Holy arrogance/annoyance in the Bible: life-lessons from Jesus

[epronovost]

A Q1 level one, but I think the file will be rejected by all of the important journals

Which one there are hundreds of Q1 level scientific publication?

 

[questfortruth]

Which one there are hundreds of Q1 level scientific publication?

This is private information, I do not want any harm from the public to my case.

 

[questfortruth]

Which journal? I would like to read it if it's published.

Also, what will you do if this journal also reject your paper? Will you post it here to seek some sort of vindication? Will try again until some "vanity publisher" publish you? Would you reconsider the scientific value of your work?

 

[Polymath257]

And now tell in your own words about an absolutely impossible option: I proved everything right, but the editor did not process the wise and nice paper out of own stupidity and bias.

You are right. It is absolutely impossible.

Editors *love* to publish good papers. For a valid proof of the Goldbach conjecture, almost any editor would *make* room, pushing other papers away to get it into their journal.

I have read some of your writing. And if a student in an introductory class presented such i as a proof, it would be given a failing mark.

My advice to you is to actually go and take a math class that involves proofs (or even a class in philosophy on logic). You might learn something.

 

[questfortruth]

You are right. It is absolutely impossible.

CV:
School is completed with Gold Medal (1993),
Tartu University (physics) - cum laude (1997),
Authorship in Physical Review E, European Physical J. B.
I am in no way a retarded one, just different.
I am different from a billion people.

 

[Samael_Khan]

CV:
School is completed with Gold Medal (1993),
Tartu University (physics) - cum laude (1997),
Authorship in Physical Review E, European Physical J. B.
I am in no way a retarded one, just different.
I am different from a billion people.
Watch "Why people seem Crazy" in YouTube

Is it possible to achieve anything in our fallen world (and in the scientific community) without a fair amount of arrogance/annoyance? If you are not a celebrity, and not born into a Hawking family, then be very arrogant and even annoying when it is really required.

"Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me." Luke 18:5.

"And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth. And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given" Luke 11:7-9.

Suppose, an editor of the top math journal pointed to you (in fact - only me):

"I will not accept your manuscript about the Goldbach hypothesis for review, because it is clearly not correct (in this place ....); and I will not accept any revision of the manuscript, because this is the final decision.
P.S. A lot of idiots write to us every day." (This reflects the main points in the original quote.)

But I advise you to send your revised manuscript again as if nothing had happened. Yes, they will scold and curse, they will ignore. But at least you tried to break into the Shining World of buffet champagne, private helicopters, and elite scientific parties.

Comment: "You are probably an idiot, what millions are hanging around the dirty dark streets and pushing mental garbage and absurdity into magazine entrances; or you have made a childish mistake somewhere in the paper. There can be no other option because the world is not as bad as one might think from your complaints."

And now tell in your own words about an absolutely impossible option: I proved everything right, but the editor did not process the wise and nice paper out of own stupidity and bias. By the way, do not make the sin by blaming the victim: "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep." Romans 12:15; "Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job." Job 42:8.

Comment: "then post the file directly here on our forum, we will check out your level of stupidity."

The journal editors are wiser than the current public (by definition of editoring), a journal has received now my file.

Comment: "Which journal? I would like to read it if it's published. Also, what will you do if this journal also rejects your paper? Will you post it here to seek some sort of vindication? Will try again until some "vanity publisher" publish you? Would you reconsider the scientific value of your work?"

A Q1 level one, but I think the file will be rejected by all of the important journals (because I am cursed by my father: there was a divorce, and he was angry at mom, and said some unjust words about his son; yes, Cross of Jesus has destroyed any curse, which I had, but there is a historic fact: once I was cursed.). After the complete rejection by all journals, I would like to post it here. Condition: I must keep the feeling, what the paper is good. That is not guaranteed, because some editor or even myself could find a fatal mistake. I am looking for a mistake every day.

I remember us telling you that if you want to make your case you should present it to professionals to let them see whether you are right, not on this forum. If you can't do that and we don't accept what you say on here because you haven't done it, then what is your next step?

 

[questfortruth]

I remember us telling you that if you want to make your case you should present it to professionals to let them see whether you are right, not on this forum. If you can't do that and we don't accept what you say on here because you haven't done it, then what is your next step?

Friends, I am using the sentences, which I write here with inspiration from the discussion, into my papers (I am not using your sentences because it is your intellectual property). Namely, I am planning to publish a philosophical/sociological paper; and the math paper with the proof in the introduction, what I am not a retarded one: I should be trusted.

 

[Left Coast]

Friends, I am using the sentences, which I write here with inspiration from the discussion, into my papers (I am not using your sentences because it is your intellectual property). Namely, I am planning to publish a philosophical/sociological paper; and the math paper with the proof in the introduction, what I am not a retarded one: I should be trusted.

You seem to be under the false impression that just because someone tells you you're wrong, or could use more education, means you're "retarded." Being wrong doesn't make you stupid. Being uninformed doesn't make you stupid.

