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?

Hey Wormley,

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

fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfishfry@your-mailbox.com> writes:

You're the best troll in the history of the Internet.

Hardly. He's not even the best troll in the history of sci.math/physics.

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

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.'

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3FD55489.3F2F9BD1@mchsi.com...
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?

Hey Wormley,
as you use this programmer's web site as your primary rederence,
it seems to me that you should know what college your resident expert
attended.

If you want to know how this college rates,
I suggest that you learn how to use Google.

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?

Bad analogy.

Someone says they've found a gem. Lots of people look at it. Everyone
who knows about gems says, "That's just a lump of coal."

Would that mean that it really was just a lump of coal, or does it mean
that the discoverer can carry on shouting that he's being ignored?

agnina2003@yahoo.com (agnina) 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.

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?

Mathematicians have created an environment hostile to outsiders on the
presumption that they've found everything simple enough for a
non-mathematician to find. So then if you claim you've found
something, they try to force you to learn everything necessary to
either be or come off as a mathematician i.e. a math expert.

That's wrong because it takes away the miracle of discovery as
something that just sometimes happens to surprising people.

Mathematicians are saying, no, only by their rules can important
discoveries in mathematics be made, so by their rules must they be
known.

So it's more like someone finding a gem, and having experts claim it's
glass, only to then have that person cut glass with it.

"Pat" <mrpat@blue.DUMP.SPAM.CRAPEIE.yonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<XK8Bb.446$1X6.9044147@news-text.cableinet.net>...
"Jay Petrulis" <jpetrulis@lycosmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab5c7502.0312081337.30a8b575@posting.google.com...
Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<%lUAb.7655$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.

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.'


You are kidding, right? Jim was correct in my intentions.

James self-diagnosed narcisstic personality disorder.

James has repeatedly stated that he is "testing" the group, or
performing an experiment on it (sociological or psychological, or
whatever he thinks at the moment).

James took pride in the crank label, and now he wants everubody to
revisit it in numerous curent posts. He disowns that pride now and
dismisses it because he used quotes around the term. Hence, I did the
same, albeit with some sarcasm.

James has repeatedly requested that others refrain from posting to
"his threads," as if he owned them. David Ullrich, in particular,
receives this "request."

James posted one unfinished short story and posted to alt.writing,
requesting help. Immediately, *he* starting attacking the critics,
who were there for the sole purpose to critique his writing style.
Immediately, he came across as the arrogant expert (in his own mind).
One unfinished story and he alienated many within days.

After all, mathematics is a VERY important subject, and I think it
important if *modern* mathematicians have gone off the path of proper
intellectual endeavor.

My guess is that they have too much power today, and have learned that
modern society doesn't know what they're really doing and is afraid to
challenge them to prove their worth.

"Pat" <mrpat@blue.DUMP.SPAM.CRAPEIE.yonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<XK8Bb.446$1X6.9044147@news-text.cableinet.net>...
"Jay Petrulis" <jpetrulis@lycosmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab5c7502.0312081337.30a8b575@posting.google.com...
Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<%lUAb.7655$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.

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.'


You are kidding, right? Jim was correct in my intentions.

James self-diagnosed narcisstic personality disorder.

James has repeatedly stated that he is "testing" the group, or
performing an experiment on it (sociological or psychological, or
whatever he thinks at the moment).

James took pride in the crank label, and now he wants everubody to
revisit it in numerous curent posts. He disowns that pride now and
dismisses it because he used quotes around the term. Hence, I did the
same, albeit with some sarcasm.

James has repeatedly requested that others refrain from posting to
"his threads," as if he owned them. David Ullrich, in particular,
receives this "request."

James posted one unfinished short story and posted to alt.writing,
requesting help. Immediately, *he* starting attacking the critics,
who were there for the sole purpose to critique his writing style.
Immediately, he came across as the arrogant expert (in his own mind).
One unfinished story and he alienated many within days.

James read *one* marketing book. If it were a textbook, I am
reasonably sure he didn't *read* the whole book. Rather, he just
skimmed a bit. In any case, it called for a few posts from the
foremost marketer of all time.

James saw (or read)"A Beautiful Mind" and next thing you know,
similarities to John Nash appear in a JSH post. JSH then becomes the
formost expert on GAME'S theory. He had his own version of the theory
of games, much like his own version of mathematics, and demanded that
others heed his every word. He couldn't get the terms and definitions
right, though (again, like his mathematics).

His latest crusade is counting primes. The Ghost in the Machine (I
think???) had an impromptu contest to test some prime counters. JSH
was nowhere near the fastest, yet still he posts on its worth as if
nothing else has ever been so brilliant.

Usenet is too small for James as well. He has contacted some top
mathematicians, and when they cannot be bothered with him, he insults
and heaps scorn on them. As if they owe him something.

Incredible arrogance coupled with a total unwillingness to learn or to
take *any* form of criticism. Instead, JSH starts the attacks and
brings on the deserved replies.

James is not innocent in this at all. You say it is obvious that he
has some mental problems. James has claimed that there is mental
illness in his family, I think. But, why should anyone believe him?
He has called others liars without any evidence. His credibility on
many topics is nil, so why believe him when he speaks of his mental
health problems? Possibly that is a self-serving statement. If
another stated that s/he has mental health problems, I would support
him/her 100%. I just don't believe James.

I neither know nor care how his mind works, but I see two primary ways
to ignore the trolls: ignore them or insult them. Most of the time I
choose to ignore. On this occasion, I just wanted to illustrate the
JSH hypocrisy.

