info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Shaming mainstream academic baboons. In this thread I focus on ex mythmatics professor Folland.
164 views
Skip to first unread message
Eram semper recta
May 19, 2020, 9:42:32 PM5/19/20
to
I want to address the drivel in Folland's article at:
https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
He writes [f(a+h)-f(a)]/h = f'(a) + E(h) and ignorantly calls E(h) the error term without even defining it.
f'(a) + Q(a,h) are the components of the SLOPE as outlined in my historic theorem:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
Thus, there is NO error term whatsoever. The sum of the components f'(a) and Q(a,h) is ALWAYS the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in your bogus calculus. Both components are well defined by lengths of triangles in my historic geometric theorem.
Why the obsession with "error terms"? Well, long before my closed form Gabriel Polynomial, there was the inferior Taylor polynomial which ALWAYS is defined with an error term. Then there were numerous other flavours of formula with error terms. Mainstream academics got used to and started loving error terms in their ignorance, arrogance and stupidity. So the syphilitic thought of "error term" plus "limit theory" produced the perfect storm that resulted in your bogus mainstream formulation of calculus.
Now back to Folland's drivel...
The second component Q(x,h) is a function of both x and h, not just h alone.
Next, Folland drivels that E(a,h) tends to 0. Really? E(a,h) is a CONSTANT for any a and any h. It DOES NOT change or tend to anything.
And finally he arrives at the drivel of SPEED which has nothing to do with the topic at all. He drivels that E(a,h) changes faster than h as both "head" to 0.
Since he doesn't define speed, I assume he means the average for each of h and E(a,h) for any given fixed intervals of x. This syphilitic thought has found its way in all of calculus and was propagated by that fucking moron Prof. Gilbert Strang (MIT).
Now consider that for the function f(x)=x^2, such a "speed" is the same because h=h and E(a,h)=h. Can one get any dumber? What the fuck does speed have to do at all with any function? NOTHING is changing in the function. One calculating finite differences on fixed intervals doesn't mean shit.
Folland concludes his drivel by stating that his function T is a good linear approximation to the function f because the (imagined) error tends to 0 faster than h tends to 0. In other words, the "approximation" to f(x)=x^2 can't be a good one because h tends to 0 as fast as h tends to 0. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Mainstream academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks. I mean this is the shit I have had to deal with in my reeducation of the mainstream math orangutans who NEVER understood the concept of number, much less the intricacies of calculus.
Stupid, stupid, very stupid Franz Fritsche and Jean Pierre Messager and Jan Burse and all their fellow apes. Tsk, tsk.
Still think your bogus calculus is rigorous? LMAO.
The Church of Academia absolutely hate my recent theorem (January 2020) which was realised as a result of my New Calculus now over 30 years old.
Among other things, it proves the mainstream formulation to be an utter fraud.
It also proves that all of calculus can be done just fine without limit theory and bullshit concepts of infinity and infinitesimals.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
Mainstream orangutans are deeply embarrassed and don't know where to turn. For years the fucking morons have been libeling me and calling me all sorts of names, but the ultimate victory is mine and he who laughs last always laughs best. :-))
There is much more embarrassing news for them in the future ... all in due time, in due time... Chuckle.
https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
He writes [f(a+h)-f(a)]/h = f'(a) + E(h) and ignorantly calls E(h) the error term without even defining it.
f'(a) + Q(a,h) are the components of the SLOPE as outlined in my historic theorem:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RDulODvgncItTe7qNI1d8KTN5bl0aTXj
Thus, there is NO error term whatsoever. The sum of the components f'(a) and Q(a,h) is ALWAYS the SLOPE of the NON-PARALLEL secant line in your bogus calculus. Both components are well defined by lengths of triangles in my historic geometric theorem.
Why the obsession with "error terms"? Well, long before my closed form Gabriel Polynomial, there was the inferior Taylor polynomial which ALWAYS is defined with an error term. Then there were numerous other flavours of formula with error terms. Mainstream academics got used to and started loving error terms in their ignorance, arrogance and stupidity. So the syphilitic thought of "error term" plus "limit theory" produced the perfect storm that resulted in your bogus mainstream formulation of calculus.
Now back to Folland's drivel...
