Saturday, February 18, 2006
Control and Usenet
One of the basic lies about Usenet is that you can't control other posters, when anyone who looks at newsgroups like sci.crypt or especially sci.math for a while will see control of posters demonstrated, primarily by use of insults.
The most effective tool on Usenet for controlling other posters is insults.
The second most effective tool is volume, as in repeated replying in a person's threads to control the flow of conversation, and possibly drown out their message.
Using those tools a group of four to five posters can completely dominate a newsgroup, controlling who posts, as in, if they don't like a particular person, they can pick them out, and drive them from the newsgroup—if they're like most people.
I am a special case as, for one thing, I study the behavior, and for another, I say it's a free speech area, and I don't like being controlled by insults.
But they keep trying as the behavior is effective in other ways, as you can create a certain kind of atmosphere by doing it, which I don't exactly work to stop, as if you read my postings you can see me working to create a certain atmosphere as well.
The harsh negativity is for a reason on my side, whereas the other side is doing it for their own reasons, and so you have these two sides battling it out on these newsgroups, where my point is that the truth is being drowned out, while the point of those arguing with me is that I am not worth listening to—but somehow worth group efforts at censoring, though that's a hidden point which you have to figure out.
The mathematical ideas I have rely on mostly simple algebra, yet arguments over them have raged for years.
ALL of the recent arguments are around tools developed by using identitites like
x + y + vz = x + y + vz
which I used to get my latest surrogate factoring equations, and the
x^2 + y^2 + vz^2 = x^2 + y^2 + vz^2
which I used to get MY non-polynomial factorization equations.
I call identities like those tautological spaces, and you can generate equations of what I consider only moderate complexity with minimal effort using that technology, BUT mathematicians hate my research, and are fighting to, well, to ignore it!!!
BUT my research is all about factoring. Yup. The analysis tools I use tend to give factorizations as the way I use tautological spaces generates factorizations, all over the place.
So I have these tools I say are highly effective, but they are new analysis tools.
Mathematicians work to ignore them, while posters on these newsgroups work to poison the discussion, and I push the negativies of allowing people to censor as they do—and successfully most of the time I might add—as well as block new research tools.
The battles now are playing out because my research is such a kick in the groin for modern number theorists in all their cherished areas.
They're fighting back, and what you see on the newsgroups is just one aspect of a long on-going war.
I call them, the math wars.
The most effective tool on Usenet for controlling other posters is insults.
The second most effective tool is volume, as in repeated replying in a person's threads to control the flow of conversation, and possibly drown out their message.
Using those tools a group of four to five posters can completely dominate a newsgroup, controlling who posts, as in, if they don't like a particular person, they can pick them out, and drive them from the newsgroup—if they're like most people.
I am a special case as, for one thing, I study the behavior, and for another, I say it's a free speech area, and I don't like being controlled by insults.
But they keep trying as the behavior is effective in other ways, as you can create a certain kind of atmosphere by doing it, which I don't exactly work to stop, as if you read my postings you can see me working to create a certain atmosphere as well.
The harsh negativity is for a reason on my side, whereas the other side is doing it for their own reasons, and so you have these two sides battling it out on these newsgroups, where my point is that the truth is being drowned out, while the point of those arguing with me is that I am not worth listening to—but somehow worth group efforts at censoring, though that's a hidden point which you have to figure out.
The mathematical ideas I have rely on mostly simple algebra, yet arguments over them have raged for years.
ALL of the recent arguments are around tools developed by using identitites like
x + y + vz = x + y + vz
which I used to get my latest surrogate factoring equations, and the
x^2 + y^2 + vz^2 = x^2 + y^2 + vz^2
which I used to get MY non-polynomial factorization equations.
I call identities like those tautological spaces, and you can generate equations of what I consider only moderate complexity with minimal effort using that technology, BUT mathematicians hate my research, and are fighting to, well, to ignore it!!!
BUT my research is all about factoring. Yup. The analysis tools I use tend to give factorizations as the way I use tautological spaces generates factorizations, all over the place.
So I have these tools I say are highly effective, but they are new analysis tools.
Mathematicians work to ignore them, while posters on these newsgroups work to poison the discussion, and I push the negativies of allowing people to censor as they do—and successfully most of the time I might add—as well as block new research tools.
The battles now are playing out because my research is such a kick in the groin for modern number theorists in all their cherished areas.
They're fighting back, and what you see on the newsgroups is just one aspect of a long on-going war.
I call them, the math wars.
# posted by James Harris @ 15:45 
