JSH: James Harris is a crank
Neilist
Aatu Koskensilta
> There. I said it. Let him call the ARMY out against me.
Yes, yes, well said and all that. Is there some point to all this
silliness?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
amzoti
> There. I said it. Let him call the ARMY out against me.
I totally agree.
Crank (all of these apply):
1. Informal. an ill-tempered, grouchy person.
2. An unbalanced person who is overzealous in the advocacy of a
private cause.
3. A peculiar or eccentric idea or action.
4. An eccentric person, especially one who is unduly zealous.
5. A disparaging term for a person who holds unorthodox opinions
However, I also think he might be on CRANK!
crank, diehard, doctrinaire, dogmatist, extremist, fanatic, fideist,
fiend, flag-waver, freak, jingoist, maniac, monomaniac, mule, nut,
opinionated person, relisher, sectarian, segregationist, stickler,
zealot.
James is using his HAMMER to smash up pills and make his CRANK!
José Carlos Santos
>> There. I said it. Let him call the ARMY out against me.
>
> Yes, yes, well said and all that. Is there some point to all this
> silliness?
My guess is that the point is to make him feel that he is tough. See:
he even said that James could call an ARMY against him. How brave he
must be! :-)
Best regards,
Jose Carlos Santos
Neilist
wrote:
> On 2008-02-27, in sci.math, Neilist wrote:
>
> > There. I said it. Let him call the ARMY out against me.
>
> Yes, yes, well said and all that. Is there some point to all this
> silliness?
Yes, we must stand up (in a newsgroup? It's cramped in here!) against
folly and anti-intelligence.
Just as there is anti-matter which annihilates matter, anti-
intelligence annihilates intelligence, discourages true discourse, and
merely pumps up the weak egos of those cranks who think they can solve
obtuse problems with sloppy math.
Neilist
>fideist
Hey, another new word to learn. Thanks!
> James is using his HAMMER to smash up pills and make his CRANK!
Now THAT'S funny!
Quinn
> Is there some point to all this silliness?
The Wittgenstein quote in your sig says it all:
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
"On that which one cannot speak, one must remain silent." (poor translation
probably on my part)
Neilist is pissed off because he cannot meet any of my challenges in order
to get into the Critics' Box ... so he's blowing up a smokescreen and
putting forth his own inane challenge to try to get me to do his Evil
Bidding.
It's all rather retarded.
Years back, when asked to produce a list of names of those on a closed email
list (yes, yes, a "closed list") who had read JSH's paper before it went to
a journal that accepted that paper (and then denied they accepted it and
claimed a clerical error) -- I refused to give up the names of those on the
list because one of the TOS on the list was confidentiality of the
participants.
Neilist didn't like that, and all these years later is still ranting about
my stance on the matter. So, in addition to wishing me dead, he's trying to
get me to create a thread denouncing James as a "crank."
So this thread is his attempt to see if I'll do as he asks.
Neilist's mom must have caught him with a crumpled up copy of National
Geographic, so his usual self-amusement has been curtailed and he needs a
new outlet.
See? All rather retarded.
--
Quinn
Aatu Koskensilta
> Yes, we must stand up (in a newsgroup? It's cramped in here!) against
> folly and anti-intelligence.
>
> Just as there is anti-matter which annihilates matter, anti-
> intelligence annihilates intelligence, discourages true discourse, and
> merely pumps up the weak egos of those cranks who think they can solve
> obtuse problems with sloppy math.
It was, in retrospect, predictable that the point to all the silliness
should be just more bizarre silliness.
Neilist
Yes, brave of me (using an anonymous posting system). Ain't I great?
Neilist
wrote:
> On 2008-02-27, in sci.math, Neilist wrote:
>
> > Yes, we must stand up (in a newsgroup? It's cramped in here!) against
> > folly and anti-intelligence.
>
> > Just as there is anti-matter which annihilates matter, anti-
> > intelligence annihilates intelligence, discourages true discourse, and
> > merely pumps up the weak egos of those cranks who think they can solve
> > obtuse problems with sloppy math.
>
> It was, in retrospect, predictable that the point to all the silliness
> should be just more bizarre silliness.
>
> --
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Fine, don't challenge cranks, and hope they go away? They won't be
silent, yet you (presumably not a crank) would silence yourself?
Ironic!
Neilist
<snip>
> It's all rather retarded.
And yet you respond. Ha, I guess you ARE retarded.
