James Harris wrote: > If it looked like you were a dangerous threat then you might be > checked more closely.
He was threatening *YOU*. It's not a terrorist threat, it's not a threat against Americans or American interests, it is a threat against you for your actions or perceived actions. I don't condone it, but it certainly doesn't provide grounds for any federal agency to get involved.
> Oh yeah, so how do you tag someone for the NSA? You use the word > "NSA", and the reason is simple.
> Because the NSA uses mathematicians so heavily, they keep track of > mathematicians worldwide, and monitor their communications closely, > which includes postings on the sci.math newsgroup.
Here's another one of your faulty leaps in logic. Your conclusion ("NSA keeps tags on mathematicians and monitors their communications") does not follow from your premise ("NSA hires lots of mathematicians").
You *are* getting this from some thriller, aren't you? The kind where all federal agencies have unlimited budgets, unlimited manpower, and Buck Rogers spy technology?
> However, so far, about 25 sci.math readers/contibuters have essentially > admitted that they lack either the will-power to ignore Harris or the > ability to killfile him. It is not up to Harris to remedy that lack.
Unfortunately the number of people replying just adds fuel to the fire, because ultimately James is interested in only one thing - attention. You can be sure he's absolutely _revelling_ in all this feedback, positive or negative, however much he may pretend to complain!
> [...]
> Moreover, the Harris posts have _not_ been worthless. I believe > Magidin got a publication and many of us learned some number theory > in the ensuing discussions.
True, but then consider the number of potential experts who _would_ be posting, and indeed were until recent years, but who have tuned in and been put off by all the Harris threads. For example, where's Bob Silverman these days, and several others who I recall posting regularly even a couple of years ago?
Cheers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- John R Ramsden (j...@adslate.com) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Eternity is a long time, especially towards the end." Woody Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > However, so far, about 25 sci.math readers/contibuters have essentially > > admitted that they lack either the will-power to ignore Harris or the > > ability to killfile him. It is not up to Harris to remedy that lack.
> Unfortunately the number of people replying just adds fuel to the fire, > because ultimately James is interested in only one thing - attention. > You can be sure he's absolutely _revelling_ in all this feedback, > positive or negative, however much he may pretend to complain!
True enough (precious little positive feedback though). And yet, here _we_ are, adding two more to this thread.
> > [...]
> > Moreover, the Harris posts have _not_ been worthless. I believe > > Magidin got a publication and many of us learned some number theory > > in the ensuing discussions.
> True, but then consider the number of potential experts who _would_ > be posting, and indeed were until recent years, but who have tuned > in and been put off by all the Harris threads. For example, where's > Bob Silverman these days, and several others who I recall posting > regularly even a couple of years ago?
You may be correct but it is hard to imagine that they would not simply killfile him. My guess is that they just got tired or busy - maybe tired of not having well thought out posts go unacknowledged by the original poster - a pet-peeve of mine.
> Cheers
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > John R Ramsden (j...@adslate.com) > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Eternity is a long time, especially towards the end." > Woody Allen > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <3c65f87.0210160433.7ed8e...@posting.google.com>,
James Harris <jst...@msn.com> wrote: >Oh yeah, so how do you tag someone for the NSA? You use the word >"NSA", and the reason is simple.
Wow. When did they appoint James Perry to the NSA directorship?
Ia! Ia! Kibo Fhtagn!
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | D. Jacob Wildstrom -- Math monkey and freelance thinker | | Graduate Student, University of California at San Diego | | Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily | | endorsed by the University of California or math department thereof.|
William Elliot <m...@xx.com> wrote in message <news:20021012211950.P85318-100000@agora.rdrop.com>... > On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Moufang Loop wrote: > > My question is: what _is_ a variable? But first, are there variable at
> Variables are pronouns.
> > And if there are variables, then there's the matter of dependent and > > independent variables: just handwaving, or something deeper involving
> If she's married to him is she dependent upon him?
