🚀 go-pugleaf

"George Hammond" <ghammond@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AEBB7BE.8EF89D2@mediaone.net...
> Luha wrote:
> >
> > "George Hammond" <ghammond@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3AE849AD.34F39083@mediaone.net...
> > > Jock Strap wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We have these loons of our own here on sci.physics...
> > > > theres ken broughton with his 'energy creating' heat pumps,  donald
> > shead
> > > > citizen of 'dense donnies dreamland' who cant get his head around
basic
> > > > concepts but seems to think he is on the cutting edge of physics
> > research.
> > > > best thing is to just ignore them, half the time they want you to
rise
> > to
> > > > the bait
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Ahhhh hahahhahah Ahhhh hhahahahh ROFL ahahhahaaaaa hahahh
> > > ahahhah haaa ahhhh hahahah ROFL
> > >
> > > Dear Clayton, Strap et al:
> > >
> > >   There is absolutely NOTHING you can do about this "Cape Fear"
> > > type of Robert DeNiro psychotic religious fanatic... and the fault
> > > is purely your own..... not only your own... but also LARGLY the
> > > fault of conventional establishment science itself.
> > >   You see; a rigorous hard scientific proof of God has been
> > > actually discovered (Hammond 1994, and my website URL below
> > > in my signature file).
> >
>
>
> > I decided to go to your website
>
> [Hammond]
> Good thinking.
>
Not really.  I didn't find anything resembling thinking at your website.

>  to see how wrong you could be.  The first
> > thing I noticed is your rather unusual definition for "god".
>
> [Hammond]
> Ooops.. another idiot.  i have no "definition" of God.
>
Exactly.  You have claimed to have proven something you have not defined.
Any idiot can do that.  And now one has.
>
>
>   Your god seems
> > to be technology, not the ubiquitous, omnipotent creator.  That's OK.
>
> [Hammond]
> Wrong again, naturally.
>
I took my best stab at what you were attempting to prove.  I was wrong.
Sorry.  You really have proven nothing.  You should be sorry as well.
>
> >
> > However, your postulate is flawed in that it does not pass the cause and
> > effect premise.  You state that a brain will comprehend more based on
size
> > and weight.  This makes you a phrenologist.
>
> [Hammond]
> Naturally you don't have any formal education
> or anything, do you?
>
I know enough to question my hypotheses for causality/result relationships.
Guess you skipped this class.
>
>
> The proportionately larger
> > brain can help some senses reach higher achievement.  For example, most
of
> > your brain is computing visual stimuli right now.
>
> [Hammond]
> Only in people who can't think... which of course
> is very common in the US.
>
What did you type your message on, lackwit?
>
>   If you had a 1% larger
> > brain, you may be able to see better, that's all.
>
> [Hammond]
> like the antelope said, if I was only 1% faster
> I could have gotten away from that Lion.
>
Now I see.  Talking to dead antelopes again?
>
>   Get over this leap of
> > faith (pun intended) and your hypothesis will be better.  Not correct,
just
> > better.
>
> [Hammond]
> Naturally, that's what an expert like me really needs,
> a little helpful advice from an illiterate unemployed
> 5 starred general like yourself.
>
Five star, genius, not five starred.  Then again, I'm not or ever have been
in the military.  When are you going to get tired of being wrong?
>
>
> snip
>
> > Has your paper been peer-reviewed?  My guess is that it has not.
>
> [Hammond]
> You guess wrong of course.  Try and read a little further,
> you'll come across the reference to my paper in the
> peer reviewed literature.
>
Oh, yeah, now I see it!  You published your paper which is based on anatomy,
physiology and physics in a psych journal.  Figures!>
>
>   Am I
> > right?  If you have not submitted it, you have to do this as early as
> > possible, painful as it may be.
>
> [Hammond]
> More painful than getting fucked up the
> ass in a jail cell.
>
You'll have to go into more detail later.  Much later.
>
>
> > We're quaking in our boots.
>
> [Hammond]
> Obviously
>
In fact, I can hardly type, I'm laughing so hard!  Tell me, prison queen,
why have you snipped so much of your earlier post?  A bit ashamed, no doubt.
>
> > > Point is.... he's right and your wrong... which is where his
> > > terrifying and maniacal power comes from... sinmple moral superiority.
> > > God has sent him because God is pissed off at YOU.
> > >
> > God being the 15% more brain in the skulls of affluent societies?  These
> > nephrons sent this guy?  Have you read your own theory?
>
> [Hammond]
> No... I don't jerk off either.
>
Maybe you should.
>
>
> >
> > > Ahhhh hahahhahah Ahhhh hhahahahh ROFL ahahhahaaaaa hahahh
> > > ahahhah haaa ahhhh hahahah ROFL
> > >
> > You're laughing at yourself with the rest of us?  Maybe you aren't as
insane
> > as you appear to be.
>
> [Hammond]
> If you ever happen to hear about an intelligent person,
> let me know.
>
Why bother?  Your pestering the ones you've already met is really enough!
>
>
> > > --
> > > BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE
> >
> > Did it.  Now I wish I hadn't.
>
> [Hammond]
> Don't worry about it... it won't have any affect on
> your feeble mind.... it's all over your head.
>
Oh, but you're wrong.  I didn't realize how good my thinking was until I
read your prattle.  When is your brain going to grow to compete with the
other posters on the usenet?  Does this mean we are your god?
>
>
> --
> BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
> Email:    ghammond@mediaone.net
> Website:  http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------