"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:46:25 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:
[Hammond]
Idiocy, the Universe didn't "exist" until the human race
arrived to "make" it exist by seeing it. Makes no
difference that the light took 13 billion years to get here,
it didn't "exist" until the human race arrived to see it.

Which means, by what you said, LIGHT (and, one would assume, the source of
that light) existed BEFORE Humans were here to see it.

Odd that you cannot seem to comprehend the contradictive stupidity of your
own stance.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:13:57 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:46:41 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



[Hammond]
I've got 2.5 degrees in Physics asshole.

[Doug]
You are outranked as I have 3.0. I finished graduate
school in physics.

[Hammond]
That doesn't mean you're not an ineffectual and helpless
moron when it comes to forensically investigating a
scientific proof of God, and don't ever forget it!

[Doug]
But none of that matters since none of what you are
posting has anything to do with physics.

[Hammond]
That statement is either a monumental faux pas, or you're
a pathological liar.
Fact is Hammond has discovered that the Linear Algebra of
Psychometry Factor Analysis is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to the
structure of linearized Gravity in Relativity thus proving
that "God" is in fact a "relativistic curvature of
subjective spacetime". QED; God exists.
Therefore the scientific Proof of God (SPOG) is DE FACTO
an "applied physics theory", and you don't know what you're
talking about.

[Doug]
You are
attempting to pervert logic and religion and somehow
make silly assumptions like the Greeks not knowing the
difference between 12 and 13 (that one brought howls of
laughter from everyone) and rewriting the number of
gods (all of which are man made creations anyway). Trying
to prove that nonexistent gods are a result of your theory
is pretty bizarre, even you must admit.


[Hammond]
Listen you over privileged PhD asshole, this amateur
philosophy crap I'm engaging in with these high school
graduate amateurs is because that's all they are capable of
discussing.

This is pretty humorous. First you flaunt your education,
then, upon finding out you are outranked, you insult the
education. Again, you are trying to have it both ways.


They don't know what an eigenvector is, or a
2nd rank tensor. They don't even know polar from Cartesian
coordinates.... so I have to talk "philosophy" with them...
such as the "Anthropic Principle" which is a hermaphrodite
amalgam of Philosophy and Physics as you well know. But the
fact that a thousand amateurs or Liberal Arts PhD's want to
talk to me about "God" DOES NOT MEAN that the SPOG isn't a
"Physics Theory". It certainly is a Physics theory!

It is a physics theory in the same sense that Seto and
noeinstein and Henri Wilson and rbwinn and others have
what they call physics theories. You have strung together
a set of meaningless phrases and attempted to call it
science.

How many people have ever agreed with you?

By the way, where is the physics in it?

[Doug]
By the way, insults and swearing are not the way to win
arguments. Those who made it through school prefer logic,
reasoning and facts.


[Hammond]
I'm the one who prefers logic, reasoning and facts, not
you! There are worse transgressions of Science than
swearing; for instance the transgression YOU are guilty of
which is the high handed, overpriviliged presumptive disdain
you have for anyone claiming to have discovered a physics
proof of God.... or your blatant presumption that "Physics
cannot prove God"
You are the one swearing at those who disagree with you. I am
not swearing at you, only laughing. That is different.

There is no scientific proof of god since any of the thousands
of gods men have invented are only subject to belief, not
physics. They are not real. I would be more than happy to
see either scientific proof of any god or even a shred of
evidence for any god. I have spent a lot of time studying
the world's religion and have seen nothing of the sort.

Get with it kid, not only does Physics have to tackle
dirty jobs like building an Atomic Bomb (and you can bet
there was plenty of swearing while that was going on).....
Physics ALSO has to deal with the issue of finding out if
there really is a God,
There is none so you can relax now.

and if so what it is.... and that is
just what I've proved.... that "God" is a real physical
(relativistic perceptual) effect.

There has been no proof. There is unsubstantiated babble.
Nothing you have said has anything to do with proof. I have
read it over many times as I have shown it to people for a
laugh.

