Let us use our brains - response to David

Some time ago, I have made a posting on subject: Let us use our brains.  David E-mailed a 2-page response to my son.  When he did not get immediate response, he sent 120 identical E-mails demanding an immediate response and threatening to send more if he did not get it.  My son tried to explain to him that it takes time to print his material, to mail it to me, to write a response and to mail it back, he did not want to hear any of this, he wanted my response and he wanted it now.  Well, finally, here it is.

>The 'Yellow' media does not distort anything.

Wrong: read my file describing details, and then comment.

>There is only one acceptable time that one may kill another and it is in self-
>defense and only in response to an immediate life threatening attack.

Wrong again: just recently a woman in Montreal killed her abusive lover, while he was fighting with her neighbor, clearly, her life was not in immediate danger.  Judge has decided that she acted in self-defense and acquitted her.  I felt that my life was in immediate danger.  Again, read my account and then comment.

>You were never being murdered.

I had a heart attack.  I am being denied access to medical care for over 3 years by now. If this is not murder, what is?

>What I would have done in your case is simple.  Wait.

To wait for what?  Clearly, you have no idea of why the shooting took place.  I invite you once again to read my account of events and then to comment.  It is kind of funny to hear the word "wait" from the individual, who sent 120 identical E-mails demanding an immediate response.

>The RCMP are mostly incompetent buffoons...

Wrong again: they are criminals, who are on the wrong side of prison bars, but they are not stupid at all.

>So what can the enlightened man do?  There is only one option.  You must play
>the game.  You must suck up ...

I guess, I am not an "enlightened man".  I could never suck up, and I shall die, without this ability.  I leave sucking up to the people like you.

>According to IQ's I am in the top 3% of the population.

You are the best proof that IQ has nothing to do with real intellect.  I asked you what your education was.  You told me that I was stupid and wrote your degree as BSCBMEng.  I asked you for the name of university and year when you got your degrees.  You never responded, so I take it that you lied.  Even presuming that you got Bachelor degree, should not you be at least Ph.D.? Of course, you might be such a genius, that you do not need formal education, so I asked you about your scientific publications and/or inventions.  You had nothing to respond.

>Every day I must deal with people who are inferior to me, yet they have
>accomplished more.

You have your own business, you are your own boss, so, who prevented you from accomplishing more? (I hope, you are talking about real accomplishments).  I have been able to get my Ph.D. in 1966, at the age of 26, being Jewish in the anti-Semitic USSR, and without sucking up.

>Timothy McVea(sic!) did the same stupid thing ...

There is nothing in common between me and McVeigh (should not a person with an IQ as high as yours at least know how to spell the name?).  McVeigh killed people, who did nothing wrong to him.  I killed people, who were members of a gang murdering me.  Does your level of IQ allow you to understand the difference?

>Now you are a pathetic whiner, who could not follow the rules.

Wrong again: I DID follow the rules, I mean written rules, not the sucking up rules.  I am not whining, I am demanding respect for the Law.  Does your level of IQ allow you to understand the difference?

>So stop posting stupid comments that make any attempt by me and others more
>difficult.

Please, elaborate, which of my comments was stupid?  I asked you to describe in detail your "attempts" to change the world and how exactly my comments prevented you from achieving your goals.  You did not respond.  I guess, you have nothing to say.

>The best you could do is the same as Tim McVea(sic!), demand death.  Tell the
>world you can no longer tolerate the corruption of the world and want to be
>executed.

It looks like "McVea" was not an accidental misspelling.  A person with your IQ should know that there is no death penalty in Canada, so I can not demand to be executed.  Even if there was death penalty, I would never ask for it.  I have all the reasons in the world to stay alive: I have my family, which needs me, and I have my Science, which needs me.  While in jail, I have published more than 20 scientific articles in the most prestigious journals around the world.  This is more than majority of the scientists, who unlike I, have access to scientific libraries, laboratories and computing facilities.  I live full life, jail is not an obstacle for "a really enlightened man".  What have YOU done lately, except for polluting this beautiful planet?

>There is not much other use for you now that you have caused most of the
>morons to hate you so much that that they will fight anything you say, regardless
>of its merit.  David.

From your E-mail, it would be fair to conclude that YOU hate me, and that YOU fight anything I say, regardless of its merit.  Are YOU a moron?

There is a big difference between what you see on the Internet and what people really think.  Majority of hate postings use false E-mail addresses and false names.  They are scared people, like Bayomi (Taylor), they are police informants, like Segal, they are crooked scientists, who consider me a personal enemy, etc.  Majority of people do not hate me and are interested to read what I write.  There are less than 20 hate-writers, there were over 400 clicks on my web site.  This means that there exists a silent majority, and they are the people I write for.


