Harristotelian Logic

The real frustration for me when dealing with sci.math regulars is the insistence on lying about the details, so let me set the record straight on my paper on non-polynomial factorization, which was the one published and then withdrawn by the editors after some convincing emails by some sci.math regulars.

In the original paper, I declare the ring to the ring of algebraic integers.

That can be proven to not be true by using other arguments.

So it is the declaration at the beginning of the paper which does not remain true over the length of the paper which is the source of objections.

Two ways to handle that, of course, I could simply declare something different.

Or, I could do what I did in my revision, which was to note that the ring declaration COULD NOT HOLD which is the point of the paper.

That is no one can declare anything less than a field and have the operations hold through the paper, which is the over-turning result.

Now I came back, after I got over the anger enough to even bother with the sci.math newsgroup again, and argued with at least one of the people who falsely attacked my paper to the SWJPAM editors, and conceded all of his main points, and still showed that my conclusion held.

What did he do?

The fucker just kept on claiming he refuted me.

I conceded all of his main points—the mathematical ones—and STILL my conclusion holds and away he goes claiming I'm still wrong, when I am FUCKING CONCEDING HIS MAIN GODDAMN POINTS!!!

THAT is your society.

You people just lie.

You lie, and then lie some more, and then you lie about lying.