On Sat, 3 May 2008 20:45:23 +0200, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
wrote:


? "Richard Anacker" ?????? ??? ??????
...
Sers George et all

George Hammond schrieb:

SNIP AGGRAVATED ATHEISM RANT

..[Tzortzakakis Dimitrios]
Sprichst Du deutsch?


[Hammond]
Nein, ich verstehen ein wenig.

[Tzortzakakis Dimitrios]
Bist Du neu hier? Sei auf diese Person nicht boese, er
muss behandelt werden:-)


[Hammond]
For the love of God Torzak.....if you have anything
constructive structive to say please find an interpreter and
post it to 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 Sat, 3 May 2008 21:13:25 +0200, Richard Anacker
wrote:

Sers Tzortzakakis et all

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios schrieb:

Sprichst Du deutsch?

Nahezu perfekt ;-)

Bist Du neu hier?

Neu wohl nicht direkt, ich hatte das zweifelhafte Vergnügen mit George
schon vor einigen Monaten - ich finde, er betreibt seine Narretei mit
erstaunlicher Vehemenz :-)

Sei auf diese Person nicht boese, er
muss behandelt werden:-)

Nein, ich bin sicher nicht böse auf ihn, er tut sich eben schwer in
sozialem Verhalten

greets
richie



[Hammond]
Rich, if this guy Torzak has anything ON TOPIC to say
worth hearing, paraphrase it in English and post it so we
can see it. On the other hand, if it's just crap, forget
about 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
=====================================

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 May 2008 18:51:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

"John Smith" writes:

"Michael Moroney" wrote in message
...

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.

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"?

Excellent point. Hammond's CV stops cold when he flunked out of the PhD
program in the 1960s, other than his so-called "publications". He is near
retirement age now. He should have a long illustrious physics related
career under his belt. Where is it?


[Hammond]
Off topic ad hominem commentary. the biographical
history of Hammond beyond my CV is irrelevant to this
discussion. Screw stalker.

It is relevant. Your dance around answering the question makes "do you want
fries with that" more and more likely.
Still speaking of yourself in the third person makes psychotic mentality
more and more likely.
Inventing outrageously unscientific lies and assertions makes the validity
of your CLAIMED education more and more unlikely
(I still like the one that concluded that an 18 year old would have an I.Q.
of 1800).

"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY?" .... IS the top question asked by ANY employer
or person seeking the qualifications of another person;
NOT what you did 40 years ago!

Were your mind based in reality, and honestly, you would know that!

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

On Thu, 1 May 2008 22:45:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

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".

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.

Unsupported assertion!
There were NO experiments perormed.
Please, disprove that and show some!!!!!!



This is a perfect example of your lack of understanding of the Scientific
Method. All experiments and so forth before you create your hypothesis
are part of the creation of the initial hypothesis, which is the very
first step. Later on, once you device a working hypothesis, YOU create an
experiment that when performed, will have a definite outcome if your
hypothesis is true and a different outcome if it is false. If someone
else derives the experiments, then they should get the credit for the
work, not you. Then YOU (or people working with you) do the experiments.
Again, if others do that work, they get the credit. Depending on the
outcome you then go back and modify the hypothesis, derive the new
experiments and perform them until your hypothesis is either a publishable
theory or discarded as false.

"George Hammond" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 3 May 2008 19:10:04 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 22:45:40 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

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".

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.

This is a perfect example of your lack of understanding of the Scientific
Method. All experiments and so forth before you create your hypothesis
are part of the creation of the initial hypothesis, which is the very
first step. Later on, once you device a working hypothesis, YOU create an
experiment that when performed, will have a definite outcome if your
hypothesis is true and a different outcome if it is false. If someone
else derives the experiments, then they should get the credit for the
work, not you. Then YOU (or people working with you) do the experiments.
Again, if others do that work, they get the credit. Depending on the
outcome you then go back and modify the hypothesis, derive the new
experiments and perform them until your hypothesis is either a publishable
theory or discarded as false.


[Hammond]
Screw pedant. Dalton's published thesis that historical
data PROVED his thesis that:

"All of chemistry was explained by
atoms combining to form molecules
because integral moles of reagents
were (historically) always combined
in chemical experiments"

was accepted as a PRIMA FACIE proven theory the day he
published it.... he didin't have to repeat the experiments,
they were WELL KNOWN to everybody.
Same with the SPOG, jerk.

