On 12/20/2013 07:52 PM, Port563 wrote: > "Rotwang" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote ...> On 16/12/2013 23:48, Port563 > wrote: >>> "Jens Stuckelberger" <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> wrote in message >>> news:email@example.com... >>>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 16:59:54 +0000, Port563 wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> Did JSH apologize or retract, or just fade away? >>>> >>>> Why bring this up now? Do you want him back? Are you guys nuts? >>> >>> Good questions. >>> >>> 1. Idle curiosity. >>> >>> 2. No. And having now seen him comfortably settled in the blogosphere, >>> free >>> from pesky people who kept finding gaping holes in his "proofs" (sic), >> >> I still occasionally communicate with JSH via the comments section of his >> blogs. He seems a lot less angry these days. Quitting usenet was a good >> decision on his part, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss his >> sci.math presence - none of the current resident cranks is anywhere near >> as interesting. > > > Thanks; I understand and, to a fair extent, agree. Perhaps it is just > nostalgia, but the current cranks are boring, foolish and uninteresting. > They fail even as trolls as their only victims are other trolls. > > JSH, in his unique malfunctioning, was interesting, and (at least at the > beginning) his hilarious attempts at FLT were, IMO, quite genuine. How he > could possibly think that thousands of the world's smartest people would > have, over many centuries, overlooked his obvious meanderings, I cannot > imagine - but that was part of the "fun". > >
I'm only being half-serious here, but it has sometimes appeared to me that actually interacting in sci.math could lead to some form of masochistic behaviors, say when people were hell-bent on changing JSH's view of himself and the world, etc. etc.