Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Fred Oinka · Guest

On Mar 27, 9:23 am, "ami" <slavu...@ya.ru> wrote:
[quote]Seeking-Women in Nevada.http://rengotgp.servik.com/wsmnevada.htm
Dominant.Master/Slave.Switch. Discipline. Fire Play...
[/quote]
I>ll teach you the meaning of the word 'respect'.
BARK LIKE A DOG!
BARK LIKE A DOG!

Guest

On 26 Mar, 11:33, "pen pall six" <sadqwe...@narod.ru> wrote:
[quote]Role: Submissivehttp://arealtgp.servik.com/altwomen.htm Activities
Enjoyed: 24/7 (Total Power Exchange); Age Play; Anal Sex; Arse (Ass
Play); Blindfolds; Bondage;http://arealtgp.servik.com/altwomen.htm
Breast/Nipple Torture, Clamps,Candle Wax Chains Chastity Devices;
Chinese Balls/Ben Wa Balls/Anal Beads Doctor/Nurse Fetish;
Exhibitionism/Sexhttp://arealtgp.servik.com/altwomen.htmIn Public;
High Heels; Latex; Masturbation
[/quote]
Hei
Er du norsk?

M Winther · Guest

"Dependency in the analytic relationship"

or

"A Blind Spot in Jungian Thinking"

Abstract: Three cases of dependency, in analysands of C.G. Jung, are
investigated. Their dreams, and personal understanding, are examined.
The article addresses difficulties in C.G. Jung>s personal convictions,
which, it is argued, hampered his former analysands. These convictions
remain a quandary in the school of Analytical Psychology.

Keywords: dependency, quaternarian, trinitarian, C.G. Jung,
Joseph L. Henderson, Marie-Louise von Franz, Wolfgang Pauli,
Saint John of the Cross, analytical psychology, individuation.

http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/dependency.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mats Winther

Fred Oinka · Guest

On Apr 14, 5:30 am, "ami" <slavu...@ya.ru> wrote:
[quote]Hot Women>s Seeking Male or female in New Jerseyhttp://arealtgp.servik.com/wsmnjersey.htm
[/quote]
HUG A NAPPY NUT SACK!!!

George Hammond · Guest

On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:19:46 -0400, JohnM <eaotis@cbpu.com>
wrote:

<snip>

[Hammond]
I>ve got a trivia question for you-

A common phenomena in dreams is to see a stranger and
then on close inspection realize he is a chimera composed of
two (or more) familiar faces. I have noticed this several
times over the years, and Freud mentions it in many places
in _The Interpretation of Dreams_. For instance in Ch. VI
Sec. (A) p. 327 we find:

".... a 'collective figure' can be produced... by
uniting the actual features of two or more people
into a single dream-image."

also on p. 359:

"The possibility of creating composite sturctures
stands foremost among the characteristics which
so often lend dreams a fantastic appearance, for
it introduces into the content of dreams elements
which could never have been objects of actual
perception."

OK... so the phenomena is very well known.

The point is this... the christian theory of Life After
Death is given in I Corinthians 15:35-58 where St Paul
established the theory that Lifwe After Death is a sort of
"death dream".... and of course the PURPOSE of this whole
thing is to achieve the "beautific vision".
The problem I have is that I have never seen anything in
(ordinary) nocturnal dreams that looks like the "beautific
vision".... by that I mean I have never seen any evidence of
a change of subjective curvature of reality in the dream.
However, it NOW has occured to me that such a thing may
exist in dreams.... and in fact could be the "chimera"
effecdt described above.
In other words.... the MAIN EFFECT of varying curvatures
of reality among different people is KNOWN to be a change in
IDENTITY among people. IOW, peiples "identity" (literally
their faces) undergo drastic change with a change in the
curvature of subjective spacetime (e.g. a change in the
growth deficit of the people involved).
So what I>m now proposing.... is that the REAL REASON
that we see "composite faces" in dreams is that the two
faces which have been merged to produce the chimera are
actually examples of people with very different "growth
deficits" and the MESSAGE that the dream is trying to send
you is that by shifting your personality as demonstrated in
the chimera, you will obtain a GROWTH DEFICIT REDUCTION
(i.e. and increase in growth) and thereby obtain a greater
vision of "heaven".... e.g. get closer to the "beautific
vision" which St. Paul tells us is the underlying purpose
and sine qua non of Life After Death so called.