Unsupported assertion!

WHAT EXPERIMENTS?
Just because one "CASE" happens by one particular method, does NOT mean
yours gets the same treatment.

ALL the things you assert that should be taken for granted - are nothing
more than your own previous piles of crap!
You cannot use your old crap to validate your new crap.

Were you a REAL scientist, you would know that!

George Hammond wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2008 18:51:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

"John Smith" writes:

"Michael Moroney" wrote in message
...
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.
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"?
Excellent point. Hammond's CV stops cold when he flunked out of the PhD
program in the 1960s, other than his so-called "publications". He is near
retirement age now. He should have a long illustrious physics related
career under his belt. Where is it?


[Hammond]
Off topic ad hominem commentary. the biographical
history of Hammond beyond my CV is irrelevant to this
discussion. Screw stalker.

So you are saying that the only important thing is that
you failed graduate school?


=====================================
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 Sat, 03 May 2008 20:55:19 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:




[Hammond]
Screw pedant. Dalton's published thesis that historical
data PROVED his thesis that:

"All of chemistry was explained by
atoms combining to form molecules
because integral moles of reagents
were (historically) always combined
in chemical experiments"

was accepted as a PRIMA FACIE proven theory the day he
published it.... he didin't have to repeat the experiments,
they were WELL KNOWN to everybody.
Same with the SPOG, jerk.


[John Smith, irate S.P.O.G. critic]
Unsupported assertion!
WHAT EXPERIMENTS?
Just because one "CASE" happens by one particular method, does NOT mean
yours gets the same treatment.


[Hammond]
Whaddumean "one case"? The annals of Scence are littered
with such cases of "race ipso" discoveries. For instance:

Dalton, Law of Chemical Combination
Einstein, Gravity=Curvature of spacetime.
Newton, Inverse square law.
Mendel, binomial inheritance, A+B=A+2AB+B
Copernicus, Heliocentric System
Pauling, Chemical orbital bonding
Lise Meitner, Nuclear fission.
AND MANY OTHERS

All of these historic discoveries were HISTORIC
THEORETICAL DISCOVERIES based on and PROVEN the day they
were published; by EXISTING published experimental data.
The same is true of the S.P.O.G. All of the existing
data which proves the S.P.O.G. is clearly cited in the
bibliography of my peer published papers:

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

=====================================
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 Sat, 03 May 2008 20:51:39 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:



Unsupported assertion!
There were NO experiments perormed.
Please, disprove that and show some!!!!!!


[Hammond]
LIAR. Here's a list of the Psychmetric experiments taken
from the bibliography opf my 1994 peer published paper
(Pergam Press), you don't know what you're talking about,
and you are a LIAR:

