Seth Bareiss

Has anyone had any dealings with one Seth Bareiss, a serial troll and copyright thief (to name but a few instances of his poor and disreputable conduct)? I’ve recently had an unwarranted and uncalled blast from him on his website (of which I won’t dignify his comments by naming the page, but you can look for it if you want). Such matters seem to be a frequent occurrence from him. His rudeness and insults are not just confined to me, but to others as well. Firstly, Bruce Bilney, of Australia, on the World of Escher Forum and secondly, Vlad Alexeev, of Russia, on a tiling list server posting, have all had the same treatment (check with them if you want for confirmation). I’d be interested in hearing details from anyone else; likely there are others.

The following is an open letter I wrote to him, giving him opportunity to at least retract, and ideally apologise, but all to no avail, despite frequent reminders and a last minute request. Every story has two sides (unlike his piece, all one-sided), and if you think I’m making this up, just ask Bruce Bilney, our common nexus, who was kept informed as to developments. He will confirm the following piece as fact. The best advice I can give dear reader is not to waste your time on this piece below, but as my conduct and good name has been called into question, I am forced of necessity to defend myself, so here it is. I might just add that I gave him the right to respond on my piece below, of which he didn’t extend the same courtesy to me.

An open letter to the webmaster of www.tessellations.org, Seth Bareiss:

What gives? You know very well what I am taking about. Explain yourself. Have you had a brainstorm? I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw it. A veritable diatribe of viciousness, poisonous writing aimed at my good self. What have I done to you to deserve that? And when I think of all what I’ve done for you, with offers of help, freely given, in good spirit, and with numerous words of praise and publicity for you (of which I notice no one else seems to give you). And that polemic is how you choose to repay me. Unbelievable, it really is.

Normally, I would dismiss writing like that as the work of a deranged mad man, and summarily dismiss any reference to you on my site forthwith. Indeed I was sorely tempted. But I won’t, at least for now. Unlike you, I am always fair, for which as you will see throughout here, is a common theme, something in which you seem to be all too lacking. Even a murderer can have his say in court, and so you too can have your say. Defend yourself from the charges below!

You need holding to account, nothing I say or do will apparently stop you. Personally, I’d much rather discuss any dispute between us privately; why wash ones dirty linen in public for all to see? But you don’t seem to want to do this in a calm, reasoned way (I note you have previous form on this nuclear style approach). But with you, no, its press the nuclear button, and so consequently I’m also sending this to our common nexus, Bruce Bilney, who can arbitrate. You know him, I know him, he’s had contact with us both. Both of us have had differences with him (you in public, I in private) he has no axe to grind against any one of us. He’s an Australian, renowned for straight talking, and he’s a typical example. Do you agree? He can see your true, flawed nature in all its glory. And furthermore, you accuse me of a whole host of unbecoming conduct in the opening lines. Go on then, I here give you permission to forward to Bruce any instances of so-called disreputable conduct on my part emanating from our mails. Let’s see if your tale holds water.

