All you've ever done in comparison is a website
Oh really. Your research of my career is very myopic. First of all, Coolpage.com was not just a website, it was a downloadable software written in C++. Also I have worked on other million user commercial products such as what is now Corel Painter.
Ah you are 34. That explains a lot. Read on...
You are certainly full of it!!
I don't want to be, nor ever did wish to be part of your "gang". Even if you had good ideas, working with you side by side would be enough to drive me to a noose within a week, if not shorter.
You are by far one of the most arrogant, condescending, patronizing, egoistic, obtuse, self worshiping individuals I've EVER had the misfortune to have to encounter, and believe me sir, I've encountered many indeed. In the past I was consoled by the fact that dealing with these individuals was necessary to achieve some goal, unfortunately here there is no such comfort.
All you do is attempt to assert authority over others by shouting and aiming negative comments towards them, and not once I've I ever seen anything of you to back up any of your exaggerated claims about how smart you are, or how skilled, or anything else for that matter. Its just noise!
For example, the paper you attempted to sell for $20,000 that included some holy grail which was as it was turned out, done by Monero months before you. You then spent the next month trying to discredit theirs instead of just accepting the fact that they beat you to it (we still haven't seen the paper you claimed to have writing so that could be total bollocks too!) The "code" you published on Git, anyone could of done that, no deity skills required there.
You've spent 3 years talking, and trying to convince everyone on here that you are some God, when if you are as good as you state you are, you could have proved it with a product.
Finally just for the record, as you seem to have a very high regard for ego justified by past achievement, and as this is a private conversation....here we go:
I've touched more lives in my 34 years time here on earth than you ever will. I'd wager that most of the planet have used something in their hands, that I had design, development or technical input into, and millions likely still do today, everyday and I've plenty of fuel left in the tank to touch plenty more.
How does that compare? All you've ever done in comparison is a website and lots of talking about how great you are. Your ego is your +1 everywhere, because you feel naked and vulnerable without it. I don't need an ego, despite my achievements I know that constantly telling everyone about ones achievements makes you sound like a total douche, and plus people then are only interested in you for what you did, not what you are doing, WHO WANTS THAT? Weak people. I check mine in at the door, I don't need one as I'm happy for all to see whatever they see.
I suggest that we refrain from each others threads from now on.
Note Eric S. Raymond is the 150+ IQ progenitor of the term "open source" and his famous writings Cathedral and the Bazaar, Magic Cauldron, etc..
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404Ego is for little people
Posted on 2009-11-09 by Eric Raymond
When I got really famous and started to hang out with people at the top of the game in computer science and other fields, one of the first things I noticed is that the
real A-list types almost never have a major territorial/ego thing going on in their behavior. The B-list people, the bright second-raters, may be all sharp elbows and ego assertion, but there’s a calm space at the top that the absolutely most capable ones get to and tend to stay in.
[...]
No. It’s more that ego games have a diminishing return. The farther you are up the ability and achievement bell curve, the less psychological gain you get from asserting or demonstrating your superiority over the merely average, and the more prone you are to welcome discovering new peers because there are so damn few of them that it gets lonely. There comes a point past which winning more ego contests becomes so pointless that even the most ambitious, suspicious, external-validation-fixated strivers tend to notice that it’s no fun any more and stop.
[...]
And yet, there are people out there who are going to read the previous paragraph and think “Oh, that’s Eric’s ego again. The blowhard.” I’ve had a lot of time to get used to such reactions over the last decade, but it’s still hard for me not to collapse in helpless laughter at the implied degree of Not Getting It.
[...]
I think there are a couple of different reasons people tend to falsely attribute pathological, oversensitive egos to A-listers. Each reason is in its own way worth taking a look at.
The first and most obvious reason is projection. “Wow, if I were as talented as Terry Pratchett, I know I’d have a huge ego about it, so I guess he must.” Heh. Trust me on this; he doesn’t. This kind of thinking reveals a a lot about somebody’s ego and insecurity, alright, but not Terry’s.
There’s a flip side to projection that I think of as the “Asimov game”. I met Isaac Asimov just a few months before he died. Isaac had long been notorious for broadly egotistical behavior and a kind of cheerful bombast that got up a lot of peoples’ noses. But if you ever met him, and you were at all perceptive, you might see that it was all a sort of joke. Isaac was laughing inside at everyone who took his “egotism” seriously – and, at the same time, watching hungrily for people who could see through the self-parody, because they might – might – actually be among the vanishingly tiny minority that constituted his actual peers. The Asimov game is a constant temptation to extroverted A-listers; I’ve been known to fall into it myself. It’s not really anybody’s fault that a lot of people are fooled by it.
Another confusing fact is that though A-listers may not be about ego or status competition, they will often play such games ruthlessly and effectively when that gets them something they actually want. The something might be more money from a gig, or a night in the hay with an attractive wench, or whatever; the point is, if you catch an A-lister in that mode, you might well mistake for egotism some kinds of display behavior that actually serve much more immediate and instrumental purposes.
Your typical A-lister in that situation (and this includes me, now) is blithely unconcerned that a bystander might think he’s egotistical; the money or the wench or the whatever is the goal, not the approval or disapproval of bystanders.Finally, a lot of people confuse arrogance with ego. A-listers (and I am including myself, again, this time) are, as a rule, colossally arrogant. That is, they have utter confidence in their ability to meet challenges that would humble or break most people. Do not be fooled by the self-deprecating manner that many A-listers cultivate; it is a mask adopted for social purposes, mostly to avoid freaking out the normal monkeys. But this arrogance is not the same as egotism; in fact, in many ways it is the opposite.
It is possible to be arrogant about one’s abilities compared to the statistically average human being and the range of challenges one is likely to encounter, but deeply and genuinely humble when dealing with peers or contemplating the vastness of one’s own ignorance and incapability relative to what one could imagine being. In fact, this combination of attitudes is completely typical of the A-listers I have known.The behaviors most people think of as “egotism” tend to be driven out by arrogance rather than motivated by it.
If you really believe bone-deep that you are superior, you don’t act insecure and twitchy and approval-seeking, because you just aren’t! Arrogance doesn’t even have to be justified to drive out egotism – it just has to be there. It’s all the more powerful an egotism-banisher when the arrogance is actually well-justified by the A-lister’s track record. Thus, egotists are usually people who have not yet established their capability to themselves, or who had that confidence in the past but are beginning to doubt it.
Finally, I think a lot of people need to believe that A-listers invariably have flaws in proportion to their capabilities in order not to feel dwarfed by them. Thus the widely cherished belief that geniuses are commonly mentally unstable; it’s not true (admissions to mental hospitals per thousand drop with increasing IQ and in professions that select for intelligence, with the lowest numbers among mathematicians and theoretical physicists) but if you don’t happen to be a genius yourself it’s very comforting. Similarly, a dullard who believes A-listers are all flaky temperamental egotists can console himself that, though he may not be smarter than them, he is better. And so it goes.
Ego is for little people. I wish I could finish by saying something anodyne about how we’re all little when you come down to it, but I’d be fibbing. Yeah, we’re all little compared to a supernova, but that’s beside the point. And yeah, the most capable people in the world are routinely humbled by what they don’t know and can’t do, but that is beside the point too. If you look at how humans relate to other humans – and in particular, how they manage self-image and “ego” and evaluate their status with respect to others…it really is different near the top end of the human capability range. Better. Calmer. Sorry, but it’ s true.