Any (intelligent) comment you might have would be
interesting.
PS: Ignore abuse posted by Usenet Stalkerazzi.

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================

a_plutonium · Guest

It is fair to say that most ideas are geometrical. I cannot say that
when we understand something or realize
something that it is all geometrical but a good sized proportion is
geometrical. And thus to say that "intelligence"
is mostly geometrical. The mind forms some sort of geometry or
"picture" when we comprehend or
understand something. Not to say that all understanding is geometrical
for some of it is what I call
algebraic. But the algebraic component of knowledge is smaller than
the geometrical.

Now I ran across a test of the intelligence of a horse versus donkey
versus Llama. I have a small stream
of water where I sometimes pasture the three and I have 3 railroad
ties to form a bridge across the stream.
Now the horse saw me crossing via the bridge and followed, although
hesitant at first and now nonchalantly.
The donkey and Llama never got used to the bridge and never walked
across and have always jumped
across. So this tells me the horse has a larger intelligence to see
the geometry of a bridge across water
whereas the donkey and Llama have a lesser intelligence.

Now what I wonder is that it is claimed that dolphins are highly
intelligent. I wonder if there is some
similar test underwater for dolphins as per geometry. A test of dolpin
versus whale versus shark where
they see another portion-of-the-sea separated by a channel (the mimic
of a bridge). Of those three,
would the dolphin be the first to cross?

Another test for intelligence is glass as a barrier. How long before a
animal knows what "glass is" and
that it is a barrier. Or a mirror and how long before a animal
understands "mirror". In the mirror test, I have
found that more cats are smarter than dogs when it comes to the mirror
test. Some dogs bark a long time
and take a long time to learn it is a mirror whereas cats learn it the
first time and are insensitive thereafter.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium · Guest

I do not know where the numbering left off wiith the Stonethrowing
book but it is at least 600 pages if not
more. So out of convenience I resume that book with page 601.

a_plutonium wrote:
[quote]It is fair to say that most ideas are geometrical. I cannot say that
when we understand something or realize
something that it is all geometrical but a good sized proportion is
geometrical. And thus to say that "intelligence"
is mostly geometrical. The mind forms some sort of geometry or
"picture" when we comprehend or
understand something. Not to say that all understanding is geometrical
for some of it is what I call
algebraic. But the algebraic component of knowledge is smaller than
the geometrical.

Now I ran across a test of the intelligence of a horse versus donkey
versus Llama. I have a small stream
of water where I sometimes pasture the three and I have 3 railroad
ties to form a bridge across the stream.
Now the horse saw me crossing via the bridge and followed, although
hesitant at first and now nonchalantly.
The donkey and Llama never got used to the bridge and never walked
across and have always jumped
across. So this tells me the horse has a larger intelligence to see
the geometry of a bridge across water
whereas the donkey and Llama have a lesser intelligence.

Now what I wonder is that it is claimed that dolphins are highly
intelligent. I wonder if there is some
similar test underwater for dolphins as per geometry. A test of dolpin
versus whale versus shark where
they see another portion-of-the-sea separated by a channel (the mimic
of a bridge). Of those three,
would the dolphin be the first to cross?

Another test for intelligence is glass as a barrier. How long before a
animal knows what "glass is" and
that it is a barrier. Or a mirror and how long before a animal
understands "mirror". In the mirror test, I have
found that more cats are smarter than dogs when it comes to the mirror
test. Some dogs bark a long time
and take a long time to learn it is a mirror whereas cats learn it the
first time and are insensitive thereafter.

[/quote]
The title above should have been that horses have more abstract
intelligence when
it comes to a bridge crossing water test. I believe intelligence is a
summation of
abstract ability to solve problems, and not just one single test but
multiple tests.