The second component Q(x,h) is a function of both x and h, not just h alone.
Next, Folland drivels that E(a,h) tends to 0. Really? E(a,h) is a CONSTANT for any a and any h. It DOES NOT change or tend to anything.
And finally he arrives at the drivel of SPEED which has nothing to do with the topic at all. He drivels that E(a,h) changes faster than h as both "head" to 0.
Since he doesn't define speed, I assume he means the average for each of h and E(a,h) for any given fixed intervals of x. This syphilitic thought has found its way in all of calculus and was propagated by that fucking moron Prof. Gilbert Strang (MIT).
Now consider that for the function f(x)=x^2, such a "speed" is the same because h=h and E(a,h)=h. Can one get any dumber? What the fuck does speed have to do at all with any function? NOTHING is changing in the function. One calculating finite differences on fixed intervals doesn't mean shit.
Folland concludes his drivel by stating that his function T is a good linear approximation to the function f because the (imagined) error tends to 0 faster than h tends to 0. In other words, the "approximation" to f(x)=x^2 can't be a good one because h tends to 0 as fast as h tends to 0. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Mainstream academics are incorrigibly stupid fucks. I mean this is the shit I have had to deal with in my reeducation of the mainstream math orangutans who NEVER understood the concept of number, much less the intricacies of calculus.
Stupid, stupid, very stupid Franz Fritsche and Jean Pierre Messager and Jan Burse and all their fellow apes. Tsk, tsk.
Still think your bogus calculus is rigorous? LMAO.
The Church of Academia absolutely hate my recent theorem (January 2020) which was realised as a result of my New Calculus now over 30 years old.
Among other things, it proves the mainstream formulation to be an utter fraud.
It also proves that all of calculus can be done just fine without limit theory and bullshit concepts of infinity and infinitesimals.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uIBgJ1ObroIbkt0V2YFQEpPdd8l-xK6y
Mainstream orangutans are deeply embarrassed and don't know where to turn. For years the fucking morons have been libeling me and calling me all sorts of names, but the ultimate victory is mine and he who laughs last always laughs best. :-))
There is much more embarrassing news for them in the future ... all in due time, in due time... Chuckle.
Dan Christensen
May 19, 2020, 10:53:20 PM5/19/20
to
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 9:42:32 PM UTC-4, Eram semper RECTUM (formerly "John Gabriel" and "Jew Lover") wrote:
> I want to address the drivel in Folland's article at:
>
> https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
>
Folland presents a small theorem about the derivatives of functions using the standard definition.
> I want to address the drivel in Folland's article at:
>
> https://sites.math.washington.edu/~folland/Math134/lin-approx.pdf
>
Your goofy little theorem, on the other hand, purports to be about derivatives of a function, making a point of rejecting the standard definition. You are unable, however, to present a workable alternative. As such, your "theorem" is really about nothing at all. It is pure gibberish.
It looks to me like you plagiarized his article not fully understanding what it is was all about, and made an ass of yourself all over the internet, John.
It really is time to admit your error if only to yourself, to cut your losses here and to move on. You aren't getting any younger.
Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:
"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017
“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015
"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017
"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019
"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017
“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019
“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019
No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.
Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
So, your "theorem" is really about nothing at all.
Eram semper recta
May 20, 2020, 10:40:28 AM5/20/20
to
Eram semper recta
May 21, 2020, 6:28:14 AM5/21/20
to
On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 21:42:32 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
And Franz Fritsche (aka "Me") has suddenly gone silent too. Well, they probably know they are beaten but too dishonest to admit error.
Efftard K. Donglemeier
May 21, 2020, 10:17:57 AM5/21/20
to
Shut up moron.
Eram semper recta
May 21, 2020, 11:10:33 AM5/21/20
to
On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 21:42:32 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
Python
May 21, 2020, 11:16:31 AM5/21/20
to
Are you that mad or kidding, John? This has nothing to do with your
"theorem" which says
(f(x+h) - f(x))/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
without specific condition on Q, it only states that
(f(x+h) - f(x))/h - f'(x) is a function of x,h and has NOTHING
specific to f'(x), so is absolutely MEANINGLESS.