James is a crank because he produces oodles of erroneous math and does
not correct any mistakes when they are repeatedly shown to him. He
continues to wail about the injustice and the conspiracies against
him.

James is clearly a troll, too. He baits others and then does it some
more when they respond. Again, I am amazed at the help that his
mathematics receives. He doesn't deserve any help. Yet, in direct
refutation of his claims that mathematicians are out to get him, he
does receive help on the occasional post that contains mathematics.
It *should* indicate that the math community -- David Ullrich is the
spokesperson -- is not out to get him, but it doesn't register.

Does his behavior on usenet, sci.math in particular, justify the
insults he receives? I say yes.

Who knows what he does outside of usenet? Who cares? That part of my
post was just some ribbing using some of his previous claims (using
math to score with women was one of my JSH favorites). I only see his
usenet personality and respond as I see fit. For all anybody knows,
James could be a nice guy. I think he is a tool.

Regards,
Jay

Well I did think that I had the disorder in the past.

James has repeatedly stated that he is "testing" the group, or
performing an experiment on it (sociological or psychological, or
whatever he thinks at the moment).

I'm testing mathematicians' real love of mathematics, especially "pure
math" since they often claim that they value mathematics for its own
sake, and further make claims about "beauty" in mathematics.

Given the extremely hostile reaction, where insults are seen as a
proper form of communication, that I've seen from mathematicians and
people I call math groupies, it makes sense to see how far outside
mainstream social norms they lie.

After all, mathematics is a VERY important subject, and I think it
important if *modern* mathematicians have gone off the path of proper
intellectual endeavor.

My guess is that they have too much power today, and have learned that
modern society doesn't know what they're really doing and is afraid to
challenge them to prove their worth.


James took pride in the crank label, and now he wants everubody to
revisit it in numerous curent posts. He disowns that pride now and
dismisses it because he used quotes around the term. Hence, I did the
same, albeit with some sarcasm.

I don't take pride in a negative and insulting label.

I do take pride in challenging people in the tradition of Socrates.

Remember him?

He was considered a gadfly in his time as he asked questions.

I ask questions.


James has repeatedly requested that others refrain from posting to
"his threads," as if he owned them. David Ullrich, in particular,
receives this "request."

David Ullrich is a special case as anyone who bothers to do a search
at

http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en

with "David Ullrich" in the author field and "racial slur" in the
"exact phrase" field, will find out.

Being someone who repeatedly engages in negative attacks against me,
who was called on his bad behavior, David Ullrich appeals to the crowd
as a victim.

Granted, some might think I do the same, but he comes to me. That is,
David Ullrich makes sure to come to my threads and reply to my posts,
and then whines when I tell him to go away.

He's a tag-along that just won't go away when he's told that he's not
wanted.

I'm sure those of you who are successful in some way have had to deal
with such people.


James posted one unfinished short story and posted to alt.writing,
requesting help. Immediately, *he* starting attacking the critics,
who were there for the sole purpose to critique his writing style.
Immediately, he came across as the arrogant expert (in his own mind).
One unfinished story and he alienated many within days.

Well that's one point of view on the subject.

Short stories are subjective to a large extent.

I posted a draft and had critiques. I didn't like some things about a
post by *one* of the critiquers, expressed that opinion, and faced a
lot of criticism on the group alt.fiction.original as a result.

It seems to me that Jay Petrulis has spent some effort in his post to
paint a picture, and I want readers to ask themselves, why.

Math society in pushing insults and personal attacks as legitimate
behavior reveals its own true values.

Those of you who might have considered mathematicians better than you
in some way, need only look in my threads and see the reality.

The Socratic Method is a trying one, and many of you might not be
aware of it in this modern world. I suggest you look it up, and
remember what happened to Socrates.

Being a true intellectual is a lot about learning to think for
*yourself* without being dependent on people telling you what is true.

My hope is that I might have in some small way helped some of you
understand that being an adult is a continual process.

It doesn't get any easier from here.

I'm testing mathematicians' real love of mathematics, especially "pure
math" since they often claim that they value mathematics for its own
sake, and further make claims about "beauty" in mathematics.

Given the extremely hostile reaction, where insults are seen as a
proper form of communication, that I've seen from mathematicians and
people I call math groupies, it makes sense to see how far outside
mainstream social norms they lie.

jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) writes:

I'm testing mathematicians' real love of mathematics, especially "pure
math" since they often claim that they value mathematics for its own
sake, and further make claims about "beauty" in mathematics.

Maybe their idea of "beauty" does not coincide with yours. And maybe
their idea as to what is a useful contribution to mathematics does
not correspond to yours.

Given the extremely hostile reaction, where insults are seen as a
proper form of communication, that I've seen from mathematicians and
people I call math groupies, it makes sense to see how far outside
mainstream social norms they lie.

Try "talk.origins" if you want to see the sparks fly. By comparison,
"sci.math" is tame. And there are groups far worse that
"talk.origins".

Which ones?

"Jim Burns" <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:3FD53156.6D1563F7@osu.edu...
[...]
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.
[...]
I see. Well, I think, concerning some of the people here, an
element of what they are doing is playing mind games with him
for entertainment. From following this over the last few days,
I see in his behaviour, judging by my impression of his posts,
what I see directly in someone whom I know very well that has a
mental health diagnoses. I think people should just ignore him
they are feeding his obsession by replying. I don't see the point
in the endless repetition. It is no joke what he could be going
through.