From: cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Fermat's flunkeys (was Re: A Real Challenge)
Date: 11 Apr 92 06:02:17 GMT
Reply-To: cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA)
Organization: Project EOS - North Carolina State University

michaelg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Greenwald) writes:

>Chris, I think you're overreacting, (a little unfairly, at that), and
>missing my point.  It's possible that this is because my post was
>unclear, and if so, I apologize. 

No, I apologize for collectively addressing all my peeves in what appeared to
be a response to your posting. I had just scanned through some nasty email
and after reading your reply I guess I just went off like a bomb.

>I don't believe that I used the word "misinformation..[deleted]..Changing
>my word(s) to beligerent one(s) and responding to them is not a reasonable 
>way to argue.

You didn't use the word. Kyle did.
While I might have misunderstood your article, I *haven't* misquoted you or 
anyone else.

>I'm trying to point out ways where you misinterpreted things as (personal?)
>attacks, and where you respond in a way that might escalate into flame-bait,
>rather than an argument.  

Most of the article was directed at others who responded both on the
net and by email and since it wasn't proper to quote the latter, I decided
(rather foolishly, now it seems) to leave out quotes altogether. I did
misunderstand your point in your posting, but you were hardly the target of 
that article. I tried (unsuccessfully) to correct this impression  at the 
end of the article with
> >(Sorry Michael, I didn't intend for you to take all the flak.)

In a way, come to think of it, I suppose (on this point) that we're both
guilty.. I assumed you were targetting me simply because your comments
were in response to my posting.. then I did the same thing (admittedly 
on a larger scale) :-()

>However, if you believe that an individual shouldn't share the burden
>of other people's troubles (welfare, national health insurance, etc.)
>.... [deleted]...
>I'm just pointing out that (a) not everyone believes that you should
>use the net as a resource (except as a last resort), and that (b) it
>might be logically inconsistent to both "ask the net" and to believe
>that things like welfare are immoral.

That's just it. You imply that my request was a lazy way out of my 
personal problems. And by comparing it to welfare, I believe you went 
way too far. 

I'm *not* trying to freeload here. A little digression may explain..

I've always had a variety of talents, interests, and maybe obsessions, and I
joined grad school with foolishly idealistic hopes of finding expression
for these. I'm sure there are others who feel the same way too. You 
visualise a schedule that goes something like a daily morning workout
at the gym; intellectually stimulating conversations with faculty and
peers on everything from black holes to relativity to politics (and
maybe FLT?);
some courses in arts, music, foreign languages; a free hand to research
any
area (in your major: CS/CE in my case); and at the same time, make good
grades and graduate on schedule. In the midst of all of this, you
imagine 
you'll have enough time to socialise and have a life as well. Ask any
grad
student and he'll tell you how different reality is: trying to maintain
one's sanity is challenge enough. Which is why pet once-upon-a-time 
interests like FLT never find a place in one's schedule, and given my
major, didn't appear important enough to justify allocating time for.
Under the circumstances, one has to rely on gleaning titbits of 
information on items of interest from conversations with friends and 
peers. If, on the other hand I never heard of FLT again, it would have 
made little difference.

To summarise, therefore, my objective in making the posting was:

a> For the perceived interest and information of those on ROM unaware
of FLT

b>To stimulate a discussion on other similar 'unsolvable' math puzzles
(which, once again, I believed would be interesting to others besides myself)

c>To learn and pick up any interesting pieces of information that may
fall out of ensuing discussions on the topic. This includes corrections.

This is a cooperative process, where everybody learns a thing or two,
and is very different from "broadcasting a request", which I believe
is what you implied it was. The thread I started on "TIME TRAVEL" is 
another example. What kind of personal gain could I derive from it? What
pressing concern was it of mine? It started a reasonably stimulating 
discussion, and many have contributed to it. ( which reminds me: all this
stuff about FLT has prevented me from giving enough time to that topic,
and right now it could do with a little kick-start..)

While I dislike prolonged and continued defenses, the reason for  
rebuttals as these is because I'm opposed in principle to the idea
that one may only use the net as a medium for dispensing "facts".
You don't post articles to show the world how much you know. You 
post articles to probe, to question, to debate, to learn. One cannot 
debate or question a fact.

Hope this reply serves to clear the air somewhat.