GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
George Hammond
------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
live long enough to receive such a prize and I thought the
world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
Ladies and gentlemen, a world miracle has occurred and far
be it from me to stand here and claim sole credit for it. This
miracle has been wrought by many hands, by all of Science in
fact, from Aristotle to Einstein.
As you know, the problem of Evil in the world is the greatest
challenge that man faces. Even natural disasters do not measure
up to the damages that may be charged to human Evil.
Evil in human history is so large that the greatest powers
on Earth have been found inadequate to beat it back. It is only
the long slow progress of civilization itself that has had any
effect on lowering the water table of Evil in the world.
Occasionally of course there are world miracles which represent
a large step forward. The advent of representative government,
organized religion, common law and public education, all represent
miraculous milestones in the reduction of world Evil.
Today we are observing the advent of the world's first
scientific proof of God. For centuries and millenniums this
possibility has been discussed. In the 20th century few still
believed that such a miracle was possible. Hope had practically
been abandoned when accidentally a research effort aimed at
finding the Structural Model of Psychology unexpectedly stumbled
on the world's first scientific proof of God. Factor
Analysis in Psychometry discovered that Einstein's curvature of
spacetime causes a similar curvature in human perceptual reality
and that this curvature explains the 3,500 year old historical
phenomena we call "God". It doesn't explain the whole story, but
it is more than sufficient to prove that "God exists"... that the
"invisible God" portrayed on the Sistine Chapel ceiling actually
physically exists.
What we need to address then is how this discovery is going
to reduce the level of Evil that humanity currently faces. The
first thing we observe is that this discovery de facto represents
an ecumenical unification of all of the world's religions. The
five major faiths, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and
Buddhism, are now simply denominations of one scientifically
based World Religion. The same is true for scores of smaller
world religions. The structure of religion is now known to
originate in the geometry of the human body and brain and in
the Secular Trend growth of the brain which is controlled by
gravity. In scientific terms, God is caused by gravity. Gravity
as you know, does not recognize race, color, age, class or gender.
Therefore, in axiomatic physics terminology, all of the world's
religions are proven to be identical.
Surely then, having unified all of the world's religions, we
may presume that the next logical step must be the unification
of the world's governments. The course is now clearly charted
toward world government. From world government, it follows
automatically that human rights must be granted to every
inhabitant on Earth. This then, is how the scientific proof
of God is going to effect a miraculous reduction in world Evil.
With the entire world population in full knowledge that there
actually is a God, and the knowledge that God is fair, just and
good, it will become impossible for any large scale political
vacuum to exist which could allow a large scale social Evil to
materialize.
On the other hand, predicting the timetable for this miracle
is more difficult. I do believe that it must begin with an ecumenical
unification of the world's 5 major faiths. On the other hand,
Government itself cannot ignore this discovery. The doctrine of
"Separation of Church and State" will have to be reexamined and
reinterpreted. For instance, "God" is now a scientific subject
and certainly the discovery of a scientific proof of God will
have to be covered in our public school science curriculum.
These developments in our Clerical and Secular institutions
and the speed with which they are made will likely set the
timetable for the world miracle of Human Progress that this
discovery holds forth.
Well, that's it. As a scientist I do not think it appropriate
for me to go on any further, as clearly it is now within
the purview of our elected leaders of Religion and Government to
take this scientific tool and make the best use of it. In the
meantime, it is up to every responsible individual to become
aquainted with this discovery and to spread the news of this
new miracle of spiritual unification throughout the world.
George Hammond, July 13, 2004
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
George Hammond
Sam Wormley
>
> GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
>
*Plonk*
Uncle Al
>
> GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Hagar
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tthJc.91153$XM6.82149@attbi_s53...
> GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
>
>
>
>
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
> This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
> my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
> first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
> live long enough to receive such a prize and I thought the
> world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
> snip <
Another fine piece of utter hog-wash.
TMG
> GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
>
>
>
>
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
> This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
> my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
> first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
> live long enough to receive such a prize and I thought the
> world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
Easily the funniest thing I've read, or even heard about, in quite a
while. Thanks!
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:mJSdndLWxrd...@comcast.com...
[Hammond]
Hey... I just got an email from "Stephen Unwin"... you know, that guy
that wrote _The Probability of God_ and claims P=67% that
God exists. We're discussing my discovery that GOD=G_uv.
Pyriform
> Hey... I just got an email from "Stephen Unwin"... you know, that guy
> that wrote _The Probability of God_ and claims P=67% that
> God exists. We're discussing my discovery that GOD=G_uv.
You deserve each other.
George Hammond
"Pyriform" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:40f5b5b2$0$6443$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
[Hammond
He's a PhD in theoretical physics (quantum gravity) from
Imperial College and the university of Manchester,
England. He's also a diplomat with the British Government
and a "risk analyst" consultant to the U.S. Government
(nuclear accidents, oil spills, terrorist attacks, etc.).
Birds of a feather flock together.
Jim Black
-5 points
> GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
37 points
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
> This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
> my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
> first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
45 points
> live long enough to receive such a prize and I thought the
> world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
46 points
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
[snip]
Trying to fit as many crackpot points per character into the title?
It's easy to do much better than that, e.g.:
NAZI EST SUPRES UFO TCH
Of course, one wonders if writing his Nobel Prize speech in advance
oughtn't give extra points to Hammond somehow. It is awfully kooky.
But quality kookish titles aren't judged on the basis of crackpot
points. They should be highly bizarre, unintelligible, and/or
illucid, like these (real) examples:
Quantum Duality between Plant kingdom and Animal kingdom as macro
duals
~ ^^^ $$$ Turning ON Kirk Gregory Czuhai's Brain Cell ++++++++
FOR HO time machine !!!
Fear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................ ...
4. Ether possibly a Carrier Modulation Wave: Agreed?
Why do transformers not know words
This should 8 inch mile
etc.
OK, Hammond? You're doing good, but you'll have to be more thorough
if you want to be taken seriously ...
Jim
>GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
>
>
>
>
>------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
>This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
>my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
>first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
>live long enough to receive such a prize and I thought the
>world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
>------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
You only have to be 5% smarter then your keyboard to post on Usenet.
Jim
MorituriMax
Careful or Mitchell will be all up in your shit for daring to suppress new
ideas.. yawn..
MorituriMax
> "TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:mJSdndLWxrd...@comcast.com...
>> George Hammond wrote:
>>> GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
Man the follow-up joke is just as funny as the main monologue... hilarious.. is
it April 1st AGAIN!?
MorituriMax
> He's a PhD in theoretical physics (quantum gravity) from
> Imperial College and the university of Manchester,
> England. He's also a diplomat with the British Government
> and a "risk analyst" consultant to the U.S. Government
> (nuclear accidents, oil spills, terrorist attacks, etc.).
> Birds of a feather flock together.
Stop! Stop! No more!!! I'm gonna pee.... hilarious!
Karlo X
> GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
vu_G=DOG HAMMOND WESTMINSTER DOG SHOW SPEECH
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
> This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
involuntary commitment. I like to wank while dreaming about
> my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
hairiest Iraqi woman. Until then, I will bore everyone with the
> first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
get through the day without killing myself. I doubt that I will
> live long enough to receive such a prize and I thought the
King of Sweden would strangle me if I did. Only the under-
> world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
You go, girlfriend!
> Ladies and gentlemen, a world miracle has occurred and far
fuckin' out, man! The voices in my head helped with this, so far
> be it from me to stand here and claim sole credit for it. This
Bud's for you, voices in my head! This delusion that I call my
> miracle has been wrought by many hands, by all of Science in
the locked ward at Mass Mental, all of my myriad hallucinations in
> fact, from Aristotle to Einstein.
> As you know, the problem of Evil in the world is the greatest
thing that ever happened to the Republican Party, the easiest
> challenge that man faces. Even natural disasters do not measure
time on the Metric Scale, so we need a crazy super abacus to tally
> up to the damages that may be charged to human Evil.
> Evil in human history is so large that the greatest powers
posessed by the X-Men have been rendered impotent. Masturbators
> on Earth have been found inadequate to beat it back. It is only
a dream. It is only a dream. I can compare my sex life with
> the long slow progress of civilization itself that has had any
chance of getting laid. A toddler with a straw might have an
> effect on lowering the water table of Evil in the world.
> Occasionally of course there are world miracles which represent
rather than just frontin', yo. Taking my medication would be a
> a large step forward. The advent of representative government,
psychotropic drugs, and Tetris are just three examples. The lies of
> organized religion, common law and public education, all represent
the greatest threat to getting my freak on. None of these are
> miraculous milestones in the reduction of world Evil.
> Today we are observing the advent of the world's first
steam-powered dildo, surely a greater invention than the so-called
> scientific proof of God. For centuries and millenniums this
has been the goal of science, and only in hushed whispers has this
> possibility has been discussed. In the 20th century few still
thought a steam-powered dildo was feasible, and only madmen like me
> believed that such a miracle was possible. Hope had practically
given up believing that she could buy one. Dildo technology had
> been abandoned when accidentally a research effort aimed at
steam-driven butt plugs found a breakthrough. A group aimed at
> finding the Structural Model of Psychology unexpectedly stumbled
over a dead body and landed in a pool of blood, dripping plasma
> on the world's first scientific proof of God. Factor
in the possibility of my being totally batshit insane. Also,
> Analysis in Psychometry discovered that Einstein's curvature of
the female breast causes erections in 54% of mice. A rift in
> spacetime causes a similar curvature in human perceptual reality
until LaForge changes phase on the EPS couplings. Both this
> and that this curvature explains the 3,500 year old historical
figure we call "Dick Clark", who sometimes manifests himself as a
> phenomena we call "God". It doesn't explain the whole story, but
American Bandstand lives on in our hearts. My voices claim that
> it is more than sufficient to prove that "God exists"... that the
New Years Ball in Times Square is His will on Earth. I think this
> "invisible God" portrayed on the Sistine Chapel ceiling actually
is Bil Keane's "Dead Grandpa" from the Family Circus. We know this
> physically exists.
> What we need to address then is how this discovery is going
to keep me out of a locked ward. I don't think Bush is able
> to reduce the level of Evil that humanity currently faces. The
Republican Party would have to dissolve first. Also, I think the
> first thing we observe is that this discovery de facto represents
a major paradigm shift, such as Scientology's true ambition for
> an ecumenical unification of all of the world's religions. The
Crucifix needs an E-Meter. Buddha, too. I have insulted the
> five major faiths, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and
Botulism, merely by posting to Usenet. Sects like Kibology and
> Buddhism, are now simply denominations of one scientifically
dissected frog. This splayed amphibian is the symbol of a Usenet-
> based World Religion. The same is true for scores of smaller
amphibians and reptiles. I will continue to insult all of the
> world religions. The structure of religion is now known to
exist in a numbered Swiss bank account. My many delusions
> originate in the geometry of the human body and brain and in
the spirochetes that inhabit my nervous system. I blame
> the Secular Trend growth of the brain which is controlled by
myriad venereal diseases I picked up in Thailand, fucking in zero
> gravity. In scientific terms, God is caused by gravity. Gravity
is a myth. Earth sucks. Delusion caused by venereal disease,
> as you know, does not recognize race, color, age, class or gender.
Even Thai shemales get the clap and pass it on to me, unfortunately.
> Therefore, in axiomatic physics terminology, all of the world's
a stage, and upon that stage I have sex with a Thai shemale, and all
> religions are proven to be identical.
> Surely then, having unified all of the world's religions, we
must round them all up in the camps. Those sane people reading
> may presume that the next logical step must be the unification
of my arms in a straitjacket. This confinement is the goal
> of the world's governments. The course is now clearly charted
in my medical files. Those nasty black helicopters all fly
> toward world government. From world government, it follows
a trail of bread crumbs out of the forest. I can state
> automatically that human rights must be granted to every
reptile and amphibian, every mollusk, every fern and moss-like
> inhabitant on Earth. This then, is how the scientific proof
Kibo will be written on a men's room stall at the BPL. Only fear
> of God is going to effect a miraculous reduction in world Evil.
Wait. That previous sentence made all too much sense. Shit.
> With the entire world population in full knowledge that there
will be no new season of "Friends" this fall, and that Hasselhoff
> actually is a God, and the knowledge that God is fair, just and
ever so sweet, we can all die happy. For if the movie I, Robot is
> good, it will become impossible for any large scale political
movement to legalize robot sex. I wonder if Hoover could cause a
> vacuum to exist which could allow a large scale social Evil to
be sucked out from under the living room couch? Expect things to
> materialize.
> On the other hand, predicting the timetable for this miracle
is best left to Amtrak. Making sense of my SPOG web pages
> is more difficult. I do believe that it must begin with an ecumenical
affirmation of faith, like the Scientologists' attempt at a
> unification of the world's 5 major faiths. On the other hand,
I have a rash that just won't go away. The Trilateral World
> Government itself cannot ignore this discovery. The doctrine of
Manifest Destiny worked pretty good, eh? And the myth of the
> "Separation of Church and State" will have to be reexamined and
dismantled by the Republican regime. Esperanto texts will be
> reinterpreted. For instance, "God" is now a scientific subject
on the Discovery Channel, along with the show "American Choppers",
> and certainly the discovery of a scientific proof of God will
resound through the walls of my padded cell. Making X will
> have to be covered in our public school science curriculum.
I, for one, welcome our ecstasy-making overlords. PLUR!
> These developments in our Clerical and Secular institutions
will end up on page G-64 in the New York Times, of course,
> and the speed with which they are made will likely set the
table for our dinner guests. Only Amtrak will have the
> timetable for the world miracle of Human Progress that this
dubious achievement represents, which only the cable channel
> discovery holds forth.
> Well, that's it. As a scientist I do not think it appropriate
to spam my schitzophrenia all over Usenet, but the voices call
> for me to go on any further, as clearly it is now within
the realm of possibility for me to be Kook of the Century. It's
> the purview of our elected leaders of Religion and Government to
steal our money and molest our children. Please, open my pants and
> take this scientific tool and make the best use of it. In the
locked ward I spend my time jerking off and posting, while in the
> meantime, it is up to every responsible individual to become
aware of my disease. I want everyone on Usenet and the web to be
> aquainted with this discovery and to spread the news of this
disease that afflicts me. Only Scientology can spread the
> new miracle of spiritual unification throughout the world.
> George Hammond, July 13, 2004
>====================================
> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> mirror site:
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
>====================================
So, how's that Haldol working out for you, George?
k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are
really good at heart." - Anne Frank
EjP
> GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
>
>
>
>
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
> This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
> my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
> first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
> live long enough to receive such a prize
You won't, even if you live 1000 years, I assure you.
