RIGHT WING SUPPRESSION OF THE STRUCTURAL MODEL
George Hammond
June, 2011 Hyannis MA USA
From: George Hammond, M.S. Physics/Psychometry
To: 700 list members of: RAD-PSY-NET
Attn. Professor Dennis Fox
Professor Isaac Prilleltensky
RAD-PSY-NET is dedicated to changing the status quo of
psychology and bring about a better world. I share that
objective.
The quest for the Structural Model of Personality has
been the cornerstone of Psychology research ever since
Hippocrates said there was such a thing 2500 years ago.
Modern computerized psychometry very nearly succeeded
in this quest, specifically Cattell, Eysenck, Goldberg,
Costa & McCrae and others, but their failure to discover a
prima facie causal biological mechanism for such a miracle
has so far doomed the effort to failure.
It was therefore an alarming turn of events when an
errant physicist accidentally discovered, proved and
published the long sought for biological mechanism in 1994
only to discover that interdisciplinary jealousy, personal
ambition and hi-level dereliction in academic Psychology
would be ignoring and indeed actively suppressing this
pivotal discovery.
I am alerting RAD-PSY-NET about this because all efforts
to engage the right wing academic research establishment in
the US and Europe has been rebuffed and it appears that the
Psychology establishment is fully prepared to suppress a
crucial physics-biology discovery even if it means denying
the world the delivery of the Structural Model which would
transform Psychology into a prestigious science with a real
Global influence!
The discovery of the Structural Model since it turns out
to be an axiomatic physics structure leads to much more
than just the theory of Personality. It leads directly to
an explanation of the structural model of social attitudes
(the Bicameral/2-Party system), the explanation of the
general theory of Psychology (the unconscious mind) and
ultimately to no less than the worlds first scientific proof
of God!
Clearly the Structural Model is now a political problem
and no longer a scientific problem. Its discovery is too
much of a status-quo-breaker for the conservative
establishment to accept and it is my hope that
Critical-Psychology pressure can be brought to bear on
conservative academia, particularly the APA that forcefully
will precipitate at long last the historic birth of the
Structural Model of Psychology.
I won’t waste time rebutting the usual suspicions
concerning such a claim. Let me simply state the facts and
allow RAD-PSY-NET to be the judge:
1. I am a physicist (MS 1967) affiliated with the
Massachusetts Department of Mental Health and have been
researching Personality Psychometry for 30 years. I managed
to published my discovery of the biological origin of the
Structural Model of Personality in an obscure journal in
1994:
(original paper NIP, Elsevier Science Ltd.)
http://tinyurl.com/HAMMOND2
(free online research-only facsimile copy of paper is
located at:)
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/cart.html
2. It was during this period that I first became
suspicious of the higher echelon in academic psychology
research. At the time Hans Jurgen Eysenck was the most
famous living psychologist. I first sent the paper to Hans
for publication in his journal, P.A.I.D. it being the most
conspicuous journal in the field. Much to my chagrin he
handed the paper over to unqualified reviewers. He rejected
the paper and in one of those recondite but telltale
incidents he didn’t even sign the rejection letter but
simply put a checkmark on it. I caught up with Hans in
person a few years later in Montreal Canada… but let me
continue the chronology.
I also wrote to Professor Jeffrey Gray, Hans’ closest
colleague in London, since my discovery not only confirmed
Eysenck‘s Big-3 (ENP), it also confirmed Gray‘s 2-Factor
“diagonal“ theory… in fact it united the two. I was totally
floored then when I received a particularly nasty letter
from Jeffrey Gray suggesting that my theory was no doubt a
delusion of grandeur and that he wouldn’t waste time
discussing it.
I was also in touch with Dr. Paul Barrett, Hans’ research
chief, via his IDANET discussion list and several peculiar
remarks of his began to clue me that there was something
noticeably out of kilter in the Eysenckian school of
psychometry research.
Meanwhile, in the US the situation was hopeless and
continues so. Hans Eysenck was the only genius in the field
since the other genius, Raymond B. Cattell was over 90 and
retired in Hawaii. I did receive several scrawled letters
from Cattell who apparently lapped the envelope so many
times it practically disintegrated before it reached me. He
recognized my work immediately of course and even urged
Prof. Widiger a much younger man to contact me but all I
ever received from Widiger was a few well wishes on a
postcard. Even the APA finally turned on Cattell accusing
him of being a racist or some other such nonsense. I did
talk to Ray’s wife in Hawaii but she said Ray was so deaf
there was no use putting him on the phone. His daughter,
Heather Cattell was very helpful then being director of IPAT
in Champaign Ill. and sent me copies of hard to find papers
from their archives.
After submitting my discovery of the Structural Model to
21 journals (simultaneously) and having every one of them
rejecting it, I ran into Professor Richard Kitchener editor
of New Ideas In Psychology who put the paper out for review.
