Topic: I have to mute most of the people who I communicate with on this site. (Read 119 times)

Zlantann-Wow. You truly are a terrible person. You are now being ignored because you are clearly full of evil and hatred. You are a chlurmck, and modern society has absolutely no place for garbage entities like you are. You clearly have no problem with the hateful entities replying to me, but you think I am the problem because I am ignoring people and rightfully calling them stupid? You are truly a disgusting pile of goop. No. I will not communicate with people like you until you learn what you have done wrong! I was a good professor. And as a good professor, I am calling out universities for promoting violence. The professors who have not called out universities for promoting violence as the bad professors. But you clearly want me to just take violence because you are evil.

Do not expect me to respond to any of your asinine and hateful comments. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder because you have been consumed by your own evil.

One of the main features of scholars is their ability to take responsibility for their mistakes and change their wrong behavior. I can clearly state that you are not willing to learn Dr. Joseph. You should always acknowledge that everybody has different views about life and you will not force them to accept your ideology or belief. I have seen many threads in which you expressed your views and members accepted them and you even earned some merits from those posts. If you keep intimidating and insulting people in this forum, very soon you will be talking to yourself alone because everybody will be on your ignore list including me.


I don't think you have learned to be respectful and accommodating. You are teaching the younger generation to be disrespectful and you claim to be a Professor.

be.open-You are being ignored. I cannot apply to your b***s***. If you want me to reply to you, you will need for someone else to quote you because you are being ignored. And if your response is intelligent, I may unignore you.

You simply have nothing to answer on the merits, because I pointed out a gross logical error in your conclusions and your problems with communication and self-identification. And you did not find anything better than to go to direct insults that you promised to ignore me. It turns out that you lied to me. Not good. But I'm not mad at you because you're still funny. Funny lying asshole lol.

Now go fuck yourself.

be.open-I am ignoring you. I am not going to respond to your comment. You seem to be completely and utterly consumed by your own hatred. You are a terrible person. You hate education. You are f***ing stupid.

Do I understand correctly that you identify yourself with science and knowledge? Lol dude, you're funny. I do not hate you, because it is not rational to cultivate such a destructive feeling for a person who cannot even choose an avatar to stop being faceless on this forum. I appreciate your contribution to science, although I can't verify the veracity of what you say about your doctorate, but you wouldn't lie about such things, would you? Lol, you're really funny.

Hispo-"You are aware that if people claim you are a troll, it must be because in their eyes, your points and the way your express yourself is rather irrational or not flexible, aren't you?"-People only think I am a troll when I make a reasoned logical argument. This is because the people on this site are low quality specimens. And the reputation section is definitely a place that I do not want to be. The cryptocurrency sector knows absolutely nothing about reputation since they worship Sam Bankman Fried and the thought of using cryptocurrency mining to solve the most important scientific problem. The cryptocurrency sector also has a very bad reputation, so you might want to think about that.

Marykeller-"Does it important if you bring your academic credentials to the discussion? Will it alter or improve the forum in any way?"-Sometimes it is necessary. Are you offended that I brought up my academic degree? I sure hope not. The cryptocurrency community hates education, so of course they will be naturally offended by me.

"In conclusion, the goal of everyone participating in this forum is to learn, share knowledge, and engage in civil discourse."-Then let's do that.

I would rather talk about something like reversible computation here, but I cannot because the chlurmcks here would rather be chlurmcklets.

Does it matter to bring in your academic qualification to the forum board discussion? Will it alter or improve the forum in any way? Many forum participants may hold master's and doctoral degrees in their fields, but you wouldn't know it since they choose to maintain a level playing field with other forum members rather than taking pride in having earned the highest academic honor.

In case you are unaware of or have forgotten the motivation for creating this forum. The goal is to touch people worldwide with crypto knowledge regardless of their gender, educational background, religion, or other personal characteristics.

In conclusion, the goal of everyone participating in this forum is to learn, share knowledge, and engage in civil discourse.

You are aware that if people claim you are a troll, it must be because in their eyes, your points and the way your express yourself is rather irrational or not flexible, aren't you?

Also, this is the Politics and Society section, by the way. This thread would fit more in the Reputation section, since there is where people make public their ignore lists and the reasons that drove them to ignore certain people on the forum. It is also the place where people can openly debate on the reputation and behavior of others.

Here it is the board, in case you have not found it yet: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0

 

be.open-"You don't have to answer me, we don't know each other, but I don't like you anymore."-Then you are ignored because you clearly hate knowledge and science too.


Hispo-The truth hurts. The Bitcoin community is filled with science haters.

"Bitcoin was built through science and knowledge as well, so it would not make sense people around here are stupid or against things as important as those."-I never claimed that the Bitcoin community made much sense.

"Is there is a chance some those you talked to were newbies or misinformed people who are new in this community?"-No.

