Re: THE ANTHROPIC GOD OF RUSSIA
George Hammond
<Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
= NOTE TO HECKLERS =
PLEASE KEEP OFF THIS THREAD
My last discussion thread ran to 600 posts
mainly due to heckling by psychos.
This is an egregious waste of bandwidth.
Please have some consideration
for the rights of others.
================================
THE ANTHROPIC GOD OF RUSSIA
The phrase "anthropic principle" was coined by the
theoretical astrophysicist Brandon Carter, in his
contribution to a 1973 Kraków symposium honoring
Copernicus's 500th birthday.
The late and great Princeton physicist J.A. Wheeler was by
the way personally instrumental in persuading Carter to
announce the discovery.
However, it appears that a prominent Russian cosmologist
the late Abraham Zelmanov was actually the first scientist
to actually discover the Anthropic Principle:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-04-06.PDF
In this 2006 description of his work by Dmitri Rabounski
we learn that Zelamnov discovered the Anthropic Principle in
the 1940's and recorded it in a manuscript only recently
published but many of his colleagues knew about the
discovery.
At any rate, what is of interest here is that Hammond has
pointed out that an obvious consequence of the AP is the
fact that if Man did not exist, then the Universe would not
exist. Hence the AP is actually the scientific foundation
of the phenomenology of "God" so called.
While Hammond has been roundly criticized because Carter
never explicitly pointed this out; it turns out that
Zelamnov explicitly did; he says:
"IF NO OBSERVERS EXIST THEN
THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE
AS WELL DOES NOT EXIST"
(A. Zelmanov
1940, loc cit)
I would point out that Zelamanov was a very prominent
scientist at the Sternberg Astronomical Institute in Moscow,
and once introduced Stephen Hawking in one of his seminars
as a "promising young cosmologist" and Hawking read a brief
report at one of his seminars.
So for the record: It certainly is obvious to modern
Physics that
Since the observer "creates" the Universe,
and that observer is Man. And since Man
is only 200,000 years old, the (Biblical)
Creation must have occurred 200k years ago!
I therefore cite one of Russia's most prominent
physicists who was a colleague and peer of Stephen Hawking,
as CONFIRMING with that scientific opinion.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
Nicko
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:30:37 GMT, George Hammond
>
>
> This is an egregious waste of bandwidth.
IYPFY.
--
YOP...
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:30:37 GMT, George Hammond
> <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
> = NOTE TO HECKLERS =
> PLEASE KEEP OFF THIS THREAD
> My last discussion thread ran to 600 posts
> mainly due to heckling by psychos.
Birds of a feather .....
> This is an egregious waste of bandwidth.
Right. Cut it out.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
At some point it becomes necessary to behead all the architects and
begin construction. -- Abi-Bar-Shim (Project Mgr. - Great Pyramid)
Ken
I am an egregious waste of bandwidth.
Yep
YOU SURE ARE
George Hammond
George Hammond
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
<snip heckling>
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Go back and finish your last thread.
Or did you see where you were losing your argument there?
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
George Hammond
<pa...@seanet.com> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:19:21 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
>> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip heckling>
>
>Go back and finish your last thread.
>
>
[Hammond]
600 posts without a single competent scientific reply is
sufficient.... sufficient to put the scientific community on
notice that the world's first scientific proof of God has
been discovered.... and that at least that the rumor among
agnostic science fans is well known.
>
>
>Or did you see where you were losing your argument there?
>
[Hammond]
Lose a scientific argument to you, that's hardly
possible, you're not a qualified scientist. As for
philosophy arguments, they are cut and dried and completely
verify the SPOG. And btw, I don't accept claims of
professional credentials unless they are verified either by
posted CV or by demonstration of competent scientific
discourse.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 11:31:18 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> <pa...@seanet.com> wrote:
>
> >George Hammond wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:19:21 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> >> <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip heckling>
> >
> >Go back and finish your last thread.
> >
> >
> [Hammond]
> 600 posts without a single competent scientific reply is
> sufficient.... sufficient to put the scientific community on
> notice that the world's first scientific proof of God has
> been discovered.... and that at least that the rumor among
> agnostic science fans is well known.
