06-04-2008, 01:04 AM
ham Wrote:Quote: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.