So what is the reason for what can only be described as an all-out verbal assault on me, accusing me of egomania and a whole host of disreputable conduct? I cannot even begin to imagine. From our previous mails, we seemed to have no problems, I don’t even remember a cross word between us. Indeed, wasn’t our correspondence most cordial? And in it, as alluded to above, look what I did for you (of which I might add is typical of my generosity of spirit). Did I not point out an unknown article that that would be of interest to you, and offering to send it to you? I think I did. Seeing as you’re not attached to any academic institute, did I not offer to send you some likely hard to obtain Escher articles? I think I did. Did I not compose a scholarly piece (The Tessellations of Seth Bareiss) on you, praising your tessellation in many places? (I list these many comments below at the end of the mail.) I think I did. Did I not offer to interview you? I think I did. All excellent publicity for you; I don’t recall any such largesse from you. I didn’t have to do this, but I did so in the spirit of generosity. Are these actions of an egomaniac; all self, self, self? I think not. Examples of my generosity of spirit are legion; just ask Bruce Bilney, he’ll tell you of my generosity. For instance, upon being impressed with the tessellations on his site, but annoyed at how small the images were, indeed, almost miniscule, in which in some you could not make out the image clearly, I offered to build him a website to display them at a more convenient size, to better show their intrinsic quality. How about that for generosity? Indeed, you could argue that he is a rival of mine. If I was so egocentric, why would I offer to better present his work? But to be fair to you (as I always am, but you never act the same towards me), you would not know of this, and so be unaware of my generosity.  I have never even mentioned it to another person; it’s not my style. (I don’t have to shout things from the rooftops, even if you do). But you time and time again you call my conduct into question, and so I mention it. Have you done the same or similar for anyone? Well, have you? Also, knowing of his keenness for all things Australian, I have sent him many things that are Oz tessellation related. And not only that, but like for yourself, I took considerable time and trouble compiling the scholarly ‘Tessellations of Bruce Bilney’ piece, praising his work, and not to mention more recently, an interview with him, not to mention numerous scattered references to him around the site. Again, all excellent publicity for him, not just once or twice, but many times. And what did I get in return for this from Bruce – well, nothing! (Although admittedly he did send me his booklets.) I’ve known him for years and years, I’ve done all that for him, and yet I’m deemed not even worthy of a single mention on his site. No link, nothing. To Bruce, I don’t exist. It’s all about the Bruce Bilney show, not me. By any standards, it’s a one–way relationship, biased in his favour. But do I gripe about it, throw my toys out of the pram and write polemic like yours, well no, I just get on with it. Is this really the actions of an egomaniac on my part? I think not. Many other instances of my generosity I could list, but I’ll stop here.

Your piece of me is full of double standards, not just once, but of many times, of which I detail below, and refute all instances, all of which reflects badly on you (not for one moment I think you care). Your tactics just seem to be scattergun approach, no reasoned thought or argument whatsoever to back up your arguments, which are full of holes, which I show. When I say something, I back up it with facts, the scientific method, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method whilst you don’t. Instead you present your argument in a most biased way, posturing yourself in the most flattering light, with myself portrayed in most unflattering terms.

I now directly address your criticisms.

You begin with a whole series of personal insults. How childish. I could respond in kind, but I’ll tell you what Seth, I have standards even if you don’t. Nowhere here will you see me resort to name calling (although it would indeed be justified). You can indulge in the behaviour of the playground if you want, but I don’t; unlike yourself I have standards.

You then take me to task for insulting children’s tessellation. Not so. I challenge you – find a single instance on the site or in our mails where I have singled out ‘Sally R’. or ‘Fred B’. for criticism. Well can you? It simply isn’t there. Such a statement is yet another figment of your imagination. True, I disparage child tessellation as an entity, but never personally. I wouldn’t dream of such a thing. I don’t expect for one moment that a child would have the necessary maturity and understanding of the subject, and therefore they are above criticism. Adults less so, as you later discern, but even here, never personally.

Next you castigate one of my geometric bird tessellations, in the most virulent of terms. Well, that’s fair enough if you can make out a reasoned case, but you don’t. Instead, you adopt your favourite tactic again, denigrating without any substantiation to back these views up. You simply don’t (or what to) understand the premise behind these stylizations. Very well, I’ll now have to give you a short lesson in art to help explain my point. Art comes in many forms, e.g. abstraction, abstract expressionism, surrealism, op art, fauvism, photorealism, and others. Who is to say any one of these is ‘better’ than the other? Probably, like myself, you have favourites here, and some you actively dislike, but the difference between us is that I let people get on with it. So who are you to judge on these geometric, stylized instances? What qualifies you to pronounce on these? Any form of stylization you seem opposed to. If you could make out a reasoned case, and back this up with corroborating evidence, well yes. But you don’t, you just offer abuse. Look, I’ll spell out. These resemble birds with the minimum of lines, in this instance, just three segments; that is its attraction. In short, I’ve done so much with so little. They’re not meant to be gentle curved lines of the real thing. Look upon it as a caricature. Can I refer you to Kaplan’s ‘Escherization’ thesis, and Fathauer’s Designing and Drawing Tessellations? These both support my case. Furthermore, in contrast to your subjective views, I now offer hard facts to support my case. Let me tell you that this particular tessellation was put forward for the Bridges 2008 art/math conference (are you aware of it?), with a juried panel, of academics, from universities around the world. And guess what, it was accepted for the art exhibit. How about that? What does that tell you? But there’s more, it gets even worse for you. Not only was it chosen for the art exhibit, it was selected, from approximately 60 other artists/mathematicians, to be the main picture on the back cover of the conference proceedings (see attachment). Ask yourself why. Is that not evidence of its inherent quality? Are you convinced yet? Oh, and I might just add that it was used again in Origami Tessellations, by the respected author Eric Gjerde (see attachment). So all these people are wrong, and you’re the one that’s right? Hmmm, how’s that for ego…