---

Idiots in the Senate

It was reported in the news that one female member of Canadian Senate decided that Canadian anthem is discriminatory against women, because it mentions sons, but not daughters, so she wants to change the anthem.  The woman is at least 60 years old, so she knew for many-many years the text of the anthem, and it did not bother her, so why now?  I think, there are several reasons for this typical Canadian hypocrisy.  First, we have hundreds of parasites (senators), who have nothing to do, so they want to create an impression that they are doing something.  Second, any foreigner, who hears this, might think that every other discrimination of women in Canada has been eliminated, and the only remaining thing to change is the anthem.

Here is my suggestion: as soon as you achieve really equal employment opportunities for women, equal pay for equal work, etc., etc., right after this you can overhaul the anthem, but then again, what do you do about people, who have both male and female genitalia?  And how about the people, who have none (undetermined)?

Fabrikant

---

Hypocrite Bayomi - follow-up

One woman has made a posting stating that it is never appropriate to reveal contents of a private communication.  Wrong.  If someone writes to you that he raped and killed a little girl, would not it be your duty to make this public?  In my books, hypocrisy is a crime.  Public has the right to know about the cases when an individual says in public something totally different from what he says in private.  I did keep Bayomi's communication private at the beginning, but when his hypocrisy became evident; I could no longer do it.

---

Gymnastics for your brain

The Discovery channel has made yet another "discovery", and again, in its show "You asked for it".  One viewer has asked why the water in oceans is salty.  A university professor responded that the salt was brought to the oceans by the rivers.  According to him, the riverbeds consist of "salty" minerals, the water dissolve this salt and brings it to the oceans.  Try to use your brain to figure out why his explanation can not possibly be correct (does not hold water).

You may also try to figure out, how this dumb individual managed to become a university professor.

---

Conflicts in Ireland

There are a number of conflicts between various nations around the world.  People are killing each other in the name of something, which exists only in their imagination - God.  In Ireland it is even stranger than that: they believe in the same God.  I asked several Irish about the difference between the Catholic and Protestant faiths, and they did not really know.

This is how the conflict is perceived by an outsider.  About 300 years ago, ancestors of the Protestants beat up the ancestors of Catholics.  In every normal society, this would have been long forgotten, but not in Ireland.  Every summer, the Protestants need to march through catholic areas and the Catholics do not like it a bit.  These marches lead to violence.  One might think that a reasonable Protestant in this situation would say: "We do not need those marched, since they lead to violence".  A reasonable Catholic in this situation might say: "There exists freedom of expression, and this means freedom of a repugnant expression.  Protestants have the right to march peacefully on any public street, so I shall just ignore these marches".  Not in Northern Ireland.

There are both Protestant and Catholic Irish in America, and nobody is marching, except for St-Patrick's parade.  If this peaceful coexistence can be achieved outside Northern Ireland, why can not it be achieved inside?  Imagine, what would happen, if Germans decide to march through Cote-St-Luc in Montreal, celebrating Nazi extermination of Jews?  Imagine Turks marching through Armenian quarters celebrating 1915 massacre.  Imagine English marching through French quarters reminding certain defeats of the past.  We are lucky that none of them is doing any of the above.

Here is my suggestion as to what to do in this case.  First, one has to try to explain to Protestants, that every nation has in its past certain violent incidents, which is better to be forgotten, if you want to be in good relations with your neighbours, second, one may try to explain to Catholics, that there exists such a thing as freedom of a repugnant speech, and the best reaction is to ignore it.  I doubt this will work.  If it does not, then one have to use some arithmetic.  Compute the amount of money spent in the last 50 years of conflict on weapons, on medical care of wounded, on the restoration of destroyed property, etc.  Divide this number by the number of Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland.  I am sure the number will be at least f 100,000 per person.  Offer this amount to every Irish to be paid in exchange for voluntary relocation in separate parts of Northern Ireland, and I am sure, the conflict will be solved once and for all.  The same idea can be used in Israel.  Israel gets at least $10 billion every year from US, and at least $5 billion are spent on weapons.  Offer these $5 billion multiplied by the number of years they were spent to Arabs to pay for a voluntary relocation and separation.  You might have a good chance for a settlement of the conflict.