> and I thought the
> world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
Speaking on behalf of the entire world, I assure you they wouldn't
be.
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
>
I think we can all agree that George has just raised "pathetic"
to a whole new level.
-E
Pyriform
> "Pyriform" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:40f5b5b2$0$6443$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>> George Hammond wrote:
>>> Hey... I just got an email from "Stephen Unwin"... you know, that
>>> guy that wrote _The Probability of God_ and claims P=67% that
>>> God exists. We're discussing my discovery that GOD=G_uv.
>>
>> You deserve each other.
>
> [Hammond
> He's a PhD in theoretical physics (quantum gravity) from
> Imperial College and the university of Manchester,
> England. He's also a diplomat with the British Government
> and a "risk analyst" consultant to the U.S. Government
> (nuclear accidents, oil spills, terrorist attacks, etc.).
> Birds of a feather flock together.
Worrying, isn't it?
Loogie
proof just look at the world around you.
--
hawktooie
Loogie out
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ophJc.91114$XM6.76120@attbi_s53...
Mark Fergerson
Some stuff.
George, I have a question for you.
First, let's make sure the question will be "well posed".
Do you define "evil" as the set of so-defined behaviors
described in the Xtian Bible, or as those "contrary to our
nature", or are they the same?
Once you digest that, here's my question:
Do you think evil is the result of humans not being at
their full potential?
If so, what about the behaviors "lesser" creatures
exhibit that if seen in humans would be called evil, frinst:
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/jurassicpark3/42/34.html
Now, many people will say that the described carnivorous
behavior of herbivores is not evil due to anything in their
natures, but is "second-hand" due to the influence of
humans. But this seems improbable to me, as such herbivores
are as "perfect" as they can get and shouldn't be
susceptible to any "degrading" influences.
Any thoughts?
Mark L. Fergerson
Daniel Weston
speech solely from the standpoint of speech writing.
I was well impressed with the writing abilities of whoever wrote the
speech. The sentences were well constructed, they ran smoothly
together, paragraph organization was smooth, and the transitions flowed
well. It was an excellent speech and is not unlike many speeches given
at the Nobel acceptance.
In Nobel acceptance style, the proof of the matter awarded was not
proved again or further supported, but rather consisted of looking
forward, with hopeful statements made concerting the future of mankind.
Disregarding the content, the speech itself was an A+.
Daniel Weston
should have written was, "Disregarding the premise, the speech itself
was an A+".
George Hammond
[Hammond]
"Tryin to tell ya".
George Hammond
"Karlo X" <kta...@artcrime.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9527B27...@216.40.28.72...
[Hammond]
Anne Frank was correct... of course only someone
like Anne Frank knows it. Which goes to prove
that the ship of state is actually a fleet of canoes.
George Hammond
"Jim Black" <ghytrfvb...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:cb623e6.04071...@posting.google.com...
[Hammond]
I'm busy talking to Stephen Unwin, privately.
George Hammond
"EjP" <nos...@hackers.are.bad> wrote in message
news:cd58tm$p43$1...@info4.fnal.gov...
> George Hammond wrote:
> > GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
> > This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
> > my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
> > first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
> > live long enough to receive such a prize
>
> You won't, even if you live 1000 years, I assure you.
>
> > and I thought the
> > world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
>
> Speaking on behalf of the entire world, I assure you they wouldn't
> be.
>
> > ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
> >
>
> I think we can all agree that George has just raised "pathetic"
> to a whole new level.
[Hammond]
You *DO* have that one right!
George Hammond
"Loogie" <loo...@snot.com> wrote in message
news:2lmsf6F...@uni-berlin.de...
> He ding dong. You do not need proof of God. You need faith. But if you
want
> proof just look at the world around you.
[Hammond]
Been there done that. Where do you think GOD=G_uv came from,
outer space?
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
.................... ...Why has humanity given such extraordinary
importance to thought? Is it because it is the only thing we have, even
though it is activated through senses? Is it because thought has been able
to dominate nature, dominate its surroundings, has brought about some
physical security? Is it because it is the greatest instrument through which
man operates, lives and benefits? Is it because thought has made the gods,
the saviours, the super- consciousness, forgetting the anxiety, the fear,
the sorrow, the envy, the guilt? Is it because it holds people together as a
nation, as a group, as a sect? Is it because it offers hope to a dark life?
Is it because it gives an opening to escape from the daily boring ways of
our life? Is it because not knowing what the future is, it offers the
security of the past, its arrogance, its insistence on experience? Is it
because in knowledge there is stability, the avoidance of fear in the
certainty of the known? Is it because thought in itself has assumed an
invulnerable position, taken a stand against the unknown? Is it because love
is unaccountable, not measurable, while thought is measured and resists the
changeless movement of love?
We have never questioned the very nature of thought. We have
accepted thought as inevitable, as our eyes and legs. We have never probed
to the very depth of thought: and because we have never questioned it, it
has assumed preeminence. It is the tyrant of our life and tyrants are rarely
challenged!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..................... ...
-- Krishnamurti,
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6215-40F...@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
TMG
>
> [Hammond]
> I'm busy talking to Stephen Unwin, privately.
>
> ====================================
> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> mirror site:
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> ====================================
Has he seen your cool Nobel acceptance speech? I think your firstest,
most importantest task is to get him to give one of those one line
movie-review like quotes.
How about "Best Nobel acceptance ever!!!!" - Stephen Unwin.
Pyriform
> "Pyriform" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:40f62d71$0$6440$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>> George Hammond wrote:
>>> "Pyriform" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:40f5b5b2$0$6443$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>>>> George Hammond wrote:
>>>>> Hey... I just got an email from "Stephen Unwin"... you know, that
>>>>> guy that wrote _The Probability of God_ and claims P=67% that
>>>>> God exists. We're discussing my discovery that GOD=G_uv.
>>>>
>>>> You deserve each other.
>>>
>>> [Hammond
>>> He's a PhD in theoretical physics (quantum gravity) from
>>> Imperial College and the university of Manchester,
>>> England. He's also a diplomat with the British Government
>>> and a "risk analyst" consultant to the U.S. Government
>>> (nuclear accidents, oil spills, terrorist attacks, etc.).
>>> Birds of a feather flock together.
>>
>> Worrying, isn't it?
>
> [Hammond]
> "Tryin to tell ya".
Your mission to explain has failed.
Unwin had a good idea for a book. I imagine that it will be doing well
in some parts of the US. Can't blame him for that.
But the notion that it places the existence of God on a firmer
foundation than before is laughable. The mathematics at the heart of the
book are worse than the Drake equation; at least there most people would
agree broadly that the correct factors had been incorporated, even if
they disagreed violently about the numerical values to assign the more
contentious ones.
But Unwin's 7 "evidentiary areas" are debatable for a start, even before
we consider how "God neutral" they are. Just for fun, I accepted his
terms and assigned my own probabilities; this yielded a final posterior
probability for the existence of God of a mere 4%. Still too high for my
liking, but a considerable improvement on his 67%.
Maybe his publishers told him that 67% would be the optimal value to
maximise sales (high enough to attract the believers but not so high as
to alienate the non-believers...). No, hang on a minute - this man does
risk analysis *for a living*. He probably worked out the optimal value
for himself!
rg
> > > Occasionally of course there are world miracles which represent
> > > a large step forward. The advent of representative government,
> > > organized religion, common law and public education, all represent
> > > miraculous milestones in the reduction of world Evil.
History shows that organized religion has actually at time contributed
greatly to the amount of evil in the world.
> > >
> > > Today we are observing the advent of the world's first
> > > scientific proof of God. For centuries and millenniums this
> > > possibility has been discussed. In the 20th century few still
> > > believed that such a miracle was possible. Hope had practically
> > > been abandoned when accidentally a research effort aimed at
> > > finding the Structural Model of Psychology unexpectedly stumbled
> > > on the world's first scientific proof of God. Factor
> > > Analysis in Psychometry discovered that Einstein's curvature of
> > > spacetime causes a similar curvature in human perceptual reality
> > > and that this curvature explains the 3,500 year old historical
> > > phenomena we call "God". It doesn't explain the whole story, but
> > > it is more than sufficient to prove that "God exists"... that the
> > > "invisible God" portrayed on the Sistine Chapel ceiling actually
> > > physically exists.
If you will take another look at the painting on the Sistine Chapel you will
notice something most peculiar about the area that "God" is painted in. The
artist was trying to tell us something when he did it. Perhaps you have
never seen it before.
First, find a drawing of a sagittal section of the human brain. Then take
another look at the Sistine painting and the area that God is painted in.
Notice any similarities?
Notice the implication?
rg
Goran Dhemmeog
among the kooks: he still has the ability for almost consistent
expression. Although sometimes he uses sophisticated words incorrectly
(like alliteration, echolalia, exergesis, etc.), his messages are
self-consistent. That is why following George's babbling is much more
entertaining than say Archie Poh's, whos messeges, as I recall,
consisted of one single paragraph of total nonesense.
Did you also notice an interesting hair of humility: George admits
that it may take a while before he gets the Nobel. Usually it is like:
"don't talk on the phone too long honey. I'm expecting an important
call from Stockholm!". Also did you notice an "if" there? ".. if I
receive ..". Now that's progress! George seems to admit that it is
possible that he never receives the Nobel.
George Hammond
------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
live long enough to receive such a prize and I thought the
world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
Ladies and gentlemen, a world miracle has occurred and far
be it from me to stand here and claim sole credit for it. This
miracle has been wrought by many hands, by all of Science in
fact, from Aristotle to Einstein.
As you know, the problem of Evil in the world is the greatest
challenge that man faces. Even natural disasters do not measure
up to the damages that may be charged to human Evil.
Evil in human history is so large that the greatest powers
on Earth have been found inadequate to beat it back. It is only
the long slow progress of civilization itself that has had any
effect on lowering the water table of Evil in the world.
Occasionally of course there are world miracles which represent
a large step forward. The advent of representative government,
organized religion, common law and public education, all represent
miraculous milestones in the reduction of world Evil.
Today we are observing the advent of the world's first
scientific proof of God. For centuries and millenniums this
possibility has been discussed. In the 20th century few still
believed that such a miracle was possible. Hope had practically
been abandoned when accidentally a research effort aimed at
finding the Structural Model of Psychology unexpectedly stumbled
on the world's first scientific proof of God. Factor
Analysis in Psychometry discovered that Einstein's curvature of
spacetime causes a similar curvature in human perceptual reality
and that this curvature explains the 3,500 year old historical
phenomena we call "God". It doesn't explain the whole story, but
it is more than sufficient to prove that "God exists"... that the
"invisible God" portrayed on the Sistine Chapel ceiling actually
physically exists.
What we need to address then is how this discovery is going
George Hammond
[Hammond]
You're an idiot and a liar. The only way you could come out with
a P=.04 would be to take D<1 for every piece of evidence which
is ABSURD.... that is tantamount to saying that "all evidence for
God is negative".... which is prima facie scientific and logical stupidity.
That's the same theing Shermer did in his SCIAM calculation and
it is bogus.
And BTW don't use a calculator to slog thru this, use the following
program... and you will soon discover that the only "reasonable"
values for D give a P>51% for God. The reason is easy to see,
HAMMOND has in fact already discovered a proof that THERE
IS A GOD... so therefore, any reasonable calculation of P
HAS TO come out >50%.
100 CLS
110 PB=50
120 INPUT "HOW MANY INPUT DATA";N
130 PRINT
140 DIM D(N)
150 FOR I=1 TO N
160 INPUT "DATA ";D(I)
170 NEXT I
180 PRINT
190 PRINT "P( 0 )= 50.00000 %"
200 FOR K=1 TO N
210 PA=PB*D(K)/((PB*D(K))+100-PB)
220 PRINT "P(";K;")=";PA*100
230 PB=PA*100
240 NEXT K
Just input 6 when it asks "how many data", and then
punch in 10 .5 .1 2 1 2 in answer to the 6 input
queries. You will find the answer comes up 66.7%
George Hammond
"rg" <jobb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FJJc.33410$857....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > Occasionally of course there are world miracles which represent
> > > > a large step forward. The advent of representative government,
> > > > organized religion, common law and public education, all represent
> > > > miraculous milestones in the reduction of world Evil.
>
> History shows that organized religion has actually at time contributed
> greatly to the amount of evil in the world.
[Hammond]
Hey... don't try to play a "big lie" stategy on me egghead...
go pedal it to the illiterate.
>
>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Today we are observing the advent of the world's first
> > > > scientific proof of God. For centuries and millenniums this
> > > > possibility has been discussed. In the 20th century few still
> > > > believed that such a miracle was possible. Hope had practically
> > > > been abandoned when accidentally a research effort aimed at
> > > > finding the Structural Model of Psychology unexpectedly stumbled
> > > > on the world's first scientific proof of God. Factor
> > > > Analysis in Psychometry discovered that Einstein's curvature of
> > > > spacetime causes a similar curvature in human perceptual reality
> > > > and that this curvature explains the 3,500 year old historical
> > > > phenomena we call "God". It doesn't explain the whole story, but
> > > > it is more than sufficient to prove that "God exists"... that the
> > > > "invisible God" portrayed on the Sistine Chapel ceiling actually
> > > > physically exists.
>
>
> If you will take another look at the painting on the Sistine Chapel you
will
> notice something most peculiar about the area that "God" is painted in.
The
> artist was trying to tell us something when he did it. Perhaps you have
> never seen it before.
[Hammond]
don't be cryptic eggnog... pleas use plain english... I
wouldn't know what the hell you're talking about.
>
> First, find a drawing of a sagittal section of the human brain. Then take
> another look at the Sistine painting and the area that God is painted in.
>
> Notice any similarities?
[Hammond]
No
>
> Notice the implication?
[Hammond]
No... but please do tell us more... try to use
direct Ernest Hemingway telegraphic hi content
sentences... we're in a hurry.
>
> rg
George Hammond
"Mark Fergerson" <nu...@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:TzxJc.1574$Zr.1262@okepread01...
[Hammond]
Look.... Mark.... we don't have time to go through a length philosophical
analysis. Rounding up 6 million unarmed civilians at gunpoint and
running them through gas chambers in automated death camps...
women and children included, is an "EVIL" in the opinion of the vast
majority of the human race. This incident alone is sufficient to
prove that there is a significan level of "Evil" in the modern world
and that there has been since the beginning of civilization. We
don't even have to mention slavery, prostitution, wage and rent
exploitation, the feudal system, atomic bombs, common crime
or all the rest of it... not to even mention the horrors of warfare
itself.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
I have noted that your post was well constructed with short direct
hi-content sentences, smooth flowing paragraphs and scintillating
clarity and logic. this is unusual for the Internet. I give it an A+
George Hammond
> I said, "Disregarding the content, the speech itself was an A+." What I
> should have written was, "Disregarding the premise, the speech itself
> was an A+".
