Re: JSH: Just plain silly
From: Mensanator (mensanator_at_aol.compost)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: D. Baruth: "Re: Bessel Function - J0(x)"
- Previous message: Mensanator: "Re: JSH: Nora Baron"
- In reply to: James Harris: "Re: JSH: Just plain silly"
- Next in thread: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: JSH: Just plain silly"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 21 Sep 2004 00:35:19 GMT
>Subject: Re: JSH: Just plain silly
>From: jstevh@msn.com (James Harris)
>Date: 9/20/2004 5:39 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <3c65f87.0409201439.60025e3c@posting.google.com>
>
>"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.
Good work, Dante. Looks like that time you spent in alt.writing is starting
to pay off.
>
>You are a cursed and nasty people, and now you have nothing.
>
>
>James Harris
-- Mensanator Ace of Clubs
- Next message: D. Baruth: "Re: Bessel Function - J0(x)"
- Previous message: Mensanator: "Re: JSH: Nora Baron"
- In reply to: James Harris: "Re: JSH: Just plain silly"
- Next in thread: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: JSH: Just plain silly"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