REFERENCE

ADORNO, T.W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWICK, E., LEVINSON, D.J., &
SANFORD, R.N.
(1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (1987, 1994), Diagnostic
and
Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders. DSM-III-R and DSM-IV. Washington
D.C.: APA
BRAND, C.R. (1981). Personality and political attitudes. In:
Dimensions of
Personality, Richard Lynn (Ed.). London: Pergamon Press
BRAND, C.R. (1995) Dimensionalizing personality: The "Big
5", the "Gigantic 3"
and the "Capacious 6". Manuscript in preparation
CARROLL, J.B. (1953). An analytical solution for
approximating simple
structure
in factor analysis. Psychometrika, Vol. 18, pp. 23-38
CLARIDGE, G. (1985). Origins of Mental Illness. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell
CLARIDGE, G. (1986). Eysenck's Contribution to the
Psychology of Personality,
Consensus & Controversy: Papers in Honor of Hans Eysenck,
Modgil & Modgil
(eds), .......
COSTA, P.T., & McCRAE R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality
Inventory Manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources
COSTA P.T., McCRAE R.R. & DYE D.A. (1991), Facet Scales for
Agreeableness
and
Conscientiousness: A Revision of the NEO Personality
Inventory, Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol. 12, No. 9, pp. 887-898
COSTA P.T. & McCRAE R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality
inventory (NEO
PI-RTM)
and NEO Five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.
Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources
COSTA P.T. & McCRAE R.R. (1992a), Four Ways Five Factors are
Basic,
Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol.13, No.6, pp. 653-665
DE RAAD, B. &, HOFSTEE W.K.B. (1993). A circumplex approach
to the five factor
model: A facet structure of trait adjectives supplemented by
trait verbs.
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 15, No. 5,
493-505
DIGMAN, J.M. (1990). Personality structu Emergence of the
Five-Factor
model.
Annual Revue of Psychology, 41, 417-440
EYSENCK, H.J. (1940). Some factors in the appreciation of
poetry, and their
relation to temperamental qualities. Character and
Personality, 9, 160-167
EYSENCK H.J. (1944a), General Social Attitudes, Journal of
Social Psychology,
19, 207-227
EYSENCK, H.J. (1944b). Types of personality- a factorial
study of 700
neurotics.
Journal of Mental Science, 90, 851-861
EYSENCK H.J. (1947), Dimensions of Personality. London,
U.K.: Routledge
EYSENCK, H.J. (1950). Clyclothymia-schizothymia as a
dimension of personality.
I. Historical review. Journal of Personality, 19, 123-153
EYSENCK H.J. (1952), The Scientific Study of Personality,
Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London
EYSENCK H.J. (1954), The Psychology of Politics, London,
U.K.: Routledge
EYSENCK, H.J. (1955). A dynamic theory of anxiety and
hysteria, Journal of
Mental Science, 101, 28-51
EYSENCK, H.J. (1964). Principles and methods of personality
description,
classification and diagnosis. British Journal of Psychology,
55, 3, 285-294
EYSENCK H.J. (1967), The Biological Basis of Personality.
Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas
EYSENCK, H.J. (1970), The Structure of Human
Personality,(3rd ed.), Methuen,
London
EYSENCK, H.J. (1970b). A dimensional system of
psychodiagnostics. In:A.R.
Mahrer
(Ed.), New Approaches to Personality Classification. New
York: Columbia
University Press
EYSENCK, H.J. (1971), Social Attitudes and Social Class,
Brit. J. Soc. Clin.
Psychol., 10, 201-212
EYSENCK H.J. (1976), The Measurement of Personality,
Lancaster
EYSENCK, H.J. (1987). The definition of personality
disorders and the criteria
appropriate for their descriptions. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 1, 211-
219
EYSENCK H.J. (1991), Dimensions of Personality: 16, 5 or 3?-
Criteria for a
Taxonomic Paradigm, Person. Individ. Diff., Vol. 12, No. 8,
773-790
EYSENCK H.J. (1992), Four Ways Five Factors Are Not Basic,
Personality &
Individual Differences, Vol. 13, No. 6, 667-673
EYSENCK, H.J. (1992b). The definition and measurement of
Psychoticism.
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 13, 7, 757-785
EYSENCK, H.J. (1993), Comment on Goldberg, American
Psychologist, December
1993,
p. 1299
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK M.W. (1985), Personality and
individual differences: A
natural science approach. New York, Plenum
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK S.B.G. (1969), Personality Structure
& Measurement,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
EYSENCK H.J. & EYSENCK S.B.G (1976), Psychoticism as a
Dimension of
Personality.
London: Hodder & Stoughton
EYSENCK H.J. & WILSON G.D. (1978), The Psychological Basis
of Ideology,
University Park Press, Baltimore
FERGUSON G.A. (1954), The concept of parsimony in factor
analysis.
Psychometrika, vol. 19, pp. 281-290
FERGUSON L.W. (1939), Primary Social Attitudes, J.
Psychology, 8, 217-223
FERGUSON L.W. (1973), Primary Social Attitudes of the 1960s
and Those of the
1930s, Psychological Reports, 33,655-664
FRANCIS, L.J. (1993). The dual nature of the Eysenckian
Neuroticism scales: A
question of sex differences? Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol 15,
1, 43-59

