Prev: Help with some exercises
Next: Joseph Ganem's "A Math Paradox"
From: Bacle on 24 Oct 2009 06:33
Give me a serious reply here, or I am going back to the old ways of posting.

I demand that my side and my needs be addressed in order to have peace.
From: Bacle on 25 Oct 2009 13:59
> On Oct 21, 11:35 pm, Michael
> <marty.musa...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > If one of you {any one of you} would please tell
> them to not use
> > such vulgar terms {admittingly, I have used them
> too} I appreciate it.
>
> Bacle, Adamk,
>
> It always cracks me up when you tell Musatov to "get
> ball cancer
> and die, you worthless ashole" or whatever you're
> saying at the
> time.
>
>
> Marshall

Thanks, Marshall. Just trying to have fun while fumingating sci.math for twats. musatwat's pretentiousness makes it even more fun: I get to burst his bubble of self-delusion.

>
From: adamk on 26 Oct 2009 18:21
How hypocritical:

_The_ biggest generator of noise in sci.math (an average of less then one responsive reply per post)wants
_others_ (who generate much less noise) to cut down on
their posting.

_The_ person who openly declared he will not
consider others' rights and feelings, setting himself
up as the arbiter of decency.

Notice, musafuck, how no one came to your defense. Because evryone knows you are human trash.
From: Bacle on 27 Oct 2009 23:01
> adamk <adamk(a)adamk.net> writes:
>
> > This is why I fight back. I am reclaiming the
> dignity that I
> > perceive musatov repeatedly tries to steal away
> from me.
>
> Yes, yes, noble and swell, all in the commendable
> spirit of defending
> basic human dignity, holding-of-hands, and all things
> good, denying
> Musatov the victory of robbing us of our most
> cherished rights. I thank
> you for participating in this little demonstration,
> and further futilely
> suggest your silly tirades simply serve to further
> pollute sci.math and
> other groups with off-topic drivel.

(I guess this may apply to me to)
Other groups.?. I have only posted here on sci.math.

And, re pollution, there is a significant difference in degree; not only is the number of our posts (even when combined/added together) significantly smaller than the posts musatov makes in a week, but most of our posts are embedded within musatov's posts , with the purpose (at least mine) to not distract the other posters.
A general poster who is not interested in reading anything neither I nor adam have to say , may just ignore any post by musatov (and maybe very few made by either me or adam), and will very likely miss any of our posts.


On a more
> constructive note, I think
> I'll again stick to just ignoring your brand of
> silliness, and spare you
> of any further pointless responses on this matter. Do
> carry on with your
> valiant quest.
>

Seriously: if you ignore posts by musatov, you will most likely miss both our posts. Isn't that a fair deal.?
Isn't it easy to avoid either of our posts this way.?

> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi)
>
> "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man
> schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus
> s Logico-Philosophicus

We
From: Bacle on 28 Oct 2009 07:23
> On Oct 22, 3:35 am, Michael <marty.musa...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > If Bacle and Adamk would quit their unacceptable
> vulgar harassment of me. I do apologize for the noise
> they make that they would not be making were I not
> here. However, I have to stick to my beliefs and
> continue my research. If one of you {any one of you}
> would please tell them to not use such vulgar terms
> {admittingly, I have used them too} I appreciate it.
>  Thank you,  M. Michael Musatov
>
> Yes, I don't understand why anyone's attention span
> for Musatov is
> longer than a Plonk time.
>
> It's not that it's a crank -- James Harris is a
> crank, but an
> endlessly fascinating crank and undeniably human.
> Musatov is
> essentially just a spambot. Railing against it or
> speaking to it in
> any way is pointless. I don't know whether Bacle and
> Adamk are its
> sock puppets, but if not, if they are human, then
> they are behaving
> very badly. They make many posts to the newsgroup
> which are (a)
> completely ineffectual at stopping Musatov from being
> a spambot, (b)
> as pointless in annoying Musatov as it would be to
> annoy your computer
> by, say, installing Vista, and (c) repetitive and
> boring. Point (c)
> is key: although some contend that it is wrong to
> engage a crank in
> any way, I would argue there is value in engaging a
> crank in an
> entertaining manner. There is no way to engage
> Musatov, however. If
> one wants to make the occasional reply to, say,
> penile enhancement
> spam, fine, but you cannot engage the spambot. Can
> you imagine how
> annoying and absurd it would be for someone to make
> outraged and
> vulgar responses to every automatically generated
> advertisement
> appearing on sci.math? I suspect you can: it's
> essentially what
> Bacle and Adamk are doing (again, assuming they are
> not Musatov, in
> which they would lack agency).
>
You are likely right. I (we) are up against one of the strongest forces in existence: circular logic. musatov has convinced himself of his brilliance, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, and it will take more than I now know for him to face up to the fact that he is just a hack. But life is a movie script for those who, like musatov, have been given such a hard blow by reality. And so circular logic it is, the only logic musatov can handle.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Help with some exercises
Next: Joseph Ganem's "A Math Paradox"