> Years back, when asked to produce a list of names of those on a closed email
> list (yes, yes, a "closed list") who had read JSH's paper before it went to
> a journal that accepted that paper (and then denied they accepted it and
> claimed a clerical error) -- I refused to give up the names of those on the
> list because one of the TOS on the list was confidentiality of the
> participants.
Yeah, right, suuurrrrrre.
Then the alleged review of unaccountable "mathematicians" should never
have been mentioned to stifle the challenge to YOUR assertion that
James Harris' paper was allegedly found to be without error.
If you can't back up your assertions of such a "review", then you
could well be lying.
No accountabilty = no credibility. That is, you were lying about any
such review and closed list.
"closed list" Ha!
> Neilist didn't like that, and all these years later is still ranting about
> my stance on the matter. So, in addition to wishing me dead, he's trying to
> get me to create a thread denouncing James as a "crank."
>
> So this thread is his attempt to see if I'll do as he asks.
No, this thread is to show that I'm not a pussy like you.
You won't betray your "friend", even though in another thread you
called him a crank.
Quinn, you used to evoke some "manly" or "macho" pride thing to say I
should be a man and not hide behind anonymity.
Well, Quinn, you should be a man and start a new thread to clearly
show what you said in another thread - that James Harris is a crank.
Are you Quinn afraid of the wrath of James Harris, your friend.
> Neilist's mom must have caught him with a crumpled up copy of National
> Geographic, so his usual self-amusement has been curtailed and he needs a
> new outlet.
Back to the insult on manliness. Grow up, ya baby.
> See? All rather retarded.
By "all", that includes YOU, Quinn. Ha ha.
Aatu Koskensilta
Very ironic, I'm sure. What do you suppose this endless challenging of
cranks accomplishes? Surely you're not suggesting these challenges
cause them to make a hasty retreat and mend their ways.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
tommy1729
>
> Just as there is anti-matter which annihilates
> matter, anti-
> intelligence annihilates intelligence, discourages
> true discourse, and
> merely pumps up the weak egos of those cranks who
> think they can solve
> obtuse problems with sloppy math.
>
when will neilist and JSH annihilate eachother ???
were all waiting for it.
just image : no more JSH bogus.
and no more reading neilists obsessions with JSH and Quinn 's asses.
or other insults by neilist.
were all waiting for it.
annihilate now !!
tommy1729
Neilist
wrote:
> On 2008-02-27, in sci.math, Neilist wrote:
>
> > Fine, don't challenge cranks, and hope they go away? They won't be
> > silent, yet you (presumably not a crank) would silence yourself?
>
> > Ironic!
>
> Very ironic, I'm sure. What do you suppose this endless challenging of
> cranks accomplishes? Surely you're not suggesting these challenges
> cause them to make a hasty retreat and mend their ways.
>
> --
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
You have a good point.
Odds are very low that cranks will retreat and mend their ways. I
personally hope that, with a challenge from another person, even the
most deranged person may see a glimmer of a different path.
You can see on sci.math and other newsgroups that some people reply to
posters with questions with patience and understanding, and even if
the original posters "evolves" into a crank or shows him/herself to be
a crank, some people still try to straighten them out and/or guide
them to correct math.
But my primary purpose of challenging cranks is to not let them take
silence of approval of their bad math and bad behavior. Cranks may
think that silence from mathematicians is approval of their wrong or
error-filled mathematics, when it may be simply that the real
mathematicians have to work hard to understand the bad math, to take
time away from the mathematicians' own work and lives, and to
justifiably point out to the cranks the errors in the cranks' work
without the mathematicians making more errors themselves and reducing
their credibility to address the crank.
Even worse, when cranks start insulting or disparaging mathematicians,
even those attempting to help them, then it is the bad behavior of the
crank that should be stifled. In unmoderated newsgroups, there's no
one to ban the crank, so it's up to real mathematicians to counter bad
behavior.
It's just like the whole freedom of speech issue. Unlike Germany and
other countries which have laws against propagating Nazi beliefs and
denials of the extermination of the Jews and other groups, some
countries such as the United States rely on freedom of speech to
counter hate speech.
Some people choose to counter hate speech with silence, hoping the
hate speech will not get publicity. Others choose to counter hate
speech with more speech exposing the lies of hateful speakers.
And a review of the archives shows that cranky James Harris has posted
hateful and negative speech, beyond his error-riddled math.