Re: SF: Doesn't work?
From: C. Bond (cbond_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 02/23/05
- Next message: Kevin Drapel: "Re: Info on Cryptography of 1650"
- Previous message: myhotline_at_gmail.com: "Passwords and offline guessing attacks??"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Doesn't work?"
- Next in thread: Nora Baron: "Re: SF: Doesn't work?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:28:06 GMT
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> noogie wrote:
> > On 21 Feb 2005 17:14:41 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > If there was any doubt whatsoever that you are a clueless, pompous,
> > ass, this last exchange should effectively eliminate it.
>
> So? I find myself somewhat surprised that it keeps coming up, over and
> over again, what kind of person I am.
Why the surprise? You repeatedly reveal more about yourself than you do
about math.
> If there is a mathematical claim, then that claim is true or false
> without regard to the personality of the person making the claim.
If it's *your* claim, the probability is that it's false. That is based on
a preponderance of the evidence.
> Certainly if you feel a source is flawed you might dismiss the claim
> outright without checking, but its truth or falsity stands without
> regard to what you do.
If it's your claim, the probability is that it's false.
> Now if you choose to check a claim then the person making it is
> irrelevant, as you can simply consider the claim.
If it's your claim, the probability is that it's false.
> BUT, time and time again, I see postings that indicate a focus on the
> person, and a continual shift to a person despite a claim being on the
> table, without regard to the mathematics, as if all that's necessary is
> to consider the person, and NOT the claim.
Wrong! It is perfectly permissible to disregard the claims of a known
crank, charlatan, liar, crackpot and idiot -- because there is only a
finite amount of time available for any one person to waste.
> I will admit that I don't really care if ALL of you think I am a
> pompous ass, as I don't need you in any personal way.
Besides, you ARE a pompous ass.
> You are just tools to be used in consideration of the correctness or
> falsity of various mathematical propositions, where failure happens
> more than success.
In your work the ratio is unprecedented.
> To the extent that you are valuable tools in determining truth, I see
> value in you.
So, you see the respondents as 'tools'? Please show this post to your
psychiatrist. He may find it useful in future therapy.
> Otherwise, I have no use for you.
Well, if you regard others as 'valuable tools in determining truth', why do
you invariably attack them when they reveal it?
> Think about baseball. In baseball even the best hitters know that more
> than likely they will not make it to first base.
>
> Failure is a part of pushing the limits.
Baseball is a sport. Mathematics is a pure science.
> However, I see an insistence on success from people who focus on
> personal issues, when in mathematics, personal issues are meaningless.
>
> I fail a lot, and I don't mind failing more than I succeed.
That's an understatement.
> I also don't mind if you think I am a pompous ass if I can find people
> who will consider the ideas, and help me critique them.
You *are* a pompous ass. And you don't often ask others to 'consider the
ideas', but instead announce that they are earthshaking breakthroughs which
are irrefutable.
> You are objects.
Please show this post to your psychiatrist. (Or your exorcist!)
-- There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious. -- Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle. -- http://www.crbond.com
- Next message: Kevin Drapel: "Re: Info on Cryptography of 1650"
- Previous message: myhotline_at_gmail.com: "Passwords and offline guessing attacks??"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Doesn't work?"
- Next in thread: Nora Baron: "Re: SF: Doesn't work?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
