the others --
third one from the last.
>
>Namaste'
>
>MAY YOU LEARN THAT WE ARE THE STARS AND THEIR LIGHT.....MAY YOU LEARN HOW TO
>AGREE TO DISAGREE.......Charlotte..........:-))
I would be content if some people would just learn, period.
--
PZ Myers
Charles Gregory
: Uh, no. Great minds make observations, think about the data, and build
: hypotheses on those observations. Do you really think Einstein and Galileo
: built their work on a foundation of fantasy?
In other words, let's call the observations 'fantasy' because there is no
explanation for them (that you accept), then laugh at the hypotheses that
people come up with because they are based on 'fantasy'. A marvelous
job of circular thinking and labeling things based on your arbitrary
worldview.
And, YES, Einstein did his work on a foundation of fantasy. He called them
'thought experiments', and he spent a great deal of time convincing people
of their validity, and indeed, decades later we are still *testing* and
proving the predictions of that 'fantasy'.
: Gee, I *don't* have a toungue.
: Oh, wait...you mean TONGUE. Never mind.
The paranormalist means "manipulative taste sensor in your mouth".
The skeptic reads, "non-existent thing", because, gee, we didn't get
every last detail correct, like the spelling.
So you demonstrate the traditional skeptic mindset - insisting that
something doesn't exist, and we should *ignore* it and turn our
attention elsewhere, simply because *you* can't adjust your thinking
enough to understand what we are decribing.
So, how's the imaginary tongue?
- Charles
Joel
Charles Gregory wrote in message <7mgue0$2oe$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org>...
Godsbridge
Joel
Charles Gregory
: >If science is the rational way, what happened to the scientists theories
: >that
: >If a vehicle travelled at more than thirty miles an hour people would
: >suffocate!
: Sure, these claims were made in the past, but the nice thing about science is
: that its ideas advance with time.
I think the 'lesson of history' is to stop *labelling* things as 'fantasy'
simply because we don't yet have the explanations for how it could happen.
To those who detracted faster-than-sound flight, it was sheer 'fantasy' to
be trying to design a plane to do it.
: I doubt any scientist will claim that science knows it all....
True. Very true. Which says something about the people who claim to be
thinking 'like a scientist' and then demonstrate the attitude that they
'know it all' with their blind rejections of someone else's observations
simply because those observations don't fit with the 'all' that they
'know'. Carl Sagan said it best: "A scientist faces the challenge of being
absolutely open-minded and hyper-critical at the same time." Pity the
so-called 'skeptics' seem to forget the first part.....
: ...... quantum mechanics certainly predicts some
: weird effects, although these are all explained quite nicely using maths.
: Sometimes it's easier to simply believe what the maths and physics is telling
: you, rather than trying to get your head around what's *really* happening.
Sadly, we seem to lack this faith when it is our *senses* rather than
maths and physics doing the "telling". The difficulty in "getting our head
around it" is still there.
: New theories are often treated as being whacky. Actually, this is often
: a *good* thing, as it makes scientists explore the theory carefully,
: often in an attempt to disprove it. Every so often, the doubters are
: surprised.
Actually, I've heard scientists describe the course of science as one of
continually being surprised. To simply verify what is already known is not
the "meat" of science - it is the discovery of new and unexpected wonders
that drives us forward. The people who are building the neutrino detectors
don't just want to find the exact results predicted, they want to find
deviations in quality or quantity that reveal new and unimagined details
to the structure of our universe.
Science is a *tool* not a viewpoint.
PZ Myers
(Charles Gregory) wrote:
>PZ Myers (my...@netaxs.com) wrote:
>: Uh, no. Great minds make observations, think about the data, and build
>: hypotheses on those observations. Do you really think Einstein and Galileo
>: built their work on a foundation of fantasy?
>
>In other words, let's call the observations 'fantasy' because there is no
>explanation for them (that you accept), then laugh at the hypotheses that
>people come up with because they are based on 'fantasy'. A marvelous
>job of circular thinking and labeling things based on your arbitrary
>worldview.
What? You are redefining "fantasy" and "observation" to be equivalent, and
then you claim I'm engaged in a circular argument based on labels?
