JSH: There is only one
in [Math]
|
Prev: Embedding a separable metric space in the Hilbert parallelotope
Next: Every Day More Physicists Are Coming Closer To The Truth About Gravity / S D Rodrian
From: Tim Little on 14 Jul 2010 03:47 On 2010-07-14, Mark Murray <w.h.oami(a)example.com> wrote: > On 14/07/2010 01:21, JSH wrote: >> I'm emphasizing that I do not think you are a trustworthy person >> and I'm not going to chase links that you put up which could be >> nasty traps from an evil crappy person. > > Your paranoia is not my problem. Indeed, and I'm sure it's not limited to providing online references. If you suggest he check out a book from a public library, you could have agents planted there to kidnap him. Or the book could have subtle mind-control techniques embedded in the text. Safer for him to just reject all outside information completely. - Tim
From: Mark Murray on 14 Jul 2010 03:50 On 14/07/2010 01:21, JSH wrote: > I don't chase links. Then look up Merten's theorem. In Wikipedia, the one you are looking for is called Merten's 3rd theorem. Extreme lazinness and reluctance to follow up on salient evidence is not a trait associated with "great discoverers". M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Mark Murray on 14 Jul 2010 03:59 On 14/07/2010 07:47, MichaelW wrote: > To be fair to James I do understand. I have passed up on links from > members of my own family when I had suspicions (of the link, not the > family member). For example from experience we have a house rule; > never follow a link in the .ru domain. James said: <quote> I'm emphasizing that I do not think you are a trustworthy person and I'm not going to chase links that you put up which could be nasty traps from an evil crappy person. </quote> That's not the healthy paranoia that you are talking about ;-). Its the desperate excuse of a person who is fishing for ANY excuse not to see evidence contrary to his most prized pet theory. > Of course this does beg the question that given I have information > that I think is relevant to the discussion but is not in a format > easily transferred to plain text what format would James accept? And > if he will not actually reference information relevant to his posts > then why does he bother posting? Merten's theorem. He can look it up his damn self :-). The Wikipedia relevant entry calls it Merten's 3rd theorem. Of course, as Wikipedia is publicly editable, we could easily have planted that, or even worse, some JSH-targeted malware. Oops. I guess he'll need to get a book. Damn; I forgot, he doesn't read books. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Tim Little on 14 Jul 2010 04:03 On 2010-07-14, MichaelW <msjmb(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > if he will not actually reference information relevant to his posts > then why does he bother posting? I think that is quite clear: he posts because this is one of the few media for which he can be sure that people are actually reading what he writes, and caring about it enough to respond to every post. Posting stuff to Twitter and blogs meets with deafening silence (mostly of his own devising). Reading page hit counts is all very nice but on an emotional level aren't proof that anyone is actually reading it. Comments on his blog would suffice, but he can't resist throwing a tantrum and removing all those that fail to wholeheartedly agree with everything he says, and that drives people away. He can't remove comments from here, so this is one of the few places where he can always get fresh objective evidence that someone in the world notices that he exists. - Tim
From: Mark Murray on 14 Jul 2010 04:05
On 14/07/2010 08:47, Tim Little wrote: >> Your paranoia is not my problem. > > Indeed, and I'm sure it's not limited to providing online references. > > If you suggest he check out a book from a public library, you could > have agents planted there to kidnap him. Or the book could have > subtle mind-control techniques embedded in the text. Safer for him to > just reject all outside information completely. I thought he was already doing that? This situation is changing too fast for me. One moment we (that is James' employees) do the work for him, and the next we are rejected because we are aparrently trying to subvert him. The consistency[*] is "remarkable" (to use one of James' favourite words). M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist. [*] PLEASE - no puerile remarks involving physical consistency of distasteful matter. |