1.23 - Gabriel's List - A Survey among sci.math visitors.

[John Gabriel]

There has only been one 'academic' who has openly stated that the New Calculus is flawed. His name is Jack Huizenga and he works as a math professor at Illinois State university. He has been refuted at this link:

http://johngabrie1.wix.com/newcalculus#!A-Harvard-alumnus-comments/c9q/15645840-
8C52-49F1-BDE1-C9D909C19C2D

Well, let's get to the survey.

If you think that the New Calculus is flawed or not rigorous, then add your REAL NAME and designation to this thread. Don't worry, I won't use anything against you, even if you are still alive when others are eating crow. :-)

Anons and aliases do not count. In fact, they don't exist.

Name: Designation:

Jack Huizenga Mathematics professor (Illinois state uni)

Yours? :-)

Aww, come on now, don't be afraid. Besides, I will probably be wrong anyway, and you will not be seen as fools. Scribble away your names!

[John Gabriel]

Post by John Gabriel
http://johngabrie1.wix.com/newcalculus#!A-Harvard-alumnus-comments/c9q/15645840-
8C52-49F1-BDE1-C9D909C19C2D
Well, let's get to the survey.
If you think that the New Calculus is flawed or not rigorous, then add your REAL NAME and designation to this thread. Don't worry, I won't use anything against you, even if you are still alive when others are eating crow. :-)
Anons and aliases do not count. In fact, they don't exist.
Jack Huizenga Mathematics professor (Illinois state uni)
Yours? :-)
Aww, come on now, don't be afraid. Besides, I will probably be wrong anyway, and you will not be seen as fools. Scribble away your names!

As an incentive to you spineless reptiles, I promise to quit sci.math if just 20 real names are added to this list. I must be able to verify the same (via a personal or work website). Anyone that is not a mathematics teacher or a scientist, does not count.

There, that shouldn't be too hard? :-)

[Tommy]

Post by John Gabriel
There has only been one 'academic' who has openly stated that the New
Calculus is flawed. His name is Jack Huizenga and he works as a math
professor at Illinois State university. He has been refuted at this
http://johngabrie1.wix.com/newcalculus#!A-Harvard-alumnus-comments/

c9q/15645840-

Post by John Gabriel
8C52-49F1-BDE1-C9D909C19C2D
Well, let's get to the survey.
If you think that the New Calculus is flawed or not rigorous, then add
your REAL NAME and designation to this thread. Don't worry, I won't use
anything against you, even if you are still alive when others are eating
crow. :-)
Anons and aliases do not count. In fact, they don't exist.
Jack Huizenga Mathematics professor (Illinois state uni)
Yours? :-)
Aww, come on now, don't be afraid. Besides, I will probably be wrong
anyway, and you will not be seen as fools. Scribble away your names!

Yes, I strongly believe that "New Calculus" is flawed or not
rigorous. Do I get a prize now?
What is "New Calculus" anyway?

Tommy R. Jensen
Associate Professor
Dept. of Mathematics
Kyungpook National University
Rep. of Korea

[John Gabriel]

Post by John Gabriel
There has only been one 'academic' who has openly stated that the New
Calculus is flawed. His name is Jack Huizenga and he works as a math
professor at Illinois State university. He has been refuted at this
http://johngabrie1.wix.com/newcalculus#!A-Harvard-alumnus-comments/

c9q/15645840-8C52-49F1-BDE1-C9D909C19C2D

Post by John Gabriel
Well, let's get to the survey.
If you think that the New Calculus is flawed or not rigorous, then add
your REAL NAME and designation to this thread. Don't worry, I won't use
anything against you, even if you are still alive when others are eating
crow. :-)
Anons and aliases do not count. In fact, they don't exist.
Aww, come on now, don't be afraid. Besides, I will probably be wrong
anyway, and you will not be seen as fools. Scribble away your names!

Yes, I strongly believe that "New Calculus" is flawed or not
rigorous. Do I get a prize now?
What is "New Calculus" anyway?

Well, I rest my case. If you really are Tommy, then how did you get to believe the New Calculus is flawed, when you don't know what it is? :-)

Tommy R. Jensen
Associate Professor
Dept. of Mathematics
Kyungpook National University
Rep. of Korea

I'll go ahead and add you to the list. But if you do not respond to my confirmation email, the entry will be removed because you are a fraud.

Name: Designation:
Jack Huizenga Mathematics professor (Illinois state uni)
Tommy R. Jensen Associate professor (Kyungpook National University)

[Tommy]

Post by John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel
There has only been one 'academic' who has openly stated that the New
Calculus is flawed. His name is Jack Huizenga and he works as a math
professor at Illinois State university. He has been refuted at this
http://johngabrie1.wix.com/newcalculus#!A-Harvard-alumnus-comments/

c9q/15645840-8C52-49F1-BDE1-C9D909C19C2D

Post by John Gabriel
Well, let's get to the survey.
If you think that the New Calculus is flawed or not rigorous, then
add your REAL NAME and designation to this thread. Don't worry, I
won't use anything against you, even if you are still alive when
others are eating crow. :-)
Anons and aliases do not count. In fact, they don't exist.
Aww, come on now, don't be afraid. Besides, I will probably be wrong
anyway, and you will not be seen as fools. Scribble away your names!

Yes, I strongly believe that "New Calculus" is flawed or not rigorous.
Do I get a prize now?
What is "New Calculus" anyway?

Well, I rest my case. If you really are Tommy, then how did you get to
believe the New Calculus is flawed, when you don't know what it is? :-)

I was kind of hoping you would tell me what it is. No fat chance
of that happening, is there?

Post by John Gabriel

Tommy R. Jensen Associate Professor Dept. of Mathematics Kyungpook
National University Rep. of Korea

I'll go ahead and add you to the list. But if you do not respond to my
confirmation email, the entry will be removed because you are a fraud.

Wow. Will I have to type my credit card number in as well?

Post by John Gabriel
Jack Huizenga Mathematics professor (Illinois state uni)
Tommy R. Jensen Associate professor (Kyungpook National University)

[John Gabriel]

Post by Tommy
I was kind of hoping you would tell me what it is. No fat chance
of that happening, is there?

You could get off your lazy ass, and go and study it! ;-)

http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com

You can post questions or comments at the facebook link:
facebook.com/thenewcalculus

[Tommy]

Post by John Gabriel
I'll go ahead and add you to the list. But if you do not respond to my
confirmation email, the entry will be removed because you are a fraud.

The "confirmation email" from John Gabriel says:

"You recently added your name to a list of those who think the New
Calculus is flawed. If this is not you, then please let me know and I
will update the list. Otherwise, do nothing."

Hilarious.

[Port563]

Post by Tommy

Post by John Gabriel
I'll go ahead and add you to the list. But if you do not respond to my
confirmation email, the entry will be removed because you are a fraud.

"You recently added your name to a list of those who think the New
Calculus is flawed. If this is not you, then please let me know and I
will update the list. Otherwise, do nothing."
Hilarious.

Somewhat funny, I agree, but accept that you are dealing with someone
whose I.Q. was estimated to be in the range of 80-90 (i.e. 0.7 - 1.3
standard deviations below average, even allowing for any racial handicap).

If a teacher conducting roll-call asked all those were absent to raise their
hands, he probably wouldn't grasp why his classmates were laughing.

He will have some (very) weak explanations for this blunder, which will
afford you more opportunities to laugh.

Wiser counsel - deploy kill-filter and pack it into it.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Port563
whose I.Q. was estimated

No I am not basing any decisions on IQ,
and I'm basing nothing on what JG points
at you, besides what he posts to us all
together.

For all I know, it's the hypno-toad applet.

No, unless it is here or on arxiv (and no,
he won't post it or summarize whatever
few "definitions" work up a theory, it is
making little sense, neither the Port563
strong-arm garbage nor JG the fake Newton-Cotes
attempt at a coarse bounds that fails to
suffice (though of course with all the
utility of that, and metered).

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by Port563
whose I.Q. was estimated

No I am not basing any decisions on IQ,
and I'm basing nothing on what JG points
at you, besides what he posts to us all
together.
For all I know, it's the hypno-toad applet.
No, unless it is here or on arxiv (and no,
he won't post it or summarize whatever
few "definitions" work up a theory, it is
making little sense, neither the Port563
strong-arm garbage nor JG the fake Newton-Cotes
attempt at a coarse bounds that fails to
suffice (though of course with all the
utility of that, and metered).