How do you come to that conclusion?
You start out by getting the logic on the anthropic principle backwards,
and its all downhill from there.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacred cows make the best hamburger. -- Mark Twain
George Hammond
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
<snip, no content, heckler>
KILLFILE: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com>
Cormagh
>
This was discovered by Rene Descartes and documented in the
Meditations. I think your fellow is a bit of a scoundrel (as was
Descartes).
Cormagh
pete
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:30:37 GMT, George Hammond
> <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
> = NOTE TO HECKLERS =
> PLEASE KEEP OFF THIS THREAD
> My last discussion thread ran to 600 posts
> mainly due to heckling by psychos.
The needs of the many, outweigh the need of you.
> This is an egregious waste of bandwidth.
> Please have some consideration
> for the rights of others.
--
pete
George Hammond
>[Cormagh]
>This was discovered by Rene Descartes and documented in the
>Meditations. I think your fellow is a bit of a scoundrel (as was
>Descartes).
>
>Cormagh
>
>
[Hammond]
Guess again.
George Hammond
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> George Hammond wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:30:37 GMT, George Hammond
> > <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
> >
> > = NOTE TO HECKLERS =
> > PLEASE KEEP OFF THIS THREAD
> > My last discussion thread ran to 600 posts
> > mainly due to heckling by psychos.
>
> The needs of the many, outweigh the need of you.
George (and many others) seem to think the Usenet is there own personal
blog space.
I view his ramblings as the intellectual equivalent of a lion spotting a
lame antelope.
pete
> pete wrote:
>> George Hammond wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:30:37 GMT, George Hammond
>>> <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> = NOTE TO HECKLERS =
>>> PLEASE KEEP OFF THIS THREAD
>>> My last discussion thread ran to 600 posts
>>> mainly due to heckling by psychos.
>> The needs of the many, outweigh the need of you.
>
> George (and many others) seem to think the Usenet is there own personal
> blog space.
>
> I view his ramblings as the intellectual equivalent of a lion spotting a
> lame antelope.
I view his ramblings as more like
a lame lion hallucinating an antelope.
George's troll style is one of the best.
He has a giant ego and he always gets offended.
That makes it difficult to resist hurling insults.
George's problem though, is that he's boring,
which is why this has been my only response to him this year.
--
pete
theBeaver
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:30:37 GMT, George Hammond
> <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
Ridicule is an appropriate response to your posts. A thoughtful
response would clearly not penetrate your skull since you are totally
oblivious to the many obvious flaws in the AP argument. You must be
incapable of any analytical thinking. I will, however, post the most
obvious objection to "IF NO OBSERVERS EXIST THEN THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE
AS WELL DOES NOT EXIST" ("Anthropic Princple" or "AP") for the sake of
discussion:
It's a word game. You can claim an observable universe does not exist
if there is no observer, but that is like saying the color yellow does
not exist if no one can perceive the color yellow. Literally true, if
"color" and "yellow" are subjective experiences; we don't normally call
UV and IR "colors" because we do not sense them as colors. However, if
you stated that frequencies of light between 510 and 540 teraHerz do not
exist because no one could perceive the "color yellow", then you would
of course be wrong. Similarly, if you simply removed the word
"observable" from the so-called "AP", you are left with the statement
"If no observers exist then the [word "observable" deleted here]
universe as well does not exist", which is clearly false, as evidenced
by the following thought experiments.
Consider the following cases:
The last human being in existence has lost most of his memories and
is in a semi-conscious state where he is only dimly aware of his
surroundings. Does the entire universe exist? Or does only his
immediately observable universe exist?
All human beings are unaware of the existence of a particular galaxy
at the far edge of the universe. Does that galaxy exist?
The last human being is terminated and his body is destroyed, but
not before its state is recorded atom-by-atom. After 100 years, a
robotic intelligence reconstructs the last human being atom-by-atom to
the identical state. In the intervening 100 years, the robotic
intelligence recorded earthly and astronomical events in great detail,
which are then reviewed by the resurrected human being. Did the
universe exist in the 100 years that had elapsed even though there was
no observer?
