On Colin Leslie Dean

I’ve been told that I’m no longer allowed to say, for whatever reason, that Colin Leslie Dean is Ladyjane. So I’m not saying that. But I am going to post this on Colin from someone at Yahoo! Answers:

answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 613AAouaH9

Given the horrendous grammar and similar sentence structure, and knowledge of all Colin’s attempted areas of expertise, I would assume that “Mary” is also Colin Leslie Deanface. Comparing Ladyjane’s horrendous grammar and sentence structure to the works of Colin, and how '‘she’ promotes this unknown, terrible philosopher, and also how Ladyjane knows all of his ‘fields’, I feel comfortable announcing that I am 99% sure that Ladyjane is Colin, with an error of up to +1%.

How bad a writer do you have to be to promote yourself with fake profiles in order to get any recognition at all?

It is very suspect, and the repetitive nature of the threads/posts are annoyingly futile.

I guess numbers are never used in LJ’s life: as their very conception has been denied in ‘her’ threads! :unamused:

this terrible philosopher who cant spell has shown spelling is no sign of intelligence by proving the greatest mathematician of the 20th century made an invalid proof-not a bad effort for such a terrible philosopher

and who says spelling is a sign of intelligence

Is there a published philosopher or mathematician that agrees with Dean? Is he cited anywhere? Is he even mentioned anywhere besides his own works and internet fora?

Edit: Misspelling fixed.

it looks like he is that far ahead of the field it will take some time for the rest to catch up
when you are dealing with people who just sock up the standard line through their education
who never question what they are taught
it aint surprising deans views are a head of the field
as he shatters standard views and for lazy thinkers this is hard to understand

take godel for 76 years every one has just reqirgitated the standard view and nevver bother to question the proof
it was sitting there in vivid view that he used invalid axioms but their eyes where closed by the standard view
when dean is dealing with thinkers of that low calibre it aint surprising they need time to catch up with his ideas

No. He’s a nobody, and more importantly, wrong.

LadyJane, there is value in the academic process. These boards are filled with amateurs, all of whose ideas could be so novel as to be beyond current understanding. But there isn’t enough time in the world to read the works of every schmoe who thinks she’s on to something. Getting official, academic recognition is valuable because it weeds out crackpots with delusions of grandeur (and I include myself among those as-yet-weeded-out).

See, a good argument is undeniable at some point. Saying that we just don’t get it because it’s so advanced doesn’t hold water when no one gets it. There’s at least as good a chance that there’s nothing to get. The arguments you’ve made to support Dean are either inconsistent, or too poorly expressed to be deciphered. I don’t mean to indicate anything about your abilities as a philosopher by pointing that out, because lord knows there are a lot of folks in China to whom I couldn’t explain fuck-all. But, if you’re the only person that has ever heard of Dean, the only person that appreciates Dean’s arguments, and no one else can understand what you or he is talking about, there’s no reason to believe his arguments are any better structured than the sentences used to convey them.

i some how i think dean would shun academic recognition
i think he holds them in contempt
the idea of presenting a proof that destroyes godel or ideas that destroyes maths and science via just a medium for amatures crackpots and the common schmo is the very idea of true democracy
if dean can do it ie side line the officall channels so can others
dean uses the net the way it should be used for and by the schmo

all these stuffy journals with there up themselves editors and boards now do not have a monopoly of what is to count for knowledge
it likes if Einstein published his theories via the net first and sider lined journals - not that dean hold einedstein up for anything- but you see Einsiten was a glory seeking wanker who needed offical recognition dean does not

thus that is why he publishes with gamahucher press-look up what gamahucher means
cant you see the scene
lord muck from oxford is asked by lady uptight pursing lips
“oh i see gamahucher press publishes dean what does gamahucher mean”

You know, because you are him.

And you would never get the satisfaction of shunning academic recognition because you would never get it.

In looking up “gamahucher,” which means “oral sex,” I found that you have been active on Wikipedia, and that it didn’t go over so well. I especially liked when they told you that you need to provide a reliable source for your contribution to the Mathematics page. I take that to mean that they don’t think Dean is a reliable source either.

And good for Dean if he can make it without going through any regular channels, but until he does, as a source, he’s as good as citing a friend or family member.

Define “invalid axiom” and tell me in specific detail why Godel’s findings are improper. Don’t use words like, “rubbish”, or “fraud”. Just make yourself clear. Thanks. -Scott

Noone’s in denial, errors as long as they exist and are proven to exist, no matter whose work it is, are accepted. Errors even in Newton’s work have been identified, and these were fundamental ideas for the understanding of our surroundings. “Einedstein/Einsiten” was a glory seeking wanker…What are you on about
high school dropouts who think they were too smart to pass…

Lady jane/colin/leslie/dean is fucking boring. Can’t we just ignore her/him?

She doesn’t understand godel in the slightest.

She always says the same thing over and over. Like the more she says it the more convinced we’ll be shes not just a moron.

I don’t really care. But its a bit annoying.


Well fucking do it or stop being redundant and wrong!!

hey just look up axiom
in the dictionary
and then read

This thread isn’t about the AR. It’s about you being Colin Leslie Dean.

So what does that mean? “Philosophically justified”? Can you be more specific? I asked you to show how it makes Godel’s work invalid, and you tell me that it’s not philosophically justified? That’s a pretty poor explanation. Try again or admit that yuo don’t know what you’re talking about. No more pejorative terms, just a proper explanation please of what it is that you’re suggesting.

cant you read

it is
pure expediency
it is ad hoc
thus not philosophically justified

and read ramsey

I can read. I thought Godel was a mathematician? To what extent must he be “philosophically justified”? Doesn’t he just have to illustrate things with numbers? I don’t think his primary focus was religious or even altogether speculative. Can you give me a clear and concise explanation of what you think Godel claimed? Then can you tell me how it’s improper other than to say that because Colin Leslie Dean disagrees with him? Do you even understand the difference between an open and closed system and what they imply philosophically?
It’s cute to cite a fucking dictionary, and ask questions like “can you read”. I guess that’s the type of shit I would say too if I had no clue what I was talking about.

Since you’re so smart, why can’t you be clear and convincing? My ears are open.