For we could say that a possum uses the bridge and improperly say the
possum
has more intelligence than a donkey or Llama which is obviously wrong.

Intelligence is obviously the ability to solve problems. And one of
the problems facing
all three of the horse, donkey and Llama are the biting flies and
insects. They are
near a pond and I am waiting to see if anyone of the three uses the
pond as a relief
from the insects, and none so far have used that relief. This gets
into the evolution
of humanity itself. How humanity put up with the problem of biting
insects. One form of
relief is get into a pool of water or shallow stream but you cannot
remain there and
still live.

It is said by Evolution theory that biting insects and parasites
prompted the evolving of
sex. So what I am chasing after is what prompted the evolving of
nearly hairless ape--
humans.

If you are bothered by biting insects, perhaps that is why most
animals retain hair even
in hot summers. They shed thermal hair but they retain what can be
called *fly-net-hair*.

So why did humanity evolve into near hairlessness when we all know
that hairless condition
is opening more for insect attack?

I believe the answer is where hair mostly grows in spots like the head
or armpit to keep biting
insects at bay. But the other parts of the body needed evolution for
the advantage of Throwing
Rocks and Stones and hair would block the view or encumber throwing.

Now there are alot of goofball theories in anthropology and one of
them is the Aquatic Ape
theory that the nearly hairless ape evolved in an aquatic environment.
Stonethrowing theory
would say that the near hairless ape is a better thrower than a hairy
ape.

But I am going to compound that idea of a better thrower with the idea
that to get rid of biting
insects, the best solution is to coat the body with a repellent. Like
my horse, donkey and Llama
solution would be say a roll in ashes or some other insect repellant.

So if I dump a huge amount of ashes where my horse, donkey and Llama
pasture, they will
roll in it so as to coat their body.

Likewise in human evolution, it was found that a repellant such as
fireplace ashes are a great
repellant and it is easier to coat the body in ashes when the body is
near hairless. And also
another repellant is skins of other animals. Or what I call
"prehistoric clothing". It is easier
to wear clothing being hairless than to wear clothing with hair.

So I believe the two factors that evolved humanity into near
hairlessness is Stonethrowing and
Insect Repellant.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

George Hammond · Guest

"psychman" <as1@nospamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wpzjh.19276$Xo6.16319@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
[quote]
"George Hammond" <nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:0tspj2hrp777hge2vbdn2c4cojopv59o15@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:47:46 GMT, George Hammond
nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

HAMMOND VS. DAWKINS

Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins is currently the world>s
most outspoken atheist. In his bestselling book THE GOD
DELUSION he says flat out that: "God almost certainly does
not exist".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNjpfBc7Jmw&NR
Much to professor Dawkins chagrin however, American
physicist George Hammond has discovered and published the

[Psychman]
Hi there

This is a bit of an old thread but caught me eye so i took a look, and I
saw the Dawkins programme. Of course, he didn>t actually "broadcast"
anything, Channel 4 made programmes in which he was invited to share his
views. Actually I thought he got a pretty hard time, an opinion shared by
TV critics. I also looked at the Hammond article. First, the 'Noetic
Journal' ain>t exactly a big hitting scientific journal, but seems more a
vehicle for religious thought; nothing wrong with that of course. Second,
the author wobbles out of his territory, physics, into mine, psychology,
and makes great play of Eysenck>s 3 factor personality theory.
Unfortunately, most psychologists now agree that there are five, which
causes Hammond a few problems argument-wise. And now I>m going to watch
Christmas Eve carols from King>s College; not sure about the message but
the music>s great....