Kitchener was a Philosophy professor and a no nonsense
person. In the first round one reviewer balked because the
theory didn’t explain the Big-5 model. Kichener told me to
take another look at the problem and lo and behold the
theory stunningly confirmed the Big-5 as the sum of
Eysenck’s 3 normals plus Gray’s 2 diagonals: 3+2=5. This
triumph convinced the holdout reviewer and the paper was
unanimously published in 1994. Naturally, since New Ideas
In Psychology is a lo-impact journal nobody has ever read
the paper much less cited it, and the discovery of the
biological origin of the Structural Model remains to this
day languishing on library shelves.
In the meantime I struck up a correspondence with fellow
New Englander professor Peter F. Merenda chairman of the
psychology department at URI. He had been involved in the
discovery of the 4-Factor AVA model and was quite interested
that my theory explained the biological origin of his model
also (in fact the discovery explains the biological origin
of every known psychometric model).
Peter asked me if I wanted to be an invited speaker at
the XXVI International (IUPsyS) Congress of Psychology in
Montreal Canada on August 16, 1996. He said he had invited
Hans Eysenck to speak and he had accepted the invitation.
Naturally I was anxious to meet Hans so I accepted.
I seated myself next to Hans on the dais with about 200
present in the audience. I first noticed something odd when
I offered Hans a copy of my now published paper reporting
the discovery of the Structural Model. He rather coolly
replied “I’ve read it” and refused to take the paper. We
sat for an hour listening to several internationally known
Personality psychometrians. I finally got up and spoke for
30 minutes about my discovery and how it explained (i.e.
physically caused) all of the known Factor Models in
Personality Psychometry. I showed 20 carefully drawn
slides illustrating the elementary physics-biology of the
whole thing. I received a surprisingly energetic ovation
but sat down with the distinct feeling that no one other
than perhaps Hans had taken seriously a single word I said.
Then Hans then got up and spoke for 30 minutes. I didn’t
pay much attention since he wasn’t talking about psychometry
but apparently about the international situation in Bosnia.
I did hear him refer to me as “Dr. Hammond” which I
suspected was another of his famous backhanded
compliments since I know for a fact he was aware that I
don’t have a PhD in anything.
Later I had a chance to talk to him privately on the
mezzanine balcony overlooking the great hall and tried to
ferret out his impression of my discovery, He actually told
me at one point “I don’t see the significance of it” which
immediately struck me as disingenuous fakery since he had
spent the last 30 years searching for the biological origin
of the Structural Model commencing with his widely known
1967 book on the subject… and at that moment I suddenly
realized that he was actually personally envious of my
discovery… a discovery which he had failed to make in his
long quest for the biological origin of the Structural
Model! He had failed to realize that simple brain geometry
(primary brain cleavage) was the root cause of the
Structural Model of Personality, for instance Sperrian
Lateralization and the Bell-Magendie motor sensory cleavage.
And he was apparently annoyed that some no account physicist
had wandered into the field and accidentally discovered it,
and published it!
Don’t get me wrong, I immediately liked Hans Eysenck the
minute I met him. He was a heroic figure, and close up even
more so. Yet, there was unmistakably an air of the
entrenched establishment about him that wasn’tgoing to
cooperate with a mere upstart, a physicist no less, making a
historic scientific discovery in Psychology which could
possibly expose him. I came away feeling like I had just
met perhaps the Kurt Waldheim of Psychology research and
that politically speaking I was no match for him.
Of course Hans Eysenck was 80 years old by the time I
reached him. In fact he died a couple of years later of a
brain tumor. But I still suspect thatthere must have been
something that he could have done to prevent this
discovery from simply turning in the wind since 1994 while
the entire field of Psychometry has sunk into moribund
stagnation without a hope of regaining its old momentum or
its former glory.
Now, before I leave this issue let me point out that I
have informed every authority in the field of psychometry
about this discovery, including the Heymans Institute in
Groningen Holland. Although my discovery proves that 2nd
order Factor structure in Personality is a CUBE, it turns
out I am not the first one to suspect this. Gerard Heymans
guessed it in 1930 and became so famous for doing so he
founded the Heymans Institute which is now a world leader in
psychometric Personality research. Louis Thurstone also
surmised it when he made up his famous Factor Analytic “Box
Problem”. It turns out that the Structural Model of
Personality is PRECISELY a “Thurstone’s Box” at the 2nd
order in Personalitypsychometry! I wrote an elegant
synopsis of this discovery in a 2 page letter and emailed it
to a dozen of the world’s top psychometric authorities at
the Heymans Institute including the director professor
J.M.F. Ten Berge. Anyone desiring a succinct and
comprehensive explanation of this discovery should read this
2 page letter which is fully illustrated. A copy was posted
to IDANET (also a JISCMAIL.AC.UK email list; Paul Barrett
moderator) and a copy is currently posted on my page on
Academia.edu at:
I emphasize that only high school physics and undergraduate
psychometry is necessary to fully comprehend the stunning
historic discovery described in this 2 page letter. Needless
to say the Heymans institute has reacted exactly like Hans
Eysenck… apparently the conservative wing of psychometric
research is not about to allow a physicist to upset the
apple cart with a fundamental discovery, even if it means
selling the entire field of academic psychology research
down the river. Finally, it is to be noted that the APA,
of which I am not a member and which wouldn’t even consider
publishing a paper written by me, knows absolutely nothing
of this discovery despite the fact that it was made by an
American scientist and dozens of APA members are already
aware of it!