And that's history, Mr.
You don't know what you're talking about, and excuse me
if I'm not impressed with you're PhD in Physics... I've
talked to several PhD physicists, and frankly I'm not too
impressed.
So you wanted us to be impressed with your 2.5 degrees but
you are not impressed with 3.0 degrees. I am not surprised.

Professor Chris Isham for instance showed
nothing but amateur ignorance and presumption when I talked
to him about the SPOG.... or J. Baugh, one of Finklestein's
PhD's, who showed nothing but aggravated juvenile ignorance
when it came to the phenomena of Religion... someone who
should at least know enough to be polite and cautious for
heaven's sake!
They looked at your babble and saw it for what it was. You
can laugh at it or feel pity. There is nothing there to
believe since it has no relation to either science or a
proof.

So I'm not that impressed with you're PhD in physics,
not until I find out if you can stand on one foot with your
eyes closed and point to true North all at the same time.

Impressed no, jealous yes.
Has anyone ever agreed with your "theory"?


VITA FOR GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html



[Hammond]
Ok, I've read your post, and have concluded with absolute
certainty that my first impression was correct: Either you
are a fraud and not actually a PhD as you claim, or are
actually a PhD in some phony applied physics field such as
"Atmospheric Physics" which any mentally challenged halfwit
could achieve, or, there actually are Universities who will
grant a "mercy degree" in physics to incompetent,
unoriginal, and worthless stooges such as you.
Your repeated references to "howling with laughter" are a
dead give away..... you're apparently so utterly stupid and
lowbrow, to say nothing of incompetent, that you're given to
embarrassing fits of inappropriate laughter... the hallmark
sign of congenital idiocy.
The SPOG is a classic by the book proof, of a
longstanding and unexplained physical phenomenon.
You're worthless and no more intelligent or learned than
the average laboratory technician.
Get the **** off this thread, and stay off it!
=====================================
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
=====================================

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:fqWPj.11363$aq4.9829@trnddc02...


Odd that you cannot seem to comprehend the contradictive stupidity of your
own stance.

Language does not posses adequate functionality to articulate what Hammond
cannot comprehend.

Marc

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
wrote:



[Hammond]
* *You have FAILED to distinguish between two fundamentally
DIFFERENT cases:

CASE 1: *
* *If I turn my back and look the other way,
* *does the Moon still exist?
* * * * * (correct answer, YES)

CASE 2:
* *If the human race never existed or became
* *totally EXTINCT, would the Moon "exist".
* * * *(correct answer, NO)

[Immortalist]
Case two depends upon how you are defining "exist"

[Hammond]
* *NO KIDDING, Sherlock! *Can't you get it through your head
that "exist" is, and ONLY is, absolutely defined as: *"A
human opinion based on sensory perception". *There is no
OTHER definition of the word "exists". *Ergo, if there are
no humans, then there is no "existence" of anything.

snip

[Immortalist, citation]
...the world we see in conscious experience is not the real world
itself, but merely a miniature virtual-reality replica of that world
in an internal representation. Representationalism is also known (in
psychology) as Indirect Perception, and (in philosophy) as Indirect
Realism, or Epistemological Dualism.



[Hammond]
I agree completely. I am very grateful that you find no
quarrel with this commonly accepted fact.
snip cited evidence


snip

[Immortalist]
"…how can we know that the universe wasn't created a few minutes ago?"
--Bertrand Russell

[Hammond]
This is the well known OMPHALOS THEORY which is a
perennial subject of discussion and was seriously
investigate by Russell, although it is originally due to
Gosse.
Incidentally the Opthalmos theory was discussed
extensively on ARK a few years ago.


[Immortalist, citation]
...suppose the universe were suddenly created five minutes ago,
complete with memories, historical and geological records, and so
forth. That is, at the moment of creation, the universe would have all
the evidence that it was billions of years old already "packed in."
How could it ever be known that the creation of the universe did not
occur five minutes ago?



[Hammond]
It turns out we have had this conversation before, but I
don't think you recognized the significance of it at the
time..... check out this post, by you to ARK, from November
2007:

======2007 post by Immortalist===========
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:13:30 -0800, Immortalist wrote:

-???? ???? ?????-
-???? ???? ?????-

Or maybe the world was created 5 minutes ago.
The omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book,
Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order
for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with
mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with
hair, fingernails, and navels (omthalmos is Greek for "navel"), and
that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the
earth and universe can be taken as reliable.

