| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"|-|erc" |
| Date: |
09 Dec 2003 01:59:30 PM |
| Object: |
Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
Mr Ules is my other alias Herc Ules.
Searched Groups for "proof of god" author:mr author:ules from 2 Feb 2002 to 3 Feb 2002. Results
1 - 7 of 7. Search took 1.57 seconds.
Sorted by relevance Sort by date
proof of god 0202 2002
http://www.skeptics.com.au/ ***** - we are a skeptic society that test people
who claim to have paranormal ability Herc - I'd like to be tested, I have ...
rec.org.mensa - 2 Feb 2002 by Mr Ules - View Thread (1 article)
ping ***** smith, tell him proof of god and skeptics use carrot
-- ? ???) ?
uk.org.mensa - 3 Feb 2002 by Mr Ules - View Thread (1 article)
~ proof of God
-- ? ???) ?
alt.paranet.science - 3 Feb 2002 by Mr Ules - View Thread (1 article)
JAMES RANDI and AUSTRALIA SKEPTICS rrrrrr FFRRAAUUDDSS
I'VE ALLREADY SENT YOU A NOTARISED APPLICATION PROOF OF GOD 0202 2002 guy at
shop slipped in a free banana milk, ...
alt.paranet.science - 3 Feb 2002 by Mr Ules - View Thread (1 article)
i PASSED a one in a million preliminary
.... Smith, you owe me one handred grand Mr Randi, you owe me one million US EVERYONE,
saturday was 2 millenia, 2 year, 2 month, 2 day i posted proof of god in uk ...
alt.paranet.science - 3 Feb 2002 by Mr Ules - View Thread (1 article)
1000 to one would do it pope, xmen, willisee, anyone?
.... days break with jen hmmm, not one homosapien thinks i'm worth more than 100$ a week,
written 50 phds oh well, its a new dawn people, proof of god on 0202 2002 ...
alt.christnet - 2 Feb 2002 by Mr Ules - View Thread (1 article)
man silverstreak is dumb
.... your question was one in 10 trillion :( hey silverstreak , silver - 2nd proof of
god posted on 0202 2002 homosapien2 -- <^>
uk.org.mensa - 2 Feb 2002 by Mr Ules - View Thread (1 article)
--
www.StealthHostiing.com You rule Truman. http://tinyurl.com/iky4
Hey Trueman...love the show. YOU ARE the Truman I heard him. Very spooky!
Is the truman living in Townsville? I've been hearing stuff, yeah.
Webmasters help the TRUEman by joining www.theBanner.net Current:1 Goal:1000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "Peter Bowditch" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
09 Dec 2003 06:36:02 PM |
|
|
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote:
Searched Groups for "proof of god" author:mr author:ules from 2 Feb 2002 to 3 Feb 2002. Results
1 - 7 of 7. Search took 1.57 seconds.
Proof of God? Is Herc the reincarnation of George Hammond?
Where is George? I miss his witty repartee.
--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
09 Dec 2003 06:44:13 PM |
|
|
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
you're all going to prison for forging testimony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
09 Dec 2003 08:11:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:44:13 +1000, "|-|erc"
<trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
you're all going to prison for forging testimony
What for?
Do you mean to say you never threatened to poison foodstuffs in a
supermarket?
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
09 Dec 2003 08:49:27 PM |
|
|
you're all going to prison for forging testimony
What for?
Do you mean to say you never threatened to poison foodstuffs in a
supermarket?
no, they joined parts of sentences I wrote months apart, the supposed threat
was "please reply in a day or two, I'm about to...."
The actual demand was "you ripped me off $100,000" in the suggestions box,
not demanding property. Rearrange the sentences and call it extortion, even if I
declare my name and address.
That was after the "there will be no further communication" email after my very clear claim on a
formal application.
Several other forgeries :
"this is a formal application, you've refused to correspond for 6 weeks now,
reply or face consequences" .... as in legal consequences.
became : quote something else reply or PAY consequences.
I have the original FACE consequences email in google before the charges were laid,
and the PAY consequences appearing in the newspaper.
A.S.S are print publishers, the newspaper is a print publisher. Its all forged.
