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

From: Art Deco (art_deco_at_127.0.0.1)
Date: 10/30/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:21:21 -0600

Dr. Flonkenstein <admin@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

> 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!

Thirded.

> > 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.

Nor am I, but I took quite a few undergraduate physics courses.

> > 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. 

--

Relevant Pages