Re: Surrogate factoring, reasons for my concerns
From: Tom St Denis (tom_at_securescience.net)
Date: 07/21/04
- Next message: David Eather: "Re: One-Time Pads [was: Re: Help: Randomizing a List of Numbers]"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: BIS Regulations?"
- In reply to: James Harris: "Re: Surrogate factoring, reasons for my concerns"
- Next in thread: James Harris: "Re: Surrogate factoring, reasons for my concerns"
- Reply: James Harris: "Re: Surrogate factoring, reasons for my concerns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:34:06 GMT
James Harris wrote:
> Tom St Denis <tom@securescience.net> wrote in message
> news:<GOeLc.8230$U9Q1.6731@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>> James Harris wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> OMG SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! I can't believe you're not shutting up!
>>
>> Tom
>
> It seems you are losing it. But why?
I haven't lost it. That's a quote from the Simpsons you uncultured vermin.
> Now I pointed out that I've written up my surrogate factoring ideas
> and sent them to a math journal.
Congrats. I've submitted things to journals before too. The best part is
the creative rejection notices you get.
DEAR $author,
Your paper ``$title'' was rejected because @reason{random() % 10}. We're
sorry that your paper was not accepted. We hope to see you at $conference
this year!
Sincerely,
$program_chair
> Go away. There's no new news. There's nothing meaningful to do but
> wait on the journal.
So... shut up, stop replying? You're the one dragging this out with
Ullrich. If he's such an ass as you point out then you don't need to reply
to him to prove your point. But if you do keep replying then just the
opposite becomes true.
> I can't believe you're still reading posts in this thread.
>
> Why bother?
Cuz you're cross posting to sci.crypt which is a group I read.
> There are quite a few threads that I'm COMPLETELY ignoring.
>
> There's something wrong with you.
That's an understatement if I ever saw one.
> It's USENET. I wonder how some of you have survived on Usenet this
> long.
Normally I ignore threads that don't interest me either. You on the other
hand are fun to play mind games with.
But for all you trolls out there [including you Harris] if you wonder why "I
get replies? and if you replying makes you angry why do you do it?"
Look at CNN and the idiots who "troll" I mean "anchor" there. They say
total bullshit day in and day out. Nobody questions them. The average
american will tune to CNN and believe [even if they don't admit it] what
they see.
In usenet [specially sci.* groups] we want just the opposite. When some
troll comes around you have to make a tasteful amount of noise to let
others know that not everything is honky-dorry. In your case people want
to make sure it's known [amongst people who read these groups and would be
affected by your writing] that you're not as credible as you want to let
on.
David Ullrich I'm sure, does other things during the day. The 10 minutes he
spends reading usenet isn't his No.1 priority. You give yourself too much
credit if you think they occupy their time thinking about "Po widdle James
Harris".
During my day for instance, I develop various pieces of software, read
email, play games, do work for work and go out with friends. I spend about
an hour a day on usenet [at the most] reading the threads that pop up. I
certainly don't sit and stew over what you're going to say next because it
doesn't take much effort to debunk anything you say.
Tom
- Next message: David Eather: "Re: One-Time Pads [was: Re: Help: Randomizing a List of Numbers]"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: BIS Regulations?"
- In reply to: James Harris: "Re: Surrogate factoring, reasons for my concerns"
- Next in thread: James Harris: "Re: Surrogate factoring, reasons for my concerns"
- Reply: James Harris: "Re: Surrogate factoring, reasons for my concerns"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