[Hammond]
Regarding your post... what I meant was... disregarding
the triviality of your reply, it was well written.
George Hammond
"Goran Dhemmeog" <hcrae...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9eccd47.04071...@posting.google.com...
[Hammond]
They'll never give me a Nobel.... for one thing if I ever got my hands
on a million dollars my drug addicted HIV positive mentally retarded
girlfriend who looks like Audrey Hepburn would rip it off and go on a
spending spree in Paris that would make the front pages of People
magazine and embarrass the entire Nobel commitee.
Pyriform
> You're an idiot and a liar. The only way you could come out with
> a P=.04 would be to take D<1 for every piece of evidence which
> is ABSURD.... that is tantamount to saying that "all evidence for
> God is negative".... which is prima facie scientific and logical
> stupidity. That's the same theing Shermer did in his SCIAM
> calculation and it is bogus.
"Every piece of evidence"? Ah, you mean Unwin's "evidentiary areas". Not
quite the same thing, as I tried to explain. I also take exception to
his "prior probability" for the existence of God of 50%, representing
(according to him) a position of complete ignorance. If I was so
inclined, I could construct a Bayesian analysis for the existence of
Pixies (the goofing of Spaceman's clocks would be one of my evidentiary
areas). Would you think it fair if I started with a prior probability of
50%, given the obvious absurdity of such an entity?
But I let all that pass. I accepted his prior probability and his choice
of evidentiary areas. And simply setting E1 "the recognition of
goodness" to "God-neutral" immediately reduces the posterior probability
from 67% to 17%, comprehensively demolishing your argument. I can't
remember what I tweaked to get 4%. It doesn't really matter; you can get
any number you want without much trouble. It advances the debate not one
iota.
> And BTW don't use a calculator to slog thru this
You over-estimate the amount of time I am prepared to waste on this. I
used Unwin's own calculator, helpfully provided on his website.
Earle Jones
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
>
>
>
>
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
> This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
> my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
> first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
> live long enough to receive such a prize and I thought the
> world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
>
>
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, a world miracle has occurred and far
> be it from me to stand here and claim sole credit for it. This
> miracle has been wrought by many hands, by all of Science in
> fact, from Aristotle to Einstein.
>
> As you know, the problem of Evil in the world is the greatest
> challenge that man faces. Even natural disasters do not measure
> up to the damages that may be charged to human Evil.
>
> Evil in human history is so large that the greatest powers
> on Earth have been found inadequate to beat it back. It is only
> the long slow progress of civilization itself that has had any
> effect on lowering the water table of Evil in the world.
>
> Occasionally of course there are world miracles which represent
> a large step forward. The advent of representative government,
> organized religion, common law and public education, all represent
> miraculous milestones in the reduction of world Evil.
>
> Today we are observing the advent of the world's first
> scientific proof of God. For centuries and millenniums this
> possibility has been discussed. In the 20th century few still
> believed that such a miracle was possible. Hope had practically
> been abandoned when accidentally a research effort aimed at
> finding the Structural Model of Psychology unexpectedly stumbled
> on the world's first scientific proof of God. Factor
> Analysis in Psychometry discovered that Einstein's curvature of
> spacetime causes a similar curvature in human perceptual reality
> and that this curvature explains the 3,500 year old historical
> phenomena we call "God". It doesn't explain the whole story, but
> it is more than sufficient to prove that "God exists"... that the
> "invisible God" portrayed on the Sistine Chapel ceiling actually
> physically exists.
>
*
Thanks, George. Now where should we send the Nobel Prize check?
Sincerely,
His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf
King of Sweden
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
Earle Jones
Karlo X <kta...@artcrime.com> wrote:
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:tthJc.91153$XM6.82149@attbi_s53:
>
> > GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
>
> vu_G=DOG HAMMOND WESTMINSTER DOG SHOW SPEECH
>
> > ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
> > This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
> involuntary commitment. I like to wank while dreaming about
> > my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
> hairiest Iraqi woman. Until then, I will bore everyone with the
> > first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
> get through the day without killing myself. I doubt that I will
> > live long enough to receive such a prize and I thought the
> King of Sweden would strangle me if I did. Only the under-
> > world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
> > ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
>
> You go, girlfriend!
>
>
> > Ladies and gentlemen, a world miracle has occurred and far
> fuckin' out, man! The voices in my head helped with this, so far
> > be it from me to stand here and claim sole credit for it. This
> Bud's for you, voices in my head! This delusion that I call my
> > miracle has been wrought by many hands, by all of Science in
> the locked ward at Mass Mental, all of my myriad hallucinations in
> > fact, from Aristotle to Einstein.
>
> > As you know, the problem of Evil in the world is the greatest
> thing that ever happened to the Republican Party, the easiest
> > challenge that man faces. Even natural disasters do not measure
> time on the Metric Scale, so we need a crazy super abacus to tally
> > up to the damages that may be charged to human Evil.
>
> > Evil in human history is so large that the greatest powers
> posessed by the X-Men have been rendered impotent. Masturbators
> > on Earth have been found inadequate to beat it back. It is only
> a dream. It is only a dream. I can compare my sex life with
> > the long slow progress of civilization itself that has had any
> chance of getting laid. A toddler with a straw might have an
> > effect on lowering the water table of Evil in the world.
>
> > Occasionally of course there are world miracles which represent
> rather than just frontin', yo. Taking my medication would be a
> > a large step forward. The advent of representative government,
> psychotropic drugs, and Tetris are just three examples. The lies of
> > organized religion, common law and public education, all represent
> the greatest threat to getting my freak on. None of these are
> > miraculous milestones in the reduction of world Evil.
>
> > Today we are observing the advent of the world's first
> steam-powered dildo, surely a greater invention than the so-called
> > scientific proof of God. For centuries and millenniums this
> has been the goal of science, and only in hushed whispers has this
> > possibility has been discussed. In the 20th century few still
> thought a steam-powered dildo was feasible, and only madmen like me
> > believed that such a miracle was possible. Hope had practically
> given up believing that she could buy one. Dildo technology had
> > been abandoned when accidentally a research effort aimed at
> steam-driven butt plugs found a breakthrough. A group aimed at
> > finding the Structural Model of Psychology unexpectedly stumbled
> over a dead body and landed in a pool of blood, dripping plasma
> > on the world's first scientific proof of God. Factor
> in the possibility of my being totally batshit insane. Also,
> > Analysis in Psychometry discovered that Einstein's curvature of
> the female breast causes erections in 54% of mice. A rift in
> > spacetime causes a similar curvature in human perceptual reality
> until LaForge changes phase on the EPS couplings. Both this
> > and that this curvature explains the 3,500 year old historical
> figure we call "Dick Clark", who sometimes manifests himself as a
> > phenomena we call "God". It doesn't explain the whole story, but
> American Bandstand lives on in our hearts. My voices claim that
> > it is more than sufficient to prove that "God exists"... that the
> New Years Ball in Times Square is His will on Earth. I think this
> > "invisible God" portrayed on the Sistine Chapel ceiling actually
> is Bil Keane's "Dead Grandpa" from the Family Circus. We know this
> > physically exists.
>
> > What we need to address then is how this discovery is going
> to keep me out of a locked ward. I don't think Bush is able
> > to reduce the level of Evil that humanity currently faces. The
> Republican Party would have to dissolve first. Also, I think the
> > first thing we observe is that this discovery de facto represents
> a major paradigm shift, such as Scientology's true ambition for
> > an ecumenical unification of all of the world's religions. The
> Crucifix needs an E-Meter. Buddha, too. I have insulted the
> > five major faiths, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and
> Botulism, merely by posting to Usenet. Sects like Kibology and
> > Buddhism, are now simply denominations of one scientifically
> dissected frog. This splayed amphibian is the symbol of a Usenet-
> > based World Religion. The same is true for scores of smaller
> amphibians and reptiles. I will continue to insult all of the
> > world religions. The structure of religion is now known to
> exist in a numbered Swiss bank account. My many delusions
> > originate in the geometry of the human body and brain and in
> the spirochetes that inhabit my nervous system. I blame
> > the Secular Trend growth of the brain which is controlled by
> myriad venereal diseases I picked up in Thailand, fucking in zero
> > gravity. In scientific terms, God is caused by gravity. Gravity
> is a myth. Earth sucks. Delusion caused by venereal disease,
> > as you know, does not recognize race, color, age, class or gender.
> Even Thai shemales get the clap and pass it on to me, unfortunately.
> > Therefore, in axiomatic physics terminology, all of the world's
> a stage, and upon that stage I have sex with a Thai shemale, and all
> > religions are proven to be identical.
>
> > Surely then, having unified all of the world's religions, we
> must round them all up in the camps. Those sane people reading
> > may presume that the next logical step must be the unification
> of my arms in a straitjacket. This confinement is the goal
> > of the world's governments. The course is now clearly charted
> in my medical files. Those nasty black helicopters all fly
> > toward world government. From world government, it follows
> a trail of bread crumbs out of the forest. I can state
> > automatically that human rights must be granted to every
> reptile and amphibian, every mollusk, every fern and moss-like
> > inhabitant on Earth. This then, is how the scientific proof
> Kibo will be written on a men's room stall at the BPL. Only fear
> > of God is going to effect a miraculous reduction in world Evil.
> Wait. That previous sentence made all too much sense. Shit.
> > With the entire world population in full knowledge that there
> will be no new season of "Friends" this fall, and that Hasselhoff
> > actually is a God, and the knowledge that God is fair, just and
> ever so sweet, we can all die happy. For if the movie I, Robot is
> > good, it will become impossible for any large scale political
> movement to legalize robot sex. I wonder if Hoover could cause a
> > vacuum to exist which could allow a large scale social Evil to
> be sucked out from under the living room couch? Expect things to
> > materialize.
>
> > On the other hand, predicting the timetable for this miracle
> is best left to Amtrak. Making sense of my SPOG web pages
> > is more difficult. I do believe that it must begin with an ecumenical
> affirmation of faith, like the Scientologists' attempt at a
> > unification of the world's 5 major faiths. On the other hand,
> I have a rash that just won't go away. The Trilateral World
> > Government itself cannot ignore this discovery. The doctrine of
> Manifest Destiny worked pretty good, eh? And the myth of the
> > "Separation of Church and State" will have to be reexamined and
> dismantled by the Republican regime. Esperanto texts will be
> > reinterpreted. For instance, "God" is now a scientific subject
> on the Discovery Channel, along with the show "American Choppers",
> > and certainly the discovery of a scientific proof of God will
> resound through the walls of my padded cell. Making X will
> > have to be covered in our public school science curriculum.
> I, for one, welcome our ecstasy-making overlords. PLUR!
> > These developments in our Clerical and Secular institutions
> will end up on page G-64 in the New York Times, of course,
> > and the speed with which they are made will likely set the
> table for our dinner guests. Only Amtrak will have the
> > timetable for the world miracle of Human Progress that this
> dubious achievement represents, which only the cable channel
> > discovery holds forth.
>
> > Well, that's it. As a scientist I do not think it appropriate
> to spam my schitzophrenia all over Usenet, but the voices call
> > for me to go on any further, as clearly it is now within
> the realm of possibility for me to be Kook of the Century. It's
> > the purview of our elected leaders of Religion and Government to
> steal our money and molest our children. Please, open my pants and
> > take this scientific tool and make the best use of it. In the
> locked ward I spend my time jerking off and posting, while in the
> > meantime, it is up to every responsible individual to become
> aware of my disease. I want everyone on Usenet and the web to be
> > aquainted with this discovery and to spread the news of this
> disease that afflicts me. Only Scientology can spread the
> > new miracle of spiritual unification throughout the world.
>
> > George Hammond, July 13, 2004
*
That's the funniest thing I've seen here in years!
earle
Mark Fergerson
> "Mark Fergerson" <nu...@biz.ness> wrote in message
> news:TzxJc.1574$Zr.1262@okepread01...
>
>>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>> Some stuff.
>>
>> George, I have a question for you.
>>
>> First, let's make sure the question will be "well posed".
>>
>> Do you define "evil" as the set of so-defined behaviors
>>described in the Xtian Bible, or as those "contrary to our
>>nature", or are they the same?
>>
>> Once you digest that, here's my question:
>>
>> Do you think evil is the result of humans not being at
>>their full potential?
>>
>> If so, what about the behaviors "lesser" creatures
>>exhibit that if seen in humans would be called evil, frinst:
>>
>>http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/jurassicpark3/42/34.html
>>
>> Now, many people will say that the described carnivorous
>>behavior of herbivores is not evil due to anything in their
>>natures, but is "second-hand" due to the influence of
>>humans. But this seems improbable to me, as such herbivores
>>are as "perfect" as they can get and shouldn't be
>>susceptible to any "degrading" influences.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
> [Hammond]
> Look.... Mark.... we don't have time to go through a length philosophical
> analysis.
I don't want to go through any such thing; I just asked
(what I thought was) a simple question.
> Rounding up 6 million unarmed civilians at gunpoint and
> running them through gas chambers in automated death camps...
> women and children included, is an "EVIL" in the opinion of the vast
> majority of the human race. This incident alone is sufficient to
> prove that there is a significan level of "Evil" in the modern world
> and that there has been since the beginning of civilization. We
> don't even have to mention slavery, prostitution, wage and rent
> exploitation, the feudal system, atomic bombs, common crime
> or all the rest of it... not to even mention the horrors of warfare
> itself.
No counterarguments, since I agree.
I am not saying that evil doesn't exist, or that it can't
have a definition that isn't culture-dependent (which is why
I suggested certain limits in defining evil for your
refutation if you were so inclined).
What I want your take on is:
* Do you think evil is the result of humans not being at
*their full potential?
So you don't think I'm trolling for argument's sake, I'll
tell you that I think evil exists, and can be defined
without considering any specific cultural or social ideals.
For my part, I think evil can be defined as any actions that
reduce the likelihood of survival for an individual or a
group (of any size). I derive this from a consideration of
Maslow's hierarchy of need, and noting our leaders'
historical habit of frustrating the satisfaction of others
needs in order to gain power over them. I wonder what the
Sumerian term for "Breaking eggs for omelets" was.