Okay, So much for the discovery of the biological origin
of the Structural Model. However it turns out that that
discovery was only the tip of the iceberg! The year after
the conference in Montreal with Eysenck, I made yet another
historic discovery in Factor Analytic Psychometry. This one
even more unbelievable than the first!
As anyone familiar with psychometric Factor Analysis
(SPSS for instance) knows, when you factor a large
correlation matrix and rotate it to Simple Structure you
wind up with another correlation matrix of about half the
size. That matrix can again be factored and rotated and so
on. In fact, it only stops when you get down to one Factor
and can’t go any further. People have idly wondered for
years where Personality Factor Analysis might end, and what
the meaning of that final Factor might be! My discovery
answered that question, and the answer turns out to be an
utter shock! The last Factor turns out to be “God” no less,
the God of the Bible. The discovery of the Structural Model
leads immediately to the world’s first and only, scientific
proof of God!
Now, why wasn’t this discovered before I came along?
Well, it very nearly was. Raymond B. Cattell almost got to
the 4th Order which is where Psychometry stops. My theory
shows that because the 2nd order structure is theoretically
a cube, that there are therefore exactly 13-2nd Order
Factors corresponding to the 13 symmetry axes of a common
cube. Ray had meanwhile experimentally resolved somewhere
between 12 and 14 Factors in the normal Personality domain.
Without a theoretical explanation he couldn’t be exactly
sure how many Factors there were. Ray then Factored the
12x12 2nd Order matrix to the 3rd Order and extracted “4 or
5” 3rd -Order Factors. Three of the Factors I immediately
recognized as Eysenck’s ENP which I expected since the 3rd
Order Factors should simply collapse onto the 2nd Orders
since ENP are nearly orthogonal at the 2nd Order as Eysenck
had proved. The existence of a 4th factor perplexed me
until I realized Cattell had included not only Personality
but Intelligence also in his data. I then realized that
Psychology turns out to be not only a 3-dimensional space
(as Hans argued for 20 years) because of 3-dimensional brain
cleavage, it actually turns out to be 4-dimensional
(space-time) space because Intelligence is time related
(mental speed). This new theoretical discovery immediately
shaved Rays “4 or 5“ 3rd Orders down to exactly 4.
Ray never bothered to factor his 3rd orders to the 4th
Order, but he left us an intriguing message at the end of
his 1975 paper*, he said:
“The correlation among the tertiaries, though
less invariant than among the secondaries, are reasonable
stable and are set out for those who, with reinforcements,
may wish to proceed to the fourth order.”
(R. B. Cattell 1975)
Ref:
Cattell 1975, Third order personality structure in Q-data:
Evidence from 11 experiments. J. of Multivariate
Experimental Personality and Clinical Psychology 1(3)
118-149
Ray didn’t live to get to the 4th Order and discover God,
but I did. Armed now with a theoretical proof of the exact
number of 2nd and 3rd Order factors which was unavailable to
Ray, I was able to redact his experimental 3rd Order matrix
and Factor it to the 4th Order. Dr. Paul Barrett, then
still working for Eysenck at the U. London was kind enough
to run the matrix through SPSS for me, and Dr. David Routh
who read about it on IDANET ran an independent check also.
Naturally only ONE Factor emerged at the 4th Order (a 4x4
matrix can only determine 1 higher order Factor according to
Thurstone‘s Rule). I had finally found out where all of
Psychology (i.e. Personality plus Intelligence) ends. It
ends in a single eigenvector Factor at the 4th Order!
The immediate question of course, is what was the
biological cause of this Final Factor? What was it?
The answer is actually quite easy to discover. In fact
by that time I already knew the answer even before I
confirmed it. The Factor was obviously “GOD”… yes the good
old fashioned anthropomorphic invisible God of the Bible. I
had actually discovered the World’s first scientific proof
of God!
