Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory
From: C. Bond (cbond_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 03/08/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:09:18 GMT
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
[snip]
> It's a *creative* process you simple-minded sci.math'er.
Do you know the difference between *creative* and *delusional*?
> Have you ever heard of being creative?
Sure. I've also heard of being destructive, delusional, arrogant, paranoid
and insane. I don't see you as being creative.
> Even hear about creative people and how they operate?
Sure. I hold nine patents. How many do you have?
> Usenet is about the basic value that freedom of speech is a good thing.
It's also about newsgroups which are dedicated to specific topics and
issues. This is sci.math and there's NO math in your post. Try
alt.narcissus.
> 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.
You "quite clearly" exaggerate what you have done and lie about its
significance. If you feel hounded, it is because of your character flaws
and abuse of newsgroups. Note that this is sci.math and there is no math in
your post -- only cowardly snivelling.
> But worse than that, you people like like everyone else is an idiot.
Huh?
> 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.
Nothing is wrong with a 6-sigma intelligence -- unless its on the left side
of the curve.
> I acknowledge my errors.
Only when you have been whacked with the 2x4 of TRUTH until something sinks
in. The rest of the time you prefer to attack your critics, call them
liars, and bleat that your work is irrefutable.
> 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.
That's no excuse for "stepping outside". Besides, it's not working.
> 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 also "obsessively" duck when a crazed ape flings feces at me. Please post
a reference to any of my lies, and then observe the title to this thread
for an example of one of yours.
> I am a highly creative person. That is who I am.
You are an idiot.
> 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.
Cripes! Where did you get this paraphrase of Martha Stewart? Of course
posting on Usenet is not in and of itself a bad thing, but crank and
crackpot behavior is. So is trolling.
> If you don't like someone's posts, you don't have to read them.
Good advice. Take it.
-- There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious. -- Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle. -- http://www.crbond.com
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, complete theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