GOLDBERG, L.R. (1981), Language and Individual Differences:
The Search for
Universals in Personality Lexicons, In L. Wheeler (Ed.),
Review of Persoality
and Social Psychology, Vol.2, pp. 141-165, Beverly Hills CA:
Sage
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1990), An Alternative "Description of
Personality": The
Big-Five
Factor Structure, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 1216-1229
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1992), The Development of markers for the
Big-Five factor
structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, pp. 26-42
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1993), The Structure of Phenotypic
Personality Traits,
American
Psychologist,48, 26-34
GORSUCH, R.L. (1983), Factor Analysis, London: Erlbaum
GRAY J.A. (1970), The Psychophysiological Basis of
Introversion-Extroversion,
Behav. Res. Ther., 8, 249-266
GRAY J.A. (1972), The Psychophysiological Basis of
Introversion-Extraversion:
A Modification of Eysenck's Theory, In: Nebylitsyn V.D.,
Gray J.A. (eds.),
The Biological Basis of Individual Behavior, pp. 185-205,
The Academic Press,
New York
GRAY J.A. (1981), A Critique of Eysenck's Theory of
Personality, In: Eysenck
H.J. (ed.), A Model for Personality, Springer, New York
GRAY J.A. (1982), The Neuropsychology of Anxiety, An Enquiry
Into the
Functions
of the Septohippocampal System, Oxford University Press, New
York
GRAY J.A. (1987a), The Psychology of Fear and Stress, second
edition,
Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England
GRAY J.A. (1987b), The Neuropsychology of Emotion and
Personality, In: S.M.
Stahl, S.D. Iverson & E.C. Goodman (eds.), Cognitive
Neurochemistry, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, England
GRAY J.A. (1987c), Perspectives on Anxiety and Impulsivity:
A Commentary,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 21, 493-509
GRAY J.A. (1988), Behavioral and Neural-System Analyses of
the Action of
Anxiolytic Drugs, Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior, Vol.
29, 767-769
GRAY J.A. (1991a), Neural Systems, Emotion and Personality,
In: John Madden IV
(ed.), Neurobiology of Learning, Emotion and Affect, Raven
Press
GRAY J.A. (1991b), The Neuropsychology of Temperament, In:
J. Strelau & A.
Angleitner (eds.), Explorations in Temperament, Plenum Press
GRAY J.A. et al. (1991c), The Neuropsychology of
Schizophrenia, Behavioral and
Brain Science, Vol. 14, 1-84
HAMMOND, G.E. (1988). The Origin of the Cross. Self
published, ISBN
0-940915-02-
2 LC 87-80586
HAMMOND, G.E. (1994). The Cartesian Theory: Unification of
Eysenck and Gray,
New
Ideas in Psychology,Vol. 12, 2, 153-167
HARMAN, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis (3rd ed.),
Chicago: University of
Chicago Press
HENDRICKSON A.E. & WHITE P.O. (1964), PROMAX: A quick method
for
rotation to
oblique simple structure. British Journal of Statistical
Psychology, vol. 17,
pp. 65-70
HEYMANS G. (1929), Inleiding in de speciale psychologie
[Introduction into
special psychology]. Haarlem, Bohn
HOFSTEE, W.K.B., De RAAD, B., & GOLDBERG L.R. (1992).
Integration of the Big-
Five and Circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal
of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63, 146-163
HOFSTEE W.K.B. (1994a), The Abridged Big Five Circumplex
(AB5C) Model of
Trait
Structu Heymans' Cube, Kiesler's Circle and Peabody and
Goldberg's Double
Cone Model, Revue europeenne de Psychologie Applique, 1st
trimestre, vol. 44,
No. 1, pp. 27-33
HORST, P.A. (1941), A non-graphical method for transforming
an arbitrary
factor
matrix into a simple structure matrix, Psychometrika, vol.
6, pp. 79-99
JOHN O.P. (1990), The "Big Five" Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions
of Personality in
the Natural Language and Questionnaires, In: L. Pervin
(ed.), Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research, 66-100, Guilford, New York
JOHNSON, J.A. &, OSTENDORF, F. (1993). Clarification of the
five-factor model
with the abridged big five dimensional circumplex. Journal
of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 65, No. 3, 563-576
KAISER, H.F. (1958). The Varimax criterion for analytic
rotation in factor
analysis. Psychometrika, vol. 23(3), pp. 187-200
KASS, F., SKODOL, A., CHARLES, E., SPITZER, R.L., &
WILLIAMS, J.B.W.
(1985).
Scaled ratings of DSM-III personality disorders. American
Journal of
Psychiatry, 142, 627-630
KRAEPELIN, E. (1897). Psychiatrie (6th Edn). Leipzig: Barth
KRETSCHMER, E. (1946). Medizinische Psychologie. Leipzig:
Thieme
KRETSCHMER, E. (1948). Korperbau und Charakter. Berlin:
Springer
KRUG S.E. & JOHNS E.F. (1986), A Large Scale
Cross-Validation of Second-Order
Personality Structure Defined by the 16PF, Psychological
Reports, 59, 683-693
LEARY, T. (1957). Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality.
New York: Ronald
Press
MERENDA P.F. (1987), Toward a Four-Factor Theory of
Temperament and/or
