Prev: Serpent Mound. Ohio. Part 2.
Next: Wave function of macroscopic objects
From: oriel36 on 13 Jun 2010 01:57
On Jun 13, 12:48 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
> ----... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... ---
> The Brave would say, "Yo, Fat Gerald Kelleher aka "oriel36"
> <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com>: "Long time no talk", but insteadFat Gerald wrote:
>
> [snip subject related conversations to hear the barks of Oriel36]
>
> Fat Gerald wrote:
>
> Well, if it isn't Hanson, and what the hell is it with this 'aha' business -
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ... ahahahahaha.. it's the heavenly endorphins of which you sadly
> have none, which is why you live in your angry private hell... ahaha.
>
> Fat Gerald wrote:
>
> I remember you when you used to sit at the [great scientists'] feet
> of 'Old Man' [DoD, Livermore] and Franz Heymann [CERN]http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.physics/msg/1d37268ebb277d6a?hl=en
> All that chatter about a 'universal rest frame' and none of you can
> spot the horror of it all, not even Isaac did as he built orbital
> dynamics around Flamsteed's equatorial coordinate system,
> you can even see it if you like -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI
> The geocentric astronomers and even St Augustine expressed enormous
> reservations about that observation while today they celebrate this
> observation in the 'no center/no circumference' ideology of 'big bang'
> "Some of the brethren raise a question concerning the motion of
> heaven, whether it is fixed or moved. If it is moved, they say, how is
> it a firmament? If it stands still, how do these stars which are held
> fixed in it go round from east to west, the more northerly performing
> shorter circuits near the pole, so that the heaven (if there is
> another pole unknown to us) may seem to revolve upon some axis, or (if
> there is no other pole) may be thought to move as a discus? To these
> men I reply that it would require many subtle and profound reasonings
> to find out which of these things is actually so;" St Augustine
> Thereupon you will see-- through the intellect..that the world and its
> motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as
> a wheel in a wheel and
> a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
> nowhere. . . " Archbishop Cusa  16th century
>
> 'Old man' talked in that thread of 'big bang' being the greatest story
> ever told and he may have been right for all the wrong reasons for
> that 'no center/no circumference' ideology represents a complete lack
> of interpretation and if your 'aha' laugh is one of insanity to which
> your participation in the newsgroups have brought you,then you have
> plenty of company.
>
> What you have is a comic strip endeavor taking the name of science
> and it is a shocking injustice.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA... Fat Gerald listen,
> 1) what is the short sense of your long story which has nothing to
>      do with AGW?... unless it means "Aggravated Gerald Whines"
> 2) Gerald, did you ever sell your "Missing 1 second" after you
>      claimed, vociferously, that you found it. Did anybody care?
>
> Never mind, your tripe was really funny. I am sorry that those
> most interesting conversations between Profs. Heymann,
> Old Man Jako Epke and hanson were beyond your horizon....
> So, thanks for the laughs, fat Gerald... Talk to you later.
> Take care! ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson

Let me guess,you think you are better and stand apart from the people
you consider to be sheep but ultimately you all belong to Isaac,all
that fuss about whether Einstein is right or wrong deflects from the
fact that mathematicians never understood their own empirical system
and merely incorporated Isaac into the comic strip science that he
started and so it remains to this day.

If you want to know where you stand for all the intellectual huffing
and puffing,there is a guy running around the newsgroups who thinks he
sees a skull in coal strata and then jumps to a conclusion that 'man
is old as coal',the astronomical version is that you lot see stellar
circumpolar motion and then jump to the conclusion that it proves
daily rotation is constant when it does no such thing.What you are
left with is a 'no center/no circumference' ideology that you call the
'standard model' but is really a logical end to Flamsteed's really big
dumb stupid conclusion -

Thereupon you will see-- through the intellect..that the world and its
motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as
a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Archbishop Cusa 16th century

If that sounds very close to 'big bang' ideology then welcome to
intellectual oblivion,it took 3 centuries to arrive there from
Flamsteed through Newton

Maybe somebody should tell you that the 'aha' thing doesn't work but I
guess when that is all you have left to stand apart,you are entitled
to an attempt to escape mediocrity.