I was cleared in Supreme Court, they forged numerous other statements, they are
professional editing company that impressed the prosector. I have numerous
statements from A.S.S that are demonstrably lies.
I write like I talk, if I make a sarchastic comment you can quote it literally, if you
work for a company you can put me in prison for it. That simple. 50 emails
each way and he forges testimony and uses his badge, didn't want to do a test.
Herc
here is their original public statement that they are FLT buffs, even though its
already solved, we all know that thanks to James Harris.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/press/aca.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE : 20 June 2003
<snip>
dealing with them in this new era of tabloid media. On the positive side, we are heartened by the
amount of messages of support we have received from thoughtful viewers who expressed their disgust
at what they saw as a blatant set-up.
If, however, we are to regard the ACA rules as applying to everything we do, we had better take
this opportunity to confess that we have indeed backed down on the following issues:
Peace in the Middle-East
Landing a man on Mars by 2020
Solving Fermat's Last Theorem <<<<<<<<<<<<<***************
Overcoming the salinity problem in rural Australia
Tracking down that man behind the Grassy Knoll.
Briefly the rules for a Skeptics Challenge are as follows:
A challenger must make a specific and testable claim directly to AS.
The challenge testing must always remain under the control of AS (it's our challenge, our money,
our rules).
Before a test goes ahead, the protocol for any challenge test must be mutually agreed to as a fair
test by both the Skeptics and the challenger. All that is required of claimants is that they can
demonstrate their claimed abilities under these conditions. For this they can earn $100,000 at
minimal cost to themselves.
The Skeptics Challenge is NOT a game of chance, a bet that someone can put one over the Skeptics,
nor one that can be decided on purely subjective criteria. The Challenge is a serious attempt to
investigate whether or not popular paranormal beliefs have any substance. It something that
requires testing, objectively, by rigorously using the tools of science, not because it makes an
entertaining story.
Barry Williams C.E.O Australian Skeptics Inc
Richard Saunders President Australian Skeptics Inc
compare that to what's there now!
here is his email turning down my formal application :
further communication from us. Your use of assumed names and email
addresses, and the pretense of being one of my colleagues, will not work,
nor will your threats that we will have to "face the consequences".
somehow FACE consequences became PAY consequences in court.
somehow "abide by your web contract and let the commitee review the claim"
which he also lied that they already had seen it, became
"give me all your money!"
Herc
people in prison don't complain much about forged testimony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
09 Dec 2003 09:46:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:49:27 +1000, "|-|erc"
<trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote:
you're all going to prison for forging testimony
What for?
Do you mean to say you never threatened to poison foodstuffs in a
supermarket?
no, they joined parts of sentences I wrote months apart, the supposed threat
was "please reply in a day or two, I'm about to...."
The actual demand was "you ripped me off $100,000" in the suggestions box,
not demanding property. Rearrange the sentences and call it extortion, even if I
declare my name and address.
That was after the "there will be no further communication" email after my very clear claim on a
formal application.
Several other forgeries :
"this is a formal application, you've refused to correspond for 6 weeks now,
reply or face consequences" .... as in legal consequences.
became : quote something else reply or PAY consequences.
I have the original FACE consequences email in google before the charges were laid,
and the PAY consequences appearing in the newspaper.
A.S.S are print publishers, the newspaper is a print publisher. Its all forged.
Funny how you got a restraining order placed on you then.
Funny how you don't sue.
I was cleared in Supreme Court, they forged numerous other statements, they are
professional editing company that impressed the prosector. I have numerous
statements from A.S.S that are demonstrably lies.
I write like I talk, if I make a sarchastic comment you can quote it literally, if you
work for a company you can put me in prison for it. That simple. 50 emails
each way and he forges testimony and uses his badge, didn't want to do a test.
Yeah, typical schizo. Everyone in the world is wrong but me.
Back on your meds. You know your Dr hates it when you go off your
meds.
<SNIP o' rant>
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
09 Dec 2003 10:11:36 PM |
|
|
Funny how you got a restraining order placed on you then.
Funny how you don't sue.
no, restraining orders stop further legal action, and I'm not tackling
court until there's a million dollar company logo on my business card
because that's how its won. even though, the supreme court all knew
I was the Truman and they called me your worshiip! ;)
Herc
anyway, good to see your kook count didn't go up today. 2000 posts soon!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
10 Dec 2003 12:53:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:11:36 +1000, "|-|erc"
<trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote:
Funny how you got a restraining order placed on you then.
