Re: JSH: Just plain silly

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 09/20/04 

Date: 20 Sep 2004 15:39:13 -0700

"Quinn Tyler Jackson" <quinn-j@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<cor3d.457042$M95.321119@pd7tw1no>...
> > I can understand why you might feel angry about this. I don't understand
> > why you imagine that this is in any way my responsibility, unless you
> > think it's wrong to inform a journal of an error in its publication.
>
> I don't blame you for doing what you felt you had to do. It was an
> unfortunate (and probably not very well thought out) turn of events that
> what happened happened the way it did. I am simply trying to explain my use
> of the term "revisionist history" in light of the details I was aware of
> when I first arrived on sci.math and cried foul about the whole affair. (I
> leave it to interpretation as to whom should be held to account for the
> alleged revisionism -- except to say that I certainly don't hold you
> accountable for that, Dale.)
>
> Unfortunately, I'm not well enough versed in polynomial factorization to
> comment on the merits of the paper in question, or upon the subsequent
> critiques of same. Perhaps if it had been a paper on some branch of language
> theory -- OK, maybe then I would be in a position to comment on the merits
> of the paper itself. But I'm not.
>
> But I watched as the paper was accepted, put up on the site, the response
> that followed, the pulling with the revised citation of the note I had read
> only the night before as it was posted, and the subsequent hurling of
> flames. I watched as claims were made that it was a clerical error that the
> paper was ever accepted at all. I watched as James (and myself) were called
> liars for stating that mathematicians hadn't pointed out the "errors" on the
> closed list. I watched how the comments came in about whether or not I was
> some kind of spoofed identity of James Harris. I watched how the existence
> of such a list was questioned. I watched ... and probably should have just
> kept watching and shut the hell up.
>
> My quixotic nature, however, once again got the better of me and instead of
> keeping the hell quiet, I spoke out against what appeared to be James
> getting the short end.
>
> I'll drop it now.

It's not the appearance that I'm getting the short end, but a basic
betrayal by mathematicians of their own rules.

To date the paper, while reviewed by some very highly placed people
has not been shown to have a significant error, while a minor error
pointed out by a sci.math poster has been fixed.

So I have a paper which doesn't have an error in it.

But posters on sci.math continue to rail against it, and offer up
bogus claims against it, which I can shoot down with little effort.

But it doesn't matter as mathematicians aren't playing by their own
rules.

Sure, you people may feel good that you can bluster an editor, like
you did with Ioannis Argyros at Southwest Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, and you can excoriate people who post in support of me,
like Quinn, who I'm replying to now, until they cry out, but you're
just nasty people.

History will judge you that way, as a vicious mob that reacted as so
many mobs have when something they didn't like came to the fore.

As I've noted, you demonstrate a hatred for mathematics, as if you
like it when it gives you results you like, but hate it if those
results challenge you in a certain way, like coming from someone like
me, then you cannot love mathematics, as you do not love truth.

Your disdain for mathematics itself is what will be most visible to
future mathematicians who will justifiably hate you because they will
fear being like you.

Your own work may at times unfairly be tossed aside by people who have
good reason to fear and mistrust you, but your complete lack of belief
in mathematics and lack of love for it is shown by an apparent lack of
caring about the obvious.

So I speak before a crowd of the damned, cursed to be unloved
throughout time, with only their hatred and bile to comfort them now,
having betrayed what should have been their one true lover:
Mathematics.

You are a cursed and nasty people, and now you have nothing.

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Just plain silly
    ... >> some kind of spoofed identity of James Harris. ... >Mathematics, and you can excoriate people who post in support of me, ... >History will judge you that way, as a vicious mob that reacted as so ... >future mathematicians who will justifiably hate you because they will ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Math research, passion is importantQ
    ... >in the appropriate field of mathematics. ... James Harris and Quinn both _said_ several ... mathematicians" review his proof in his "closed list". ... not accept their "facts" as facts. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Sweep likely
    ... >> exchange of insults, I can gladly comply. ... And I need not remind you of James Harris' ... yet you elevate it to "treats" against Quinn. ... >> without commenting on your mathematics, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: My polishing mathematics
    ... first manufactured JSH polishing mathematics in about 1886. ... outstanding trademarks was Monkey-Butt Sapolio, ... made from finely ground quartz and James Harris tallow mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
    ... >> to suddenly forget basic mathematics long enough to believe them. ... looking at what may be a coincidence and mapping what may be a LOT of ... James Harris ...
    (sci.math)
Loading