From: hanson on 13 Jun 2010 11:22
----... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... ---
------- AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA -------
>
Father Fat Gerald aka "oriel36" <kelleher.gerald(a)gmail.com>
took to his pulpit, delivered a hail & brimstone sermon & wrote:
[edit for clarity]
>
Fatha Fat Gerald wrote:
Well, if it isn't Hanson, and what the hell is it with this 'aha' business -
>
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahahaha.. it's the heavenly endorphins of which you sadly
have none, which is why you live in your angry private hell... ahaha.
>
Fatha Fat Gerald wrote:
I remember you when you used to sit at the [great scientists'] feet
of 'Old Man' [DoD, Livermore] and Franz Heymann
[CERN]http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.physics/msg/1d37268ebb277d6a?hl=en
[snip 1st part of Fatha Fat Gerald's Medieval semi funny sermon, that
was ] ... "All chatter about nothing" ...
>
hanson wrote:
AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA... Fat Gerald listen,
1) what is the short sense of your long story which has nothing to
do with AGW?... unless it means "Aggravated Gerald Whines"
2) Gerald, did you ever sell your "Missing 1 second" after you
claimed, vociferously, that you found it. Did anybody care?
>
Never mind, Fatha, your tripe was really funny. I am sorry that
those most interesting conversations between Profs. Heymann,
Old Man Jako Epke and hanson were beyond your horizon....
So, thanks for the laughs, fat Gerald... Talk to you later. Take
care! ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson
>
Undeterred, Fatha Fat Gerald continued, opined and wrote:
Let me guess, you think you are better and stand apart from the
people you consider to be sheep
>
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA... Fatha Fat Gerald listen,....
That only seems to you to be this way because your lack of
heavenly endorphins.. Pity... ahahaha...
>
Fatha Fat Gerald continued, opined and wrote:
but ultimately you all belong to Isaac, all that fuss about whether
Einstein is right or wrong deflects from the fact that mathematicians
never understood their own empirical system and merely incorporated
Isaac into the comic strip science that he started and so it remains
to this day.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... Fatha Fat Gerald, listen. It was my considered
opinion that Isaac Newton is what you perceived him to be.
I merely discussed with my 2 esteemed colleagues that they
were endangering themselves by Einstein Dingleberryism.
But that subtlety apparently has escaped your attention or
worse, your realization, because of your sorry lack of heavenly
endorphins. Pity.
>
Undeterred Fatha Fat Gerald continued, opined and wrote:
If you want to know where you stand for all the intellectual huffing
and puffing, ... you will see-- through the intellect..that the world
will appear as wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere --
having its center and circumference nowhere. . .
>

