I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my
sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters
verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on for
YEARS.

jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) writes:

Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I
started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve
Fermat's Last Theorem. A couple of times I became very excited when I
thought I'd actually solved it.

Maybe the problem is that people tried to help you, putting in time
to read your articles and point out the errors. But you spurned
them.

I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my
sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters
verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on for
YEARS.

Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I
started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve
Fermat's Last Theorem.

A couple of times I became very excited when I
thought I'd actually solved it.

In response several posters would call me horrendous names, question
my sanity, and at best tell me to shut-up and leave their newsgroup.

I thought Usenet was about freedom of speech, and the right to express
your ideas, but these people were *used* to bullying people off Usenet
by calling them names and insulting them, and I refused to allow them
to succeed.

So it's been a back-and-forth, as they keep posting, and talking about
me as just some crazy nut who won't shut-up, when I refuse to give in
to people who think of bullying and insults as a legitimate means to
control dissent.

Remember posters like "Uncle Al" are *used* to winning!!!

Posters like him hurl insults, call names, and bully people into
shutting up and leaving the newsgroups they control knowing that
usually that works.

Those of you who act like it's ok for several posters to gang up on
one person and insult them with impunity, while accepting that person
must be a "crank" or "crackpot" because so many others attack them,
are helping to create a continually hostile environment to new ideas.

An "Uncle Al" can't produce on his own. Why do you think he attacks
so many posters? But when you validate him by helping him chase
people off of Usenet, then he's just sitting there like a mad dog
ready to attack *anyone* he chooses!

You give him the power, but can't take it away.

Now some of you may think I'm annoying, or many of you may think I'm
annoying.

You may be certain I'm wrong, but why does that allow other people to
come after me, insult me endlessly, and then strut around on the
newsgroups like they're decent people?

Remember, I create a thread, people *reply* in threads that I started,
and then the attack basically comes down to my speech. These people
post in reply to me and the idea is that it's *my* fault!!!!!

I don't make you read my posts. I don't force people to reply in my
threads. I don't force you to comment in reply to me.

But why am I a "crank" for expecting people to behave on Usenet? Why
must I be crazy for refusing to buckle down to bullies who are intent
on driving me off of Usenet by insulting me off?

Fuck all of you if you think I'll let you control my speech on Usenet
with insults!!!

Fuck you losers who give away rights of others for no good reason!!!

Fuck you if you think you can insult me into silence!!!


James Harris

On 7 Dec 2003 12:12:25 -0800, James Harris <jstevh@msn.com> wrote:
Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I
started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve
Fermat's Last Theorem.

Oh, that old thing. I solved that years ago, whilst sitting on the john.
(The place where most of us do our deepest thinking.) Keep plugging away,
I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually.

James,

You never responded to my post a few weeks ago. I'm copying it below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I saw your message about your algorithm for counting prime numbers. I
intended to read some of the background on this
topic and some of the preceding posts, but I don't know where to start
because there are literally thousands of posts between you and your
responders. It seems that you have an algorithm which works, but a lot
of the mathematicians on usenet feel that it is just a modified form
of earlier sieve algorithms or of Legendre's inclusion/exclusion
algorithm. Perhaps your work would get a better reception if it
followed a more traditional presentation format. You should discuss
the existing work in this area and show how your formula differs from
exisiting algorithms. Since you know that some people feel this is
just a form of Legendre's algorithm, you should especially address
that point. You
have to make it easier for other researchers to tell exactly what you
have done and how it fits into a larger context. Once you have written
such a document, you would be a long way towards an article you could
send to a journal for peer review. Or perhaps, you will find that
there are a lot of existing algorithms for counting prime numbers and
your approach might be true but not particularly interesting. In
addition, some of the responses to your posts indicate that there are
more efficient and faster algorithms for counting prime numbers. If
you write a summary report, you might make a comparison of run-time
for your formula and some of the other formulas. (Even if your formula is
slower, it might still have academic interest). It seems that such an
approach would be more productive than trying to convince the usenet
audience by periodically sending them the same post. I can tell from
looking back over some of the history of these posts that, at first,
you received serious responses and serious criticisms, and then people
got tired and testy because they felt you weren't responding to their
sincere questions. Since then, these posts have degenerated into
accusations by you that the math community is scheming against you and
retorts by them that you are a crank. Rather than trying to sway a
handful of
mathematicians on usenet, who have stopped taking you seriously, why
don't you submit your findings to a journal or submit your algorithm
for a patent?

What do you think?

On sci.math, I think the consensus was that *mathematicians* and math
students were the only real group members, and that they had the right
to command postings from others, so that if you pissed them off, you
should leave if they commanded you to leave the group.

"Uncle Al"
James Harris wrote:

I keep seeing people posting about how bad I am and questioning my
sanity, when everyone seems to be ignoring a simple fact--posters
verbally abuse me in threads I create, which has been going on for
YEARS.
[snip]

Folks still talk about Hitler. Who can even spell Eisenhower?

http://www.crank.net/harris.html
It's not every braying jackass that gets a whole page at crank.net

Hey stooopid loud troll James Harris, put up or shut up,

http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/faq.html
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/challenges/factoring/numbers.html

Is a $10,000 prize no questions asked too small to justify your
submission of two little prime numbers?
Peanuts:) Consider the real importance of the RSA cipher. If it suddenly
became insecure, a lot of generals and bankers would go grey overnight, and
the solver would at once become The Man Who Knew Too Much.
Here's an easier "prize problem":
http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/saoub.htm

Basically my crime as far as math people are concerned is that I
started posting several years back ideas that I thought might solve
Fermat's Last Theorem.

