(Andy Spragg) wrote in message ...
(mensanator) pushed briefly to the front of the
queue on 9 Sep 2003 18:30:23 -0700, and nailed this to the shed door:

^ "Steven" wrote in message ...

^ meta name="keywords" content="intelligence, intelligent, Mega Foundation,
^ Ultranet, Ubiquity,
^ Chris Langan, Gina LoSasso, Bob Seitz, severely-gifted, severely gifted,
^ extremely-gifted,
^ extremely gifted, Telenet, Telemach Network for Gifted Youth, Triple Nine,
^ Gifted, highly gifted, profoundly gifted, superior intelligence,
^ intellect, intellectual, cognitive ability, clever, brain, HiQ,
^ quick, brilliant, brilliance, brainpower, think, thinking, thought, brainy,
^ whiz kid, HIQ, Will Hunting, Einstein, prodigy,
^ american mensa, intertel, ispe, prometheus society, Top One Percent Society,
^ Triple Nine Society, TNS, Vidya, 999, 99.9, high IQ, High-IQ, Hi-Q, High-IQ
^ society, ultra-smart, super-smart, precocious, Four Sigma, 4 sigma, genius,
^ One-in-a-Thousand Society, mega society, Thinkfast, Mega, Prometheus,
^ Mega Test, Titan Test, LAIT, SAT, GRE, Stanford-Binet, Cattell, CTMM
^ Ron Hoeflin, Paul Cooijmans, Darryl Miyaguchi,
^ Gift of Fire, Noesis, Telicom"
^
^ top one percent = one in a thousand ?

^ Maybe they should add "bag of hammers" to their keywords.

Hehe. I can see how "hammer" would be insufficiently exclusive, but
unfortunately "bag of hammers" makes me think of "bag of spanners", as
in "face like a ...". Was this the comic effect you were after?

It's a quote from Mystery Science Theater 3000 that goes

"dumb as a bag of hammers"

Perhaps "fistful of hammers" would be better, bringing to mind the
$$$s that JSH has always felt should be rightfully his.

Anyway, IIRC JSH wields a Hammer, not just any old hammer.

Andy

"The Last Danish Pastry" wrote in message
...
"The Last Danish Pastry" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Any sci.math readers who want to read, or post to, the Mega Foundation
Math
Conference may proceed as follows:

Go to:
http://www.megasociety.net/MegaBoard/
Click on "Theory of Everything". This takes you to
http://megafoundation.net/~ctmu/login
Click on "new user". This takes you to
http://megafoundation.net/~ctmu/new
Create a new user profile for yourself. Click "Create". This takes you
to
http://megafoundation.net/newuser
and you should see a list of conferences down the left hand side.

No payment is required.

Note that a poster can subsequently edit any post that they have posted.
So
it may be best to quote in full anything that you are replying to.

OK, I put on some rubber gloves and created a profile.

It looks like Mr. Harris has wasted little time insulting professional
mathematicians and whose who slavishly follow them.

It will be interesting to see what he responds to questions about his
proofs.

Richard Henry wrote:

"The Last Danish Pastry" wrote in message
...

"The Last Danish Pastry" wrote in message
...


[snip]

Any sci.math readers who want to read, or post to, the Mega Foundation

Math

Conference may proceed as follows:

Go to:
http://www.megasociety.net/MegaBoard/
Click on "Theory of Everything". This takes you to
http://megafoundation.net/~ctmu/login
Click on "new user". This takes you to
http://megafoundation.net/~ctmu/new
Create a new user profile for yourself. Click "Create". This takes you

to

http://megafoundation.net/newuser
and you should see a list of conferences down the left hand side.

No payment is required.

Note that a poster can subsequently edit any post that they have posted.

So

it may be best to quote in full anything that you are replying to.


OK, I put on some rubber gloves and created a profile.

It looks like Mr. Harris has wasted little time insulting professional
mathematicians and whose who slavishly follow them.

It will be interesting to see what he responds to questions about his
proofs.

My only observations a
1) there seems to be very low activity in the math discussions.
2) no one observed on the to "Is this difficult" questions that training
in math will make the answers more obvious to someone with lower
intelligence than to someone with higher intelligence and limited
training in math.
3) JSH is talking *about* his proof without providing it. He did,
however, post the code to his prime counting function and his
"definition" of the Object Ring. Do you think it will upset him that
he's being followed?

--
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net

Will Twentyman wrote in message ...


I find their public paper

http://www.ultrahiq.org/Mega/WhyMega.htm

to be an interesting commentary on what they can do for mathematics
publishing.



Not quite sure if you're serious with that comment, but...


One of the limits of people is TIME. I, myself, simply cannot possibly
look at, read, listen to, think about every intelligent and worthwhile
idea in the world. I'd love to, mind you, but I do have a job and that
job is somewhat demanding of my time exactly because it is an academic
job. I see the same limitation in other people around me.

This means that I am thankful every time I can get someone intelligent
to sit down and actually grant me the privilege of listening to my
ideas, thinking about them, commenting on them, giving me constructive
input. This is a privilege that I value highly. For someone to give
serious consideration to my ideas and to spend actual time pointing
out their weak spots and exposing their strengths is a privilege. A
privilege that cannot be valued highly enough.

Peer review is a privilege!

One of the surest signs of a crackpot is their rejection of peer
review. Their insistence that those who have thought about an issue
before somehow are NOT qualified to comment on their work. The moment
someone writes about the "academic establishment" or their "monopoly
on intellectual commerce", they have made it clear that they do not
wish to play within the only successful intellectual framework humans
have ever created.

