Kevin Langdon Responds to Chris Langan and
Others on Prometheus' fire List, October 1999

Part Two 

To: fire@PrometheusSociety.org
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: RE: fire Guidelines for the fire list

At 09:22 PM 10/20/99 -0400, Chris Langan wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:

>> Chris wants the rules to say that I can't criticize his stuff.

> Criticize the content to your beady little heart's content. But lay off
> the ad hominem,

This is a classic case of projection.

> and quit appealing to your specialty, negative arguments from authority
> (as in "no great physicists have come down in favor of the CTMU, so
> therefore, it must be absurd!"). It insults the intelligence of your
> (captive) readers.

This isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that Chris has not been able to
provide any evidence that specialists in the fields in which he claims to
have made huge breakthroughs recognize his work as important. I'm
allowing for the possibility that he may do so, at some point, as a
possible alternative to providing any other kind of proof of his many
claims for the CTMU, which he has so far failed to do.

>>> On the other hand, we're voting even now on three ridiculous
>>> proposals by Foghorn...rules he's trying to make to that he can
>>> be an even sharper thorn in the side of those who "cheated him
>>> of power".

>> Those are not my proposals. They were drafted by the officers of
>> Prometheus. You've just managed to insult me (so what else is
>> new?) and all of these people. That isn't very bright, Chris.

> Why did they draft these particular proposals?

They correspond very closely to your chronic forms of abuse.

> I don't think the officers of Prometheus draft proposals until they've
> heard one or more members say there's a need for them. But that's
> neither here nor there. The fact is, once you come down in favor of
> something, it starts to reek. On the other hand, once you come down
> against something, it starts to smell like Aunt Milly's fresh apple pie.

Johnny had gotten left behind because he never studied and always
goofed off, so he was in the same class with his little borther, Joey.
One day, the teacher taught a lesson about different kinds of meat.
First she had Tommy come up to the front of the class and she
harded him a little piece of beef on a toothpick. "What's that,
Tommy?" she asked. "It's beef," answered Tommy, and the teacher
gave him the beef to eat. Then she called on Mary. She gave Mary
a piece of chicken and asked her, "What's that, Mary?" "It's chicken,
teacher," answered Mary and the teacher gave her the chicken to
eat. Next, the teacher called on Johnny's brother Joey. She handed
him a piece of venison, and asked, "What's that, Joey?" Joey looked
at it and said, "I don't know, teacher." The teacher said, "I'll give
you a hint. What does your father call your mother when he comes
home in the evening?" And Johnny called out from the back of the
room, "Don't eat it! It's asshole!"

>> On certain occasions and under certain circumstances, defined by
>> the real conditions pertaining in the world, It turns out, in fact, and
>> not just in theory (though, of course, in theory, too), that the direct
>> experience (as opposed to description or memory) of reading a
>> message (or listening to it being read aloud) leaves relatively little
>> doubt, question, or ambiguity that the cause of the convolution is
>> indeed the writer.

> See? That's why they call him "Foghorn".

Chris really should see someone about his multiple personality disorder.
Nobody has used that name but him.

>>> See how it always comes down to the money with Kevin? One
>>> almost has to wonder how many sixpacks he'd have managed to
>>> get with the pittance he pays for dues, that their loss should
>>> cause him to steam with resentment over the bothersome
>>> propensity of qualified Prometheans to share original ideas on
>>> meaningful intellectual topics.

>> It's not the nickles and dimes, it's the auspices of the society, and
>> the treasury is a convenient symbol for that.

> Actually, I don't think anyone on this list would really agree with the
> premise that of all the "convenient symbols" for the "auspices of the
> society", our minuscule treasury is far and away the best. More like
> a convenient symbol for the embarrassingly transparent envy and
> miserliness of Kevin Foghorn Langdon!

Ho hum.

>>>> The rest of us are playing go, Chris.

>>> My first impulse was to ask you if you have another gerbil in your
>>> pants (to explain the "us"). But instead, I'll just encourage you to
>>> keep on playing "go". Please play it until you've managed to go
>>> far, far away. Then please stay there.

>> I don't imagine you're likely to go away so I guess we'll just have to
>> keep on reading your chessy stuff.

> At least it's a welcome break from the content-free garbage you post
> here.

Ho more hum.

>>>> Where did I say that? In fact, I've been discussing the CTMU.
>>>> Chris just doesn't like what I have to say about it.

