| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"|-|erc" |
| Date: |
07 Jan 2005 07:01:27 PM |
| Object: |
SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
I have made this claim perfectly clear for 3 years on sci.skeptic.
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ -- ------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Every day people say to me "I saw the Truman" and "I saw God".
INSTANT PROOF OF PARANORMAL to any skeptic investigator
who can come to Townsville, Queensland, Australia for 1 minute.
Herc
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dksqpv41597ofbhr16mi7tdj2qfihvoldv%404ax.com
Hey Trueman...
what up, my uncle told me you post here... he's did some audio on your
secret show and gave me some tapes. love the show.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1epmdv8iqmnckeqhctnf17537rt8hevjeh%404ax.com
You rule Truman.
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=9aqbbv85c53jobkenltkil2tbsdk7m2n3p@4ax.com
I was in Townsville over the weekend, and I heard him.
Very spooky!
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=me7hbv4snqc6gnb1cktj3cvqtiibnpm6s9@4ax.com
I'm from Townsville and YOU ARE the Truman
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3eb66422.779705967@news.ozemail.com.au
I'm in Townsville. We're sick of you
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.OSF.4.21.0309230859190.5384-100000%40marlin.jcu.edu.au
Do you know if the truman is living in Townsville?
I've been hearing stuff, yeah.
From: Les Norton (Les.Norton@spamfree.com.au)
Subject: OT: RESULTS: Herc-Truman test
BTW, when I was in The Strand last weekend, I didn't hear your broadcast per
se. Well, at least I thought I didn't. I think you're the Truman too.
"Therefore 100,000 Townsville residents and 1 Melbourne tourist can't be
wrong".
****************************************************************
Les just went to Townsville, didn't come nearby but heard people there talk about me
Here is Les approaching me on usenet, calls me ADAM then tells me about
the real Truman having a crush on Laurie Holden, (he tested if I knew that).
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=s1w1c.85795%24Wa.33069%40news-server.bigpond.net.au
From: Les Norton (Les.Norton@spamfree.com.au)
Subject: Re: Herc- please explain..
Date: 2004-03-03 17:56:44 PST
No worries, Adam.
AUSTRALIA SKEPTICS CANCELLED THE PARANORMAL CHALLENGE
BECAUSE THE CEO ASKED DETAILS ABOUT THE TEST AND I SAID
IT WORKS BECAUSE I'M ADAM.
THAT WAS PROOF TO HIM THAT MY CLAIM WAS A DELUSION
THEY MAKE PUBLIC OFFERS TO PARNORMAL CLAIMANTS
BUT YOU HAVE TO BE AN *ORDINARY* PARANORMAL PERSON.
THEN THEY LIED THAT MY CLAIMS WERE INCOHERENT, THEY
WERE VERY BASIC. THEN THEY DID A NEWS REPORT SAYING
THEY MUST BE DETAILED AND SPECIFIC, THIS IS A LIE, CHECK
THE CONDITIONS OF APPLICATION
--
what do women say about male sperm? sex cells never age? protein rich?
:-C==8 You'll never never know if you never never blow! :-C==8
.
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
30 Jan 2005 04:01:13 PM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in >
Okay, I'll say it myself: if you're *not* suffering from a
psychological condition that makes you a "stupid laughing
stock crazy paranoid", etc., you're doing a simply fine
job imitating someone who suffers from it.
How can this be helped?
People who think they are paranormal are 99% of the time just mental.
Someone who is paranormal cannot speak up.
Someone who *is* truly paranormal would have no problems
being scientifically tested. You've got tons of excuses
as to why you won't, such as refusing to leave Townsville
because you seem to think your powers only work there.
Likewise, your inability to communicate in any form other
than a weird combination of delusionspeak and outright
threats shows that you're not on the level. The entire
episode concerning the food poisoning threat only adds
to this impression.
Oh, and thanks for making the "paranoid" glove fit so well, here.
Mind telling us what you have against "vegie math dropouts", BTW?