Dr. Joseph, I think you are being a little bit too harsh with this community. I seriously doubt that people around are are enemies of knowledge and scientific advance and I also doubt they may be mistreating you because you have managed to get a PhD in mathematics. 

Actually, if you take a look at the technical discussion section, you could find interesting threads and discussions about subjects like cryptography, computer science and mathematics applied to Bitcoin and other currencies.  Bitcoin was built through science and knowledge as well, so it would not make sense people around here are stupid or against things as important as those. 

Is there is a chance some those you talked to were newbies or misinformed people who are new in this community?

Cheers.

The fact that you have a PhD in math doesn't decrease, but rather increases, your chances of being an asshole in the art of communication. An inflated ego is a bad ally in pleasant conversations.

Why do you even need people to talk to here if you have such a high opinion of yourself and such a low opinion of others? Talk to yourself. You don't have to answer me, we don't know each other, but I don't like you anymore.

Zlantann-I understand that I have not always been nice to the people here. I have ignored many of those people already. Hopefully, after ignoring enough people on this site, I will be able to have decent conversations with the few remaining people who are left. I can have a decent conversation but only with high quality entities. I ignore all low quality entities and chlurmcks.

It is always educating to read posts from a learned scholar like you. Bagging a Ph.D. in Mathematics is a noble achievement and I have you in high regard. The summary of your post is that we can argue or disagree on certain issues but we shouldn't attack or insult members because of their views. We indeed have different views and perceptions on diverse subjects, hence we must allow people to air their views without intimidation or personal attack.

I have been in this forum for a few years now and I have not been subjected to anti-intellectual hatred like you claimed. Sometimes some members overreact during discussions but this is not the behavior of most of the members. You have always complained of ill-treatment from members of the forum but you are also guilty of the same offense. This is because some of your posts contain abusive words or insults.

Hi. The people on this site seriously need to work on their social skills so that they do not come across as the chlurmcks who they are. On this site, I can hardly have a decent conversation with anyone here because the people here are full of anti-intellectual hatred.

1. If I am talking about how I have been working on a dimensionality reduction that takes a collection of n by n matrices (A_1,...,A_r) and returns a collection of d by d matrices (X_1,...,X_r) for some d
2. I have a Ph.D. in Mathematics. That means I understand mathematics. Whenever I say that I have a Ph.D. in Mathematics, the people on this site automatically think that I am stupid. That is wrong. The only reason why people hate me for being educated and having something to say about cryptocurrency technologies is that the people on this site are a bunch of chlurmcks.

3. People accuse me of being a troll on this site because I say something that people disagree with here. Um. Disagreeing with you is not trollery.

What you can do.

If you have a disagreement with what I have to say, then you should try to disagree at the highest level of Graham's Heirarchy of Disagreement.

DH0: Name calling: This is how the people on this site often respond. I admit that sometimes I respond this way to people, but this is only because they have already shown their hatred and anti-intellectualism. At this point, I will have no more to say but to ignore these entities because the conversation is done.

DH1: Ad Hominem: This means that you are attacking the authority of a person instead of the argument being given. With that being said, an Ad Hominem argument is not always fallacious. For example,

DH2: Responding to tone: It is better to respond to the content of what someone is saying rather than about what you think they meant. Maybe they have the tone that they do as a response to what you have said. That does not matter. You need to respond to what people say because nobody is going to go anywhere or learn anything as long as you are only responding to how someone says something. Of course, it may be sometimes appropriate to respond to the tone, but in my experience, but if someone is acting like a total chlurmck, it is better to ignore such an entity.

DH3: Contradiction: If you are contradicting what someone is saying, you are simply making a claim. A claim is good for letting people know what you believe or endorse, but it is better to back up such a claim with evidence.

DH4: Counterargument: This means that you are not only making a claim, but you are giving a reason for your claim. This is better. But when you make a counterargument, make sure that your counterargument is free from fallacious ideas and is supported with sufficient reason and evidence. For example, if I say "Cryptocurrencies should have mining algorithms that are designed not only to establish consensus and secure the cryptocurrency, but these mining algorithms should solve an important scientific problem", then you may respond with a counterargument by saying "But that has been tried before, and it did not work so well in the past. For example, Primecoin mining requires the miners to compute chains of prime numbers, but not even mathematicians who study number theory are interested in these chains of prime numbers. This so-called useful mining algorithm is not as useful as you would like it to be. I am skeptical that anyone would ever come up with a cryptocurrency mining algorithm that both solves an important scientific problem and establishes decentralized consensus because all of the useful problems that I see do not have the cryptographic properties that we need to establish decentralized consensus."

DH5: Refutation: You refute a point that your opponent is trying to get across.

DH6: Refuting the central point: In this case, you refute the main idea that your opponent is trying to get across. It is better to refute the main idea of your opponent than a particular argument that your opponent has made since your opponent may have several arguments in need of refutation.

Joseph Van Name Ph.D.
-Creator of Circcash