God=G_uv Emergency Message to Stew Dean

[George Hammond, moderator]

<snip>
[Hammond]
Sorry Stew...

<snip usual mix of arrogance and insults>

So, from now on my posts will be "read only"

I don't believe that. You can't help but respond just as you couldn't
stay out of this newsgroup. What you want to do is spam the group but
not take responsibility for your posts. mode. This is what generally
happens when people cannot defend their ideas (again I point you to the
behavior of Ed Conrad who resorted to bad poetry much like you resorted
to reversing people's posts).

I'm going to ignore the usual sting of meaningless and unfounded
vitriol and repost what I feel is the essence of your argument..

<repost>

First I understand exactly what you are saying. I even have a good idea
why you are saying it. In a nut shell you are saying.

- Objective reality is the product of human perception
- Therefore objective reality is human perceived reality.
- God is the difference between our perception and our potential
perception.

The rest is just variations of the theme and explanations why there is
a gap between our perception and our potential, most of which are
factually incorrect.

So god is not something - but the difference between two things?

</repost>

I suspect you cannot answer this because it doesn't even make sense to
you.

Stew Dean

[Hammond]
Dear Stew:
First of all, D.I.Greig moderator of t.o. [Waxjob] after listening
to my local yocal stalker TMG has started blocking my posts on
t.o. That is no great loss of course because there only
uneducated nitwits on t.o. to begin with. Your email address
is a phony of course so I can't contact you by email, so
hopefully you will see this message or someone will notify
you of it by reposting it to t.o. which I guess is the only
group you follow.
Your statements above of course once again underscore
the amateur naivete of your understanding of SPOG.
At any rate, you can contact me on sci.physics.relativity
or on my own moderated group
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated. The submission
address their is spog_submit(notspam)@hotmail.com
(remove (notspam) to submit message).
Your comment that "So god is not something - but the
difference between two things?" does not make sense, since
the difference between two things is in fact "something".
As I have told you over and over again, the "ungrown
brain" is a REAL, MATERIAL, BIOLOGICAL
ENTITY. Think of the brain as a loaf of bread and the
growth process as allowing the bread to "rise". A partially
grown brain then is "less than fully raised loaf of bread".
The "raised part" causes our normal everyday conscious
mind, but the unraised dough is STILL THERE... and in the
case of the brain it causes the so called "unconscious
mind".... which is called by the theologians: "God".
What my discovery proves is that the DIFFERENCE
between conscious reality and unconscious reality is
caused by a CURVATURE (G_uv) is actually seen
reality... i.e. seen reality is a CURVED version of
actual reality, and this is caused by the fact that the
loaf of bread called the BRAIN is not "fully grown"
or "fully raised" if you will.
After all...don't be stupid.... how could the phenomena of
God which is the central perceptual phenomena of the world
be caused by "nothing"... don't be stupid... life is
too short..

I did a google search to find out where you post, and
added a few other groups in the hope that this message
will reach you now that [Waxjob] and has apparently
started blocking my posts on talk.origins where you hang
out. I guess he got p.o.'ed after I dubbed him [Waxjob}
after he started calling me [Whackjob].
====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================

[Dave]

Post by George Hammond, moderator

<snip>
[Hammond]
Sorry Stew...

<snip usual mix of arrogance and insults>

So, from now on my posts will be "read only"

don't you mean 'write only'? kind of like 'write only' memory, you will
stuff bits into a message and then never see that they are received. so you
will never know how many times you are called an idiot? or how few times
because everyone is ignoring you??

[George Hammond]

Post by Dave

Post by George Hammond, moderator

<snip>
[Hammond]
Sorry Stew...

<snip usual mix of arrogance and insults>

So, from now on my posts will be "read only"

don't you mean 'write only'? kind of like 'write only' memory, you will
stuff bits into a message and then never see that they are received. so you
will never know how many times you are called an idiot? or how few times
because everyone is ignoring you??