Next you examine my silhouettes. Again, nothing wrong with that per se, I am more than willing to debate this if you’re fair. But you’re not fair, once again. You ask people to identify the silhouettes. Good idea in principle. But the gripe I have here is with the presentation of # 3, #4, and #7. #3 is a bird, which you have shown upside down! A single, honest mistake on your part perhaps? I could perhaps overlook and believe this if it was indeed just the one instance. But no, there are indeed others. #4, a human figure, is also upside down, and the bird of #7 is shown vertically, when it should be placed horizontally. How cheap of you! Why not at least put them the right way up, to give the viewer the best opportunity of identifying? You must have done this purposefully, to make it more difficult to identify. I could accept once instance as an honest mistake, but three… that to me must be purposeful. Again, you are so unfair. Oh, and #4 is original with me, and not a copy of Escher’s as you imply. Escher’s is based on a rhombus, with two different line segments. Mine is based on a hexagon, with three line segments. Thus you falsely accuse me of copying. Would you care to correct your text? Oh, and silhouettes #1 and #2 remind me of a bird; #5 and #6 of both bird and fish; and #8 of a crawling creature as seem from above. To me, with my superior powers of imagination, all are recognisable as in silhouette (especially when they are the right way up). But to lesser mortals…? Do excuse my one instance of irony here, before you take me to task…

Then you slander my writing abilities. Hmmm. Just tell me Seth, are you the author of any peer reviewed, academic paper? (I don’t recall seeing any papers from you.) Did you know that I am? And, I might add, with another in the pipeline). What does that tell you? (More hard evidence for you; if my writing is so poor, how did this get accepted? And if your writing is so good, where are your papers?

Then you criticise my review of Husimi. Have you actually seen the relevant tessellation? Who is Husimi? He has (apparently) done one tessellation in his whole life, and he sets himself up as an authority! It’s risible. How’s that for ego? Is one not allowed to query this? In your world, no, everything’s all sweetness and light, no matter how God awful these are. He’s an adult, not a child, and so fair game for fair critique. Nowhere in that pieces do I resort to petty name calling, as you seem so fond of; I just critique the tessellation, with no personal abuse. Why oh why are you against my reviews? If you deserve praise you get, if you don’t I point out the shortcoming, as any critic would, whatever the medium, film, TV etc. You must have seen stringent reviews. In matters of critique, look what Escher said, Bool et al page 81 [that the artist should submit himself to] ‘… merciless self criticism’. Where do you see such any criticism, never mind merciless, on people’s websites? Talk about fragile egos. Look how I critique my own work, pointing out its shortcomings. Do you do it on your site? No. Does Bruce do it? No. Do all the others do it? No. What are you all scared of? If it’s good enough for Escher, why isn’t it good enough for everyone else? I also note in your piece that no mention is give to the many instances of praise I give out; and where appropriate in abundance, in the most florid of terms. Have you not read the Nakamura, Nicholas, and Crompton essays, to name but three? Praise personified. Again, no mention of this is in your piece. Instead, you give the impression that all I do is bash, bash, bash. Yet more instances of selectiveness and unfairness on your part. I accuse you of biased writing. I can see now why you are unpublished; you do not consider all sides of an argument, and you want me to take advice from you on writing? Well…

And then we come to the most embarrassing position of all for you. Seth Bareiss caught red-handed with his hand in the cookie jar! Are you the same Seth Bareiss who stood up on his soapbox and literally ranted and raved against copyright theft concerning your images? I think you are. I quote a single comment from many of a like nature of yours with a copyright dispute you had with Vlad Alexeev:

‘How DARE you simply assume that it’s OK to steal my work’...

