Re: Latest fuss, my apologies

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 10/03/04 

Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 08:12:52 -0500

On 2 Oct 2004 11:54:10 -0700, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:

>"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!

It's hilarious, the way you accuse us of bowing to authority, when
in fact it's _you_ who evaluates things on the basis of a person's
name. No, if Mazur made a post here it wouldn't crash any servers.
Probably if he had anything to say it would be correct. In the
unlikely event he had a question it would be answered, and if
he said something ridiculous people would reply that it was
ridiculous.

>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,

Oh my. Then I take back what I said. In case He might be Reading:
Yes, if Mazur made a post here it would be the single greatest
event in the history of the internet.

Guffaw.

>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

************************

David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Latest fuss, my apologies
    ... You know that if Barry ... Few enough people even would know who Mazur is, ... typical posts of him than those of you, and that is because his posts ... would likely draw interest from only few insiders with special areas ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Latest fuss, my apologies
    ... You know that if Barry ... > to constrain functions which are in fact advanced techniques. ... > That refutation with its jailhouse analogy is one of the best I've ... > James Harris ...
    (sci.math)
Loading