James,

You never responded to my post a few weeks ago. I'm copying it below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I saw your message about your algorithm for counting prime numbers. I
intended to read some of the background on this
topic and some of the preceding posts, but I don't know where to start
because there are literally thousands of posts between you and your
responders. It seems that you have an algorithm which works, but a lot
of the mathematicians on usenet feel that it is just a modified form
of earlier sieve algorithms or of Legendre's inclusion/exclusion
algorithm. Perhaps your work would get a better reception if it

followed a more traditional presentation format. You should discuss
the existing work in this area and show how your formula differs from
exisiting algorithms. Since you know that some people feel this is
just a form of Legendre's algorithm, you should especially address
that point. You

have to make it easier for other researchers to tell exactly what you
have done and how it fits into a larger context. Once you have written
such a document, you would be a long way towards an article you could
send to a journal for peer review. Or perhaps, you will find that
there are a lot of existing algorithms for counting prime numbers and
your approach might be true but not particularly interesting. In
addition, some of the responses to your posts indicate that there are
more efficient and faster algorithms for counting prime numbers. If
you write a summary report, you might make a comparison of run-time
for your formula and some of the other formulas. (Even if your formula is
slower, it might still have academic interest). It seems that such an
approach would be more productive than trying to convince the usenet
audience by periodically sending them the same post. I can tell from
looking back over some of the history of these posts that, at first,
you received serious responses and serious criticisms, and then people

got tired and testy because they felt you weren't responding to their
sincere questions. Since then, these posts have degenerated into
accusations by you that the math community is scheming against you and
retorts by them that you are a crank. Rather than trying to sway a

handful of
mathematicians on usenet, who have stopped taking you seriously, why
don't you submit your findings to a journal or submit your algorithm
for a patent?

What do you think?

I personally built a program that was on par with Mathematica, with a
little advice on particulars from a couple of posters.

Beyond algorithms though, my partial difference equation leads to a
partial differential equation.

In sci.math James Harris <jstevh@msn.com> wrote:

his usual drivel, followed by obscenities

Someone who wasn't already familiar with you might be taken in by most of
the pack of lies you posted. But your last three sentences demonstrate
clearly why nothing you say deserves to be taken seriously.

(Has anyone else noticed that James tends to post his most obscenity-laden
diatribes on Sunday afternoons? My theory is that Sunday is his favorite
drinking-day. I suggest he try church instead; it would be a much less
self-destructive use of his time.)

I know in physics, there are sites where you can post un-refereed
papers (e.g. http://arxiv.org/) I see that this site also has an
archive for math. You could post a paper there. In the end, I
recommend that you produce a report which is more formal than a usenet
post and then put it on one of the archive sites, or turn it into a
real article and send it to a journal.

Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<%lUAb.7655$rG.3@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
In sci.math James Harris <jstevh@msn.com> wrote:

his usual drivel, followed by obscenities

Someone who wasn't already familiar with you might be taken in by most
of
the pack of lies you posted. But your last three sentences demonstrate
clearly why nothing you say deserves to be taken seriously.

(Has anyone else noticed that James tends to post his most
obscenity-laden
diatribes on Sunday afternoons? My theory is that Sunday is his
favorite
drinking-day. I suggest he try church instead; it would be a much less
self-destructive use of his time.)

I did not notice that, but let me guess as to the motivation.
Possibly JSH can chime in if he spots any errors in my reasoning.

The few people remaining who can tolerate JSH in person have jobs to
go to on Monday morning. His mood is thus downcast each Sunday, as
the dwindling number of "friends" will temporarily disappear. From
Monday through Friday, those who are not sick of James are unable to
listen to his diatribes against the sci.math machine. He knows he
will be all alone for the upcoming week. He becomes disconsolate on
Sunday after fully realizing both this and the fact that he struck out
bigtime with the ladies on Friday and Saturday night.

He may have noticed (or may not, it is JSH after all) that he holds
court for a smaller and smaller group of regulars -- some of them may
not reappear the next weekend. If he does notice, he will, of course,
attribute that to something other than his asinine personality.
Rather than reassess his [lack of] social standing or scour the want
ads for a job, James hits the bottle.

Sufficiently looped, James lashes out at David Ullrich. David
and the rest (myself a willing specator/occasional participant in this
trainwreck) then have a weekly party at James' expense.

What amazes me is that anybody responds to the mathematics in his
posts. IMO, JSH deserves *only* the ridicule he gets, and none of the
help/corrections.

Bye,
Jay

P.S. JSH, truly "sorry" for bargining into "your" thread. From one
of your responses to me earlier, I should have realized what the
quotes signify. So, with your instructions in mind, I retract calling
you a tool in favor of calling you a "tool." I know you may disagree,
but to me you are a total "loser." Keep up the good work. "Idiot"

P.P.S. JSH, no hard feelings. Please let me state that this is a
psychological experiment I am performing on you. It is part of my
"GAME'S THEORY." I learned it in marketing class.