The actual biological cause of the single 4th Order
Factors is easy to identify, it turns out to be caused by
the Human Growth Curve Deficit (GCD). About 100 years ago
the field of Auxology discovered that there is a SeculaTrend
in human growth. Evidence of the Secular Trend is
commonplace. Modern soldiers cannot even fit into a
medieval suit of armor for instance. School children in the
US have gained 3.5 inches in height since 1900. The Flynn
Effect shows world IQ increasing as much as 10 points per
decade, due to brain growth caused by the rising standard of
living, mainly nutrition. Moreover, studies of Third World
malnutrition growth stunting show IQ losses of up to 50%
due to growth stunting. In fact, the data shows that the
entire human race, on average, is as much as 20% short of
its full height and weight. An interesting Time Magazine
cover story on the Secular Trend can be seen at:
http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/rsteckel/Articles/time6.htm
If 20% of your body is missing, then 20% of your brain is
missing… it is simply ungrown. It is not totally ungrown
however, it still functions but in a partially conscious
manner. This is the origin of Freud’s famous “Unconscious
Mind” and it turns out to be the biological cause of the
top, last, final, single Factor in all of Psychology. Bear
in mind that this eigenvector can be measured now to three
significant figure accuracy in modern Psychometry!
Now what does all of this mean… well for that you have to
know some Physics. A correlation matrix in Psychology is
referred to as “oblique”. However, physicists refer to such
matrices as “curved”. In Physics the 4x4 space-time metric
of XYZt is an oblique matrix and the physicists say that
space-time is “curved” because of this, and that gravity is
the physical cause of this curvature. What my discovery
shows is that the intercorrelation matrix of ENPg in
psychometry is likewise curved, and that it is the GCD that
is causing it. Now, space-time, that is XYZt is simply what
the physicists call “reality” or “objective reality”. But
my discovery shows that ENPg in psychometry is also curved
and the “curvature” is caused by the brain growth deficit…
or “God” to use common parlance. What this means is that
the brain growth deficit causes a curvature of “subjective
reality”, and this curvature of reality in Psychology is
called “God”. Basically, the brain growth deficit causes
the world to appear bigger and faster than it actually is
just as gravity makes objective space-time appear bigger and
faster than it actually is as discovered by Einstein. While
the gravitational effect of objective reality is very
miniscule, the effect of the brain growth deficit on
subjective reality is very large… and this large and
noticeable effect in Psychology has been recognized for
thousands of years and is referred to as “God”. Notice now
that not only has the existence of God actually been proven,
but that God can actually be measured to 3 significant
figures by modern psychometry.
Needless to say the technological applications of this
discovery will be enormous. This curvature of subjective
reality will ultimately be able to be simulated on virtual
reality computers and the next age of psychiatric treatment
may well be computerized virtual reality therapy where you
will effect a personality change by “seeing” what your new
reality will look like. After all, seeing is believing and
may prove more effective than neuroleptic drugs or
psychoanalysis ever were!
By the way I published this discovery of a scientific
proof of God, again In an obscure journal and a copy of the
paper may be seen here:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html
Well, I will try to wrap this up by mentioning that I
don’t expect Critical Psychology to take up the cause of
advancing a scientific proof of God…but they should know
that that’s where the Structural Model leads to. And we can
be sure that there are large sectors of society who are
vitally interested in the politics of such a development.
Israel, the Vatican, the Islamic countries of the Middle
East or even the Kansas City Board of Education, among other
places come to mind.
But in the meantime, it is clear that the conservative
academic Psychology establishment is now standing in the way
of a major, indeed historic, Psychology discovery. The
delivery of the Structural Model of Personality has been
central to Psychology from the beginning, and I think the
Critical-Psychology wing should know that there is foul play
of a very serious and injurious nature to the success of
Psychology growing like a cancer in academic Psychology.
I invite anyone interested to respond on the RAD-PSY-NET
discussion list, or contact me at (email address deleted).
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Massachusetts Department of Mental Health
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
Colanth
<Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>RAD-PSY-NET is dedicated to changing the status quo of
>psychology
And why you spammed this to sci.physics.relativity,
alt.religion.kibology, alt.sci.proof-of-god and alt.atheism (in
violation of both Giganews and Hotmail TOSs) is something not even a
psychologist could figure out. Maybe Giganews and Hotmail will be
able to.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
George Hammond
<col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:51:44 -0400, George Hammond
><Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>
>>RAD-PSY-NET is dedicated to changing the status quo of
>>psychology
>
>And why you spammed this to sci.physics.relativity,
>
[gh]
I happen to be an M.S. in Physics and majored in Relativity.
The post describes an applied Relativity problem known
popularly as "God".
>
>alt.religion.kibology,
>
[gh]
the discovery of a scientific proof of God is not outside
the sphere of interest of ARK. In fact ARK's musical group
Interrobang Cartel wrote and recorded that song about me
that appears in my signature file.
