Re: Surrogate factoring, reasons for my concerns

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 06:25:21 -0500

On 21 Jul 2004 14:26:57 -0700, cbrown@cbrownsystems.com (Chas Brown)
wrote:

>David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:<qsuqf0pf8139mk78m9d1h0s4cfh39ctu1g@4ax.com>...
>> On 20 Jul 2004 12:54:21 -0700, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
>>
>> >I'm going to top post here to point out that David Ullrich is one of
>> >the people who posts who is an actual mathematician. He teaches at
>> >Oklahoma State University.
>> >
>
><snip>
>
>> >Still he also posts a lot on sci.math and I've lost count how many
>> >times he's called me an idiot!
>>
>
>By my count, only 16 times out of over 2100 replies; which I consider
>tremendous restraint.

Heh-heh. Thanks for clarifying this.

Just curious: how did you compile these statistics?

>> Really? Could be I've called you an idiot, but I don't
>> recall doing so.
>
>These are usually in the context of a single word of reply; for
>example:
>
>|From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich@math.okstate.edu)
>|Subject: Re: JSH: More on ring issue
>|Newsgroups: sci.math
>|Date: 2002-02-03 07:37:02 PST
>|
>|>>All of this is no joke as I did prove Fermat's Last Theorem, so
>|>>your involvement in obscuring that that truth is of great
>|>>concern to me, while I feel that you may indeed honestly just
>|>>not realize what the truth is.
>|
>|>Idiot.
>
>More often you use expressions of the form "when you say <x>, it makes
>you _sound_ like an idiot" (at least 17 times); or "if your proof uses
>undefined terms which you refuse to define you're making an idiot _of
>yourself_" or similar (at least 9 times); which I consider as
>statements about his _posts_, rather than implications that he
>actually _is_ an idiot.
>
>These fall into the category of calling his _arguments_ "idiotic"; for
>example:
>
>|From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich@math.okstate.edu)
>|Subject: Re: JSH: Frustration, venting, weird group
>|Newsgroups: sci.math
>|Date: 2003-08-19 15:47:59 PST
>|
>|> Hint: Your traditional "this was all a test" thing works better if
>|> you don't include idiotic statements like saying Z[1/2] is a field.
>
>I'd take that as attacking the argument, rather than the arguer.
>
>Of course, we must recall that in this case, the pot is at least as
>guilty as the (putatative) kettle; for who can forget these classic
>JSH ripostes?
>
> "Fuck off!!! You fucking stupid idiot!!! How many times do I have
> to tell you that your attention is not wanted David Ullrich?"
>
>Or the more urgent:
>
> "*** OFF David Ullrich!!!!!!! *** off you stupid
> fucking idiot!!!!"
>
>As far as I can tell, _you've_ only called _him_ a "fucking idiot"
>once:
>
> "My god you're a fucking idiot. It doesn't _bug_ people when you
> talk about evil math society, it leads to gales of laughter. You
> really haven't figured that out yet? Wow."
>
>> Trust me, if it ever did happen that I had a student
>> who talked to me the way you do, he'd be gone _long_
>> before things got to the point where I'd be talking
>> to him the way I talk to you.
>>
>
>Somehow, I can't imagine someone repeating the same basic algebra
>course for 6 years without gaining _some_ knowledge along the way.
>
>Cheers - Chas "Just Keeping Score" Brown

************************

David C. Ullrich