This is the kind of basic flaw in comprehension that may explain why your paper was summarily dismissed.

 

[questfortruth]

You seem to be under the false impression that just because someone tells you you're wrong, or could use more education, means you're "retarded." Being wrong doesn't make you stupid. Being uninformed doesn't make you stupid.

This is the kind of basic flaw in comprehension that may explain why your paper was summarily dismissed.

Lady Left Coast, please understand my position here. Facts are:

1. No single logic flaw, rudeness, sin, or a mistake was found in the course of our discussion.
"Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?" John 8:46 NIV.

2. The attack goes against my ability to think, namely without any ground or reason my mental health is put under the doubt and scrutiny.

 

[Left Coast]

Lady Left Coast, please understand my position here. Facts are:

1. No single logic flaw, rudeness, sin, or a mistake was found in the course of our discussion.
"Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?" John 8:46 NIV.

2. The attack goes against my ability to think, namely without any ground or reason my mental health is put under the doubt and scrutiny.

Again, Sir Questfortruth, you can be wrong about something without being stupid. You understand that, right?

 

[questfortruth]

Again, Sir Questfortruth, you can be wrong about something without being stupid. You understand that, right?

I understand you, but I am not obligated to confess a hypothetical mistake if the mistakes are not found yet: "Do not contradict the truth, and be ashamed of your stupidity" (Sirah 4:29, Synodical Bible).
That is the Presumption of Innocence in the Bible: a mental ability must not be put under public scrutiny because if mistakes or flaws are not proven, they must not be brought to public space: the people have human dignity.

 

[Left Coast]

I understand you, but I am not obligated to confess a hypothetical mistake if the mistakes are not found yet: "Do not contradict the truth, and be ashamed of your stupidity" (Sirah 4:29, Synodical Bible).
That is the Presumption of Innocence in the Bible: a mental ability must not be put under public scrutiny because if mistakes or flaws are not proven, they must not be brought to public space: the people have human dignity.

And no one asked you to confess a hypothetical mistake. You are knocking down straw men.

 

[questfortruth]

And no one asked you to confess a hypothetical mistake. You are knocking down straw men.

The history of our talks:
1. The editor has found a mistake in my proof for Goldbach's strong conjecture, and told me, that he will not read any revision of the manuscript, because: "many idiots are writing to us every day." (This reflects the main point in the original quote.)
2. I have managed to fix the mistake and wrote the revision file.
What should I do next? I think, that I should somewhat annoy this editor by sending him the revised file, even when he has said: "no file will be accepted for review, the decision is final."
3. The reason for such insistence is the desire to step into Shining World of the top scientific community, the circle of Einstein, Hawking, Michio Kaku.

 

[Left Coast]

The history of our talks:
1. The editor has found a mistake in my proof for Goldbach's strong conjecture, and told me, that he will not read any revision of the manuscript, because: "many idiots are writing to us every day." (This reflects the main point in the original quote.)
2. I have managed to fix the mistake and wrote the revision file.
What should I do next? I think, that I should somewhat annoy this editor by sending him the revised file, even when he has said: "no file will be accepted for review, the decision is final."
3. The reason for such insistence is the desire to step into Shining World of the top scientific community, the circle of Einstein, Hawking, Michio Kaku.

If you send him the revised file, I wonder how he would reply?

Would you be willing to post the entire review he gave?

 

[questfortruth]

If you send him the revised file, I wonder how he would reply?

Would you be willing to post the entire review he gave?

Yes, but it can take up to 6 months because the file is sent into another journal.

 

[QuestioningMind]

And now tell in your own words about an absolutely impossible option: I proved everything right, but the editor did not process the wise and nice paper out of own stupidity and bias.

Being familiar with your complete lack of comprehension about how science works, I find it virtually impossible to believe that your paper in any way 'proved everything right.' Your posts on here have never even come close to proving anything right, so why would your paper be any different?

 

[QuestioningMind]

And now tell in your own words about an absolutely impossible option: I proved everything right, but the editor did not process the wise and nice paper out of own stupidity and bias. By the way, do not make the sin by blaming the victim: "Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep." Romans 12:15; "Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job." Job 42:8.

Don't make the mistake of claiming to be a victim of someone else's bias when in truth you're just the victim of your own self-imposed ignorance. People have often tried to suggest that you need to educate yourself on these topic, but your phenomenal ego forces you to insist that you already know it all.

 

[Bear Wild]

The winter is near.

That was useless. I asked you what you meant by "in our fallen world" and you give me the almost identical banner to the starks. "Winter is coming". Can you, not in some video which does not answer the question, explain what you mean.

 

[Bear Wild]

I like Enya's music but i do not understand what it has to do with anything you are posting.

 

[Polymath257]

If you send him the revised file, I wonder how he would reply?

Would you be willing to post the entire review he gave?

The editor asked to NOT have anything resubmitted. That alone says just how far from a correct proof it was.

I can pretty much guarantee that another submission to the same editor will have the paper filed in round storage and no reply sent.