While the paper (part of a basic course as a matter of fact) is
stating what is well-known for centuries and is basically the
basis of calculus :
(f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
which ends up is giving a linear approximation of f at x=a
in the sense that f(a+h) = f(a) + f'(a)*h + hE(h)
i.e. the difference hE(h), is converging to 0 MORE FASTER than h.
your rant was silly and unfounded back then, it still is. Your
"theroem" was empty of any significance back in 2019, it still is.
Dan Christensen
May 21, 2020, 11:27:12 AM5/21/20
to
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 6:28:14 AM UTC-4, Eram semper RECTUM (formerly "John Gabriel" and "Jew Lover") wrote:
> Observe that not even an attempt has been made by anyone to refute this comment because there is no refutation.
How does one "refute" your failure the provide a workable definition of a derivative, John? Without such a definition, as we have seen here, you are unable to determine, for example, that, for f(x)=|x|, we have f'(x) being -1 for x<0, +1 for x>0, and undefined for x=0. It is trivial exercise using the standard definition.
> Observe that not even an attempt has been made by anyone to refute this comment because there is no refutation.
Face it, John, your goofy little system is broken beyond repair. It really is time to cut your losses and get on with your life. You aren't getting any younger.
Mostowski Collapse
May 21, 2020, 11:32:59 AM5/21/20
to
There is a simple conclusion from:
(f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
Take this here, the right hand side of the initial conjunction:
lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
Add on both sides f'(a):
lim_(h->0) E(h) + f'(a) = f'(a)
Use one of the lim rules:
lim_(h->0) (E(h) + f'(a)) = f'(a)
Use substitute the left hand side of the initial conjunction:
lim_(h->0) (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a)
Looks familiar, doesn't it?
(f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
lim_(h->0) E(h) + f'(a) = f'(a)
Use one of the lim rules:
lim_(h->0) (E(h) + f'(a)) = f'(a)
Use substitute the left hand side of the initial conjunction:
lim_(h->0) (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a)
Looks familiar, doesn't it?
Eram semper recta
May 21, 2020, 11:56:06 AM5/21/20
to
>
> Are you that mad or kidding, John? This has nothing to do with your
> "theorem" which says
>
> (f(x+h) - f(x))/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)
>
> without specific condition on Q, it only states that
> (f(x+h) - f(x))/h - f'(x) is a function of x,h and has NOTHING
> specific to f'(x), so is absolutely MEANINGLESS.
>
> While the paper (part of a basic course as a matter of fact) is
> stating what is well-known for centuries and is basically the
> basis of calculus :
>
> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
>
> which ends up is giving a linear approximation of f at x=a
> in the sense that f(a+h) = f(a) + f'(a)*h + hE(h)
> i.e. the difference hE(h), is converging to 0 MORE FASTER than h.
>
> your rant was silly and unfounded back then, it still is. Your
> "theroem" was empty of any significance back in 2019, it still is.
Do you want to try again you stupid psychotic crank?
Eram semper recta
May 21, 2020, 11:57:51 AM5/21/20
to
On Thursday, 21 May 2020 11:32:59 UTC-4, Swiss idiot troll Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> There is a simple conclusion from:
>
> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
A very misguided conclusion given that E(h) is drivel and has NOTHING to do with my theorem.
> There is a simple conclusion from:
>
> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
<drivel erased>
Eram semper recta
May 21, 2020, 12:23:36 PM5/21/20
to
On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 21:42:32 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-stupid-mainstream-math-professors-john-gabriel
Python
May 21, 2020, 12:49:35 PM5/21/20
to
John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
while you "theorem" is idiotic and VOID.
Eram semper recta
May 21, 2020, 1:39:37 PM5/21/20
to
On Thursday, 21 May 2020 12:49:35 UTC-4, Python wrote:
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 May 2020 11:32:59 UTC-4, Swiss idiot troll Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> >> There is a simple conclusion from:
> >>
> >> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
Hey stupid pscyho fuck jean pierre messager.
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 May 2020 11:32:59 UTC-4, Swiss idiot troll Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> >> There is a simple conclusion from:
> >>
> >> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
Who told you to take the limit of E(a,h)? And why should a limit be taken you fucking moron crank? LMAO/
> >
> > A very misguided conclusion given that E(h) is drivel and has NOTHING to do with my theorem.