And yet you have the brass faced nerve to do the same thing yourself that he did! Did I give you permission to use my bird and dog pictures in your piece? I don’t recall doing so. With God and Bruce Bilney (the same person…?) as my witness, let’s see any such permission in any email between us for confirmation to support you in this. Case proven? You state it’s not all right for some one to steal copyrighted art, but for Seth Bareiss, it’s perfectly alright. Double standards again. Breathtaking. Do you see any of your copyrighted work on my site, despite me asking for your permission (which again you didn’t even have the courtesy to reply)? No. I respected your copyright, but you didn’t extend the same courtesy to me, despite you railing against others who breach it. How unfair you are.

And now for the bizarre. You state in connection with the dog tessellation ‘…constantly sniffing at one anothers’ privates…’. Erm, correct me if I’m wrong, but the nose is directly against the lower part of the leg, in fact near its paw. Can you not get anything right? And of the theme of another gripe on the dogs, it not a tusk, but the mouth gaping.

 And then you pick me up on grammar. First you nit pick over ‘use’ and ‘utilise’. Then you pick out a spelling mistake. Is this the best you can do? A site with so many pages I’ve lost count, with so many thousands of words, and you choose to pick me up on a spelling mistake? Unbelievable. May I just mention more than one typo in your piece about me? And you spell my name incorrectly, another insult? (But to be fair to you (again), likely a honest mistake.

Then you criticise my (copyrighted, sorry to bring it up again) dogs as regards the colouring. Again, there’s nothing wrong with that premise, as long as it’s a rational, and indeed consistent argument that you put forward. In short, you take exception to the violet and green colouring. Indeed, there are no violet and green dogs in real life, but you’re missing the point. I coloured the dogs to provide maximum contrast, to better see each individual dog. You then proceed to bash me on this colouring scheme. Well, even though you’re wrong here, if you’re consistent, fair enough, but you’re not (as ever). Have you not seen Escher's work, e.g. human figures, all of one colour; red, white and blue (and many others of the same ilk). If you believe that I’m wrong, then Escher should also have a bashing here too, but do I hear from you even the merest word of condemnation of him? I think not. And let’s just examine the work of your new fave, Bruce, where you don’t just keep quiet about this, but actually praise him. Look at his kangaroos. My God, he has kangaroos all the colours of the spectrum! (which is not a criticism Bruce, I thoroughly approve!) And here not the merest of condemnations, contrast that to the bashing that I received for exactly the same thing. What topsy turvy world are you living in Seth? Artist A (Bailey), Artist B (Escher), and Artist C (Bilney) does the same effect. A gets bashed for it, B is ignored, and yet C is praised. I wonder why…ah yes, it’s Bruce Bilney of course, your new best pal. Inconsistency from you again. Case established? Either bash all or praise all. All I am asking for is fairness. Then you complain about the legs ‘tied together’. Again, a fair point for debate, if you are fair. But again, you are not. Let’s look at other instances of the same thing, again from Escher and Bilney. Look at Escher's Pegasus - the same effect. Look at Bilney’s kangaroos - the same effect. And yet you choose conveniently to ignore this. And so it’s all right for Escher and Bilney to do this, but not Bailey. Bash Bailey time and time again, and yet you keep quiet on Escher and Bilney. Inconsistency on your part or what?

Then we move onto Jinny Beyer. Jinny Beyer, the one-day wonder of tessellation, who apparently last did an Escher-like tessellation (I use the words loosely here) in 1999, and has done nothing since (and previously). And you think that qualifies her as an authority? Let me tell you Seth, I‘ve been studying tessellation for nearly 25 years, does that not give me the right to review her? As I’ve said elsewhere, she’s an adult, setting herself up as an authority, but without evidence, why should one not query this? But no, to you, no one is not is allowed to say the Emperor’s is not wearing any clothes despite all the available evidence. I disagree. Admittedly, my comments here are stringent, but of necessity. But even here, I have never resorted to personal abuse, as you so fondly do. But that’s up you; I’m well aware by now of your low standards. There are other points of your piece on Beyer I would ideally answer, but quite frankly both she and you are unworthy of my time, and so I refrain.

