George Hammond wrote:
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.

You are showing reading comprehension problems. Look at
the scientific comments that I presented and you responded
with bluster and insults. You do not know what a scientific
comment is. Is that why you failed out of graduate school?
It bothers you that I outrank you but that is the way it is.



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

Roger Pearse wrote:
On 3 May, 03:46, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
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
George has had his mistakes pointed out for years. He does not
want to learn from them. ...

Well, why not digest this into a web page, and just link to it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse
There is no need to summarize and post a webpage about Hammond's
work. It is so outrageously wrong (that is being kind as it is
not even close enough to be wrong) that no one who has completed
even high school can begin to believe. It is a word salad of
unrelated sentences. You notice that no one has ever agreed
with him on this "theory". Pointing out his mistakes get abuse
and rejection.
If he had facts, he would argue facts. He does not argue facts.
His next step is to try to argue education. That is why it bothers
him that he failed graduate school and I have my PhD in physics.
His next step is to try to bluster and make bald assertions.
When that does not work, he resorts to insults, threats and
capital letters. He has done nothing so he is forced to retreat
to these fallbacks when challenged.

George Hammond wrote:
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.
The last time you said this you claimed it was a famous physicist.
So is it the mental health people or a famous PhD? You are not
limiting yourself to facts so you are free to claim whatever
you want. (That does not make it true though).

People read parts of it for humor but it is too silly to read
all the way at one sitting. It gets pretty old seeing continuing
nonsense. We keep hoping that you will remember some of the
science you should have learned in school and realize that
you have proved nothing.



=====================================
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:

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

"John Smith" writes:

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?

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

YOU are the one who insists on posting your CV, usually as an unrelated
response to something (like whether you even know what the scientific
method is). YOU are the one who keeps pestering Doug to post _his_ CV to
the point of spamming this newsgroup, as if you feel the number of degrees
is a "score" and it really bugs you that he "beat" you. Since YOU brought
up your CV, YOU should expect it to be discussed, flaws and all.

If I was a hiring manager, looking for someone with the skills a MS in
Physics would have and your CV crossed my desk, it would be immediately
binned. That has nothing to do with my opinions of SPOG or your alleged
"publications" or anything like that. It has EVERYTHING to do with "What?
NO relevant work experience since leaving college? NONE? There's
something very wrong here!" Work experience is even more important than
a degree as you get older.

On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:48:43 -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
=====================================

On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:41:47 -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
=====================================

George Hammond writes:

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

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.

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

Dalton, Law of Chemical Combination

One case. Maybe.

Einstein, Gravity=Curvature of spacetime.

You completely "forgot" his infamous solar eclipse experiment where
he explicitly stated that if GR was true, you'd see the image of a star
in a specific location during the eclipse, and if GR was false, you
wouldn't.

Newton, Inverse square law.

Too far before modern science existed. Besides, certainly he made
predictions and observations.

Mendel, binomial inheritance, A+B=A+2AB+B

You forgot about Mendel's famous pea experiments?

Copernicus, Heliocentric System

Too far before modern science existed. He and others did observations
anyway.

Pauling, Chemical orbital bonding

He did experiments.

Lise Meitner, Nuclear fission.

She did experiments.

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.

Wrong.

On Sun, 4 May 2008 00:56:50 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:


[Michael Moroney, heckler]
YOU are the one who insists on posting your CV, usually as an unrelated
response to something (like whether you even know what the scientific
method is).


[Hammond]
Citing an advanced degree in Physics IS A LEGITIMATE
RESPONSEj to his question, any legitimate scientist knows
that.


[Michael Moroney, heckler]
YOU are the one who keeps pestering Doug to post _his_ CV


[Hammond]
He's the one who came on this thread bragging he was a
Physics PhD, I asked him to prove it by posting his CV......
turns out he's a fake.... which anybody could tell since
his remarks are even more stupid and non scientific than
yours.
=====================================
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 16:47:09 -0700, none ""doug\"@(none)"
wrote:

Roger Pearse wrote:
On 3 May, 03:46, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
Roger Pearsewrote:
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
George has had his mistakes pointed out for years. He does not
want to learn from them. ...

Well, why not digest this into a web page, and just link to it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse


[Doug, fake Physics PhD and heckler]
There is no need to summarize and post a webpage about Hammond's
work. It is so outrageously wrong (that is being kind as it is
not even close enough to be wrong) that no one who has completed
even high school can begin to believe. It is a word salad of
unrelated sentences.


[Hammond]
UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION
=====================================
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 Sun, 4 May 2008 01:14:50 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

George Hammond writes:

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

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.

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

Dalton, Law of Chemical Combination

One case. Maybe.

[Hammond]
That's called a "precedent" in Law. Therefore, the
S.P.O.G. is not the first "purely theoretical discovery
based on existing data" in scientific history. Fact is
there are scores of them, Guth's discovery of Inflation is
an example, Guth isn't an "experimentalist" and neither am
I. Or the Dirac equation which was accepted immediately
because it explained spin... spin was well known BEFORE
Dirac discovered the theoretical explanation for it and for
which he is world famous. Dirac never did any experiments,
and neither did I, I simply "theoretically explained the
existing phenomenon of God" which has been empirically known
and observed for millenia!. Screw dip****.
=====================================
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
=====================================