>
> Of course it has nothing to do with your "theorem", it makes sense
> while you "theorem" is idiotic and VOID.
Eram semper recta
May 21, 2020, 1:44:30 PM5/21/20
to
On Thursday, 21 May 2020 12:49:35 UTC-4, Python wrote:
Eram semper recta
May 21, 2020, 1:47:28 PM5/21/20
to
On Thursday, 21 May 2020 13:39:37 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 12:49:35 UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 21 May 2020 11:32:59 UTC-4, Swiss idiot troll Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > >> There is a simple conclusion from:
> > >>
> > >> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
>
> Hey stupid pscyho fuck jean pierre messager.
>
> Who told you to take the limit of E(a,h)? And why should a limit be taken you fucking moron crank? LMAO/
Q(a,h) is a CONSTANT for any (a,h).
> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 12:49:35 UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 21 May 2020 11:32:59 UTC-4, Swiss idiot troll Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > >> There is a simple conclusion from:
> > >>
> > >> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
>
> Hey stupid pscyho fuck jean pierre messager.
>
> Who told you to take the limit of E(a,h)? And why should a limit be taken you fucking moron crank? LMAO/
Passers by: notice the utter hypocrisy of the reptiles on this newsgroup. They are all of course failed mainstream academics who have gone exactly NOWHERE in their career and would not survive a week outside a classroom. The real world would see these morons straight if they could survive in it at all.
When you can't survive in the real world, you do the only thing you can: teach your bullshit to unsuspecting and naive young minds polluting it more than the sewers that are your syphilitic, vile, filthy brains. Tsk, tsk.
Python
May 21, 2020, 1:51:13 PM5/21/20
to
John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 12:49:35 UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 11:32:59 UTC-4, Swiss idiot troll Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>>>> There is a simple conclusion from:
>>>>
>>>> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
>
> Hey stupid pscyho fuck jean pierre messager.
>
> Who told you to take the limit of E(a,h)? And why should a limit be taken?
> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 12:49:35 UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 11:32:59 UTC-4, Swiss idiot troll Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>>>> There is a simple conclusion from:
>>>>
>>>> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
>
> Hey stupid pscyho fuck jean pierre messager.
>
This is the constraint put on E in the original paper you've pretended
was a plagiarism of your silly "theorem".
The point of taking a limit is to draw a link between the definition
of f' and the concept of a tangent line. Something you are absolutely
unable to do in any of your silly claims.
Eram semper recta
May 21, 2020, 2:04:09 PM5/21/20
to
On Thursday, 21 May 2020 13:51:13 UTC-4, Python wrote:
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 May 2020 12:49:35 UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 11:32:59 UTC-4, Swiss idiot troll Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> >>>> There is a simple conclusion from:
> >>>>
> >>>> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
> >
> > Hey stupid pscyho fuck jean pierre messager.
> >
> > Who told you to take the limit of E(a,h)? And why should a limit be taken?
> This is the constraint put on E in the original paper you've pretended
> was a plagiarism of your silly "theorem".
There is no such 'constraint', you funny pscyho because there is NO error term. I am laughing so much at your stupidity! It says NOTHING about any constraints and none are required moron!
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 May 2020 12:49:35 UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 11:32:59 UTC-4, Swiss idiot troll Jan Burse aka Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> >>>> There is a simple conclusion from:
> >>>>
> >>>> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(h) *AND* lim_(h->0) E(h) = 0
> >
> > Hey stupid pscyho fuck jean pierre messager.
> >
> > Who told you to take the limit of E(a,h)? And why should a limit be taken?
> This is the constraint put on E in the original paper you've pretended
> was a plagiarism of your silly "theorem".
Of course it is not a plagiarism - it is utter drivel!
>
> The point of taking a limit is to draw a link between the definition
> of f' and the concept of a tangent line.
(f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(a,h)
you silly crank!!!
> Something you are absolutely unable to do in any of your silly claims.
Python
May 21, 2020, 2:28:30 PM5/21/20
to
John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 13:51:13 UTC-4, Python wrote:
...
> On Thursday, 21 May 2020 13:51:13 UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> The point of taking a limit is to draw a link between the definition
>> of f' and the concept of a tangent line.