Note that I do not consider _thoughts_ evil unless they
translate to actions. Granted, thinking about evil actions
wastes one's time, but I also hold individual freedom of
thought in very high regard.
It strikes me that if we were at our full potential we
would be incapable of being frustrated, hence incapable of
being controlled, since we would see through all attempts at
frustrating the satisfaction of our needs (and of course, be
able to discriminate between needs and wants despite the
machinations of mass marketing).
But how can we define "full potential" if we aren't there
yet? I brought up the carnivorous herbivore thing to point
out that herbivores, which presumably are _at_ their full
potential, have no place in their lives for the kinds of
behaviors we would call "evil" and are nonetheless capable
of them.
Okay, that sounds rather philosophical, but I'm looking
to reduce this to operational terms. I know how you define
"full potential", and you know I don't agree, but that's
irrelevant. I had a link (that I can't find) to a report of
wild sheep in the north of England that eat seabird eggs and
chicks, apparently for the calcium. Are they trying for
their full potential one way (biology) and missing it
another (compassion)?
Are we as a species trying for our full potential but
missing it another (frinst Socialism theoretically satisfies
mass needs by suppressing wants whereas Capitalism does the
opposite)? Is there an "ideal" social order that can
supplant both? There must be, but it's my opinion that we
just can't imagine it yet with our limited abilities.
First, we have to figure out what our "nature" is.
Mark L. Fergerson
George Hammond
> George Hammond wrote:
> > You're an idiot and a liar. The only way you could come out with
> > a P=.04 would be to take D<1 for every piece of evidence which
> > is ABSURD.... that is tantamount to saying that "all evidence for
> > God is negative".... which is prima facie scientific and logical
> > stupidity. That's the same theing Shermer did in his SCIAM
> > calculation and it is bogus.
>
> "Every piece of evidence"? Ah, you mean Unwin's "evidentiary areas". Not
> quite the same thing, as I tried to explain. I also take exception to
> his "prior probability" for the existence of God of 50%, representing
> (according to him) a position of complete ignorance. If I was so
> inclined, I could construct a Bayesian analysis for the existence of
> Pixies (the goofing of Spaceman's clocks would be one of my evidentiary
> areas). Would you think it fair if I started with a prior probability of
> 50%, given the obvious absurdity of such an entity?
[Hammond]
It is widely agreed that billions and billions of people say they
"dunno" if there is or isn't a God.... THIS is the justification for
the 50-50 starting point in Unwin's calculation.
However, the world majority DOESN'T believe there is
a 50-50 chance pixies exist..... comon... there's no comparison
there.
>
> But I let all that pass. I accepted his prior probability and his choice
> of evidentiary areas. And simply setting E1 "the recognition of
> goodness" to "God-neutral" immediately reduces the posterior probability
> from 67% to 17%,
[Hammond]
More unreasonable fiddling. The ENTIRE POINT of religion
and God is the struggle of Good against Bad... Right against
Wrong, Good against Evil..... and obviously given 5-billion
adherents to organized religion worldwide... the majority recognizes
Good as overwhelmingly more prevalent than Evil... hence his
"recognition of goodness" is simply equivalent to the "worldwide
support of religion", which is an established fact, not a "guess".
> comprehensively demolishing your argument. I can't
> remember what I tweaked to get 4%. It doesn't really matter; you can get
> any number you want without much trouble. It advances the debate not one
> iota.
[Hammond]
Unwin is a PhD physicist, a U.K. diplomat and a successful
goovernment consultant in "probablility analysis"... to put forward
yopur "amateur" opinions against his are rediculous, as just
demonstrated above.
>
> > And BTW don't use a calculator to slog thru this
>
> You over-estimate the amount of time I am prepared to waste on this. I
> used Unwin's own calculator, helpfully provided on his website.
[Hammond]
Calculator on his website?.... mind citing a URL for that?
George Hammond
"Mark Fergerson" <nu...@biz.ness> wrote in message
[Hammond]
Yes of course it is, but so in simple incompetence which
isn't an evil. So there's something more to evil than simply
being at less than full potential... obviously so, since we
are all at reduced potential but we are not all evil.
Basically evil is a psychosis... the fundamental psychosis
of Man... and that is mistaking the phenomena of "God"
for a "natural phenomena devoid of moral consequences"
that can be exploited at will. Unfortunately, since "ignorance
of the law is no excuse", evildoers are engaged in folly and
God simply gives them enough rope to hang themselves.
>
> So you don't think I'm trolling for argument's sake, I'll
> tell you that I think evil exists, and can be defined
> without considering any specific cultural or social ideals.
> For my part, I think evil can be defined as any actions that
> reduce the likelihood of survival for an individual or a
> group (of any size).
[Hammond]
Yes, that is correct. And by the same token a person
engaged in such activity is apt to run into the instinctual
survival mechanism of the majority and forfeit their
life as a consequence. This is the moral argument that is
used to justify killing people in battle in a declared war against
a criminal power. The majority does recognize this
law of survival.
[Hammond]
There is in fact a "Secular Trend" in growth for all living
things..... IOW the "entire biosphere" is in a Secular
Trend.... and it appears that the lower animals are ahead
of the higher ones... in fact Man may be the last animal to
cross the finish line. Plants apparently will get there before
animals, and in fact Virii may already be there.... sort of
an ecological "the last shall be first and the first shall be last".
Daniel Weston
Let us grant that he has discovered something for the sake of this
discussion. After the discovery he simply announces that what he found
was God. No proof whatsoever that what he found was in fact God. He
commits the logical fallacy of ipsit dixit. (it's so because I say its
so)
Hammond is like the man that turned over a stone and found a scorpion.
This man then went on the internet and spent 10 chapters describing the
stone. He then spent another 10 chapters describing the turning over
process. He then spent 10 more chapters describing what he saw.
He then announce he had found God. Some more ipsit dixit. Can you
prove that he did not in fact find God? Hell no. Did this man ever
prove that what he found was in fact God. No, he assumed it. Hammond
has not proven by one iota that he has found God. Hammond's claim of
finding God, is no stronger that the man who found a scorpion and
announced he had found God.
Home work: If you found God how would you prove it? Hint: You can't.
That is why there are 360 religions in the world, most of which are
mutually exclusive of most of the rest. God can not be proved nor
dis-proved. That is why proof of God is not a scientific chore nor
possibility. In principle there is no scientific proof of God. (aka
SPOG)
David Jay Covington
> We have never questioned the very nature of thought. We have
> accepted thought as inevitable, as our eyes and legs. We have never probed
> to the very depth of thought: and because we have never questioned it, it
> has assumed preeminence. It is the tyrant of our life and tyrants are rarely
> challenged!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..................... ...
>
From Pythagoras to Kant and beyond...
you claim we have never questioned the nature of thought?
TMG
Isn't Unwin a buddy that you're talking "privately" with? Ask him yourself.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
If an undersea exploration accidently found a 100 square mile city
over 9,000 years old 2 miles down in the middle of the Atlantic
ocean, with 400 miles of paved roads, 5 story buildings, and
a huge stone monument in the center of town saying:
"Please remember us, our continent is sinking.
The strong have left in boats but the weak and
the old must stay and drown."
Would you conclude it was Atlantis? Probably not since
you're such a skeptic you would require someone to find
a street sign saying "Entering the city limits of Atlantis".
However, the rest of the world would have long concluded that
in fact the probability was 99.999% that it was in fact Atlantis.
Same thing goes for proof of God that I have discovered.
Kamerynn
George Hammond wrote... a bunch of self-aggrandizing,
non-philosophical, half-baked screed.
Hey, George - get off of the philosophy NGs already.
You've never done philosophy here and you never will,
so piss off.
Daniel Weston
link gravity etc with God. Your Atlantis analogy has many facts that
are consistent with its supposed description. There are at lest 360
religions in the world with descriptions of God, resulting in claims of
finding this God. (or Gods)
BTW, scholars disagree as to whether Atlantis ever existed. It is in
the same classification as the Monitor of Create, Helen of Troy, King
Arthur, etc. I should also point out that there are not 360 different
claims to geographical locations claiming to be Atlantis.
Your Atlantis analogy could also be used by the fellow that found a
scorpion under the rock and claimed he had found God.
Your extended analogy proves nothing.
Your analogy seems to argue that what you found met the description of
God.
Exactly whose description are you referring to? What makes you think
you have used the correct description? This God that you have found has
not been described to us yet. Is he (she) against fornicating, against
gay marriage, for animal sacrifice, against eating pork, etc?
Pyriform
> The ENTIRE POINT of religion
> and God is the struggle of Good against Bad... Right against
> Wrong, Good against Evil..... and obviously given 5-billion
> adherents to organized religion worldwide... the majority recognizes
> Good as overwhelmingly more prevalent than Evil... hence his
> "recognition of goodness" is simply equivalent to the "worldwide
> support of religion", which is an established fact, not a "guess".
Hammond, you are an idiot. It means no such thing. The "recognition of
goodness" is about recognising the difference between good and bad. I
can do that without reference to any imagined supernatural entity. So
can plenty of other people. The idea that morality necessarily derives
from God is simply absurd. Hence "God-neutral" is an entirely fair
assessment. It's *at least* as fair as the 50% prior probability figure.
> Unwin is a PhD physicist, a U.K. diplomat and a successful
> goovernment consultant in "probablility analysis"... to put forward
> yopur "amateur" opinions against his are rediculous, as just
> demonstrated above.
You have no way of knowing to what extent my opinions are "amateur",
since I have not revealed my credentials. You are simply star-struck.
Besides, my argument is primarily with you, not Unwin. He readily
concedes that his choice of evidentiary areas is not definitive, and
that the probabilities he assigned to them are highly debateable. You,
on the other hand, simply seized on his headline result as representing
some kind of support for your ludicrous "theory".
Has Unwin endorsed your theory yet? Maybe you could write encouraging
remarks for each other's dust jackets. You are writing a book about
this, aren't you Hammond? It's too good an opportunity to miss. Best to
keep the equations to a minimum though, if you want to maximise your
sales potential.
>>> And BTW don't use a calculator to slog thru this
>>
>> You over-estimate the amount of time I am prepared to waste on this.
>> I used Unwin's own calculator, helpfully provided on his website.
>
> [Hammond]
> Calculator on his website?.... mind citing a URL for that?
It took me a few seconds to find it. I realise that you are nowhere near
as smart as I am, but even you should get there in a few minutes. After
all, you did prove the existence of God <snigger>.
Marc D. Melton
Have you ever read Revalations? It sounds like you would be the first to
welcome and worship the Anti-Christ. This is exactly the sort of thing that
the God/Gods of the major religions warn against. Once the religious and
political powers unite, they will have an absolute power to CREATE evil.
Nobel Prize? I think not. If your visions proved to be true, maybe you
will be more infamously known as the Traitor of Humankind. Or would you
prefer Hammond-kind? This sort of egomaniacal doouble-speak leads me to
believe that you very well might.
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ophJc.91114$XM6.76120@attbi_s53...
> GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
>
>
>
>
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
> This message is being posted on internet newsgroups prior to
> my being awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the world's
> first scientific proof of God, simply because I might not
> live long enough to receive such a prize and I thought the
> world might be interested in what I would have to say if I did.
> ------------------internet remarks-----------------------------
>
>
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, a world miracle has occurred and far
> be it from me to stand here and claim sole credit for it. This
> miracle has been wrought by many hands, by all of Science in
> fact, from Aristotle to Einstein.
>
> As you know, the problem of Evil in the world is the greatest
> challenge that man faces. Even natural disasters do not measure
> up to the damages that may be charged to human Evil.
>
> Evil in human history is so large that the greatest powers
> on Earth have been found inadequate to beat it back. It is only
> the long slow progress of civilization itself that has had any
> effect on lowering the water table of Evil in the world.
>
> Occasionally of course there are world miracles which represent
> a large step forward. The advent of representative government,
> organized religion, common law and public education, all represent
> miraculous milestones in the reduction of world Evil.
>
> Today we are observing the advent of the world's first
> scientific proof of God. For centuries and millenniums this
> possibility has been discussed. In the 20th century few still
> believed that such a miracle was possible. Hope had practically
> been abandoned when accidentally a research effort aimed at
> finding the Structural Model of Psychology unexpectedly stumbled
> on the world's first scientific proof of God. Factor
> Analysis in Psychometry discovered that Einstein's curvature of
> spacetime causes a similar curvature in human perceptual reality
> and that this curvature explains the 3,500 year old historical
> phenomena we call "God". It doesn't explain the whole story, but
> it is more than sufficient to prove that "God exists"... that the
> "invisible God" portrayed on the Sistine Chapel ceiling actually
> physically exists.
>
> What we need to address then is how this discovery is going
> to reduce the level of Evil that humanity currently faces. The
> first thing we observe is that this discovery de facto represents
> an ecumenical unification of all of the world's religions. The
> five major faiths, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and
> Buddhism, are now simply denominations of one scientifically
> based World Religion. The same is true for scores of smaller
> world religions. The structure of religion is now known to
> originate in the geometry of the human body and brain and in
> the Secular Trend growth of the brain which is controlled by
> gravity. In scientific terms, God is caused by gravity. Gravity
> as you know, does not recognize race, color, age, class or gender.
> Therefore, in axiomatic physics terminology, all of the world's
> religions are proven to be identical.
> Surely then, having unified all of the world's religions, we
> may presume that the next logical step must be the unification
> of the world's governments. The course is now clearly charted
> toward world government. From world government, it follows
> automatically that human rights must be granted to every
> inhabitant on Earth. This then, is how the scientific proof
> of God is going to effect a miraculous reduction in world Evil.
> With the entire world population in full knowledge that there
> actually is a God, and the knowledge that God is fair, just and
> good, it will become impossible for any large scale political
> vacuum to exist which could allow a large scale social Evil to
> materialize.
> On the other hand, predicting the timetable for this miracle
> is more difficult. I do believe that it must begin with an ecumenical
> unification of the world's 5 major faiths. On the other hand,
> Government itself cannot ignore this discovery. The doctrine of
> "Separation of Church and State" will have to be reexamined and
> reinterpreted. For instance, "God" is now a scientific subject
> and certainly the discovery of a scientific proof of God will
> have to be covered in our public school science curriculum.
> These developments in our Clerical and Secular institutions
> and the speed with which they are made will likely set the
> timetable for the world miracle of Human Progress that this
> discovery holds forth.
> Well, that's it. As a scientist I do not think it appropriate
> for me to go on any further, as clearly it is now within
> the purview of our elected leaders of Religion and Government to
> take this scientific tool and make the best use of it. In the
> meantime, it is up to every responsible individual to become
> aquainted with this discovery and to spread the news of this
> new miracle of spiritual unification throughout the world.