>>> That's because you never really say anything about "it", at least as
>>> far as its content is concerned.

More projection.

>>> Instead, you say unkind things about the supposedly absurd claims
>>> I've made for it, or about me personally. But that's not surprising,
>>> because it's clearly over your head.

Still more projection.

>> That's because *you* never say anything with real, empirical import.

> Bullchips. How many times do you intend to tell this lie? Cosmogony,
> the expansion rate of the universe, the mechanism of quantum
> nonlocality - these aren't "empirical"?

They would be if you made any falsifiable predictions.

> If you were Pinoccio, I could grab your mendacious snout without
> leaving my seat.

If you were Dumbo, you could flap your ears all you want but you
couldn't get off the ground until you put down your hobby horse.

>> Yes. But it would still be possible to get opinions from experts in
>> each of the fields involved as to whether the part of it which relates
>> to their specialty is sound. As the guy with the multidisciplinary
>> theory you can object to that only by demanding that people start
>> from where *you* are "inside your castle walls."

> How true. That's because interdisciplinary connections exist
> *between* disciplines, not within them where they can be verified
> by "experts".

If they make any difference they have the potential to improve the
understanding of the fields they touch. I want to see evidence that
such potential is being realized.

> But even if what you say were true, do you think that experts are
> really willing to pay attention to new ideas by non-acadummies?

That's your problem, Chris. Other people are under no obligation to
give a shit.

> What's in it for them? The way they look at it, their time is "too
> valuable" to take a chance on anything that looks too unfamiliar
> (even if it deals with problems they can't solve themselves). The
> only reason you don't know this is that you've never had an
> original idea in your woebegone life.

Ho hum.

>>>> This is that old "mistunderstood genius" crap. A guy presents his
>>>> stuff with big pieces missing and without supporting evidence, in
>>>> a high-IQ society journal or mailing list where all sorts of opinions
>>>> are expressed, and then he's surprised that the various opinions
>>>> expressed are not all as appreciative as he think his material
>>>> warrants, fights with every critic, and pretty soon he thinks that,
>>>> because he can't possibly be wrong, all the criticism is "politics."
>>>> In a pig's eye.

>>> Wait a minute. How about the accelerating expansion of the
>>> universe? How about quantum nonlocality? How about all the
>>> other things that provide empirical confirmation for the CTMU?

>> How about evidence that any of the experts in any of these things
>> are impressed with the insights of Chris Langan?

> See last entry. Also see first entry, where we consider the Langdon-
> patented "negative argument from authority" so beloved of lazy
> dummies who don't want to bother with the ideas of others.

Nobody has time to study everything. If Chris' ideas seemed important
to me in any way I might invest more time in them than I already have,
but I don't see any reason to waste any more of my time. If that makes
me a (nonaca-) dummy, so be it.

>>> For that matter, how about all the rational (logical and
>>> mathematical) evidence for the CTMU, e.g., the simple fact that
>>> it provides a logical framework in which to relate relativity and
>>> quantum mechanics?

>> . . . as all the relativity and quantum mechanics experts will attest.

> Let me make something perfectly clear. Any "relativity expert" or
> "quantum mechanics expert" who thinks that he or she can pass a
> negative judgment on any part of the CTMU sight unseen from the
> anonymous safety of some little ivory-tower cubbyhole is an idiot.
> So is anyone who agrees with that premise. Do you understand? I
> *don't care* what any expert doesn't say about my theory; it's
> absolutely irrelevant to anything except the peace of mind of the
> members you keep bugging about it.

Evidence, Chris, evidence. Where's the beef?

>>> Not everyone has had access to all the material I've provided
>>> regarding these pieces of confirmation, but YOU have. And you
>>> still don't understand word one. How the hell can you even
>>> pretend to belong here?

>> There's no pretense involved. I am a member of Prometheus,
>> whether Chris likes it or not.

> No, you're not. But you clearly *think* you are, and if that makes
> you happy, who am I to argue?

As he has in the Mega Society, Chris is asserting his "right" to make
the rules for everyone else unilaterially.

>>> I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't heard one original idea
>>> worth pursuing ever come out of your mouth.

>> I won't put it quite as strongly as that, but I will say that Chris
>> Langan doesn't make my list of the top 100 thinkers of all time.

> Thank God! I'd be worried if I made the top *thousand*!

No need to worry, then.