Not that I *am* a VMD, but I'm interested in seeing how
kooks...think.
-Chris Krolczyk
individually no problem, but they usually work in gangs, and a.u.k is
their internet depot.
Only if a nutter is posting, pal. And you've given no impression
that you're not one of them.
also a lot of nasty people that usually wouldn't bother you in real
life are
learning on usenet by mimicking, all us smart dudes in mensa and
math
(snip)
Oooooooh. A member of *Mensa*! How special.
In case you were wondering, Herc, some of the yoyos
who brag loudly about their precious IQ scores on
Usenet come off as some of the biggest wackjobs of
all, largely because the outright wackjobs who claim
Mensa membership don't realize that a high IQ does
*not* immunize you from certain other difficulties,
including coming off as anything ranging from a
pompous windybag to an outright nut.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
25 Jan 2005 08:02:36 PM |
|
|
Because we call you on your *****?
You mean you call people fancy names who claim paranormal?
You can skoff and choke till you turn blue skeptic boi, don't see any *calling bluffs*
since all my claims still stand UNREFUTED.
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
30 Jan 2005 05:04:23 PM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
Because we call you on your *****?
You mean you call people fancy names who claim paranormal?
No, I call *incoherent kooks* names who claim that they've
got paranormal abilities and then fail to back up those
purported claims. Your constant threats and blustering
are just the icing on the cake.
You can skoff and choke till you turn blue skeptic boi, don't see any
*calling bluffs*
since all my claims still stand UNREFUTED.
You misspelled "untested", twit.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
30 Jan 2005 06:08:39 PM |
|
|
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
You can skoff and choke till you turn blue skeptic boi, don't see any
*calling bluffs*
since all my claims still stand UNREFUTED.
You misspelled "untested", twit.
-Chris Krolczyk
RIGHT!
you idiot
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
03 Feb 2005 06:58:12 PM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
You can skoff and choke till you turn blue skeptic boi, don't see
any
*calling bluffs*
since all my claims still stand UNREFUTED.
You misspelled "untested", twit.
-Chris Krolczyk
RIGHT!
you idiot
As I said before, your claims are *completely
untested and unconfirmed* by anyone except you,
and no amount of *****-throwing tantrums on your
part is going to change that fact.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
03 Feb 2005 07:37:13 PM |
|
|
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
*calling bluffs*
since all my claims still stand UNREFUTED.
You misspelled "untested", twit.
-Chris Krolczyk
RIGHT!
you idiot
As I said before, your claims are *completely
untested and unconfirmed* by anyone except you,
and no amount of *****-throwing tantrums on your
part is going to change that fact.
right! untested means its unrefuted. A.S.S. and Randi and sci.skeptic all refused to test Herc.
Herc stands unrefuted.
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
04 Feb 2005 07:14:18 PM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
*calling bluffs*
since all my claims still stand UNREFUTED.
You misspelled "untested", twit.
-Chris Krolczyk
RIGHT!
you idiot
As I said before, your claims are *completely
untested and unconfirmed* by anyone except you,
and no amount of *****-throwing tantrums on your
part is going to change that fact.
right! untested means its unrefuted.
"Untested" means "untested", Threatboi-2. The face that
you're now *redefining the meaning of words* only shows
how much of a blithering nutrod you are.
A.S.S. and Randi and sci.skeptic all refused to test Herc.
I seem to remember differently. I seem to remember that
you *refused to agree to the JREF's conditions*, which means
that you've shifted back to lying sack of ***** mode again.
No surprise there, of course, but it *is* interesting to
note that you possess at least enough sanity to think up
a dodge.
Herc stands unrefuted.
Wrongo. Herc stands in a pile of ***** of his own making
and is too stupid to stop adding to it.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
04 Feb 2005 11:21:44 PM |
|
|
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote
|-|erc wrote:
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
*calling bluffs*
since all my claims still stand UNREFUTED.
You misspelled "untested", twit.
