Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory
jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 03/08/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: C. Bond: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Next in thread: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Reply: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Reply: C. Bond: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 7 Mar 2005 17:44:06 -0800
C. Bond wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Well, you know? That actually makes sense. If I test out every
idea
> > before I post it, and it doesn't work, then I'd know not to post
it,
> > but I brainstorm, which means you go through a period where you
just
> > generate ideas, with very little testing.
>
> That is *not* what you mean by brainstorming! You actually mean
posting an
> idea which is completely untested and unsupported with the
accompanying
> claim that it is an earthshaking breakthrough which renders all other
> mathematics and mathematicians obsolete.
>
It's a *creative* process you simple-minded sci.math'er.
Have you ever heard of being creative?
Even hear about creative people and how they operate?
Usenet is about the basic value that freedom of speech is a good thing.
I quite clearly say what I'm doing, but people like you hound me
anyway, as if my very posting in and of itself is stepping on your
territory, as if you own groups like the sci.math newsgroup.
But worse than that, you people like like everyone else is an idiot.
People *do* know about brainstorming. They *do* know that highly
creative people can be over the top, and very different from the norms
without that being a bad thing.
I acknowledge my errors. I post about math mostly on math newsgroups,
except stepping outside to point out how you people cheat, and I use
modern problem solving techniques like brainstorming.
And people like you spend a lot of effort, put up webpages, post
obsessively in reply to me to convince other people what to do and you
lie about the most basic things.
I am a highly creative person. That is who I am. You do not have the
right to come after me, year, after year, after year, just because my
creative process is one you don't like, when on Usenet POSTING in and
of itself is not a bad thing.
If you don't like someone's posts, you don't have to read them.
James Harris
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: C. Bond: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Next in thread: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Reply: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Reply: C. Bond: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|