---

Steinbeck and yellow media

I have read a contemporary edition of the "Grapes of Wrath".  Except of the text of the novel, it contains also the media reaction to the novel at the time of its publication.  Here are some quotations, which need no comment: "broad accusations hurled so heedlessly", "communistic propaganda", "vile language", "obscene sensationalism", "morbid, filthily-worded novel",  "complete and absurd untruthfulness", "dirty, lying, filthy manuscript", "book is a lie, a black infernal creation of a twisted, distorted mind" (I am in a good company: the cliche "twisted, distorted mind" was used against me too.). The media did not change much since 1939.  Several Library Boards have banned the book and ordered the librarian to burn the existing copies of the book.  And you thought that only Hitler was burning books.

Tom Joad says in the book: "I'll be everywhere - wherever you look.  Wherever there is a fight so hungry people can eat; I'll be there.  Wherever there is a cop beating up a guy, I'll be there." If you remember, Tom Joad also had to kill two people, though the Law did not accept those killings to be in self-defence.  Tom Joads of Science are still waiting for their Steinbeck to describe their plight.  I am sure, one day he will come, and his Tom Joad of Science would be able to say it in more general terms: "Wherever there is an injustice and disrespect of the Law, I'll be there".

Take a look at any contemporary scientific journal.  A single-authored article is a rarity.  If you look at a similar journal a century ago, majority of articles was single-authored.  They say, that this is so, because contemporary scientific research is a teamwork.  This is nonsense: though there exists some interdisciplinary research, majority of research is done by individuals.  It is very easy to prove my point.  Take any article with 2 authors.  In 95% of cases, one author is the person, who did the job, and the other is his boss, who very often does not understand a single word in the article.  In the case of 3 authors, one is the person who did the job, the second is his boss, the third is the boss of the boss, and so on.  In the case of two authors of equal stature, in majority of cases, another trick is played: "I include you in my publications, and you include me in yours; this way, we shall have double number of publications".

You hear now and then about new shootings at the universities.  Some people expressed their surprise, how such a thing can happen in the place of higher learning.  The real surprise is: why it does not happen much more often, than it does.

---

Idiots in Astrophysics

I have heard an interview with one scientist from a Research Institute in Boulder.  She claimed to have discovered the origin of the Moon.  According to her, a huge asteroid of the size of Mars has collided with our Earth several billion years ago.  An explosion followed, huge cloud of matter was thrown very far away from Earth.  This cloud then condensed into the Moon, and this is how the Moon was created.

She also claimed that right after the collision, the Earth spin was so fast, that one revolution took 5 hours instead of 24.  The moon was originally much closer to Earth, and the distance is increasing by 3 cm. per year.  The reporter, regretfully, did not know what question to ask.  Here are some questions, which I would like to ask.  First, how can she measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon with the accuracy of 3 cm?  Neither Earth, nor Moon are perfect spheres.  The distance between the Earth mountain to the Moon mountain is different from the distance between the Earth ocean to the same place on the Moon.  The Moon's orbit is not a perfect circle either, so I would ask her whether she was talking about the distance at a certain point in the orbit or whether she claimed the distance to be increasing all over the trajectory.  If it is all over, I would inquire, what forces produce such a change, and where does the necessary energy come from.

There are no planets between the Earth and the Moon.  The planets from the outside can not possibly increase the distance between the Earth and the Moon, unless they attract the Moon and repulse the Earth, and such bodies just do not exist.  The woman explained the slowing of the Earth rotation by the fact that distance between the Moon and the Earth was increasing.  My little brain can not find any law of Mechanics, which would relate these two phenomena.  Common sense tells us that the greater the distance between any 2 bodies, the less is their mutual influence.  I would have understood the argument that the tides, influenced by the Moon, can somewhat slow down its rotation, but again, with increase of the distance between them, this influence will decrease, not increase.

There is one more little detail, which the woman did not address.  The Moon rotates in such a way, that we always see only one side of it.  I just wonder, how "accurate" must be the blow to the Earth, which would not only create the Moon, but also make it rotate with such a remarkably accurate speed.

---

Hughes' public inquiry

I have already made a posting on how Hughes concealed the truth about the riot in Headingly jail.  Government likes him so much, that it gave him $ l0 million to conceal the truth about the events in Vancouver.  It was reported in the media that he released a preliminary report about 400 pages.  If you divide the money spent by 400, you will get, that the taxpayer paid $25,000 per each page of the report.  Was it worth it?  Obviously, not.  Even if this report told the truth, it would be waste of money.  The matter was clear, without any hearing: police misbehaved, and it was Chretien, who ordered them to do what they did.