Over eons, the human population oscillates multiple times due to
natural and man-made catastrophes between 10 billion and 1 (yes, just 1
androgynous person). Does the degree of existence of the universe
oscillate in a similar pattern, or is the existence of the universe
independent of the number of observers?
If all humans died, but one housecat still roamed the earth, would
the universe still exist? If not, then what are the critical
differences between humans and housecats that make the difference?
If a race of intelligent aliens existed on a planet orbiting some
planet somewhere in the universe, would the universe still exist even if
all humans had perished long before?
If there are 6 billion people on the planet, are there 6 billion
universes? That is, if the existence of universes is contingent on
consciousness, shouldn't we think that the destruction of a single
consciousness would either eliminate one universe or diminish "the"
universe to some degree?
Would you care to give your interpretations of these various cases? I
think we could get to the root of your problem better if you
conscientiously answer the questions above. Though it will not
influence your own beliefs, I think many readers could gain real insight
into your abnormal psychology and find any serious answers quite riveting.
George Hammond
<theB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:30:37 GMT, George Hammond
>> <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
>[Lord Beaverville]
>Ridicule is an appropriate response to your posts. A thoughtful
>response would clearly not penetrate your skull since you are totally
>oblivious to the many obvious flaws in the AP argument.
>
>
[Hammond]
You're an asinine amateur.
Stephen Hawking in his book _Brief History of Time_ which
has sold 23 million copies DEFINES the Anthropic Principle:
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
"We see the universe the way it is because we exist"
(S. Hawking, ibid p. 128)
and also adds:
"Few people would quarrel with the validity or utility
of the anthropic principle."
(S. Hawking, ibid p. 129)
Zelamonv simply points out the ultimate case of the AP which
is:
"If no observers exist then the observable
universe as well does not exist."
(A. Zelmanov, ibid 1940)
BOTH HAWKING AND ZELMANOV
ARE PRIMA FACIE CORRECT!
<snip 69 lines of haughty and banal amateur crap>
theBeaver
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:13:51 GMT, theBeaver
> <theB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> George Hammond wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:30:37 GMT, George Hammond
>>> <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>> [Lord Beaverville]
>> Ridicule is an appropriate response to your posts. A thoughtful
>> response would clearly not penetrate your skull since you are totally
>> oblivious to the many obvious flaws in the AP argument.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> You're an asinine amateur.
> Stephen Hawking in his book _Brief History of Time_ which
> has sold 23 million copies DEFINES the Anthropic Principle:
We're all witness to your refusal to give your interpretations of the
scenarios I presented. Answer them. Surely an expert such as yourself
ahould be able to give some illuminating replies. Since I and the other
rank amateurs who read your ramblings are hung up on these or similar
objections to your "AP", if you have any interest at all in advancing
our understanding then you should spend a bit of time trying to resolve
our confusion. Please? Let me repost my statement below to make it
easier for you.
======
George Hammond
<theB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>George Hammond wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:13:51 GMT, theBeaver
>> <theB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> George Hammond wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:30:37 GMT, George Hammond
>>>> <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>>> [Lord Beaverville]
>>> Ridicule is an appropriate response to your posts. A thoughtful
>>> response would clearly not penetrate your skull since you are totally
>>> oblivious to the many obvious flaws in the AP argument.
>>>
>>>
[Hammond]
You're an asinine amateur.
Stephen Hawking in his book _Brief History of Time_ which
has sold 23 million copies DEFINES the Anthropic Principle:
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
"We see the universe the way it is because we exist"
(S. Hawking, ibid p. 128)
and also adds:
"Few people would quarrel with the validity or utility
of the anthropic principle."
(S. Hawking, ibid p. 129)
Zelamonv simply points out the ultimate case of the AP which
is:
"If no observers exist then the observable
universe as well does not exist."
(A. Zelmanov, ibid 1940)
BOTH HAWKING AND ZELMANOV
ARE PRIMA FACIE CORRECT!
