Re: Latest fuss, my apologies

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 10/02/04 

Date: 2 Oct 2004 11:54:10 -0700

"Justin" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:<cjmav2$6l2$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
> In sci.math James Harris <jstevh@msn.com> wrote:
>
> : They like it. Why do you think they keep replying?
>
> They like the mathematics, and they're good at it.
>
> : Well that's not what Barry Mazur said.
>
> Quoting that somebody said something doesn't get you either respect or
> belief. If Barry logs on here and suggests that your methods are
> advanced and correct, he'd be subject to the same criticism that you are.
>

You're deluded. And yes I notice the use of "Barry" as if Barry Mazur
is your buddy or something!

Actually, you're not deluded, you're lying. You know that if Barry
Mazur came and posted here it'd be some great event that'd send emails
buzzing around the world and might crash servers!

But you think it's a small thing now because you don't know yet the
kind of attention my postings actually draw. Barry Mazur may be
actually reading this post, soon enough. Your mistake is a simple,
and human one of affect.

It's Usenet, and you downgrade it, when in fact, what the potential
is, is an international audience of MILLIONS of people. Sure most of
you can't get a few dozen to read your posts, but that doesn't change
the potential.

Well look and learn, and pay attention to what happens next, as I
refuted "Nora Baron" on sci.math and explained how I use *constants*
to constrain functions which are in fact advanced techniques.

That refutation with its jailhouse analogy is one of the best I've
done, though I have refuted "Nora Baron" and other posters before, but
this time I think it will be just a bit different, as readers consider
whether or not they wish to accept that constants are both constant
and varying.

They'd have to be kind of dumb though not to get the jailhouse
analogy.

A child could understand it, so I expect at least some sci.math people
will have to get it!

James Harris