-d.

[John Gabriel]

Post by Port563
Somewhat funny, I agree, but accept that you are dealing with someone
whose I.Q. was estimated to be in the range of 80-90 (i.e. 0.7 - 1.3
standard deviations below average, even allowing for any racial handicap).

Now that's hilarious! Less than 1/2 % of humans alive today have my IQ.
This stupid and ignorant fuck who is either a Negro or an East Indian (since he mentioned that he is dark skinned) imagines that he can annoy me. :-)

Ha, ha, ha! You pathetic scum. I almost feel sorry for you, but I don't.

Yes, if you are not part of the White race, chances are you have a very low IQ. Get used to it Porta Pottie. :-)

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Post by John Gabriel

Post by Port563
Somewhat funny, I agree, but accept that you are dealing with someone
whose I.Q. was estimated to be in the range of 80-90 (i.e. 0.7 - 1.3
standard deviations below average, even allowing for any racial handicap).

[...]
Yes, if you are not part of the White race, chances
are you have a very low IQ.

Why do you think that statement is true?

;^/

[John Gabriel]

Post by Chris M. Thomasson

Post by John Gabriel

Post by Port563
Somewhat funny, I agree, but accept that you are dealing with someone
whose I.Q. was estimated to be in the range of 80-90 (i.e. 0.7 - 1.3
standard deviations below average, even allowing for any racial
handicap).

[...]
Yes, if you are not part of the White race, chances
are you have a very low IQ.

Why do you think that statement is true?
;^/

I don't. In case you haven't realised, this anonymous idiot (Port563) has been a real nuisance. Anything I can do to annoy him gives me satisfaction.

[Port563]

"Rapid-cycling of John Gabriel"

Within a few hours, this moron (as defined by the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, of which he is so fond, in terms of mental age) manages to
wholly contradict himself on non-mathematical matters too.

An example from a few minutes ago is presented below.

Post by John Gabriel
this anonymous idiot (Port563) has been a real nuisance

BUT

Post by John Gabriel
Port563 .... This stupid and ignorant fuck who is either a Negro
or an East Indian (since he mentioned that he is dark skinned)
imagines that he can annoy me.

(-:

So, as per the norm, his craziness spread from mathematics a long time ago.

Post by John Gabriel
Anything I can do to annoy him gives me satisfaction.

Then, I must apologize for giving you no satisfaction at all.


However, there are several things which you could do to annoy me.

Your committing suicide or stopping your posting to sci.math due to external
intervention (you are incapable of stopping by yourself) are examples of
such things that would annoy me.

This is because my students have got used to chuckling over your endless
mathematical blunders and would miss it badly if you disappeared.

Several of them run a Leader Board, comprising a list of your recent posts
in descending order of the number of distinct mathematical blunders therein.
Finding your blunderings is easy for them, as your mistakes are at the
secondary school level (or lower); the fun is in who does it fastest and in
arguing over whether (say) blunder x and blunder y are distinct or related
or a manifestation of some other blunder z within the same post.

I act as arbiter and also generally as your defender.

So, please do not annoy me by denying them their daily crust. (-:

[John Gabriel]

Post by Port563
"Rapid-cycling of John Gabriel"
Within a few hours, this moron (as defined by the Merriam-Webster
dictionary, of which he is so fond, in terms of mental age) manages to
wholly contradict himself on non-mathematical matters too.
An example from a few minutes ago is presented below.

Post by John Gabriel
this anonymous idiot (Port563) has been a real nuisance

BUT

Post by John Gabriel
Port563 .... This stupid and ignorant fuck who is either a Negro
or an East Indian (since he mentioned that he is dark skinned)
imagines that he can annoy me.

So, as per the norm, his craziness spread from mathematics a long time ago.

Post by John Gabriel
Anything I can do to annoy him gives me satisfaction.

Then, I must apologize for giving you no satisfaction at all.
However, there are several things which you could do to annoy me.
Your committing suicide or stopping your posting to sci.math due to external
intervention (you are incapable of stopping by yourself) are examples of
such things that would annoy me.
This is because my students have got used to chuckling over your endless
mathematical blunders and would miss it badly if you disappeared.
Several of them run a Leader Board, comprising a list of your recent posts
in descending order of the number of distinct mathematical blunders therein.
Finding your blunderings is easy for them, as your mistakes are at the
secondary school level (or lower); the fun is in who does it fastest and in
arguing over whether (say) blunder x and blunder y are distinct or related
or a manifestation of some other blunder z within the same post.
I act as arbiter and also generally as your defender.

Very good. It's working. I am annoying you! That you took so much effort to write so much crap is a good sign. Back to your prison cell, dark skinned boy! :-)

[John Gabriel]

Post by Tommy

Post by John Gabriel
I'll go ahead and add you to the list. But if you do not respond to my
confirmation email, the entry will be removed because you are a fraud.

"You recently added your name to a list of those who think the New
Calculus is flawed. If this is not you, then please let me know and I
will update the list. Otherwise, do nothing."
Hilarious.

Wow! You are real. I think you need to be ashamed of yourself.

As I have often stated and mention on the home page of my website (http://thenewcalculus.weebly.com):

There are predominantly two kinds of academics: (1) those who do not understand or care to understand the New Calculus and dismiss it as crackpottery. (2) those who understand the New Calculus, but dismiss it because they are envious and lazy. Both types are invariably dishonest and spineless reptiles.

You are type 1!

[Dock Ellis]

Shut up, idiot.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by Dock Ellis
Shut up, idiot.

For example, here on sci.math, crank trolls collect shutup idiots.

I used to ignore it but in returning JG has broken the rule of troll
crank which is keep them guessing. Then it is clear he is not a
powerful troll, just simply a crank troll in noise of shutup idiots.

[John Gabriel]

Ok. We have two authentic names on the list. I need another 18 and then I'll quit sci.math.

Think you can make it happen? :-)

[d***@sprynet.com]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 01:35:40 -0700 (PDT), John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel
http://johngabrie1.wix.com/newcalculus#!A-Harvard-alumnus-comments/c9q/15645840-
8C52-49F1-BDE1-C9D909C19C2D

Your supposed refutations are just silly. Starting with the first:

H said "There has been a completely rigorous notion of limit for well
over a hundred years. "

and to "refute" this you quote Boyer's comments on some
things Cauchy said.

I explained this long ago: Even if we assume for the sake of
argument that Boyer's criticism of Cauchy is exactly right,
that simply does not in any way refute what H said!

Because he didn't mention Cauchy. Supposing for the
sake of argument that Cauchy's all wrong, how does
it follow that there has not been a rigorous notion
of limit for well over a hundred years? Hint: It doesn't.

Then you quote H again: "Rigorous treatments of infinitesimals are a
bit more tricky, but have also been made."

And your "refutation" is "One can only assume the moron is referring
to the abortion of non-standard analysis, by a failed Jewish
mathematician called Abraham Robinson. Even today, there are many
academics (including PhDs) who do not accept non-standard analysis. In
my opinion, it is pure rot because infinitesimals don\u2019t exist."

Which again is just silly. Robinson was not a "failed" mathematician.
Your mentioning the fact that he's Jewish makes you look very bad.

You should _cite_ an academic who does not "accept"
non-standard analysis. (Meaning a mathematician who
says it's _wrong_.)

"In your opinion" is at least honest. But giving your _opinion_
is not a refutation.

And so on.

Post by John Gabriel
Well, let's get to the survey.
If you think that the New Calculus is flawed or not rigorous, then add your REAL NAME and designation to this thread. Don't worry, I won't use anything against you, even if you are still alive when others are eating crow. :-)
Anons and aliases do not count. In fact, they don't exist.
Jack Huizenga Mathematics professor (Illinois state uni)
Yours? :-)
Aww, come on now, don't be afraid. Besides, I will probably be wrong anyway, and you will not be seen as fools. Scribble away your names!