<snip 69 lines of haughty and banal amateur crap>
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
>
>[Little Lord Beaver]
>We're all witness to your refusal to give your interpretations of the
>scenarios I presented. Answer them. Surely an expert such as yourself
>ahould be able to give some illuminating replies. Since I and the other
>rank amateurs who read your ramblings are hung up on these or similar
>objections to your "AP", if you have any interest at all in advancing
>our understanding then you should spend a bit of time trying to resolve
>our confusion. Please? Let me repost my statement below to make it
>easier for you.
>
>======
>
<snip amateur bullshit>
>
>
[Hammond]
I no longer find it necessary to flatter aggravated
amateurs with lengthy replies. I am not an amateur and this
is not an amateur discussion.
Ken
> I no longer find it necessary to flatter aggravated
> amateurs with lengthy replies. I am not an amateur and this
> is not an amateur discussion.
Crackpots:They also may seem to exhibit certain symptoms of
grandiosity or
megalomania. This may perhaps also be understood as resulting from a
simultaneous overinflation of their own social value and
underestimation of the social value of others (Hammond fits this one
like a glove!)
You're a delusional CRACKPOT in the running for the Nobel Prize of
CRACKPOTS
The rise of the Internet has given an outlet
to people well outside the mainstream who may get labeled crackpots
through internet
postings promoting particular beliefs
The universal characteristics of crackpots include:
Crackpots overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and
underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
Crackpots insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently
important.
Crackpots rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how
trivial.
Crackpots love to talk about their own beliefs, often in
inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners,
and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or
opinions.
Some crackpots exhibit a lack of academic achievement, in which case
they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their
crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering "the truth", but
actively harmful because they believe it "poisons" the minds by
teaching falsehoods.
Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist
that some alleged achievement in some entirely unrelated area of
human endeavor implies that their crackpot opinion should be taken
seriously.
Crackpots so often seem to represent, not individuals with an
exceptional degree of knowledge, but rather individuals with an
exceptional degree of ignorance concerning the subject of their
belief(s)
Many crackpots also exhibit deficiencies in reading comprehension,
logical reasoning, and other cognitive abnormalities, which may
contribute both to how they arrive at some bizarre counterfactual
belief in the first place, and to how they are able to cling to such
a belief in the face of all objections.
Lanny Budda
<flak...@aol.com> wrote:
get the fok outta here kenny lenny
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:27:39 GMT, theBeaver
> <theB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >George Hammond wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:13:51 GMT, theBeaver
> >> <theB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> George Hammond wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:30:37 GMT, George Hammond
> >>>> <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
> >>> [Lord Beaverville]
> >>> Ridicule is an appropriate response to your posts. A thoughtful
> >>> response would clearly not penetrate your skull since you are totally
> >>> oblivious to the many obvious flaws in the AP argument.
> >>>
> >>>
> [Hammond]
> You're an asinine amateur.
> Stephen Hawking in his book _Brief History of Time_ which
> has sold 23 million copies DEFINES the Anthropic Principle:
>
> ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
> "We see the universe the way it is because we exist"
> (S. Hawking, ibid p. 128)
Which is different than "the universe exists because we observe it".
> Zelamonv simply points out the ultimate case of the AP which
> is:
>
> "If no observers exist then the observable
> universe as well does not exist."
A game of semantics. The observable universe is not equivalent to the
universe.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill.
Nasti J
> I therefore cite one of Russia's most prominent
> physicists who was a colleague and peer of Stephen Hawking,
> as CONFIRMING with that scientific opinion.
"God was on our side a little bit more than them"
Said by hockey player Ilya Kovalchuk after his goal in overtime that
gave the Russians a 5-4 victory over Canada in the Hockey World
Championships.
John D Salt
f19c70...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
God is an Englishman, and therefore does not refer to ice hockey as just
"hockey".
All the best,
John.
Nasti J
> God is an Englishman, and therefore does not refer to ice hockey as just
> "hockey".
one of Hobbes' "nasty, British, and short"?