>>> You jumped on the high-ceiling test bandwagon years ago, wrote a
>>> couple of tests, used run-of-the-mill statistics to analyze the results,
>>> and now you're claiming to be Benjamin Franklin. Get real!

>> Well, yes, before Benjamin Franklin there was a Benjamin Zukowski.
>> Got electrocuted in a lightning storm.
>>
>> I made it work. My tests made it possible to select at the four-sigma
>> level. The original version was crude but my psychometric methods
>> have improved over the years and the second norming turned out to
>> be pretty accurate.

> Here's the problem: you think that your erstwhile instrumentality in
> facilitating some now-defunct groups makes you scientist-in-chief of
> the super-HIQ community, the purpose of which is naturally to
> provide you with lab rats, sources of dues money, and so on. It's your
> old "The HIQ Community is my Marching Band!" routine that bugs
> people. Can't you just shut up, admit that you were long ago eclipsed
> by Ron Hoeflin and others, and rest on your modest laurels? (fat
> chance)

It's not my band, it's everybody's band, but Chris wants to be the
soloist, even though he keeps playing wrong notes on his tuba.

As for the quality of my work in testing vis a vis that of other test authors,
I leave it to others to assess that.

>>> Again, Kevin doesn't really understand the meaning of "confirmation".
>>> Since other theories make the same predictions and retrodictions as
>>> Einstein's, relativity can't be empirically "proven". Most physicists
>>> prefer it largely because of its extreme mathematical beauty and
>>> elegance. The CTMU has a certain mathematical elegance as well,
>>> but with Kevin in the audience, it's strictly pearls before swine.

>> Show me all the eminent theoretical physicists who don't make use
>> of Einstein's theories and I'll grant you that I don't understand what it
>> means for a theory to be "confirmed."

> What the hell? What does the number of people using a theory have
> to do with confirmation?

Usually when the proponents of a theory are unable to produce any
solid evidence, the theory is forgotten and consigned to the dustheap.

> Even more physicists than use Einstein's theory still use Newton's
> theory, despite the fact that it breaks down like a tin lizzie whenever
> anything moves too fast or gets too heavy!

That's because it works so well for so many purposes. No scientist
expects a theory to be the last word on nature.

> And no matter how many items of confirmation a theory accumulates,
> it still hasn't been "proven"! Only math can do that. But you don't
> know nuthin' from nuthin' about any of the math connected with the
> CTMU, and you probably never will.

That may have something to do with the fact that you won't release it.

> Why not just give up?

Because I'm winning. Your arguments are full of holes and you know
it or you wouldn't keep tossing in *ad hominem* remarks.

>>> Yeah, but so help me, I can't even *see* your arguments.

>> True. But everybody else can.

> "Everybody", no less! I guess you must have a horde of lemmings in
> your pants this time.

Chris, you have no pants. You have no shirt. You have no shoes. The
Emperor is naked.

>>> They seem to be circling somewhere beyond Neptune orbit.

>> Chris, on the other hand, is definitely not beyond the realm of the
>> gas giants.

> Not as long as Kevin keeps hanging around.

> Chris Langan

Chris keeps hanging *himself*.

And he keeps trying to make this about *me*. It isn't. He's made use
of the same bullying, character-assassination tactics with Bob Dick and
Sol Waters, and he'll be happy to do it to *you* if you express any
reservations about how wonderful his patented snake oil is.

Kevin Langdon

To: fire@PrometheusSociety.org
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: RE: fire Guidelines for the fire list

At 11:09 AM 10/21/99 -0400, Chris Langan wrote:

> Now let's move on to the next (and final) major category of Langdon
> thought: the supposed absence of empirical evidence for the CTMU.

> 3. This isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that Chris has not been able to
> provide any evidence that specialists in the fields in which he claims to
> have made huge breakthroughs recognize his work as important. I'm
> allowing for the possibility that he may do so, at some point, as a
> possible alternative to providing any other kind of proof of his many
> claims for the CTMU, which he has so far failed to do.

> 4. < Bullchips. How many times do you intend to tell this lie?
> Cosmogony, the expansion rate of the universe, the mechanism of
> quantum nonlocality - these aren't "empirical"? >

> They would be if you made any falsifiable predictions.

We're still waiting.

> 5. <How true. That's because interdisciplinary connections exist
> *between* disciplines, not within them where they can be verified
> by "experts".>

> If they make any difference they have the potential to improve the
> understanding of the fields they touch. I want to see evidence that
> such potential is being realized.

