Re: GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH

From: George Hammond (research137_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/21/04


Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:40:58 GMT


"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0407201357.618f64aa@posting.google.com...
> "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<WIdLc.124357$a24.72764@attbi_s03>...
> > "Pyriform" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:40fd60a0$0$6447$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...

> > > Mike Helland wrote:

> if GOD=G_uv is a theory as you claim above, it can't be a proof,
> by definition, so pick one or the other.

[Hammond]
Different strokes for different folks Freddie. When talking
to academic prigs (reviewers for instance) I call it
a "theory". When talking to the academic line professional
pedant prigs who control academic publishing you have
to kow tow and bend normal statements into the oblique,
obfuscated, diversionary and hypocritical language of
the opposition academic establishment.
When talking to normal average people in the real world
public sphere, I call it a "proof" which is of course what
it actually IS.

> --
> Mike Helland

--
============================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
============================================


Relevant Pages

  • Re: GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
    ... to academic prigs (reviewers for instance) I call it ... to kow tow and bend normal statements into the oblique, ... SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv HAMMOND NOBEL SPEECH
    ... >Different strokes for different folks Freddie. ... >to academic prigs (reviewers for instance) I call it ... >to kow tow and bend normal statements into the oblique, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)