DL Truth: Distance Learning Truth

jackson Wrote:You have a lot of nerve talking about ethics ... "Albert Hidel" ...

Typical Quinn.  He comes over here to whine about something posted about him on another forum.

He doesn't deny any of the things posted about him here, i.e., the "rigged game" he was running elsewhere.

He doesn't deny he was intimate with George Gollin.

He doesn't even deny the thing about him being a danger to little boys.

Instead he makes a personal attack on someone here, for commenting on the comments of someone else.  

Better check those meds, Quinn.  When you get them adjusted properly, then try addressing the real issue:  What's up with this "review" you and your pals supposedly conducted?  Was it a rigged game?  This Neilist fellow seems to think so, and rather passionately.  The fact that you took the trouble to post but didn't address the real issue suggests the answer may embarrass you.  If you are as ethical as you like to pretend you ought to come clean.

Why would I have to deny here what is clearly false to anyone who has the slightest clue? The trouble is -- on the Internet in general, there are some who don't have the slightest clue ... and so the libelous material posted by Neilist, engineered to be found by Google, can do real damage.

Two members of the Ultranet list read James Harris' paper. (I wasn't one of the two.) The rules of the list were that members' names were not to be given out. So -- when Neilist asked for the names of the two who read the paper in question -- I refused to tell the names.

So to answer your question, Don -- "rigged" ... I have no clue what you're talking about. Rigged game what?

The current rage you see from Neilist appears to be due to the fact that I refuse to do as he wishes: I refuse to post "James Harris is a Crank" in its own thread in sci.math. I already declared that Harris is a crank, in a reply to one of Neilist's posts -- but that wasn't good enough -- he demanded I start a new thread.

He then said he would litter the newsgroups so that the search engines would find my name all shit upon by him -- and for some time now he has been making good on that promise.

His rage appears to border on psychosis.

I just want him to stop it. I see no purpose in his crusade to make my name pull up nasty lies that do not deserve to be repeated out loud.

Except that he made a threat, I didn't give in -- and now he's making me pay for not caving in to his extortion attempt.

Embarrassed? Hell no. Neilist is making stuff up as he goes along. Potentially fiscally damaged? Absolutely. Neilist has engineered his posts in a way to do that. That's why he puts my name with other keywords in the subject lines -- to make them come to the top of search engine lists. His malice is clear. Angry? Yes.

But if that is the kind of creep you want to associate with, Denis, James, Larry, and friends -- feel free to muddy yourselves further.

BTW --

"Better check those meds, Quinn."

When I applied my energies pointing out "their" shit -- you applauded me and pat me on the back.

When I applied the same standards to "your" shit -- you told me to take my meds.

Lot of nerve in the hypocrisy allegations you crew have.

jackson Wrote:So to answer your question, Don -- "rigged" ... I have no clue what you're talking about. Rigged game what?

Here is what Neilist alleged in his previous post:

Quote:When Harris had a mathematical paper rejected by a publisher, Quinn Tyler Jackson claimed that the paper was reviewed by a "closed list" who found no errors.

When I and others challenged this claim, Quinn became evasive, insulting, and condescending. His "closed list" were presumably fellow members of the high-IQ Mega Foundation, which supposedly also included James Harris. And Quinn said he was a friend of James Harris.

So not only was Quinn and the "closed list" biased in favor of their friend Harris, Quinn repeatedly rebuffed any scrutiny or corroboration of his own outlandish claim that the Harris paper was reviewed and found to be error free.

http://www.dltruth.com/showthread.php?ti...71#pid1971

Was Harris's paper reviewed, and if so by whom?  What errors, if any, were found in the paper?  

Simple questions, still not answered despite multiple opportunities.  Instead, multiple scattershot personal insults, which seems typical of someone caught in a "misrememberance."  

Also, note that when Albert asked Neilist to state his beef Neilist did so, and with clarity and precision.  He was asked a straight question and he gave a straight answer.  Your turn.

Was Harris's paper reviewed, and if so by whom?  What errors, if any, were found in the paper?

OK -- I looked in my archival folders, and found the communications in question. The whole thing started at 5/4/2004, when James announced his paper was accepted by the journal. Then it turned sour on 5/7/2004 when the journal then claimed they had a clerical error. James sent to the list the acceptance email the journal had originally sent him -- and it appears it wasn't a clerical error, but a "back peddle" on the journal's part. The whole thread goes on for a few days after that, ending with James agreeing to revise his paper and move on.

There's no "misrememberance" here -- I tend to save my emails. Even the elist ones. This case was no exception.

jackson Wrote:OK -- I looked in my archival folders, and found the communications in question. The whole thing started at 5/4/2004, when James announced his paper was accepted by the journal. Then it turned sour on 5/7/2004 when the journal then claimed they had a clerical error. James sent to the list the acceptance email the journal had originally sent him -- and it appears it wasn't a clerical error, but a "back peddle" on the journal's part.  The whole thread goes on for a few days after that, ending with James agreeing to revise his paper and move on.

There's no "misrememberance" here -- I tend to save my emails. Even the elist ones. This case was no exception.