> 6. Evidence, Chris, evidence. Where's the beef?

We're still waiting.

> 7. Usually when the proponents of a theory are unable to produce
> any solid evidence, the theory is forgotten and consigned to the
> dustheap.

> RESPONSE: The CTMU predicts nonlinear expansion of the universe
> (and did so years ago). The universe has now been observed to expand
> nonlinearly. Since the CTMU alone gives a logical mechanism for this
> phenomenon (Noesis/ECE 139, 140, 142), it constitutes evidence for
> the CTMU.

There's an old saying used to indicate that a person isn't too bright: Give
him two guesses and he can tell which way an elevator's going.

Leaving aside the fact that the way the universe is expanding is highly
controversial and there is no standard model at the present time, this is
much too general to be of much evidentiary value. A scientific prediction
should be specific enough that it's unlikely to be right by chance.

> The CTMU retrodicts quantum nonlocality. Quantum nonlocality has
> been experimentally verified.

And the concept of quantum nonlocality has been around a lot longer
than the CTMU. My theory predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow.

> Since the CTMU alone gives a logical mechanism for this
> phenomenon that is consistent with central principles of physics

This has not been established.

> (ibidem), it constitutes evidence for the CTMU.

Chris is grasping at straws.

> I could go on, but why overload Kevin's already failing circuitry?
> Kevin must now explain why these phenomena do NOT constitute
> evidence for the CTMU in the confirmational sense.

I just did.

> Make it a good one, Kev - your entire reputation hinges on pulling
> this off.

> Good luck!

> Chris Langan

I'll be interested in Chris' response.

If Chris hadn't wasted everybody's time with a lot of personal attacks
we could have reached this point a long time ago.

Kevin Langdon

To: fire@PrometheusSociety.org
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: RE: fire Guidelines for the fire list

At 12:22 PM 10/21/99 -0400, Chris Langan wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:

>>> RESPONSE: The CTMU predicts nonlinear expansion of the
>>> universe (and did so years ago). The universe has now been
>>> observed to expand nonlinearly. Since the CTMU alone gives a
>>> logical mechanism for this phenomenon (Noesis/ECE 139, 140,
>>> 142), it constitutes evidence for the CTMU.

>> There's an old saying used to indicate that a person isn't too bright:
>> Give him two guesses and he can tell which way an elevator's going.

> No he can't. He'd need someone to confirm one of the guesses,

That's implied in the saying, and it's irrelevant in any case.

> analogous to the people who are even now observing type Ia
> supernovae (celestial "standard candles") and finding that the universe
> is expanding nonlinearly.

This week.

>> Leaving aside the fact that the way the universe is expanding is highly
>> controversial and there is no standard model at the present time, this
>> is much too general to be of much evidentiary value. A scientific
>> prediction should be specific enough that it's unlikely to be right by
>> chance.

> "Right by chance"? Do you know how low the probability is for the
> universe to be expanding at an accelerating rate?

Anyone familiar with two-valued logic would suspect that it's either
0 or 1.

> Every established theory of physics says that it's being carried outward
> by something like relative momentum, which should be slowed by
> gravity, which implies that the expansion rate should be slowing down!

Since Guth came up with the inflation hypothesis, all kinds of weird
possibilities have been thought of and explored. There are theories that
call for periodic inflation and all kinds of other strange things. Nobody
really knows what things are like at the largest and smallest scales and
any claim that the latest experiments are the last word is naive.

I'm not just saying this for myself. I don't think that Chris is likely to get
much attention from the scientific community on the basis of this kind
of armwaving.

> You've really outdone yourself on this one, Foghorn. If that's all you've
> got, you lose, bigtime.

Lions 12, Chris 0.

> So may we all expect you to shut up and be a nice little guest?

I think not.

>>> The CTMU retrodicts quantum nonlocality. Quantum nonlocality
>>> has been experimentally verified.

>> And the concept of quantum nonlocality has been around a lot longer
>> than the CTMU. My theory predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow.

> Since you've already lost by your first comment, I don't even need to
> respond to this one (which is equally ridiculous). But the difference
> between retrodicting sunrise and retrodicting quantum nonlocality is
> that *there's already a viable mechanism for sunrise* in ordinary
> celestial mechanics. This is anything but the case for nonlocality.

