Re: JSH: Just plain silly
From: Denis Feldmann (denis.feldmann_at_wanadoo.fr)
Date: 09/19/04
- Next message: Mike Oliver: "Re: Infinte strings of digits"
- Previous message: N. Silver: "Re: Infinte strings of digits"
- In reply to: Quinn Tyler Jackson: "Re: JSH: Just plain silly"
- Next in thread: W. Dale Hall: "Re: JSH: Just plain silly"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:38:37 +0200
Quinn Tyler Jackson wrote:
> Mensonator said:
>
>> So if it wasn't bugging you, why did you enlist your mentalist
>> friends to defend ....
>
> Um, first off -- what the heck is a mentalist?
>
> Second -- when I jumped in a few months back and spoke out about the
> SWJPAM nonsense, I did it of my own accord, and James actually
> suggested I *not* get involved.
>
> I ended up getting royally roasted in public by an anonymous poster
> with no sense of human decency. And for what?
>
> For stating that I'd seen something that was awry in the way a paper
> that had been accepted all of a sudden had magically been reviewed
> months before and rejected months before, with the editor allegedly
> sending this "review" to James that I'd seen posted here on sci.math
> AFTER publication, and which specifically spoke of the thing ALREADY
> having been published, but with that wording REMOVED from the
> "review" that was sent when the already published paper was yanked.
>
> These things angered me. I spoke up. James didn't enlist me.
>
> When I write something that gets published somewhere and someone
> doesn't necessarily agree with my take on things, they respond like
> this:
>
> http://hirvi.cs.queensu.ca/boolean/boolean_LL.pdf
>
> (See page two, first and second paragraph.)
>
> That is how it's supposed to be done. In an honorable way.
>
> That gives me a chance to formulate a response in the correct manner,
> and to seek publication of my response. My response to that author's
> comments are included in my latest paper. And so on.
>
> That's how it's supposed to be done, isn't it?
>
> Am I wrong about this? Or is James Harris a special case that allows
> for revisionist history?
James *is* a special case indeed. Revisionist history is still a big word
for what happened. Anyway, a lot of people were quite unhappy with what
happened, but not for James, only because it prevented readers to see why
the paper should have been rejected...
>
> If so -- enlighten me, please.
- Next message: Mike Oliver: "Re: Infinte strings of digits"
- Previous message: N. Silver: "Re: Infinte strings of digits"
- In reply to: Quinn Tyler Jackson: "Re: JSH: Just plain silly"
- Next in thread: W. Dale Hall: "Re: JSH: Just plain silly"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