Funny how you don't sue.
no, restraining orders stop further legal action, and I'm not tackling
court until there's a million dollar company logo on my business card
because that's how its won.
Well, thjat won't be happening, since you are evidently unemployabe;
even though, the supreme court all knew
I was the Truman and they called me your worshiip! ;)
And can we have the court transcripts?
NO?. Thought not. They would show you up as a liar, wouldn't they?
Herc
anyway, good to see your kook count didn't go up today. 2000 posts soon!
My kook count *did* go up. I found another kook, over in another
group. More entertainment.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
09 Dec 2003 06:53:21 PM |
|
|
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/press/aca.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE : 20 June 2003
....
You edit out the bit where you again lie on official documents,
"you've given up on Fermats Last Theorem, "
what a bunch of jokers
On National Nine News as Frauds, declining applications for your broadcast
test proposal, the news media cite you as demeaning applicants?
ring a bell? why did ACA pick up the story Pete?
Here's my registered mail claim :
------------------------------------------
Dear Australian Skeptics,
My name is xxx xxx, I would like to demonstrate a
paranormal ability being able to guess peoples names
from what they say, write or do.
Contact: [private]
xxx xxx
-------------------------------------------
You have made no testable claim to Australian Skeptics and there will be no
further communication from us.
Frauds get exposed
Call yourself an investigator, catch a plane to Townsville :
100,000 witnesses to paranormal
http://tinyurl.com/iky5 http://tinyurl.com/iky8 http://tinyurl.com/iky9
http://tinyurl.com/iky4 http://tinyurl.com/rv5f http://tinyurl.com/v1yf
Hey Trueman...love the show. YOU ARE the Truman I heard him.
Very spooky! We're sick of you You rule Truman.
Is the truman is living in Townsville? I've been hearing stuff, yeah.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
09 Dec 2003 08:16:59 PM |
|
|
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote in message
news:V3uBb.33$CR5.1863@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/press/aca.htm
Dear Australian Skeptics,
My name is xxx xxx, I would like to demonstrate a
paranormal ability being able to guess peoples names
from what they say, write or do.
Contact: [private]
xxx xxx
" Call me when you get through." What is the name of the person who said
that to me?
First and or last name is fine and spelling errors are allowed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
09 Dec 2003 08:53:59 PM |
|
|
" Call me when you get through." What is the name of the person who said
that to me?
First and or last name is fine and spelling errors are allowed.
For test conditions to maintain a standard medium it has to be a reply to me.
but congrats on understanding the preliminary claim, unlike the so called pros.
Basically, as long as its someone prominent (like *Nic* *Cage* does prison movies, or
Ronald *RayGun* brought in the Star Wars program) or someone in my immediate environment,
I just make a function out what the person is doing.
"Call when through" means patience so Pat!
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
09 Dec 2003 11:12:07 PM |
|
|
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote in message
news:0RvBb.42$CR5.2481@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
" Call me when you get through." What is the name of the person who said
that to me?
First and or last name is fine and spelling errors are allowed.
For test conditions to maintain a standard medium it has to be a reply to
me.
but congrats on understanding the preliminary claim, unlike the so called
pros.
Basically, as long as its someone prominent (like *Nic* *Cage* does prison
movies, or
Ronald *RayGun* brought in the Star Wars program) or someone in my
immediate environment,
I just make a function out what the person is doing.
So now you have changed the requirements and it has to be a response to you
and somebody promenient or in your environment.
I am prominent in this environment. What is my full legal name. The spelling
of one of the names is critical in this case.
"Call when through" means patience so Pat!
If Pat is supposed to be the name two of the three letters in Pat are in the
full name of the person. One is in the first name and one in he other.
This person is about as patient as a spider with a new fly in her web.
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
09 Dec 2003 11:36:56 PM |
|
|
Basically, as long as its someone prominent (like *Nic* *Cage* does prison
movies, or
Ronald *RayGun* brought in the Star Wars program) or someone in my
immediate environment,
I just make a function out what the person is doing.
