Set Theory, Anyone?
in [Math]
|
Prev: The Blank Algorithm
Next: No Putnam spoilers please!
From: Arturo Magidin on 5 Dec 2009 15:05 On Dec 5, 1:58 am, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 5, 2:05 am, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > > > On Dec 5, 12:22 am, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > And I still don't understand how asking for answers to an assignment > > > that merits nothing towards my grade is characteristic of cheating. > > > Was the assignment for *you* to do the work, or for you to find > > someone to do the work for you? > > > Would you be presenting the answers as your own, or would you have > > presented them as "Someone on Usenet told me the answers were x, y, z, > > and w." ? > > If asked, I would say someone helped me with the assignment. But you weren't looking for someone to "help you" with the assignment. You were looking for someone to give you the *answers*. Can you truly not tell the difference between "someone helped me with it" and "someone did it for me"? > If not, I would say nothing. Do you know the meaning of "plagiarism"? >In this situation, it is unimportant, for reasons > already explained. Being factored into the grade is not the only thing that is important. If you misrepresent the work of others as your own, it *is* important, whether you are being graded or not. It is a sad commentary on your utter lack of ethics and character that you do not realize this. -- Arturo Magidin
From: Arturo Magidin on 5 Dec 2009 15:09 On Dec 5, 1:36 am, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As a political science major award- > winning debater, Then stop taking math; and it's now obvious why you are unethical and lazy. Must be a plus in your intended profession, alas. In the meanwhile, go bagpipe yourself. -- Arturo Magidin
From: Arturo Magidin on 5 Dec 2009 15:27 On Dec 5, 1:57 am, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 5, 2:01 am, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote:> On Dec 4, 11:34 pm, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Well that sort of phrasing was directed only to gain your sympathies. > > > In short, you were lying and trying to take advantage of others to > > your benefit... > > That's going to be my job some day, in short and utter crudeness. But > more accurately, I was trying to get your attention and assistance. By lying, and hoping to take advantage of others. You are not being more accurate, you are trying to hide your actions behind fancier words. > > > > I also would like to point out that an obnoxious, self-righteous prude > > > like you bears nothing in the lines of personality or anything else > > > that matters in the real world in common with me. > > > Probably not; I happen to value work, knowledge, and honesty. Clearly, > > you value none of those. > > Clearly, nobody can judge a person in his or her entirety based upon > one internet post. Sure, they're not at the top of my list, especially > given several aforementioned predispositions in this subject area. But > then again, a snob like you wouldn't know any better. Oh, are you judging me based upon a couple of internet posts? > > > I never claimed to be anything more than lazy. And ethics are both > > > trivial and relative. > > > I can see why you have none. > > Come to my ethics class some day and you'll realize that I have > ethics. It's useful when you actually use them, not just keep them locked in a drawer. > They're just different than yours. We've established that. Your value cheating and lying, and blaming others. > > > So instead of being an elitist, self-exalted > > > geek, you could have simply refused to help me, kept your rude > > > comments to yourself and move on with your pathetic life. Or, if it is > > > so clear to you that I do not understand the material, perhaps you > > > could help enlighten me instead of criticizing me from waaaaaaaaay up > > > high on your precious pedestal of perfection. I am willing to learn. > > > Actually, it is quite apparent that you are *not* willing to learn. > > You are far more comfortable getting others to do your work for you > > instead, and then complain when they don't. > > See a few prior posts. By the way, not all claims are rooted in > explicitly enclosed evidence. I have given my reasons for my behavior > and you simply refuse to acknowledge them because that's just too > inconvenient. I do not "refuse to acknowledge" your reasons, dear boy. I simply find them wanting. > Stay up on your pedestal where you're comfortable. Stay down in the mud, where you are clearly comfortable. > > By the by, dear: expecting people to do their own work is hardly > > "elitist" or "self-exalted". > > But being an arrogant judgmental snob who sees only their own > arguments and justifies them on false premises is completely so. I wouldn't know; but apparently, you do. > > > Reserve your false judgments to that which you actually understand, > > > and hopefully in such cases (if they even exist), they will hold some > > > truth for a change. > > > Dear, you just spoke some things you really need to listen to. > > I can hear myself talk and see what I type. You just *choose* to be a hypocrite, then? >I just need to clarify for > those unaccustomed to reading words with the thoroughness they > deserve. You really are rather laughable, dear boy. You hope that people will do your work for you, think nothing of cheating and lying and taking advantage of others, but you presume of your ethics. And you acknowledge that you do not pay attention in class, or to the textbook but complain that people do not read words "with the thoroughness they deserve." Perhaps you should realize that nobody can read your mind, and that if you continue to change your story every other post, then it is rather pathetic for you to complain that people are "misrepresenting" what you said. But do continue to blame everyone but yourself for your failures. I'm sure it will go over quite well when you go on in political science. In the meantime, stop taking courses that require you to pay attention, think, or do your own work, since you are either incapable or unwilling to do any of them. -- Arturo Magidin
From: Jack Wellington on 5 Dec 2009 15:49 On Dec 5, 2:51 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > On Dec 5, 1:45 am, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Great, now I have to counter all your non-math points... =P > > > On Dec 5, 12:15 am, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Let me ask you this: What the hell school deadline do I have to meet > > > at 12:00 AM? > > > Have you never heard of on-line submissions? > > > --- Yes, and most universities don't use them. Especially for this > > stuff. > > And you know this from vast personal experience? The same personal > experience that tells you that when it is midnight where you are, it > is also midnight *everywhere in the world*? /I know this based on common class structures. I wasn't implying that it was midnight everywhere in the world (obviously it wasn't). That's why I was telling you. > > > As to being rude, your entire attitude is an insult, dear. That is why > > you are getting told off, and not merely ignored. > > > --- Your attitude is one of snobby discontent. > > Your lazy, uninformed, and worthless opinion is duly noted. It's actually quite worthwhile and informed. > > -- > Artur0 Magidin
From: Jack Wellington on 5 Dec 2009 15:53
On Dec 5, 3:02 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > On Dec 5, 2:35 am, Jack Wellington <jack.wellingt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Because you do not have enough information to answer the questions > > either. This tells me I shouldn't be able to answer it anyway, > > That's nonsense. You present incomplete information, and Gerhard does > not have access to your book nor your notes, nor did he attend your > class. What you wrote is not the entirety of the information at your > disposal. > Yes, it is, minus the internet or possibly the library. Yet I shouldn't need these sources - all information required to answer the questions was allegedly in the (poorly written and terribly ambiguous) handout. > > so I > > will turn it in using my best guesses. > > > It's sad that mathematicians have no imaginations these days. > > It's sad that someone who is, by his own admission, lazy, dishonest, > and at least amoral (if not unethical), and who just a month ago was > asking about BC integration, would think he is in a position to pass > judgement on "mathematicians", when he clearly knows nothing of > mathematics, and has said quite clearly that he is not interested in > knowing nothing about mathematics. I am passing judgment on your personality, not your math skills. > > > Or social skills for that matter. > > You mean, social skills like yours? My, you really are a brat, aren't > you? > Takes one to know one I guess. > I also find it rather interesting that every time we have a dishonest, > lazy, unethical student come by and ask for solutions to assignments, > it always turns out to be the fault of a professor with a thick > accent. Of course, it is terribly hard to understand what someone is > saying when you aren't paying attention, even if they speak in perfect > mid-Atlantic-accented English, isn't it? What part of "I can't understand his thick accent" don't you understand? |