Re: Surrogate factoring, reasons for my concerns

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 07/21/04 

Date: 21 Jul 2004 12:13:14 -0700

Tom St Denis <tom@securescience.net> wrote in message news:<2ptLc.59$rCl.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> James Harris wrote:
>
> > Tom St Denis <tom@securescience.net> wrote in message
> > news:<GOeLc.8230$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.

Oh, so you think that shows that you're not losing it?

Your reply here is fascinating in what you appear to NOT see when I
dare say few others who read your post can possibly miss it.
 
> > 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.
>

This thread is not about you. It's about my work.

Notice the title of the thread is, "Surrogate factoring, reasons for
my concerns", which further reinforces that it is about *my* work, not
yours.

That is, I don't care about creative rejections 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.

Sounds like you're deluded enough to think that you can use reverse
psychology to convince me to do what you want, which is wacky since
this is Usenet, and trying to control other people's posts, when you
can *CHOOSE* to ignore them is just, well, it's just plain weird.

Now you can get creative all you want in your various and futile
attempts to control my postings, and it won't change the reality that
THIS IS USENET.

YEAH!

Hell yeah!

THIS IS USENET.

Isn't it grand?
 
> > 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.

So?
 
> > 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.
>

Um, now you're talking about yourself negatively.

Can you at least consider the possibility that you're losing it?

> > 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.

Sounds like you're telling yourself what you want to hear.

I'm bored. I talked about some research of mine, and decided that it
was time to quit worrying about all the ramifications and just leave
it to the experts.

I pointed out that I wrote a paper and sent it to a journal.

That should have been it.

However, the thread continues because some posters keep chattering,
and I find the behavior somewhat interesting.

I still do.

Feel free to reply again.
 
> 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....

Now you're ranting.

Um, you STILL think you're playing mindgames with me?

Sounds to me like you're just losing it.

Remember, Usenet is a place where people post.

Trying to control the posting behavior of other people is not, well,
it's not exactly rational given the environment.

You can keep banging your head against a wall if you wish.

But you will just scramble your own brains.

Maybe eventually you'll knock yourself out, eh?

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Surrogate factoring, reasons for my concerns
    ... so you think that shows that you're not losing it? ... I've submitted things to journals before too. ... this is Usenet, and trying to control other people's posts, when you ... James Harris ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: More on my work with primes
    ... James Harris wrote: ... and to make sure that incorrect results stay out of the journals. ... > You can't even get your facts straight about what's in their papers. ... I'll take into consideration Usenet though so that I don't ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: SV: How optimized ar eif-statements in JS
    ... on Usenet but that's my standards. ... for the being tough on the Usenet, ... lose, losing, lost, have lost... ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: Surrogate factoring, reasons for my concerns
    ... James Harris wrote: ... so you think that shows that you're not losing it? ... > Your reply here is fascinating in what you appear to NOT see when I ... master astrology, history, politics, chemistry, art, music and medicine and ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Surrogate factoring, reasons for my concerns
    ... James Harris wrote: ... so you think that shows that you're not losing it? ... > Your reply here is fascinating in what you appear to NOT see when I ... master astrology, history, politics, chemistry, art, music and medicine and ...
    (sci.crypt)