hanson wrote:
but Fatha Fat Gerald, what is so new about your borrowed
expression from your Fatha Superieur Cusa Nostra?... ahahaha..
It is old hat which shows that you, repeating the same, are very
jealously crying, alone, in your intellectual desert.... ahahahaha....
>
Undeterred Fatha Fat Gerald continued, opined and wrote:
Maybe somebody should tell you that the 'aha' thing doesn't work
but I guess when that is all you have left to stand apart, you are
entitled to an attempt to escape mediocrity.
>
hanson wrote:
.... of course Fatha Fat Gerald that 'aha' does not work for you,
because, like I said twice, to you, already... "it's the heavenly
endorphins of which you sadly have none, which is why you live
in your angry private hell... Pity. Bad Scene for you, Fatha Fat
Gerald... But remember, hanson still loves yahahahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Gerald.... ahahahahanson
>
PS:
Editor's note:..
Professor Father Kelleher,... hanson has just left the building.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: bert on 13 Jun 2010 11:59
On Jun 13, 11:22 am, "hanson" <han...(a)quick.net> wrote:
> ----... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... ---
> ------- AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA -------
>
> Father Fat Gerald  aka "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com>
> took to his pulpit, delivered a hail & brimstone sermon & wrote:
> [edit for clarity]
>
> Fatha Fat Gerald wrote:
>
> Well, if it isn't Hanson, and what the hell is it with this 'aha' business -
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ... ahahahahaha.. it's the heavenly endorphins of which you sadly
> have none, which is why you live in your angry private hell... ahaha.
>
> Fatha Fat Gerald wrote:
>
> I remember you when you used to sit at the [great scientists'] feet
> of 'Old Man' [DoD, Livermore] and Franz Heymann
> [CERN]http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.physics/msg/1d37268ebb277d6a?hl=en
> [snip 1st part of Fatha Fat Gerald's Medieval semi funny sermon, that
> was ] ... "All chatter about nothing" ...
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA... Fat Gerald listen,
> 1) what is the short sense of your long story which has nothing to
> do with AGW?... unless it means "Aggravated Gerald Whines"
> 2) Gerald, did you ever sell your "Missing 1 second" after you
> claimed, vociferously, that you found it. Did anybody care?
>
> Never mind, Fatha, your tripe was really funny. I am sorry that
> those most interesting conversations between Profs. Heymann,
> Old Man Jako Epke and hanson were beyond your horizon....
> So, thanks for the laughs, fat Gerald... Talk to you later. Take
> care! ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson
>
> Undeterred, Fatha Fat Gerald continued, opined  and wrote:
> Let me guess, you think you are better and stand apart from the
> people you consider to be sheep
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA... Fatha Fat Gerald listen,....
> That only seems to you to be this way because your lack of
> heavenly endorphins.. Pity... ahahaha...
>
> Fatha Fat Gerald continued, opined  and wrote:
>  but ultimately you all belong to Isaac, all that fuss about whether
> Einstein is right or wrong deflects from the fact that mathematicians
> never understood their own empirical system and merely incorporated
> Isaac into the comic strip science that he started and so it remains
> to this day.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ahahahaha... Fatha Fat Gerald, listen.  It was my considered
> opinion that Isaac Newton is what you perceived him to be.
> I merely discussed with my 2 esteemed colleagues that they
> were endangering themselves by Einstein Dingleberryism.
> But that subtlety apparently has escaped your attention or
> worse, your realization, because of your sorry lack of heavenly
> endorphins. Pity.
>
> Undeterred Fatha Fat Gerald continued, opined  and wrote:
> If you want to know where you stand for all the intellectual huffing
> and puffing, ... you will see-- through  the intellect..that the world
> will appear as wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere --
> having its center and circumference nowhere. . .
>
>
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> but Fatha Fat Gerald, what is so new about your borrowed
> expression from your Fatha Superieur Cusa Nostra?... ahahaha..
> It is old hat which shows that you, repeating the same, are very
> jealously crying, alone, in your intellectual desert.... ahahahaha....
>
> Undeterred Fatha Fat Gerald continued, opined  and wrote:
> Maybe somebody should tell you that the 'aha' thing doesn't work
> but I guess when that is all you have left to stand apart, you are
> entitled to an attempt to escape mediocrity.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ... of course Fatha Fat Gerald that 'aha' does not work for you,
>  because, like I said twice, to you, already...  "it's the heavenly
> endorphins of which you sadly have none, which is why you live
> in your angry private hell... Pity. Bad Scene for you, Fatha Fat
> Gerald... But remember, hanson still loves yahahahahaha...
> Thanks for the laughs, Gerald.... ahahahahanson
>
> PS:
> Editor's note:..
> Professor Father Kelleher,... hanson has just left the building.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net ---

Reality is Ha Ha Ha Hanson is a joke TreBert
From: Brad Guth on 13 Jun 2010 12:46
On Jun 11, 1:44 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote:
> <night...(a)home.ffni.com> wrote in message...
>
> news:0034410a-e83c-45fb-974e-d018a349fbc3(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 10, 6:01 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 4:40 pm, Leon <trot...(a)hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn t withstand
> > > scrutiny
>
> > > By Lawrence Solomon June 6, 2010 10:47 pm
>
> > > A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the
> > > University of Pennsylvania s Institute for Law and Economics has
> > > concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming
> > > proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.
>
> > > The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor
> > > and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the
> > > University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that on virtually every
> > > major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN s
> > > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work
> > > by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various
> > > rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize
> > > what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even
> > > disagreements.
>
> > > Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global
> > > warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC
> > > publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment
> > > scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited
> > > climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment
> > > does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it seems overall to
> > > comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined
> > > policy preference.
>
> > > The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-
> > > made global warming, can be found
> > > here,http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
>
> > > Financial Post
> > > LawrenceSolo...(a)nextcity.com
> > > Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe the author of
> > > The Deniers.
>
> > Forwarded to alt.astronomy
>
> > Double-A-
>
> nightbat
>
>            Thank you Commander Double A for your report and pointing
> to the sad paper which forgot to take into account the actual real
> world evidence. While this "Law Professor" Johnson takes note of the
> opposition to climate change and or global warming premise findings he
> fails to achnowledge the rising sea levels, bulk melting of ice and
> snow cover via satellite evidence, increasing mega storms, breaching
> of levees, and total rising rainfuls resulting in huge losses of life
> around the world.
>
>             keep up your good work,
>             the nightbat
>
>        $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> Let's keep in mind that there is a need for separation here.
> There are two issues here that often get lumped together
> as one issue.  There's the issue of global warming, which
> runs in cycles upon cycles upon cycles, and then there's the
> issue of whether or not global warming or cooling is caused
> by mankind, whether or not it is "manmade".
>
> The professor, i believe, is addressing the second issue.
> And whether global warming is a natural state of things or
> the result of our industrial efforts to improve our living
> standards.  I think he is saying that the present effort to
> assign blame for global climate changes to mankind is not
> being studied nor reported at the level of science, but is
> instead being compromised by the political ambitions of a
> few morally challenged idjits.
>
> And the professor does appear to be correct.
>
> happy days and...
>    starry starry nights!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine Ellsworth
>
> P.S. "In my experience, there is only one motivation,
>          and that is desire. No reasons or principle
>          contain it or stand against it."
>                                       > Jane Smiley
>                       Pulitzer Prize-winning American novelist
>
> P.P.S.:  http://www.painellsworth.net
>                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth

Long before now, your "cycles upon cycles upon cycles" should have had
us freezing our butts off.

Now that we're getting loser to Sirius, perhaps the real summertime is
going to kick in. Imagine what it was like before Sirius(B) became
that red supergiant.

~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 13 Jun 2010 12:50
On Jun 11, 9:40 am, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 1:44 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <night...(a)home.ffni.com> wrote in message...
>
> >news:0034410a-e83c-45fb-974e-d018a349fbc3(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com....
> > On Jun 10, 6:01 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 9, 4:40 pm, Leon <trot...(a)hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn t withstand
> > > > scrutiny
>
> > > > By Lawrence Solomon June 6, 2010 10:47 pm
>
> > > > A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the
> > > > University of Pennsylvania s Institute for Law and Economics has
> > > > concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming
> > > > proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.
>
> > > > The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor
> > > > and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the
> > > > University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that on virtually every
> > > > major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN s
> > > > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work
> > > > by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various
> > > > rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize
> > > > what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even
> > > > disagreements.
>
> > > > Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global
> > > > warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC
> > > > publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment
> > > > scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited
> > > > climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment
> > > > does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it seems overall to
> > > > comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined
> > > > policy preference.
>
> > > > The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-
> > > > made global warming, can be found
> > > > here,http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
>
> > > > Financial Post
> > > > LawrenceSolo...(a)nextcity.com
> > > > Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe the author of
> > > > The Deniers.
>
> > > Forwarded to alt.astronomy
>
> > > Double-A-
>
> > nightbat
>
> >            Thank you Commander Double A for your report and pointing
> > to the sad paper which forgot to take into account the actual real
> > world evidence. While this "Law Professor" Johnson takes note of the
> > opposition to climate change and or global warming premise findings he
> > fails to achnowledge the rising sea levels, bulk melting of ice and
> > snow cover via satellite evidence, increasing mega storms, breaching
> > of levees, and total rising rainfuls resulting in huge losses of life
> > around the world.
>
> >             keep up your good work,
> >             the nightbat
>
> >        $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> > Let's keep in mind that there is a need for separation here.
> > There are two issues here that often get lumped together
> > as one issue.  There's the issue of global warming, which
> > runs in cycles upon cycles upon cycles, and then there's the
> > issue of whether or not global warming or cooling is caused
> > by mankind, whether or not it is "manmade".
>
> > The professor, i believe, is addressing the second issue.
> > And whether global warming is a natural state of things or
> > the result of our industrial efforts to improve our living
> > standards.  I think he is saying that the present effort to
> > assign blame for global climate changes to mankind is not
> > being studied nor reported at the level of science, but is
> > instead being compromised by the political ambitions of a
> > few morally challenged idjits.
>
> > And the professor does appear to be correct.
>
> > happy days and...
> >    starry starry nights!
>
> > --
> > Indelibly yours,
> > Paine Ellsworth
>
> Certainly sea levels have risen a lot during the history of mankind.
> Obviously seas were a lot lower when the American Indians crossed the
> Bering land bridge from Asia into North America.  But during most of
> that time of rising seas, what it humans have to do with it?  Did over
> hunting the woolly mammoth have something to do with it?  I rather
> doubt it.  But natural cycles run their courses.
>
> Double-A

Us humans are not finished running our course of pillaging, plundering
and raping mother Earth for all she's worth, and we only recently
obtained that geologically old moon/Selene as of 12,600 some odd years
BP.

~ BG
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Serpent Mound. Ohio. Part 2.
Next: Wave function of macroscopic objects