>
>And, YES, Einstein did his work on a foundation of fantasy. He called them
>'thought experiments', and he spent a great deal of time convincing people
>of their validity, and indeed, decades later we are still *testing* and
>proving the predictions of that 'fantasy'.
You have some misconceptions about gedankenexperiments. They aren't based
on fantasy. They aren't blithered up out of thin air. Einstein's thought
experiments were built up on a very rigorous mathematical foundation and
extended in a solidly logical and imaginative way. That doesn't mean they
were invented out of moonbeams and poetry, although New Agers like to pretend
that's all it takes. There's a heck of a lot of hard work and appreciation of
reality in there.
>
>: Gee, I *don't* have a toungue.
>: Oh, wait...you mean TONGUE. Never mind.
>
>The paranormalist means "manipulative taste sensor in your mouth".
>The skeptic reads, "non-existent thing", because, gee, we didn't get
>every last detail correct, like the spelling.
No, the skeptic tries in a subtle way to write, "Don't take yourself
so seriously." The paranormalist gets all touchy and tries to pretend that
that means the skeptic doesn't believe he has a tongue, thereby demonstrating
that he lacks both a simple sense of logic and a sense of humor.
>
>So you demonstrate the traditional skeptic mindset - insisting that
>something doesn't exist, and we should *ignore* it and turn our
>attention elsewhere, simply because *you* can't adjust your thinking
>enough to understand what we are decribing.
You aren't describing anything. You're throwing around meaningless words
and concepts you don't really understand, and expect everyone to bow down
and acknowledge your mastery. Because the language of science sounds like
gobbledygook to *you* doesn't mean that if you babble out a lot of gobbledygook
it will sound like science to others.
>
>So, how's the imaginary tongue?
I don't have an imaginary tongue. How are your entirely imaginary and
thoroughly fictitious vibrations?
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
(Charles Gregory) wrote:
>Tom Kerr (t...@prodigy.net) wrote:
>: >If science is the rational way, what happened to the scientists theories
>: >that
>: >If a vehicle travelled at more than thirty miles an hour people would
>: >suffocate!
>
>: Sure, these claims were made in the past, but the nice thing about
science is
>: that its ideas advance with time.
>
>I think the 'lesson of history' is to stop *labelling* things as 'fantasy'
>simply because we don't yet have the explanations for how it could happen.
>To those who detracted faster-than-sound flight, it was sheer 'fantasy' to
>be trying to design a plane to do it.
>
>: I doubt any scientist will claim that science knows it all....
>
>True. Very true. Which says something about the people who claim to be
>thinking 'like a scientist' and then demonstrate the attitude that they
>'know it all' with their blind rejections of someone else's observations
>simply because those observations don't fit with the 'all' that they
>'know'.
Ah, but you miss the point: you've got to present some OBSERVATIONS.
Some simple facts. Some slight nod in the general direction of reality.
You have to do that first.
Trying to skip that crucial little step and jump right into arguing that
people have higher and lower vibrations, or whatever, is going to get
anyone blindly rejected as a loon.
>Carl Sagan said it best: "A scientist faces the challenge of being
>absolutely open-minded and hyper-critical at the same time." Pity the
>so-called 'skeptics' seem to forget the first part.....
Oh, boy. Here it comes. The old "open minded" argument in defense of
crackpot ideas.
Being open-minded does not mean one is uncritically accepting of any old
loony idea anyone wants to vomit up. It means being willing to accept the
dictate of the facts even if they go against your preconceptions.
Unfortunately, many paranormalists think it means being ready to adopt any
idea, even in the absence of facts. Sometimes especially in the absence of
facts.
>
>: ...... quantum mechanics certainly predicts some
>: weird effects, although these are all explained quite nicely using maths.
>: Sometimes it's easier to simply believe what the maths and physics is
telling
>: you, rather than trying to get your head around what's *really* happening.
>
>Sadly, we seem to lack this faith when it is our *senses* rather than
>maths and physics doing the "telling". The difficulty in "getting our head
>around it" is still there.