Then we go onto children’s art. You yourself, in a mail of 7/7/11 to me said

 ‘Yes, kids’ art is almost entirely junk’. You seem to be a like mind with me on this. So why bother with it? Then you erroneously say I don’t want to encourage others. Unbelievable. What are those essays for if not to encourage, showing plainly and simply good and bad tessellation practises? Am I not allowed a say? You write about methodologies etc, but myself, can I be permitted to remind you, with nearly 25 years of study under my belt, I am not allowed to?

And so you continue with your unwarranted, unsubstantiated, scurrilous attacks on me. I began this piece with the intention of answering your points sequentially one by one, but quite frankly, I’m wilting under the onslaught. I’m tired of having to do this; you are unworthy of me. Everything I’ve successfully rebutted so far, and undoubtedly I could continue. If you ask me nice and politely, I will continue rebutting the points you made, but I’m going to bring this to a piece to an end. But before I depart, I do want to pick you up on one final point you make at the end. Again, it’s ‘typical Seth’, portraying yourself in the best possible light when the full story isn’t told. You state (and by implication thus claim a position of authority for your comments) that you ‘… won an international tessellation contest…’, of which on the face of it would appear to be a mighty fine accomplishment. However, let’s put this claim under the microscope shall we? The competition you refer to is the ‘World of Escher’ one, right? Again, as ever, do correct me if I’m wrong here, I am always fair. You of all people will know that this is a competition aimed at, mostly, 10-year-old kids, right? I presume you were an adult when you entered. An adult beating a bunch of ten-year olds who know next to nothing in a tessellation contest. Big deal! Let’s put it another way, if you challenge a bunch of international ten-year olds to a 100 metre race and won, would you put that on your CV? Well, would you? I certainly wouldn’t! So why do you mention it here? I know why, again, it’s all about puffing yourself up with self importance: ‘Look at me everyone; I’m Seth Bareiss, the international winner’. You’re never fully honest. But that’s you Seth to a T, all front. Scratch away at the surface and your inadequacies are exposed, made all the worse by not being fully honest in the first place.

And then we come to the final irony of many ironies, you expecting a ‘humble apology’. For what I ask? Oh all right, I apologise for being previously so friendly towards you. I apologise for both writing about you, and praising your work. I apologise for offering to give you more free publicity with an interview. Oh, and I apologise for two spelling mistakes; you got me bang to rights there, even I can’t ague with that, it’s there in black and white. There’s your apology for you. Is that good enough? Now what about your own apology, of far more serious matters than trivialities of spelling?

So there you have it; a complete rebuttal of your points. I look forward to hearing your comments, but, with you having received a sound beating, I’m not expecting much, but at least Bruce Bilney will know of your true nature, even if others don’t.

But whatever, perhaps it is me after all; I am the one at fault. But wait a minute, Seth. Look in the mirror. First (that I know of, are there others?) you have a run-in with Bruce, conducted in the most virulent way, next you turn your attention to Vlad Alexeev, in even worse terms, and now apparently it’s my turn for a Seth Bareiss blast. But to be fair to you (again), Alexeev was indeed in the wrong, if indeed the story you put out is indeed true. Excuse me the thought of you embellishing it here; I would not put it past you. But for the sake of discussion let’s take it as true as stated. If so, then why not try a diplomatic approach first? Why do you always have to press the nuclear button in any dispute? Whatever the rights and wrongs here, three nuclear blasts from you surely speaks volumes. History, as the saying goes, repeats itself. Who is next in line for the Seth Bareiss blast/troll attack? (And you accuse me of being a troll. It’s just laughable.) I pity the poor wretch who has to suffer from you. I’ll give you some advice, not that you’ll take it: Calm down. You seem to think the world revolves around you and you alone, and every mention of your name is a slur. Well I’ve got news for you that you won’t like to hear. The world does not revolve around Seth Bareiss (nor David Bailey, nor Bruce Bilney for that matter, I might just add, just in case you think I’m slurring you again). What are all three of us doing here? I’ll tell you, just a few drawings, nothing more, and nothing less. In the greater scheme of things it’s nothing. We’re not unravelling the mysteries of the universe, we’re not saving someone’s life, all we’re all doing is drawings. And that leads you to a near state of ever constant rages at people. I feel sorry for you, I truly do. I don’t bear you any ill will, but you seem to do so me, but that’s your business.