[Hammond]
(READ ONLY MESSAGE)
Well... newspapers don't need readers to write to them
to know how many people are reading them, or what
the readers think... they know from long experience
the answer to both questions. Same with me and my
posts.... I know how many people are reading them
and what they think (from long experience).
After all, these are called "newsgroups" are they not?
I'm not saying people CAN'T post to them, I'm just
announcing in advance I'm not going to bother to answer
them because they're basically unqualified to talk to
me... sort of the same attitude Rupert Murdoch has.
This message, is in fact, part of that announcement...
it is not a reply to you personally.
However, if someone were actually to say something
on-topic and interesting, I might reply... however
judging from my years of experience and familiarity
with the ilk of Usenet posters sui generis, the likelihood
of that is practically zero.
What it means is that I will no longer respond to
sight seers, amateurs, hecklers, stalkers, off topic posts,
line professional science prigs, et. cetera, et cetera.

====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================

[TMG]

George Hammond wrote:

- a simpering, whining, self-serving, cowardly, spineless and limp whimper.

Please feel free to stop posting all together. Saying that your posts
are "read-only" isn't true. You continue to respond. You NEED to
respond. We all respond - so since the mocking continues, it isn't
"read-only".

And I thought english was your first language.

Hmmmm....to respond,...or not respond.

[George Hammond]

Post by TMG
- a simpering, whining, self-serving, cowardly, spineless and limp whimper.
Please feel free to stop posting all together. Saying that your posts
are "read-only" isn't true. You continue to respond. You NEED to
respond. We all respond - so since the mocking continues, it isn't
"read-only".
And I thought english was your first language.
Hmmmm....to respond,...or not respond.

[Hammond]
1. Right now, I think you are the ONLY person still
talking to me on Usenet.

2 In addition I notice of the 1,000+ people who have
responded to me in the past 5 years you are
practically the ONLY responder who has a PhD
in science.... if one were to consider seismology a
"basic science".

3. Your responses are almost entirely heckling ad
hominem comments.


What kind of conclusions should we draw from that?

====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================

[TMG]

George Hammond wrote:


<snip>

[Hammond]
1. Right now, I think you are the ONLY person still
talking to me on Usenet.

Congratulations. I think you're wrong (on several levels), but that
doesn't mean you're a bad person. I never thought you were a bad person
- just misdirected.

2 In addition I notice of the 1,000+ people who have
responded to me in the past 5 years you are
practically the ONLY responder who has a PhD
in science.... if one were to consider seismology a
"basic science".

Geophysics - specifically "Oceanography - Applied Ocean Physics &
Engineering" - at least that what it says on the sheepskin. Given that
MIT is notoriously "wiggly" about this sort of thing - if you want to
include "seismology", don't let me stop you.

However, if you link seismology and applied ocean physics you might
stumble across something of interest to coastal SE Asia.

Don't be quite so dismissive.

And other PhDs have responded - in many different fields. They all are
of the same opinion.

3. Your responses are almost entirely heckling ad
hominem comments.

No, most of my comments are corrections of factual mistakes in your posts.

What kind of conclusions should we draw from that?

That your posts contain a lot of factual mistakes. And, most other
readers don't think you're worth the time to respond.

[George Hammond]

<snip>

[Hammond]
1. Right now, I think you are the ONLY person still
talking to me on Usenet.

Congratulations. I think you're wrong (on several levels), but that
doesn't mean you're a bad person. I never thought you were a bad person
- just misdirected.

2 In addition I notice of the 1,000+ people who have
responded to me in the past 5 years you are
practically the ONLY responder who has a PhD
in science.... if one were to consider seismology a
"basic science".

Geophysics - specifically "Oceanography - Applied Ocean Physics &
Engineering" - at least that what it says on the sheepskin. Given that
MIT is notoriously "wiggly" about this sort of thing - if you want to
include "seismology", don't let me stop you.
However, if you link seismology and applied ocean physics you might
stumble across something of interest to coastal SE Asia.
Don't be quite so dismissive.
And other PhDs have responded - in many different fields. They all are
of the same opinion.

3. Your responses are almost entirely heckling ad
hominem comments.

No, most of my comments are corrections of factual mistakes in your posts.

What kind of conclusions should we draw from that?

That your posts contain a lot of factual mistakes. And, most other
readers don't think you're worth the time to respond.

[Hammond]
You don't know what you're talking about.... stick to Oceanography
where you belong.

[TMG]

[Hammond]
You don't know what you're talking about.... stick to Oceanography
where you belong.

OK - I'll monitor your and the SPOGs progress from the sidelines. I'll
still kibitz, but given your coming stellar success, I'm sure you won't
mind.