-Chris Krolczyk
RIGHT!
you idiot
As I said before, your claims are *completely
untested and unconfirmed* by anyone except you,
and no amount of *****-throwing tantrums on your
part is going to change that fact.
right! untested means its unrefuted.
"Untested" means "untested", Threatboi-2. The face that
you're now *redefining the meaning of words* only shows
how much of a blithering nutrod you are.
means as in implies dickless
YOU CANT HAVE REFUTED MY CLAIMS IF YOU NEVER TESTED THEM
you fucking stupid idiot
A.S.S. and Randi and sci.skeptic all refused to test Herc.
I seem to remember differently. I seem to remember that
you *refused to agree to the JREF's conditions*, which means
that you've shifted back to lying sack of ***** mode again.
No surprise there, of course, but it *is* interesting to
note that you possess at least enough sanity to think up
a dodge.
can you cite that you lying ***** for brains?
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
07 Feb 2005 06:48:54 PM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote
|-|erc wrote:
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
*calling bluffs*
since all my claims still stand UNREFUTED.
You misspelled "untested", twit.
-Chris Krolczyk
RIGHT!
you idiot
As I said before, your claims are *completely
untested and unconfirmed* by anyone except you,
and no amount of *****-throwing tantrums on your
part is going to change that fact.
right! untested means its unrefuted.
"Untested" means "untested", Threatboi-2. The face that
you're now *redefining the meaning of words* only shows
how much of a blithering nutrod you are.
means as in implies dickless
Boy, that was pointless. First you
decide to redefine what a word means -
then you decide that you were only
*implying* that shift. Care to make
up your mind before you rant, for once?
YOU CANT HAVE REFUTED MY CLAIMS IF YOU NEVER TESTED THEM
Utterly irrelevant, Threatboi-2.
You *never* made a claim to a
party willing to scientifically
test that claim. All you've
babbled is a string of delusional
gobbledygook to a newsgroup, and
that *doesn't qualify* as presenting
a challenge to the JREF or anything
else.
While we're at it, did you actually
got around to making a claim to the
JREF? You did bother to read that
cut-n-paste I made to sci.skeptic
concerning the rules for making
such a claim, correct? And you did
understand that a positive result
has to be something that both the
claimant and the JREF tester(s)
can agree to in *advance*, not
some delusionspeak that only one
party can engage in afterwards,
correct?
If not, GO BACK AND READ THE
DAMN THING for once.
you fucking stupid idiot
Your comebacks are *so* stunning
in their wit.
A.S.S. and Randi and sci.skeptic all refused to test Herc.
I seem to remember differently. I seem to remember that
you *refused to agree to the JREF's conditions*, which means
that you've shifted back to lying sack of ***** mode again.
No surprise there, of course, but it *is* interesting to
note that you possess at least enough sanity to think up
a dodge.
can you cite that you lying ***** for brains?
Yes, you delusional twit.
See either the thread "Summon 4" in general or
news:<c743abb.0406301715.30801995@posting.google.com>
to see what I'm referring to. It shouldn't
be all that difficult, since you were even
ranting on this subject ad nauseum back *then*.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
07 Feb 2005 08:22:23 PM |
|
|
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote
right! untested means its unrefuted.
"Untested" means "untested", Threatboi-2. The face that
you're now *redefining the meaning of words* only shows
how much of a blithering nutrod you are.
means as in implies dickless
Boy, that was pointless. First you
decide to redefine what a word means -
then you decide that you were only
*implying* that shift. Care to make
up your mind before you rant, for once?
"When I said go to the shops I meant go to the supermarket."
means =/= define
My claims are untested so therefore they are ALSO unrefuted.
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
08 Feb 2005 02:26:52 AM |
|
|
poor crazy herc. please get some help. and take your meds.
the voices wont go away.
please get help.
josephus
|-|erc wrote:
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote
right! untested means its unrefuted.