Personality, Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(3),
367-374
MERENDA P.F. (1989), Four-factor models of personality and
Walter Clarke's
Activity Vector Analysis. Tenth Clarke Memorial Lecture,
Bryant College,
Providence RI, November 30, 1989. (Available from Peter F.
Merenda)
MERENDA P.F. & CLARKE W.V. (1959), Factor analysis of a
measure of social
self.
Psychological Reports, 5, pp. 597-605
MODGIL, S. &, MODGIL, C. (1986). Hans Eysenck, Consensus and
Controversy.
Philidelphia: Falmer Press
NEUHAUS J.O. & WRIGLEY C. (1954), The Quartimax method: an
analytical
approach
to orthogonal simple structure. British Journal of
Statistical Psychology,
vol. 7, pp. 81-91
NORMAN, W.T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of
personality attributes:
replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality
ratings. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583
O'BOYLE, M., & HOLZER, C. (1992). DSM-III-R personality
disorders and
Eysenck's
personality dimensions. Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 13, No.
10, 1157-1159
PEABODY, D. (1970). Evaluative and descriptive aspects in
personality
perception: A reappraisal. Journal of personality and social
psychology,
1970, Vol.16, 4, 639-646
PEABODY, D. (1984). Personality dimensions through trait
inferences. Journal
of
personality and social psychology, Vol.46, 2, 384-403
PEABODY, D. (1987). Selecting representative trait
adjectives. Journal of
personality and social psychology, Vol.52, 1, 59-71
PEABODY, D., & GOLDBERG L.R. (1989). Some determinants of
factor structures
from
personality-trait descriptors. Journal of personality and
social psychology,
Vol.57, 3, 552-567
RAY J. (1986), Eysenck on social attitudes: An historical
critique, In S.
Modgil
& C. Modgil (Eds.), Hans Eysenck, Consensus and Controversy,
Falmer, U.K.:
Falmer Press
REICH, J.H., & THOMPSON, W.D. (1987). Differential
assortment of DSM-III
personality disorder clusters in three populations. British
Journal of
Psychiatry, 150, 471-475
SAUCIER, G., & GOLDBERG, L.R. (1994 in press). The language
of personality:
Lexical perspectives on the Five-Factor model. In: J.S.
Wiggins (Ed.),
Theoretical perspectives for the Five-Factor model. New
York: Guilford
SMITH B.D. (1988), Chapter 20, In: Nesselroade and Cattell
eds.: Handbook of
multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed.), Plenum
Press, NY NY
THURSTONE, L.L. (1933), The vectors of the mind,
Psychological Review, vol.
41(1), pp. 1-32
THURSTONE, L.L. (1947), Multiple-Factor Analysis, Chicago:
University of
Chicago
Press
TUPES, E.C., & CRYSTAL, R.E. (1961). Recurrent personality
factors based on
trait ratings (Tech. Rep. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force
Base, TX: U.S.
Air Force
WIGGINS, J.S. (1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal
behavior. In: L
Wheeler
(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 265-294).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
ZUCKERMAN M., KUHLMAN M. & CAMAC C. (1988), What Lies Beyond
E and
N? Factor
Analyses of Scales Believed to Measure Basic Dimensions of
Personality,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 96-107
ZUCKERMAN et al. (1991), Five (or Three) Robust
Questionnaire Scale Factors of
Personality Without Culture, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 12,
No. 9, 929-942
ZUCKERMAN M. (1993), A comparison of three structural models
for personality:
The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 65, No. 4, pp.
757-768

====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:

http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================

On Sat, 03 May 2008 20:49:51 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:



[John Smith, irate S.P.O.G. critic]
"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY?" .... IS the top question asked by ANY employer
or person seeking the qualifications of another person;
NOT what you did 40 years ago!



[Hammond]
Well, I got a minor traffic ticket and the judge asked me
the same question:

"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY?"

I told him I had discovered the world's first scientific
proof of God and published it in a peer reviewed scientific
journal.
They showed a copy of the paper to the Massachusetts
Department of mental Health and the result is that they put
me on SSI disability, assisted housing, full medical
coverage and Food Stamps.
I asked them what they thought of my discovery, and they
told me they didn't know what to think because they were the
only people that read 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
=====================================

On Sat, 03 May 2008 15:15:09 -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 you are a
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 off topic heckling.
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
=====================================