Re: Surrogate factoring explained
From: Tim Peters (tim.one_at_comcast.net)
Date: 02/25/05
- Next message: Hank Oredson: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring explained"
- Next in thread: Christian Bau: "Re: Surrogate factoring explained"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:33:50 -0500
[JSH]
> I don't care. Like, what's going to happen?
>
> No matter what you say, I'll test these ideas until I'm satisfied.
>
> If you give me data that I can use and I'm actually reading your posts
> (which is actually not very likely as I tend to skim, reading sections)
> then maybe I'll get it.
>
> I know from YEARS of experience that there are people who obsessively
> track my posts, replying to them for their own personal reasons, while
> I'm testing out ideas, which I point out repeatedly.
>
> You can do what you wish, and if you go away, I will barely notice.
>
> There are others, or even if there are not others, I can just go on at
> my own pace, posting about my research as I go, talking out ideas, as
> it helps me to critique them.
>
> You are not needed. If you are going to do a lot of propaganda, a lot
> of negative bashing, then you are not wanted.
>
> If you wish to see more posts like this one--if I'm bothering to read
> your posts and reply--then come out with negatives that are not
> factual, put in opinons that I see as more politics, and I'm going to
> tell you that you are just another cog in the wheel--which you are--and
> suggest that you find something more positive to spend your time on.
>
> Negatives are fun, as I like to bash to, and I like to rant, but at
> some point I get down to business--the math.
>
> I'm feeling a need to work out some puzzles with the current equations
> so I'm going to cut you short quick when you play politics.
>
> Now I've gone on here as I'm in a verbose mood, while I wait for some
> numbers to run through my current program, but make no mistake, you are
> not important in this process...you never were.
>
> If you deluded yourself into thinking you were, then that was just your
> mistake.
>
> Look over my history. I've seen people come and go on Usenet since
> 1996.
>
>
> James Harris
All I take from this is that you decline to specify an algorithm you want to
see tested. That's fine by me too. I'll just point out that people can't
possibly give you data you can use if you refuse to specify the algorithm
you want data about, and that makes your claim that you want such data silly
on the face of it.
As to the rest, you forget that I do know your history, and have been on
Usenet longer than you (that's OK, this isn't the first time you've
forgotten those -- I don't mind). So of course I've read dozens of your
"verily, you are not worthy to wipe the merest fleck of divine dribble from
my chiseled chin" posts before. They all read very much like this one, and
no matter who you're trying to devastate, or wrt which topic. Since these
seem to come out of a copying machine, sorry, they have no effect anymore.
That's a rut you would do well to climb out of -- honest.
- Next message: Hank Oredson: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring explained"
- Next in thread: Christian Bau: "Re: Surrogate factoring explained"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
