Re: Suggesting a Poll

On Feb 22, 6:41�pm, BD <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Mensanator <mensana...@xxxxxxx> writes:
On Feb 22, 3:03 pm, BD <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Mensanator <mensana...@xxxxxxx> writes:
On Feb 22, 4:09 am, BD <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Mensanator <mensana...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 21, 3:04 pm, BD <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Mensanator <mensana...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Why is your sci.math message count over 800 more than shows
in my Google Groups profile?

Perhaps because you failed to consider the obvious fact that I've
posted under different email accounts over the past couple decades..

Well, yeah, I'm not one of your groupies, why would I consider that?

Yes, by now it's clear that you don't consider even the basic facts
regarding many matters that you naively babble about.

As you admit below, the above statement about multiple
email accounts was completely untrue. You were simply
lying, trying to cover up your incompetence.

Sigh, your reading comprehension is worse than your mathematics.

Is it? What part of

� Below are the statistics, gathered crudely by simply computing the
� percentage of posts in the Google Groups sci.math archive that
� involve telltale crank-bashing keywords (crank, loon, crackpot...).

is it you think I'm not comprehending?

What part of

Perhaps because you failed to consider the obvious fact that I've
posted under different email accounts over the past couple decades..

am I not comprehending? Go ahead, explain how your having
different email accounts throws off MY post count.

Do you have any functioning neurons? �

Why do you always answer a question with a question?

Why don't you just give a straight answer?

? If you're not aware of all my
accounts then of course your count will be short of the real total.

The "real" total? What, pray tell, is that? How is YOUR reality
different from mine? I'm not a mathematician, you'll have to
explain it.

I'm waiting...

You've seriously exhausted my patience, even more than in our prior
exhange on 3n+1, where you failed to comprehend high-school level
mathematics.

Fail to comprehend WHAT, specifically? You still haven't said.
How come you won't answer MY specific questions? You won't because
you can't. Whom do you imagine you're fooling with this bull***?
Surely, anyone retarded enough to believe it can't operate a computer.

I won't waste any further time on your nonsense.

I thought you said *PLONK* last time, what are you doing
reading my reply?






If you think they are in error then you should report
it to Google Groups.

I don't see any error on Goggle's part. I see that you
are outright lying claiming your list represents sci.math
when it actually represents sci.math PLUS other *math* groups.

Beware that Google Groups has become less stable
recently so it may difficult to reliably recompute last years results.

Your list was *** last year and it's still ***.

No, no, no, it was CRAP last year, and it's still CRAP!
Your abstraction is lacking, not to mention your manners.

Idiot. Let's look at an example even the short bus crowd can
understand: Suppose someone made 100 posts to sci.math, of which 3
are what you call CRAP. That's 3%, right? Now suppose those 3 posts
and ONLY those 3 were cross-posted to alt.math and alt.math.recreational.
Under your retarded algorithm, they each get counted three times
3 in sci.math, 3 in alt.math, 3 in alt.math.recreational
That's a total of 9. And how many total posts are there?
100 in sci.math, 3 � in alt.math, 3 � in alt.math.recreational
And what's 9/106? 8.49%, quite a difference from 3%, eh?
The only CRAP around here is your pitiful attempt at statistics.
Macsyma developer my ass. What was your role, sweeping up the office?

The only thing idiotic is your naive presumption that someone would
employ such a "retarded algorithm".

Do you admit saying "crudely gathered"? Crude as in fucking
worthless?

Your posts are littered with
ridiculous presumptions that are all quite off the mark.

Your statistics are so far off the mark as to indicate
laughable incompetence. It doesn't matter what my
presumptions are, the results are consistent with utter
stupidity on your part.






Come back when you know some math

Oh? Specifically, name something I've said that is
mathematically incorrect. Not generalizations, specific
details. Is there something wrong with my Sequence Vector
definition? What, specifically? Is there something wrong
with the Hailstone Function? Are you claiming it doesn't
work? Are you saying the Crossover Point doesn't
resolve the issue of loop cycles? Are you claiming
that reducing a rational to lowest terms is somehow
different in Z- than in Z+? C'mon, you're the wizard
who developed Macsyma, let's hear your explanation.
This oughta be good.

If you believe you've proved something new and worthwhile
then why didn't you publish it in a reputable math journal?

I thought I did. But I'm not in the biz, so I had no idea
that the journal I published it in was run by a crank.

I didn't know you are actually published in a crank journal.

At the time, neither did I. Point is _I_ have something to
show. What have you got? You STILL have not answered my
question about what YOU have done in the last two decades.
I won't hold lack of publication against you, just tell me
what you have accomplished.

So the crude CRAP statistics actually discovered a true crank.

Non Sequitur. You're pretty good at that, aren't you?

I rest my case.

What case? You haven't made a case yet. Just a bunch of
lies and inuendos.

What, specifically, is wrong with anything I've said about 3n+1?

So long and best of luck with your "research".

You said that last time, but what should one expect from a liar?
.

Quantcast