[Hammond, Nov. 2007]
The Omphalos Theory is in fact correct, but the Universe
was not created "5 minutes ago" it was actually created
100,000 years ago WHEN our species (Homo Sapiens sapiens)
came into existence.
snip
=========end 2007 Immortalist post================



[Hammond]
The Omphalos Theory cannot be disproved, as Russell
authoritatively demonstrated many years ago.
However as Wittgenstein pointed out, the reason it is not
a plausible theory is simply that there is no compelling
reason for it, and it does not yield any tangible physical
result.
Interestingly however, the Omphalos Theory does now have
a compelling plausible scientific reason; namely, that
Hammond has discovered that the "internal representational
model of reality" that you discussed above, is ACTUALLY
RELATIVISTICALLY CURVED!!!, and that this scientifically
measurable fact completely explains the historical
phenomenon of "God". So what we see now, is that the
appearance of Man (our species, Homo Sapiens sapiens)
200,000 years ago WAS actually an "Omphalos Creation"
because that is when "existence" i.e. "reality" actually
"suddenly" came into being. This is when the "internal
model" was created, and thus "human reality" itself was
born. Thus the Genesis Creation was actually an "Omphalos
Creation" that took place 200,000 years ago.
In addition to that of course, the discovery of the
significance of the Anthropic Principle in modern science,
has now brought to the fore the fundamental significance of
the "Representationalism" you described above. The reason
the Universe appears as it does, is because an "Omphalos
Creation" took place 200,000 years ago!
What Physics fails to distinguish between is the Omphalos
Creation and the Big Bang creation. the former is the
creation of reality itself, while the latter is the creation
of physical structure within that reality. Incidentally,
since the Omphalos Creation created time itself, the
Omphalos (Biblical) creation"predates" the Big Bang, even
though the Big Bang is 13 billion years old!


snip citation of Omphalos Theory by Miller
snip citation of Omphalos Theory by Wittgenstein


[Hammond]
Incidentally, your contribution to this discussion has
been far superior to anything any one else has contributed,
even PhD physicists have failed miserably to comprehend the
basic scientific issues, whereas you have apparently
digested them quite easily.
All of this points out to me the key position of the
Philosophy Department in this development (I assume you are
posting from alt.philosophy)
Sooner or later there is going to be a head on collision
between Science and Religion over this discovery, and at
that time the Philosophy Department is going to be called on
to mediate the problem. And from the looks of things, you
seem to be way out in front of the crowd. Congratulations.
=====================================
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
=====================================

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:33:45 +0100, "marc"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:fqWPj.11363$aq4.9829@trnddc02...


Odd that you cannot seem to comprehend the contradictive stupidity of your
own stance.

Language does not posses adequate functionality to articulate what Hammond
cannot comprehend.

Marc


It's retrodictive stupidity, not contradictive stupidity.

George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:13:57 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:46:41 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:


[Hammond]
I've got 2.5 degrees in Physics asshole.
[Doug]
You are outranked as I have 3.0. I finished graduate
school in physics.

[Hammond]
That doesn't mean you're not an ineffectual and helpless
moron when it comes to forensically investigating a
scientific proof of God, and don't ever forget it!
[Doug]
But none of that matters since none of what you are
posting has anything to do with physics.

[Hammond]
That statement is either a monumental faux pas, or you're
a pathological liar.
Fact is Hammond has discovered that the Linear Algebra of
Psychometry Factor Analysis is CAUSALLY IDENTICAL to the
structure of linearized Gravity in Relativity thus proving
that "God" is in fact a "relativistic curvature of
subjective spacetime". QED; God exists.
Therefore the scientific Proof of God (SPOG) is DE FACTO
an "applied physics theory", and you don't know what you're
talking about.
[Doug]
You are
attempting to pervert logic and religion and somehow
make silly assumptions like the Greeks not knowing the
difference between 12 and 13 (that one brought howls of
laughter from everyone) and rewriting the number of
gods (all of which are man made creations anyway). Trying
to prove that nonexistent gods are a result of your theory
is pretty bizarre, even you must admit.