Yes. Quantum nonlocality has indeed been established by experiments
--and the theorists are more puzzled than ever. If Chris has a way out
of the current disarray of quantum theory he will certainly be celebrated
for it. But that's a big "if."

>>> Since the CTMU alone gives a logical mechanism for this
>>> phenomenon that is consistent with central principles of physics

>> This has not been established.

> Right. And maybe the sun won't rise tomorrow after all.

Instead of providing evidence to satisfy the objections of his critics, Chris
comes up with lines like this, which will not convince anybody.

>>> (ibidem), it constitutes evidence for the CTMU.

>> Chris is grasping at straws.

> Namely, those comprising the straw man named Kevin Langdon. But
> even the straw is illusory...

This is a very clumsy and imprecise use of the phrase "straw man."

> all I'm getting is hot gas.

Heartburn, caused by swallowing unproven propositions whole.

>>> I could go on, but why overload Kevin's already failing circuitry?
>>> Kevin must now explain why these phenomena do NOT constitute
>>> evidence for the CTMU in the confirmational sense.

>> I just did.

> Right. And maybe the moon will splash into the Pacific in a couple of
> minutes, providing Kevin with a tsunami headdress (and no doubt a
> much-needed bath).

Huff puff.

>>> Make it a good one, Kev - your entire reputation hinges on pulling
>>> this off.

Not really.

>> I'll be interested in Chris' response.
>>
>> If Chris hadn't wasted everybody's time with a lot of personal attacks
>> we could have reached this point a long time ago.

> Your move, Foghorn.

> Chris Langan

Atari.

Kevin Langdon

To: fire@PrometheusSociety.org
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: Re: fire Enough (already)

At 11:22 PM 10/21/99 -0400, Chris Langan wrote:

> Now, everybody knows that I've refrained from responding to Kevin
> Langdon's last five or six highly derogatory messages.

So Chris took a lunch break. Big deal.

> But here I am back from the gym, and I need scarcely point out that
> they keep on coming anyway.

Every one of mine is a response to one of Chris' or some other guy's
remarks on the same subject matter.

> Kevin begs, pleads, and grovels to be squashed. Why? Because he's
> twisted, that's why.

My sister used to work for a guy named Praetzel.

> Let's take Esquire. Kevin says it "deliberately reinforced the
> stereotype" of the HIQ misfit. Maybe so, but only a dunce would
> have expected it not to! That was part of the agenda from jump
> street.

Sure, but there are degrees of this. *Esquire* has done a real hatchet
job on high-IQ people, including Chris.

> When I was first called about my willingness to do the article, I was
> asked whether I'd be willing to answer *personal* questions. I said
> yes. Why? (1) Because I have nothing to hide; if anybody doesn't
> like anything about my past or my present, he can go piss up a rope.

How charming.

Some people passed because they anticipated notoriety and had better
things to do than be bothered with the loons who respond to it.

> (2) This was a chance to do the HIQ world some good, and that
> means sympathetic characters rather than smug little software
> yuppies and the like.

I don't find fault with the interviewees for taking a shot at it. I just
think that it's a shame that *Esquire* was so disrespectful to them.

> (3) Grady Towers, whom Kevin loves to quote when it suits him,
> says that extremely HIQ people generally ARE misfits (and for
> some very good reasons).

The higher the IQ, the higher the probability of being a "misfit."

> (4) I'm an idea man, and this was a possible break for some very
> good ideas that can't catch a break around people like Kevin.

I am capable of communicating my ideas no matter what Chris or
some other heckler does or says.

> Other members of our community, on the other hand, have (for
> all their intelligence) no original ideas of remotely comparable
> sophistication,

So Chris keeps arrogantly insisting.

> and a total lack of such ideas would have reflected badly on all of us.

There are other things that reflect badly on us.

> What the hell did Kevin want...a hygenic bunch of little wind-up
> marching band types that would have dutifully taken their marching
> orders straight from him? You bet he did.

I can't quite identify where this concept of people "taking marching
orders" from me came from. It would be very nice having people at
my beck and call, ready to fetch whatever I might happen to want,
but that generally hasn't been the case for me (except for the kindness
of my mother and my wife), and it sure as hell doesn't describe my
relations with other people in these societies.

> I hereby applaud Gina, Steve and Ron for having the guts to stand
> up and take a few hits on behalf of the HIQ community (others
> were approached in the course of screening who were *afraid*).

Afraid to be seen in the lineup with the rest of the desperados, sure.

