Re: [OT in SPR] NOMINATION - George Hammond for Usenet Kook of the Month (was: Re: Hammond Teh Moderator)

From: Dr. Flonkenstein (admin_at_localhost.localdomain)
Date: 10/30/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:45:10 +0200

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 05:15:38 +0100, Peter J Ross wrote:

> Although George's lifelong devotion to being a first-class kook can't be
> demonstrated by quoting a single post, I think this one contains all
> that's needed to support a KotM nomination:
>
> On Friday 29 October, George Hammond wrote in alt.usenet.kooks:
>
>> "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgorilla@pobox.alaska.net> wrote in
>> message news:6ab3o01pm2jqpl8cq5768231ib5qfu63b8@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:27:30 -0600, Art Deco <art_deco@127.0.0.1> wrote
>>> in alt.fan.art-bell in message
>>> <281020041927307100%art_deco@127.0.0.1>:
>>>
>>> >Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 07:22:53 -0400, "George Hammond"
>>> >> <nowhere@nomailspam.com> transparently proposed:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
>>> >> >news:PLOdnYKFLKrMuOLcRVn-jw@newedgenetworks.com...
>>> >> >> George Hammond <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >For your newsgroups file:
>>> >> >> >alt.sci.relativistic-god.moderated Relativistic theory of God
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Ah. This'll be a good group to try out the MVI for alt.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >[Hammond]
>>> >> >You have a reputation for being an expert on computer hacking and
>>> >> >the psychology of hackers.
>
> If Adam H Kerman really has such a reputation, I apologise to him for
> doubting it. Meanwhile, I'll just point out that George seems to have no
> idea who he's replying to.
>
>>> >> >I have a question:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I plan to (initially) moderate this group under Windows 98 using
>>> >> >News Express 2.01 to write my own headers and post the messages
>>> >> >received in my NG-email account. I can't write a word of "script"
>>> >> >but will learn to as it becomes necessary. Within a year I will
>>> >> >doublessly develop a more sophisticated system.
>
> Observe George's delusions about his learning abilities, and marvel!
>
>>> >> >Obviously
>>> >> >this would not work for any kind of a busy group, but initially I
>>> >> >don't expect more than a couple of posts per day, if that.
>
> What this amounts to is a statement that George wants a group where only
> he and the non-existent people who agree with him are allowed to post. Am
> I the only one reminded of Eddie Wollmann (winner of ~40 kook awards)
> here?
>
>>> >> > However, if I can do something as easy as that, what is to keep
>>> >> >hackers from simply doing the same thing by forging approval
>>> >> >headers... or from posting forged cancel messages in the same way?
>>> >> >I'm aware that an ISP would pull the plug on them if cought, but
>>> >> >that involves a lot of red tape. Why don't all moderated groups
>>> >> >have a problem with this?
>
> That's a sensible newbie question. However, it shows that George has
> thought deeply about his vanity group and really cares about it, and
> therefore constitutes evidence of kookery.
>
>>> >> > In your estimation, what kind of trouble can I run into if some
>>> >> >nut gets fixated on hacking this moderated group?
>>> >> > I realize I can cancel forged posts and repost anything
>>> >> >canceled by forged messages... but I'm not looking forward to, and
>>> >> >have no interest in electronic warfare per se. I'm a physicist
>>> >> >interested in discussing a scientific proof of God, and not
>>> >> >interested in much else.
>>> >> > Anyone having a comment, please advise.
>
> I haven't seen any evidence in sci.physics.* that anybody describes George
> as a physicist except George himself. "Nutjob", "kook" and "troll" are
> words more frequently applied to him.
>
>>> >With his "software" lined up to handle the moderation task, all he is
>>> >lacking now is a newsgroup and some people to post there. I guess the
>>> >tried-and-true solution will always work -- sockpuppets.
>>>
>>> Just what Usenet needs, another NG that gets 20 posts a year, half of
>>> which are rejected by our esteemed self-appointed moderator. Wonderful.
>
>> [Hammond]
>> Na.... I know about the problem with dead moderated NG's and I have no
>> intention of creating yet another one of them.
>
> Note that George thinks that his intentions are enough to make a group
> successful. In fact, there's no evidence that anybody wants to discuss his
> theories. Anybody who has tried to reason with him in the past has been
> dismissed as a troll.
>
>> Lack of posters is no problem. One crosspost to talk.origins, or
>> alt.talk.creationism will drown the group in posts. Yes, from 4 years
>> of experience in the unmoderated NG's I have discovered that 60-80% of
>> these posts are OT trolls, and will reject most of them.
>
> I rather get the impression that George wants to derail discussions in the
> above-mentioned groups by adding a crosspost to his vanity group and then
> moderating all the replies away. I've formed this theory because I can't
> think of any other reason why George should want to encourage crossposting
> to groups where anybody who isn't a creationist loon is certain to laugh
> at him.
>
>> The aim here is to attract high level posters who are adverse to
>> posting
>> in an unmoderated environment. It may be slow for a year or so, but my
>> dedication to the subject has passed 22 years now
>
> This claim appears to be true. George has a history of 22 years of
> pseudo-scientific kookery, and therefore can't be called a troll. He's a
> genuine kook, and deserves proper recognition on Usenet at last.
>
>> and considerable
>> interest has been shown by potential VIP posters in private email.
>
> Unlike lesser kooks, George isn't satisfied with being supported by the
> lurkers in email. The people who support George are VIPs!
>
> This statement alone would qualify George as a true Usenet kook, but
> there's more. Much, much more!
>
>> On the
>> other hand some of the Usenet regulars may take a more disciplined
>> approach in a more exclusive environment.
>> My primitive software limitations will slow things at first.... but
>> after
>> a
>> year or so I should be up to speed with posssibly a Unix system and
>> Stump semi-robo moderation. At 62 hopefully I'll be moderating this
>> group for at least 8 years and at that time someone else can take over.
>
> I wish George a long life and continued devotion to his lost cause. He
> could be the next Alexander Abian if he plays his cards right. He's a
> delightfully old-fashioned kook, whose kookery is genuinely grounded in
> Weird Science rather than in common-or-garden stupidity.
>
> Here's George's famous kooksite:
>
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/
>
> It's a good introduction to the bizarre ideas that he also posts regularly
> to Usenet.
>
> George has already once been a KotM candidate against strong competition
> without success, and has won the Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science"
> Award and the Palmjob Paddle.
>
> Any seconds?

Yep, seconded!
>
> A second from a scientist would be nice. I dropped physics in favour of
> Greek at the age of sixteen, and can't claim even an informed amateur's
> knowledge of the subject.

I'm not a physicist, but a mathematician with a broad knowledge in
physics.

>
> I've taken the liberty of adding sci.physics.relativity, since that seems
> to be the group where George is best known. If anybody there wants to
> second the nomination without continuing an off-topic thread, snecking all
> the groups but alt.usenet.kooks is acceptable. I mention this because I
> know many people would be happy if they never saw a reference to George
> "SPoG" Hammond again.
>

>
> PJR :-) 

-- 
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
Bartlo's hate lits #1: <40376AD8.C83FBF5A@enter.net>
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.
The Way of the Kook:
http://www.insurgent.org/~jhd/kookway.htm
In mid: <chqvrt$kl8$0@pita.alt.net> the hypocrite k00k Ying-a-ling reproaches
others of what he does himself in http://tinyurl.com/3cly3:
"quick to call others pedo?"

Relevant Pages