The Arcana Society of Quinn Tyler Jackson - another intellectual abortion by Quinn

[jackson]

well, if your prospective employers are worth their salt, they will understand you made the big, childish mistake of playing around internet websites and now are reaping the reward.

If the Internet has taught me anything about human nature -- it's that cynicism is the best policy and "trust no one" is optimistic. I don't trust them to be worth their salt in that regard. I trust them to read the first one that comes up -- see the sick references -- and hit "Delete".

Neilist trusts them to do the same.

Ah well -- there's always karma.

I'm going to crawl back into my cave now.

[Little Arminius]

I don't have any horse in this particular race -- except that I'd rather Neilist stop priming the Google pump with lies that will ultimately affect my employability. (Employers and clients do look people up -- and that kind of noise is "too much overhead" -- even if it's clearly bullshit.)

well, if your prospective employers are worth their salt, they will understand you made the big, childish mistake of playing around internet websites and now are reaping the reward. Grudges go a long way in real life, but forever online.
I get the same old same old few sociopaths to blast me even on sites i no longer go to or i have never been to.
One even resurrected a grudge SIX YEARS after the fact.
All are sore losers I exposed at one time or another for the fraud they are...one is a dating dealer famous for his dubious practices & trolling; another (of the many ) is a loon who claimed as a 'professional opinion' that his pre-nups cannot be challenged or modified in a court of law.
Then you have a string of millionaires, body models, nobel prize winners, quacks, double standard heroes, oddballs...one picked a fight over who 'invented' ion drives...Nazis pioneered 'electric rockets', but he thought it was the creator of Star Trek who introduced it; next he challenged me and claimed that physicist Gawking never said black holes disappear: when i quoted Gawking's own statements, he went berserk and attacked me.
What to say...
More power to them.

That pattern sounds familiar ... was it Bill Huffman?

[Neilist]

1. Was Harris's paper reviewed?
a) Yes
b) No

2.  If the answer to the previous question is "Yes," identify the person or persons who reviewed it.

3. If the answer to question 1 is "Yes," were any errors found in the paper?
a) Yes
b) No

Can Canadians plead the Fifth?

Was it reviewed? The journal's editor claimed it wasn't -- that it somehow got in by mistake

This is a red herring by intellectually-dishonest Quinn.

There were supposedly two reviews - one by Quinn's "closed list" (*guffaw*), and another by an online math journal.

Here, Quinn is shifting attention away from his "closed list" (*cough cough bullshit cough*) to the online math journal.

IGNORE THE ONLINE MATH JOURNAL ISSUE!

Quinn made representations to sci.math that James Harris' paper was reviewed by a "closed list", but Quinn is also being weasel-like and say he "heard" or "understood" that the "closed list" reviewed it.

My big fat bone ... of contention is that Quinn Tyler Jackson made false representations purporting personal knowledge of events which he refuses, even today, to corroborate with personally known facts, in order to cover and lend credibility to his buddy James Harris.

If Quinn had NO knowledge of any review by a "closed list", then Quinn LIED, wove factual statements from his ASS, and misrepresented a serious issue - the review of a mathematical paper to be or which had been submitted for professional publication.

Quinn throws in red herrings that the online journal should not have yanked the Harris paper. But the issue is the activities of the "closed list" (cough cough fucking lies cough).

Meanwhile ...

[Neilist]

If two people on the list had not said they read the paper and that it was worthy of publication, I would not have chimed in on sci.math and said so. You know that ... or you don't know anything about me at all. I don't always say stuff people agree with -- but when I say something, I say it in good faith. Andrew Beckwith -- eccentric as he is -- came out and confessed to being one of the two. Neilist knows that. Beckwith's PhDs are in physics and mathematics, I believe ... can't recall from where. Yes -- he's quite the character -- but there's one. A whack of published papers behind 'm if recollection serves me right.

So essentially this is all about my not revealing the name of the second math person who read the paper and said it stood. If you belong to a group, and one of the rules of membership is that other members' info is to be kept confidential -- it is unethical to reveal that information.

So don't tell me about ethics or dishonesty. Beckwith (and another fellow -- a non-mathematician) self-identified on sci.math. The other fellow did not elect to do so -- so his name ain't coming from me. Just because Neilist's nonsense skips like an old disco record doesn't make it so. Just because he is trying to extort me into doing things his way or the highway ... well ... I'm a stubborn fuck when it comes to doing what people tell me just because they tell me.

More lies from Quinn - he says that I "know" some guy Beckwith came forward.  Unless Quinn can back THAT up, he weaves yet more lies.  Let Quinn dredge up a sci.math post about it, because I don't remember or "know" any such thing.