George Hammond
[Hammond]
From: George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.org>
Newsgroups:
sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.philosophy,alt.religon.christian,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: A Letter Of Einstein 1954
X-Received-Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 21:12:18 EDT
(nwrdny02.gnilink.net)
On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:44:26 +0800, "Tom Potter"
<tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:m6f234touugccg87u...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:38:45 +0800, "Tom Potter"
>> <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Extremely high auction bids are often scams.
>>>
>>>The bidder makes a deal with the seller
>>>to kick back some of the money,
>>>or to respond in kind.
>>>
>>>The winning bidder,
>>>gets an enormous amount of free publicity
>>>for himself and his business,
>>>
>>>and a new value is set on the item
>>>so that some sucker can be taken in
>>>on a future sell.
>>>
>>>To contrast Einstein's letter
>>>which sold for $330,000.00
>>>to Hitler's watercolors which go for $8000.00 each
>>>take a look at the following web site.
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/6ly372
>>>
>>>Take a look at the letter and these watercolors
>>>and see which has a greater intrinsic value.
>>>
>>>
>> [Hammond]
>> Hitler never could have been a true artist because he
>> possessed absolutely no power of abstraction whatsoever. His
>> draughtsman's like mechanical watercolors poignantly
>> demonstrate this. This of course is a hallmark
>> characteristic of the psychotic personality.
>> Einstein's 1954 letter by the way went for $404,000. It
>> is of considerable historic value mainly because Einstein
>> was the world's second most famous scientist, and the
>> world's second most famous Jew; the latter of course
>> accounting for his lifelong sympathy towards religion in the
>> largest sense.
>> Interestingly, the letter is about to become even more
>> valuable with the discovery that Einstein's theory of
>> General Relativity is in fact the scientific foundation of
>> the world's first scientific proof of God which I have
>> discovered and published (Hammond, 2003). In view of that
>> event, his letter is certainly destined to become one of the
>> most ironically famous documents in the annals of scientific
>> history.
>> Turning to another subject, I understand that you have
>> lived in China for the past 15 years. I am wondering if you
>> could tell me in a nutshell, what exactly the average person
>> in China believes about God? I mean, do they believe in
>> God? Certainly they are not a nation of atheists; are they?
>> How do you think they would react if the world scientific
>> community suddenly announced that a scientific proof of God
>> had been discovered? They certainly are great supporters of
>> modern Science are they not?
>
>
>[Tom Potter]
>It is interesting to see that "George Hammond" asserts
>that draftsmen, technicians, engineers, programmers and tradesmen
>have "psychotic personalities" because they
>deal with "concrete existence" rather than the "abstract",
>
>
[Hammond]
I never said that Tom; you did!
None of those people you mentioned consider their
utilitarian professions to be forms of "abstract psychology
instruction" which is what "Art" per se is.
Anyone who would be so mindless and presumptuous as to
assume that a utilitarian endeavor such as drafting is "Fine
Art" is as ignorant as the imbecile who suggested that "we
replace portrait painting with photography". Only a moron
wholly ignorant of the phenomena of God would propose such a
thing which is in fact what Hitler was... and the Institute
of Fine Art in Vienna bluntly told him as much on several
occasions!
>
>
>[Tom Potter]
>and I assume that George is suggesting that he and Einstein
>are well adjusted because they deal with esoteric babble
>that wastes time, money and minds,
>on such pursuits as the birth and death of the universe,
>worm holes, time travel, rubber clocks and rulers, etc.
>
>
[Hammond]
You gotta be kiddin Tom... I understood that you are a
retired computer industry CEO and now a self made executive
entrepreneur based in China. For such a person to be
unaware that Einstein's theory is prima facie the epitome of
Western scientific thought is no less than appalling.
Beyond that, for anyone claiming advanced intellectual
and social capacity to be so totally unsuspecting that
Einstein's Theory is fundamentally related to the phenomenon
of God is likewise incredible.
>
>
>[Tom Potter]
>abstract (ab-strakt', ab'strakt')
>"Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
>Not applied or practical; theoretical.
>Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract
>words like truth and justice.