> Because if all Esquire had been able to get its hands on were
> pathetic milquetoasts of Kevin Langdon's ilk - wannabe acadummies
> and the like - they'd have scratched the article before it ever got off
> the ground.

Yep. More-or-less-normal people are harder to ridicule.

When I appeared on the Morton Downey Junior Show, the producers
deliberately misled me. They told me that the show was going to be
about IQ but the focus was actually on the NCAA eligibility rules
requiring a total of at least 700 on the SAT. The other guests yelled
and walked into the (rather obvious) traps that were set for them but
I didn't. I was calm and rational and the head producer was pissed off
at me afterwards, because what they want is fireworks.

> And you can take that to the bank, because they told me so.

I can well imagine.

> [By the way, Fredrik Ullen was on the top of their list too, as were
> certain others; the reason they didn't get to Fredrik is that he lives in
> Sweden. On the other hand, if a Swedish magazine does a special on
> geniuses, I'll bet it contacts Fredrik before coming to America.]

> As far as Kevin's continued carping about the CTMU is concerned,
> this is what I've meant all along. It doesn't make any difference how
> many times I explain the distinction between rational proof and
> experimental confirmation to him,

If Chris were clear on this distinction, he wouldn't be claiming that a
mathematical theory can imply anything about the real world without
experimental confirmation.

> or what details I reveal about the CTMU; he never understands a
> thing. Anyone on this list who can't yet see this is wearing blinders.
> And in case anyone doesn't know it - heads up, Steve - Kevin has
> seen everything I've ever published on the CTMU, or at least had the
> chance to. A lot of it was in copies of Noesis that I sent him myself.
> So his ever-so-reasonable willingness to let me send it to him again
> doesn't buy him anything.

Oh. I thought there might be something new in what Chris has been
sending around, perhaps even the famous secret mathematics at the
heart of the theory.

But if what Chris has sent out is material reprinted from *Noesis*,
there is no need for any of the recipients to regard it as confidential.
*Noesis* is available by subscription to the public. Chris' stuff can
be quoted under the "fair use" doctrine and paraphrased without
restriction.

> Again, my congratulations to Gina, Ron and Steve.

My congratulations--but also condolences--to all four of you. And for
at least one of the interviewees, the bad outweighed the good.

> Thank heavens the world has something to read about other than
> an insipid handful of moneygrubbing conformists who can't do
> anything but program computers or the like. Not that you're a bad
> person if that's what you do, but that's just not good copy. Bill Gates
> and Steve Jobs wore it out a long time ago.

> Chris Langan

So don't feel bad, all you insipid, moneygrubbing, conformist computer
nerds.

Kevin Langdon

To: fire@PrometheusSociety.org
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: Re: fire Enough (already)

At 03:02 PM 10/22/99 -0400, Chris Langan wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Kevin Langdon wrote:

>>> Let's take Esquire. Kevin says it "deliberately reinforced the
>>> stereotype" of the HIQ misfit. Maybe so, but only a dunce would
>>> have expected it not to! That was part of the agenda from jump
>>> street.

>> Sure, but there are degrees of this. *Esquire* has done a real hatchet
>> job on high-IQ people, including Chris.

> After the Internet hatchet job I caught Kevin Langdon trying to do on
> me early this year, what Esquire did to me was nothing.

Chris seems to be referring to the Brain Board, where I posted a few
messages before I got frustrated with their sluggish interface. As Chris
hadn't shown up there yet, there was no point in saying a lot about
him, so I didn't (I may have pointed out that there's the real Mega
Society and then there's Chris' phony "East Coast Noesis"). But Chris
has tried to blame me for what *others* said on the Brain Board,
something that I hadn't even heard about until I heard it from Chris.

This is, of course, totally irrelevant to the point above.

>> Some people passed because they anticipated notoriety and had
>> better things to do than be bothered with the loons who respond
>> to it.

> Right! Of course! *Sure* they did! ;-)

Several people declined to be interviewed, including Marilyn vos
Savant. They may have had other reasons, but I doubt it.

>>> (2) This was a chance to do the HIQ world some good, and that
>>> means sympathetic characters rather than smug little software
>>> yuppies and the like.

>> I don't find fault with the interviewees for taking a shot at it. I just
>> think that it's a shame that *Esquire* was so disrespectful to them.

> You're fomenting again.

Fomenting *what*? This is paranoia.