Amazing!  Quinn represents that he heard that a paper was reviewed by a "closed list", so Quinn passed on such rumors as facts, with the backstory being a crank James Harris who was seeking recognition from the mathematical community by publishing a math paper.

And only now is Quinn fessing up that one of the reviewers of a mathematical paper in the alleged "closed list" was "a non-mathematician".

Quinn also says he knows that Beckwith is "eccentric" and a "character", but Quinn still sees nothing wrong with making such representations of a "review" by an eccentric of a mathematical paper as though they are facts.

The eccentricity of this Beckwith fellow and the review of a non-mathematicians casts a harsh light on this supposed review of the paper.  And also casts a harsh and damning light on the Quinn's bullshit high-IQ society behind the alleged "closed list".

Of course, years ago, Quinn did not characterize to sci.math that this reviewer Beckwith was eccentric, nor of the other reviewer being a non-mathematician.  Quinn's "closed list" excuse conveniently hid such details from real mathematicians involved in the review issue.

The poor sorry and forlorn mathematicians on sci.math should have been told such "facts" and details to take into account in their judgement of the alleged review of the Harris Paper by an alleged "closed list".

But the really irksome aspect is that when such representations of facts and personal knowledge were challenged, Quinn became evasive, condescending, and insulting.

Here's the simple reason - Quinn was protecting his friend James Harris, his precious high-IQ society, and/or Quinn's ego with his divine right to pronounce "facts" as unquestionable.

Truly, with all of this hidden "facts" and the "eccentric" nature of Beckwith, the whole "closed list" issue illustrates the elitist and intelllectually dishonest nature of Quinn to selectively make representations, including spreading rumors and alleged facts not in his personal knowledge, with Quinn feeling ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to support or corroborate his representations.

Unethical to violate the "closed list"?  If this were true, why is Quinn being so unethical with everything else, disparaging Beckwith now, instead of back then, or even disparaging Beckwith at all?  So that Quinn can look good here?  Ha!

Quinn could, and in fact has, pulled statements out of his ass and said they were facts.  Only now is the TRUTH being dragged from Quinn.

And that's what DLTruth is all about, right?

Of course, Quinn is dismissive, because he doesn't want a review of his pitiful and intellectually dishonest behavior.

Whether or not some eccentric named Beckwith came forward does not absolve Quinn of being intellectually dishonest.

Keep spinning your tales, Quinn.  You can't rewrite history -- you can only surpress it, like Big Brother in 1984.

Quinn, you're an elitist fascist!

[Neilist]

Nonsense. I didn't stand behind Harris' math -- it is not my area of mathematics, and I know my limitations. So if someone else did, and screwed up -- their problem, not mine. Their embarrassment, not mine.

I don't have any horse in this particular race ...

Then Quinn Tyler Jackson shouldn't open his mouth and/or talk out of his ass.

Everything Quinn said above is Quinn's way of weaseling out of his past statements and representations supporting Harris' mathematics paper, involving mathematics, and blaming others for mistakes.

Based on this single post of Quinn, no one can believe ANTHING Quinn says.

And Quinn indeed had a horse in a particular race - his buddy James Harris and the high-IQ society that both were members of. Protect and support, one for all and all for one, and screw the truth and anyone challenging the "closed list" (*snicker*).

Biased, thy name is Quinn Tyler Jackson.

[jackson]

Neilist -- quit being such a raging moron.

Two mathematicians read the paper on Ultranet, based upon the messages I still have in my archive. One non-mathematician also read it. Don't expect me to spell it all out for you. Andrew Beckwith has a PhD in mathematics, as far as I know, and another in physics. His posts on sci.math are already in the public records -- don't expect me to do your homework for you.

As for Beckwith being eccentric -- this is also quite well-known on the Internet.

So quit putting it out as if I am trying to protect anything related to IQ.

And go take your Haldol, you fucking psychotic twit.

[ham]

Amazing! Quinn represents that he heard that a paper was reviewed by a "closed list", so Quinn passed on such rumors as facts, with the backstory being a crank James Harris who was seeking recognition from the mathematical community by publishing a math paper.

I said that already...
I typically back up my assertions with facts, as my posts here show, yet it happened countless times that trolls or other hogwash kings online were supported and backed up in their grandstand plays or delusions by morons, ignorants, gullible people and -of course- spare aliases and 'friends'.
A 15yo wop kid was hailed for ages as 'super moderator' on a site, and advised the public about concoctions of illegal drugs, because he was big, bad, huge and whatever and you have to believe mr. steroid guru, right?
Can you believe middle-aged business owners & chemical companies actually sent this f-cking 15yo wop kid steroids and other stuff, then the bubble bursted and they found themselves in deep sh-t?