>Impersonal, as in attitude or views."
>
>Rather than accept "George Hammond's" the boilerplate rejection
>of Hitler's watercolors,
>
>(Which I suspect is motivated by the fact,
>that "George Hammond', like most people,
>has been conned by Jewish INSTITUTIONALIZED REVISIONISM
>into thinking that Jews are creative, intelligent, "virtuous victims"
>and Germans, Muslims, Russians, Christians, and in fact all of
>the neighbors of Jews through history,
>are evil people who have low intelligence, and no creativity.)
>
>
[Hammond]
Tom, an idiot knows that the Jews are not called the
"chosen people" for nothing and I would have thought that
you are old enough and socially sophisticated enough to know
why.
EVERY nation has an identifiable national "personality"
or national character. Long ago the Church observed that
there are only 4 major personality types in the human race
and named these types Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Meanwhile, as any student of politics will tell you
secular government soon discovered that, broadly speaking
the entire world is dived politically into a
"Bicameral/2-Party system"; there is an upper class
Left-Right and a lower class Left-Right. Of the 250
governments in the world, 95% of them are organized around a
BI/2P legislative system.
In this system, the "upper-right" is the traditional
aristocracy. The upper-left are the traditional
"intelligentsia", the lower-right the traditional "military"
and the lower-left the traditional "working class".
It turns out that the most politically attacked quarter
is the "upper-left", the intelligentsia or so called
"liberals". FDR is perhaps the most modern hero of this
quarter as under his leadership world Fascism was finally
defeated.
The "Jews" so called have always been identified with the
upper-left, the "liberals" or the "John" personality of the
world. So anti-Semitism in it's broadest sense (i.e.
Fascism) is nothing more than ultra-conservative or
"anti-Democratic" political warfare in essence.
The evil reputation of it of course stems from the fact
that even in antiquity the world has was ruled by
aristocratic (upper Right) governments and during the Dark
Ages this system became increasingly savage and corrupt. The
"Democrats" (the Left) and particularly the "Jews" were
oppressed and even persecuted. This reached an orgiastic
crescendo of criminality during WWII which finally brought
about the downfall and eradication of Fascism.
Today it is known that the BI/2P system has nothing to do
with race, religion, nationality or anything else, it in
fact (as the Church long suspected) originates in the
quadrate structure of the human brain.... there are 4
personalities of Man for the same reason we have 4 feet!
It's a law of Biology based on an axiomatic geometrical law
Physics (Which is why there is no such thing as a 3 legged
animal for instance).
At any rate, the history of the "Jews" has been
traditionally the foundation stone of Western religion. But
modern Science has finally caught up with religion, and even
as we speak, the world's first scientific proof of God has
been published (Hammond, 2003) and the Christian Bible, the
Koran, the Torah etc. will soon be augmented (not to say
replaced) by a fully "scientific" explanation and proof of
"God and Religion". With that (which I call the Scientific
Advent), the Jews will finally be free of the burden of
religious leadership which they have carried for 2,000 years
in the Western World. Certainly they will enjoy a rest they
fully deserve, as does the Western World deserve a rest from
the plague of anti-semitism and Fascism!
So Tom, I wouldn't worry myself about "Jewish
revisionism", I think the world is going to be dealing next
with the "Scientific Revision of Religion", and btw, that
revision will FULLY vindicate Judaism, predominantly
vindicate Christianity, and after some fundamental revision,
eventually normalize the Koran and the Islamic religion
also, since "Allah has been proven scientifically to exist".
>
>
>
>
>
>[Tom Potter]
>I suggest that folks should visit the following
>URL and decided for themselves.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/6ly372
>
>Someone who painted beautiful scenes,
>invented the Volkswagen and expressways,
>and designed great buildings like Hitler,
>
>and recognized that the Jews who had
>massacred the Russian Royal Family,
>and co-opted the Russian government,
>were using Russia as a base from where to
>instigate the Class Wars of the 1900's,
>couldn't be all bad.
