2Dan analbuttfuckmanure Martha Crago, Ted Hewitt, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie, Justin Trudeau, Francois-Philippe Champagne, Sophie Gregoire, Stephen Lecce, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 1:33:01 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen 34 posts 663 views updated Sep 9

Re: 1.2Analbuttfuckmanure Justin Trudeau,Sophie Gregoire, says Dan Christensen or Kibo//Stephen Lecce, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
by Hoofington P. McSnort Aug 26, 2020, 7:01:28 PM

Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie

Stalker Dan Christensen Analbuttfuckmanure Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie, Justin Trudeau, Sophie Gregoire are you paying Dan to stalk sci.math??? For there is evidence that Canada's NSF is paying people to stalk sci.math & sci.physics.

If indeed, NSF Canada hired the stalker Dan Christensen going back to 2014 and thereabouts, was a huge mistake, for Usenet is self policing. The govt hiring a paid stalker eventually turns to ruin, for although a nitwit like Dan Christensen can tell a crank and moron. The nitwit Dan Christensen cannot tell a genuine scientist doing science outside the box. So in this sense, Francois-Philippe Champagne should resign from the NSF if he is paying stalkers to hunt Usenet.

On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 6:16:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"

Is Canada NSF Francois-Philippe Champagne paying Dan Christensen more money to stalk sci.math, than the top 5 officials at Canada NSF combined and 5X the amount of pay of Univ Toronto professors who teach calculus in classrooms.

In the 1990s Univ Waterloo (correct me if wrong) hosted the archives of Usenet sci.math, sci.physics. And almost daily they posted a FAQ. In the FAQ was a broad warning to students that all manner of posts are in sci.math and sci.physics and that you should examine each post with a "grain of salt" or be highly speculative of what you read. Then around 1993, started this Stalking program of jerks being paid by governments to perpetually stalk posters. And by 2015 apparently Dan Christensen had to get into the act of daily stalking ad hominem attacks, each and every day of a hate sheet Dan concocts on a person.

It was a bad choice to make, to stop the FAQ and replace it with paid goon-squad stalkers like Dan Christensen and their allies. Bad choice because everyone can recognize cranks and crackpots, but hardly anyone can recognize people who think outside of the box.

How much is Canada NSF with Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt responsible for the 7 year long nonstop goon stalker Dan Christensen? Perhaps 0%, perhaps 50% perhaps 100%. And this is probably the reason the Wikipedia quote says-- > Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
> --- end quote ---

I remember the 1990s and many a professor and educator bulking at this idea of paying stalkers like Dan Christensen, some saying that if students cannot recognize cranks and crackpots they never belonged in science in the first place.

So, what worked well was the idea of a Daily FAQ doing the warning, a daily FAQ warning newcomers and students that much of what they read here is full of error. But not the crazy idea of paid for stalkers, because, as I said, a stalker cannot identify a real scientist who is thinking outside the box.

And one of the great reasons Usenet is mostly dead-- is because it is crisscrossed by mindless stalkers being paid handsomely for their banal stalking posts.

So, well, if you want to constantly stalk AP, then you can anticipate a constant reply of this.

Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.

The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 2 OR 1 = 3 and his AND as subtraction.

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>

Apparently Dan Christensen never took calculus or flunked it with this statement.
On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 8:57:54 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:32:51 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex,
>
> From the derivative of each curve at the point of contact you have the slopes of their respective tangents there. (Assuming derivatives are defined there.) From these slopes, you should be able to calculate angle formed.
>
>
> Dan

Re: More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics.
by Dan Christensen Jun 28, 2021, 2:33 PM

Re: Stewart failed Calculus also, and his book should be removed
by Dan Christensen
Jun 24, 2018, 10:52:49 PM

Re: Proof of Kepler Packing//Jan Burse-Alzheimer faggot//ETH Zurich, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, looking at it
by Dan Christensen Jul 9, 2017, 11:34:05 PM

Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,

Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM

Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen 50 posts 951 views updated 8:56 PM

Re: 2-Jill does not have to be a geometry failure like Ken Ribet Re: 1- AMS, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Robert L. Bryant, David Vogan, Eric M. Friedlander, why not go for the truth of mathematics-- the slant cut in cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
By Dan Christensen Nov 15, 2019, 11:01:13 AM

Re: 2:12:53 Germany's sickfuck Franz//Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean of Gottingen do you think 3 OR 2= 5 think 3 AND 2 = 1?? embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
By Dan Christensen 21 posts 136 views updated 12:53 AM

Re: 2Canada's sh)thead stalker Dan in sci.math 1 OR 3 = 4, does Justin Trudeau, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, is that what science is in Canada-- stalking bullies
By Dan Christensen 37 posts 263 views updated Sep 9

Re: Trump smarter in math than MIT & UC, Riverside Math departments, smarter in math than Terry Tao, Ed Witten, Appel & Hakken
By Dan Christensen 7 posts 71 views updated Sep 9

Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong
By Dan Christensen 3 posts 18 views updated Sep 9

Re: 9Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Dan Christensen 11 posts 227 views updated Sep 9

Re: Rik Chandler,One pint short of an empty bladder // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 19 posts 99 views updated Sep 9

Re: Rik Chandler,Useful as a chocolate teapot // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen 16 posts 101 views updated Sep 9

Re: Lisa Thompson,Univ Toronto & Western Ontario, Alex Buchel,Jan Cami,Gordon F. West,Michael B. Walker, -- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole, to busy on Dan
By Dan Christensen 14 posts 265 views updated

Remember the time Dan Christensen thought a vertex point had a derivative calculus?

Here is an example of where Dan Christensen seems to act out his classroom fantasies, and whether he is a threat to students along with being a bully in sci.math.

On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.

The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 2 OR 1 = 3 and his AND as subtraction.

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> >>>>
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> >>>
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> >>>
> >>
> >> What a monsterous fool you are
> >>
> >
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
>
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
>

Apparently Dan Christensen never took calculus or flunked it with this statement.
On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 8:57:54 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:32:51 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex,
>
> From the derivative of each curve at the point of contact you have the slopes of their respective tangents there. (Assuming derivatives are defined there.) From these slopes, you should be able to calculate angle formed.
>
>
> Dan