On 1 May, 23:22, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:35:05 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse

wrote:
On 1 May, 20:18, "John Smith" wrote:
"Physics" has discovered nothing!
One, lonely old, psychotic, moron has bellowed crap - whch he pretends is
actually science.

Come; if he were really lonely, old and psychotic, surely the least we
could do is give him good language? *If only out of kindness?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Hammond]
* *Look, Roger.... being polite to hecklers is for amateurs,
I'm not an amateur.
* *Hecklers are in general incorrigible psychotic
personalities, a personality trait that typically lasts for
decades if not a lifetime. *So, don't feed hecklers unless
you are intent on merely practicing your typing or
something. *They have NO intention of saying anything on
topic or constructive, their SOLE intent is to destroy the
reputation of their (political) opponant.

Perhaps so. I tend to presume people are not heckling until it proves
otherwise. (Then I slap them around, of course)

* *And by the way, the same goes for atheists, so if you
happen to be an atheist, please tell me up front before I
waste time talking to you. *
Politely, George Hammond

No, I'm not an atheist, and I know too well the sort of atheist poster
that you refer to. You can't drop a pebble in alt.atheism without
meeting one. No, I was merely interested in the details of fact about
Christian origins.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2008 00:55:34 -0400, monkfish
monkfish@nowhere wrote:


[Hammond]
Sorry heckler, I've already published the discovery of the
Structural Model and the Scientific proof of God in two peer
reviewed copyright academic journals and they are sitting on
the library shelves in Universites around the world. This
secures my priorities in the discovery for the duration.
That is to say nothing of 50,000 posts to usent about it,
all archived by Google and half a dozen other data bases and
witnessed by 50,000 Usenet responders plus another 500,000
people who have hit my website in the past 9 years.
Sorry, you're not going to do anything to interfere with
my priorities. Screw.

[John Smith, compulsive antiSPOG heckler]
You notice that no one cares about your "proof" and the only
interest it gets is for people to laugh at. No one takes
it seriously. Those who read it cannot take it seriously.
It is the worst piece of an attempt to ignore science and
get to a desired conclusion that any of us has seen. Your
derivation makes congress look quiet and logical.
[monkfish, pius humanitarian]
Why are you talking to him?


[Hammond]
They can't STOP talking to me! They can sense that I am
the only in the world who actually knows the scientific
truth about God.
The same thing happened to Jesus dontcha know?
Last time it was a crufixion. This time it's the world's
first and only scientific proof of God. Thank Christ I'm
not Jewish or they'd probably be after me with two 2x4's and
3 nails!
No, they do not care because they are smart enough to recognize
nonsense.

You don't seem to appreciate the worse than death mental
suffering some people go thru.... especially intelligent
people.... some of them scientists. Eventually THEY
RECOGNIZE that it is imperitive for their survival to find
out the factual scientific truth about "God". And they also
know that the unlucky s.o.b. who accidentally discovers it
(Hammond) is not going to be able to make ANYBODY "an offer
they can't refuse".
That's why he's talking to me. That's why their all
talking to me.


We talk to him out of pity. He is making a fool of himself saying
totally nonsensical things. He is embarrassing himself and we all
hope he will get better and learn some physics so he can see how
silly what he has posted is. He refuses to even look at what he
says and blusters only. Inside, he knows it is wrong but he
just desperately wants to have done something important. It would
be better if he learned to accept himself as ok even though
he had never discovered anything.


--
monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because atheists there
consider quoting the Bible proselytizing and as such it is prohibited by
their undebatable policy.
=====================================
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 Fri, 2 May 2008 06:48:58 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 1 May, 23:22, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:35:05 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse

wrote:
On 1 May, 20:18, "John Smith" wrote:
"Physics" has discovered nothing!
One, lonely old, psychotic, moron has bellowed crap - whch he pretends is
actually science.

Come; if he were really lonely, old and psychotic, surely the least we
could do is give him good language? *If only out of kindness?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Hammond]
* *Look, Roger.... being polite to hecklers is for amateurs,
I'm not an amateur.
* *Hecklers are in general incorrigible psychotic
personalities, a personality trait that typically lasts for
decades if not a lifetime. *So, don't feed hecklers unless
you are intent on merely practicing your typing or
something. *They have NO intention of saying anything on
topic or constructive, their SOLE intent is to destroy the
reputation of their (political) opponant.

