Re: An Open Letter to [Hammond]

From: bv_schornak (nowhere_at_schornak.de)
Date: 09/28/04 

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:00:08 +0000 (UTC)

George Hammond wrote:

> TMG wrote:
>
>>>>>[Hammond]
>>>>>Hold everything.... I just got an email from Prof. William A Dembski
>>>>>("WmAD")
>>>>
>>>>You agreed to post all unedited emails related to spog. Post them or be
>>>>labeled a liar (again).
>>>
>>>[Hammond]
>>>If Dembski says anything "substantive" about the SPoG I'll post it
>>>(assuming he gives me permission to). Other than that I'm not tipping
>>>my hand to the opposition peanut gallery. You guys have never
>>>cooperated with me... why should I bend over backwards to appease
>>>you?
>>
>>Because we all think you're lying. And you agreed to post it. And post
>>the scans of the hand written letters you referenced since your
>>agreement. We all think you're lying.
>
> [Hammond]
> What the hell would make you think I care whether you think
> I'm lying.

You _are_ lying about Cronklin!

> You people are not serious scientists.

You're neither serious nor a scientist. Where did you ever
_practice_ sciences to make that claim? Please provide the
references from the institute(s) you were working as full-
time scientist.

> You're just
> a bunch of internet hecklers and harassers looking for kicks.

No, [Hammond], we're looking for the _truth_ in your SPoG.
That's a huge difference!

> I don't owe you anything and have absolutely no regard
> for your so called "opinions".

_You_ want to sell _your_ SPoG, aren't you?

> You have no interest in a
> scientific proof of God and could care less....

Why should we? _You_ want to sell us _your_ stuff, not the
other way around!

> you're such idiots

And you are our "spiritual leader"?

> that you think its just an occasion for "party time".

No - _you_ told us you want a "serious discussion" and now
you have it. It seems you can't handle it anymore, it went
down the drain for you.

> I wouldn't
> trust any of you under any circumstances... ever!

The same applies to you. Why should we buy your SPoG? Your
methods to pick out matching facts and integrate them into
your "patchwork" called SPoG doesn't make you reliable, it
makes you and your SPoG suspicious...

Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

Quantcast