Re: JSH: Still hoping?
From: W. Dale Hall (mailtodhall_at_farir.com)
Date: 02/19/05
- Next message: Ike: "Re: Modern physics and refutation of nihilism"
- Previous message: Jason: "Re: Gabriel's Theorem - what I have learned thus far."
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "JSH: Still hoping?"
- Next in thread: Tim Peters: "Re: Still hoping?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:08:20 GMT
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> Couple of months have passed since I posted that some of you had just a
> few more months left.
>
So what? Are you so deluded that you think *any* of your dire threats
are worth even breaking wind over? You really must get that narcicissm
thing under control. I'm here for the floor show.
> Still hoping?
>
Me, I hope to see more of those "boy, the world's gonna have your asses
in a sling" predictions. They're better than laughable! I like all that
talk about The Hammer!
I admit, I used to listen to Christian fundamentalists, real fire'n'
brimstone, froth at the mouth, speaking in tongues, tub-thumping
Hallelooooyah to JEEEEEsus!!! preachers over late-night AM radio
for much the same thrill, and then I graduated to the Hard Stuff:
ShortWave narrow-casting religious preeverts: Christian Identity,
Radio Nazis, DemDamJooze folks. Hitler apologists, Deutschland über
Alles, Horst Wessel Lied, National Vanguard (folks who thought Pat
Buchanan was a race traitor because he had Jews on his staff), the
whole megillah, as they'd say. Holy Moses, indeed!
It was Free-Base HolyRollers, Crack Christianity, Methampheta-God
stuff, and it was hard to see how these folks could settle down and
do anything what with all the mixture of bile and benzedrine that was
going down. You could just about see those guys tying off an arm for
that next hit.
So, when I hear you peddling this "Protocols of the Learned Elders of
Math" line, coupled with those apocalyptic jive rants of yours, well,
it just kind of warms my old heart.
> I'll admit that I have been thinking to myself that maybe talking a lot
> about the Annals of Mathematics having my paper isn't the best idea.
>
> I mean, maybe they'll not like that, and reject my paper just for me
> being a big mouth.
>
> Um, yeah, so a correct math paper with major implications would get
> rejected because I talked to a few yahoo's on Usenet?
>
I have no expectation that your paper is correct, as long as it bears
more than the slightest resemblance to the one that everyone here has
read and commented on. Given that, I would venture to guess that you
will not see your name on the cover of the Rolling Stone, er, in the
Table of Contents of the Annals.
If your paper is still claiming the coprimeness result that I showed to
be false, then it surely will not be published with that error. As far
as your boorish behavior constituting anything relevant to publication,
I would think not.
However, thoughtful editors may be checking to see whether they
really have anything to fear, given your propensity towards threats
of violence. You know, background checks, queries with local law-
enforcement agencies in your particular vicinity, that sort of thing.
It would be a shame for them to reject your paper for its manifest
display of cluelessness and ineptitude, only to be greeted by your
leering face in a dark parking garage.
> Are you people that important?
>
sci.math? Important? Hardly. A number of big names have been seen in the
vicinity, including at least one Fields Medal winner, but the newsgroup
as an entity is merely a public forum inhabited by geeks.
> So yeah, they still have the paper. After the four month point I think
> I'd start getting a feeling of certainty that it'd get accepted.
>
> It's still early.
>
According to this report
www.ams.org/notices/200408/backlog.pdf
the September, 2004 estimate of The Annals of Mathematics for the
backlog for current papers is 16 months.
> I might get some rejection Monday, you know?
>
> But for now, it's still under review.
>
> Are you still hoping? Are you some silly person who is wishing instead
> of believing in mathematics? Or do you believe that you understand
> math society and that what's true doesn't matter?
>
I wonder why you feel the need to push this point. I pointed out a
problem, and (after months of your refusal to see the point), you
finally admitted that the claimed coprimeness was not, in fact, the
case in the ring of algebraic integers.
> Posters rejected my work outright more than once, calling it names, and
> acting as if no one would pay attention to it, but Princeton still has
> it.
>
Perhaps you changed the article? Perhaps it's worded so poorly, from a
source that is clearly uneducated, that the folks in Princeton decided
to (try to) get to the bottom of what it is you're saying? I mean, who
doesn't want to give the underdog a bit of a hand?
> Any of you ready to start talking down the Annals?
>
What's this "talking down" nonsense? Don't you realize that the "talking
down" that happened wrt SWJPAM had to do with their inept handling of
the entire episode surrounding your submission, from poor referreeing,
through its flawed publication, to its unceremonious yanking from their
site? I know, you prefer to tell yourself it all had to do with the
evil SOBs at sci.math ganging up on the poor editor and forcing him to
flee the country, but that's just because you have a rather tentative
(but conspiratorial) grasp on reality.
> Are any of you ready to proclaim your great intellectual superiority to
> that journal, which has a paper of mine for now over three months that
> many of you would loudly proclaim as just total crap not worth
> considering?
>
oooooooh. THREE MONTHS!!!!
As far as "not worth considering", doesn't it take *some* reading to
establish the value of a paper?
> Anybody? Anybody?
>
> Step up to the plate. Make your declaration here on Usenet. Show how
> brave you are.
>
Look. You have not shown anyone here the article that you submitted to
the Annals, have you? How can anyone, then, proclaim it to be complete
and utter crap, irrespective of our experience with your version
of mathematics, as long as we haven't even had a single look at
the paper?? You may prefer to wallow in a cesspool of bigotry and
prejudice, given your wont for blanket castigation of practitioners
of mathematics, but the rest of us think that's a bit uncouth.
Put the paper where folks can see it, and you might get some reasonable
reaction.
> And, make no mistake, I have no problem with some of you setting
> yourselves up for some of the worst days of your lives.
>
What would I do if the Annals were actually to publish your paper?
Probably, I would find a copy and Xerox it, and compare it to the
versions I have that are *fundamentally* flawed. If I came across a
residual flaw, I might e-mail the appropriate editor and request
some degree of clarification. Kind of like how I behaved wrt SWJPAM.
Would it ruin my day? No.
Would I be surprised? Mightily.
> Go ahead, make my day.
>
OK, here goes:
Have a nice day.
... howzat?
>
> James Harris
>
Dale.
- Next message: Ike: "Re: Modern physics and refutation of nihilism"
- Previous message: Jason: "Re: Gabriel's Theorem - what I have learned thus far."
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "JSH: Still hoping?"
- Next in thread: Tim Peters: "Re: Still hoping?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
