Re: Lenny and psychological illness

What a pathetic little puff piece Clayton and judging by what you put in
the subject field you have illusions of being a doctor. You really are
low down.

However there is one good thing to come from you, It is always a pleasure
plonking plonkers!

PLONK


On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:25:15 +0100, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> Poor old Len, all agitated about double blind mast effect experiments.
>
> Perhaps he should try the following experiment: -
>
> A room has an aperture on the other side of which can be: -
>
> nothing (control)
> sun (~1G5m away) nuclear reactor (~10m away)
> or large lump of Cobalt60 / X Ray machine 1Kw Microwave (open cavity)
> phone mast (~100m away)
>
> The question is can a human subject detect whether there is anything
> there, can they tell if damage is being incurred, and will they be
> damaged?
>
> Detect Damage Detect Damage
> nothing N N N Sun
> Y Y Y after 1,000s
> depending on skin
> Reactor N Y N 1kW mwave
> Y (10s) Y (macro) Y after 100s Phone Mast N
> N N
>
> So Len would be right - people can't detect electromagnetic radiation,
> unless they have receptors (eyes), it causes macro effects (such as
> heating), or therapeutic effects, such as burns.
>
> Sun
>
> Has an incident energy level of 1 - 2 kW/sqm, which can cause general
> heating and heatstroke. More seriously sunshine contains ionising ultra
> violet radiation. Humans can be permanently or temporarily adapted to
> resist the effects (melanin), but unadapted subjects will experience
> second degree sunburn in under an hour and much increased risk of skin
> cancer (melanoma) after repeated lower level exposure. All humans can
> readily detect sunshine and sunburn and will normally [learn to] avoid
> further exposure when damaged and afterwards.
>
> Reactor / X Ray / Gamma Ray source
>
> Unless the energy flux is very high humans will not be able to detect the
> ionising radiation or the damage it causes. In high doses subjects may
> experience radiation sickness (bruising, hair loss, general illness), in
> lower doses cancers may form in the long term.
>
> Microwave Oven
>
> Human tissue readily absorbs microwave radiation, causing local or general
> heating. Although the micro waves can't be detected, the localised
> heating and burns would be detected and typically subjects would move away
> from the apparent source, in the same way as they would move away from an
> open furnace door. The damage would essentially be macro (cooking),
> although some more delicate structures (such as the cornea) could suffer
> long term damaged due to a long term lower level of flux (like you can
> cook an egg on a hot car bonnet).
>
> Phone Mast / Wi-Fi
>
> A typical mast emits a maximum of 25W omnidirectionally and the flux at
> 100m is a few micro watts per square metre. Which would be undetectable
> by humans. Whilst you might just notice a warm ear lobe from prolonged
> use of a 'high' power [1W phone] transmitter held close to your ear for a
> long time, even this level of flux of non ionising radiation can only
> cause damage in your imagination.
>
> Of course Lenny's obsession with this might be anecdotal evidence that his
> imagination, judgement or reasoning has been damaged.

"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f8s2h1$k3j$1@news.datemas.de...
> It is always a pleasure plonking plonkers!

Why?

You still haven't cited your proof that you're involved in research, as you
claimed.

Lenny <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote:

>What a pathetic little puff piece Clayton and judging by what you put in
>the subject field you have illusions of being a doctor. You really are
>low down.
>
>However there is one good thing to come from you, It is always a pleasure
>plonking plonkers!
>
>PLONK
>
>
Sadly top posted so thread sense is lost, but this really has struck a nerve hasn't
it Lenny?

--

Andrew Sayers

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:19:26 +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:

> Lenny <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote:
>
>>What a pathetic little puff piece Clayton and judging by what you put in
>>the subject field you have illusions of being a doctor. You really are
>>low down.
>>
>>However there is one good thing to come from you, It is always a pleasure
>>plonking plonkers!
>>
>>PLONK
>>
>>
> Sadly top posted so thread sense is lost,

Nothing has been lost except perhaps some concept in your mind.

> but this really has struck a
> nerve hasn't it Lenny?

I always plonk tossers.