>
> George Hammond, July 13, 2004
George Hammond
> George Hammond wrote:
> > The ENTIRE POINT of religion
> > and God is the struggle of Good against Bad... Right against
> > Wrong, Good against Evil..... and obviously given 5-billion
> > adherents to organized religion worldwide... the majority recognizes
> > Good as overwhelmingly more prevalent than Evil... hence his
> > "recognition of goodness" is simply equivalent to the "worldwide
> > support of religion", which is an established fact, not a "guess".
>
> Hammond, you are an idiot. It means no such thing. The "recognition of
> goodness" is about recognising the difference between good and bad. I
> can do that without reference to any imagined supernatural entity. So
> can plenty of other people. The idea that morality necessarily derives
> from God is simply absurd. Hence "God-neutral" is an entirely fair
> assessment. It's *at least* as fair as the 50% prior probability figure.
[Hammond]
Hey.. ever heard of "majority opinion"? Your statement is a
"theoretical logical argument".... on the other hand the
fact that 5-BILLION people worldwide consider themselves
to be adherents to the major faiths, and since "religion" is
all about trying to promote "good against evil", we must assume
that 5-BILLION people have a "recognition of goodness"
like Unwin says.
>
> > Unwin is a PhD physicist, a U.K. diplomat and a successful
> > government consultant in "probablility analysis"... to put forward
> > your "amateur" opinions against his are rediculous, as just
> > demonstrated above.
>
> You have no way of knowing to what extent my opinions are "amateur",
> since I have not revealed my credentials. You are simply star-struck.
[Hammond]
You have not written a hot new science book that is being reviewed
in Time Magazine, I can be pretty sure of that. Everybody is
"star-struck" and for good reason. "Stars" are recognized authorities
and lead world opinion, in case you haven't noticed. George Bush
is a "star" for chrissakes.
> Besides, my argument is primarily with you, not Unwin. He readily
> concedes that his choice of evidentiary areas is not definitive, and
> that the probabilities he assigned to them are highly debateable. You,
> on the other hand, simply seized on his headline result as representing
> some kind of support for your ludicrous "theory".
[Hammond]
There's obviously no doubt that it is. For instance, if he had
come out with P=26% it would be evidence against me.
> Has Unwin endorsed your theory yet?
[Hammond]
He's just made a valuable theoretical suggestion to me which
has startled me and which I am working on now.... as soon as
I'm finished I'll post this (highly intriguing) result on
sci.physics.relativity.
> Maybe you could write encouraging
> remarks for each other's dust jackets. You are writing a book about
> this, aren't you Hammond?
[Hammond]
I've considered a book... but I'm waiting for a break in
the weather... some kind of recognition before I'd waste a
lot of time and effort like that.... if the educated professionals
can't understand it what's the use of trying to explain it to
laymen. I've got to find a way to flush out the big shots
before I try writing a book that nobody would read. The
theory just got published in the peer reviewed literature last week,
I'm hoping that some scholar will see that for instance.
> It's too good an opportunity to miss. Best to
> keep the equations to a minimum though, if you want to maximise your
> sales potential.
[Hammond]
Its too late for money to interest me.... I'm only
interested in revenge.
>
> >>> And BTW don't use a calculator to slog thru this
> >>
> >> You over-estimate the amount of time I am prepared to waste on this.
> >> I used Unwin's own calculator, helpfully provided on his website.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Calculator on his website?.... mind citing a URL for that?
>
> It took me a few seconds to find it. I realise that you are nowhere near
> as smart as I am, but even you should get there in a few minutes. After
> all, you did prove the existence of God <snigger>.
[Hammond]
From where I'm sitting a "few seconds" is a luxury I can't afford.
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Look.... the "person-God of the major monotheistic religions" is well
known and clearly identified... is in fact "common knowledge" to
the majority of the world. Called "God the Father" in Christianity
he is commonly believed to be "an invisible perfect man who
rules the world". Clearly my discovery EXPLAINS and PROVES
the existence of this God.
Mark Fergerson
> "Mark Fergerson" <nu...@biz.ness> wrote in message
> news:5yUJc.4644$Zr.4403@okepread01...
<snip>
>>* Do you think evil is the result of humans not being at
>>*their full potential?
> [Hammond]
> Yes of course it is, but so in simple incompetence which
> isn't an evil. So there's something more to evil than simply
> being at less than full potential... obviously so, since we
> are all at reduced potential but we are not all evil.
OK, we agree. Simple incompetence is unfortunately also
usually equated with "true" evil, but I hold that to be a
cultural control mechanism first seen in the nuclear family
unit ("Do as daddy says so you don't hurt yourself") which
is improperly extended to social engineering ("Do as I say
or I'll punish you"). The former is an Absolute in the sense
that all fathers warn their children about the same
competence issues (don't play with fire etc) whereas the
latter is the core of so-called Paternalism since all
cultures warn against different errant behaviors.
> Basically evil is a psychosis... the fundamental psychosis
> of Man... and that is mistaking the phenomena of "God"
> for a "natural phenomena devoid of moral consequences"
> that can be exploited at will. Unfortunately, since "ignorance
> of the law is no excuse", evildoers are engaged in folly and
> God simply gives them enough rope to hang themselves.
This would be the reason magicians, witches, etc. are
condemned Biblically and in other religious texts. They seek
what they want without considering the greater impact of
their actions.
IMNSHO it's also the reason Fundamentalists fear the
creation of black holes in large particle colliders.
>> So you don't think I'm trolling for argument's sake, I'll
>>tell you that I think evil exists, and can be defined
>>without considering any specific cultural or social ideals.
>>For my part, I think evil can be defined as any actions that
>>reduce the likelihood of survival for an individual or a
>>group (of any size).
> [Hammond]
> Yes, that is correct. And by the same token a person
> engaged in such activity is apt to run into the instinctual
> survival mechanism of the majority and forfeit their
> life as a consequence. This is the moral argument that is
> used to justify killing people in battle in a declared war against
> a criminal power. The majority does recognize this
> law of survival.
OK, we concur.
<snippage for clarity>
>> It strikes me that if we were at our full potential we
>>would be incapable of being ... controlled
I should have pointed out that we wouldn't need to be
controlled either.
>> But how can we define "full potential" if we aren't there
>>yet?
>> Are we as a species trying for our full potential but
>>missing it another (frinst Socialism theoretically satisfies
>>mass needs by suppressing wants whereas Capitalism does the
>>opposite)? Is there an "ideal" social order that can
>>supplant both? There must be, but it's my opinion that we
>>just can't imagine it yet with our limited abilities.
>>
>> First, we have to figure out what our "nature" is.
> [Hammond]
> There is in fact a "Secular Trend" in growth for all living
> things..... IOW the "entire biosphere" is in a Secular
> Trend.... and it appears that the lower animals are ahead
> of the higher ones... in fact Man may be the last animal to
> cross the finish line. Plants apparently will get there before
> animals, and in fact Virii may already be there.... sort of
> an ecological "the last shall be first and the first shall be last".
I think we're on the same path if not the same page. Both
of us want humanity to reach for its full potential, but not
at the cost of everything else. Trouble is, everything else
seems to be at the "me first" stage. Since we recognize this
behavior as an operational evil in ouselves, is it also
operationally evil in lower orders? I think it is. Virii as
you say are some of the most successful lifeforms ever to
exist, yet they will never have the capability to husband
their hosts the way we're slowly learning to husband the
Earth. That may be the limit of _their_ potential, but I
think we can do better.
Mark L. Fergerson
Pyriform
> Hey.. ever heard of "majority opinion"? Your statement is a
> "theoretical logical argument".... on the other hand the
> fact that 5-BILLION people worldwide consider themselves
> to be adherents to the major faiths, and since "religion" is
> all about trying to promote "good against evil", we must assume
> that 5-BILLION people have a "recognition of goodness"
> like Unwin says.
Billions of flies eat shit, but I wouldn't want to try it myself...
So now you've moved from a "scientific proof of God", to a 'proof' based
on how many people belief something to be true? Fantastic. We should get
rid of our laboratories and observatories and simply hold public votes
to determine the truth or falsity of scientific theories.
And you *still* don't understand what "recognition of goodness" actually
means...
> You have not written a hot new science book that is being reviewed
> in Time Magazine, I can be pretty sure of that. Everybody is
> "star-struck" and for good reason. "Stars" are recognized authorities
> and lead world opinion, in case you haven't noticed. George Bush
> is a "star" for chrissakes.
Oddly enough, Hammond, not all of us are star-struck. Some of us can see
right through the hype. Oh, and Bush is a moron, in case you hadn't
noticed; stardom and stupidity are not mutually exclusive. However, I am
not impugning Unwin's intellectual credentials. I am sure that he has
written a perfectly good book. I suspect, however, that the tagline "A
simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth" was added by the
publisher, since the book delivers nothing of the sort.
Michael
<resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sounds like the conspiracy theory of the radical atheistic left at the
United Nations.
The same is true for scores of smaller
> world religions. The structure of religion is now known to
> originate in the geometry of the human body and brain and in
> the Secular Trend growth of the brain which is controlled by
> gravity. In scientific terms, God is caused by gravity. Gravity
> as you know, does not recognize race, color, age, class or gender.
> Therefore, in axiomatic physics terminology, all of the world's
> religions are proven to be identical.
> Surely then, having unified all of the world's religions, we
> may presume that the next logical step must be the unification
> of the world's governments. The course is now clearly charted
> toward world government. From world government, it follows
> automatically that human rights must be granted to every
> inhabitant on Earth. This then, is how the scientific proof
> of God is going to effect a miraculous reduction in world Evil.
> With the entire world population in full knowledge that there
> actually is a God, and the knowledge that God is fair, just and
> good, it will become impossible for any large scale political
> vacuum to exist which could allow a large scale social Evil to
> materialize.
The world already knows God is fair, just, and good. What planet is this
guy from?
> On the other hand, predicting the timetable for this miracle
> is more difficult. I do believe that it must begin with an ecumenical
> unification of the world's 5 major faiths.
Why not start with an ecumenical unifiation of the religions of atheism,
communism, socalism, multiculturalism, feminism, and fascism if one really
wants to get a head start on the elimination of evil?
On the other hand,
> Government itself cannot ignore this discovery. The doctrine of
> "Separation of Church and State" will have to be reexamined and
> reinterpreted.
Perhaps it should be thrown away, as it is currently assumed to be defined.
For instance, "God" is now a scientific subject
> and certainly the discovery of a scientific proof of God will
> have to be covered in our public school science curriculum.
Hmmm, perhaps science should finish the investigation of His creation
first, and indicate who the Creator is in all science books.
> These developments in our Clerical and Secular institutions
> and the speed with which they are made will likely set the
> timetable for the world miracle of Human Progress that this
> discovery holds forth.
> Well, that's it. As a scientist I do not think it appropriate
> for me to go on any further, as clearly it is now within
> the purview of our elected leaders of Religion and Government to
> take this scientific tool and make the best use of it. In the
> meantime, it is up to every responsible individual to become
> aquainted with this discovery and to spread the news of this
> new miracle of spiritual unification throughout the world.
Hmmm, hasn't Christians already been doing this for 6000 years? Must by
why Christ told us to go into all the world, preach the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, heal the sick, and baptise in the Name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit who is the spiritual unification.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
Daniel Weston
am still waiting. He is committing the logical fallacy of ipsit dixit.
George Hammond
> George Hammond wrote:
> > Hey.. ever heard of "majority opinion"? Your statement is a
> > "theoretical logical argument".... on the other hand the
> > fact that 5-BILLION people worldwide consider themselves
> > to be adherents to the major faiths, and since "religion" is
> > all about trying to promote "good against evil", we must assume
> > that 5-BILLION people have a "recognition of goodness"
> > like Unwin says.
>
> Billions of flies eat shit, but I wouldn't want to try it myself...
[Hammond]
If you were a fly they'd probably tie your feet to the ground.
>
> So now you've moved from a "scientific proof of God", to a 'proof' based
> on how many people belief something to be true?
[Hammond]
Hey... that's the way we elect the president and
make laws.
> Fantastic. We should get
> rid of our laboratories and observatories and simply hold public votes
> to determine the truth or falsity of scientific theories.
[Hammond]
Unwin IS a scientist, and his assessment of the data
is a scientific judgement.
>
> And you *still* don't understand what "recognition of goodness" actually
> means...
>
> > You have not written a hot new science book that is being reviewed
> > in Time Magazine, I can be pretty sure of that. Everybody is
> > "star-struck" and for good reason. "Stars" are recognized authorities
> > and lead world opinion, in case you haven't noticed. George Bush
> > is a "star" for chrissakes.
>
> Oddly enough, Hammond, not all of us are star-struck.
[Hammond]
Some of us are deaf, dumb and blind too.
> Some of us can see
> right through the hype.
[Hammond]
Jesus said "my fathers kingdom has many levels of seeing"...
so I'd suggest you check ALL of them, not just your favorite
channel, before you bank on that opinion kid.
> Oh, and Bush is a moron, in case you hadn't
> noticed; stardom and stupidity are not mutually exclusive.
[Hammond]
So was Marylyn Monroe, but what a set of knockers....
stardom is not always based on intelligence Charlie.
> However, I am
> not impugning Unwin's intellectual credentials. I am sure that he has
> written a perfectly good book.
[Hammond]
Naturally you haven't bothered to read it.
> I suspect, however, that the tagline "A
> simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth" was added by the
> publisher, since the book delivers nothing of the sort.
[Hammond]
amazing how you can critique a book you haven't even
read....?
BTW, I just got an amazing Email from Steve Unwin
(see post on sci.physics.relativity entitled:
GOD=G_UV UNWIN EXPLAINS BIRTH
posted 9:30 am today July 18, 2004). I'd like
to hear your take on that, since you don't seem
to think he's a genius!
George Hammond
"Mark Fergerson" <nu...@biz.ness> wrote in message
[Hammond]
Yes... we're reading the same book... however I'm not
too interested in "soft data" like philosophy, history,
political theory etc.... I take all that stuff for granted...
what I recognize is that there isn't going to be
ANY PROGRESS until somebody comes up with
a HARD SCIENCE PROVEN THEORY... and that
is what I've done.
PS... check my new post on sci.physics.relativity
entitled GOD=G_uv UNWIN EXPLAINS BIRTH
which is about an email he sent me with a theoretical
suggestion which solved a longstanding dilemma in
my theory and resulted in yet another miraculous discovery!