>
> Bullshit. There is no such thing. One takes a "limit" when there is some form of CHANGE involved in the expression value. There is NO change in the identity
>
> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(a,h)
a is constant, h can take any value but 0, if h can change
>> of f' and the concept of a tangent line.
>
> Bullshit. There is no such thing. One takes a "limit" when there is some form of CHANGE involved in the expression value. There is NO change in the identity
>
> (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(a,h)
so can (f(a+h) - f(a))/h and E(a,h). Hence taking limits
makes prefect sense. You're not getting well these days, are you John?
Eram semper recta
May 21, 2020, 4:18:15 PM5/21/20
to
On Thursday, 21 May 2020 14:28:30 UTC-4, psychotic crank Jean Pierre Messager aka Python wrote:
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 May 2020 13:51:13 UTC-4, Python wrote:
> ...
> >> The point of taking a limit is to draw a link between the definition
> >> of f' and the concept of a tangent line.
> >
> > Bullshit. There is no such thing. One takes a "limit" when there is some form of CHANGE involved in the expression value. There is NO change in the identity
> >
> > (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(a,h)
>
> a is constant, h can take any value but 0, if h can change
> so can (f(a+h) - f(a))/h and E(a,h).
No idiot. Both a and h are CONSTANT. There is no change in h. The exact derivative is given by:
> John Gabriel, aka Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 May 2020 13:51:13 UTC-4, Python wrote:
> ...
> >> The point of taking a limit is to draw a link between the definition
> >> of f' and the concept of a tangent line.
> >
> > Bullshit. There is no such thing. One takes a "limit" when there is some form of CHANGE involved in the expression value. There is NO change in the identity
> >
> > (f(a+h) - f(a))/h = f'(a) + E(a,h)
>
> a is constant, h can take any value but 0, if h can change
> so can (f(a+h) - f(a))/h and E(a,h).
f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h - Q(x,h)
There is no limit to be taken there, you nincompoop!
> Hence taking limits makes prefect sense.
> You're not getting well these days, are you John?
Wasell
May 22, 2020, 10:10:09 AM5/22/20
to
On Thu, 21 May 2020 07:18:02 -0700, in article <ra62if$puv$1...@dont-email.me>,
Efftard K. Donglemeier wrote:
>
> Shut up moron.
Dear Nymshifting Fuckwit,
You may believe that you are doing a public service by telling the crazies
to shut up. In the actual reality, where we normal people live, you're
not. The only thing you are doing, is drawing attention to them.
Your nymshfting (i.e. changing your name and e-mail address) is obviously
intended to subvert any attempt to killfile you. As you may have noticed,
*all* your targets are using Google Groups. GG doesn't support any form of
killfiling, so all your nymshifting will have no effect on them. It does
have a very negative effect on us normal people, though.
Would you be a dear and have some part of nym constant? For example, use a
"From:" address of one the forms
i.am.an.idiot.please.laugh.at.me@<RANDOM STRING>.invalid
or
<RANDOM STRING>@i-am-a-monomaniacal-boring-fuckwit.invalid
and then *only ever* change the "<RANDOM STRING>" parts.
In short: *shut up, idiot*; or at least make it easy to killfile your ass.
Efftard K. Donglemeier wrote:
>
> Shut up moron.
Dear Nymshifting Fuckwit,
You may believe that you are doing a public service by telling the crazies
to shut up. In the actual reality, where we normal people live, you're
not. The only thing you are doing, is drawing attention to them.
Your nymshfting (i.e. changing your name and e-mail address) is obviously
intended to subvert any attempt to killfile you. As you may have noticed,
*all* your targets are using Google Groups. GG doesn't support any form of
killfiling, so all your nymshifting will have no effect on them. It does
have a very negative effect on us normal people, though.
Would you be a dear and have some part of nym constant? For example, use a
"From:" address of one the forms
i.am.an.idiot.please.laugh.at.me@<RANDOM STRING>.invalid
or
<RANDOM STRING>@i-am-a-monomaniacal-boring-fuckwit.invalid
and then *only ever* change the "<RANDOM STRING>" parts.
In short: *shut up, idiot*; or at least make it easy to killfile your ass.
