Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.com)
Date: 10/26/04 

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:28:00 +0000 (UTC)

"stew dean" <stewart@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.0410251125.74a3462f@posting.google.com...
> "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
news:<4bSdnU87e6XRf-HcRVn-1Q@comcast.com>...
> > "TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> > news:WtmdnXDwA-G-huHcRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
> > > stew dean wrote:
> > > > "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<E9OdnSnV7KYH7ubcRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
> > > >
> > > >>"TMG" <TMG@Nowhere.org> wrote in message
> > > >>news:SMOdnbvJlNIXo-bcRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > > >>[Hammond]
> > > >>If you crosspost to a moderated group the post will NOT appear
> > > >>on the other unmoderated NG's.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not true. As this post deomonstrates.
> > >
> > > I was also going to remind [Hammond] of his own personal experience a
> > > few months ago; which I helped him unravel. He was complaining about
not
> > > being able to post to talk.origins. He'd crosspost to many groups, and
> > > all of the posts except talk.origins would get through. Rather than
> > > figure it out on his own, he just complained about it. I pointed out
> > > that talk.origins (despite my initial opinion) was a moderated group,
> > > with an automated (bot) moderation logic consisting of a single rule -
> > > no more than 3 crossposts in the header. He was including more than
> > > that, and talk.origins was dumping it (from t.o only - it showed up
> > > everywhere else).
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Not true... if t.o. rejected it it never appeared anywhere. this is a
fact
> > of life... if you cosspost to a moderated NG and the post is rejected,
> > it WILL NOT appear on the other unmoderated NG's.
> > So if you crosspost to alt.sci.relativity-god.moderated and I reject
> > it, it will NOT appear anywhere else.
>
> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. It sounds unlikely but
> possible. Can anyone confirm / deny this.

[Hammond]
Sure I can confirm it... but that's something for me to know
and you to find out.

>
> >
> >
> > > > In other words if you can't win an argument ignore all those who
> > > > disagree with you - problem solved.
>
> > >
> > > Yes - that is exactly the case. He tried it with his other newsgroup,
> > > but was quickly overwhelmed by reason and logic - just like here. He's
> > > been intellectually flogged out in the open for so long, that he's
> > > taking his spog and going home.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > alt.sci.proof-of-god is over run with spam... 90% of the posts are
> > advertisements for penis enlargement and illegal cable t.v. boxes.
> > Moderation is a must, not only to get rid of you graffitti artists,
> > but to block commercial spam also.
>
> You've changed the subject. Talk Origins is moderated but not for
> content, it avoids spam via it's limiting of cross posting (an
> ingenious and very effective solution that also cuts down on
> 'broadcasters' as well - those who proclaim but don't want to listen
> or debate).

[Hammond]
The subject here IS my proposed moderated NG... not
talk origins.

>
> What you are doing is moderate for content by preventing those who
> disagree with you from posting.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If he ever gets it off the ground, he'll sit in his own little corner
of
> > > Usenet mumbling to himself. This will lead to a lack of attention he
> > > seems to require, and he'll need to come back.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Naw.... not believable.
>
> I dunno - sounds about righ to me.
>
> > I will be able to carry on new research...
>
> How about finishing your first research? So far your first paper has
> not been finished - it has lots of errors and holes from the reviews
> it's received - and your second is based upon the findings of the
> first.

[Hammond]
Unsupported assertion only supported by other net-kooks with
no qualifications.

>
>
>
> > post email from luminaries without fear of them getting heckled...
>
> By 'heckled' you mean critisised.

[Hammond]
No I mean heckled.

>
> >attract serious posters...
>
> You have attraced several here but you won't take anyone who disagrees
> with you seriously.

[Hammond]
No serious scientist would post in this environment. They're all
on moderated NG's like s.p.r. where harassment is prevented.

>
>
> > present my work w/o having it buried in 1,500
> > kook one liner posts..
> > like this thread for instance. there will be
> > plenty of people reading it... and after awhile serious posters will
> > figure out they can post there and not get insulted.
>
> I am not insulting you - am attacking your argumets. I wish you no
> harm and am not your enemy.
>
> For your ideas to be accepted you need to be able to convince people
> in the public forum - such as the members of talk.origins. Most of the
> folks here are intelligent if overly skeptical at times. This group is
> not moderated for content so a bit of mud slinging is par of the
> course - the key is not to take it personaly but to stick to your guns
> and argue you point without resorting to rhetoric.

[Hammond]
  I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that "amateurs" are not
capable of discussing a (real) scientific proof of God because it scares
the *** out of them so much they become hysterical and begin insulting
the author of it. Therefore, to coin a new rule of thumb, "do not try
to discuss a real scientific proof of God in an unmoderated newsgroup".
Not that anyone will need that rule .. since all proofs of God I've
heard about outside of SPoG are hopeless theories... other than
ID which is legitimate, but can't be proved without SPoG,
as a matter of fact. ID doesn't drive anyone to hysteria as SPoG
does, because it is easy to see that ID couldn't be rigorously proved
for centuries by modern scientific methods no matter how hard you
tried. It's as "non-controversial" as trying to prove there is life
on another planet somewhere in the Universe... statistically there
probably is... but it isn't going to be proved anytime soon... and
therefore no one is going to get hysterical about it. The SPoG
is something else, it is a FAIT ACCOMPLI that has already clearly
been proved.... handily and easily in fact.... which is enough
to drive uncertain and over-wary amateurs into hysterics, and
certainly enough to cause line professional scientists to "duck and
cover" which is what they are doing right now. After all, their
careers and reputations are more important to them than "saving
the world". By the same token, I'm obviously the designated
hitter since my career is expendable. You're looking at the longest
end run since Calvary, and in this time it is "Modern Science"
that is running and not Israel. It also appears this time that instead
2000 years of detante called "Christianity", an unconditional victory
is in the offing.

> If you post in your own group your audience will be much smaller and
> you'll never build up the critical mass you need to drive acceptance.
> That's if your ideas are right. You also need to get out of newsgroups
> and in contact with real people (you have attempted this with Dembski
> - good step - but bear in mind my prediction for his responce).

[Hammond]
   No... there will be no contact with "real people" until after
the rumor of the discovery of a "real SPoG" becomes so large
that "real people" (i.e. authorities) won't feel like they are going
out on a limb by discussing it.
   Since the peer reviewed literature is contreolled by these people
who don't wish to be singled out in any way.... the INTERNET
is the ideal medium for the announcement (advent actually) of
the world's first true scientific proof of God. Ideal because nobody
owns it, nobody controls it... nobody even fully knows what it is
or where it is going.... what could be more ideal as a medium
to generate the first major religious miracle in 2004 years... especially
since it is a techno-scientific miracle. Think about it; the Net is the
world's first major communication medium since the grapevine
that is not controlled by the establishment, that is literally "operated
by God" when it comes right down to it.

>
> Stew Dean
>

====================================
   SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
        1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
        2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
     new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================

Quantcast