On Thu, 01 May 2008 21:24:54 -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 Thu, 01 May 2008 21:27:53 -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 Thu, 01 May 2008 21:29:44 -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
=====================================

none wrote:

George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 01 May 2008 19:18:38 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:29:12 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse
[Hammond]
In all fairness, what you have stated is prevailing
wisdom as of 2008 ad.
However, unbeknownst to either you or the Religious
community, in fact Physics has discovered (and published)
the world's first scientific proof of God (Hammond 2003).

[John Smith, antiSPOG heckler]
"Physics" has discovered nothing!
One, lonely old, psychotic, moron has bellowed crap - whch he pretends
is actually science.


[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.
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.


Why are you talking to him?


--
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.
--
The best way to handle spams is to ignore them. But if you must reply to
them, you should at least set the followup-to header to something other
than your own newsgroup.

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!
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.


--
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
=====================================

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 May 2008 19:24:11 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 01 May 2008 06:44:37 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

[John Smith, antiSPOG critic]
Were such scientific proof "discovered", I would be as interested in it
as
anyone else.


[Hammond]
The discovery is now a "political" issue. What your
"interest" is, depends on your political situation.



[John Smith, antiSPOG heckler]
Once again, empty claims, based on psychotic delusions, mean nothing.
Your crap is rejected because it has no relationshiop to either physics,
science or reality - NOT because of politics!

[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion.

OK .. I forgot to add ..... your claim of "politics" is nothing more than an
unsupported assertion.





[John Smith, antiSPOG critic]
Science would no nothing more, were a REAL "proof of god" discovered, than
add "god" to their base of facts and acceptable theories.


[Hammond]
Na, scientists are aggravated atheists, therefore they
will use every trick in the book, such as egging on
mentally disturbed Usenet hecklers like you, to suppress the
discovery and continue their unrestrained immoral
explaoitation of science and technology.

Not only an unsupported assertion, but a blatant lie.
A higher percentage of scientists are religious believers rather than
atheists.





[Hammond]
We can be sure the Christians and Jews will be glad about
it. Whether the Moslems will be happy about it is
problematical since an American Christian has discovered the
proof, not a Moslem. Atheistic Communists of course will be
sorely stung by the development, however, as Gorbachev said,
"Russia is a Christian country" and I certainly agree.
Chinese Communism however is going to have to accept the
idea that "God" is now a scientific reality to be tought in
their public schools as a scientific subject.....
suprisingly, the Chinese Communists may have less trouble
with this than the American public school system where
"seperation of Church and state" will indubitably attempt to
trumph Science education.

Whew ..... as someone else said ... be careful, George,


[Hammond]
I don't have to be careful, unlike you, I'm not a
notorious heckler.

You're nothing more than a psycho troll!

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 May 2008 19:18:38 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:29:12 -0700 (PDT), Roger Pearse

[Hammond]
In all fairness, what you have stated is prevailing
wisdom as of 2008 ad.
However, unbeknownst to either you or the Religious
community, in fact Physics has discovered (and published)
the world's first scientific proof of God (Hammond 2003).


[John Smith, antiSPOG heckler]
"Physics" has discovered nothing!
One, lonely old, psychotic, moron has bellowed crap - whch he pretends is
actually science.


[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.

Show evidence that the articles have drawn the attention you claim.
Merely bellowing (as you usually do, then treating your own bellowing as a
fact - doesn't work!

Hundreds of time that (number of hits) occur on porno sites every month.
Show ANY evidence that ANY ONE of these hits result is someone supporting
your S.P.O.Crap!


Same psycho claims that have been blown to pieces every time you try to use
them as reality.
You're priorities have only one basis - your deranged egomania.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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.

There's that famous egomania again!

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!

Get your LONG waders on ..... the egomaniacal bull **** is REALLY flowing
hard!

"Michael Moroney" wrote in message
...
George Hammond writes:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:44:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

Since anyone who is certified as having two graduate
degrees in Physics obviously knows what the scientific
method is, your post is nothing but atheistic heckling. Get
off this thread. My CV is a matter of public record and has
been posted many times on this thread and is conspicously
posted on my website.

So why are you completely unable to use it or even explain it?

Obviously my certified credentials prove that I can.

So why don't you? Or better yet, why didn't you? Any real
scientist would have done so from the beginning automatically, and
if you did, and if what you claim is true, your work would be in peer
reviewed journals and you'd be famous. But no, you're just bellowing
on usenet where everyone can laugh at your foolishness.

remember, my certified public record credentials PROVE that
i know what the scientific method is

Maybe "knew", not know. You probably haven't used the scientific method
or even thought of it for the last 40 years. You certainly didn't use
it for your SPOG crap.