[Roger Pearse]
Perhaps so. I tend to presume people are not heckling until it proves
otherwise. (Then I slap them around, of course)

[Hammond]
* *And by the way, the same goes for atheists, so if you
happen to be an atheist, please tell me up front before I
waste time talking to you. *
Politely, George Hammond


[Roger Pearse]
No, I'm not an atheist, and I know too well the sort of atheist poster
that you refer to. You can't drop a pebble in alt.atheism without
meeting one. No, I was merely interested in the details of fact about
Christian origins.
All the best,
Roger Pearse


[Hammond]
There are about 400 posts to the full version of this
thread , (the full thread can only be viewed in
sci.physics.relativity.) 400 posts is near a record in the
Physics newsgroups.
The explanation for this is that the title of the thread:
RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRONCIPLE
immediately suggests to the (scientific) reader, that YES a
scientific proof of God has been found! To a scientist, the
title has immediate face validity!
Meanwhile, the 400 posts for the most part are infuriated
anti religious hecklers driven berserk by the prospect of
the emergence of the world's first scientific proof of God
and it's obvious impact on the (largly academic) Secular
Humanism bandwagon in academia. Richard Dawkins' stellar
publishing days for instance are apparently numbered.
=====================================
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 Fri, 02 May 2008 09:21:13 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:





[John Smith, anti-S.P.O.G.; critic]
OK .. I forgot to add ..... your claim of "politics" is nothing more than
an unsupported assertion.


[Hammond]
Knowing Christianity is based on Jewish history and after
witnessing the Holocaust and the 3rd Reich you're going to
tell me the discovery of a scientific proof of God is not
"political", get real.


[Hammond]
Look, Richard Dawkins is writing best selling books
entitled _THE GOD DELUSION_ and making millions. Academia
in general is drowning in atheistic humanism. No academic
scientific journal will even consider for publiscation any
paper that has "God " in the title, that's how bad it is. I
am refused publication of the S.P.O.G. in any leading
journal because of it and am besieged by scientific
anti-religious hecklers smearing me night and day on Usenet.
OBVIOUSLY this is political, in that the discovery of an
ACTUAL AIR TIGHT RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC proof of God would
blow the academic atheist ship right out of the water,
permanently.
What do you mean the discovery is "not political"!


[John Smith, anti-S.P.O.G. protester]
What?
What the hell kind of babbling bull **** are you trying to sell now?
Obviously THIS is your best example of not knowing ANYTHING about logic,
reality, science or the scientific method.
You're deranged beyond comprehension.

BTW ..... **** for brains, I am a critic against "S.P.O.G." ...... or an
"anti-S.P.O.G., critic".
I am NOT a critic against anti-S.P.O.G.


=====================================
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 Fri, 02 May 2008 09:35:45 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP RANT


[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but refuse to post your CV,
your real name, or any verification.
From the low intellectual quality of your posts I
conclude you are a fraudulent crackpot with possibly a
charity degree in some lamebrain applied Science field, at
best.
You have not posted ONE SCIENTIFIC COMMENT to this
thread, merely an endless stream of aggravated incompetent
remarks. Get off this thread.
=====================================
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 wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 06:48:58 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 1 May, 23:22, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:35:05 -0700 (PDT),Roger Pearse

wrote:
On 1 May, 20:18, "John Smith" wrote:
"Physics" has discovered nothing!
One, lonely old, psychotic, moron has bellowed crap - whch he pretends is
actually science.
Come; if he were really lonely, old and psychotic, surely the least we
could do is give him good language? If only out of kindness?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
[Hammond]
Look, Roger.... being polite to hecklers is for amateurs,
I'm not an amateur.
Hecklers are in general incorrigible psychotic
personalities, a personality trait that typically lasts for
decades if not a lifetime. So, don't feed hecklers unless
you are intent on merely practicing your typing or
something. They have NO intention of saying anything on
topic or constructive, their SOLE intent is to destroy the
reputation of their (political) opponant.
[Roger Pearse]
Perhaps so. I tend to presume people are not heckling until it proves
otherwise. (Then I slap them around, of course)

[Hammond]
And by the way, the same goes for atheists, so if you
happen to be an atheist, please tell me up front before I
waste time talking to you.
Politely, George Hammond

[Roger Pearse]
No, I'm not an atheist, and I know too well the sort of atheist poster
that you refer to. You can't drop a pebble in alt.atheism without
meeting one. No, I was merely interested in the details of fact about
Christian origins.
All the best,
Roger Pearse


[Hammond]
There are about 400 posts to the full version of this
thread , (the full thread can only be viewed in
sci.physics.relativity.) 400 posts is near a record in the
Physics newsgroups.
The explanation for this is that the title of the thread:
RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRONCIPLE
immediately suggests to the (scientific) reader, that YES a
scientific proof of God has been found! To a scientist, the
title has immediate face validity!