Eram semper recta
May 22, 2020, 10:17:46 AM5/22/20
to
Wasell
May 22, 2020, 12:24:43 PM5/22/20
to
On Fri, 22 May 2020 07:17:39 -0700 (PDT), in article <13f174f8-03d1-4b57-b4f0-
6e60cd...@googlegroups.com>, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 22 May 2020 10:10:09 UTC-4, Wasell wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 May 2020 07:18:02 -0700, in article <ra62if$puv$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Efftard K. Donglemeier wrote:
> > > Shut up moron.
> > Dear Nymshifting Fuckwit,
[snip my own rant]
6e60cd...@googlegroups.com>, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 22 May 2020 10:10:09 UTC-4, Wasell wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 May 2020 07:18:02 -0700, in article <ra62if$puv$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Efftard K. Donglemeier wrote:
> > > Shut up moron.
> > Dear Nymshifting Fuckwit,
> > In short: *shut up, idiot*; or at least make it easy to killfile your
> > ass.
> You're dead right about the nymshifting dimwit.
> But if you have already kill-filed me who you think is crazy, then pray
> tell how is it you are still reading my threads?
"read". It can also "unkill" articles that are in reply my own posts, and
that's why I saw your reply. It doesn't (generally) kill entire threads.
Also, even though I have you personally killfiled, I find your threads
most amusing: it's always fun to see a kook get his ass handed to him.
That's why I have /you/ killfiled, and /your threads/ scored highly. That
way I get to see the beautiful dissections of your blithering idiocies.
I have the same set of rules for Archimongo Pooptunium and Burger King
Kretin.
> Is it possibly because you are the nym shifting dimwit? Chuckle.
question.
Eram semper recta
May 22, 2020, 3:19:40 PM5/22/20
to
On Friday, 22 May 2020 12:24:43 UTC-4, Wasell wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 07:17:39 -0700 (PDT), in article <13f174f8-03d1-4b57-b4f0-
> 6e60cd...@googlegroups.com>, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 May 2020 10:10:09 UTC-4, Wasell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 07:18:02 -0700, in article <ra62if$puv$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > > Efftard K. Donglemeier wrote:
>
> > > > Shut up moron.
>
> > > Dear Nymshifting Fuckwit,
>
> [snip my own rant]
>
> > > In short: *shut up, idiot*; or at least make it easy to killfile your
> > > ass.
>
> > You're dead right about the nymshifting dimwit.
>
> Well, thank you. I know I am.
>
> > But if you have already kill-filed me who you think is crazy, then pray
> > tell how is it you are still reading my threads?
>
> My newsreader (Microplanet Gravity) kills articles by marking them as
> "read". It can also "unkill" articles that are in reply my own posts, and
> that's why I saw your reply. It doesn't (generally) kill entire threads.
> Also, even though I have you personally killfiled, I find your threads
> most amusing: it's always fun to see a kook get his ass handed to him.
You find it amusing every time I reveal what a moron you are?
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 07:17:39 -0700 (PDT), in article <13f174f8-03d1-4b57-b4f0-
> 6e60cd...@googlegroups.com>, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 May 2020 10:10:09 UTC-4, Wasell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 07:18:02 -0700, in article <ra62if$puv$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > > Efftard K. Donglemeier wrote:
>
> > > > Shut up moron.
>
> > > Dear Nymshifting Fuckwit,
>
> [snip my own rant]
>
> > > In short: *shut up, idiot*; or at least make it easy to killfile your
> > > ass.
>
> > You're dead right about the nymshifting dimwit.
>
> Well, thank you. I know I am.
>
> > But if you have already kill-filed me who you think is crazy, then pray
> > tell how is it you are still reading my threads?
>
> My newsreader (Microplanet Gravity) kills articles by marking them as
> "read". It can also "unkill" articles that are in reply my own posts, and
> that's why I saw your reply. It doesn't (generally) kill entire threads.
> Also, even though I have you personally killfiled, I find your threads
> most amusing: it's always fun to see a kook get his ass handed to him.
> That's why I have /you/ killfiled...
Stupid crank. You're here because you learn from me. No one wastes a comment on another whom he has kill-filed.
0 new messages