[John Gabriel]

Post by d***@sprynet.com

http://johngabrie1.wix.com/newcalculus#!A-Harvard-alumnus-comments/c9q/15645840-8C52-49F1-BDE1-C9D909C19C2D

H said "There has been a completely rigorous notion of limit for well
over a hundred years. " and to "refute" this you quote Boyer's comments on some things Cauchy said.

To my knowledge, the modern definition of derivative comes from Cauchy.
Your point? I see. You don't have one.

Post by d***@sprynet.com
I explained this long ago: Even if we assume for the sake of
argument that Boyer's criticism of Cauchy is exactly right,
that simply does not in any way refute what H said!

It does.

Post by d***@sprynet.com
Because he didn't mention Cauchy.

Seriously?! He doesn't have to mention Cauchy. Everyone knows the modern definition originated with Cauchy.

Post by d***@sprynet.com
Supposing for the sake of argument that Cauchy's all wrong, how does
it follow that there has not been a rigorous notion of limit for well over a hundred years? Hint: It doesn't.

It sure does. Look, in order for the definition of limit to be rigorous, real numbers must exist, that is, irrational numbers must exist.

But irrational numbers DO NOT exist. Hence, no matter what you say about limits, they can't be rigorous. The limit concept assumes that real numbers are well defined.

Post by d***@sprynet.com
Then you quote H again: "Rigorous treatments of infinitesimals are a
bit more tricky, but have also been made."
And your "refutation" is "One can only assume the moron is referring
to the abortion of non-standard analysis, by a failed Jewish
mathematician called Abraham Robinson. Even today, there are many
academics (including PhDs) who do not accept non-standard analysis. In
my opinion, it is pure rot because infinitesimals don\u2019t exist."

It's a valid refutation. Infinitesimals DO NOT exist either in theory or otherwise.

Post by d***@sprynet.com
Which again is just silly. Robinson was not a "failed" mathematician.

Actually he was. I don't think he has any other claim to fame than the rot of non-standard analysis.

Post by d***@sprynet.com
Your mentioning the fact that he's Jewish makes you look very bad.

Thanks for your concern, but I look bad in any case. :-) If anyone argued against mainstream as I do, he would also look bad. I am literally shaking mainstream mathematics by the roots!

Post by d***@sprynet.com
You should _cite_ an academic who does not "accept" non-standard analysis. (Meaning a mathematician who says it's _wrong_.)

I don't need to cite anyone. Nor do I need anyone to agree with my point of view. I am correct whether you agree or not. Your agreement will not change the truth value of my opinions.

Post by d***@sprynet.com
"In your opinion" is at least honest. But giving your _opinion_is not a refutation.

Irrelevant. I never used my opinion as a refutation. That was just your impression.

Well, Ullrich, going to add your name to the list or not? :-)

[d***@sprynet.com]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:03:01 -0700 (PDT), John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel

Post by d***@sprynet.com

http://johngabrie1.wix.com/newcalculus#!A-Harvard-alumnus-comments/c9q/15645840-8C52-49F1-BDE1-C9D909C19C2D

H said "There has been a completely rigorous notion of limit for well
over a hundred years. " and to "refute" this you quote Boyer's comments on some things Cauchy said.

To my knowledge, the modern definition of derivative comes from Cauchy.
Your point? I see. You don't have one.

Post by d***@sprynet.com
I explained this long ago: Even if we assume for the sake of
argument that Boyer's criticism of Cauchy is exactly right,
that simply does not in any way refute what H said!

It does.

Post by d***@sprynet.com
Because he didn't mention Cauchy.

Seriously?! He doesn't have to mention Cauchy. Everyone knows the modern definition originated with Cauchy.

Supposing so. And supposing Cauchy got everything wrong.
That says nothing about whether or not a rigirous version
of calculus has existed for over a century.

Post by John Gabriel

Post by d***@sprynet.com
Supposing for the sake of argument that Cauchy's all wrong, how does
it follow that there has not been a rigorous notion of limit for well over a hundred years? Hint: It doesn't.

It sure does. Look, in order for the definition of limit to be rigorous, real numbers must exist, that is, irrational numbers must exist.
But irrational numbers DO NOT exist.

Repetition doesn't make this true.

Post by John Gabriel
Hence, no matter what you say about limits, they can't be rigorous. The limit concept assumes that real numbers are well defined.

Post by d***@sprynet.com
Then you quote H again: "Rigorous treatments of infinitesimals are a
bit more tricky, but have also been made."
And your "refutation" is "One can only assume the moron is referring
to the abortion of non-standard analysis, by a failed Jewish
mathematician called Abraham Robinson. Even today, there are many
academics (including PhDs) who do not accept non-standard analysis. In
my opinion, it is pure rot because infinitesimals don\u2019t exist."

It's a valid refutation. Infinitesimals DO NOT exist either in theory or otherwise.

Post by d***@sprynet.com
Which again is just silly. Robinson was not a "failed" mathematician.

Actually he was. I don't think he has any other claim to fame than the rot of non-standard analysis.

Post by d***@sprynet.com
Your mentioning the fact that he's Jewish makes you look very bad.

Thanks for your concern, but I look bad in any case. :-) If anyone argued against mainstream as I do, he would also look bad. I am literally shaking mainstream mathematics by the roots!

Post by d***@sprynet.com
You should _cite_ an academic who does not "accept" non-standard analysis. (Meaning a mathematician who says it's _wrong_.)

I don't need to cite anyone. Nor do I need anyone to agree with my point of view. I am correct whether you agree or not. Your agreement will not change the truth value of my opinions.

You said that there are many academics who do not accept non-standard
analysis. No, you don't need to give evidence for that, any more
than you need to give evidence for anything else.

Of course, if you gave actual evidence for the things you say
you might not be such a laughingstock.

Post by John Gabriel

Post by d***@sprynet.com
"In your opinion" is at least honest. But giving your _opinion_is not a refutation.

Irrelevant. I never used my opinion as a refutation. That was just your impression.

My impression? Yes, when you use the words "in my opinion" you do
hive the impression that you're saying somthing about your opinion.

Post by John Gabriel
Well, Ullrich, going to add your name to the list or not? :-)

Stupid question.

[John Gabriel]

Post by John Gabriel
Seriously?! He doesn't have to mention Cauchy. Everyone knows the modern definition originated with Cauchy.

Supposing so. And supposing Cauchy got everything wrong. That says nothing about whether or not a rigirous version of calculus has existed for over a century.

Of course it does. Mainstream academics claim that was the first rigorous formulation.

Repetition doesn't make this true.

Denial won't help you either.

You said that there are many academics who do not accept non-standard
analysis. No, you don't need to give evidence for that, any more
than you need to give evidence for anything else.
Of course, if you gave actual evidence for the things you say you might not be such a laughingstock.

I am the one who is laughing... AT YOU!

Post by John Gabriel
Well, Ullrich, going to add your name to the list or not? :-)

Stupid question.

Does that mean your name should be on the list? Yes or No.

[d***@sprynet.com]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:01:54 -0700 (PDT), John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel
Seriously?! He doesn't have to mention Cauchy. Everyone knows the modern definition originated with Cauchy.

Supposing so. And supposing Cauchy got everything wrong. That says nothing about whether or not a rigirous version of calculus has existed for over a century.

Of course it does. Mainstream academics claim that was the first rigorous formulation.

Repetition doesn't make this true.

Denial won't help you either.

You said that there are many academics who do not accept non-standard
analysis. No, you don't need to give evidence for that, any more
than you need to give evidence for anything else.
Of course, if you gave actual evidence for the things you say you might not be such a laughingstock.

I am the one who is laughing... AT YOU!

Giggle.

Post by John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel
Well, Ullrich, going to add your name to the list or not? :-)

Stupid question.

Does that mean your name should be on the list? Yes or No.

Awesomely stupid question.

[John Gabriel]

Post by d***@sprynet.com
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:01:54 -0700 (PDT), John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel
Seriously?! He doesn't have to mention Cauchy. Everyone knows the modern definition originated with Cauchy.

Supposing so. And supposing Cauchy got everything wrong. That says nothing about whether or not a rigirous version of calculus has existed for over a century.

Of course it does. Mainstream academics claim that was the first rigorous formulation.

Repetition doesn't make this true.

Denial won't help you either.

