X-Ftn-To: George Hammond 

George Hammond  wrote:
>> George Hammond  wrote:
>> >WRONG, SHEAR TAUTOLOGICAL NONSENSE ON YOUR PART, probably because
>> >you have no scientific credentials.
>> 
>> True, I have no official scientific credentials. But, since you used
>> this several times as your main argument, this probably means that you
>> have exhausted all your arguments and that you admit to be wrong.
>
>[Hammond]
>Wrong. No one has proven ANYTHING I've said to be wrong, least of
>all you.

Actually, I proved you wrong on all counts except those vectors of
yours; this was the only place where I had no knowledge of the
subject. On all other points, well, people who are laughing at you
right now could tell you more.

>> But, you can't use it to replace the arguments, i.e. "you don't have
>> any scientific credentials, which means that your objections are
>> invalid". This is a known logical fallacy.
>
>[Hammond]
>In your opinion, since you're the one without the credentials.

And who told you that credentials guarantee competence, and that their
absence means incompetence? You supposedly have some credentials, and
you are a total moron. So much for the diploma.

>> >the SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD, is just that, SCIENTIFIC and
>> >has NOTHING to do with "philosophy"... pleqse do not bore us with
>> >any more of you "philosophy tripe".
>> 
>> So, go ahead and explain why a degree in scientific disciplines is
>> called PhD, or, "philosophiae doctor".
>
>[hammond]
>i don't have a Ph.D. therefore I'm not a "philosophy doctor".

Of course you don't have, but there are people who do. The academic
title of a doctor of physics is "doctor philosophiae naturalis". So,
physics is regarded as a philosophical discipline oriented towards the
study of the physical nature.

> And, you could also explain why
>> physics is academically known as "philosophia naturalis". You must
>> have found something about this in the LoC that you read. :) I,
>> however, am supposed to be academically ignorant, so teach me. :)
>
>[Hammond]
>You can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk.  

Wow, this is such a powerful argument that it struck me down as a
thunderbolt from heaven. ;>

>there is
>no way you can "judge' a scientific theory because you are NOT
>a scientist, 

Well, you are wrong. Yoga is a science, a very serious science. The
ease with which I pulverized you here shows how serious. I just don't
use any titles; mine would probably be in Sanskrit or Tibetan, not in
Latin, but it would be very long and pompous, so I don't want it; the
titles are useful only for hiding personal incompetence behind them,
and that's why they're mostly used by the likes of you. 

>even though this obviously enrages your ego... 

:)) Oh yes, I had an idiot for breakfast, that really pissed me off.
:)

>that's
>your problem.  Furthermore you're an aggravated nut who isn't
>really interested in anything but "philosophy dept. arguments"

Actually, I'm interested only in personal experience, but I'm very
good at philosophical debates, because my experience enables me to
grasp the philosophical and theological concepts with ease, and play
with them as if they were lego cubes. I'm also very good at
pinpointing the weak spots in stupid theories.

>You certainly have NO INTEREST in trying to understand the SPOG... 

Exactly. It is a piece of shit and of no interest to me. But, exposing
you was a good exercise.

>it simply ENRAGES you that someone has found one.

Oh, I'm so enraged that I have to pee in the tub because my hands
shake too much to hold my dick straight, I'd miss the toilet. 

>Same goes for all the other half baked phonys on the Internet.
>Tough shit.

Yeah, constipation is a bitch. :)

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org