JSH: desperately clinging on

JSH vs. Ullrich (in 2002, 4 years ago)

http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=426986

Re: Current discussion on short FLT Proof
Posted: Oct 26, 2002 10:12 PM Plain Text Reply


David C. Ullrich <ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:<vm8lru050v7ia2o8grsajdkqahhpcf83o1@xxxxxxx>...
On 25 Oct 2002 21:30:52 -0700, jstevh@xxxxxxx (James Harris) wrote:

magidin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Arturo Magidin) wrote in message
news:<apbvds$2ok3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>...
[...]

It seems to me that if you really were so confident that you were
right, you wouldn't be so vigilant.

This is a new one, reasons-why-Harris-must-be-right-wise: Magidin
explains what's wrong with The Proof, and he keeps on explaining.
The fact that he doesn't just give up in the face of your obstinate
refusal to face facts shows that he's not all that confident, so
it follows that proof is right.

Good one.

He's behaving as if he's terrified that if he doesn't catch every post
of mine that gives a good explanation and muddy the waters that people
might start realizing that I'm correct.

So it seems to me that you may be acting under the false belief that
you're better off trying to maintain a bad but seemingly stable
position.

However, the world isn't waiting on you. My posts are read by
thousands of people worldwide and they aren't just going to believe
you, like others in the past have.

But _none_ of those thousands of people have decided you're right.
You haven't noticed that, right?

That is false.

Now maybe my trust in the world IS misplaced, and maybe you and other
mathematicians who may now realize that the proof is correct can get
away with a lie.

When you call people liars like this you lose your right to complain
about how insulting they are to poor little you.

Have you ever considered what it'd be like to have your *picture* in
the local paper as the mathematician who embarrassed Oklahoma State
University?

In our modern world, where do you think you can go? Where can you
hide when people realize what you've done?

[...]

You have a tendency to attribute things to "every one else" as if you
speak for the entire newsgroup.

I thought we investigated this recently. We had polls, asking whether
people believed the people objecting to the proof were right. We got
replies, including many from lurkers who had never spoken up before,
as far as I can recall. Every single one of the replies indicated
that the person replying agreed that yes, the objections made sense
and your rebuttals did not. Every single one.

_You_ initiated those "polls". You don't seem to recall the results.

I've studed the results of all my polls carefully, which may be why my
postings are creating such frenetic activity from Magidin and now you
in replying to them.

How stupid do you really think people are?

Someone like me claims to have proven FLT in a proof so short the
first surprise is getting over its shortness, but professional
mathematicians spend so much time replying to so many of my postings
claiming its bunk?

Worse, at least one of those people could face serious impact because
he made the mistake of trying to use race as an arguing tool, so his
motivations are even clearer?

To me you're desperately clinging to the futile hope that you can fool
the entire world all of the time, while behaving in a way that raises
suspicions.

That's a sign of delusion, which I've also noted.

Um, see above.

You attribute this to fear. That's projections.

No. I have noted that when you're cornered you become wordy and
insulting.

Well, here you are. You have threatened me with legal action, with
financial ruin, with getting me fired. You have posted libelous
assertions about me time and again. Despite having been proven wrong
in all (well, at least you agree in "all except perhaps this last
one"), you have never posted an apology, say, to your whole thread
with subject "Magidin is a liar". You have been rude.

My position has been and remains that you *must* tell the truth or be
responsible for not doing so.

And you have demonstrated ample hypocrisy in this position, since it
does not apply to you. Time and again you have been caught in outright
lies, yet you have never come out an acknowledged that your statements
were in fact false.

My position has been and remains that you *must* tell the truth or be
responsible for not doing so.

Further, I think that applies to everyone, including myself.

It does not appear to anyone else that you feel that applies to you.

Again, the global thinking that I've noted with Magidin is a sign of
delusion.

You seem to need the delusion that *everyone* is on your side, which
is probably why you posted that the newsgroup agreed with you about a
racial slur being the appropriate reply.

Yup, your *recent* post attributing support for that position from the
*entire* newsgroup is now part of the record here.

At times I've noted postings from you
which lead me to believe that you were deliberately telling falsehoods
with the clear intention to deceive.

You can say whatever you want. If you had integrity, though, you would
also follow-up your accusations with retractions when it became clear
I was right and in fact you were wrong.

At times I've noted postings from you which lead me to believe that
you were deliberately telling falsehoods with the clear intention to
deceive.

And in every such case what led you to believe this was your ignorance
of the relevant mathematics.

That is not true. Asserting it indicates further delusion because for
you to believe that you actually knew such facts would require that
you believe you can read minds.

My position has been and remains that mathematicians as a group have a
duty to tell the truth, and also can be held to a high standard.