No stringing together random words suggests immediate hilarity
to be found within.

How many of the posts were from people agreeing with you?

Meanwhile, the 400 posts for the most part are infuriated
anti religious hecklers driven berserk by the prospect of
the emergence of the world's first scientific proof of God
and it's obvious impact on the (largly academic) Secular
Humanism bandwagon in academia. Richard Dawkins' stellar
publishing days for instance are apparently numbered.
=====================================
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 1 May, 16:35, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearse wrote:
On 29 Apr, 08:19, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.
These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament. *

The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. *The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.

Luke and John were written in Turkey 100-200 years after Matthew and
Mark so that is not quite correct.

Um, if Matthew was written ca. 80 AD, then you are saying Luke and
John were written between 180 AD and 280 AD? This is absurd. There
are shed-loads of quotations from them both before those dates. There
are commentaries on them from 200 AD! There's even a bit of a
physical manuscript dated to ca. 125 AD.

But I don't quite see what this wild stuff has to do with my comment.

I heard this story about the bible and the council some years ago and
got suspicious. *It sounded wrong, based on what I knew ofTertullian
and the ante-Nicene fathers. *So I went out and hunted down all the
primary sources on the council. *You can consult them he

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

I also looked in Metzger on the Canon of the NT, just to check I
hadn't missed any.

The council also voted as to whether women were humans. *

What a curious idea; impossible for any Christian council to do such a
thing. *Someone is pulling your leg, my friend.

This is an interesting assumption. *Why would you insult them to suggest
this? *...

Come, this won't do. You know very well why this claim about the
Council is made -- it's an appeal to contemporary societal values and
is intended as a smear. Either produce evidence for your claim or
retract it, hey?

The point of the council was to try to unify the various christian sects

No, I'm afraid it was not. *Christianity was not split into sects at
that date. *Rather it was to decide whether the Second person of the
Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First person, or
of like substance; and to reach an agreed date on which to celebrate
Easter.

No, there were some severe differences.

Evidence?

And the sects still do not agree on the date for easter for example.

Which 'sects' did not agree on this? Name them.

The reality is that Christians in the East and West, who were all in
communion with each other, did not celebrate it at the same time, for
historical reasons. That is one reason why they wanted to get together
and work out an agreement. There was no quarrel between the bishops
of Rome and Alexandria on this; they just didn't have an agreed way to
do it.

They also decided to not include other groups texts such as the
gosphel of thomas. *Someone
had to go through and select among the texts from various groups
and then edit them to make them somewhat more consistent.

Well, I'm going to have to be blunt. Please now produce an ancient
text which supports this claim or retract it. :-)

Seriously, all this is bunk. I have given you a link to all the
ancient texts that refer in any way to the council of Nicaea. None of
them contain the above story.

... and so it accepted the texts from various ones even though there
are terrible discrepancies between them.

This sounds like a confused memory of the fact that the last few books
(2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation) were not geographically
spread over the same areas, and harmonisation gradually happened after
the church became legal when it was easier to hold councils.

Matthew for instance, is the jewish book ... (snip)

None of the assertions snipped appear relevant to my comment, tho.

All this probably has no direct relevance on your thread, but don't we
all want to have the right raw *data*? *I know that I do. *I hope that
helps.

You are correct that it has no relevance and that George has no clue
about the connection he is trying to draw with his word salad between
science and religion.

I have no opinion on George's theory (I can't take any interest in
such things), but it sounds a bit odd.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

On Fri, 02 May 2008 11:28:46 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:



SNIP RANT


[Hammond]
You claim to be a physicist but refuse to post your CV,
your real name, or any verification.
From the low intellectual quality of your posts I
conclude you are a fraudulent crackpot with possibly a
charity degree in some lamebrain applied Science field, at
best.
You have not posted ONE SCIENTIFIC COMMENT to this
thread, merely an endless stream of aggravated incompetent
remarks. Get off this thread.
=====================================
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 Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:11 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
wrote:

On 1 May, 16:35, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearse wrote:
On 29 Apr, 08:19, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
("4-demigods") Matt, Mark, Luke and John.
These last four are the books chosen by the council ofNicea
to be in the New Testament. *

The Council of Nicaea did not determine the content of scripture. *The
4 gospels are considered canonical by all the ante-Nicene fathers,
right back as far as it goes.