Libraries in Montreal schools were closed, because government claimed not to have $1 million, and here $10 million were wasted for nothing. How stupid Canadians must be if they tolerate all this?


---

Political party = Organized crime

It was reported that Conservatives and dissident members of Canadian Alliance have met in Mount Tremblant for negotiation.  This time, they did not even play the usual comedy that their goal is to serve their country.  This time, they admitted clearly that their purpose is to form a government.  Why do they want to form government?  Because they want to pillage the country, exactly the same way Liberals are doing it now.

I just wonder, how many times these parties need to demonstrate to Canadians that they are nothing, but a very well organised crime, until the Canadians would finally get it: kick the politicians out of politics.  I have learned recently that about 20 years ago, politicians tried to establish political parties in the North-Western Territories.  All their candidates lost, and only independent were elected.  If people in Nunavut are so smart, how come the rest of Canada does not get it?

Here is what needs to be done.  Elect independent representatives to the Parliament, people, who would represent the interests of their constituencies, rather than the interests of their party.  Elect a decent human being as Prime Minister.  Parliament should approve any ministerial appointment, in order to make sure that indeed the best people are appointed as Ministers, not personal friends and cronies of the Prime Minister, as it is done now.  Appoint a specialist in public health to be the Health Minister, make a transport engineer Minister of Transport, an oceanographer - Minister of Fisheries, etc.  Government should not be members of Parliament, and any MP accepting government post, should resign his seat to avoid conflict of interest.

There should be a strict separation of powers: Parliament prepares and adopts the laws, government executes the laws, courts verify that the laws are executed properly.  By the way, judges in the old Soviet Union were elected, and no judge was allowed to sit alone: two people's representatives were sitting with the judge and could overrule him.  It did not render any justice in the USSR, but it might be a good idea for Canada.

May be, this way, the country will become less lawless than it is now, and the pillage by politicians will be reduced.

---

Bayomi number 2

Here is an example of yet another hypocrite and coward, like Bayomi.  My postings usually end by information about existence of my web site and invitation to request access to it personally.  One Stuart Kirk <[email protected]> sent me an E-mail with one word "Nope". Well, nope means nope, so he did not get any information.  Then he sent yet another E-mail, which in part read:

"I would be kind(sic!) to visit your website.  I just started on the email program on my provider and I was figuring out how to use it properly.  Sure I'll browse the internet to visit your website.  Thank you for inviting me."

Well, he got the information.  Right after that, he post his "Nope" on Usenet.  How one can explain such a behaviour?  The man is dead scared.  He sent an E-mail with "Nope", hoping to get the information.  He did not get any, so he invented a lame excuse of being a novice and not knowing, how to use E-mail.  After he got the information, he panicked that his somewhat sympathetic E-mail was intercepted by police, so he made his "nope" posting, hoping to get on the "good side" of the police.

For God's sake, people, why are you such hypocritical cowards?  Even in the old Soviet Union people were not so scared to express their opinions, though there such an expression could lead to any consequence, starting from losing job to losing life.  Behave like human beings!

Nothing will happen to you.

---

Was OJ Simpson framed?

Recently, there was yet another talk show on CNN on this subject.  Bailey was there claiming that police framed Simpson, while his opponent Sliwa (means in Russian "prune") was asking a pretty valid question: police in the past bent backward in all cases when they were called due to domestic violence; so if in the past they were on Simpson's side, why would they change and decide to frame him?  Bailey did not really know how to answer this question.  So, where is the truth here?

There is no doubt, that police framed Simpson, but they did not frame him to have him convicted, they framed him to have him acquitted.  The evidence against him was so overwhelming that there was only one way to save him: to frame him, and to do it in the most evident and stupid way.  This is what police does each time they want to have someone acquitted.  Remember the case Mattick, who were caught with several tons of hashish?  The only way to save them was to frame them, and this is exactly what SQ did, and a corrupt judge got well paid for dismissing the charges.  Then the taxpayer had to pay $35 million for the Poitras Commission, which never tried to discover the truth.

In the Simpson's case, his lawyers immediately hired a retired policeman as a "consultant".  The real role of the consultant was to bribe the policemen involved in the case, so that they would "frame" Simpson.  These policemen would be reluctant to take money from the lawyers, but they would have no problem taking money from their old friend, and they did.  Remember film, where policeman took the vial with Simpson's blood and instead of sending it to the lab, went to the scene of crime, creating impression that he could have dispersed part of the blood there.  All this was filmed in zoom.  Do you believe that the policeman was so stupid, that he did not understand the impropriety of bringing the specimen with the suspect's blood to the scene of crime?  If he wanted to really frame Simpson, he would certainly not allow this to be filmed, especially in zoom.