And finally, if all the above is not enough, I now put on the record where I praise you in my piece on you. Sure, you get criticised as well, but so does everyone else, even my favourites (or are you above all criticism? Just for the record, I’m not), but it’s a review, you take the rough with the smooth. You should look upon it as a favour. Indeed, Bruce once took me to task for disproportionably too many bird motifs. You know what? I thought about it, and he’s right; I intend to address it. It’s all too easy to become insular in one’s work, hence the need for an outside opinion. But to you, everything’s an apparent slur. How about this for praise for you, taken from your review:

1. On six of the ten determining aspects of ability and understanding of the issues he scores heavily, with criteria as listed in the introduction:

2. Bareiss’ tessellations essentially exclude the ‘gaps and overlaps’ type, and are in nearly all instances of the ‘true’ type as defined by mathematicians, i.e. a tiling without gaps or overlaps.

(I.e. praise for upholding standards, no gaps or overlaps as beloved by many other (inferior) tessellators)

3. Highlights are the human figures, albeit with reservation. Particularly pleasing, indeed a highlight in his work is WW1 Red Cross Soldier (31), of which the articulation is of the highest standards. Indeed we even have articulation of digits of the hand, with the thumb. Bootlickers (2) and The Unfairness of the Cycle of Poverty (34) are also most pleasing.

To be fair to you, I could perhaps, and indeed should have, expanded on the merits of #2 and #34.

4. Bareiss’ style, as regards finish, is of a consistent manner throughout, favouring a more realistic style, of a decided 3D nature, rather than a simplified rendering as espoused by Escher and myself. These are all hand drawn, with coloured pencils, generally to a very pleasing, high quality standard. As such, although I consider his to be too detailed, he largely strikes the ideal balance between too simple (although this has its strengths) and too detailed.

5. One especially pleasing tessellation, on many counts, is of a complete set of chess pieces 'Chess-elation', a theme that no one else has apparently done before. This is pleasing not just for the challenging confluence, i.e. a restricted set of six elements: King, Queen, Rook, Knight, Bishop, and Pawn, but for the inherent quality as well, with the pieces being all largely recognisable in silhouette immediately (this being the true test of quality). With the exception of the King and Queen, each piece is a tessellation in its own right. Ideally perhaps, for the sake of consistency, the King and Queen would also be a tessellation in their own right. Furthermore, the tessellation is pleasing in that a consistent procedure has been undertaken in all instances, in which the pieces all rotate 180° in relation to each other, and indeed is a very nice (and consistent) solution to the design problem of the tessellation. Only on occasion is inferior surface decoration evident, or perhaps more accurately needed (and so objections can be overlooked on this occasion), such as the castellation of the rooks, and on the bishops’ mitre. Indeed, the surface decoration on the bishop is most minimal, of a hair-like line of an overlapping type, and barely consequential and is a nice solution to the problem in trying to portray a mitre.
Such a determined attempt at confluence is most praiseworthy, and Bareiss leaves other artist’s way behind here, of which when on the rare occasion the subject matter has been broached restrict their interest to single pieces, or perhaps more accurately to a specific piece, namely that of a knight. Indeed, of note is (surprisingly) just how few attempts there are, undertaken by a handful of artists: Alain Nicholas (page 85 in his book, and incidentally the best example), Bruce Bilney (own website) and ‘Heteronimodasilva’ (deviantart website). Another aspect of interest is that all these are of a like design, possessing 180° rotational symmetry.

Praise by the bucket load here. Is this not good enough for you?

6. Aside from his tessellations per se, one pleasing aspect is that he does indeed write about tessellations, in contrast to most other artists, albeit not to the extent of your (esteemed?) contributor. These comments can be found on the deviant art website. www.deviantart.com Here, this is not about his tessellations individually, but as of his thoughts on the subject, such as why certain motifs are more suitable than others are. Indeed, he makes many salient and valid points, albeit these are more simple statements, rather than a detailed treatise.