> I don't think that being introduced as "real geniuses" is all that
> disrespectful, even if a little mud gets in after the fact.

It depends on how desperate for attention you are.

> Show me the Promethean who claims to have no embarrassing flaws
> that would show up in an intensive three-day interview process, and
> I'll show you a liar.

That's exactly what I was talking about. Mike Sager gathered all this
information and then he selected the most sensationalistic. It's classic
yellow journalism.

>>> (4) I'm an idea man, and this was a possible break for some very
>>> good ideas that can't catch a break around people like Kevin.

>> I am capable of communicating my ideas no matter what Chris or
>> some other heckler does or says.

> WHAT ideas? ;-) And what great ideas of Kevin's have I "heckled"?
> If this isn't a switcheroo, Kevin can eat his hat!

I don't wear a hat. *Noesis*, *Gift of Fire*, *Vidya*, and the e-mail
lists of the various societies are full of ideas of mine, which some
people seem to consider sound and worthwhile. As for the rest . . .
well, you can't please everyone.

>>> Other members of our community, on the other hand, have (for
>>> all their intelligence) no original ideas of remotely comparable
>>> sophistication,

>> So Chris keeps arrogantly insisting.

> Alright, then - LET'S SEE 'EM.

We've seen Chris' ideas. We've seen my ideas. We've seen other
people's ideas. Chris' ideas are nothing special.

> Maybe I'm just a bum...an also-ran...a loser after all, somebody
> whose ideas are nothing - nothing, do you hear! - compared to the
> world-class ruminations of Landonoids-R-Us. Maybe Kevin and his
> little buddies have some truly earth-shattering ideas they'd like to
> share with the rest of us RIGHT NOW.

Perhaps others share my lack of feeling of obligation to produce
earth-shattering ideas at Chris' command.

> After all, if we have anybody else here with anything approaching
> or exceeding CTMU status, I think we should be aware of it. Don't
> you?

I might if I were impressed with the CTMU, which I"m not.

> Hey, I stuck my neck out for everyone to take whacks at.

Big deal. I do that all the time.

> Could it be that whomever Kevin's talking about is...well, a
> frightened little canary who's afraid to get nailed to the wall for the
> flaws in his reasoning? *Well?*

Could it be that canaries fly to place inaccessible to Chris?

>>> and a total lack of such ideas would have reflected badly on all
>>> of us.

>> There are other things that reflect badly on us.

> Kevin Langdon, for example.

I had other examples in mind. And here we have all that Chris can
muster to support his ideas--*ad hominem* arguments.

>>> What the hell did Kevin want...a hygenic bunch of little wind-up
>>> marching band types that would have dutifully taken their
>>> marching orders straight from him? You bet he did.

>> I can't quite identify where this concept of people "taking marching
>> orders" from me came from. It would be very nice having people at
>> my beck and call, ready to fetch whatever I might happen to want,
>> but that generally hasn't been the case for me (except for the
>> kindness of my mother and my wife), and it sure as hell doesn't
>> describe my relations with other people in these societies.

> Perhaps, but that's certainly no fault of Kevin's!

Everyone wants other people to take notice of his stuff, but not
everyone wants to lord it over other people. This is another of the
concepts on which Chris is unclear.

>>> I hereby applaud Gina, Steve and Ron for having the guts to stand
>>> up and take a few hits on behalf of the HIQ community (others
>>> were approached in the course of screening who were *afraid*).

>> Afraid to be seen in the lineup with the rest of the desperados, sure.

> Now you're insulting me and the people I've just mentioned.

No, I'm not. The people who were asked for an interview didn't know
who in particular would be in the magazine along with them, but they
may well have smelled something fishy in Mike Sager's approach and
*Esquire's* reputation for reaching for the lowest common
denominator.

> Would you like me to come to Berkeley so you can do it to my face?
> [Just asking :-)!]

Just threatening, you mean.

>>> Because if all Esquire had been able to get its hands on were
>>> pathetic milquetoasts of Kevin Langdon's ilk - wannabe
>>> acadummies and the like - they'd have scratched the article before
>>> it ever got off the ground.

>> Yep. More-or-less-normal people are harder to ridicule.

> Right...Kevin Langdon is a "normal person". With the mouth of a
> lion, the tail of a parakeet, the appetite of a hog, the obstinacy of a
> Georgia mule, and the overbalanced headgear of a moose.

Thank you kindly for the comparisons to various noble beasts.