If you think, that the prosecution wanted to convict Simpson, think again.  They did everything to loose the case.  They quarrelled with the defence for every little thing, but this was just a spectacle for public consumption.  Here are the major steps the made to have Simpson acquitted.  First, they assigned LA to be the place of trial, while strictly speaking, it had to be done in Brentwood, where the crime took place.  They did it, because in LA majority of jurors would be black, while in Brentwood the jurors would be white.

Second, it was the prosecution, who initiated the test, which showed that the glove did not fit.  They knew that the glove was planted and that it would not fit.  How stupid one should be to manage to lose one glove at the scene of crime and then to lose the second one in his backyard?  Simpson somehow managed to destroy all his clothes, but "forgot" a bloody sock in his bedroom.  Would you believe that?  Especially, with the blood stain passing through, as if the sock was stained when there was no foot inside it.

Third, remember the closing argument by Darden.  I have never heard anything more stupid than this.  Instead of discussing the evidence, he resorted to rhetoric.  He said that he asked his secretary to go out and to buy the US Constitution, and his secretary brought him the Constitution, and he opened it and read there that Simpson's victims had the right to be alive, etc.

In my case, police also has tampered with evidence.  If you are interested in details, they are available on my web site.  The reason for tampering was, that government did not want me in jail, they wanted me in a mental institution.  They wanted the verdict of insanity so desperately, that during the trial, on June 1, 1993, Dr. Antippa, who was at that time a Professor in the Department of Physics, Universite du Quebec at Trois-Rivieres, has met with me and told me that he had a meeting with the prosecution and transmitted to me their offer: $230,000, paid by Concordia University.  He explained to me that this amount was computed as $200,000, which was offered to me in 1992 as shut-up money, plus interest.  As he told me, all I had to do, was to "sit back and let the lawyer do his job", which I understood as letting lawyer plead insanity.  I did not accept the offer.

It is interesting that government can always find someone, who you might trust, as a provocateur.  Dr. Antippa was at that time in a situation somewhat similar to mine: he was fighting in court another false scientist, named Leblank.  It is also interesting that government usually does not feel any gratitude to the people, who it uses as provocateurs: Dr. Antippa lost his case in court, though the truth was on his side.


---

Some more gymnastics for your brain

In the recent "Who wants to be a millionaire" there was a question "A dyne is used to measure what?" and there were 4 possible answers: "Heat, Distance, Force, Weight".  What is wrong here?

---

Meeting in Genoa

There was recently a meeting of the heads of states in Genoa.  Canadian delegation was about 400 people.  How much did it cost taxpayer?  Just airfare, at least half a million, hotel and meals, another million, ground transportation, etc.  Were all 400 necessary there?  Chretien himself answered this question: when he announced the next meeting in Canada, he also said that each delegation will be limited to 40 people.  Well, if it can be done with 40 people in Canada, it could also be done with 40 people in Italy.

And a completely different question: could the whole meeting be arranged through a videoconference?  With contemporary technology, the answer is YES, and it would have been much cheaper.  I just wonder, how long Canadians are going to tolerate this waste of money, when millions of people in Canada do not have enough to eat and/or have no place to live?

---

Surveillance cameras - good or bad?

It was reported that police in several cities installed numerous cameras in the city streets and connected these cameras to powerful computers running face recognition software.  This software claims to be able to take the face measurement of passersby and to compare them with the database of wanted criminals.  After such an identification is made, police can apprehend the individual.  In addition, cameras can record everything in their field of view.

The opponents of such measure claim, that introduction of these cameras breaches their privacy and gives police the opportunity to violate civil rights of law-abiding citizens.  There are two totally different questions here: first, do cameras, as such, violate anything; second, do cameras give police extra opportunities to violate rights?  The answer to the first question is no, cameras, as such, are equivalent to placing a policeman at every corner in the city, which is certainly the right police has, should they want to hire that many policemen.

The answer to the second question is yes, but you do not throw out a very useful and powerful tool, just because someone may use it an abusive manner.  It is obvious, that powerful, high quality cameras all over the city may solve almost all crimes, whether committed in the street, or even inside a house, because you will see, who entered and who exited the house and at what time.  As far as possible misuse, police should be placed under a tight independent control, and each violation should result in a monetary compensation, coming from the pockets of the guilty policemen, rather than from the taxpayer.