Re: JSH: Psychosocial issues

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 10/06/04 

Date: 6 Oct 2004 03:56:47 -0700

roddleeh@mit.edu (David Harden) wrote in message news:<a0d492b9.0410051609.711b11c4@posting.google.com>...
> > Now, that means they have to check, as the dark side of their strategy
> > for them is if people realize they must know they are wrong, and are
> > lying to them, but keep at it.
> >
> > So you will see a certain pattern of behavior where there will be
> > pauses from certain posters as they check. If they don't see the
> > appearance that they've been caught, they assume success and continue.
> >
> > That pattern proves their duplicity.
>
> Then, by your logic, since you are the biggest and best example BY FAR
> of someone involved in this who fails to address corrective postings,
> you are the most duplicitous-looking one of all.
>

I *do* address "corrective postings" by which I guess you mean people
critical of my work, but posters cheat, as you're cheating now.

I don't claim to answer every single one as a lot of people reply to
me, and I've covered the main points more than once.

But just so you can't try to hide behind that basic fact--that I don't
reply to everyone who offers up a criticism--I'll mention a pertinent
case where I replied in detail, several times to one poster.

Recently I challenged "Nora Baron" to actually talk about the argument
in my paper Advanced Polynomial Factorization versus talking around
it.

That poster actually this time tried to answer, and requested I detail
the argument, and I did.

I repeatedly asked basic questions of that poster, like whether or not

uf, uf and 3x + uf

were the terms constant with respect to m of key factors, which when
f^2 is divided from P(m) become

u, u and 3x + uf

and how it was possible that such a thing happened.

That poster deleted out all the specific questions that would have
shown objections to be specious.

That was done twice, and the second time that poster deleted out
everything I'd said!

Now then, how exactly do you suppose that can happen and then you come
back to claim I don't answer objections?

I'm curious, if you believe you are a rational person, what is your
answer to that specific case?

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • Re: First Marathon
    ... If the poster had been up to 20-30 miles a week already ... and didnt ask basic questions about running, ...
    (rec.running)
  • Re: Take up airs
    ... But any poster who considered supporting your idiosyncrasy would ... because you continue to omit attributions after a number of people ... behavior in the face of objections to it and no support for it. ... It's not a matter of personalities but it is a matter of persons. ...
    (alt.usage.english)