"Untested" means "untested", Threatboi-2. The face that
you're now *redefining the meaning of words* only shows
how much of a blithering nutrod you are.
means as in implies dickless
Boy, that was pointless. First you
decide to redefine what a word means -
then you decide that you were only
*implying* that shift. Care to make
up your mind before you rant, for once?
"When I said go to the shops I meant go to the supermarket."
means =/= define
My claims are untested so therefore they are ALSO unrefuted.
Herc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Feb 2005 06:48:47 PM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote
right! untested means its unrefuted.
"Untested" means "untested", Threatboi-2. The face that
you're now *redefining the meaning of words* only shows
how much of a blithering nutrod you are.
means as in implies dickless
Boy, that was pointless. First you
decide to redefine what a word means -
then you decide that you were only
*implying* that shift. Care to make
up your mind before you rant, for once?
"When I said go to the shops I meant go to the supermarket."
means =/= define
Nope. "Means" is equivalent to "synonymous with",
*not* "redefining the meaning of a word". Try again.
My claims are untested so therefore they are ALSO unrefuted.
A bit of elementary logic here, Herc;
Making a positive claim - and a particular
nutso one like yours - is always the
responsibility of the *claimant*, not
the people who are either examining it
or (more likely) ignoring it for fear
that the wackjob making that claim will
get up, come over to their table and
start ranting to *them*.
In other words, you'd actually have
to *make* a claim, much less prove it,
to somebody in order for it to be
"unrefuted". You haven't. And never will.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eudaemonic Plague" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
03 Feb 2005 09:03:15 PM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
[snip]
As I said before, your claims are *completely
untested and unconfirmed* by anyone except you,
and no amount of *****-throwing tantrums on your
part is going to change that fact.
right! untested means its unrefuted. A.S.S. and Randi and sci.skeptic all refused to test Herc.
Herc stands unrefuted.
Hurc stands looking goofy. As anyone who has paid any attention at all
to your "saga" knows, you have never made the slightest attempt to make
a proper submission to be tested (not that it would matter in the least,
since you're just a loony). Has it ever occurred to you, that raving,
and making threats isn't likely to get you any of the recognition that
you seem to crave so much? If you could just make a few posts
(sequentially) that aren't raving lunacy, you might even convince a few
people that you _aren't_ stark raving mad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
03 Feb 2005 09:46:26 PM |
|
|
"Eudaemonic Plague" <ghod@ameritech.net> wrote in
Hurc stands looking goofy. As anyone who has paid any attention at all
to your "saga" knows, you have never made the slightest attempt to make
a proper submission to be tested
what? I've had numerous scientists paraphrase them for me in sci.skepic for years.
I've never heard of you you fucking bandwagon hopper gangho *****
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
03 Feb 2005 11:31:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:46:26 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
"Eudaemonic Plague" <ghod@ameritech.net> wrote in
Hurc stands looking goofy. As anyone who has paid any attention at all
to your "saga" knows, you have never made the slightest attempt to make
a proper submission to be tested
what? I've had numerous scientists paraphrase them for me in sci.skepic for years.
I've never heard of you you fucking bandwagon hopper gangho *****
NIce meltdown, psycho. Dance some more, kook.
--
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: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
04 Feb 2005 12:17:13 AM |
|
|
"Wally AngleseaT" <wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote in >
NIce meltdown, psycho. Dance some more, kook.
I hear that 1000s of times every week from you Wally but it never happens.
Herc " the sky is blue"
Wally : CLASSIC MELTDOWN SEE THAT!!!
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
04 Feb 2005 07:15:04 PM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
"Wally AngleseaT" <wanglese@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote
in >
NIce meltdown, psycho. Dance some more, kook.
I hear that 1000s of times every week from you Wally but it never
happens.
Herc " the sky is blue"
Wally : CLASSIC MELTDOWN SEE THAT!!!
Dance some *more* for all of us, kook.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
04 Feb 2005 11:23:49 PM |
|
|
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
NIce meltdown, psycho. Dance some more, kook.