>
>
>
[Hammond]
For christ's sake Tom, what are you nuts? That sounds
like crap copied out of Henry Ford's notorious Dearborn
anti-semitic pulp newspaper which the Supreme Court had to
shut down and for which Henry Ford eventually publicly
apologized.
I'll tell you what makes your statements absurd, and that
is the common fact that all you have to do is talk to half a
dozen Jews and you soon find out that their national
personality is not capable of murder or of promoting
warfare. This is prevailing common opinion in the Western
World and always has been.
So I'll tell you where that kind of clap trap is headed
historically; with the advent of a scientific proof of God,
the first thing that is going to be apparent is that while
the S.P.of God proves 90% of the New Testament, it proves
100% of the Old Testament! Not only is Atheism dead in the
water, scientifically, so is anti-semitism!
>
>
>
>
>[Tom Potter]
>Regarding "George Hammond's" question:
>"what exactly <does> the average person
> in China believe about God?"
>
>Frankly I don't know,
>but I have observed that people of all nations,
>who are afraid of death,
>and people who are dealing with trauma in their lives,
>turn to the unknown, ( God, religion, fortune tellers, etc. )
>when the known does not relieve their grief and anxiety.
>
>I have observed that most Chinese
>seem to consider the various temples
>( Buddhist, Lhamma, Tao, Mao,
>Goddess of the Sea, etc. )
>as pleasant Disney Land like places
>to relax, take pictures, and enjoy,
>
[Hammond]
That's encouraging, most God fearing Western tourists
feel the same way about tours to Israel or the Vatican.
>
>
>[Tom Potter]
>and that some Chinese deal with
>stress and trauma by visiting these temples
>and burning incense.
>
>They all burn incense, but the ones
>with problems take it more seriously.
>
>The fact of the matter is that many (Most?)
>of these temples are operated as tourist attractions
>by the government or some private concern.,
>and the people seem to treat them all the same.
>
>
[Hammond]
Well from that small slice of Chinese Life I would say
that the Chinese are in fact, like the rest of the world, an
inherently reverent and God fearing people.
My prediction is that they will calmly accept and be
overjoyed, as will all decent people, by the scientific
discovery that there is a God, the same invisible all
powerful God directing and protecting all the peoples of the
Earth, that he is a god of mercy, justice and unity, and
that his spirit acts upon all governments and all
institutions through the public opinion of his people.
I'm sure they will be glad to find out that the discovery
of the world's first scientific proof of God has now united
all religions, including ostensibly atheistic Communism,
into one spiritually unified body of Mankind.
Nasti J
blather
John D Salt
ad3d58...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
I *think* you're thinking of Richard Desmond.
I believe that God is quite tall. Although it might not look like it when
he walks, because he moves in a mysterious way.
All the best,
John.
bar...@bookpro.com
<jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>Nasti J <njgi...@gmail.com> wrote in news:c536d919-b807-42d5-b1f0-
>ad3d58...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On May 20, 12:25 pm, John D Salt <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> God is an Englishman, and therefore does not refer to ice hockey as just
>>> "hockey".
>>
>> one of Hobbes' "nasty, British, and short"?
>
>I *think* you're thinking of Richard Desmond.
>
>I believe that God is quite tall. Although it might not look like it when
>he walks, because he moves in a mysterious way.
Wait, Michael Jackson is GOD??!!?1?
No wonder he loves the little children of the world.
BW
Ken
> On May 21, 3:23 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
> blather
Hammond=babbling delusional Crackpot
George Hammond
<Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote:
>
On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:02:42 +0800, "Tom Potter"
<tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
[Hammond]
Excuse me Tom, I was unaware when I responded to you that
you are a notious Usenet anti-Semitic crackpot.
I only replied because you mentioned living in China and
I thought you might know something about Chinese religious
beleifs.
It appears however the reason you're living in China is
because a bigoted crackpot like you is not welcome in the
U.S. and is probably ignored in China where anti-Semitism is
virtually unknown.
killfile: "Tom Potter" <tdp...@yahoo.com>
sandi
Truer words have NEVER been written.
Anyone else think Hammond needs some professional help?
Sandy