Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Uniqueness in Real Probability
Replies: 6   Last Post: Apr 2, 2013 5:46 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
David Petry

Posts: 1,098
Registered: 12/8/04
Re: Uniqueness in Real Probability
Posted: Apr 1, 2013 11:31 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Monday, April 1, 2013 8:16:13 AM UTC-7, AMiews wrote:

> Uniqueness in Real Probability

> M. Bernoulli, L. Z. Euler and Amy Mousehead

> Abstract

> Let us suppose we are given a path !. In [3], the authors described Noether,
> partially Deligne,


[...]

I'll get right to the point. The scores of goose-stepping sciolists who comprise Dr. AMiews's Praetorian Guard must all be held accountable for helping AMiews exploit the masses. I want to share this with you because if you think that puzzleheaded loan sharks should be given absolute authority to heat the cauldron of terror until it boils over into our daily lives, then think again. He has secretly been promoting the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush. This is, of course, a scandal and demands a thorough investigation, which I intend to conduct. I expect to find that knowledge and wisdom are AMiews's enemies. He understands that by limiting education and enlightenment, he can fool more people into believing that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Sadly, those with the least education are those who would benefit most from the knowledge that everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that AMiews can't possibly believe that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. He's conniving but he's not that conniving.

The very genesis of AMiews's disruptive personal attacks is in cynicism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that he will eventually himself be destroyed by cynicism. AMiews presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to combine, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying. If he can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If he can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it. If anyone should propose a practical scheme for providing you with vital information that AMiews has gone to great lengths to prevent you from discovering, I should be quite disposed to incur almost any degree of expense to accomplish that object. In the meantime, let me point out that AMiews contends that one hallmark of an advanced culture is the rejection of rationalism and that, therefore, violence and prejudice are funny. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces liberticidal perjurers (as distinct from the disrespectful heinsbies who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that we should all bear the brunt of AMiews's actions. In reality, contrariwise, AMiews's grand plan is to ignore compromise and focus solely on his personal agenda. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, AMiews can't attack my ideas, so he attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. He could control, manipulate, and harm other people.

I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of AMiews's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many ill-natured tossers realize that AMiews's propinquity to aberrant cretins leads him to prime the pump of presentism. (The merits of his ruminations won't be discussed here because they lack merit.) AMiews has stated that he acts in the public interest. One clear inference from that statement?an inference that is never really disavowed?is that deconstructionism is the catholicon for all the world's ills. Now that's just ultra-ignominious. We must challenge the present and enrich the future. We must take action. And we must get the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem. Please join me in incorporating these words into our living credo.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.