George Hammond
> Hammond has not proven that what he found is God, he only asserts it. I
> am still waiting. He is committing the logical fallacy of ipsit dixit.
[Hammond]
Read my post on sci.physics.relativity entitled
GOD=G_uv UNWIN EXPLAINS BIRTH
to see how advanced this research really is
and the amazing hard science results it's producing.
In the face of this kind of thing I think your
tautological criticisms are simply going to wind up on the
ash heap of history.
George Hammond
"Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-170...@user-2ivemml.dialup.mindspring.com...
[Hammond]
Likewise I'm sure.
Pyriform
>Pyriform" wrote
>> Fantastic. We should get
>> rid of our laboratories and observatories and simply hold public
>> votes to determine the truth or falsity of scientific theories.
>
> [Hammond]
> Unwin IS a scientist, and his assessment of the data
> is a scientific judgement.
No, it isn't. It's a *personal* judgement, quite distinct from the
underlying mathematics:
"What I do in my book is to line up the evidence for and against the
existence of God - *at least as I see it* - and apply some basic rules
of probability theory to calculate the probability of God's existence"
(my emphasis)
Unwin is a believer. He has *faith*, dammit! He is on record as saying
that he is 95% certain that God exists. Do you not think it just a tiny
bit possible that this might influence the way he views the 'evidence'?
>> However, I am
>> not impugning Unwin's intellectual credentials. I am sure that he has
>> written a perfectly good book.
>
> [Hammond]
> Naturally you haven't bothered to read it.
No, I haven't. Neither have you. What I have done, however (and you have
not) is to look at what *Unwin himself* has written *about* the book,
and applied my own knowledge and intellect (and I do realise you are at
a disadvantage here) to form an assessment of its headline-grabbing
conclusions.
>> I suspect, however, that the tagline "A
>> simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth" was added by the
>> publisher, since the book delivers nothing of the sort.
>
> [Hammond]
> amazing how you can critique a book you haven't even
> read....?
I'm critiquing the tagline, which I have read. See above for how I am
able to do this.
> BTW, I just got an amazing Email from Steve Unwin
> (see post on sci.physics.relativity entitled:
> GOD=G_UV UNWIN EXPLAINS BIRTH
> posted 9:30 am today July 18, 2004). I'd like
> to hear your take on that, since you don't seem
> to think he's a genius!
I think he is taking the piss. Sadly, you are so desperate for approval
that you have used his simple throw-away analogy (probably a joke!) as
the basis for yet another lurch towards insanity.
Gwar
[George Hammond]
>> As you know, the problem of Evil in the world is the greatest
>> challenge that man faces.
No, it isn't. It's trying to find a parking space in downtown San
Francisco on a weekday.
George Hammond
--
"Gwar" <xe...@xor.qua> wrote in message
news:2004071820...@synergy.transbay.net...
[Hammond]
No its not.. the real problem is how to increase the immagration
quota for all of those good looking Brazilian girls working
in Dunkin Donuts.
============================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
============================================
George Hammond
"Pyriform" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:40fadfce$0$6448$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> George Hammond wrote:
> >Pyriform" wrote
>
> >> Fantastic. We should get
> >> rid of our laboratories and observatories and simply hold public
> >> votes to determine the truth or falsity of scientific theories.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Unwin IS a scientist, and his assessment of the data
> > is a scientific judgement.
>
> No, it isn't. It's a *personal* judgement, quite distinct from the
> underlying mathematics:
[Hammond]
No... its an "authoritative" judgement, which is what
people recognize about it.
>
> "What I do in my book is to line up the evidence for and against the
> existence of God - *at least as I see it* - and apply some basic rules
> of probability theory to calculate the probability of God's existence"
> (my emphasis)
>
> Unwin is a believer. He has *faith*, dammit! He is on record as saying
> that he is 95% certain that God exists. Do you not think it just a tiny
> bit possible that this might influence the way he views the 'evidence'?
[Hammond]
Hey.... I'm 100% SURE GOD EXISTS.... that makes
Unwin look like an agnostic to me.
> >> However, I am
> >> not impugning Unwin's intellectual credentials. I am sure that he has
> >> written a perfectly good book.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Naturally you haven't bothered to read it.
>
> No, I haven't. Neither have you.
[Hammond]
Hey fcukhead.... keep your presumptions to yourself.
I bought the book for $26 and have studied it carefully.
So you're a LIAR and I just proved it.
does an impudent halfass like you ever have any idea about who
he's talking too... or is your theory "one size fits all"?
> What I have done, however (and you have
> not) is to look at what *Unwin himself* has written *about* the book,
> and applied my own knowledge and intellect (and I do realise you are at
> a disadvantage here) to form an assessment of its headline-grabbing
> conclusions.
[Hammond]
Your "own knowledge and intellect"... don't make me
laugh...
> >> I suspect, however, that the tagline "A
> >> simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth" was added by the
> >> publisher, since the book delivers nothing of the sort.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > amazing how you can critique a book you haven't even
> > read....?
>
> I'm critiquing the tagline, which I have read. See above for how I am
> able to do this.
>
> > BTW, I just got an amazing Email from Steve Unwin
> > (see post on sci.physics.relativity entitled:
> > GOD=G_UV UNWIN EXPLAINS BIRTH
> > posted 9:30 am today July 18, 2004). I'd like
> > to hear your take on that, since you don't seem
> > to think he's a genius!
>
> I think he is taking the piss. Sadly, you are so desperate for approval
> that you have used his simple throw-away analogy (probably a joke!) as
> the basis for yet another lurch towards insanity.
[Hammond]
Your pathetic opinions are of no interest.
You're just another impudent heckler.
============================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
============================================
Mike Helland
> What we need to address then is how this discovery is going
> to reduce the level of Evil that humanity currently faces. The
> first thing we observe is that this discovery de facto represents
> an ecumenical unification of all of the world's religions. The
> five major faiths, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and
> Buddhism, are now simply denominations of one scientifically
> based World Religion. The same is true for scores of smaller
> world religions.
If you unifiy all theisms then are you not still left with a
disconnect between theists and deists/atheists?
I think you're right that unification of all world views would be
rather beneficial to mankind, but why should that not be extended to
deists/atheists?
A couple remarks:
1. Your proof is based on relativity. Relativity is a theory, it is
not a fact which we may know with 100% certainty. Therefore, the
validity of your proof rests on the validity of relativity, and your
proof cannot be considered to be anything more than a perputually
tentative solution. Indeed, as the decades since its inception pass
the problems with relativity have mounted, including incompatibility
with quantum theories and theoretical evidence that the propogation
speed of gravity is actually greater than c, falsifying relativity's
basic postulates.
2. You say God is caused by gravity. You say this because you think it
will help people accept God's existence and live in peace. This is
admirable of course, but since most people think of God as the cause
of gravity and not the other way around, you've sabatoged your attempt
straight from the get-go.
3. As I've already mentioned, your unifying world views are not infact
universal as they exclude deists/atheists. I realize by your past
hostility towards atheists you will react very unfavorably to the
suggestion that atheism should even be considered compatible with
theism, but you're a creative fellow. Give it some thought.
4. Why are you posting to alt.religion.kibology? Please stop.
--
Mike Helland
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Pyriform
> "Pyriform" wrote:
>> No, it isn't. It's a *personal* judgement, quite distinct from the
>> underlying mathematics:
> [Hammond]
> No... its an "authoritative" judgement, which is what
> people recognize about it.
No, Hammond. It's a *personal* judgement, as Unwin himself admits.
Furthermore, it's a personal judgement from someone who *already
believes*. It really is no surprise that you come up with such risible
"scientific" theories when you are quite unable to understand why this
matters.
Perhaps it would help if you looked up the history of N-rays.
> [Hammond]
> Hey.... I'm 100% SURE GOD EXISTS.... that makes
> Unwin look like an agnostic to me.
It makes you more stupid than him, certainly. But we already knew that.
>>> [Hammond]
>>> Naturally you haven't bothered to read [Unwin's book].
>>
>> No, I haven't. Neither have you.
>
> [Hammond]
> Hey fcukhead.... keep your presumptions to yourself.
> I bought the book for $26 and have studied it carefully.
It really is too bad that having studied it carefully, you have failed
to understand it. Perhaps you could get a refund?
>>> BTW, I just got an amazing Email from Steve Unwin
>>> (see post on sci.physics.relativity entitled:
>>> GOD=G_UV UNWIN EXPLAINS BIRTH
>>> posted 9:30 am today July 18, 2004). I'd like
>>> to hear your take on that, since you don't seem
>>> to think he's a genius!
>>
>> I think he is taking the piss. Sadly, you are so desperate for
>> approval that you have used his simple throw-away analogy (probably
>> a joke!) as the basis for yet another lurch towards insanity.
>
> [Hammond]
> Your pathetic opinions are of no interest.
> You're just another impudent heckler.
And you are destined for the insane asylum. Too bad.
George Hammond
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.04071...@posting.google.com...
> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ophJc.91114$XM6.76120@attbi_s53>...
>
>
> > What we need to address then is how this discovery is going
> > to reduce the level of Evil that humanity currently faces. The
> > first thing we observe is that this discovery de facto represents
> > an ecumenical unification of all of the world's religions. The
> > five major faiths, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and
> > Buddhism, are now simply denominations of one scientifically
> > based World Religion. The same is true for scores of smaller
> > world religions.
>
> If you unifiy all theisms then are you not still left with a
> disconnect between theists and deists/atheists?
[Hammond]
1. Atheism (a.the.iz.sm) "Denial of the existence of God;
disbelief in a Supreme Being".
Atheism has now been proven to be incorrect.
A scientific proof of God de facto disproves
Atheism.
2. Deism (de.iz.m) "Belief in a personal God who exerts
no influence on men or on the world he has created"
According to this definition (Webster), Deism is also
proven to be incorrect by the discovery of the scientific
proof of God, since God is now proven to have the
"principal" effect on man by controlling his reality and
thereby determining his fate, his reward and his punishment.
3. Theism (the.iz.m) "Belief in the existence of god or gods;
especially, belief in the existence of one God,
transcending, yet immanent in, the universe."
Alone among the 3 terms, THEISM IS PROVEN TO BE CORRECT.
the scientific proof of God proves EXACTLY that there
is "one God transcending, yet immanent in, the universe".
the scientific proof of God (Hammond) also explains the
"demigods" of polytheism as lower order Factors in the
Factor heirarchy of which "God" (the God of monotheism)
is the single, lone, axiomatic physics Factor, caused by
the "terminal adult curvature of perceptual reality"...
i.e. Gravity.
>
> I think you're right that unification of all world views would be
> rather beneficial to mankind,
[Hammond]
That's without a doubt the understatement of the 21st century.
> but why should that not be extended to
> deists/atheists?
[Hammond]
No... Deists and Atheists have now been proven to
be WRONG... and their throies can now be safely relegated
to the ash heap of history. QED.
> A couple remarks:
>
> 1. Your proof is based on relativity. Relativity is a theory, it is
> not a fact which we may know with 100% certainty.
[Hammond]
NOTHING is known with "100% certainty"... even that the Sun will
rise tomorrow. However, it is now believed by majority scientific
opinion that "General Relativity is proven to a 99.9% certainty"
> Therefore, the
> validity of your proof rests on the validity of relativity, and your
> proof cannot be considered to be anything more than a perputually
> tentative solution. Indeed, as the decades since its inception pass
> the problems with relativity have mounted, including incompatibility
> with quantum theories and theoretical evidence that the propogation
> speed of gravity is actually greater than c, falsifying relativity's
> basic postulates.
[Hammond]
You exaggerate the case. General Relativity is now the
most "accurately confirmed theory in physics" (1 part in
10^14th experimentally; quote from Sir Roger Penrose 1989, 1994).
> 2. You say God is caused by gravity. You say this because you think it
> will help people accept God's existence and live in peace. This is
> admirable of course, but since most people think of God as the cause
> of gravity and not the other way around, you've sabatoged your attempt
> straight from the get-go.
[Hammond]
Trying to play semantic games is now a losing strategy
and only worked when there was no hard scientific proof.
Playing such a strategy now simply looks "old fashioned".
an equation like A=B may be read "A causes B" or "B causes A"
depending on which disciplinary context one is speaking.
GOD=G_uv (gravitational curvature)
Is expressed in PHYSICS as "gravity causes God", but in
THEOLOGY is is expressed as "God causes gravity". Both statments
are correct within the context of their phenomenology.
Poker's gone up old dog.... you can no longer make any points
in this area using "philawsephy" and "word games"... your
now in the middle of a hard science ball game, and if you
can't afford a mit you better go on home.
> 3. As I've already mentioned, your unifying world views are not infact
> universal as they exclude deists/atheists.
[Hammond]
answered above.... deists/atheists are now proven to
be ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT STANDING.
> I realize by your past
> hostility towards atheists you will react very unfavorably to the
> suggestion that atheism should even be considered compatible with
> theism, but you're a creative fellow. Give it some thought.
[Hammond]
Everybody knows (i.e. it is majority opinion) that "Atheists"
are simply those who politically are FORCED to defend the view that
God doesn't exist. Freud said he was an atheist for instance,
for obvious reasons.
Intellectual atheists have done a valuable service in
exposing hypocrites; who are the real source of trouble.
This new discovery will LIBERATE THE ATHEISTS, and free them
from persecution by the hypocrites. They know it, I know it
and everybody else knows it... and we also know why they
CAN NEVER say it! And for that reason they will never
be asked to. On the other hand, pious hypocrites are really
going to get their just deserts.
> 4. Why are you posting to alt.religion.kibology? Please stop.
[Hammond]
Why don't you get off the internet?
> --
> Mike Helland
--
RoyBoy
> news:2004071820...@synergy.transbay.net...
> >
> >
> > [George Hammond]
> > >> As you know, the problem of Evil in the world is the greatest
> > >> challenge that man faces.
> >
> > No, it isn't. It's trying to find a parking space in downtown San
> > Francisco on a weekday.
>
> [Hammond]
> No its not.. the real problem is how to increase the immagration
> quota for all of those good looking Brazilian girls working
> in Dunkin Donuts.
Bwhahaha... he might have ya there Gwar,
assuming they are Brazilian and are good looking...
but Latin works.
Mike Helland
Including the existence of God. Glad we agree.
Therefore, it would seem reasonable to find common ground amongst the
theists and the non-theists.
Q. Where does the world come from?
A. I dunno, let us call the source "God"
This is the God most people think of. He is the cause of everything,
including gravity. For you to say that God is caused by gravity, then
we must wonder, does God cause himself? If thats true, God can't
really exist, unless we decide that there is some cause of God, in
which case, it makes sense, refering to our original Q&A, that we
decide the cause of what we thought was God is actually God.