>
>
> alt.sci.proof-of-god
>
>
[gh]
I personally founded the alt.sci-proof-of-god newsgroup
particularly for this purpose.
>
> and alt.atheism
>
[gh]
News about political developments concerning world's first
and only scientific proof of God is certainly relevant to
atheists.
>
>
[gh]
You forgot sci.psychology Dr. Curmugeon. Factor Analysis
is the scrimmage line meeting hard science and psychology
and this post certainly beloongs on this newsgroup.
>
> (in violation of both Giganews and Hotmail TOSs)
>
>
[gh]
No TOS violation has been made.
>
> is something not even a
>psychologist could figure out. Maybe Giganews and Hotmail will be
>able to.
>
[gh]
Look Sparky, why don't you try to do something about the
terrabytes of commercial and porno spam that is drowning
Usenet and stop hounding legitimate scientists and
intellectuals.
Whaddau a ticked off atheist who doesn't like the fact
that the world's first scientific proof of God has been
discovered?
Hey ... that's the way the cookie crumbles...atheists are
now scientifically proven wrong and believers proven
right... get over it!
QED
madge
They're disbelieving SOB's
Et moi
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 05:02:03 +0100, George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.com>
wrote:
--
http://www.madge.tk/ <--- My Website
Nellis Gilgal
> RIGHT WING SUPPRESSION OF THE STRUCTURAL MODEL
>
> June, 2011 Hyannis MA USA
> From: George Hammond, M.S. Physics/Psychometry
> To: 700 list members of: RAD-PSY-NET
> Attn. Professor Dennis Fox
> Professor Isaac Prilleltensky
>
> RAD-PSY-NET is dedicated to changing the status quo of
> psychology and bring about a better world. I share that
> objective.
Sounds good to me, Cheborneck (can anyone catch that one?) but I would
be really interested in the STRUCTURE OF THE RIGHT WING SUPPRESSION
MODEL.
I mean, if there is a 'spiracy theres got t be a model for it.
HERES TEH PYRAMID
(0) - (ALL SEEING EYE)
/
PANTS \
/ PLANS TO TAKE OUT SOROS CLONES\
/ WAR ON WAR
\
/ OUT LEFTIES WITH WIMMENS PROBLEMS, AS LONG AS THE OUTER
HAS HAD AT LEAST 3 WIVES HISSELF\
/ WIPE OUT SOCIALIST FREELOADER AGENDAS \
ETC
madge
Colanth
<Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:37:42 -0400, Colanth
><col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> and alt.atheism
>[gh]
>News about political developments concerning world's first
>and only scientific proof of God is certainly relevant to
>atheists.
Only if we say so, and I haven't seen anyone asking to be kept
informed. (Before you make any remarks, read the actual charter. *WE*
get to decide, you don't.)
>[gh]
>You forgot sci.psychology
No, I just didn't intend to mention it. But thanks for telling me
what was going on in my mind. I have no way of knowing that.
>[gh]
>No TOS violation has been made.
Posting in violation of a newsgroup's charter is a violation of the
TOS of just about every internet provider and every Usenet provider.
>[gh]
>Look Sparky, why don't you try to do something about the
>terrabytes of commercial and porno spam that is drowning
>Usenet
I do - I keep my killfile up to date.
> and stop hounding legitimate scientists and intellectuals.
Point one out, please. Spammers immediately give up the right to be
called legitimate or intellectual, by virtue of being spammers.
(Content in violation of a Newsgroup's charter is spam.)
>Whaddau a ticked off atheist who doesn't like the fact
>that the world's first scientific proof of God has been
>discovered?
Delusions aren't scientific evidence. Thinking that they are removes
you from the class of "scientists".
>Hey ... that's the way the cookie crumbles...atheists are
>now scientifically proven wrong
The only proof that an atheist is wrong is proof that he believes -
since atheism is SOLELY a statement of lack of belief. So show me the
proof that I actually DO believe in a god.
You've got 5,000 years, and I'll bet every penny I can beg, borrow or
steal that you can't.
--
"Not a real tagline, but an incredible soy substitute."
Colanth
<deletethisbit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>They're disbelieving
DUH!
And collies are dogs.
Any other bursts of genius from the under 6 months of age group? (Or
does the word "atheism" confuse you?)
--
"Atheism is the vice of a few intelligent people." - Voltaire
George Hammond
[GH]
Na... you got it all wrong.
The day JFK was shot the top income tax bracket was 91%.
Today the top tax bracket on the rich is only 35%
Do the math, the right wing has slashed taxes on the rich by
91-35 = 56%
And the average guy is wandering around wondering why the
country is broke and why we're in a depression.
George Hammond
<col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:27:13 +0100, madge
><deletethisbit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>They're disbelieving
>
>DUH!