In one of my first responses to George - I did some research into VALID
scientific journals to see who he was.
I found two "George Hammond"s listed - and asked which one he was. He never
answered.

I can only assume that George NEVER ONCE wrote for ANY VALID scientific
journal.

George bellows about his CVs .... but when pressed about the actual JOBS he
had - he, again, ignores the topic.

I've worked at Westinghouse Research and Development Center, near
Pittsburgh.
Those in our department (Optical physics) who did NOT have a Ph.D. were
little more than lab assistants.
They do no scientific inquiry of their own, and only aided in the lab work
of another scientist.

I did that - and I only had a two year electronics degree.

One must wonder, then, how high up the "scientific ladder" George really got
after school:
Lab assistant.
Lipstick case designer?
Janitor at a college?
"You want fries with that"?



I don't have to answer heckling atheistic jerks with no
credentials in science. There is no reason to!

If you ever want your work to appear in a peer reviewed journal, you'd
better start working on applying the scientific method to your work!
Just think, George. Some college kid could be sitting here, quietly
taking notes, reading your website, and then *he* could apply the
scientific method to *your* ideas, change it a little, and if it works
out, then *he* could get "his" work published in peer reviewed journals,
and *he* will get all the credit and become famous, because *he* did
all the hard work! But don't worry, George, that will never happen,
because as we all know, the SPOG is crap, and there's no college kid
out there that's that dumb.

Why
not apply it to your so-called "research" into SPOG?

I have of course, as judged by it's publication in 2 peer
reviewed academic journals.

What experiments have you performed, that other scientists can also
perform, that would prove or disprove your work? The answer is NONE!
No experiments, no scientific method, no peer review, no "proof".

No scientist would ever hope to get their work published in
a peer-reviewed publication without showing use of the scientific
method.

and since I HAVE published it in TWO peer reviewed
publications, that proves you are WRONG.

No you haven't.

I hope those vanity journals didn't rip you off, err, I mean charge you
too much for their pretend "peer review".

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 May 2008 22:45:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 18:44:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

Since anyone who is certified as having two graduate
degrees in Physics obviously knows what the scientific
method is, your post is nothing but atheistic heckling. Get
off this thread. My CV is a matter of public record and has
been posted many times on this thread and is conspicously
posted on my website.

So why are you completely unable to use it or even explain it?

[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION

Obviously my certified credentials prove that I can.

So why don't you? Or better yet, why didn't you? Any real


[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION


scientist would have done so from the beginning automatically, and
if you did, and if what you claim is true, your work would be in peer
reviewed journals and you'd be famous. But no, you're just bellowing
on usenet where everyone can laugh at your foolishness.



[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION


remember, my certified public record credentials PROVE that
i know what the scientific method is

Maybe "knew", not know. You probably haven't used the scientific method
or even thought of it for the last 40 years. You certainly didn't use
it for your SPOG crap.



[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION


I don't have to answer heckling atheistic jerks with no
credentials in science. There is no reason to!

If you ever want your work to appear in a peer reviewed journal, you'd
better start working on applying the scientific method to your work!
Just think, George. Some college kid could be sitting here, quietly
taking notes, reading your website, and then *he* could apply the
scientific method to *your* ideas, change it a little, and if it works
out, then *he* could get "his" work published in peer reviewed journals,
and *he* will get all the credit and become famous, because *he* did
all the hard work! But don't worry, George, that will never happen,
because as we all know, the SPOG is crap, and there's no college kid
out there that's that dumb.



[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION


Why
not apply it to your so-called "research" into SPOG?

I have of course, as judged by it's publication in 2 peer
reviewed academic journals.

What experiments have you performed, that other scientists can also
perform, that would prove or disprove your work? The answer is NONE!
No experiments, no scientific method, no peer review, no "proof".


[Hammond]
All the necessary experiments have alreaqdy been performed,
confirmed and published in 10,000 experiments over 40 years
and ALL cited in my published papers.


No scientist would ever hope to get their work published in
a peer-reviewed publication without showing use of the scientific
method.

and since I HAVE published it in TWO peer reviewed
publications, that proves you are WRONG.

No you haven't.

[Hammond]
Yes I have:
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


I hope those vanity journals didn't rip you off, err, I mean charge you
too much for their pretend "peer review".


[Hammond]
Peer reviewed academic journals are not vanity press and
do not "charge anything" for peer review or publication.

And those two supermarket tabloids have nothing to do with REAL peer
reviewed journals.