I hear that 1000s of times every week from you Wally but it never
happens.
Herc " the sky is blue"
Wally : CLASSIC MELTDOWN SEE THAT!!!
Dance some *more* for all of us, kook.
-Chris Krolczyk
there they go again... 100s of faggots on rampage in these groups, just tell
them how gutless they are they think its a show.
you've got a nerve, what do you get when you CROSS a TROLL with a KOOK
CRISS KROLLzyk
no wonder you dispute my by name by nature religous theory which is so obvious here.
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
07 Feb 2005 06:54:15 PM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in
NIce meltdown, psycho. Dance some more, kook.
I hear that 1000s of times every week from you Wally but it never
happens.
Herc " the sky is blue"
Wally : CLASSIC MELTDOWN SEE THAT!!!
Dance some *more* for all of us, kook.
-Chris Krolczyk
there they go again... 100s of faggots on rampage in these groups,
just tell
them how gutless they are they think its a show.
Keep on dancing, kook. The way *you're* going, you'd
be a shoe-in for a role as an extra in a remake of
_They Shoot Horses, Don't They?_
you've got a nerve, what do you get when you CROSS a TROLL with a
KOOK
CRISS KROLLzyk
Ha, Ha. Oh, look. Herc made a *funny*. With my *name*.
I guess this proves that the USian redneck meme has crossed
over to Australia. Yee-fucking-ha.
no wonder you dispute my by name by nature religous theory which is
so obvious here.
I'd be able to refute that sentence if I could actually
figure out what it *meant*.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
22 Jan 2005 01:50:02 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jan 2005 18:11:23 -0800, "Chris Krolczyk"
<chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
|-|erc wrote:
***** you spastic
My, what an intelligent, detailed rebuttal.
Twit.
|-|erc is a certified netkook.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
22 Jan 2005 03:12:33 AM |
|
|
|-|erc is ............
try to imagine a God
.
|
|
|
| User: "george" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
08 Feb 2005 01:54:34 PM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
|-|erc is ............
Graham Andrew Cooper, 31/4, of no fixed address who has no job sponges
off his family and demonstrates his level of mental inadequacies on the
Net to the great amusement and delight of other posters
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "george" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
25 Jan 2005 08:08:17 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 20 Jan 2005 18:11:23 -0800, "Chris Krolczyk"
<chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
|-|erc wrote:
***** you spastic
My, what an intelligent, detailed rebuttal.
Twit.
|-|erc is a certified netkook.
Yup. He's the Australian netkook of the year.
Even got a silly putty medal to prove it
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
25 Jan 2005 08:09:05 PM |
|
|
"george" <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote in >
Al Klein wrote:
On 20 Jan 2005 18:11:23 -0800, "Chris Krolczyk"
<chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
|-|erc wrote:
***** you spastic
My, what an intelligent, detailed rebuttal.
Twit.
|-|erc is a certified netkook.
Yup. He's the Australian netkook of the year.
Even got a silly putty medal to prove it
REALLY? or you blowing ***** again george?
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
30 Jan 2005 04:06:47 PM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
"george" <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote in >
Yup. He's the Australian netkook of the year.
Even got a silly putty medal to prove it
REALLY? or you blowing ***** again george?
Herc
Utter cluelessness concerning an obvious
(and entirely successful) insult noted.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
30 Jan 2005 06:58:33 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2005 14:06:47 -0800, "Chris Krolczyk"
<chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
|-|erc wrote:
"george" <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote in >
Yup. He's the Australian netkook of the year.
Even got a silly putty medal to prove it
REALLY? or you blowing ***** again george?
Utter cluelessness
That, and utter dishonesty, describe |-|erc very well.
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
03 Feb 2005 07:27:47 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 30 Jan 2005 14:06:47 -0800, "Chris Krolczyk"
<chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> said in alt.atheism:
|-|erc wrote:
"george" <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote in >
Yup. He's the Australian netkook of the year.