Your senses are instruments, just like any other tools of science. They have
no particular properties that set them apart from machines that can be
manufactured, other than convenience and familiarity. They aren't even
unusually sensitive or accurate -- there are instruments made that can
assess any human modality with greater precision and objectivity. Math
and physics and chemistry and biology are usually much more reliable than
relying on our senses and impressions alone.
>
>: New theories are often treated as being whacky. Actually, this is often
>: a *good* thing, as it makes scientists explore the theory carefully,
>: often in an attempt to disprove it. Every so often, the doubters are
>: surprised.
>
>Actually, I've heard scientists describe the course of science as one of
>continually being surprised. To simply verify what is already known is not
>the "meat" of science - it is the discovery of new and unexpected wonders
>that drives us forward. The people who are building the neutrino detectors
>don't just want to find the exact results predicted, they want to find
>deviations in quality or quantity that reveal new and unimagined details
>to the structure of our universe.
Yes. And scientists also tend to find reality far more surprising and
interesting than anything that people can make up. It's much more satisfying
to work from established observation and discover something new than to fall
for the unfounded, unsubstantiated, nonsensical delusions of people who
think their fantasies are real phenomena.
>
>Science is a *tool* not a viewpoint.
Actually, it's both. But it doesn't matter -- either way, the vaporous claims
of the fellow who started all this with his talk of visible "vibrations" in
people fails.
--
PZ Myers
Loren King
> And, YES, Einstein did his work on a foundation of fantasy. He called
> them 'thought experiments', and he spent a great deal of time
> convincing people of their validity, and indeed, decades later we are
> still *testing* and proving the predictions of that 'fantasy'.
I think this is playing with words to the point of doing a disservice to
the memory of a smart guy (Einstein), who built his theories on the
models and careful observations of countless other smart people. To
conflate Einstein's "thought experiments" with the term "fantasy" (as PZ
is using it) is, I think, to seriously misuse the latter term.
> So you demonstrate the traditional skeptic mindset - insisting that
> something doesn't exist, and we should *ignore* it and turn our
> attention elsewhere, simply because *you* can't adjust your thinking
> enough to understand what we are decribing.
I don't think this describes the scpetical mindset at all. Scepticism
doesn't somehow banish creativity and flights of imagination. It simply
asks us not to accept uncritically claims to certain knowledge; and it
asks that we apply the logic of scientific inference in trying to make
sense of the world around us.
L.
--------------------------------------
Loren King lk...@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/home.html
Dr M Jons
<19990716055853...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
> PZ Myers <my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu> wrote in article
> <myers-15079...@bio-32.bio.temple.edu>...
>
> The notion that all the universe is connected in a grand design has always
been
> fundamental to magic, and the Pythagoreans used the mathematical relationship
> of musical intervals to express this pattern numerically. Indeed, they were
the
> first professional numerologists.
>
> Biologists are aware that nature counts exponentially. Not 1 2 3 4 5, but 1 2
4
> 8 16, the numbers growing by a logarithmic power each time. Population, and
> even at an individual level, things such as the strength of a stimulus and
the
> level of response to it vary in an exponential way.
>
> It ~is~ possible that all shapes have their own qualities and that the forms
we
> see around us are the result of combinations of environmental frequencies. In
> the 18c the German physicist Ernst Chladni discovered a way of making
vibration
> paterns visible through simple harmonics. They have been extensively used in
> physics to demonstrate wave function, but they also show that different
> frequencies produce patterns with different forms. The study of the effect of
> waves on matter is called 'Cymatics'.
>
> You, are the one talking nonsense.
>
> Jons.
> University of London,
> Biology.
Myers.
Perhaps you don't read alt.paranormal and you were x-posting from another
group?
Lucianarchy
Dr M Jons <drm...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990717030959...@ng-bh1.aol.com>...
It is unclear which ng PZ posts from. I've added alt.ast and sci.skeptic because
he sometimes hangs out there.
It doesn't mean he'll see your response though. I am in his k/f, as are a whole
bunch of us ( the nicest people you'd want to meet ). It may be that PZ is
avoiding responding to your excellent point re: vibration and Cymatics, because
you've pegged him so well. Or he may just be too busy hurling insults at his
intellectual inferiors.