>
>And collies are dogs.
>
>Any other bursts of genius from the under 6 months of age group? (Or
>does the word "atheism" confuse you?)
>
>
[gh]
and atheism is caused by eating grapefruit.
George Hammond
<col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:02:03 -0400, George Hammond
><Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:37:42 -0400, Colanth
>><col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> and alt.atheism
>
>>[gh]
>>News about political developments concerning world's first
>>and only scientific proof of God is certainly relevant to
>>atheists.
>
>Only if we say so, and I haven't seen anyone asking to be kept
>informed. (Before you make any remarks, read the actual charter. *WE*
>get to decide, you don't.)
>
[gh]
alt.atheism is a public unmoderated newsgroup about atheism.
That's all "WE" need to know.
>
>>[gh]
>>You forgot sci.psychology
>
>No, I just didn't intend to mention it. But thanks for telling me
>what was going on in my mind. I have no way of knowing that.
>
[gh]
yes, we know what you know and what you don't know.
>
>>[gh]
>>No TOS violation has been made.
>
>Posting in violation of a newsgroup's charter is a violation of the
>TOS of just about every internet provider and every Usenet provider.
>
>
[gh]
prima facie discovery of a disproof of atheism is relevant
to alt.atheism. pea brain.
>
>
>>[gh]
>>Look Sparky, why don't you try to do something about the
>>terrabytes of commercial and porno spam that is drowning
>>Usenet
>
>I do - I keep my killfile up to date.
>
[gh]
you can killfile me anytime Sparky.
>
>
>
>Delusions aren't scientific evidence. Thinking that they are removes
>you from the class of "scientists".
>
[gh]
Whoa ... WHAT DELUSIONS are you referring to.
SPECIFICALLY EXACTLY WHAT DELUSIONS?
YOU are the only one suffering from a delusion... namely
ATHEISM... and my discovery of the world's first scientific
proof of God PROVES YOU ARE DELUSIONAL.
ATHEISM IS A SERIOUS PSYCHOLOGICAL DELUSION AND THE
DISCOVERY OF THE WORLD'S FIRST SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD
PROVES IT
Glenn Knickerbocker
> Only if we say so, and I haven't seen anyone asking to be kept
> informed. (Before you make any remarks, read the actual charter.
You mean the part that says "Cross-posting should not be discouraged.
Knowledge is Holistic, Users should exercise their judgement as to which
NGs are relevant"?
ŹR
Adam Funk
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:51:44 -0400, George Hammond
><Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>
>>RAD-PSY-NET is dedicated to changing the status quo of
>>psychology
>
> And why you spammed this to sci.physics.relativity,
> alt.religion.kibology, alt.sci.proof-of-god and alt.atheism (in
> violation of both Giganews and Hotmail TOSs) is something not even a
> psychologist could figure out. Maybe Giganews and Hotmail will be
> able to.
His post didn't violate ARK or ASPOG, and spam is usually defined in
terms of multi-posting.
--
And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb
through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a
sucker you are. [Rufus T. Firefly]
Colanth
<Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:16:57 -0400, Colanth
><col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:27:13 +0100, madge
>><deletethisbit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>They're disbelieving
>>
>>DUH!
>>
>>And collies are dogs.
>>
>>Any other bursts of genius from the under 6 months of age group? (Or
>>does the word "atheism" confuse you?)
>>
>>
>[gh]
>and atheism is caused by eating grapefruit.
Which has what to do with the fact that it amazes Madge, over there,
that people who don't believe in God don't believe in God?
--
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he
disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson
Colanth
<Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:15:32 -0400, Colanth
><col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:02:03 -0400, George Hammond
>><Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:37:42 -0400, Colanth
>>><col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> and alt.atheism
>>
>>>[gh]
>>>News about political developments concerning world's first
>>>and only scientific proof of God is certainly relevant to
>>>atheists.
>>
>>Only if we say so, and I haven't seen anyone asking to be kept
>>informed. (Before you make any remarks, read the actual charter. *WE*
>>get to decide, you don't.)
>>
>[gh]
>alt.atheism is a public unmoderated newsgroup about atheism.
>That's all "WE" need to know.
As I said, learn something before you try to teach those who have.
<plonk>
--
"Don't sweat it擁t's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes." - Spaf
Colanth
Why would the charter of a single newsgroup say anything like that? (A
newsgroup the charter of which says to not do something is not the
appropriate newsgroup in which to do it.)
--
"Ability to type on a computer terminal is no guarantee of sanity,
intelligence, or common sense. " - Spaf
Colanth
wrote:
>On 2011-06-11, Colanth wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:51:44 -0400, George Hammond
>><Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>RAD-PSY-NET is dedicated to changing the status quo of
>>>psychology
>>
>> And why you spammed this to sci.physics.relativity,
>> alt.religion.kibology, alt.sci.proof-of-god and alt.atheism (in
>> violation of both Giganews and Hotmail TOSs) is something not even a
>> psychologist could figure out. Maybe Giganews and Hotmail will be
>> able to.