Even got a silly putty medal to prove it
REALLY? or you blowing ***** again george?
Utter cluelessness
That, and utter dishonesty, describe |-|erc very well.
How many points for creative use of the word "insane"
in that description?
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
11 Jan 2005 02:23:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:49:10 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
---------------------------------------------s-o-s-----------------------------------------
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in
"|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote in message news:34ho5oF48liffU1@individual.net...
Given an irrational number
irat =
<3598487438749..............................................................
|<------how many digits---------->|
How many digits of irat have property X?
<etc>
Herc's starting to channel the spirit of James Harris
Danny
Good one DK! Dan's the man who claims there is no satelite putting thoughts
into people's head.
He's right. You are just a nutcase.
--
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: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
11 Jan 2005 05:04:12 AM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
I am The Truman of Jim Carrey fame. Please help stop me being tortured since April 2002
with constant microwave laser from the Truman satelite splitting my head and tormenting me
and people around me. Not a prank, I am not crazy, The Truman Show made you think that
---------------------------------------------s-o-s-----------------------------------------
"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:cs07rr031c9@news1.newsguy.com...
|-|erc wrote:
I'm not trying to convert you. I want one of the 10,000 people reading this
to ask around in Townsville if there really is a Truman there. Because others
have done so and found out a lot.
All I'm saying is sci.skeptic don't have the resources. You're of the same bretheren,
stretch out a skeptical hand, you have the manpower to help me.
There isn't a single person anywhere who thinks you are the "Truman",
that the CIA gives a ***** about you or even knows you exist, that you
have any psychic powerz of any kind, that you aren't in fact mentally ill.
Let's put the clues together - voices in head, imaginary powers,
conspiracies, irrational ideas, delusions. Yup you're mentally ill.
I find it hard to believe that you yourself don't realize this in some
way deep down. You've certainly been told it enough, not just here but
everyone in every capacity of your life. Why don't you listen and accept
it and do something positive to beat your condition?
But of course you won't do that. I predicted almost 1 year ago you'd
still be whining on sci.skeptic five years hence (or incarcerated). So
far I seem be right on the money.
Very simple answer. Geography.
I'm here in Townsville, I hear 10 people a day say to my face "wow I saw the Truman".
I'm sure with ten people saying it to your face everyday you'll easily
be able to supply evidence that they are. And I'm not referring to those
posts you occasionally drag out where the pisstaking makes a tangible
whoosh sound as it flies over your head.
Here's how:
1. Borrow / buy a cheap cassette recorder
2. Tape these people saying you are the Truman
3. Digitize it into the computer via a microphone jack or built-in mic
4. Put it up on a website.
There are more hi-tech solutions but I chose one that might be
affordable to someone on welfare.
I'm fully expecting you to post no evidence at all or something as
equally pathetic as you've supplied thus far.
You're there, you're not bothering to communicate with anyone here.
Fly all the way to Australia to meet a paranoid schizophrenic? Ring up
people at random and engage in a nonsense babble conversation? I'd have
to be as crazy as you to do either.
ERGO... you have no idea. You can ASSUME I am just an ordinary man.
I can assume it since it's so.
Its a safe bet too, 99.99% of skeptics are right. Just say "no".
You can't know that I am the Truman by sitting at your computer. You haven't
made it explicit that you've done anything but. therefore you are a just a wanker.
QED
And I can't know that all matter beyond the event horizon is fact
comprised of delicious strawberry cheesecake. Or that there is a 10,000
foot tall neon elephant hiding behind me that no one can see or touch.
But I would have to be demented to believe such things.
You're just pissed that no one will pander to your equally ludicrous
delusions. And the reason is simple. You're mentally ill but you haven't
the balls to admit it.