[Hammond]
Listen you over privileged PhD asshole, this amateur
philosophy crap I'm engaging in with these high school
graduate amateurs is because that's all they are capable of
discussing.
This is pretty humorous. First you flaunt your education,
then, upon finding out you are outranked, you insult the
education. Again, you are trying to have it both ways.


They don't know what an eigenvector is, or a
2nd rank tensor. They don't even know polar from Cartesian
coordinates.... so I have to talk "philosophy" with them...
such as the "Anthropic Principle" which is a hermaphrodite
amalgam of Philosophy and Physics as you well know. But the
fact that a thousand amateurs or Liberal Arts PhD's want to
talk to me about "God" DOES NOT MEAN that the SPOG isn't a
"Physics Theory". It certainly is a Physics theory!
It is a physics theory in the same sense that Seto and
noeinstein and Henri Wilson and rbwinn and others have
what they call physics theories. You have strung together
a set of meaningless phrases and attempted to call it
science.

How many people have ever agreed with you?

By the way, where is the physics in it?

[Doug]
By the way, insults and swearing are not the way to win
arguments. Those who made it through school prefer logic,
reasoning and facts.


[Hammond]
I'm the one who prefers logic, reasoning and facts, not
you! There are worse transgressions of Science than
swearing; for instance the transgression YOU are guilty of
which is the high handed, overpriviliged presumptive disdain
you have for anyone claiming to have discovered a physics
proof of God.... or your blatant presumption that "Physics
cannot prove God"
You are the one swearing at those who disagree with you. I am
not swearing at you, only laughing. That is different.

There is no scientific proof of god since any of the thousands
of gods men have invented are only subject to belief, not
physics. They are not real. I would be more than happy to
see either scientific proof of any god or even a shred of
evidence for any god. I have spent a lot of time studying
the world's religion and have seen nothing of the sort.

Get with it kid, not only does Physics have to tackle
dirty jobs like building an Atomic Bomb (and you can bet
there was plenty of swearing while that was going on).....
Physics ALSO has to deal with the issue of finding out if
there really is a God,
There is none so you can relax now.

and if so what it is.... and that is
just what I've proved.... that "God" is a real physical
(relativistic perceptual) effect.
There has been no proof. There is unsubstantiated babble.
Nothing you have said has anything to do with proof. I have
read it over many times as I have shown it to people for a
laugh.

And that's history, Mr.
You don't know what you're talking about, and excuse me
if I'm not impressed with you're PhD in Physics... I've
talked to several PhD physicists, and frankly I'm not too
impressed.
So you wanted us to be impressed with your 2.5 degrees but
you are not impressed with 3.0 degrees. I am not surprised.

Professor Chris Isham for instance showed
nothing but amateur ignorance and presumption when I talked
to him about the SPOG.... or J. Baugh, one of Finklestein's
PhD's, who showed nothing but aggravated juvenile ignorance
when it came to the phenomena of Religion... someone who
should at least know enough to be polite and cautious for
heaven's sake!
They looked at your babble and saw it for what it was. You
can laugh at it or feel pity. There is nothing there to
believe since it has no relation to either science or a
proof.

So I'm not that impressed with you're PhD in physics,
not until I find out if you can stand on one foot with your
eyes closed and point to true North all at the same time.
Impressed no, jealous yes.
Has anyone ever agreed with your "theory"?

VITA FOR GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html


[Hammond]
Ok, I've read your post, and have concluded with absolute
certainty that my first impression was correct: Either you
are a fraud and not actually a PhD as you claim, or are
actually a PhD in some phony applied physics field such as
"Atmospheric Physics" which any mentally challenged halfwit
could achieve, or, there actually are Universities who will
grant a "mercy degree" in physics to incompetent,
unoriginal, and worthless stooges such as you.

Thank you for more humor as you try to thrash your way to
some position that does not look too bad. Since you failed
out of graduate school does that mean that you are not even
up to the "mentally challenged halfwit" level of getting some
PhD? Or did not you not qualify for a "mercy degree"?

