 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
| |
BJ21.com Free Message Board
I got it about how removals can be considered from specific regions...
Posted By: Clarke Cant In Response To: (Message Deleted by Poster) (alienated)
Date: 16 Jan 02, 2:52 pm
and I appear to be the only other one. Learn that the discussion is dominated by a narrow clique, and you get nowhere here, and on bjmath.com, rge21.com, and elsewhere, until Don is summoned or you raise hell in discussions (myself). This is especially true with hard to simulate areas of inquiry. Quickly the brush comes out that paints new inquiries with the label: Patterson/Walter/Frank. They may be bogus but not all unconventional is bogus.
I believe you are right that information can be exploited in regard to PARTIAL knowledge of cards removed, as this is. I don't know how far you have gone investigating this either.
It is enough to make one not want to do business with Morgan Stanelly considering how narrow minded their quants thus seemingly be; this is not a very good reflection on Don's "alma-matter."
But carry-on please!
Don is a great teacher, mathprof is a real mathprof, but consider him a teaching mathpro. I would really like to see what Kim Lee might say about such partial removal methods, as he is a real math-pro, and he seldom comments except if Don has pointed him toward a problem! But alas they all conventionalize and trivialize and attack first in the excuse that this is what they think discussion is. And they NEVER appologize when it turns out that someone they attacked is right and made a legitimate discovery. Instead it is, "oh well, welcome to the group. You know we had to be rough...." Well this is suposed to be DISCUSSION not some damn frat hazing or lodge initiation.
| |
BJ21.com Free Message Board is maintained by Pi Yee Press