<rest of drivel snipped>
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
11 Jan 2005 06:20:21 AM |
|
|
I am The Truman of Jim Carrey fame. Please help stop me being tortured since April 2002
with constant microwave laser from the Truman satelite splitting my head and tormenting me
and people around me. Not a prank, I am not crazy, The Truman Show made you think that
---------------------------------------------s-o-s-----------------------------------------
"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:cs0br702tsj@news3.newsguy.com...
|-|erc wrote:
I am The Truman of Jim Carrey fame. Please help stop me being tortured since April 2002
with constant microwave laser from the Truman satelite splitting my head and tormenting me
and people around me. Not a prank, I am not crazy, The Truman Show made you think that
---------------------------------------------s-o-s-----------------------------------------
"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message news:cs07rr031c9@news1.newsguy.com...
|-|erc wrote:
I'm not trying to convert you. I want one of the 10,000 people reading this
to ask around in Townsville if there really is a Truman there. Because others
have done so and found out a lot.
All I'm saying is sci.skeptic don't have the resources. You're of the same bretheren,
stretch out a skeptical hand, you have the manpower to help me.
There isn't a single person anywhere who thinks you are the "Truman",
that the CIA gives a ***** about you or even knows you exist, that you
have any psychic powerz of any kind, that you aren't in fact mentally ill.
Let's put the clues together - voices in head, imaginary powers,
conspiracies, irrational ideas, delusions. Yup you're mentally ill.
I find it hard to believe that you yourself don't realize this in some
way deep down. You've certainly been told it enough, not just here but
everyone in every capacity of your life. Why don't you listen and accept
it and do something positive to beat your condition?
But of course you won't do that. I predicted almost 1 year ago you'd
still be whining on sci.skeptic five years hence (or incarcerated). So
far I seem be right on the money.
Very simple answer. Geography.
I'm here in Townsville, I hear 10 people a day say to my face "wow I saw the Truman".
I'm sure with ten people saying it to your face everyday you'll easily
be able to supply evidence that they are. And I'm not referring to those
posts you occasionally drag out where the pisstaking makes a tangible
whoosh sound as it flies over your head.
Here's how:
1. Borrow / buy a cheap cassette recorder
2. Tape these people saying you are the Truman
3. Digitize it into the computer via a microphone jack or built-in mic
4. Put it up on a website.
that's a good point. My PC is not even a pentium and no sound card,
you can check the post headers I"m running win95, not even win95B.
So I"m looking at a new PC that's all. I make money now so after I get
a scooter next month, maybe April May a new PC.
I CAN TAPE THEM SURE. IF usenet was voice driven we wouldn't have
this problem of saying what people say they hear.
There are more hi-tech solutions but I chose one that might be
affordable to someone on welfare.
I'm fully expecting you to post no evidence at all or something as
equally pathetic as you've supplied thus far.
I can make a 24 hour radio station of the CIA torture interrogators and my thoughts,
but you'll just say its 20 low paid actors.
You're there, you're not bothering to communicate with anyone here.
Fly all the way to Australia to meet a paranoid schizophrenic? Ring up
people at random and engage in a nonsense babble conversation? I'd have
to be as crazy as you to do either.
Gee can you come up with another idea? do you know someone who might
be closer? maybe on the internet?
ERGO... you have no idea. You can ASSUME I am just an ordinary man.
I can assume it since it's so.
nope, not in sci.skeptic
Its a safe bet too, 99.99% of skeptics are right. Just say "no".
You can't know that I am the Truman by sitting at your computer. You haven't
made it explicit that you've done anything but. therefore you are a just a wanker.
QED
And I can't know that all matter beyond the event horizon is fact
comprised of delicious strawberry cheesecake. Or that there is a 10,000
foot tall neon elephant hiding behind me that no one can see or touch.
But I would have to be demented to believe such things.
You're just pissed that no one will pander to your equally ludicrous
delusions. And the reason is simple. You're mentally ill but you haven't
the balls to admit it.
<rest of drivel snipped>
yada yada, once the QED is written after proof you are a wanker who can't get
off his computer chair its irrefutable. no assumption needed.
Herc
.
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|