Again, you have no way to argue facts so you just attack the
people who point out your mistakes. You are trying to show
the existence of some of the imaginary gods that people have
created while ignoring the majority of them since they do
not fit you prejudices. You are also insulting the intelligence
of the Greeks and Romans by assuming they could not count.
Those are facts independent of any academic qualifications.

Your repeated references to "howling with laughter" are a
dead give away..... you're apparently so utterly stupid and
lowbrow, to say nothing of incompetent, that you're given to
embarrassing fits of inappropriate laughter... the hallmark
sign of congenital idiocy.

This is really funny. Read what you have written and you will
laugh yourself.


The SPOG is a classic by the book proof, of a
longstanding and unexplained physical phenomenon.
It is a string of babble that no high school student would
be allowed to get away with in a class. It is funny though.

You're worthless and no more intelligent or learned than
the average laboratory technician.
Get the **** off this thread, and stay off it!
Since this is a public forum, I will post when and where I please.
You are not required to either read my posts or to respond
when I point out your mistakes. Fix your mistakes and there
will be less to respond to.

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

George Hammond writes:

there actually are Universities who will
grant a "mercy degree" in physics to incompetent,
unoriginal, and worthless stooges

Is that how you got your 2.5 degrees in "physics asshole"?

Your repeated references to "howling with laughter" are a
dead give away..... you're apparently so utterly stupid and
lowbrow, to say nothing of incompetent, that you're given to
embarrassing fits of inappropriate laughter... the hallmark
sign of congenital idiocy.

No, everyone who sees your writings here are laughing - and they're
laughing AT you. It's not just a few, it's everyone. Except for those
who just pity you.

George The anthropic principle relates well with the mind of man and the
hand of God. If humankind was not created by the hand of God the
universe could not see itself. By the way God was left handed Bert

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:42:41 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



VITA FOR GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. and who is presently Distinguished
Professor of Physics at TAMU

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html


[Hammond]
Ok, I've read your post, and have concluded with absolute
certainty that my first impression was correct: Either you
are a fraud and not actually a PhD as you claim, or are
actually a PhD in some phony applied physics field such as
"Atmospheric Physics" which any mentally challenged halfwit
could achieve, or, there actually are Universities who will
grant a "mercy degree" in physics to incompetent,
unoriginal, and worthless stooges such as you.


[Doug]
Thank you for more humor as you try to thrash your way to
some position that does not look too bad. Since you failed
out of graduate school does that mean that you are not even
up to the "mentally challenged halfwit" level of getting some
PhD? Or did not you not qualify for a "mercy degree"?


[Hammond]
You claim you're a Physics PhD. I'll believe it when you
post your CV. You're too argumentative to be credible....
no competent Physics PhD could possibly be as asinine and
trivial as you are... you're obviously a low brow
horselaughing stooge and a bozo.
Dozen's of anonymous jackass high school dropouts show up
on Usenet claiming they're "PhD's", who are you kidding?
Oh... going to claim anonymity as an excuse for not
posting your CV?.... then answer a Physics test question for
us:

What is the relationship between the Dirac
Gamma matrices of QED and the Christoffel Symbols
Of General relativity?

A 25 word answer will be sufficent.
If you can't answer that question off the top of your
head, you're a f---in phoney.
And even if you find the answer by searching Google, I
still won't believe you until I see a CV.

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

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:11:56 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

there actually are Universities who will
grant a "mercy degree" in physics to incompetent,
unoriginal, and worthless stooges

Is that how you got your 2.5 degrees in "physics asshole"?

Your repeated references to "howling with laughter" are a
dead give away..... you're apparently so utterly stupid and
lowbrow, to say nothing of incompetent, that you're given to
embarrassing fits of inappropriate laughter... the hallmark
sign of congenital idiocy.

No, everyone who sees your writings here are laughing - and they're
laughing AT you. It's not just a few, it's everyone. Except for those
who just pity you.


[Hammond]
That's a property of the corpulent academy boy Usenet
environment which isheavily infected by psychotic avant
guard wannabees, like you. It is not a property of the
SPOG, or of legitimate mainstream society.
=====================================
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
=====================================