Hmm, I notice that the person whose rage you described as "appears to border on psychosis" seemed to understand the question and was able to provide a clear, concise, direct and responsive answer.

On the other hand, your responses so far suggest that your mega-intellect isn't quite grasping the questions.  Let's try again.

1. Was Harris's paper reviewed?
a) Yes
b) No

2.  If the answer to the previous question is "Yes," identify the person or persons who reviewed it.

3. If the answer to question 1 is "Yes," were any errors found in the paper?
a) Yes
b) No

Don Dresden Wrote:1. Was Harris's paper reviewed?
a) Yes
b) No

2.  If the answer to the previous question is "Yes," identify the person or persons who reviewed it.

3. If the answer to question 1 is "Yes," were any errors found in the paper?
a) Yes
b) No

Can Canadians plead the Fifth?

Armando Ramos Wrote:

Don Dresden Wrote:1. Was Harris's paper reviewed?
a) Yes
b) No

2.  If the answer to the previous question is "Yes," identify the person or persons who reviewed it.

3. If the answer to question 1 is "Yes," were any errors found in the paper?
a) Yes
b) No

Can Canadians plead the Fifth?

Was it reviewed? The journal's editor claimed it wasn't -- that it somehow got in by mistake -- except that he earlier apparently sent an email accepting Harris' paper. I read both the acceptance and the retraction, since Harris forwarded both verbatim to the list -- and I just don't know what actually happened at the journal's end. Heck -- the editor of the journal didn't seem to know either.

Errors? The sci.math crowd says yes. I wouldn't personally know -- it's not my branch of mathematics and I didn't read the paper except in passing.

My involvement in the mess had to do with the journal's behavior, not with the content of the paper itself.

As for psychosis -- Neilist has loudly and publicly falsely accused me of being a pedophile -- just because he's pissed at me -- and you give him credit for being level headed -- which means-- as far as I am concerned -- you are insincere in your pursuit of any reasonable discourse. Those kinds of false accusations -- in response to what? He doesn't like that I didn't do what he asked me to do. That's no rational for what he's been up to. None whatsoever.

Anyway... I don't see the point in it. You're hitching your wagon to one mighty ornery horse, fellah. Good luck with that.

jackson Wrote:My involvement in the mess had to do with the journal's behavior, not with the content of the paper itself.

Are we getting anywhere here?

Let's try it again.  Quinn just doesn't seem to understand the issue, no matter how simply it's stated.

At the sci.math forum Quinn posted this:

Quote:I didn't lie for JSH. He's not my friend. I already conceded that I have come to see he's a "crank."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/...e555246632

The issue here is not that Harris is a "crank," or that Quinn did or didn't acknowledge that he is a "crank," or that Quinn will or won't post somewhere that Harris is a "crank."  

When asked here at this forum what the problem is, Neilist responded:

Quote:I believe that Quinn basically LIED about any such review, and was just providing cover for his buddy James Harris as a third-party, to give Harris some credibility.

Both then and now, Quinn is intellectual dishonest..

On the sci.math list Neilist stated it this way:

Quote: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.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/...a3b7aa7246

Neilist succinctly explains the significance of Quinn's anticipated responses here:

Quote:Quinn can't win, since if his claim is false, Quinn lied. But if his claim is true, then that self-proclaimed high-IQ society couldn't find errors in James Harris' paper which "real" mathematicians easily found and characterized as obvious errors.

I agree that Neilist's style on other forums is distracting.  But he more or less behaves himself here.  He's raised an interesting issue here, in that it involves getting to the truth of an education issue.  He's asserted that someone (i.e., Quinn Tyler Jackson) is engaging in a dishonest practice.  Since Quinn is a person of interest to this group, and because he associates in a nefarious manner with persons of interest to this group, his credibility is a significant issue and deserves to be discussed here.  Neilist has done his research, and clearly articulated his points. I'm inclined to ignore his coloring outside the lines.  And as I said, when he posts here he's relatively civil (by the liberal civility standards of this forum).

So try to focus on the issue.  Neilist is making a good case, both factually and logically, for the proposition that Quinn is dishonest in academic issues.  Either the Harris paper was reviewed by Quinn's "closed list" as he claims or it wasn't.  He said it was reviewed, but won't say by whom.  He admits he is responsible for the journal's behavior.  If the paper had obvious errors and the errors weren't detected, the review was either incompetent or biased, or it was not reviewed at all.  Nelist has Quinn in a logical box from which Quinn can't escape.  

Quinn, the more you try to bullshit your way out of this, the more ridiculous you look.  So why not just admit you fucked up?  We are all human, we all make mistakes.  Nobody holds it against you.  I doubt anyone really thinks you are a perv because Neilist says so, but they do think you are a pompous idiot for not very artfully trying to dodge the obvious.

Quinn,

It is good to see you posting again, despite the circumstances that brought you back. If, by any chance, you are going to vote in the "replace DesElms" poll, please do so quickly since I think it closes in the next day or so.

Your name was placed among the options as a throw-away. I didn't actually expect anyone to vote for you but you know this crowd ... if Mother Theresa was on the list she would have gotten a vote!