Psychman

[/quote]

[Hammond]
Psychman makes the following erroneous statement:

[quote][Psychman]
Hammond makes a great play of Eysenck>s 3 factor personality
theory. Unfortunately, most psychologists now agree that there
are five, which causes Hammond a few problems argument-wise.
[/quote]
[Hammond]
Obviously you haven>t actually read the last paragraph of Sec. 2
of my paper:
.... http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
which points out that Hammond has discovered
and proven that the Structural Model of Personality (SMoP)
is in fact a CUBE because human brain cleavage is "cubic"
and therefore the SMoP has 13 dimensions because as is
well known that a CUBE HAS 13 SYMMETRY AXES!
Hammond has proven and published that ALL of the
known Factor Analytic Personality Models in existence
are simply "geometrical redactions" (low resolutions) of this
13-axis CUBE, including:

2 Axis model........Eysenck E-N (1947)
3 Axis model........Eysenck E-N-P (1967)
4 Axis model........Clark-Merenda AVA
5 Axis model........"Big-5", Norman et al
6 Axis model........Brand, Hogan
7 Axis model........Cattell, Krug
8 Axis model........
- - - - -
13 Axis model......Cattell (note only the great
R.B. Cattell ever succeeded
in measuring all 13 axes by
using extremely hi-resolution)

These models are drawn out GRAPHICALLY
for you in the following diagram:
.... http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/5X7C0193.jpg
where you should note the OBVIOUS fact
that this discovery is PROVEN by the fact
that the Pearson correlation coefficients of the
various models are IDENTICAL to the
COSINES of the geometrical angles given
by the cubic diagrams. For chrissakes; what more
PROOF do you need!

FACT IS--
HAMMOND has discovered, proven and
published the discovery of the long lost
Structural Model of Personality which the entire
WORLD has been looking for ever since
Hippocrates the Father of Mediciene himself
said he suspected there there was such a thing
2,500 years ago!
Meanwhile, you and the entire field of Psychology
continue to sit on your thumbs and spin around in
your office chairs and blithly ignore it because
"Hammond is a physicist and psychologists
and physicists don>t like each other!"

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================

a_plutonium · Guest

Last night on the TV emerged another TV-fame-criminal with a bomb
attached to his neck. He was
a pizza delivery man who claimed to have been forced at gunpoint to
wear a bomb and rob the PNC bank.

The FBI believes the bomber was a co-conspirator. The bomb went off;
killing the bomber.

But the bomber was very relaxed; surrounded by police officers. So the
question was how much of
the bomb was controlled by the bomber
himself, and so it is apparent that if the bomber controlled the bomb,
that he was a co-conspirator
and not a innocent pizza delivery man, knowing he would achieve some
national TV recognition.

What I am saying is that so much crime in the USA does have the TV
factor included. That crime
is "beneficial" to criminals who seek that extra amount of "fame"
because of the way TV news
fills the national airwaves over the crime. Call it the Coliseum
Effect of Ancient Rome where
people want more and more gory details.

The Amish School Slayer of recent TV glorification probably did his
crime for the reason that he
would have this huge TV coverage. He led a life of boredom and a life
of what he thought was
non-notable. He knew that if you committed a horrendous enough crime
that he would have
the total spotlight of the news in the USA for at least a day or more.

So the burden is now on the rest of the USA, as to how to cover news
of crimes and criminals so that
they are not motivated by the TV-motivated-crime.

One way to start the reform of TV news coverage is not to have crime
as the lead stories, which they
so often are. Turn on any news station across the USA and typically,
the lead stories are murder, kidnap,
rape and child molestation. Sick viewers quickly see that what gets
the attention of all of USA is
criminal activity. So that when a Virginia Tech sicko sees that fame
is garnered by doing a horrendous
act, he plans for that act and commits the atrocity. Part of the blame
is that guns are easily available
to mentally sick persons, but the major factor as to motivation is
that people on the verge of criminal
activity see that the TV makes their crime a fame and glory trip for
them. Where they go out in a bang
wave of crime and they say to themselves-- "noone paid attention to me
before, but with the
horrendousness of their crimes, it will be all over the TV"

So how to make the TV-news a nonfactor as to crime? How to make it so
that it informs, and not
cause the crime? I believe many countries in the world today have
figured out how to balance news
with that of glorification of criminals. So we can take the cue from
those countries as to how to
not "create the criminal because of how we deliver the news".

And one of the worst violations of TVnews is how they seem to
emphasize and stress criminal activity
and place it as the "front breaking and leading news spot". As I said
earlier, criminal activity should
spotlight the victims, never the criminals. And that criminals should
never be shown unless in a situation
that is reviled by viewers, such as them in prison and danger of
inmates.

