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.

I don't know from crank but when great breakthroughs and advances are only
posted on
usenet one has to draw some obvious conclusions.

I understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it. Journal
articles are the way we communicate research results. Writing an
article (or even a research report) demands a certain amount of rigor
and formalism. It forces you to review the literature in order to make
it clear how your work fits into (and differs from) previous work.
Finally, by writing an article, you make it clear exactly what you
have done and how it is new, and this, in turn, helps protect your
intellectual property. The Usenet news groups are OK for tossing ideas
around and getting some feedback, but they are not the best way to
communicate a finding. I know its a drag to write a journal article
---- it takes a lot of time; you have to use conventional terminology
and formalism; you have to typeset equations; you have to learn a
particular journal's convention for bibliographic references; you have
to respond to referee reports; etc. In spite of these drawbacks, there
are still good reasons for such a system. It has clear advantages over
posting to usenet or sending incomplete summaries to random faculty.

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.

"Jay Petrulis" <jpetrulis@lycosmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab5c7502.0312081337.30a8b575@posting.google.com...
[...]
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.

Hi there Mr. Siggy Freud, did you pull the wings off flies when
you were a kid for entertainment and experimentation as well. At
least you've progressed to "psychological experiments" on other
people now your a 'grown up.'

Pat wrote:

"Jay Petrulis" <jpetrulis@lycosmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab5c7502.0312081337.30a8b575@posting.google.com...
[...]
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.

Hi there Mr. Siggy Freud, did you pull the wings off flies when
you were a kid for entertainment and experimentation as well. At
least you've progressed to "psychological experiments" on other
people now your a 'grown up.'

Pat -- I'm pretty sure Jay's PPS was an intentionally lame
justification for the rest his post, because it is very much
in the mold of the (intentionally?) lame excuses that James
uses for his own similar or worse insults. Putting it in those
terms _should_ remind James of his own posting history and
make it harder for him to point the Finger of Shame from some
presumed Higher Moral Ground. Whether it succeeds in that
remains to be seen.

The reference to marketing , at least, is very fresh, from only
a month ago. (11 Nov 2003)
Message-ID: <3c65f87.0311111243.708c5b81@posting.google.com

Jim Burns

As can be seen by the number of posts in this thread,
and the references to his web site in thousands of other posts,
a computer programmer, who took some data processing classes
at a third rate California college, has become a highly regarded expert
in math, physics, and other science disciplines, and
many people, who pretend to be rational, intelligent, open-minded
scientists (Or at least, pretend to have a scientific mind.),
frequently use this programmer as a major reference.

I assert that this indicates that science,
is pretty much like show business and politics,
and that the ideas that get elevated to high status
are those that are promoted best.

I suggest that those folks,
who feel passionate about their ideas, and want to promote them,
should first set up a web site much like the highly regarded crank.net,
and after they become recognized as a "highly regarded expert",
to slowly incorporate their ideas into the web site,
and take sly shots at competing ideas.

As it would be helpful to new readers to know
who the sociopaths are in the newsgroups,
another web site that would be popular
would be one that puts the internet flamers in the spotlight,
by posting some of their posts, and their backgrounds.

Tom Potter wrote:

As can be seen by the number of posts in this thread,
and the references to his web site in thousands of other posts,
a computer programmer, who took some data processing classes
at a third rate California college, has become a highly regarded expert
in math, physics, and other science disciplines, and
many people, who pretend to be rational, intelligent, open-minded
scientists (Or at least, pretend to have a scientific mind.),
frequently use this programmer as a major reference.



What third rate California college? Who rated it? What criteria?

Most scientist are computer programmers... are you knocking us Potter?

"agnina" <agnina2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdf7f0e8.0312081503.70944519@posting.google.com...
I understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it. Journal
articles are the way we communicate research results. Writing an
article (or even a research report) demands a certain amount of rigor
and formalism. It forces you to review the literature in order to make
it clear how your work fits into (and differs from) previous work.
Finally, by writing an article, you make it clear exactly what you
have done and how it is new, and this, in turn, helps protect your
intellectual property. The Usenet news groups are OK for tossing ideas
around and getting some feedback, but they are not the best way to
communicate a finding. I know its a drag to write a journal article
---- it takes a lot of time; you have to use conventional terminology
and formalism; you have to typeset equations; you have to learn a
particular journal's convention for bibliographic references; you have
to respond to referee reports; etc. In spite of these drawbacks, there
are still good reasons for such a system. It has clear advantages over
posting to usenet or sending incomplete summaries to random faculty.

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.

James, this I think is the best advice you can take, if you are truly
interested in learning math and having your ideas accepted if they are of
value. But, you've heard it before and ignored it, right?

I understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it. Journal
articles are the way we communicate research results. Writing an
article (or even a research report) demands a certain amount of rigor
and formalism. It forces you to review the literature in order to make
it clear how your work fits into (and differs from) previous work.

Finally, by writing an article, you make it clear exactly what you
have done and how it is new, and this, in turn, helps protect your
intellectual property. The Usenet news groups are OK for tossing ideas
around and getting some feedback, but they are not the best way to
communicate a finding. I know its a drag to write a journal article
---- it takes a lot of time; you have to use conventional terminology
and formalism; you have to typeset equations; you have to learn a
particular journal's convention for bibliographic references; you have
to respond to referee reports; etc. In spite of these drawbacks, there
are still good reasons for such a system. It has clear advantages over
posting to usenet or sending incomplete summaries to random faculty.

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.

No. I find your post strange, as you seem to be assuming that I am
indeed some kind of crank, so I wonder what evidence you have.

Can you tell me why you assume that I've ignored good advice before?


James Harris

Now what if some person says they found a brilliant gem, should they
go through college courses, and learn a lot of techniques in the
analysis of gems?

Or can't they just holler out that they found something?

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

Tom Potter wrote:

As can be seen by the number of posts in this thread,
and the references to his web site in thousands of other posts,
a computer programmer, who took some data processing classes
at a third rate California college, has become a highly regarded expert
in math, physics, and other science disciplines, and
many people, who pretend to be rational, intelligent, open-minded
scientists (Or at least, pretend to have a scientific mind.),
frequently use this programmer as a major reference.

What third rate California college? Who rated it? What criteria?

Most scientist are computer programmers... are you knocking us Potter?

Tom Potter wrote:

As can be seen by the number of posts in this thread,
and the references to his web site in thousands of other posts,
a computer programmer, who took some data processing classes
at a third rate California college, has become a highly regarded expert
in math, physics, and other science disciplines, and
many people, who pretend to be rational, intelligent, open-minded
scientists (Or at least, pretend to have a scientific mind.),
frequently use this programmer as a major reference.

What third rate California college? Who rated it? What criteria?

Most scientist are computer programmers... are you knocking us Potter?