You might find this pointless. However, your aim is to convince people
that you're right, and when people are convinced that you are wrong
for valid reasons like this, well, you should take the hint. They have
a point. That you disagree is not enough to dismiss their point of
view. If you want to convince people that you're right, you need to
address their point of view. Perhaps even abandon certain lines of
thinking.
> > 3. As I've already mentioned, your unifying world views are not infact
> > universal as they exclude deists/atheists.
>
> [Hammond]
> answered above.... deists/atheists are now proven to
> be ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT STANDING.
As mentioned above, you said nothing can be known 100%, iow, nothing
can be known absolutely. So, you have contradicted yourself.
> > I realize by your past
> > hostility towards atheists you will react very unfavorably to the
> > suggestion that atheism should even be considered compatible with
> > theism, but you're a creative fellow. Give it some thought.
>
> [Hammond]
> Everybody knows (i.e. it is majority opinion) that "Atheists"
> are simply those who politically are FORCED to defend the view that
> God doesn't exist. Freud said he was an atheist for instance,
> for obvious reasons.
> Intellectual atheists have done a valuable service in
> exposing hypocrites; who are the real source of trouble.
> This new discovery will LIBERATE THE ATHEISTS, and free them
> from persecution by the hypocrites. They know it, I know it
> and everybody else knows it... and we also know why they
> CAN NEVER say it! And for that reason they will never
> be asked to. On the other hand, pious hypocrites are really
> going to get their just deserts.
>
>
>
>
> > 4. Why are you posting to alt.religion.kibology? Please stop.
>
> [Hammond]
> Why don't you get off the internet?
And miss out on the fun?
George Hammond
[Hammond]
If nothing is known with certainty, then you can't
claim with crtainty that we agree.
[Hammond]
Yes.. obviously God created himself.
End of that argument.
> If thats true, God can't
> really exist, unless we decide that there is some cause of God,
[Hammond]
God doesn't need a cause. He created himself
because he felt like it.
> in
> which case, it makes sense, refering to our original Q&A, that we
> decide the cause of what we thought was God is actually God.
>
> You might find this pointless. However, your aim is to convince people
> that you're right, and when people are convinced that you are wrong
> for valid reasons like this, well, you should take the hint. They have
> a point. That you disagree is not enough to dismiss their point of
> view. If you want to convince people that you're right, you need to
> address their point of view. Perhaps even abandon certain lines of
> thinking.
[Hammond]
I don't need to convince people. The truth will out
and the majority rules. Dissenters can grin and
bear it.
>
>
> > > 3. As I've already mentioned, your unifying world views are not infact
> > > universal as they exclude deists/atheists.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > answered above.... deists/atheists are now proven to
> > be ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT STANDING.
>
> As mentioned above, you said nothing can be known 100%, iow, nothing
> can be known absolutely. So, you have contradicted yourself.
[Hammond]
Yak, yak, yak, yak.
>
> > > I realize by your past
> > > hostility towards atheists you will react very unfavorably to the
> > > suggestion that atheism should even be considered compatible with
> > > theism, but you're a creative fellow. Give it some thought.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Everybody knows (i.e. it is majority opinion) that "Atheists"
> > are simply those who politically are FORCED to defend the view that
> > God doesn't exist. Freud said he was an atheist for instance,
> > for obvious reasons.
> > Intellectual atheists have done a valuable service in
> > exposing hypocrites; who are the real source of trouble.
> > This new discovery will LIBERATE THE ATHEISTS, and free them
> > from persecution by the hypocrites. They know it, I know it
> > and everybody else knows it... and we also know why they
> > CAN NEVER say it! And for that reason they will never
> > be asked to. On the other hand, pious hypocrites are really
> > going to get their just deserts.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 4. Why are you posting to alt.religion.kibology? Please stop.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Why don't you get off the internet?
>
> And miss out on the fun?
>
> --
> Mike Helland
====================================
Mike Helland
[snip]
> > > > A couple remarks:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Your proof is based on relativity. Relativity is a theory, it is
> > > > not a fact which we may know with 100% certainty.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > NOTHING is known with "100% certainty"...
> >
> > Including the existence of God. Glad we agree.
>
> [Hammond]
> If nothing is known with certainty, then you can't
> claim with crtainty that we agree.
Of course.
[snip]
> > > > 3. As I've already mentioned, your unifying world views are not infact
> > > > universal as they exclude deists/atheists.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > answered above.... deists/atheists are now proven to
> > > be ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT STANDING.
> >
> > As mentioned above, you said nothing can be known 100%, iow, nothing
> > can be known absolutely. So, you have contradicted yourself.
>
> [Hammond]
> Yak, yak, yak, yak.
Well, showing the flaws in your reasoning as quickly and directly as
possible was only my secondary reason for posting.
I understand why you'd post in the physics or christianity groups, but
why alt.religion.kibology? Can you leave that group alone?
Pyriform
> I understand why you'd post in the physics or christianity groups, but
> why alt.religion.kibology? Can you leave that group alone?
Nobody apart from Hammond knows why he posts in sci.physics, since his
deranged ramblings have nothing to do with science.
George Hammond
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.04072...@posting.google.com...
[Hammond]
I've asked you before to please shut off your computer
and leave the internet permanently. Can you please
leave the internet alone?
--
============================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
============================================
George Hammond
"Pyriform" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:40fd60a0$0$6447$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
[Hammond]
I happen to be a graduate physicist (M.S. physics)
and GOD=G_uv is a physics theory. Therefore it
belongs on the physics newsgroups. Also, since
it is a theory of God it is properly posted on ANY
newsgroup named "alt.religion"
--
============================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
============================================
TMG
> "Pyriform" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:40fd60a0$0$6447$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
>>Mike Helland wrote:
>>
>>>I understand why you'd post in the physics or christianity groups, but
>>>why alt.religion.kibology? Can you leave that group alone?
>>
>>Nobody apart from Hammond knows why he posts in sci.physics, since his
>>deranged ramblings have nothing to do with science.
>
>
> [Hammond]
> I happen to be a graduate physicist (M.S. physics)
> and GOD=G_uv is a physics theory. Therefore it
> belongs on the physics newsgroups. Also, since
> it is a theory of God it is properly posted on ANY
> newsgroup named "alt.religion"
>
He's got ya there - his posts have as much to do with science as ARK
does religion. George's reading comprehension problems keep him from
appreciating ARK.
George Hammond
"TMG" <T...@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:kfOdnXr25JY...@comcast.com...
[Hammond]
My take on ARK is that it is sort of what they used
to call the "avante guard"... I have actually received
a number of intelligent posts from there.. and not
very much in the way of hard core ad hominem heckling.
All probably due to Kibo's influence. I mean,
he's jaded and semi hard core... but not anti intellectual
unconcerned or stupid.
Mike Helland
> "Pyriform" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:40fd60a0$0$6447$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> > Mike Helland wrote:
> > > I understand why you'd post in the physics or christianity groups, but
> > > why alt.religion.kibology? Can you leave that group alone?
> >
> > Nobody apart from Hammond knows why he posts in sci.physics, since his
> > deranged ramblings have nothing to do with science.
>
> [Hammond]
> I happen to be a graduate physicist (M.S. physics)
> and GOD=G_uv is a physics theory. Therefore it
> belongs on the physics newsgroups. Also, since
> it is a theory of God it is properly posted on ANY
> newsgroup named "alt.religion"
Since kibology isn't a religion as much as its a vehicle for humour,
unless you start writing better jokes, it doesn't make any sense to
post there.
PS, if GOD=G_uv is a theory as you claim above, it can't be a proof,
by definition, so pick one or the other.
George Hammond
"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.04072...@posting.google.com...
> > > Mike Helland wrote:
[Hammond]
Different strokes for different folks Freddie. When talking
to academic prigs (reviewers for instance) I call it
a "theory". When talking to the academic line professional
pedant prigs who control academic publishing you have
to kow tow and bend normal statements into the oblique,
obfuscated, diversionary and hypocritical language of
the opposition academic establishment.
When talking to normal average people in the real world
public sphere, I call it a "proof" which is of course what
it actually IS.
> --
> Mike Helland
David Evens
<resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Mike Helland" <mhel...@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
>news:ad157aec.04072...@posting.google.com...
>> "George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<WIdLc.124357$a24.72764@attbi_s03>...
>> > "Pyriform" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > news:40fd60a0$0$6447$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
>> > > Mike Helland wrote:
>
>> if GOD=G_uv is a theory as you claim above, it can't be a proof,
>> by definition, so pick one or the other.
>
>[Hammond]
>Different strokes for different folks Freddie. When talking
>to academic prigs (reviewers for instance) I call it
>a "theory". When talking to the academic line professional
>pedant prigs who control academic publishing you have
>to kow tow and bend normal statements into the oblique,
>obfuscated, diversionary and hypocritical language of
>the opposition academic establishment.
>When talking to normal average people in the real world
>public sphere, I call it a "proof" which is of course what
>it actually IS.
Which means that you are a liar and are indeed the criminal you have
long be claiming, rather than simply being a mental patient.
George Hammond
"David Evens" <dev...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:vg41g0lhfbp896p3c...@4ax.com...
> Which means that you are a liar and are indeed the criminal you have
> long be claiming, rather than simply being a mental patient.
[Hammond]
No Nummynuts, it means you are not only a glassy eyed
goofinicus, it means you're a halfwit heckler too.
TMG
> As a graduate physicist myself (M.S., WVU, 1971), I've looked over the
> Hammond stuff and have a question: why do real physicists here bother with
> this guy at all? He is clearly insane; his ideas aren't even bad science -
> they are gibberish.
Most (of all abilities and ilks) ignore George, or occasionally jab at
him with a pointy stick. I confess to be in the latter group. I waffle
between feeling sorry for someone who's admitted to serious mental
problems (and clearly still suffers), and being outraged and concerned
by the truly bizarre things he posts - and shocked by just how quickly a
reader might get sucked into his sick, sad world.
Examples of,..ummm, odd, (and flat out wrong) beliefs cherished by George:
Bishop Usher was proven scientifically right *because* he was the
Archbishop of Canterbury (he was neither).
"Idiot!! Russia has the 2nd biggest economy in the world!" (nope, not
even close).
SQRT(2) = .707 (most 3rd graders caught this one).
"God is a Rock Bass" ('nuf said).
They go on and on - these aren't even the most amusing, just what I
remember at this late hour.
Even better, George exhibits all of the KookSign that serious people
understand (from Rick Russel's review of George years ago):
Messianic complex: My theory will bring utopian
peace to the world. (Big YES)
The Bible Codes: Only I can understand the ancient
messages of the Bible and apply them to the
world of today and tomorrow. (Big YES)
Government/Church/University Suppression Conspiracy:
Government, churches and universities are conspiring to keep my
discovery under wraps. (Big YES)
Qualification Anxiety: I have no official qualifications
or degrees in science, but I pretend to almost have one (if I hadn't
flunked out), but only people who do have such qualifications are able
to understand my theory. Except the ones that disagree with me. (Big YES
- over and over)
Humble Beginnings: I developed this theory despite the fact that I (have
dyslexia/have mental health problems/couldn't finish my education/was
poor/smelled like a bag of moldy artichokes). (Yep!)
Conversations with Dead People: I haven't met these dead
people, but they would certainly agree with and support me. (Even better
- George posts long conversations with scientists dead long before his
"claims" of their support. His posting under the name of long dead
religious "supporters" is flat out hilarious). He's in and out of mental
wards - which if he weren't so full of himself, would be pitied.
Vicious Vituperation: If you disagree with me, you are a <bleep>ing
<bleep> <bleep>er who will be the first to get <bleep>ed when the
revolution comes. (This you can watch every post)
George is flat out crazy. If he weren't such an annoying, arrogant
prick, everyone would just ignore him. He just rubs anyone who isn't
crazy the wrong way. He constantly sucks up to anyone who he thinks
might be stupid enough to either not read his gibberish, or might be
stoned enough to agree with him. When they piss on George, he lashes out
at them - as they are CLEARLY the devil's spawn. He pretends to be have
peer reviewed credentials, but the amusing point is that the reviewers
really were George's peers - crazy as he - and running a vanity press.
Again pitiful if he were so caught up by it.
> Here's one for you: when I was a freshman I found a little book in the
> library by one Arthur Otis, PhD. It was a nonsensical refutation of general
> relativity (Otis was dead serious). I actually found it on the web - if
> you're interested in a taste go to
> http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=61647071
>
> By the way, I looked at George Hammond's picture at his site. He looks so
> ... normal. Of course, so did Jeffrey Daumer.
> Regards,
>
> Dan
One last twist on this: Watch the hilarious response George gives to
this post. Imagine the flecks of foam as he pounds out a response. And
reflect on his swearing that he'd NEVER READ or RESPOND TO ANOTHER of my
posts. You should, of course, believe everything George posts.
Goran Dhemmeog
Crackpots are perhaps mostly sane, but for the manic obsession with
the kook theory they have. For them the kook theory is the most
important; they would continue to argue endlessly about the Theory
they have. With George it's mostly about George. George seems to have
failed in life a few times too many, and then devised the delusion
where he is the misunderstood genius to boost his ego. Then he needed
the Theory. Something truly grand: SPOG. In George's world everything
starts from base premise: SPOG is true. All other things follow from
there. Let's take an example George-inference: Mr.M says that SPOG
sounds nice. Therefore Mr.M is a genius, because it takes a genius to
understand SPOG. (Normally from the statement: Mr.M is a genius and
says SPOG is nice we could infer that SPOG could be true, but since
the truth of SPOG is the fundamental premise the genial ability of
Mr.M therefore follows.)
As you can see George's posts are mostly of the kind:
1) An important person or group is just about to acknowledge SPOG.
2) What happens when SPOG gets its rightful place in science (and how
you'll be sorry then!).
3) A reminder that SPOG exists. (Applause and cheers now please!)
The other crackpots would just keep repeating their kook theory and
rant on and on about it.
Any discussion anyone has with George is terminated soon by George
with some the following lines (Again crackpots would continue the
discussion indefinately):
i) You are stupid! (George knows everything about everything.)
ii) You have no scientific credentials to shine my boots! (George has
that MSc, and peer reviewed papers and all.)
iii) I have no time to spoonfeed you this! (Busy teaching SPOG -but
not spoonfeeding, mind.)
iv) I have said this 1000000 times already go read it from my webpage!
(Even if the discussion started from an issue in the webpage.)