TVnews is very much creating new criminals in the way they handle
crime.

So we need sweeping reform as to how to cover TVnews on criminals.
This extends over into the movie
industry. We never need movies that glorify criminals and their
crimes. There used to be in psychology
the theory of "Reinforcement" of positive and negative reinforcement
of behaviour. Anyway, in modern
society where the news is delivered, if that news of crime and
criminals is glorified, then becomes a
major factor of the origin of crimes.

Now CSI on TV has become very popular for its mystery solving and
story telling. But when a network
has too many shows about crime and criminal activity, then that is
cause for alarm because that
glorifies crime. So that if someone were to see that the program
schedule on CBS is 60% involved with
crime and criminals and 0% about activity that further advances
humanity and teaches the viewer
something, then CBS is part of the problem and not helping society as
a whole. That CBS and
NBC and ABC and Fox should look at PBS as to a formula of how much to
devote to entertainment,
crime, Nature, science, history, documentary, comedy, art.

I am not saying that TV should be censored. I am saying that TV should
be balanced. That if we want
yearly school yard shootings, then keep TV news the way it is at
present. That if we want to
decrease criminal activity, that the best place to start is by
reforming the way TV covers violence. The
most violent societies encourage their citizens to do violence.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Henri Wilson · Guest

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:02:27 GMT, "George Hammond" <Nowhere1@notspam.org>
wrote:

[quote]
"psychman" <as1@nospamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wpzjh.19276$Xo6.16319@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...

"George Hammond" <nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:0tspj2hrp777hge2vbdn2c4cojopv59o15@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:47:46 GMT, George Hammond
nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

HAMMOND VS. DAWKINS

Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins is currently the world>s
most outspoken atheist. In his bestselling book THE GOD
DELUSION he says flat out that: "God almost certainly does
not exist".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNjpfBc7Jmw&NR
Much to professor Dawkins chagrin however, American
physicist George Hammond has discovered and published the

[Psychman]
Hi there

This is a bit of an old thread but caught me eye so i took a look, and I
saw the Dawkins programme. Of course, he didn>t actually "broadcast"
anything, Channel 4 made programmes in which he was invited to share his
views. Actually I thought he got a pretty hard time, an opinion shared by
TV critics. I also looked at the Hammond article. First, the 'Noetic
Journal' ain>t exactly a big hitting scientific journal, but seems more a
vehicle for religious thought; nothing wrong with that of course. Second,
the author wobbles out of his territory, physics, into mine, psychology,
and makes great play of Eysenck>s 3 factor personality theory.
Unfortunately, most psychologists now agree that there are five, which
causes Hammond a few problems argument-wise. And now I>m going to watch
Christmas Eve carols from King>s College; not sure about the message but
the music>s great....

Psychman

[Hammond]
Psychman makes the following erroneous statement:

[Psychman]
Hammond makes a great play of Eysenck>s 3 factor personality
theory. Unfortunately, most psychologists now agree that there
are five, which causes Hammond a few problems argument-wise.

[Hammond]
Obviously you haven>t actually read the last paragraph of Sec. 2
of my paper:
... http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html
which points out that Hammond has discovered
and proven that the Structural Model of Personality (SMoP)
is in fact a CUBE because human brain cleavage is "cubic"
and therefore the SMoP has 13 dimensions because as is
well known that a CUBE HAS 13 SYMMETRY AXES!
Hammond has proven and published that ALL of the
known Factor Analytic Personality Models in existence
are simply "geometrical redactions" (low resolutions) of this
13-axis CUBE, including:

2 Axis model........Eysenck E-N (1947)
3 Axis model........Eysenck E-N-P (1967)
4 Axis model........Clark-Merenda AVA
5 Axis model........"Big-5", Norman et al
6 Axis model........Brand, Hogan
7 Axis model........Cattell, Krug
8 Axis model........
- - - - -
13 Axis model......Cattell (note only the great
R.B. Cattell ever succeeded
in measuring all 13 axes by
using extremely hi-resolution)

These models are drawn out GRAPHICALLY
for you in the following diagram:
... http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/5X7C0193.jpg
where you should note the OBVIOUS fact
that this discovery is PROVEN by the fact
that the Pearson correlation coefficients of the
various models are IDENTICAL to the
COSINES of the geometrical angles given
by the cubic diagrams. For chrissakes; what more
PROOF do you need!

