The Arcana Society of Quinn Tyler Jackson - another intellectual abortion by Quinn

[jackson]

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.

Neilist is making a good case? No -- he's just repeating himself. Sure I made a huge mistake in ever dipping my toe into this whole Harris bullshit in the first place -- this I have already openly admitted on sci.math. As errors in judgment go -- it was a real boner, to be sure.

But to have it said that I am 'intellectually dishonest' as a result of this whole cruft is a pile of horseshit, and you know it. If two people on the list had not said they read the paper and that it was worthy of publication, I would not have chimed in on sci.math and said so. You know that ... or you don't know anything about me at all. I don't always say stuff people agree with -- but when I say something, I say it in good faith. Andrew Beckwith -- eccentric as he is -- came out and confessed to being one of the two. Neilist knows that. Beckwith's PhDs are in physics and mathematics, I believe ... can't recall from where. Yes -- he's quite the character -- but there's one. A whack of published papers behind 'm if recollection serves me right.

So essentially this is all about my not revealing the name of the second math person who read the paper and said it stood. If you belong to a group, and one of the rules of membership is that other members' info is to be kept confidential -- it is unethical to reveal that information.

So don't tell me about ethics or dishonesty. Beckwith (and another fellow -- a non-mathematician) self-identified on sci.math. The other fellow did not elect to do so -- so his name ain't coming from me. Just because Neilist's nonsense skips like an old disco record doesn't make it so. Just because he is trying to extort me into doing things his way or the highway ... well ... I'm a stubborn fuck when it comes to doing what people tell me just because they tell me.

[jackson]

As for Arcana -- I shut it down because between work and family, I found I didn't have time to do what was necessary to keep the thing going. Rather than let it fizzle -- I just closed shop on it.

Big deal.

[ham]

So essentially this is all about my not revealing the name of the second math person who read the paper and said it stood. If you belong to a group, and one of the rules of membership is that other members' info is to be kept confidential -- it is unethical to reveal that information.

who cares...
idiots said at all times that a lot of things 'stood' that really didn't...maybe they were biased, taken in, incompetent or all of it.

[Little Arminius]

So I guess that Quinn isn't going to cast his vote ...?

[jackson]

So essentially this is all about my not revealing the name of the second math person who read the paper and said it stood. If you belong to a group, and one of the rules of membership is that other members' info is to be kept confidential -- it is unethical to reveal that information.

who cares...
idiots said at all times that a lot of things 'stood' that really didn't...maybe they were biased, taken in, incompetent or all of it.

I agree, Ham. Neilist characterizes some great dilemma -- if I give up the names of the people who reviewed the paper, and it turns out they were wrong in their endorsement, I somehow discredit the Ultranet... blah blah...

Nonsense. I didn't stand behind Harris' math -- it is not my area of mathematics, and I know my limitations. So if someone else did, and screwed up -- their problem, not mine. Their embarrassment, not mine.

I don't have any horse in this particular race -- except that I'd rather Neilist stop priming the Google pump with lies that will ultimately affect my employability. (Employers and clients do look people up -- and that kind of noise is "too much overhead" -- even if it's clearly bullshit.)

Neilist appears to be mentally ill -- that's the best assessment of the situation I can form so far. If so -- I pity him. No matter what the case -- why doesn't he just back down and leave me alone? It's just too bizarre that all these years later he's still foaming at the teeth.

[jackson]

So I guess that Quinn isn't going to cast his vote ...?

I don't vote in federal or provincial elections -- why should I vote in kangaroo court? Why not just let Des Elms be, take the section down ... and move on?

[Dickie Billericay]

...if Mother Theresa was on the list she would have gotten a vote!

Almost as big a charlatan as Quinn!

While much was made of Mother Teresa's devotion to the poor and downtrodden, she was in fact a lifelong friend to the rich and powerful. Some examples:

• In 1981 Mother Teresa journeyed to Haiti, to accept that nation's highest award, the Legion d'Honneur. She received it from the Duvalier family, and made a glowing speech in which she said that dictator "Baby Doc" and his wife Michele not only loved the poor, but were loved by the poor in return.
  
  
  
• In 1990 she made a trip to Albania, then the most oppressive of the Balkan Stalinist states, and laid a wreath on the grave of the dictator Enver Hoxha as well as on the irredentist monument to "Mother Albania". She was herself of Albanian descent (born in Skopje, Macedonia), but many Albanians were shocked by her embrace of Hoxha's widow and her silence on human rights.
  
  
  
• In 1992 she intervened with a court in Los Angeles, which was about to sentence Charles Keating, the biggest fraud and embezzler in American history. His S & L racket stole a total of $252 million, mainly from small and poor depositors. A strong Catholic and right-wing campaigner against pornography in his spare time, Keating gave Mother Teresa $1,250,000 in cash and the use of a private jet, in return for which she gave him many useful endorsements, including a character reference to the court. The court had asked Mother Teresa to return Keating's donations, which may well have been stolen, but she never replied to the request.

What about her celebrated concern for the poor and the weak? Here the record is much murkier than her saintly image would suggest. I have been shown testimony from leading American and British physicians, expressing their concern at the extremely low standard of medicine practiced in her small Calcutta clinics. No pain killers, syringes washed in cold water, a fatalistic attitude toward death and a strict regimen for the patients. No public accounts were made available by her "missionaries of Charity" but enormous sums are known to have been raised. The income from such awards as the Nobel Prize is alone enough to maintain a sizable operation. In one on-the-record interview, Mother Teresa spoke with pride of having opened more than 500 convents in 125 countries, "not counting India." It seemed more than probable that money donated by well-wishers for the relief of suffering was being employed for the purpose of religious proselytizing by the "missionary multinational."

http://www.salon.com/sept97/news/news3970905.html

[ham]

I don't have any horse in this particular race -- except that I'd rather Neilist stop priming the Google pump with lies that will ultimately affect my employability. (Employers and clients do look people up -- and that kind of noise is "too much overhead" -- even if it's clearly bullshit.)

well, if your prospective employers are worth their salt, they will understand you made the big, childish mistake of playing around internet websites and now are reaping the reward. Grudges go a long way in real life, but forever online.
I get the same old same old few sociopaths to blast me even on sites i no longer go to or i have never been to.
One even resurrected a grudge SIX YEARS after the fact.
All are sore losers I exposed at one time or another for the fraud they are...one is a dating dealer famous for his dubious practices & trolling; another (of the many ) is a loon who claimed as a 'professional opinion' that his pre-nups cannot be challenged or modified in a court of law.
Then you have a string of millionaires, body models, nobel prize winners, quacks, double standard heroes, oddballs...one picked a fight over who 'invented' ion drives...Nazis pioneered 'electric rockets', but he thought it was the creator of Star Trek who introduced it; next he challenged me and claimed that physicist Gawking never said black holes disappear: when i quoted Gawking's own statements, he went berserk and attacked me.
What to say...
More power to them.

[Dickie Billericay]

Sure I made a huge mistake in ever dipping my toe into this whole Harris bullshit in the first place -- this I have already openly admitted on sci.math. As errors in judgment go -- it was a real boner, to be sure.

[Ben Johnson]

Can Canadians plead the Fifth?

The 11[c]th?