Your position is silly. But thanks for sharing it.

I don't think the position that mathematicians have a duty to tell the
truth is silly, nor do I believe it silly that they can be held to a
high standard.

And I reiterate that it's not silly to believe that mathematicians
have a duty to tell the truth.

My position is that failure by mathematicians to live up to a high
standard can be a basis for negative consequences.

Your position is based on the assumption that mathematicians have
failed to live to a high standard you made up, based on your
perception that you are right and you are wrong, even though you
akcnowledge lacking enough knowledge to understand the objections.

There is a truth, either I have found a short proof of Fermat's Last
Theorem or I have not.

I have determined that I have found that proof, and I don't think it
unfair of me to believe that mathematicians are duty bound to tell the
truth about it.

People _are_ telling the truth about it.

If you were telling the truth, then you'd be done now.

What you probably fear is my ability to find an explanation.

But as long as *professional* mathematicians like yourself are there
to confuse people as best you can, you may continue to hope that you
can fool the entire world.

[...]

You have no basis to claim they are not true. They are true, whether
or not you understand them. Just like the proofs of those theorems we
have quoted exist in the books, no matter how often you say we simply
"claim" they are in the books, whether or not you actually bother to
go to a library and look them up.

You don't get it do you? I don't care if they're in books. I only
care if they're true.

This again. If established mathematics says I'm wrong then established
mathematics is wrong. You really must not realize how you sound when
you say that.

Does it really matter if something is in a book if it isn't true?

Do you maintain that everything published in a book is true?

[...]

As I said before, I believe mathematicians can be held to a high
standard. I also believe that covers mathematicians who work for the
government.

As a citizen I have a right to speak up when I see a government
employee behaving in a way that I feel reflects badly upon their
organization.

_Why_ have you never told us what the Oklahoma Attorney General
had to say about your complaints about my possibly illegal activities,
by the way?

I asked for advice.

[...]

(And it doesn't matter what your justification for your behavior to
David Ullrich was; you explicitly stated that you had taken those
steps TO STOP HIM FROM POSTING, and that the supposed offense was
merely the ->excuse<- you were using to accomplish that goal. You
were, in fact, attempting to censor him for disagreeing with you.)

Ullrich introduced race into the discussion and made a backhanded
insult by talking about a racial slur he called the appropriate reply
that he didn't make. He makes these comments more than a year after I
said he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance, which was the comment
that upset him. And after I'd promptly apologized for those same
comments when I noticed from his posts that he was upset. And after
I'd tried my best to ignore him as he repeatedly replied to my
postings.

Ullrich played the race card, not me.

Even if that _were_ true (note the counterfactual subjuntive) it
does _not_ in any way address what Magidin said here.

The fact remains that you introduced race into the discussion claiming
that you felt a racial slur in reply to my saying that you had acted
as my lapdog in an instance was the appropriate reply.

So, you played the race card. You introduced race into the
discussion, and in a derogatory context. When I objected, you
defended your behavior.

And I wasn't the only poster who called you on it.

One reply to you that I found very interesting was from Jim Ferry.

Then he got away with it, and managed to make me out to be the bad
guy, with all these people like you attacking me in posts.

And I wasn't even the one who told anyone that I'd contacted Oklahoma
State University.

It was Ullrich who did.

Uh, right. What could your point be here?

I guess he knew the sci.math newsgroup, now didn't he.

I don't know the OK AG. And _you're_ the one who told us that
you'd contacted him (regarding whatever your point is above).
_Why_ have you never told us what his reply said?

What, are you afraid there's an open investigation?

You *sound* guilty.

[...]

It occurs to me that you're managing to waste a good amount of my
time, and that's actually annoying to me.

_We_/he are/is wasting _your_ time?

So guess what?

No more of these marathon postings where you get away with so many non
math comments.

Uh, right. I don't recall Magidin starting any threads on sci.math
about TV shows.

Your post didn't have any math content at all, but I found myself
taking the bait because I guess I'm still pissed.

You interject race into the discussion in a derogatory way to attack
me, and then all these other posters attack me as well, when I object.

To me you're making your university look bad so I inform them, so you
post about that on the newsgroup in further attacks on me, and now all
these people keep posting claiming I tried to get you fired.

You're a disgrace to professors in general.

I never tried to get you fired. I never tried to get you to stop
posting.

I TRIED TO GET YOU TO QUIT TRYING TO TALK TO ME!!!

You're a fucking newsgroup stalker who has no morals who keeps getting
these fucking idiots to defend your immoral ass and I'm sick of
it!!!!!

LEAVE ME THE *** ALONE YOU PIECE OF ***!!!!!!!!


James Harris


.

Quantcast