You said that there are many academics who do not accept non-standard
analysis. No, you don't need to give evidence for that, any more
than you need to give evidence for anything else.
Of course, if you gave actual evidence for the things you say you might not be such a laughingstock.

I am the one who is laughing... AT YOU!

Giggle.

Careful, that might inflame your ulcerative colitis. We don't want you pooping incontinently around those unfortunate students in your class.

Post by d***@sprynet.com

Post by John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel
Well, Ullrich, going to add your name to the list or not? :-)

Stupid question.

Does that mean your name should be on the list? Yes or No.

Awesomely stupid question.

Hardly as stupid as your remark.

Yes or No?

[John Gabriel]

Almost lunch time. I may or may not check in with you idiots later.

Get off this forum and learn some math. Even better, get a real job cleaning toilets because most of you don't have what it takes to do mathematics.

Toodaloo.

[S***@hotmail.com]

it would be interesting, if you had any new or improved results
;otherwise, these items are like dishwater fresh

Post by John Gabriel
Toodaloo.

[John Gabriel]

Post by S***@hotmail.com
it would be interesting, if you had any new or improved results
;otherwise, these items are like dishwater fresh

Post by John Gabriel
Toodaloo.

How do you say in your language .... "Fuck off" ?

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel

Post by S***@hotmail.com
it would be interesting, if you had any new or improved results
;otherwise, these items are like dishwater fresh

Post by John Gabriel
Toodaloo.

How do you say in your language .... "Fuck off" ?

.He just said it to a dimwit to thick to get it.
--

[John Gabriel]

The current status of the vote:

Jack Huizenga (Professor)
Tommy R. Jensen (Associate professor)
Dan Christensen (undergraduate)

17 more names and I'll quit sci.math.

[Virgil]

John Gabriel 0

Mathematicians oo
--

[John Gabriel]

Post by Virgil
John Gabriel 0
Mathematicians oo

Thus far, only 3 academics claim the new calculus is flawed. How about you Virgil? Oh, you're not an academic. Besides, your alias does not count. Unless I can verify who you are, you don't get to be on the list.

Toodaloo! :-)

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel

Post by Virgil
John Gabriel 0
Mathematicians oo

Thus far, only 3 academics claim the new calculus is flawed. How about you
Virgil? Oh, you're not an academic.

An emeritus one, which is far closer to actually ever having taught any
mathematics at the university level that John Gabriel ever seems to
have been.
--

[John Gabriel]

So the forum idiots were all loud mouths. Thus far, only 3 have committed their bacon.

Come on now, surely there are more of you who think the New Calculus is flawed?

Just think of it ... 17 more names and you don't get to hear from me again. :-)

Here's your chance!

[Hop_Sing]

Post by John Gabriel
So the forum idiots were all loud mouths. Thus far, only 3 have committed their bacon.
Come on now, surely there are more of you who think the New Calculus is flawed?
Just think of it ... 17 more names and you don't get to hear from me again. :-)
Here's your chance!

Why should anybody answer? To be declared an idiot by you?

[John Gabriel]

Post by Hop_Sing

Post by John Gabriel
So the forum idiots were all loud mouths. Thus far, only 3 have committed their bacon.
Come on now, surely there are more of you who think the New Calculus is flawed?
Just think of it ... 17 more names and you don't get to hear from me again. :-)
Here's your chance!

Why should anybody answer? To be declared an idiot by you?

I will not declare anyone an idiot. That's a promise. But I will publish the final list on my website. Just so that others can look back and be encouraged by it. :-) So what are you afraid of? Besides, what do you care about my opinion? If you think it's flawed and are sure of yourself, what's stopping you?

[John Gabriel]

In fact, I am so serious about this list that I will also publish one link which each of the "nay-sayers" which they get to choose. My website receives hundreds of hits.

So, by simply stating your dissension, you stand a chance of increasing the web traffic on your site (*). Of course there is one small downside for your reputation. But hey, John Gabriel is a crank! What are you all worried about?

Gee, you don't even have to read or study the New Calculus. It's junk. :-(

Like wise men, you spew your opinion in ignorance. Chuckle. Way to go sci.mathers! Hee, hee.


(*) I get many repeat visitors from ALL the top educational organisations on the planet. Here are but a few names: Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, MIT, Cambridge, Princeton, Yale, Oxford, Danish Network for research and education, Swedish Royal Academy, New York University (has the Courant Institute which is top math centre in US), etc. Every top institution from any country that matters, has visited and continues to visit my site.

[Port563]

Post by John Gabriel
I get many repeat visitors from ALL the top educational organisations
on the planet. Here are but a few names: Harvard, Stanford, Columbia,
MIT, Cambridge, Princeton, Yale, Oxford, Danish Network for research
and education, Swedish Royal Academy, New York University (has the
Courant Institute which is top math centre in US), etc. Every top
institution from any country that matters, has visited and continues
to visit my site.

Some of these very visitors are me, my students, and people in several
other institutions recommended by us to visit your shambolic site.

Our objective was not to laugh - that was but an inevitable incidental.

It was to determine how a creature so hideously defective, with mental
processes so grotesquely malfunctioning and logic circuits so damaged
as to be unrecognisable as being such, would have been able to have put
together a website at all in the first place.

Yes, I am compelled to accept my share of the guilt.

We've made it far too simple for the gibbering loons.

[John Gabriel]

Post by Port563

Post by John Gabriel
I get many repeat visitors from ALL the top educational organisations
on the planet. Here are but a few names: Harvard, Stanford, Columbia,
MIT, Cambridge, Princeton, Yale, Oxford, Danish Network for research
and education, Swedish Royal Academy, New York University (has the
Courant Institute which is top math centre in US), etc. Every top
institution from any country that matters, has visited and continues
to visit my site.

Some of these very visitors are me, my students, and people in several
other institutions recommended by us to visit your shambolic site.
Our objective was not to laugh - that was but an inevitable incidental.
It was to determine how a creature so hideously defective, with mental
processes so grotesquely malfunctioning and logic circuits so damaged
as to be unrecognisable as being such, would have been able to have put
together a website at all in the first place.
Yes, I am compelled to accept my share of the guilt.
We've made it far too simple for the gibbering loons.

In truth, I am the only one who is laughing - at you. :-)

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel

Post by Port563
We've made it far too simple for the gibbering loons.

In truth, I am the only one who is laughing

We call it gibbering, loon!
--

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel
But hey, John Gabriel is a crank!

I think he's got it!
--

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel
I will not declare anyone an idiot.

If it took on to know one, JG should be good at it, but apparently that
rule is abrogated by the idiocy of idiots, so that JG sucks at "knowing"
his fellow idiots.
--

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel
Come on now, surely there are more of you who think the New Calculus is flawed?

Those who have bothered to look at it know it is flawed.

http://download.math10.com/en/university-math/calculus/NewCalcForDummies.
pdf
starts out with
Quote

The New Calculus for Dummies.
Definition: A point is the idea or concept of location or place.
It is the foundation of all geometric objects.
Definition: A geometric object consists of one or more points.
Definition: A path describes a distance between any two points.

Unquote

While those may satisfactory as rough descriptions, they are totally
indequate as proper mathematical definitions, particularly the third one.
--

[John Gabriel]

Post by Virgil

Post by John Gabriel
Come on now, surely there are more of you who think the New Calculus is
flawed?

Those who have bothered to look at it know it is flawed.
http://download.math10.com/en/university-math/calculus/NewCalcForDummies.
pdf
starts out with
Quote
The New Calculus for Dummies.
Definition: A point is the idea or concept of location or place.
It is the foundation of all geometric objects.
Definition: A geometric object consists of one or more points.
Definition: A path describes a distance between any two points.
Unquote
While those may satisfactory as rough descriptions, they are totally
indequate as proper mathematical definitions, particularly the third one.
--

Did you notice it is called "New Calculus for Dummies"? I have not written the version called "New Calculus for imbeciles".

The New Calculus is easy to learn, but unfortunately, I don't think you are up to it. You'd first have to stop lying to yourself.

[S***@hotmail.com]

I just want to see the index for "chain rule for dummies

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel

Post by Virgil

Post by John Gabriel
Come on now, surely there are more of you who think the New Calculus is
flawed?