"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f8uven$b22$1@news.datemas.de...
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:19:26 +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
>
>> Lenny <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote:
>>
>>>What a pathetic little puff piece Clayton and judging by what you put in
>>>the subject field you have illusions of being a doctor. You really are
>>>low down.
>>>
>>>However there is one good thing to come from you, It is always a pleasure
>>>plonking plonkers!
>>>
>>>PLONK
>>>
>>>
>> Sadly top posted so thread sense is lost,
>
> Nothing has been lost except perhaps some concept in your mind.
>
>> but this really has struck a
>> nerve hasn't it Lenny?
>
> I always plonk tossers.

Hint - if you are trying to win friends and influence people, don't insult
them.
Others who might be prepared to believe your theories might be alienated by
your responses such as the one above.
If, on the other hand, you're *not* trying to influence people, why bother
posting all this stuff anyway?
Unless, of course, you're just trying to wind people up...

George

George Weston wrote:

> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote
> > Andrew Sayers wrote:
> >> Lenny <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote:
> >>
> >>>What a pathetic little puff piece Clayton and judging by what you put in
> >>>the subject field you have illusions of being a doctor. You really are
> >>>low down.
> >>>
> >>>However there is one good thing to come from you, It is always a pleasure
> >>>plonking plonkers!
> >>>
> >>>PLONK
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Sadly top posted so thread sense is lost,
> >
> > Nothing has been lost except perhaps some concept in your mind.
> >
> >> but this really has struck a
> >> nerve hasn't it Lenny?
> >
> > I always plonk tossers.
>
> Hint - if you are trying to win friends and influence people, don't insult
> them.
> Others who might be prepared to believe your theories might be alienated by
> your responses such as the one above.
> If, on the other hand, you're *not* trying to influence people, why bother
> posting all this stuff anyway?
> Unless, of course, you're just trying to wind people up...

Another possibility is that he's an idiot of course !

Graham

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:26:31 +0100, George Weston wrote:

>
> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> news:f8uven$b22$1@news.datemas.de...
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:19:26 +0100, Andrew Sayers wrote:
>>
>>> Lenny <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What a pathetic little puff piece Clayton and judging by what you put
>>>>in the subject field you have illusions of being a doctor. You really
>>>>are low down.
>>>>
>>>>However there is one good thing to come from you, It is always a
>>>>pleasure plonking plonkers!
>>>>
>>>>PLONK
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sadly top posted so thread sense is lost,
>>
>> Nothing has been lost except perhaps some concept in your mind.
>>
>>> but this really has struck a
>>> nerve hasn't it Lenny?
>>
>> I always plonk tossers.
>
> Hint - if you are trying to win friends and influence people, don't insult
> them.

I'm not interested in your opinion.

> Others who might be prepared to believe your theories might be alienated
> by your responses such as the one above.
> If, on the other hand, you're
> *not* trying to influence people, why bother posting all this stuff
> anyway?
> Unless, of course, you're just trying to wind people up...

<zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>

>
> George

"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f8vbdk$p52$1@news.datemas.de...

>
> I'm not interested in your opinion.

I don't have any respect, in particular intelectual respect, for yours, but
for some reason you still keep posting the same scaremongering drivel on
newsgrousps.

>
>> Others who might be prepared to believe your theories might be alienated
>> by your responses such as the one above.
>> If, on the other hand, you're
>> *not* trying to influence people, why bother posting all this stuff
>> anyway?
>> Unless, of course, you're just trying to wind people up...

probably

>
> <zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>

Narcoplexy?

As discussed any layman can tell you are a nutter, but you are probably
right - full diagnosis would require qualifications and experience.

>
>>
>> George
>

"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f8vbdk$p52$1@news.datemas.de...

<snip>
> I'm not interested in your opinion.

Or anybody else's either, it would seem...

>> Others who might be prepared to believe your theories might be alienated
>> by your responses such as the one above.
>> If, on the other hand, you're
>> *not* trying to influence people, why bother posting all this stuff
>> anyway?
>> Unless, of course, you're just trying to wind people up...
>
> <zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>

Zzzzzzzz indeed!
Sleep well.

George

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:15:52 UTC, "George Weston"
<geoweston@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> news:f8vbdk$p52$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> <snip>
> > I'm not interested in your opinion.
>
> Or anybody else's either, it would seem...

Come now...Lenny is interested in *some* opinions. But only if they
agree with his preconceived, unshakeable beliefs.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]