FACT IS--
HAMMOND has discovered, proven and
published the discovery of the long lost
Structural Model of Personality which the entire
WORLD has been looking for ever since
Hippocrates the Father of Mediciene himself
said he suspected there there was such a thing
2,500 years ago!
Meanwhile, you and the entire field of Psychology
continue to sit on your thumbs and spin around in
your office chairs and blithly ignore it because
"Hammond is a physicist and psychologists
and physicists don>t like each other!"
[/quote]

George, I don>t often read or reply to your messages because I normaly agree
with everything you say and there are plenty of others who don>t.

However, as one with degrees in both physics and psychology, I feel obliged to
say something in defence of myself. I do not dislike myself because I am both a
psychologist and physicist even though many envious fellows here question
whether I am actually qualified in either.

....and Eysenck was right. Genes rule the world..

[quote]========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================

[/quote]

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

Paul B. Andersen · Guest

Henri Wilson wrote:
[quote]However, as one with degrees in both physics and psychology, I feel obliged to
say something in defence of myself. I do not dislike myself because I am both a
psychologist and physicist even though many envious fellows here question
whether I am actually qualified in either.
[/quote]
I don>t think many here question your qualifications, Henri.
They are too well documented to question:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRbasedNM.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ComSimExp.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PleaseExplain.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BestSeller.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Wilgebra.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cornered.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Respectibility.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Conspiracy.html
... and every other posting by Henri Wilson

I am so envious, Henri. :-0

Paul

Henri Wilson · Guest

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:34:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@guesswhathia.no> wrote:

[quote]Henri Wilson wrote:
However, as one with degrees in both physics and psychology, I feel obliged to
say something in defence of myself. I do not dislike myself because I am both a
psychologist and physicist even though many envious fellows here question
whether I am actually qualified in either.

I don>t think many here question your qualifications, Henri.
They are too well documented to question:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRbasedNM.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ComSimExp.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PleaseExplain.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BestSeller.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Wilgebra.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cornered.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Respectibility.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Conspiracy.html
.. and every other posting by Henri Wilson

I am so envious, Henri. :-0

Paul
[/quote]
Paul, I nearly missed your world shattering post...

Do you have a drinkling problem?

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

Paul B. Andersen · Guest

Henri Wilson wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:34:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@guesswhathia.no> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
However, as one with degrees in both physics and psychology, I feel obliged to
say something in defence of myself. I do not dislike myself because I am both a
psychologist and physicist even though many envious fellows here question
whether I am actually qualified in either.
I don>t think many here question your qualifications, Henri.
They are too well documented to question:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRbasedNM.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ComSimExp.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PleaseExplain.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BestSeller.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Wilgebra.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Cornered.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Respectibility.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Conspiracy.html
.. and every other posting by Henri Wilson

I am so envious, Henri. :-0

Paul

Paul, I nearly missed your world shattering post...

Do you have a drinkling problem?

[/quote]
Is drinkling something Aussies do?

Paul, still envying the drunkled mate

Henri Wilson · Guest

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:12:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@guesswhathia.no> wrote:

[quote]Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:34:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

Paul

Paul, I nearly missed your world shattering post...

Do you have a drinkling problem?

Is drinkling something Aussies do?

Paul, still envying the drunkled mate
[/quote]
See you can>t even spell.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

Paul B. Andersen · Guest

Henri Wilson wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:12:02 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@guesswhathia.no> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

Do you have a drinkling problem?
---------
Is drinkling something Aussies do?

Paul, still envying the drunkled mate

See you can>t even spell.
[/quote]
:-)

Paul


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Psychology - Theory Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 59, 60, 61, 62 Next
Page 60 of 62