Prev: Oriented linear least-squares
Next: induction vs recursion
From: JSH on 19 Jun 2010 14:26
On Jun 19, 7:30 am, "jon" <inva...(a)invalid.com> wrote:
> "JSH" <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a3964548-ee65-43b3-95cc-305874abaa22(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> It it really just all about you ?

No, it's not about you at all but about your IDEAS, but a lot of
people like simplicity in the story, so that's another aspect: it
helps to have a story about yourself, but that's a side issue.

Ultimately it will be about your ideas, no matter what anyone else
says, which means the system is very fair, and again, it's very
competitive.

Importantly, people will SAY ANYTHING and a reality of Usenet is that
as you gain influence you will find detractors who will gleefully rip
on you, day and night in cases, as if in so doing they can equal you,
or even better you.

The bigger you are the more energy they will expend! As your ideas
gain traction they get more motivated.

It's the primary conceit of Usenet: that if you can reply derisively
to *any* person then you can demean that person and remove their
achievements, bettering them, so no need to be good yourself, just
vicious, which is the same way of thinking you see in the outside
world, where for instance someone will be abusive towards a US
senator, or to a famous actress or a world renowned writer in the same
way.


James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 19 Jun 2010 17:44
On 19/06/2010 19:26, JSH wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:30 am, "jon"<inva...(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>> "JSH"<jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a3964548-ee65-43b3-95cc-305874abaa22(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> It it really just all about you ?
>
> No, it's not about you at all but about your IDEAS, but a lot of
> people like simplicity in the story, so that's another aspect: it
> helps to have a story about yourself, but that's a side issue.

Ideas are a product of sentient beings (ie humans); they don't
come into being on their own. Some humans have a reputation for
good ideas, some have a reputation for bad ideas, we all have
all sorts of mixes, good, bad, mediocre. It doesn't take much
effort to find the bad ideas of the great visionaries, but their
good ones overwhelm the bad. Many of us go through life taking
what we can get with the mix of good and bad, with the good
hopefully exceeding the bad by a sufficient quantity to get us
to where we want to be.

Your published ideas have been so overwhelmingly bad that the
good bits have been lost in the noise. Your uncritical outlook,
your hubris, your consistent failure to check, and the sheer volume
of your "brainstorming" rubbish has resulted in YOU having an
idea portfolio that your usual audience treats with great derision.

> Ultimately it will be about your ideas, no matter what anyone else
> says, which means the system is very fair, and again, it's very
> competitive.

Correct. But remember which human created each idea.

> Importantly, people will SAY ANYTHING and a reality of Usenet is that
> as you gain influence you will find detractors who will gleefully rip
> on you, day and night in cases, as if in so doing they can equal you,
> or even better you.

Bad ideas get ripped on, true. You have a LOT of those.

> The bigger you are the more energy they will expend! As your ideas
> gain traction they get more motivated.

A conspiracy theory is not needed. Your output volume is pretty high;
that, coupled with the low quality of the output results in easy
pickings for folks pointing out the (many) faults. As you have defined
yourself as faultless, this process tends to be rather protracted.

> It's the primary conceit of Usenet: that if you can reply derisively
> to *any* person then you can demean that person and remove their
> achievements, bettering them, so no need to be good yourself, just
> vicious, which is the same way of thinking you see in the outside
> world, where for instance someone will be abusive towards a US
> senator, or to a famous actress or a world renowned writer in the same
> way.

This is consistent with your /definition/ of yourself as faultless. It
is not consistent with concensus.

M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Richard Henry on 19 Jun 2010 18:42
On Jun 19, 11:26 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:30 am, "jon" <inva...(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > "JSH" <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:a3964548-ee65-43b3-95cc-305874abaa22(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com....
>
> > <snip>
>
> > It it really just all about you ?
>
> No, it's not about you at all but about your IDEAS, but a lot of
> people like simplicity in the story, so that's another aspect: it
> helps to have a story about yourself, but that's a side issue.
>
> Ultimately it will be about your ideas, no matter what anyone else
> says, which means the system is very fair, and again, it's very
> competitive.
>
> Importantly, people will SAY ANYTHING and a reality of Usenet is that
> as you gain influence you will find detractors who will gleefully rip
> on you, day and night in cases, as if in so doing they can equal you,
> or even better you.
>
> The bigger you are the more energy they will expend!  As your ideas
> gain traction they get more motivated.
>
> It's the primary conceit of Usenet: that if you can reply derisively
> to *any* person then you can demean that person and remove their
> achievements, bettering them, so no need to be good yourself, just
> vicious, which is the same way of thinking you see in the outside
> world, where for instance someone will be abusive towards a US
> senator, or to a famous actress or a world renowned writer in the same
> way.
>
> James Harris

Do you have a good estimate of the rate at which you are gaining
influence?
From: JSH on 19 Jun 2010 19:26
On Jun 19, 3:42 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 11:26 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 7:30 am, "jon" <inva...(a)invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > > "JSH" <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:a3964548-ee65-43b3-95cc-305874abaa22(a)z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > It it really just all about you ?
>
> > No, it's not about you at all but about your IDEAS, but a lot of
> > people like simplicity in the story, so that's another aspect: it
> > helps to have a story about yourself, but that's a side issue.
>
> > Ultimately it will be about your ideas, no matter what anyone else
> > says, which means the system is very fair, and again, it's very
> > competitive.
>
> > Importantly, people will SAY ANYTHING and a reality of Usenet is that
> > as you gain influence you will find detractors who will gleefully rip
> > on you, day and night in cases, as if in so doing they can equal you,
> > or even better you.
>
> > The bigger you are the more energy they will expend!  As your ideas
> > gain traction they get more motivated.
>
> > It's the primary conceit of Usenet: that if you can reply derisively
> > to *any* person then you can demean that person and remove their
> > achievements, bettering them, so no need to be good yourself, just
> > vicious, which is the same way of thinking you see in the outside
> > world, where for instance someone will be abusive towards a US
> > senator, or to a famous actress or a world renowned writer in the same
> > way.
>
> > James Harris
>
> Do you have a good estimate of the rate at which you are gaining
> influence?

No. The issue is too hard to quantify for me, though I've tried
various methodologies.

But what's of special interest to me is that I, personally, do not
appear to be gaining influence, but my ideas seem to be pushing their
way around the world.

Which is ok. And in fact, it's not so much that I have fame at this
point as that my ideas seem to have a certain fame of their own, which
mostly doesn't pull me along, so yeah, I get the definition of
mathematical proof but a search on my name brings up the Crank.net
page.

My personal negatives clearly remain high. But it doesn't appear to
stop the movement of my ideas.

And that is actually good in ways, but maybe not so good in others.

Ultimately, mathematics is about what works and what works does not
need the individual.

The individual discoverer to a large extent is irrelevant.


James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 19 Jun 2010 19:39
On 20/06/2010 00:26, JSH wrote:
> Ultimately, mathematics is about what works and what works does not
> need the individual.

Why is evidence of actual USE of your work so very hard to find
(and I'm not referring to readership statistics)?

> The individual discoverer to a large extent is irrelevant.

Then why do you obsess so consistently about fame and celebrityhood?

Also, why do you take it so very personally when faults are found
in your work?

M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Oriented linear least-squares
Next: induction vs recursion