Maybe Bob O or Jo will join in........ you can bet PZ'll appear in a flash ;>
Good luck!
>
>
jfred
> It is unclear which ng PZ posts from. I've added alt.ast and sci.skeptic
> because he sometimes hangs out there.
He whoopsed that even though he claimed to not be reading a.a. anymore,
he IS actually still reading and sometimes even responding.
> It doesn't mean he'll see your response though. I am in his k/f,
There is apparently little difference between being "in" PZ's killfile
and being "out" of PZ's killfile, so don't sweat it.
> as are a whole bunch of us ( the nicest people you'd want to meet ). It
> may be that PZ is avoiding responding to your excellent point re:
> vibration and Cymatics, because you've pegged him so well.
Bingo.
> Or he may just be too busy hurling insults at his intellectual inferiors.
Well, he has said that he likes hanging out among people he FEELS are
his inferiors to boost his ego. (Yeah, I know, it's pretty pathetic)
> Maybe Bob O or Jo will join in........ you can bet PZ'll appear in a
> flash ;>
Will a full accounting of the punctuation they use in their posts! :)
> Good luck!
HTH!
--
jfred... Cahooter #14, SAN 867-5309
/server irc.powerchat.net......channel #irrelevant......to #irr is human
"And I didn't come to win. I just came to play." -- Omnivore
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey
Kevin Burnett
>he sometimes hangs out there.
>bunch of us ( the nicest people you'd want to meet ). It may be that PZ is
>avoiding responding to your excellent point re: vibration and Cymatics, because
>intellectual inferiors.
>
>Maybe Bob O or Jo will join in........ you can bet PZ'll appear in a flash ;>
>
Hey, Luci, where's that Fortean Times article you used to promise was
coming very soon? I'm really interested.
--
Kevin Burnett k...@catnip.org
Pam's Lynch Mob Member #666
http://www.catnip.org http://www.s-light.demon.co.uk
"I see you have made yourself a brand new life
Such a cool blue star with a bright new shine
I see you wearing your checkered past just like a shining suit of gold
I know you think you look so special"
Lucianarchy
Kevin Burnett <k...@catnip.org> wrote in article <7mug0j$4j8$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
Not living in the UK, you obviously weren't aware of my appearance on the Mark Radcliffe
(R1) prog the week before last. You would have been enlightened.
anonym™
>
> Kevin Burnett <k...@catnip.org> wrote in article <7mug0j$4j8$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> > On 18 Jul 1999 15:34:34 GMT, Lucianarchy <lucia...@dial.pipex.com> blathered:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hey, Luci, where's that Fortean Times article you used to promise was
> > coming very soon? I'm really interested.
>
> Not living in the UK, you obviously weren't aware of my appearance on the Mark Radcliffe
> (R1) prog the week before last.
I think maybe you misunderstood the question, unless you're simply
evading it.
Let's try again:
Where's that Fortean Times article you used to promise was
coming very soon? Kevin and I'm really interested.
>
>You would have been enlightened.
I can imagine. Was that a radio or television program?
anonym™
...
>
> Not living in the UK, you obviously weren't aware of my appearance on the Mark Radcliffe
> (R1) prog the week before last.
Not many people were.
It's a radio show.
You don't appear on it. You're heard on it.
>You would have been enlightened.
Were you a call-in guest?
Did you play Group or Poop?
And did you answer "I do both!"?
Lucianarchy
anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote in article <3792DA5A...@pacbell.net>...
> Lucianarchy wrote:
> >
> > Not living in the UK, you obviously weren't aware of my appearance on the Mark
Radcliffe
> > (R1) prog the week before last.
>
> Not many people were.
Only about 3.5m .....
> It's a radio show.
If you're in the UK, tune in today ( 2-4pm GMT ) on 97 -99fm, Radio 1... Prepare to be
enlightened.
anonym™
>
> anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote in article <3792DA5A...@pacbell.net>...
> > Lucianarchy wrote:
> > >
> > > Not living in the UK, you obviously weren't aware of my appearance on the Mark
> Radcliffe
> > > (R1) prog the week before last.