Most artists don’t write about their work, but you do.

And all that’s not good enough for you? Go on then, name all these other artists praising you, I want to know. And for all that, I get in return that slanderous nonsense from you. Is the word fair in your dictionary?

And I followed it with:

Oh, and I might just add that I see yet another instance of theft of my copyright (you certainly don’t do things by halves), made even worse by you distorting the tessellation. The tiles should be squares, not rectangles. You could at least present the tessellation as is, whatever you think about it or me. Is this some sort of a bizarre attempt at copyright evasion? Who knows with you; nothing would surprise me.

 A few more points on your polemic:

 Re: Criticism

You give the impression that all I so is criticise. Not so! Let’s examine, with facts and figures, and not your unsubstantiated claims. The ‘... magnitude ..’ quote is a simple means of summarising each artist’s quality. Let’s say five magnitudes for the sake of argument, with one being the best, two the next, and so on, to five the worst.

Bilney, Crompton, Escher, Nakamura, Nicolas, Scalfittura all get ‘magnitude above’, let’s say magnitude 1. You, Osborn and Kaplan get ‘magnitude below’; let’s say 2. Is that so bad? Bayer gets bashed, let’s say 5. Praise far outweighs criticism.

Re ‘ego Bailey’ of  ‘Bailey et al’ of the ‘Big 7’ – do you not notice that the list is alphabetical, as is standard practice, i.e. Bailey, Bilney, Crompton, Escher, Nakamura, Nicolas, and Scalfittura. Bailey comes first by default, not ego. Again, you read into things that are simply not there.

 Re: Bayer

You say, in so many words, ‘well respected popular tessellation writer Jinny Beyer’; really? That’s news to me. Go on then, quote me the authority (and I don’t mean some seven-year-old kid). One will do to be getting on with. Or is this just another unsubstantiated Sethism thrown in for good measure? You should hear what Bruce has to say on her. Ask him! You yourself should join us in manning the barricades against her here. You have a page where you discuss what is or what’s not a tessellation. You show a ‘house’ by David Annal, concluding it is not a bona fide tessellation, which is quite correct. Yet Bayer does this, not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times! Four! Anyone who does even a single house like this doesn’t understand tessellation, never mind compounding the fault, which is an abomination, and yet do we here even the mildest of condemnations from you? I think not. That’s just typical of you.

 Re: Errors in English. Have you seen this?

http://www.liv.ac.uk/~spmr02/book/errata1.html

An academic book, by a leading mathematical academic, published by Cambridge University Press no less, and yet it still has numerous errors remaining in spelling. Have a look. Go on then, I’ll look forward to your blast on him. But I won’t hold my breath…

Re: More errors in English

Let’s look at your page on me; it’s riddled with errors, and not to mention inaccuracies, and downright lies. You could at least spell my name right. How about some correct punctuation for Jinny Beyer? And on the topic of (inadvertent) made up words for which you like to take me to task, what’s ‘misproportioned’ mean in your piece? It’s not in my Collins National dictionary. Do you mean ‘disproportioned’? Unbelievable.

And your grammar to boot. ‘…no exaggeration nor untruth… should be ‘…neither exaggeration nor untruth.’ Or ‘…no exaggeration or…’

And there are others. This, coming from a champion of grammar! Unbelievable. And I might just add, all on a single page. What else might I find if I explored your site further?

All those errors in a single piece, from someone with supposedly high standards of English, and yet you take me to task for a few errors over the whole site.

I am not going to take advice from you on writing.

 'Nuff said?

 I then called it a day in addressing any further points; I just haven’t got the time to spare, certainly not for the likes of him, although I can assure you, I could indeed continue and rebut. Take some advice from me dear reader, and don’t enter into correspondence with this fellow, his favourite tactic is to throw in a few casual insults, and in my normal, thorough manner I then had to rebut all this point by point, likely all designed to cause me to fritter away my time. The same fate likely awaits you dear reader, just walk away from him, and learn from my mistake…

Created 21 May 2012

Comments