>His post didn't violate ARK or ASPOG
It violated AA.
--
"Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the
people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are
destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the
globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." -
John Adams
George Hammond
<col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:18:09 -0400, George Hammond
><Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:16:57 -0400, Colanth
>><col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:27:13 +0100, madge
>>><deletethisbit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>They're disbelieving
>>>
>>>DUH!
>>>
>>>And collies are dogs.
>>>
>>>Any other bursts of genius from the under 6 months of age group? (Or
>>>does the word "atheism" confuse you?)
>>>
>>>
>>[gh]
>>and atheism is caused by eating grapefruit.
>
>Which has what to do with the fact that it amazes Madge, over there,
>that people who don't believe in God don't believe in God?
>
[gh]
Well, excuse the levity... but surely you're aware that
majority opinion does not take atheism seriously. Look...
not beleiving in the existence of God is about as
shamelessly simple as not beleiving the world is round. I
know because I didn't believe there was a God until I was
past 50 and started studying Psychology. then I found out I
simply didn't know what they were talking about.
Remember, you're the one who accused me of being
"delusionary" not vice versa. In fact atheism is ignored
and most people... and only rarely when someone like Richard
Dawkins publishes a best selling book such as "The God
Delusion" do we even notice atheism.
I'll be quite honest with you... my opinion of atheism is
that atheists are actually victims of religious persecution
whereby they are in a position where they simply not allowed
by circumstances to profess a belief in God. Sigmund Freud
for instance was a famous case of this. He was Jewish and
the world's most famous psychologist and living in Nazi
Germany. If he ever said he believed in God he would have
probably gotten arrested... so he was forced to say that he
was an atheist! Hey I'm not so stupid and insensitive that
I can't see that!
Hopefully the advent of a (relatively simple) scientific
proof of God will "liberate the atheists" at long last.
In fact, the questiion of whether there is such a thing
as a "true atheist" is a good question. What about Bertrand
Russell, or Richard Dawkins. I think Russell was an
"apologist" for atheism while on the other hand, I think
Dawkins actually believes in God but is madder than hell
that Science can't prove it and simply ignores it. In his
case, hopefully the discovery of a bona fide scientific
proof of God will finally set the guy free! Seriously.
George Hammond
<col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:06:05 -0400, Glenn Knickerbocker
><No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
>>On 06/12/2011 10:15 PM, Colanth wrote:
>>> Only if we say so, and I haven't seen anyone asking to be kept
>>> informed. (Before you make any remarks, read the actual charter.
>>
>>You mean the part that says "Cross-posting should not be discouraged.
>>Knowledge is Holistic, Users should exercise their judgement as to which
>>NGs are relevant"?
>
>Why would the charter of a single newsgroup say anything like that? (A
>newsgroup the charter of which says to not do something is not the
>appropriate newsgroup in which to do it.)
>
>
[gh]
Hey Colanth... do you have trouble reading or something?
According to the above quote, alt.atheism does NOT
"discourage cross-posting".
And it states that the "users judgment" should decide
what NG's are "relevant".
Clearly I am well within those guidelines. What's the
problem Babe?
George Hammond
<col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:41:59 -0400, George Hammond
><Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:15:32 -0400, Colanth
>><col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:02:03 -0400, George Hammond
>>><Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:37:42 -0400, Colanth
>>>><col...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> and alt.atheism
>>>
>>>>[gh]
>>>>News about political developments concerning world's first
>>>>and only scientific proof of God is certainly relevant to
>>>>atheists.
>>>
>>>Only if we say so, and I haven't seen anyone asking to be kept
>>>informed. (Before you make any remarks, read the actual charter. *WE*
>>>get to decide, you don't.)
>>>
>>[gh]
>>alt.atheism is a public unmoderated newsgroup about atheism.
>>That's all "WE" need to know.
>
>As I said, learn something before you try to teach those who have.
>
><plonk>
>
>
[gh]
"learn something" ? Okay here's my certificate of
learning, my CV, now lets see yours grass snake!
CURRICULUM VITAE
GEORGE HAMMOND
B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern U. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU
Peer reviewed publications:
Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/cart.html
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html
huge
<snippage>
> I'll be quite honest with you... my opinion of atheism is
> that atheists are actually victims of religious persecution
> whereby they are in a position where they simply not allowed
> by circumstances to profess a belief in God. Sigmund Freud
> for instance was a famous case of this. He was Jewish and
> the world's most famous psychologist and living in Nazi
> Germany. If he ever said he believed in God he would have
> probably gotten arrested... so he was forced to say that he
> was an atheist! Hey I'm not so stupid and insensitive that
> I can't see that!