It would be all just fine, but it seems George is still a rather
unhappy man: he is angry and stressed all the time because no-one
believes him, and that fame and fortune that duly belongs to him is
not just coming. For the most crackpots it is enough that they know
something that the others don't (-You can laugh but I still know that
the earth is hollow and inhabited by green elves).
This is a free forum. George can keep sending his insane posts, but
the others have the right to laugh, and point out mistakes.
PS. I followed the adventures of George in Wonderland for a few months
out of curiosity, but I think I shall stop now -George has passed the
Twilight Zone.
David Evens
>As a graduate physicist myself (M.S., WVU, 1971), I've looked over the
>Hammond stuff and have a question: why do real physicists here bother with
>this guy at all? He is clearly insane; his ideas aren't even bad science -
>they are gibberish.
Well, he's sane enough that they let him roam the streets (well, it IS
Massachusetts, where the people have elected a certain drunken,
lecherous buffoon to the US Senate for the same period of time George
claims to have been defrauding the State, so you have to take the fact
he's loose advisedly). He's also very, very funny to humiliate,
although it tends to wear thin.
In any event, nobody posts here for work purposes, it's strictly
recreational. Showing people a newly observered knot that George has
tied himself into without noticing is amusing. I find ridiculing
sociopaths like Potty the Vandal (a name derived from his habit of
spewing sewage and his bragging about having driven a useful company
into bankrupcy with vandalism are the root of the nickname) to be
quite enjoyable, especiually since he seems to be unable to understand
WHY he is being so easily ridiculed.
>Here's one for you: when I was a freshman I found a little book in the
>library by one Arthur Otis, PhD. It was a nonsensical refutation of general
>relativity (Otis was dead serious). I actually found it on the web - if
>you're interested in a taste go to
>http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=61647071
Reminds me of a video I saw once, in which a former geologist whose
brain appeared to have gone soft went on about how this 300 foot high
sheer limestone cliff was cut through lime mud by a river...
>By the way, I looked at George Hammond's picture at his site. He looks so
>... normal. Of course, so did Jeffrey Daumer.
The picture Potty put on his site looks normal, too, except that
there's no reason to ssuppose either picture is of the person it is
claimed to be.
TMG
> On 23 Jul 2004 19:29:24 GMT, danf...@NOSPAMyahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
>
>>As a graduate physicist myself (M.S., WVU, 1971), I've looked over the
>>Hammond stuff and have a question: why do real physicists here bother with
>>this guy at all? He is clearly insane; his ideas aren't even bad science -
>>they are gibberish.
>
>
Well, the Commonwealth DOES lock him up now and then. Even George admits
to taking a bit of a rest as a guest of our mental health system.
> He's also very, very funny to humiliate,
> although it tends to wear thin.
True, but then he finds some new way to piss everyone off!
> In any event, nobody posts here for work purposes, it's strictly
> recreational. Showing people a newly observered knot that George has
> tied himself into without noticing is amusing.
Hammond has an unusually wide blind spot. Even for a drooling crank,
he's totally wacked. Very much more than Archimedes Plutonium.
>>Here's one for you: when I was a freshman I found a little book in the
>>library by one Arthur Otis, PhD. It was a nonsensical refutation of general
>>relativity (Otis was dead serious). I actually found it on the web - if
>>you're interested in a taste go to
>>http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=61647071
>
>
> Reminds me of a video I saw once, in which a former geologist whose
> brain appeared to have gone soft went on about how this 300 foot high
> sheer limestone cliff was cut through lime mud by a river...
>
>
>>By the way, I looked at George Hammond's picture at his site. He looks so
>>... normal. Of course, so did Jeffrey Daumer.
>
>
> The picture Potty put on his site looks normal, too, except that
> there's no reason to ssuppose either picture is of the person it is
> claimed to be.
Actually - that's a reasonably accurate pic of George - it's a few years
old, and it lacks the cartoon stink-lines denoting his filthy homeless
status - but last I saw the great thinker, it was close.
Gwar
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, RoyBoy wrote:
>>> [George Hammond]
>>>>> As you know, the problem of Evil in the world is the greatest
>>>>> challenge that man faces.
>>> No, it isn't. It's trying to find a parking space in downtown San
>>> Francisco on a weekday.
>> [Hammond]
>> No its not.. the real problem is how to increase the immagration
>> quota for all of those good looking Brazilian girls working
>> in Dunkin Donuts.
> Bwhahaha... he might have ya there Gwar, assuming they are Brazilian and
> are good looking... but Latin works.
The quota isn't the problem. It's that his eyes are bigger than his dick.
All George has to do is shower more often, stop stuffing his face with
donuts & learn how to converse.
George Hammond
"Gwar" <xe...@xor.qua> wrote in message
news:2004072419...@synergy.transbay.net...
[Hammond]
There are only 2 kinds of people I can talk to.
1. People with IQ's over 180.
2. People with IQ's less than 90.
For instance my girlfriend is mentally retarded and
has to use a dictionary to read a newpaper... one time
while reading the label on a package of cheese in the
grocery store she said "..hey George, where's Wisconsin?".
However, she knows what God is. And people with IQ's over 180,
like Isaac Newton, know what God is too.
Everybody with an IQ between 90 and 180 is a worthless
and impudent punk as far as I'm concerned.
--
Dr. Flonkenstein
posted:
> [Hammond]
> There are only 2 kinds of people I can talk to.
>
> 1. People with IQ's over 180.
> 2. People with IQ's less than 90.
The last point only because you talk a lot to yourself.
--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
Bartlo's hate lits #1: <40376AD8...@enter.net>
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.
Alexa Cameron in one of her most enlightened statements:
"I do not have a sense of humor."
Gwar
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004, George Hammond wrote:
>>>>> [George Hammond]
>>>>>>> As you know, the problem of Evil in the world is the greatest
>>>>>>> challenge that man faces.
>>>>> No, it isn't. It's trying to find a parking space in downtown San
>>>>> Francisco on a weekday.
>>>> [Hammond]
>>>> No its not.. the real problem is how to increase the immagration
>>>> quota for all of those good looking Brazilian girls working
>>>> in Dunkin Donuts.
>>> Bwhahaha... he might have ya there Gwar, assuming they are Brazilian and
>>> are good looking... but Latin works.
>> The quota isn't the problem. It's that his eyes are bigger than his dick.
>> All George has to do is shower more often, stop stuffing his face with
>> donuts & learn how to converse.
> [Hammond]
> There are only 2 kinds of people I can talk to.
>
> 1. People with IQ's over 180.
> 2. People with IQ's less than 90.
If you stop putting yourself above everbody, & stop limiting your
associations to only people you think you can push around, you might find
more people you can talk to.
>
> For instance my girlfriend is mentally retarded and
> has to use a dictionary to read a newpaper... one time
> while reading the label on a package of cheese in the
> grocery store she said "..hey George, where's Wisconsin?".
So,
where is
Krungthepmahanakonbowornratanakosinmahintarayudyayamahadiloponopara-
tanarajthaniburiromudomrajniwesmahasatarnamornpimarnavatarsatitsakat-
tiyavisanukamphrasit?
I bet your girlfriend will find out quicker than you do.
Earle Jones
"George Hammond" <resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
What does your psychiatrist think of that?
earle (90 < IQ < 180)
*
By the way, it is clear that the first psychiatrist was not Sigmund
Freud, as is popularly believed. The truly first psychiatrist is
described in Leviticus 13:42-44 (KJV)
"And if there be in the bald head, or bald forehead, a white
reddish sore; it is a leprosy sprung up in his bald head, or his
bald forehead.
Then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the rising of
the sore be white reddish in his bald head, or his bald forehead, as
the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh;
He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce
him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head."
ej
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
George Hammond
"Gwar" <xe...@xor.qua> wrote in message
news:2004072512...@synergy.transbay.net...
[Hammond]
She already knows where Kowabunga is, Buffalo Bob.
George Hammond
"Earle Jones" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-214C...@netnews.comcast.net...
[Hammond]
I am your psychiatrist Earle, and my characterization
of (90 < IQ < 180) still stands.
>
> By the way, it is clear that the first psychiatrist was not Sigmund
> Freud, as is popularly believed. The truly first psychiatrist is
> described in Leviticus 13:42-44 (KJV)
>
> "And if there be in the bald head, or bald forehead, a white
> reddish sore; it is a leprosy sprung up in his bald head, or his
> bald forehead.
> Then the priest shall look upon it: and, behold, if the rising of
> the sore be white reddish in his bald head, or his bald forehead, as
> the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh;
> He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce
> him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head."
>
> ej
[Hammond]
Earle, the world's first psychiatrist is the
guy who first noticed people were pathologically
afraid of snakes. I would suggest that predates
the Bible.
Gwar
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004, George Hammond wrote:
>>> For instance my girlfriend is mentally retarded and
>>> has to use a dictionary to read a newpaper... one time
>>> while reading the label on a package of cheese in the
>>> grocery store she said "..hey George, where's Wisconsin?".
>> So,
>> where is
>> Krungthepmahanakonbowornratanakosinmahintarayudyayamahadiloponopara-
>> tanarajthaniburiromudomrajniwesmahasatarnamornpimarnavatarsatitsakat-
>> tiyavisanukamphrasit?
>> I bet your girlfriend will find out quicker than you do.
> [Hammond]
> She already knows where Kowabunga is, Buffalo Bob.
Krungthepmahanakonbowornratanakosinmahintarayudyayamahadiloponopara-
tanarajthaniburiromudomrajniwesmahasatarnamornpimarnavatarsatitsakat-
tiyavisanukamphrasit is an actual place. I bet if I was talking to your
girlfriend, she would have figure out where it is by now. Why? Because she
knows how to look things up &/or ask questions.
Gwar
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004, George Hammond wrote:
> [Hammond]
> I am your psychiatrist Earle, and my characterization
> of (90 < IQ < 180) still stands.
[not-Hammond]
What still stands with you is still lacking in soundness. But since you're
too wrap up in your faux-brillance you're too oblivious to the obvious.
Steve Knight
<resea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[Hammond]
>There are only 2 kinds of people I can talk to.
>
>1. People with IQ's over 180.
>2. People with IQ's less than 90.
>
>For instance my girlfriend is mentally retarded and
>has to use a dictionary to read a newpaper... one time
>while reading the label on a package of cheese in the
>grocery store she said "..hey George, where's Wisconsin?".
>However, she knows what God is. And people with IQ's over 180,
>like Isaac Newton, know what God is too.
>Everybody with an IQ between 90 and 180 is a worthless
>and impudent punk as far as I'm concerned.
So you're saying the Chimp in Charge has a less than 90 IQ?
Thanks. That's as reassuring as knowing my M-16 was made by the
lowest bidder.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Peter J Ross
Hertz?) wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Infamous looney George Hammond has a brand new box of crayons:
>> "Gwar" <xe...@xor.qua> wrote in message
>> news:2004072419...@synergy.transbay.net...
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, RoyBoy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> [George Hammond]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you know, the problem of Evil in the world is the greatest
>>>>>>>> challenge that man faces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't. It's trying to find a parking space in downtown San
>>>>>> Francisco on a weekday.
>>>>>
>>>>> [Hammond]
>>>>> No its not.. the real problem is how to increase the immagration
>>>>> quota for all of those good looking Brazilian girls working
>>>>> in Dunkin Donuts.
>>>
>>>> Bwhahaha... he might have ya there Gwar, assuming they are Brazilian and
>>>> are good looking... but Latin works.
>>>
>>> The quota isn't the problem. It's that his eyes are bigger than his dick.
>>> All George has to do is shower more often, stop stuffing his face with
>>> donuts & learn how to converse.
>>
>> [Hammond]
>> There are only 2 kinds of people I can talk to.
>>
>> 1. People with IQ's over 180.
>
> I somehow doubt you've ever met someone with an IQ over 180. That level
> is, what, one in several million in the general population?
I imagine the conversation in Hammond's local pub:
HAMMOND: What's your IQ?
NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: 179
HAMMOND: I'm not going to talk to you, you impudent punk!
>> 2. People with IQ's less than 90.
>
> You must be very lonely, then.
>>
>> For instance my girlfriend is mentally retarded and
>
> That's the most spectacular autoflame I've ever seen, in many years of
> observing Usenet. Congratulations.
He's got to be making it all up, surely. OTOH, Palmjob was almost
certainly making it all up, but that didn't stop him being an infamous
kook and Palmjob-Paddle winner.
>> has to use a dictionary to read a newpaper... one time
>> while reading the label on a package of cheese in the
>> grocery store she said "..hey George, where's Wisconsin?".
>
> Admission of molesting the mentally deficient noted.
>
>> However, she knows what God is. And people with IQ's over 180,
>> like Isaac Newton, know what God is too.
>> Everybody with an IQ between 90 and 180 is a worthless
>> and impudent punk as far as I'm concerned.
>
> "vicious said 'YOU ARE SAYING IMPUDENCE TO ME! THAT IS IMPUDENCE!'"
> ...from a really, really bad example of "fan fiction" I saw at
> http://www.big-big-truck.com/bebop/twfe.html
>> --
>> ============================================
>> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
>> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
>> mirror site:
>> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
>> ============================================
>>
> Scientific proof that George Hammond is a crank:
>
> http://www.ratbags.com/ranters/hammond020714.htm
> http://www.insolitology.com/paranormal/georgehammond.htm
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> http://www.jwgh.org/ark/articles/cubeyscript.html
> http://london.pm.org/pipermail/london.pm/Week-of-Mon-20020722/012227.html
> http://2thinkforums.org/anyboard/archive/10526.html
Good stuff.
> Hey, everybody, compare and contrast Hammond's page to the old gold
> standard of kookery, http://www.TimeCube.com/ , and see if Hammond is
> worthy of being the kook by which all others are measured.
I think I've told Hammond before that he needs bigger fonts and a
wider range of clashing colours, but for content I agree that he's in
the TimeCube class.
> I propose a new international standard measure of kookery, the hammond.
> One hammond is the amount of insanity in a typical brainfart from
> George Hammond.
>
> Example: "Did you see this post from Flagship1 of the Paranormal? He
> must get up close to 400 millihammonds when he starts talking about the
> Pyramids being constructed by 'paranormal aliens,' whatever the hell
> that means."
An SI unit of kookery. Interesting.
Hammond is either a genuine nutjob or a troll who hasn't worked out
that it isn't his "victims" who look stupid. Either way, the
nomination is seconded with extreme prejudice.
--
PJR :-)
alt.usenet.kooks award-winners and FAQs:
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/
(Remove NOSPAM to reply.)