For all human progress has always been scientific progress -- nothing
else has changed in the last 10000 years.

And the "monopoly on intellectual commerce" is not something that was
ever "granted" any one person or institution (by whom??), it is
something that the scientific method and the academic executive body
around it *acquired*.

Anybody is free to publish anything anywhere -- and in a hundred or
two hundred years the mega society may be so lucky as to be another
scientology or LDS or whatever church. Or, much more likely, they'll
go the way of so many crackpots who thought they should throw the
privilege of peer review back into the faces of those who were willing
to elevate him into the circle of their peers.

And by this intentional intellectual self-destruction the academic
process is being selected as the stronger and better one again and
again. Until it achieves a "monopoly".

For humanity to achieve anything, the achievement must be shared
amongst humans. Humans must critique and help and correct and
encourage and stop each other. Because there is nobody else anywhere
who would do it FOR us.

We can only listen to each other, and anybody who imagines that they
should be listened TO but who isn't willing to listen to others
himself; who wants to speak but rejects the repies out of hand is a
selfish drain on the totality of human attention.

"Will Twentyman" wrote in message
...

[snip]
My only observations a
1) there seems to be very low activity in the math discussions.
2) no one observed on the to "Is this difficult" questions that training
in math will make the answers more obvious to someone with lower
intelligence than to someone with higher intelligence and limited
training in math.
3) JSH is talking *about* his proof without providing it. He did,
however, post the code to his prime counting function and his
"definition" of the Object Ring. Do you think it will upset him that
he's being followed?

I hope not. worried look

--
Clive Tooth
http://www.clivetooth.dk

Big Bird wrote:

[snip]

One of the surest signs of a crackpot is their rejection of peer
review.

[snip]

As an illustration of how badly JSH needs peer review, try searching Google for the combination:
Author: "James Harris", Text: "Oops" I got over 80 hits!

--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com

Big Bird wrote:

Will Twentyman wrote in message ...


I find their public paper

http://www.ultrahiq.org/Mega/WhyMega.htm

to be an interesting commentary on what they can do for mathematics
publishing.


Not quite sure if you're serious with that comment, but...

I'm serious that it's interesting. I think the author is misguided,
however, and agree with your position below. In effect, I suspect they
would be willing to publish almost anything, with little or no content
at all. It's the perfect place to send the cranks so they can believe
they've made an accomplishment, even though in fact they will have
proven their status by submitting there.


One of the limits of people is TIME. I, myself, simply cannot possibly
look at, read, listen to, think about every intelligent and worthwhile
idea in the world. I'd love to, mind you, but I do have a job and that
job is somewhat demanding of my time exactly because it is an academic
job. I see the same limitation in other people around me.

This means that I am thankful every time I can get someone intelligent
to sit down and actually grant me the privilege of listening to my
ideas, thinking about them, commenting on them, giving me constructive
input. This is a privilege that I value highly. For someone to give
serious consideration to my ideas and to spend actual time pointing
out their weak spots and exposing their strengths is a privilege. A
privilege that cannot be valued highly enough.

Peer review is a privilege!

One of the surest signs of a crackpot is their rejection of peer
review. Their insistence that those who have thought about an issue
before somehow are NOT qualified to comment on their work. The moment
someone writes about the "academic establishment" or their "monopoly
on intellectual commerce", they have made it clear that they do not
wish to play within the only successful intellectual framework humans
have ever created.

For all human progress has always been scientific progress -- nothing
else has changed in the last 10000 years.

And the "monopoly on intellectual commerce" is not something that was
ever "granted" any one person or institution (by whom??), it is
something that the scientific method and the academic executive body
around it *acquired*.

Anybody is free to publish anything anywhere -- and in a hundred or
two hundred years the mega society may be so lucky as to be another
scientology or LDS or whatever church. Or, much more likely, they'll
go the way of so many crackpots who thought they should throw the
privilege of peer review back into the faces of those who were willing
to elevate him into the circle of their peers.

And by this intentional intellectual self-destruction the academic
process is being selected as the stronger and better one again and
again. Until it achieves a "monopoly".

For humanity to achieve anything, the achievement must be shared
amongst humans. Humans must critique and help and correct and
encourage and stop each other. Because there is nobody else anywhere
who would do it FOR us.

We can only listen to each other, and anybody who imagines that they
should be listened TO but who isn't willing to listen to others
himself; who wants to speak but rejects the repies out of hand is a
selfish drain on the totality of human attention.


--
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net

"Will Twentyman" wrote in message
...

Do you think it will upset him that
he's being followed?

Why then did he tell where he was going?

Richard Henry wrote:

"Will Twentyman" wrote in message
...

Do you think it will upset him that

he's being followed?


Why then did he tell where he was going?


I think he was trying to show off that he has finally gotten published.
He hasn't realized yet that while he *is* technically published, it's
in a journal that means nothing.

--
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net

The Last Danish Pastry wrote:

"Will Twentyman" wrote in message
...


[snip]
My only observations a
1) there seems to be very low activity in the math discussions.
2) no one observed on the to "Is this difficult" questions that training
in math will make the answers more obvious to someone with lower
intelligence than to someone with higher intelligence and limited
training in math.
3) JSH is talking *about* his proof without providing it. He did,
however, post the code to his prime counting function and his
"definition" of the Object Ring. Do you think it will upset him that
he's being followed?


I hope not. worried look


I'm in there with you. We'll tag-team him.

Either that or we'll look really lame.

--
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net