A mass hysteria surrounding "penis-melting robot combs" took place in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan in September 2003. It was reported by the Middle East Media Research Institute. Sudanese victims were made to believe by force of suggestion that their penises had melted away or disappeared altogether, by means of ordinary contact with the West Africans, such as the sharing of an electronic, or "robot", comb, the shaking of hands, or the receiving of a verbal curse. The so-called "penis-melting" has been blamed on Zionists who are trying to wipe out the Sudanese people by making their men impotent and therefore unable to breed.
The hysterical reports were spread throughout Sudan by means of cell phone text-messaging.
The Sudanese columnist Ja'far Abbas has warned visitors to avoid shaking hands with "a dark-skinned man". In reference to the electronic comb which was supposed to have caused one man's penis to disappear, Abbas writes, "No doubt, this comb was a laser-controlled surgical robot that penetrates the skull, [passes] to the lower body and emasculates a man!!"
Sudanese police have investigated these incidents and have found no evidence of anything supernatural, and that it is likely a hoax which victims believed through the power of suggestion. Mr. Abul-Gasim Mohamed Ibrahim, Sudan's Minister of Health, issued official statements to calm the public's fears.
In the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web Today", a daily summary of sensational or humorous news, James Taranto wrote a piece about this phenomenon entitled, "Where's the Rest of Me?" in which he coined the phrase "Penis-melting Zionist robot combs".
Feds Unable to Distinguish Art from Bioterrorism
Grieving Artist Denied Access to Deceased Wife's Body
DEFENSE FUND ESTABLISHED - HELP URGENTLY NEEDED
Steve Kurtz was already suffering from one tragedy when he called 911 early in the morning to tell them his wife had suffered a cardiac arrest and died in her sleep. The police arrived and, cranked up on the rhetoric of the "War on Terror," decided Kurtz's art supplies were actually bioterrorism weapons.
Thus began an Orwellian stream of events in which FBI agents abducted Kurtz without charges, sealed off his entire block, and confiscated his computers, manuscripts, art supplies... and even his wife's body.
Like the case of Brandon Mayfield, the Muslim lawyer from Portland imprisoned for two weeks on the flimsiest of false evidence, Kurtz's case amply demonstrates the dangers posed by the USA PATRIOT Act coupled with government-nurtured terrorism hysteria.
Kurtz's case is ongoing, and, on top of everything else, Kurtz is facing a mountain of legal fees. Donations to his legal defense can be made at http://www.caedefensefund.org
June 8, 2004
Purdue mathematician claims proof for Riemann hypothesis
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – A Purdue University mathematician claims to have proven the Riemann hypothesis, often dubbed the greatest unsolved problem in mathematics.
Louis De Branges de Bourcia, or de Branges (de BRONZH) as he prefers to be called, has posted a 23-page paper detailing his attempt at a proof on his university Web page. While mathematicians ordinarily announce their work at formal conferences or in scientific journals, the spirited competition to prove the hypothesis – which carries a $1 million prize for whomever accomplishes it first – has encouraged de Branges to announce his work as soon as it was completed.
"I invite other mathematicians to examine my efforts," said de Branges, who is the Edward C. Elliott Distinguished Professor of Mathematics in Purdue's School of Science. "While I will eventually submit my proof for formal publication, due to the circumstances I felt it necessary to post the work on the Internet immediately."
The Riemann hypothesis is a highly complex theory about the nature of prime numbers – those numbers divisible only by 1 and themselves – that has stymied mathematicians since 1859. In that year, Bernhard Riemann published a conjecture about how prime numbers were distributed among other numbers. He labored over his own theory until his death in 1866, but was ultimately unable to prove it.
In February, 12-year-old Daniel began displaying some symptoms that his father suspected were related to the use of Ritalin.
"He was losing weight, wasn't sleeping, wasn't eating," Taylor told ABC News affiliate KOAT-TV in New Mexico. "[He] just wasn't Daniel."
So Taylor took Daniel off Ritalin, against his doctor's wishes. And though Taylor noticed Daniel was sleeping better and his appetite had returned, his teachers complained about the return of his disruptive behavior. Daniel seemed unable to sit still and was inattentive. His teachers ultimately learned that he was no longer taking Ritalin.
School officials reported Daniel's parents to New Mexico's Department of Children, Youth and Families.Then a detective and social worker made a home visit.
"The detective told me if I did not medicate my son, I would be arrested for child abuse and neglect," Taylor said.
Now, the atheist says “Show me God.” I say, “Show me government.” I do not believe in the existence of government. Now hold your horses, I know that sounds silly at first, but let me explain.
Let’s say you were on a ship full of people. Now the people in that ship went insane and started hallucinating, thinking that you were an alien from another planet and that you must be killed. If those people on that ship killed you, you would really be dead, literally. Just because of the reality of the consequences of that mass hallucination (you being dead) does not prove that you were really an alien. It just proves that the people were suffering from mass hallucination. So, just because the so-called ‘government’ can arrest you and put you in jail, that does not prove the existence of government. It just proves mass hallucination.
Let’s start again now:
The atheist says “Show me God.” I say, “Show me government.” Now don’t tell me the White House. That is not ‘government’. That is a building. That’s just as if I were to show an atheist a church (a building), that would not prove the existence of God.
Ok now, you might show me a Police Officer in uniform, and offer proof on how he can actually arrest me, to prove the existence of Government.
Well, I can show an atheist a priest in uniform, but that would not prove the existence of God. Even if Congress gave priests the authority to arrest people on the streets that would still not prove the existence of God to an atheist. Just like a cop in uniform does not prove the existence of government, it only proves that the people are suffering from mass hallucination.