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
If X is a variable then there is only one variable that is naturally dependent on X, namely, the reciprocal of X or 1/X. No other variable is naturally dependent on X. How other variables have to depend on X is dictated by mathematicians and not by the nature of any particuler reality. If X is a noun of a pronoun or the subject then 1/X is the predicate (state) of X. The other naturally dependent variable are P (pressure),V (volume) and T (temperature).
> Yes, watching you make a fool of yourself yet again is a guilty > pleasure, but there are plenty of other guilty pleasures. > Go away.
> Jim Burns
Among the 'guilty pleasures' to which you are apparently not averse was that indulged in by David Ullrich, endorsed by David Kastrup--and parodied by Jim Ferry, thus:
> I was thinking about making a comic strip about David Ullrich, > involving the panels ...
> 1) David Ullrich taps a Secret Service agent on the > shoulder and says, "I was thinking about threatening > to kill the President, but I'm not going to make any > such threat."
> 2) David Ullrich is enjoying a night out and says to > his date, "I was thinking of unflattering remarks > regarding the size of several parts of your body. > But I'm not going to utter them."
> 3) David Ullrich addresses an audience at his local > mosque, saying "I have some novel ideas about the > efficient conversion of copies the Koran into > toilet paper, but I shall not mention them."
> 4) David Ullrich comes over to babysit and says to > the parents, "I asked a friend whether I should > tell your children the story about the nice man > who gave the little girl a very special lollipop, > but, on his advice, I decided not to tell it."
Interestingly enough, when this was posted to sci.math NOBODY applauded it--an indication of the mentality that Ullrich and Kastrup and (evidently) yourself share with many others here.
> I here publicly repent of ever being polite to John Correy. > Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
> I was planning to append an appropriate insult to his name, but > I find myself unwilling to go as low as I would need to > to properly convey his character. Anything less would mislead > by understating the case.
john_cor...@excite.ca (John) writes: > Among the 'guilty pleasures' to which you are apparently not averse > was that indulged in by David Ullrich, endorsed by David Kastrup
Nonsense. A single post where Ullrich admitted to having been provoked once such that he had been thinking about an uncouth reply is not a "guilty pleasure". Nor has it been "endorsed" by me. You are an idiot.
>--and > parodied by Jim Ferry, thus:
> > I was thinking about making a comic strip about David Ullrich, > > involving the panels ...
> > 1) David Ullrich taps a Secret Service agent on the > > shoulder and says, "I was thinking about threatening > > to kill the President, but I'm not going to make any > > such threat."
Simply does not fit the facts. You should make this something like
David Ullrich, when talking over tax rises in a bar, is heard to casually remark "I remember when the President told he would be cutting the salaries of all mathematicians in half, since they, and in particular David Ullrich, were lying scumbags. Boy, I was so mad I could have hit him. Somebody talked me out of it before my next audience."
Of course, this does not make a good comic strip.
> > 2) David Ullrich is enjoying a night out and says to > > his date, "I was thinking of unflattering remarks > > regarding the size of several parts of your body. > > But I'm not going to utter them."
More like:
David Ullrich has been enjoying a night out, and when his date boasts later in public "I certainly kicked David quite squarely in the groing when I had a few drinks too much" he says "You bet. I was really urging to hit back, but someone talked me out of it."
And than that date tries to get Ullrich slammed as a woman beater.
Things like that. Don't make so hot a comic strip.
> Interestingly enough, when this was posted to sci.math NOBODY > applauded it--an indication of the mentality that Ullrich and > Kastrup and (evidently) yourself share with many others here.
Oh, it is just that what Ullrich had said is a so disproportionally frigidly timid echo when constrasted to what JSH is spouting all the time (and has been in particular to directly provoke this reaction), that his attempt of exploiting it are nothing short of ridiculous.
I don't see how. You are putting yourself to the cause of an abominable hypocrite, and get ridiculed accordingly. If you are yearning for attention, you could post your own follies instead of trying to get some by tailing JSH.
And if you were doing something "right", then the Oklahoma State Attorney would certainly be of your opinion, wouldn't he?
-- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum Email: David.Kast...@t-online.de
|
