Re: Hammond Teh Moderator -> Re: Proposal- alt.sci.relativistic-god.moderated

From: TMG (TMG_at_Nowhere.org)
Date: 11/17/04 

Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:54:46 -0500

TMG wrote:
> George Hammond wrote:
>
>>"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:earle.jones-0AC349.11244430102004@netnews.comcast.net...
>>
>>
>>>In article <zeGdnY8oXuTl6B_cRVn-jg@comcast.com>,
>>>"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>*
>>>George: When your new newsgroup is established, will you stop
>>>posting to talk.origins? How about other newsgroups?
>>
>>
>>[Hammond]
>> Generally yes...
>
>
> Praise be.
>
> Remember my theory and test - and detailed potential outcomes. Your
> continued posting to anything other than spog.censored validates the theory.

The result is clear. [Hammond] persists.

>
>
>>what I mean is there may be occasional anouncements
>>or FYI posting, but I won't be replying to anyone in t.o. or carrying on
>>discussions with them in any ot the unmoderated NG's... so the "long
>>Hammond threads" are about to disappear permanently and I will confine
>>my discussion to the moderated NG.
>
>
> Now you have made a prediction similar to mine.
>
> Theory according to [Hammond] above:
>
> [Hammond] will not reply or carry on discussions in any of the
> unmoderated Newsgroups.
>
> Tests:
>
> [Hammond] posts to unmoderated Newsgroups.
>
> or
>
> [Hammond] does not post to unmoderated Newsgroups.
>
> Result Sets:
>
> [Hammond] continues to post to the unmoderated groups => Theory FALSE
>
> [Hammond] does not post to unmoderated groups => Theory TRUE.
>
> This is almost identical to the test:result sets I previously proposed
>
> This is [Hammond]'s own stated facts.
>
> Let's let the experiment run, and record the results.

This experiment didn't take all that long. It's lonely over in
spog.censored.

The statement by [Hammond] that he will not reply or carry on
discussions in any of the unmoderated Newsgroups is proved false.

Anyone betting otherwise, may now collect their money and tin foil hats.

>> Basically, 5 years of unmoderated NG discussion has taught me
>
>
> nothing
>
>
>>that there are very few people on those groups that have anything of
>>relevance
>>to say about the SPoG other than trolling it with elementary science
>>arguments.
>
>
> Yet it's the elementary science or other basic facts that always derail
> [Hammond].
>
>
>> I'm after bigger game now with this moderated NG. After all, one
>>water buffalo is equal to 1,000 rabbits foodwise.
>>
>
>
> If you get spog.censored up and running, the rest of us *might* look in
> now and the to watch you mumbelling to yourself and your sockpupppets
> (you've already listed some of them) - don't feel it's necessary to post
> anywhere else. Remember your statements above.
>

Relevant Pages