JSH: Mixed feelings about the newsgroup
in [Math]
|
Prev: where we have a new understanding of what factorial means in 254! = 10^500 #648 Correcting Math
Next: JSH: To my Chinese fans--thanks!!!
From: MichaelW on 11 Jul 2010 19:09 On Jul 12, 8:56 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 11, 3:29 pm, MichaelW <ms...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > > > On Jul 12, 5:01 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The fear I had in years past was that someone might put forward a > > > BETTER IDEA, which was the scary thing which is why what I've done may > > > not be safe for all discoverers who do not wish to be upstaged!!! > > > This has already happened. Looking at your Top Super Results post from > > May 11 on the mymath blog: > > > (1) My algorithm to extract a solution from the digits of pi is still > > more efficient than yours (in all its incarnations) > > (2) I have posted a better simplification to the BQDE and can do so > > again if you like > > (3) Your prime gap equation consistently produces the wrong answer. I > > was not the first to post the correct formula here but post it I did > > I didn't even know you had one! No, no need to post it. I tire of > people like you trying to ride my coattails. > > Just did a search: prime gap equation > > Hmmm...I have #1 when I do that in Google. Where are you? > Why would it appear on Google if it is not posted? In any case your prime gap equation is a badly formed and incomplete restatement of the prime number theorem. Google that. > > Your reinvention of history not withstanding the "hostiles" as you > > call us have often upstaged you and (in many cases) done so with > > grace, patience and humour. > > > Regards, Michael W. > > Simple delusion. > > Usenet allows people to live in complete fantasy. > > Difference for me is that people can just do the web searches. > > A web search--unlike claims--is an intimate reality for each individual. > > But I'm replying here to note the bizarre reality that people will say > just about anything. > > Oh, as the years have gone by, faced with Usenet posters who would > continually make false statements I've learned to rely more and more > on what I call objective measures. > > Posters will attack me in any way that they think hurts--like making > false claims--but just go to Google or Yahoo! or some other search > engine, and see the oddity of the blatant lies. Okay, you have just called me a liar. I call you on this statement. Show me what I have written that is a lie, or apologise. > > It does bug you though, when you see the reality of humanity: its love > of cruelty. > > People are often I think cruel even publicly when they think they can > do so freely. Attacking another person's ideas and making false > statements about them predictably can impact them negatively, even > when the statements are clearly and blatantly false. > > James Harris Calling someone a liar on a public forum for no reason is also cruelty. Show me what I wrote that is wrong or apologise. All you have done is attack my ideas and make false statements about them, even when what you have said is clearly and blatantly false. Michael W.
From: Joshua Cranmer on 11 Jul 2010 21:03 On 07/11/2010 03:01 PM, JSH wrote: > And they DO work like mad demons. In years past I'd be amazed at > postings that would go 24 hours a day, with posters clearly working > overtime trying to figure out what nasty thing to say to me that they > expected might hurt my feelings or, their real goal, stop me from > posting. Usenet is an international forum, which means that the sun never sets on it. On the other hand, I doubt people are working overtime to put you down. For professional trollbashers, well, it's second nature. Their real goal, I suspect, is nothing like you expect; just pure self-pleasure and self-aggrandizement at your expense. > Free speech can be abused. Cf. Brandenburg v. Ohio. In the U.S. at least, the amount of "protected" speech is shockingly high. > I've actually found use for negative feedback about my > mathematical ideas, Oh, please elaborate? > The fear I had in years past was that someone might put forward a > BETTER IDEA, which was the scary thing which is why what I've done may > not be safe for all discoverers who do not wish to be upstaged!!! Generally, someone coming up with a better way is not a thing to be feared. Unless you are egotistical and are wedded to the idea that you must absolutely be the best person on Earth. > Oddly enough, the viciousness of the hostility may have protected me > somewhat as posters were too afraid to say ANYTHING positive about my > ideas knowing they'd be verbally assaulted if they did. More often by you than by anyone else. You have rarely replied to anyone who lacked substantial comments, but when you reply to most people, it comes with a hefty verbal tirade. And most of the people who write substantial replies have some positive things to say, even if they are mostly negative. > The angry and > nasty posters had made group rules that nothing good was to be said > about my research, which is a set of rules they enforce to this day-- > posters know ahead of time they will be punished if they break them. Funny, this is the first I've heard of those rules. Either that or the punishment is so mild as to be unnoticeable. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: JSH on 11 Jul 2010 21:24 On Jul 11, 6:03 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > On 07/11/2010 03:01 PM, JSH wrote: > > > And they DO work like mad demons. In years past I'd be amazed at > > postings that would go 24 hours a day, with posters clearly working > > overtime trying to figure out what nasty thing to say to me that they > > expected might hurt my feelings or, their real goal, stop me from > > posting. > > Usenet is an international forum, which means that the sun never sets on > it. On the other hand, I doubt people are working overtime to put you > down. For professional trollbashers, well, it's second nature. Their > real goal, I suspect, is nothing like you expect; just pure > self-pleasure and self-aggrandizement at your expense. > > > Free speech can be abused. > > Cf. Brandenburg v. Ohio. In the U.S. at least, the amount of "protected" > speech is shockingly high. > > > I've actually found use for negative feedback about my > > mathematical ideas, > > Oh, please elaborate? > > > The fear I had in years past was that someone might put forward a > > BETTER IDEA, which was the scary thing which is why what I've done may > > not be safe for all discoverers who do not wish to be upstaged!!! > > Generally, someone coming up with a better way is not a thing to be > feared. Unless you are egotistical and are wedded to the idea that you > must absolutely be the best person on Earth. > > > Oddly enough, the viciousness of the hostility may have protected me > > somewhat as posters were too afraid to say ANYTHING positive about my > > ideas knowing they'd be verbally assaulted if they did. > > More often by you than by anyone else. You have rarely replied to anyone > who lacked substantial comments, but when you reply to most people, it > comes with a hefty verbal tirade. And most of the people who write > substantial replies have some positive things to say, even if they are > mostly negative. > > > The angry and > > > nasty posters had made group rules that nothing good was to be said > > about my research, which is a set of rules they enforce to this day-- > > posters know ahead of time they will be punished if they break them. > > Funny, this is the first I've heard of those rules. Either that or the > punishment is so mild as to be unnoticeable. A while back I belonged to an ultra high IQ group (only as a provisional member though) and some of the members of that group posted support for me, to exceedingly high amounts of vitriol in verbal attacks. One poster I think STILL routinely attacks one of those people, so I won't mention that person's name. Around that time, almost as a joke I asked if support from a member of NASA, the US space agency, would help, and posters promptly replied-- verbally attacking NASA. And more than once people have contacted me expressing fear about posting. Those rules are well-established: people who post support for my ideas will be verbally abused and it HAS happened enough through the years that it is very clear. Of course the ultimate though was the destruction of the math journal SWJPAM. When the newsgroup got word that I'd been published in a formally peer reviewed mathematical journal they ripped on the journal ENDLESSLY. Posters on the sci.math newsgroup learn one thing fast: post support for my ideas at their peril. One was verbally assaulted just recently for daring to not toe-the- line completely against my latest research. The poster "Mark Murray" lashed into him. James Harris
From: Joshua Cranmer on 11 Jul 2010 22:14 On 07/11/2010 09:24 PM, JSH wrote: > Those rules are well-established: people who post support for my ideas > will be verbally abused and it HAS happened enough through the years > that it is very clear. Not universally, I think you'll find. I don't pay enough attention to note the effects, but I have seen mild forms of support given without the lashing you claim happens all the time. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Mark Murray on 12 Jul 2010 03:17
On 12/07/2010 02:24, JSH wrote: > One was verbally assaulted just recently for daring to not toe-the- > line completely against my latest research. The poster "Mark Murray" > lashed into him. So, when I chide Amzoti for bad behaviour, even /that/ is an attack against you? Wow. You have issues, mate. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist. |