Those who have bothered to look at it know it is flawed.
http://download.math10.com/en/university-math/calculus/NewCalcForDummies.
pdf
starts out with
Quote
The New Calculus for Dummies.
Definition: A point is the idea or concept of location or place.
It is the foundation of all geometric objects.
Definition: A geometric object consists of one or more points.
Definition: A path describes a distance between any two points.
Unquote
While those may satisfactory as rough descriptions, they are totally
indequate as proper mathematical definitions, particularly the third one.
--

Did you notice it is called "New Calculus for Dummies"?

Then JOHN GABRIEL was obviously only been writing for his peers.
--

[John Gabriel]

Post by Virgil

Post by John Gabriel

Post by Virgil

Post by John Gabriel
Come on now, surely there are more of you who think the New Calculus is
flawed?

Those who have bothered to look at it know it is flawed.
http://download.math10.com/en/university-math/calculus/NewCalcForDummies.
pdf
starts out with
Quote
The New Calculus for Dummies.
Definition: A point is the idea or concept of location or place.
It is the foundation of all geometric objects.
Definition: A geometric object consists of one or more points.
Definition: A path describes a distance between any two points.
Unquote
While those may satisfactory as rough descriptions, they are totally
indequate as proper mathematical definitions, particularly the third one.
--

Did you notice it is called "New Calculus for Dummies"?

Then JOHN GABRIEL was obviously only been writing for his peers.
--

That article was written for my grade 8 Asian students. It's a hoot they were able to understand it and complete all the exercises, and what's more, English is their second language!

Now what does that say for you? Ha, ha!

[Virgil]

Post by Virgil

Post by John Gabriel

Post by Virgil

Post by John Gabriel
Come on now, surely there are more of you who think the New
Calculus is flawed?

Those who have bothered to look at it know it is flawed.
http://download.math10.com/en/university-math/calculus/NewCalcForDummies.pdf
starts out with
Quote
The New Calculus for Dummies.
Definition: A point is the idea or concept of location or place.
It is the foundation of all geometric objects.
Definition: A geometric object consists of one or more points.
Definition: A path describes a distance between any two points.
Unquote
While those may satisfactory as rough descriptions, they are totally
indequate as proper mathematical definitions, particularly the third one.
--

Did you notice it is called "New Calculus for Dummies"?

Then JOHN GABRIEL was obviously only been writing for his peers.

And more accurate title would be "New Calculus by a Dummy"!
--

[Aristotle Palladium]

Shut the fuck up, you retarded Nazi.

[John Gabriel]

There are certain anons and some insignificant nobodies you must be warned about:

Wizard-of-OZ : this anon holds the forum idiot badge
Virgil : this anon is a psychopathic liar
Port563 : this anon suffers from inferiority complex -
he is dark-skinned and has an ultra-low IQ.

Then you have the Shut-up brigade. I suspect a lot of these are sock-puppets. Simply ignore.

Finally, we have the 'academics': Dick van den Moron, Barf Godfuck (Goddard), Robin Chapman (forum god), David Ullrich (forum god), ad nauseum.

If you think the New Calculus is flawed, go ahead and add your name!

[Virgil]

WM, and now JG, heading the list!
--

[John Gabriel]

I have to say that I am a little disappointed. Common, a lot of you morons were jumping up and down screaming your lungs off about how flawed the New Calculus is, and now, you've all put your tail between your legs.

Why is that? I guess you all love me just too much, don't you? ROFLMAO.

Sigh...

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel
I have to say that I am a little disappointed.

Nowhere nearly as disappointed as those real mathematicians who have
viewed any part of your travesty of a text are with that travesty of a
text.
--

[Dan Christensen]

Post by John Gabriel
If you think that the New Calculus is flawed or not rigorous,

It just doesn't work.

Ask John Gabriel to find the minimum value of y=x^2 using his wacky "New Calculus" and watch the bullshit fly!

[John Gabriel]

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by John Gabriel
If you think that the New Calculus is flawed or not rigorous,

It just doesn't work.
Ask John Gabriel to find the minimum value of y=x^2 using his wacky "New Calculus" and watch the bullshit fly!

Danny boy, you're number 3 on the list. We get the idea. Now I suggest you go and play with the other boys.

[S***@hotmail.com]

I don't care, if it hath good taste

[John Gabriel]

Post by S***@hotmail.com
I don't care, if it hath good taste

Sorry, no speak English.

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel
Sorry, no speak English.

It is not so much John Gabriel's speaking as his thinking, or what
passes in his case for thinking, that we find unsatisfactory.
--

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel
Danny boy, you're number 3 on the list.

It is an honour to be on the list of non-supporters of John Gabriel's
unwarranted egomania.
--

[John Gabriel]

So, only 3 ignoramuses have stepped forward to condemn the New Calculus.

Do we have any other takers? LOL

Just 17 more names to go and I would quit this forum.

Obviously, many are learning from my comments. They are certainly not the fools who live here though.

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel
So, only 3 ignoramuses have stepped forward to condemn the New Calculus.

But dozens of competent mathematicians have done so.
And more every day!

Post by John Gabriel
Just 17 more names to go and I would quit this forum.

Don't wait! Do it now!
--

[John Gabriel]

Post by Virgil

Post by John Gabriel
So, only 3 ignoramuses have stepped forward to condemn the New Calculus.

But dozens of competent mathematicians have done so.

Where? In your imagination? ROFLMFAO.

Post by Virgil
And more every day!

Post by John Gabriel
Just 17 more names to go and I would quit this forum.

Don't wait! Do it now!

Well, where are those 'mathematicians'? Let them step forward. The 3 on my list are not mathematicians. They are ignorant academics. Quite a huge difference. LOL But that's irrelevant. As long as you can verify who you are, your name gets to be on the list. Quite simple actually. :-)

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel
Well, where are those 'mathematicians'?

Most of them are off doing mathematics and/or killfiling everything to
do with John Gabriel.
--

[Port563]

Post by John Gabriel
So, only 3 ignoramuses have stepped forward to condemn the New Calculus.
Do we have any other takers? LOL
Just 17 more names to go and I would quit this forum.

Don't quit.

Every village needs its idiot.

The post of village troll (WM) and crank (AP) are already taken. But you,
as the village idiot, have pride of place.

[John Gabriel]

Post by Port563

Post by John Gabriel
So, only 3 ignoramuses have stepped forward to condemn the New Calculus.
Do we have any other takers? LOL
Just 17 more names to go and I would quit this forum.

Don't quit.
Every village needs its idiot.
The post of village troll (WM) and crank (AP) are already taken. But you,
as the village idiot, have pride of place.

I have never really seen a baboon's skin. It may be white or pink or off-white. But usually baboons are covered in gray hair.

We're all eagerly awaiting to know your actual colour.

Do you feel inferior because of your skin colour and/or your low IQ?

[Port563]

Post by John Gabriel
I have never really seen a baboon's skin. It may be white or pink or
off-white. But usually baboons are covered in gray hair.

I'll take your word for it. I would expect your expertise in baboonery to
exceed those of all other group-participants.

Post by John Gabriel
We're all eagerly awaiting to know your actual colour.

No one but you, but since you seem to be fixated on this, thereby depriving
us a chance to laugh at more of your "mathematics", here:

It varies with the amount of time since my last suntan. Early summer
sunlight in Gstaad can burn awfully.

Or did you contrive to misunderstand something earlier, lol?

Post by John Gabriel
Do you feel inferior because of your skin colour and/or your low IQ?

[John Gabriel]

Post by Port563

Post by John Gabriel
I have never really seen a baboon's skin. It may be white or pink or
off-white. But usually baboons are covered in gray hair.

I'll take your word for it.

Hee, hee. Now that's a first. Ha!

Post by Port563
I would expect your expertise in baboonery to exceed those of all other group-participants.

Thank you for the compliment, but I doubt that anyone can know better than you.
Ha!

Post by Port563

Post by John Gabriel
We're all eagerly awaiting to know your actual colour.

No one but you, but since you seem to be fixated on this, thereby depriving

You are the one who brought up the issue of your skin colour! Don't come crying to me about that now!

Post by Port563
It varies with the amount of time since my last suntan. Early summer
sunlight in Gstaad can burn awfully.