And you suppose he went to the trouble of writing "The Future of an
Illusion" in 1927 because he was secretly a theist????
You can agree with that book or not, but clearly, _clearly_
Freud was no theist.
Don't tell silly made-up lies.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> <No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>You mean the part that says "Cross-posting should not be discouraged.
>>Knowledge is Holistic, Users should exercise their judgement as to which
>>NGs are relevant"?
> Why would the charter of a single newsgroup say anything like that?
You tell me. You can read it plain as day at the link shown here:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/2009/09/altatheism-faq.html
ŹR
Dr. Hotsalt
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Glenn is iotally accurate and on point. The AA Charter as
published in 1992 states:
.........................................
CHARTER: alt.atheism
An unmoderated newsgroup which would provide a
forum for the discussion of all aspects
of atheism.
Possible discussions are, but not limited to:
- Union of Savage Slaughter and Repression(USSR)
- Mao's Great Leap Backwards
- Mao's Cultural Devolution
- Pol Pots Cambodian Genocide
- Nth Korea
- Atheist fundamentalism
- The decline in global Atheism
- Metaphysics.. Just kidding!
- Jesus jokes
- Hard-Core Atheist thuggery
- forging
- Slandering
- Lying
- Pack Hunting
- BAWAA
This group will be unmoderated.
Binary postings, chain letters and unrelated
commercial advertisements are prohibited.
Cross-posting should not be discouraged.
Knowledge is Holistic, Users should exercise their
judgement as to which NGs are relevant
........end Charter........................
[Hammond]
1. Clearly cross-posting is not prohibited
2. Clearly the poster has the choice of NG's
to cross post to.
3. "all aspects of Atheism" are relevant which
clearly would include discovery of a scientific
disproof of Atheism since acceptable topics are
specifically "not limited" to the above list.
THEREFORE, Colanth's claim that Hammond has committed a TOS
violation on alt.atheism is PROVABLY FALSE.
G. Hammond
Adam Funk
Well in that case Hammond's OP was legit in at least 3 of the 5
groups, and neither commercial nor multi-posted, so NOT SPAM.
--
I heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little
Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt]
George Hammond
<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>On 2011-06-14, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
>
>> On 06/13/2011 10:46 PM, Colanth wrote:
>>> <No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>>You mean the part that says "Cross-posting should not be discouraged.
>>>>Knowledge is Holistic, Users should exercise their judgement as to which
>>>>NGs are relevant"?
>>> Why would the charter of a single newsgroup say anything like that?
>>
>> You tell me. You can read it plain as day at the link shown here:
>>
>> http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/2009/09/altatheism-faq.html
>
>Well in that case Hammond's OP was legit in at least 3 of the 5
>groups, and neither commercial nor multi-posted, so NOT SPAM.
>
>
[Hammond]
Matter of fact the post is legitimate in ALL 5 newsgroups
since:
SPR: God is a Relativistic curvature of subjective spacetime
ARK: ARK is satire NG for general topics including religion.
ASPOG: Obviously appropriate
AA: Post is within Charter guidelines
SP: The posted s.p.o.g. is founded on Psychometry.
5 cross-posting NG's does not constitute spam.
QED no TOS violation was committed despite Colanth's
allegation to the contrary.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
The newly discovered hard science proof of God described
in my original post proves that the "God of the Bible"
exists. On the other hand it does not prove that there is
such a thing as a literal Life After Death.
Therefore, the SPOG I have discoverede proves that the
Old Testament is 100% scientifically correct, but it only
proves half of the New Testament is scientifically correct.
S. jPaul's assertion that there is a literal Life After
Death remains scientifically unproven.
Therefore, I would have to conclude that Freud's "Future
of an Illusion" is possibly partially correct but very
definitely substantially scientifically incorrect according
to the current state of scientific knowlege.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> Glenn is iotally accurate and on point.
How little accuracy can dance on the head of a pin?
¬"dedamitss dabraldeba"R
madge
wrote:
> ARK: ARK is satire NG for general topics including religion.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!! Satyr!! None of that cloven hoof stuff on my watch
mister!!
JohnN
> Mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =======================================
[NG sci.physics.relativity removed.]
Congratulations on having one paper published in a peer reviewed
journal 17 years ago that only one other person cited in their
master's theses.
Having your initial paper published makes your assertion of
suppression more than suspicious.
However, if your scientific proof for the God of the Gap, err, Bible
is valid not only will you get the Nobel, you will surely get the
Tempelton too. Please refraim from spamming newsgroups until both
prizes are awarded. You don't want to dilute the impact of winning.
JohnN
Adam Funk
Why do you hate Petronius?!?!?!