torsdag 26 augusti 2021 kl. 12:09:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 01:20:53 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 25 augusti 2021 kl. 17:33:51 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 07:54:14 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 24 augusti 2021 kl. 14:50:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 24 August 2021 at 01:16:03 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > måndag 23 augusti 2021 kl. 15:42:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 08:24:09 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > fredag 20 augusti 2021 kl. 14:06:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:00:07 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:52:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 01:16:18 UTC-4, zelos....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:49:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 00:55:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 13:35:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 00:54:52 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I've spoken at length about Euler's main Blunder S = Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And as we have pointed out, it is r=Lim S
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is "we"? LMAO. You mean yourself idiot!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can point out many things which are products of your illogical thoughts. That does not mean you are correct.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact you cannot even get this right shows how badly you understand things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean the fact that I don't agree with your drivel means I don't understand? Chuckle.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The we are many people...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And ALL of them CRANKS like you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The crank is you because we agree with mainstream, you're the one that don't and check all the boxes of crank behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > > There is only ONE checkbox to check:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > All else is drivel.
> > > > > > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false..
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That applies to you Gerbil
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And you are as always, wrong
> > > > > > > > > "Nah Uh" is your typical response because you have no arguments and you're a retard with the maturity level of a 1 yr old.
> > > > > > > > Yet you do the same :) So your maturity is no better.
> > > > > > > I've explained to you very clearly that your definition may not hold in all cases, but mine does! :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your "Nah Uh" response simply confirms you're an idiot.
> > > > > > > ****A crank is MALUM who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence. ****
> > > > > > > Holds unconditionally.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ****Crank is a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.****
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is conditional. Do you understand the difference? Ask, if you don't.
> > > > > > You keep bitching like a toddler but the crank is you and only you
> > > > > Try to answer the question instead of throwing a toddler tantrum. Chuckle.
> > > > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > > That is the decree of the Church of Academia which is a cult.
> > > > > > We can check all the criterias on how a crank behaves.
> > > > > Criteria does not have an "s" at the end. Oops-Allah? (Uppsala university?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Come on man, English is not my native language and I am a terrible writer. If I can do it, why can't you?
> > > > > Oh wait, you are a crank!
> > > > >
> > > > > Tsk, tsk.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You want to? I got the list :)
> > > > > We know the only criterion:
> > > > >
> > > > > ****A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.****
> > > > >
> > > > > THIS AND NOTHING ELSE is the ONLY criterion.
> > > > We know
> > > > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false.
> > > > The rest is you attempting to perform ad hominems here :)
> > > >
> > > > But there is a list of common things cranks do with it, we can go through it. You and I, shall we?
> > > >
> > > > Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
> > > > Most definitely you, you do this all the time.
> > > >
> > > > Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important..
> > > > Yes, you. Your book is "soooo important"
> > > >
> > > > Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
> > > > This is you, with the whole Lim S=S thing.
> > > >
> > > > Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
> > > > Can't say this, lets leave it blank to be nice to you.
> > > >
> > > > seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
> > > > Definitely you, you do not understand set theory, standard calculus, dedekinds, cauchy or really anything!
> > > >
> > > > stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone shows that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
> > > > You
> > > >
> > > > compare themselves with luminaries in their chosen field (often Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Leonhard Euler, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Georg Cantor),[citation needed] implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is not good reason for it to be dismissed,
> > > > Yepp, you and archimedes.
> > > >
> > > > claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically backed up by conspiracy theories invoking intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
> > > > Definitely you, this is where you anti-semitism always pop up cause you constantly say they are jewish.
> > > >
> > > > appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
> > > > Most definitely you.
> > > > exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
> > > > You, you cannot make a proper proof.
> > > > misunderstand or not use standard notation and terminology,
> > > > Again from before, you. Lim S=S is classical amongst many other things.
> > > > ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
> > > > Again, you.
> > > I know:
> > > A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
> > > It describes you very well indeed! :)
> >
> > Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of their contemporaries consider to be false
> > Both describes you very well :)
>
> "A crank is one who cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence."
> It's YOU.
Nope, again, I agree with mainstream. You are the crank.