CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Speed of Time
Next: "The Einstein Hoax"
From: Geopelia on 2 Jan 2010 06:15 "Occidental" <Occidental(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:5a280a0d-3984-4516-b04c-af045ffad84d(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > BruceS <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Geo, could you (or anyone) possibly need more evidence of the diseased >> state of Hammond's mind > > I think you go too far. Hammond does not suffer from any recognized > psychiatric condition, but inhabits the twilight zone between the > clinical and the normal. Among Usenet nutjobs he would have to be > placed at the high-functioning end of the spectrum. > >> ..than he provides on his own? I've been called >> worse, but I think this is the first time anyone called me >> "establishment". > > Wikipedia has a useful entry on the general characteristics of > crackpots (or "cranks" as it calls them)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Crank_person). Among them: > > ==================================================== > Cranks > > 1 overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that > of acknowledged experts. > > 2 seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe > that they are objecting > > 3 claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret > intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business > interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the > possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely > known > > 4 appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical > importance. > ==================================================== > > You are perceived by H to be a tool of the establishment because you > dismiss his "insights". This is simply item 3 working in reverse. > >> The amusing irony of his reference >> to "ad hominem" is just icing on the cake. > > One must ask - if Hammond is all you say he is, why are you so > preoccupied with him? I find his theory of life after death very interesting. But as nobody could come back and say what they experienced, once they have gone past the stage when they could be revived, how can we know whether he is right? (Geopelia)
From: Occidental on 2 Jan 2010 13:52 On Jan 2, 6:15 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > I find [Hammond's] theory of life after death very interesting. Have you seen the movie "The Matrix"? > But as nobody could come back and say what they experienced, once they have > gone past the stage when they could be revived, how can we know whether he > is right? We can't of course. So it is interesting in the way a fantasy is interesting, not in the way a scientific theory is interesting.
From: BruceS on 2 Jan 2010 14:58 On Dec 31 2009, 1:38 pm, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > "BruceS" <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:62ce9958-bc95-4334-bf01-b1a9934010b1(a)a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 30, 3:32 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:08:04 -0800 (PST), BruceS > > > <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On Dec 30, 5:12 am, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > >> "George Hammond" <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote in message > > ><snip lots> > > >> > [Hammond] > > >> > Sorry Geopelia, I don't volunteer ad hominem information, > > >> > especially to pseudoanonymous Usenet posters. There are > > >> > many curiosity seekers following me around but I'm a > > >> > physicist and VERY busy with important scientific matters. I > > >> > don't need a fan club nor am I interested in off topic > > >> > matters. I'm only here to discuss scientific matters, not > > >> > pass the time of day with well wishers. I'm sure you can > > >> > find someone to banter with elsewhere on Usenet. > > > >> (Geopelia) > > >> Well it's been interesting talking to you, and thanks for giving me > > >> some of > > >> your valuable time. > > > >Geo, consider how many posts Hammond makes, and how long they are. > > >Does this appear to be the occasional contribution of a busy scientist > > >trying to shed some light, or more like the constant ravings of a > > >lunatic with delusions of grandeur? > > > [Hammond] > > Screw, jackass. > > I use the latest voice dictation technology and don't > > have to lift a finger to post 1,000 words in minutes. > > Secondly, my posts are pro bono FYI scientific material > > for the benefit of suffering people being abused by fascist > > establishment scum like you. > > Third and most importantly, posting automatically > > copyright protects original scientific discovery so that my > > work can't be plagerized. Get outta here jackass, you got > > nothing to say except fascist ad hominem spute. > > ======================================== > > GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE > > Primary sitehttp://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond > > Mirror site > >http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com > > HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto > >http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 > > ======================================= > > Geo, could you (or anyone) possibly need more evidence of the diseased > state of Hammond's mind than he provides on his own? I've been called > worse, but I think this is the first time anyone called me > "establishment". I'm all tingly. The amusing irony of his reference > to "ad hominem" is just icing on the cake. > I wonder why his state-of-the-art voice recognition software doesn't > do a better job of spelling. I expect spelling errors when I type, > but would be disappointed in software that misspelled for me. > > ---------- > > I've wondered about his spelling sometimes, especially 'w ' here and there > where I wouldn't expect it. > So it's his voice program. > But what someone has to say is more important than how he spells it. > > I make plenty of typos (sometimes very funny) but the spell checker gets rid > of them if I don't spot them. > Geopelia Yes, typos are to be expected when one types (unless one is very careful). I was pointing out how unlikely it is that Hammond is using voice recognition software. I've written a lot of software, and don't believe any good (esp. state-of-the-art) software would create spelling errors. That was just a lie on his part to cover his lie that he is very busy. If he were as busy and important as he claims, he wouldn't have time to post so much. He responds that he can do so quickly because he has great software to post for him. Hmm, so posting time for him is mainly typing, very little spent thinking? That explains a lot. However, if that had not been just another lie on his part, his software would not have created the spelling errors. The truth is that Hammond is a mentally damaged person with no meaningful work to take up his time, so he spends it spewing inanity and venom on Usenet and pretending to be important. He's a kook, and not a very imaginative or intelligent one.
From: BruceS on 2 Jan 2010 15:07 On Jan 1, 9:21 pm, Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > BruceS <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Geo, could you (or anyone) possibly need more evidence of the diseased > > state of Hammond's mind > > I think you go too far. Hammond does not suffer from any recognized > psychiatric condition, but inhabits the twilight zone between the > clinical and the normal. Among Usenet nutjobs he would have to be > placed at the high-functioning end of the spectrum. You may be right. The truth is, I haven't spent much time reading his stuff. Everything I have seen from him points to a deeply damaged and barely functioning mind, but maybe I'm missing posts where he demonstrates some value, or at least some ability to function in society. > > ..than he provides on his own? I've been called > > worse, but I think this is the first time anyone called me > > "establishment". > > Wikipedia has a useful entry on the general characteristics of > crackpots (or "cranks" as it calls them)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > Crank_person). Among them: > > ==================================================== > Cranks > > 1 overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that > of acknowledged experts. > > 2 seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe > that they are objecting > > 3 claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret > intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business > interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the > possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely > known > > 4 appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical > importance. > ==================================================== > > You are perceived by H to be a tool of the establishment because you > dismiss his "insights". This is simply item 3 working in reverse. Interesting. Thanks for bringing that one up. I don't know how anyone like me could suppress ideas that anyone else posts on Usenet, but a deranged person could well be investing me with abilities I lack. > > The amusing irony of his reference > > to "ad hominem" is just icing on the cake. > > One must ask - if Hammond is all you say he is, why are you so > preoccupied with him? Hah! Well, I have to say that I'm not preoccupied with him, or with his fellow travelers. At times, I find his ilk amusing, and I play along a bit, but mostly I ignore them. I'm much more likely to read and post when someone I respect seems to be interacting with one of them. Otherwise, I just don't have the time. Not that I'm doing anything "important"---I'm just too busy with unimportant things. When I have time for rom, I start by looking for threads with interesting subjects, then move on to threads including interesting posters. I'd list a few names, but wouldn't want to swell anyone's head, or hurt someone's feelings by inadvertently leaving him out. When I'm done with those two activities, it's usually time to move on to non-rom stuff.
From: " SNIP HECKLER>" on 2 Jan 2010 16:01
X-No-Archive: Yes On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:07:56 -0800 |