Elsewhere comes this poster who claims that he is a lawyer and his 'professional' opinion is that his pre-nups are iron-clad & cannot be overturned in court.
Immediately another poster (guess what, another 'legal eagle'...) comes to the rescue restating the claim because mr. e-lawyer is e-real...
PFFT!
Not only is highly unethical to disseminate so-called 'professional opinion' online...not only it is worth of a complete idiot to believe them...but -and this amazes me- there are people who rush to the rescue because 'they know them', 'they talked to them yesterday', 'they have been forwarded secret evidence and can confirm'...
PFFT!
My bet is that all those legal eagles, millionaires, mortal kombat types, steroid gurus, olympians etc are the hit in the trailer park, and customers should be delighted to be served soda and fries by such overachievers.

[Neilist]

I said that already...
... it happened countless times that trolls or other hogwash kings online were supported and backed up in their grandstand plays or delusions by morons, ignorants, gullible people and -of course- spare aliases and 'friends'.

So troll James Harris was supported and backed up by Quinn Tyler Jackson, who is thus a moron, ignorant, guillible, and a "friend" of James Harris.

Yep, that matches the facts.

[Neilist]

Two mathematicians read the paper on Ultranet, based upon the messages I still have in my archive. One non-mathematician also read it. Don't expect me to spell it all out for you. Andrew Beckwith has a PhD in mathematics, as far as I know, and another in physics. His posts on sci.math are already in the public records -- don't expect me to do your homework for you.

As for Beckwith being eccentric -- this is also quite well-known on the Internet.

So quit putting it out as if I am trying to protect anything related to IQ.

And go take your Haldol, you fucking psychotic twit.

How can anyone even believe what you say, that "Two mathematicians read the paper on Ultranet, based upon the messages I still have in my archive"  ?

You won't publish such messages in your "archive", right?  How convenient.  We only have what you say to go on.  Ha!  What a joke you are, Quinn!

And you hoist "eccentric" Beckwith as an example of a mathematics reviewer.  Aha!  You're disparaging Beckwith and forestalling criticism to stop others from pointing out his eccentricity and thus undermining YOUR credibility.  So you both give Beckwith as an example, then undermine him before anyone undermines YOU!

You're a sneaky evil bastard, Quinn.  You can't be intellectually honest for one second.

Even more, in this very thread, you said:

"Beckwith's PhDs are in physics and mathematics, I believe ... can't recall from where. Yes -- he's quite the character -- but there's one. A whack of published papers behind 'm if recollection serves me right."

Hey Quinn, you represent, you allege, you put forth (where's my thesaurus?) that Beckwith maybe has a PhD in Math, but you hedge and say "I believe ... can't recall from where" and you think Beckwith may have published "papers" ... "if recollection serves me".

So, Quinn, these are facts???  You pull shit out of your ass and we should just accept what you say are diamonds?

Quinn, you are intellectually dishonest!  High IQ?  Ha!

Then Quinn, you say in this thread:

"So essentially this is all about my not revealing the name of the second math person who read the paper and said it stood. If you belong to a group, and one of the rules of membership is that other members' info is to be kept confidential -- it is unethical to reveal that information."

That, of course, ASSUMES you are telling the truth, Quinn, about the "closed list" and its "rules" which you are ethically bound to obey.

(cough hack cough bullshit hack cough cough*)

How can ANYONE verify a single thing you say, with lame representations of such "facts" about that infamous "closed list"?

If it can't be verified, you can say anything you like, right?

No, Quinn, you can't say what you like, since others like me take your evasiveness not as ethical or noble, but craven and pathetic, as well as egotistical and self-serving.  Sooooo convenient for you, and so sad for those seeking the TRUTH!

Well, you protect James Harris, and the company you keep and your behavior with that company reflects on YOU, Quinn.

Quinn, you've been challenged, measured, and found wanting.

I've said it for years:  "closed list" = sheer bullshit.

Also, oooo, you're calling me psychotic.  I should SUE YOU FOR LIBEL!  Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

There's an old joke:  if you call me psychotic again, I'll KILL YOU!!!

But that's a joke, and I've never said I'd kill you.

But I've also said that Quinn, you shouldn't KILL YOURSELF or DIE OF PAINFUL AIDS!  Nope, you shouldn't DIE DIE DIE, QUINN, DIE DIE DIE.

Eh, go back to your closet ... I mean "closed list", Quinn, where your "buddy" James Harris awaits to comfort your hurt feelings with a good internal massage with his HAMMER!