Actually, it varies according to the same rate at which you lie. Do you think anyone here believes that you were referring to your tan? Gosh, your IQ is low, but did you really think you could pull that lie off? Tsk, tsk. Bigger baboon than I even I thought you were.

So, what's your colour? Black, brown, yellowish? Do share. :-) If it's gray, you should visit a physician because that's very abnormal for humans.

And just to satisfy our curiosity, do you feel inferior because of your skin colour and/or your low IQ?

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel
And just to satisfy our curiosity, do you feel inferior because of your skin
colour and/or your low IQ?

However many people Port563 may feel inferior to, he at least can be
certain of his superiority, in every respect, to John Gabriel,
--

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel
So, only 3 ignoramuses have stepped forward to condemn the New Calculus.

And a dozen or so of those far more mathematically competent than JOHN
GABRIEL.

But most mathematicians will quickly have killfiled John Gabriel as
they do with other equally unamusing egomaniacal idiots.
--

[John Gabriel]

Post by Virgil

Post by John Gabriel
So, only 3 ignoramuses have stepped forward to condemn the New Calculus.

And a dozen or so of those far more mathematically competent than JOHN
GABRIEL.
But most mathematicians will quickly have killfiled John Gabriel as
they do with other equally unamusing egomaniacal idiots.
--

Yawn...

[S***@hotmail.com]

surely, there must be some thing that you can do better,
than Liebniz did it ;or, some thing else

[John Gabriel]

So, after 3 days, we are still far short of the 20 names required for me to quit posting comments on sci.math.

Gee, where are all those 'mathematicians' and 'educators' who purportedly think the New Calculus is flawed?

Just a load of wind... Indeed.

[Dan Christensen]

Post by John Gabriel
So, after 3 days, we are still far short of the 20 names required for me to quit posting comments on sci.math.
Gee, where are all those 'mathematicians' and 'educators' who purportedly think the New Calculus is flawed?

Your "New Calculus" as been shown to be a fraud, John Gabriel. Deal with it.

Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel
So, after 3 days, we are still far short of the 20 names required for me to
quit posting comments on sci.math.
Gee, where are all those 'mathematicians' and 'educators' who purportedly
think the New Calculus is flawed?

Most of them would have immediately killfilled JG's posts.
--

[John Gabriel]

So, after 3 days, we are still far short of the 20 names required for me to quit posting comments on sci.math.

Gee, where are all those 'mathematicians' and 'educators' who purportedly think the New Calculus is flawed?

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Post by John Gabriel
So, after 3 days, we are still far short of the 20 names required for me to quit posting comments on sci.math.
Gee, where are all those 'mathematicians' and 'educators' who purportedly think the New Calculus is flawed?

(I don't know I never heard of them.)

[John Gabriel]

Post by Ross A. Finlayson

Post by John Gabriel
So, after 3 days, we are still far short of the 20 names required for me to quit posting comments on sci.math.
Gee, where are all those 'mathematicians' and 'educators' who purportedly think the New Calculus is flawed?

(I don't know I never heard of them.)

:-) My point exactly!

[d***@sprynet.com]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:22:47 -0700 (PDT), John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel
So, after 3 days, we are still far short of the 20 names required for me to quit posting comments on sci.math.
Gee, where are all those 'mathematicians' and 'educators' who purportedly think the New Calculus is flawed?

Who ever said that there were a large number of such mathematicians
and educators? The vast majority of mathematicians have never
heard of the "New Calculus". Of those who have heard of it,
the vast majority see no reason to argue with crackpots.

[John Gabriel]

Post by d***@sprynet.com
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:22:47 -0700 (PDT), John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel
So, after 3 days, we are still far short of the 20 names required for me to quit posting comments on sci.math.
Gee, where are all those 'mathematicians' and 'educators' who purportedly think the New Calculus is flawed?

Who ever said that there were a large number of such mathematicians
and educators? The vast majority of mathematicians have never
heard of the "New Calculus". Of those who have heard of it,
the vast majority see no reason to argue with crackpots.

Anons are not mathematicians. They are nothing. Many educators have heard about the New Calculus.

So Ullrich, still not willing to commit yourself? Is the New Calculus flawed according to you or is it not? Yes or No only.

[Dave Parker]

Shut up, moron.

[d***@sprynet.com]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:57:24 -0700 (PDT), John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel

Post by d***@sprynet.com
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:22:47 -0700 (PDT), John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel
So, after 3 days, we are still far short of the 20 names required for me to quit posting comments on sci.math.
Gee, where are all those 'mathematicians' and 'educators' who purportedly think the New Calculus is flawed?

Who ever said that there were a large number of such mathematicians
and educators? The vast majority of mathematicians have never
heard of the "New Calculus". Of those who have heard of it,
the vast majority see no reason to argue with crackpots.

Anons are not mathematicians. They are nothing. Many educators have heard about the New Calculus.
So Ullrich, still not willing to commit yourself? Is the New Calculus flawed according to you or is it not? Yes or No only.

You really have no idea what my opinion of the "New Calculus" is?

[John Gabriel]

Post by d***@sprynet.com
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:57:24 -0700 (PDT), John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel

Post by d***@sprynet.com
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:22:47 -0700 (PDT), John Gabriel

Post by John Gabriel
So, after 3 days, we are still far short of the 20 names required for me to quit posting comments on sci.math.
Gee, where are all those 'mathematicians' and 'educators' who purportedly think the New Calculus is flawed?

Who ever said that there were a large number of such mathematicians
and educators? The vast majority of mathematicians have never
heard of the "New Calculus". Of those who have heard of it,
the vast majority see no reason to argue with crackpots.

Anons are not mathematicians. They are nothing. Many educators have heard about the New Calculus.
So Ullrich, still not willing to commit yourself? Is the New Calculus flawed according to you or is it not? Yes or No only.

You really have no idea what my opinion of the "New Calculus" is?

I think I have a pretty good idea, but that does not mean I give a shit. :-)
Unless you give me a straight answer, I'm afraid your name does not get to be on the list. Do you think the New Calculus is flawed? Yes Or No.

What's funny is that you can't even answer this simplest of questions. :-)

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel
So, after 3 days, we are still far short of the 20 names required for me to
quit posting comments on sci.math.
Gee, where are all those 'mathematicians' and 'educators' who purportedly
think the New Calculus is flawed?

Laughing at JG's "New Calculus" too hard to type!

Wherever it deviates from the "old" calculus, it shows JG's incompetence.
--

[John Gabriel]

Attention morons: I did not start this thread to answer your questions or teach you the New Calculus. I don't give a shit whether you learn it or no.

A lot of you whores have been jumping up and down screaming that it's flawed. So now I am giving you a chance to put your money where your mouths are. Commit by adding your real name to the list.

Whatever made you idiots think that I am here to debate the New Calculus with you. Morons. I know it is the first and only rigorous formulation. Your opinions are piss and shit to me. This thread is not about debating with you. In order for that to happen, several things would be required. You are not on my intellectual level and don't possess my knowledge. How can I debate with my inferiors?

So, hold your two cents. If you dare, add your real name to the list. That's all I am interested in. All else is bullshit.

[Dave U. Random]

Post by John Gabriel
I did not start this thread to answer your questions or
teach you the New Calculus. I don't give a shit whether
you learn it or no.

Good to hear that.
So then, fuck off, you stupid cunt.
Want to know exactly why?
Sorry, we won't say. But we'll give you a few pointers.
What meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of
unknowing, inexperienced opinion, which you think comprises math, to have
with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert
rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease,
you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.
On a good day you’re a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient
in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You
are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of
all unpleasantness. You try to spread misery and sorrow wherever you go,
fortunately you are inept at that too.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid.
Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the
stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are
trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that
even the neutrons have collapsed.† Stupid gotten so dense that no
intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on
Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy
emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in
our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of math
and physics that we know. I’m sorry. I can’t go on. This is an epiphany of
stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I
don’t have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half
baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this
drivel. "Duh".
The only thing worse than your pathetic attempts at mathematical logic is
your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well…
it didn’t really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative
flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults
among a load of babbling was hardly effective… Maybe later in life, after
you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more
success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us “normal”
people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But
we sometimes forget that there are “challenged” persons in this world who
find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case
then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn’t have been
“right”. Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of
luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a
demand on you.
Life sucks to be the socially retarded John Gabriel. We know. Probably
best if you ended it.
XXX
Prof. Dave U. Random, c/o Department of Mathematics, M.I.T.