> >
> > Not many people were.
>
> Only about 3.5m ...
They were aware of your *appearance* on a *radio* show?
I guess you appeared to be non-visible.
>
> > It's a radio show.
>
> If you're in the UK, tune in today ( 2-4pm GMT ) on 97 -99fm, Radio 1... Prepare to be
> enlightened.
Well, now, that's getting to be quite a few questions you"ve evaded answering!
Were you a call-in guest?
Did you talk about what a troll you are?
Did you play "Group or Poop"?
(They play a game where a silly name such as "Lucianarchy" is given, and
if you think it's the name of a real band, you say "Group", and if you
think it's fake you say "poop".)
And did you answer "I do both!"?
Hey, Luci, where's that Fortean Times article you used to promise was
coming very soon? Kevin Burnett and I are really interested.
Bob Officer
=?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?= <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Lucianarchy wrote:
>>
>> anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote in article <3792DA5A...@pacbell.net>...
>> > Lucianarchy wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Not living in the UK, you obviously weren't aware of my appearance on the Mark
>> Radcliffe
>> > > (R1) prog the week before last.
>> >
>> > Not many people were.
>>
>> Only about 3.5m ...
>
>They were aware of your *appearance* on a *radio* show?
>
>I guess you appeared to be non-visible.
>>
>> > It's a radio show.
>>
>> If you're in the UK, tune in today ( 2-4pm GMT ) on 97 -99fm, Radio 1... Prepare to be
>> enlightened.
Nymie is this a netcast?
>Well, now, that's getting to be quite a few questions you"ve evaded answering!
>
>Were you a call-in guest?
>
>Did you talk about what a troll you are?
>
>Did you play "Group or Poop"?
>
>(They play a game where a silly name such as "Lucianarchy" is given, and
>if you think it's the name of a real band, you say "Group", and if you
>think it's fake you say "poop".)
>
>And did you answer "I do both!"?
>
>Hey, Luci, where's that Fortean Times article you used to promise was
>coming very soon? Kevin Burnett and I are really interested.
I still have her killfiled...
I wouldn't expect much from her promises.
1 Bob Officer|Skepticult® #105-757897-285 | High Priest of the Church of Conic Section®
2 Tyler of the Order of the ILK | Official Cahooter(TM)#23| Warning! Reproduction without
3 the writen permission in or on any other media than USENET NEWS GROUPS is prohibited.All
4 claims of copyright according to the BERN & UCC Agreements are held by the writers.
anonym™
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 02:40:03 -0700, in alt.astrology
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?= <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Lucianarchy wrote:
> >>
> >> anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote in article <3792DA5A...@pacbell.net>...
> >> > Lucianarchy wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Not living in the UK, you obviously weren't aware of my appearance on the Mark
> >> Radcliffe
> >> > > (R1) prog the week before last.
> >> >
> >> > Not many people were.
> >>
> >> Only about 3.5m ...
> >
> >They were aware of your *appearance* on a *radio* show?
> >
> >I guess you appeared to be non-visible.
> >>
> >> > It's a radio show.
> >>
> >> If you're in the UK, tune in today ( 2-4pm GMT ) on 97 -99fm, Radio 1... Prepare to be
> >> enlightened.
>
> Nymie is this a netcast?
Nope! Apparently they don't rate; either that or the UK's Web Savvy is
right up there with their advancements in Tooth Care.
>
> >Well, now, that's getting to be quite a few questions you"ve evaded answering!
> >
> >Were you a call-in guest?
> >
> >Did you talk about what a troll you are?
> >
> >Did you play "Group or Poop"?
> >
> >(They play a game where a silly name such as "Lucianarchy" is given, and
> >if you think it's the name of a real band, you say "Group", and if you
> >think it's fake you say "poop".)
> >
> >And did you answer "I do both!"?
> >
> >Hey, Luci, where's that Fortean Times article you used to promise was
> >coming very soon? Kevin Burnett and I are really interested.
>
> I still have her killfiled...
> I wouldn't expect much from her promises.
You got that right!