On Apr 30, 4:41 pm, Joel Davison <jo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> JSH wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 6:16 am, Joel Davison <jo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> JSH wrote:
> >>> On Apr 29, 7:59 am, Joel Davison <jo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> Wouldn't you have to say though that the bottom line of all this
> >>>> "seeking of attention" is nothing more than a symptom of your
> >>>> Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
> >>>> I know, by me responding with this post, I'm just feeding your
disorder,
> >>>> but my main concern here is to ****ne some light on what's really
going
> >>>> on with this new-found interest in statistics of yours, and to set
the
> >>>> facts straight for those that might not be aware of your disorder.
> >>> There is no new interest in statistics. I've been monitoring them
for
> >>> months; years in some areas.
> >> Well, I wasn't really expecting you to admit to having NPD.
>
> >> In fact, you don't have to. Anybody can see from your posts, both
past
> >> and present, that you are driven by a Narcissistic Personality
Disorder.
> > So you not only better fit the NPD diagnosis, you show why people with
> > it are so annoying: not able to do on their own they find ways to put
> > themselves in positions where they do not belong to get attention they
> > cannot honestly earn.
>
> You mean like what you've been doing here for the last 12+ years?
>
You're a nobody, hanging on to get attention.
Where will you be on these newsgroups in 12 years?
Nowhere, unless you're parasitically attaching yourself to other
posters like you're doing with me.
> > To challenge that observation--I'm giving you a soapbox--tell the
> > group what else you can talk about besides my supposed mental illness,
> > what other accomplishments you might have, and why in the world should
> > anyone ever listen to you at all?
>
> That's OK, you can keep your soapbox. I don't want it.
>
Mathematicians lie as a group. My point is that math society is
broken.
At the end of it all, none of you can present facts.
You can insult though.
I'll give you that, as you're nasty little turds.
> As long as the "playing field" is now level, and everybody understands
> why you are so infatuated with how many hits your blog postings are
> getting in Google, that's all I'm interested in.
>
> Carry on now. Off you go.
My blogs get pathetically few hits.
That's not the issue.
What IS the issue is high rankings for postings of mine on blogs and
now I'm ready to simply warn search engines like Google and Yahoo! as
I need an explanation.
If no one can give me one, then I'll look to the US Congress to force
transparency.
I see search engines as a utility.
If I do not get an answer I will use the bizarrely high search results
that I see to push the case that there is something weird going on,
and ask for an answer.
So to Google and Yahoo! and the other search engines. You are being
warned.
I don't have a problem with search results on my blogs disappearing
from high levels, but if they stay there, I am warning you that I may
use that to push some congressional inquiry and break open how you do
what you do.
I don't like apparent contradiction.
And you are not beyond my ability to drag into Congress to explain.
None of you are.
Test me here, and you'll see soon enough how serious I am on this
issue.
Drop the rankings on my postings or else.
And I do not forget that the Google founders are mathematicians. If
they are mathematicians first and foremost then they may find that
some time behind prison bars is where they will land.
I'm tired of the games. I want transparency, or else I'll do my best
to force it, even if it breaks business models.
Drop my rankings you idiots. Or I will make you.
James Harris
|