>> When I appeared on the Morton Downey Junior Show, the producers
>> deliberately misled me. They told me that the show was going to be
>> about IQ but the focus was actually on the NCAA eligibility rules
>> requiring a total of at least 700 on the SAT. The other guests yelled
>> and walked into the (rather obvious) traps that were set for them but
>> I didn't. I was calm and rational and the head producer was pissed off
>> at me afterwards, because what they want is fireworks.

> What sane person would have agreed to appear on Morton Downey,
> Jr.? That's like agreeing to appear on Jerry ("I beat my ho and screw
> her momma") Springer.

Don't you just love the delicacy of Chris' language?

I'd be more wary of a similar invitation now, but it worked out all right--
and my wife and I got a trip to New York which cost us only one
round-trip air fare.

>>> And you can take that to the bank, because they told me so.

>> I can well imagine.

> Imagine to your heart's content.

>>> As far as Kevin's continued carping about the CTMU is concerned,
>>> this is what I've meant all along. It doesn't make any difference how
>>> many times I explain the distinction between rational proof and
>>> experimental confirmation to him,

>> If Chris were clear on this distinction, he wouldn't be claiming that a
>> mathematical theory can imply anything about the real world without
>> experimental confirmation.

> What can I say? Kevin has no idea what he's talking about. If anybody
> doubts it, just try backing him up (I guess I should apologize for saying
> that, since I don't really think that qualified members are that stupid).

You too can be threatened.

>>> or what details I reveal about the CTMU; he never understands a
>>> thing. Anyone on this list who can't yet see this is wearing blinders.
>>> And in case anyone doesn't know it - heads up, Steve - Kevin has
>>> seen everything I've ever published on the CTMU, or at least had the
>>> chance to. A lot of it was in copies of Noesis that I sent him myself.
>>> So his ever-so-reasonable willingness to let me send it to him again
>>> doesn't buy him anything.

>> Oh. I thought there might be something new in what Chris has been
>> sending around, perhaps even the famous secret mathematics at the
>> heart of the theory.

> See, this is where Kevin and his little pals (if there are any) don't
> get it. I've been talking mathematics all along! Kevin simply assumes
> that because he doesn't see a lot of integral signs, there's no math in
> my descriptions. But I'm hereby offering to take anyone apart who
> wants to try to make a case for Kevin's chronic idiocy in this regard.

I didn't say that there's no mathematics in what Chris has presented,
but there's not a lot of it and he himself has said that the most important
parts of the theory have been withheld.

>> But if what Chris has sent out is material reprinted from *Noesis*,
>> there is no need for any of the recipients to regard it as confidential.
>> *Noesis* is available by subscription to the public. Chris' stuff can
>> be quoted under the "fair use" doctrine and paraphrased without
>> restriction.

> See the respect that Kevin has for the intellectual property rights of
> his "fellow" Prometheans? He knows very well that I've been trying
> to keep this thing contained inside the superHIQ community for years,
> so he hereby invites any old subscriber at all to dig up whatever he
> can, paraphrase it, and (assumably under the circumstances)

You can't assume anything without making an ass of youself.

> pass it off as his own. Man, what a fine piece of work he is!

What are and are not intellectual property rights is spelled out in the
U.S. Copyright law. Unlike a lot of statutes, it's very plainly written
and anyone on this list would have no trouble following it and verifying
that what I said above is true.

I have some sympathy for Chris' wish to keep his material privtate. But
when material in the hands of some is cited as support for Chris' claims
it is legimate for those in possession of that material to offer their
opinions, within this forum, on whether the material supports the claims.

>>> Again, my congratulations to Gina, Ron and Steve.

>> My congratulations--but also condolences--to all four of you. And
>> for at least one of the interviewees, the bad outweighed the good.

>>> Thank heavens the world has something to read about other than
>>> an insipid handful of moneygrubbing conformists who can't do
>>> anything but program computers or the like. Not that you're a
>>> bad person if that's what you do, but that's just not good copy.
>>> Bill Gates and Steve Jobs wore it out a long time ago.

>> So don't feel bad, all you insipid, moneygrubbing, conformist
>> computer nerds.

> Hey, all I said was that they don't make the best copy!

> Chris L.

No. You also called them "insipid, moneygrubbing conformists who
can't do anything but program computers or the like." That's
insulting, gratuitously so. You continue to have absolutely no idea
of how to win friends and influence people.

Kevin Langdon