[Dave Parker]

He's a big stupid-head.

[John Gabriel]

Post by Dave U. Random

Post by John Gabriel
I did not start this thread to answer your questions or
teach you the New Calculus. I don't give a shit whether
you learn it or no.

Good to hear that.
So then, fuck off, you stupid cunt.
Want to know exactly why?
Sorry, we won't say. But we'll give you a few pointers.
What meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of
unknowing, inexperienced opinion, which you think comprises math, to have
with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert
rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease,
you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.
On a good day you’re a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient
in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You
are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of
all unpleasantness. You try to spread misery and sorrow wherever you go,
fortunately you are inept at that too.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid.
Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the
stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are
trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that
even the neutrons have collapsed.† Stupid gotten so dense that no
intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on
Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy
emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in
our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of math
and physics that we know. I’m sorry. I can’t go on. This is an epiphany of
stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I
don’t have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half
baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this
drivel. "Duh".
The only thing worse than your pathetic attempts at mathematical logic is
your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well…
it didn’t really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative
flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults
among a load of babbling was hardly effective… Maybe later in life, after
you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more
success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us “normal”
people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But
we sometimes forget that there are “challenged” persons in this world who
find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case
then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn’t have been
“right”. Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of
luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a
demand on you.
Life sucks to be the socially retarded John Gabriel. We know. Probably
best if you ended it.
XXX
Prof. Dave U. Random, c/o Department of Mathematics, M.I.T.

Shut up moron.

[Virgil]

Post by John Gabriel

Post by Dave U. Random

Post by John Gabriel
I did not start this thread to answer your questions or
teach you the New Calculus. I don't give a shit whether
you learn it or no.

Good to hear that.
So then, fuck off, you stupid cunt.
Want to know exactly why?
Sorry, we won't say. But we'll give you a few pointers.
What meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of
unknowing, inexperienced opinion, which you think comprises math, to have
with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert
rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease,
you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.
On a good day you’re a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient
in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You
are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of
all unpleasantness. You try to spread misery and sorrow wherever you go,
fortunately you are inept at that too.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid.
Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the
stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are
trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that
even the neutrons have collapsed.† Stupid gotten so dense that no
intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on
Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy
emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in
our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of math
and physics that we know. I’m sorry. I can’t go on. This is an epiphany of
stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I
don’t have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half
baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this
drivel. "Duh".
The only thing worse than your pathetic attempts at mathematical logic is
your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well…
it didn’t really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative
flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults
among a load of babbling was hardly effective… Maybe later in life, after
you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more
success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us “normal”
people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But
we sometimes forget that there are “challenged” persons in this world who
find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case
then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn’t have been
“right”. Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of
luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a
demand on you.
Life sucks to be the socially retarded John Gabriel. We know. Probably
best if you ended it.
XXX
Prof. Dave U. Random, c/o Department of Mathematics, M.I.T.

Shut up moron.

One does not get to be a professor at MIT by being a moron.

But even moron's can make foolish false claims like John Gabriel has
been doing here in this newsgroup
--

[John Gabriel]

Post by Virgil

Post by John Gabriel

Post by Dave U. Random

Post by John Gabriel
I did not start this thread to answer your questions or
teach you the New Calculus. I don't give a shit whether
you learn it or no.

Good to hear that.
So then, fuck off, you stupid cunt.
Want to know exactly why?
Sorry, we won't say. But we'll give you a few pointers.
What meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of
unknowing, inexperienced opinion, which you think comprises math, to have
with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert
rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease,
you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.
On a good day you�re a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient
in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You
are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of
all unpleasantness. You try to spread misery and sorrow wherever you go,
fortunately you are inept at that too.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid.
Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the
stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are
trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that
even the neutrons have collapsed.� Stupid gotten so dense that no
intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on
Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy
emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in
our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of math
and physics that we know. I�m sorry. I can�t go on. This is an epiphany of
stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I
don�t have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half
baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this
drivel. "Duh".
The only thing worse than your pathetic attempts at mathematical logic is
your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well�
it didn�t really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative
flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults
among a load of babbling was hardly effective� Maybe later in life, after
you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more
success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us �normal�
people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But
we sometimes forget that there are �challenged� persons in this world who
find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case
then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn�t have been
�right�. Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of
luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a
demand on you.
Life sucks to be the socially retarded John Gabriel. We know. Probably
best if you ended it.
XXX
Prof. Dave U. Random, c/o Department of Mathematics, M.I.T.

Shut up moron.

One does not get to be a professor at MIT by being a moron.
But even moron's can make foolish false claims like John Gabriel has
been doing here in this newsgroup
--

Ha, ha, ha! If you believed that idiot is a prof. at MIT, you will believe anything. But that does not surprise me because you are a moron! :-)

[Steve Jeffries]

Shut up, fuckwit.

[Dave U. Random]

Post by John Gabriel

Post by Dave U. Random

Post by John Gabriel
I did not start this thread to answer your questions or
teach you the New Calculus. I don't give a shit whether
you learn it or no.

Good to hear that.
So then, fuck off, you stupid cunt.
Want to know exactly why?
Sorry, we won't say. But we'll give you a few pointers.
What meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of
unknowing, inexperienced opinion, which you think comprises math, to have
with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert
rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease,
you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.
On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient
in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You
are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of
all unpleasantness. You try to spread misery and sorrow wherever you go,
fortunately you are inept at that too.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid.
Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the
stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are
trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that
even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no
intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on
Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy
emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in
our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of math
and physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of
stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I
don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half
baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this
drivel. "Duh".
The only thing worse than your pathetic attempts at mathematical logic is
your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well,
it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative
flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults
among a load of babbling was hardly effective. Maybe later in life, after
you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more
success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal"
people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But
we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who
find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case
then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been
"right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best
of luck in the emotional and social struggles that seem to be placing
such a demand on you.
Life sucks to be the socially retarded John Gabriel. We know. Probably
best if you ended it.
XXX
Prof. Dave U. Random, c/o Department of Mathematics, M.I.T.

Shut up moron.

Don't you call me "moron", you fucking stupid, cum-drinking, cunt-sucking,
ass-licking, drool-slurping, shit-eating, piss-slobbering, vomit-addicted
pile of feces. I know you couldn't stop cornholing that scumsac whore of a
mother of yours, while that pathetic excuse for a man who you think is
your dad was lying in a drunken heap on the floor. Her pus-filled,
bleeding cunt which disgorged you was too loose for any use, wasn't it?
Even if you were normal sized and not a small-dicked, ever-limp,
dildo-trained, confused, contemptible, verminous and impotent jackass.
I know you frequently considered going out, buying a 45, finding a quiet
place and doing yourself a favor by blowing your brains out.
You would fail in that too. You failed to compute that would take a very
accurate shot, because finding your brains or scrotum is one step short of
impossible. So have you thought of lying prone, putting the barrel up your
diseased anus and squeezing gently? Given luck, any projectile could find
its way to where it is needed most. One fewer antisemite, no big loss.
If you are considering replying, you better keep a decent tongue in your
mouth, asshole, or you will earn a thorough slapping before you
self-terminate. At anon.lcs.mit.edu, we can be very inventive, so don't
rely on this as setting out a definitive tabulation of what we plan to
action.
Don't add my name to your list of those who think your New Calculus is
merely deeply flawed. Do add it to the list of those who know your New
Calculus is as diseased and rotten as your dirtbag mother's swollen labia.
XXX
Prof. Dave U. Random, c/o Department of Mathematics, M.I.T.

[John Gabriel]

Post by Dave U. Random

Post by John Gabriel

Post by Dave U. Random

Post by John Gabriel
I did not start this thread to answer your questions or
teach you the New Calculus. I don't give a shit whether
you learn it or no.