So now you have changed the requirements and it has to be a response to you
and somebody promenient or in your environment.
I am prominent in this environment. What is my full legal name. The spelling
of one of the names is critical in this case.
no you dip, the claim remains, the requirements were never specified,
although I gave examples of working out the name from a internet post.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/challenge.htm
Briefly, this is what you have to do. You first apply in writing, clearly stating what you are
claiming to be able to do. Representatives from the Australian Skeptics will work with you to
define a suitable, and mutually agreeable, test procedure and to select an independent umpire
Defining test procedure is a mutual activity. Are you saying my claim is not clear? Is it
right to refuse any furthur contact going by my claim? Get real.
Its only after you fudge evidence and put people in prison and then the countries main
current affairs program starts asking you why you decline applicants you have to
rephrase it :
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/press/aca.htm
Briefly the rules for a Skeptics Challenge are as follows:
A challenger must make a specific and testable claim directly to AS.
(why don't they update the 'last edited' field I wonder?)
Website specs : clearly state the claim of what you can do
After they put people in prison for it
Website announcement : must be specific and testable
Which TOTALLY goes against the whole testing scenerio which is to
mutually work out the details, which is what the website still says.
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
10 Dec 2003 01:49:59 AM |
|
|
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote in message
news:PdyBb.71$CR5.3418@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Basically, as long as its someone prominent (like *Nic* *Cage* does
prison
movies, or
Ronald *RayGun* brought in the Star Wars program) or someone in my
immediate environment,
I just make a function out what the person is doing.
So now you have changed the requirements and it has to be a response to
you
and somebody promenient or in your environment.
I am prominent in this environment. What is my full legal name. The
spelling
of one of the names is critical in this case.
no you dip, the claim remains, the requirements were never specified,
although I gave examples of working out the name from a internet post.
I'm not interested in what others say. YOU said you could tell a persons
name from a response.
I responded and you changed your rules.
Either you can do it or you can't.
So far you can't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
10 Dec 2003 02:55:18 AM |
|
|
I'm not interested in what others say. YOU said you could tell a persons
name from a response.
I responded and you changed your rules.
no you invented your own
Either you can do it or you can't.
So far you can't.
mike painter - *illustrates* that the formal claim is testable right on cue
how'd I do?
is your name mike?
right or wrong
go home mike, my paranormal proof is now in google,
replies to |-|erc on 02 02 2003 it was predicted before hand
and contains 3 posts with extraordinary matches between the message and author.
anyone can give this test to anyone off usenet to demonstrate a correlation
that is unique to me.
----1---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randi will test you when you properly apply to be tested. Sign up here:
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
----2----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It really all depends on the situation.
----3----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If ever I actually found myself in that situation, I'd hold it upright,
with the intent of attacking my assailant's knife hand.
-----------------
A cliff86
B Rust 3 attacks metal http://tinyurl.com/nd56
C Shanx
D NormDePloom
E Rich Shewmaker 1 rich showmaker James Randi http://tinyurl.com/nd52
F CNote
G Jeff
H See You In Hell My Friend. 2 It all depends http://tinyurl.com/nd53
I Someone
J Greg Neill
Herc
plus the 100,000 witnesses you are ignoring, here's 6 from usenet
http://tinyurl.com/iky5 http://tinyurl.com/iky8 http://tinyurl.com/iky9
http://tinyurl.com/iky4 http://tinyurl.com/rv5f http://tinyurl.com/v1yf
Hey Trueman...love the show. YOU ARE the Truman I heard him.
Very spooky! We're sick of you You rule Truman.
Is the truman is living in Townsville? I've been hearing stuff, yeah.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Randolph" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
11 Dec 2003 05:24:55 AM |
|
|
Is that John Ennis again, (better known as "soggy" on sci.skeptic)?
-jcr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: Here is where I broadcast PROOF OF GOD on 02 02 2002 |
11 Dec 2003 05:48:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:24:55 -0800, "John C. Randolph"
<jcr@nospam.idiom.com> wrote:
Is that John Ennis again, (better known as "soggy" on sci.skeptic)?
Naaah, it's a kook called Herc. Ignore him, he pops up every now and
then when he forgets to take his meds. Really.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