Luke and John were written in Turkey 100-200 years after Matthew and
Mark so that is not quite correct.

Um, if Matthew was written ca. 80 AD, then you are saying Luke and
John were written between 180 AD and 280 AD? This is absurd. There
are shed-loads of quotations from them both before those dates. There
are commentaries on them from 200 AD! There's even a bit of a
physical manuscript dated to ca. 125 AD.

But I don't quite see what this wild stuff has to do with my comment.

I heard this story about the bible and the council some years ago and
got suspicious. *It sounded wrong, based on what I knew ofTertullian
and the ante-Nicene fathers. *So I went out and hunted down all the
primary sources on the council. *You can consult them he

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

I also looked in Metzger on the Canon of the NT, just to check I
hadn't missed any.

The council also voted as to whether women were humans. *

What a curious idea; impossible for any Christian council to do such a
thing. *Someone is pulling your leg, my friend.

This is an interesting assumption. *Why would you insult them to suggest
this? *...

Come, this won't do. You know very well why this claim about the
Council is made -- it's an appeal to contemporary societal values and
is intended as a smear. Either produce evidence for your claim or
retract it, hey?

The point of the council was to try to unify the various christian sects

No, I'm afraid it was not. *Christianity was not split into sects at
that date. *Rather it was to decide whether the Second person of the
Trinity was of the same substance (homoousios) as the First person, or
of like substance; and to reach an agreed date on which to celebrate
Easter.

No, there were some severe differences.

Evidence?

And the sects still do not agree on the date for easter for example.

Which 'sects' did not agree on this? Name them.

The reality is that Christians in the East and West, who were all in
communion with each other, did not celebrate it at the same time, for
historical reasons. That is one reason why they wanted to get together
and work out an agreement. There was no quarrel between the bishops
of Rome and Alexandria on this; they just didn't have an agreed way to
do it.

They also decided to not include other groups texts such as the
gosphel of thomas. *Someone
had to go through and select among the texts from various groups
and then edit them to make them somewhat more consistent.

Well, I'm going to have to be blunt. Please now produce an ancient
text which supports this claim or retract it. :-)

Seriously, all this is bunk. I have given you a link to all the
ancient texts that refer in any way to the council of Nicaea. None of
them contain the above story.

... and so it accepted the texts from various ones even though there
are terrible discrepancies between them.

This sounds like a confused memory of the fact that the last few books
(2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation) were not geographically
spread over the same areas, and harmonisation gradually happened after
the church became legal when it was easier to hold councils.

Matthew for instance, is the jewish book ... (snip)

None of the assertions snipped appear relevant to my comment, tho.

All this probably has no direct relevance on your thread, but don't we
all want to have the right raw *data*? *I know that I do. *I hope that
helps.

You are correct that it has no relevance and that George has no clue
about the connection he is trying to draw with his word salad between
science and religion.

I have no opinion on George's theory (I can't take any interest in
such things), but it sounds a bit odd.

All the best,

Roger Pearse


[Hammond]
Caution Roger, Doug claims he's a "Physics PhD",
however, the low intellectual, and decidedly non-scientific
content of his posts indicates that he is an applied physics
technician at best, and OBVIOUSLY is an aggravated and
snooty anti-religious heckler.
Again, my long experience with this type of personality
shows them to be utterly INCORRIGIBLE and resistant to any
logical or factual argument.
The fact that he is unable to read and comprehebnd the
S.P.O.G. which has been peer published and copy posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proo...ammond5s1.html
demonstrates theat he is NOT competent in graduate level
physics.... in fact, lacking any verification of his
credentials or even his real name, odds are that he is in
fact a CRACKPOT and a COMPLETELY FAKE and an IMPOSTER.
=====================================
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 28 Apr, 01:06, Uncle Al wrote:
George Hammond wrote:

[snip crap]

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
*Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): *ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge

* *1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of
skill.
* *2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in
others.
* *3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their
inadequacy.

No doubt. But I must say (as a pretty uninterested bystander) that
this seems to fulfil George's definition of 'mindless heckling' to a
tee. At all events it doesn't tell me anything useful; only that you
don't like what George has to say.

Surely, if a rational response can be made, why not put one together
on a web page, perhaps as an FAQ, and just link to it each time it
seems necessary.

Not that I care either way; my interest is limited to patristics.

All the best,

Roger Pearse