Good to hear that.
So then, fuck off, you stupid cunt.
Want to know exactly why?
Sorry, we won't say. But we'll give you a few pointers.
What meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of
unknowing, inexperienced opinion, which you think comprises math, to have
with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert
rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease,
you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.
On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient
in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You
are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of
all unpleasantness. You try to spread misery and sorrow wherever you go,
fortunately you are inept at that too.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid.
Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the
stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are
trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that
even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no
intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on
Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy
emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in
our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of math
and physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of
stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I
don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half
baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this
drivel. "Duh".
The only thing worse than your pathetic attempts at mathematical logic is
your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well,
it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative
flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults
among a load of babbling was hardly effective. Maybe later in life, after
you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more
success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal"
people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But
we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who
find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case
then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been
"right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best
of luck in the emotional and social struggles that seem to be placing
such a demand on you.
Life sucks to be the socially retarded John Gabriel. We know. Probably
best if you ended it.
XXX
Prof. Dave U. Random, c/o Department of Mathematics, M.I.T.

Shut up moron.

Don't you call me "moron", you fucking stupid, cum-drinking, cunt-sucking,
ass-licking, drool-slurping, shit-eating, piss-slobbering, vomit-addicted
pile of feces. I know you couldn't stop cornholing that scumsac whore of a
mother of yours, while that pathetic excuse for a man who you think is
your dad was lying in a drunken heap on the floor. Her pus-filled,
bleeding cunt which disgorged you was too loose for any use, wasn't it?
Even if you were normal sized and not a small-dicked, ever-limp,
dildo-trained, confused, contemptible, verminous and impotent jackass.
I know you frequently considered going out, buying a 45, finding a quiet
place and doing yourself a favor by blowing your brains out.
You would fail in that too. You failed to compute that would take a very
accurate shot, because finding your brains or scrotum is one step short of
impossible. So have you thought of lying prone, putting the barrel up your
diseased anus and squeezing gently? Given luck, any projectile could find
its way to where it is needed most. One fewer antisemite, no big loss.
If you are considering replying, you better keep a decent tongue in your
mouth, asshole, or you will earn a thorough slapping before you
self-terminate. At anon.lcs.mit.edu, we can be very inventive, so don't
rely on this as setting out a definitive tabulation of what we plan to
action.
Don't add my name to your list of those who think your New Calculus is
merely deeply flawed. Do add it to the list of those who know your New
Calculus is as diseased and rotten as your dirtbag mother's swollen labia.
XXX
Prof. Dave U. Random, c/o Department of Mathematics, M.I.T.

What did you say? Hee, hee. Now tell me, do you remember the name of the orderly who told you that no meds are necessary for you today? :-)

Sorry, I could not read your rant as my glasses are broken.

But in any event, I shit and piss and you. Too sorry for the gluteus maximus that houses an asshole like you. Next time they give you shock therapy, ask them to increase the voltage. It can't do you any more harm! :-)

[John Gabriel]

Post by Dave U. Random

Post by John Gabriel

Post by Dave U. Random

Post by John Gabriel
I did not start this thread to answer your questions or
teach you the New Calculus. I don't give a shit whether
you learn it or no.

Good to hear that.
So then, fuck off, you stupid cunt.
Want to know exactly why?
Sorry, we won't say. But we'll give you a few pointers.
What meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of
unknowing, inexperienced opinion, which you think comprises math, to have
with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your
tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert
rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and
obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living
emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease,
you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.
On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient
in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You
are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of
all unpleasantness. You try to spread misery and sorrow wherever you go,
fortunately you are inept at that too.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid.
Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the
stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are
trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that
even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no
intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on
Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy
emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in
our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial
fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of math
and physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of
stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I
don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half
baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this
drivel. "Duh".
The only thing worse than your pathetic attempts at mathematical logic is
your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well,
it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative
flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults
among a load of babbling was hardly effective. Maybe later in life, after
you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more
success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal"
people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But
we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who
find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case
then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been
"right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best
of luck in the emotional and social struggles that seem to be placing
such a demand on you.
Life sucks to be the socially retarded John Gabriel. We know. Probably
best if you ended it.
XXX
Prof. Dave U. Random, c/o Department of Mathematics, M.I.T.

Shut up moron.

Don't you call me "moron", you fucking stupid, cum-drinking, cunt-sucking,
ass-licking, drool-slurping, shit-eating, piss-slobbering, vomit-addicted
pile of feces. I know you couldn't stop cornholing that scumsac whore of a
mother of yours, while that pathetic excuse for a man who you think is
your dad was lying in a drunken heap on the floor. Her pus-filled,
bleeding cunt which disgorged you was too loose for any use, wasn't it?
Even if you were normal sized and not a small-dicked, ever-limp,
dildo-trained, confused, contemptible, verminous and impotent jackass.
I know you frequently considered going out, buying a 45, finding a quiet
place and doing yourself a favor by blowing your brains out.
You would fail in that too. You failed to compute that would take a very
accurate shot, because finding your brains or scrotum is one step short of
impossible. So have you thought of lying prone, putting the barrel up your
diseased anus and squeezing gently? Given luck, any projectile could find
its way to where it is needed most. One fewer antisemite, no big loss.
If you are considering replying, you better keep a decent tongue in your
mouth, asshole, or you will earn a thorough slapping before you
self-terminate. At anon.lcs.mit.edu, we can be very inventive, so don't
rely on this as setting out a definitive tabulation of what we plan to
action.
Don't add my name to your list of those who think your New Calculus is
merely deeply flawed. Do add it to the list of those who know your New
Calculus is as diseased and rotten as your dirtbag mother's swollen labia.
XXX
Prof. Dave U. Random, c/o Department of Mathematics, M.I.T.

Virgilie, yoohoo! yoohoo! yoohooda!

Is this the professor from MIT? Ha, ha, ha! I am in stitches. ;-)

[r***@siu.edu]

Post by John Gabriel
http://johngabrie1.wix.com/newcalculus#!A-Harvard-alumnus-comments/c9q/15645840-
8C52-49F1-BDE1-C9D909C19C2D
Well, let's get to the survey.
If you think that the New Calculus is flawed or not rigorous, then add your REAL NAME and designation to this thread. Don't worry, I won't use anything against you, even if you are still alive when others are eating crow. :-)
Anons and aliases do not count. In fact, they don't exist.
Jack Huizenga Mathematics professor (Illinois state uni)
Yours? :-)
Aww, come on now, don't be afraid. Besides, I will probably be wrong anyway, and you will not be seen as fools. Scribble away your names!

I find you flawed.

Don Redmond, Dept Math, SIUC

[John Gabriel]

So now we have 4 names:

Jack Huizenga (math. prof Illinois uni)
Tommy R Jensen (asso. math. prof. Korea)
Dan Christensen (undergrad)
Don Redmond (assoc. math. prof. S. Illinois uni)

Another 16 names to go!

[Dan Christensen]

This is how John Gabriel signs his "Calculus Derivative Lesson Plan":

"John Gabriel
Author of the greatest unpublished work in mathematics:
What you had to know in mathematics but your educators could not tell you."


We are all truly humbled, John Gabriel.

[Dan Christensen]

From John Gabriel's website:

"Consider Nominating John Gabriel for the Abel Prize in mathematics.

"I am the discoverer of the first and only, rigorous formulation of calculus in history. Given that hundreds, if not thousands of academics, tried unsuccessfully to formulate a rigorous calculus before me, the New Calculus is a historic and monumental achievement."

I simply had no idea, John Gabriel!

[John Gabriel]

Post by Dan Christensen
"Consider Nominating John Gabriel for the Abel Prize in mathematics.
"I am the discoverer of the first and only, rigorous formulation of calculus in history. Given that hundreds, if not thousands of academics, tried unsuccessfully to formulate a rigorous calculus before me, the New Calculus is a historic and monumental achievement."
I simply had no idea, John Gabriel!

But of course you don't! :-) You are generally clueless about everything. 2+2=?

[Steve Jeffries]

Shut up, imbecile.

[John Gabriel]

It's quite unbelievable. I imagined that on a forum of such idiocy and ignorance, I would easily have 20 academics in my list already.

But thus far, only 4 have added their names. What could be the problem?

Why is it that these academics are afraid to commit their names?