The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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 ]
Jesse F. Hughes

Posts: 9,776
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Uniqueness in Real Probability
Posted: Apr 2, 2013 7:29 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

david petry <> writes:

> 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.

Wow. Is this really Petry's screed? It seems rather more illucid
and, well, frothy than usual.

Ah, wait. It was written on April Fools' Day. I suppose that
explains it.

Anyway, I really like the term "ultra-ignominious".

Jesse F. Hughes
"I'm ruler", said Yertle, "of all that I see.
But I don't see enough. That's the trouble with me."
-- Yertle the Turtle, by Dr. Suess

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.