The uninteresting plot ( was: request for advice )

[Olivier Gerard]

Seqfans,

this is a bit of a troll answer, but I am the admin :-) and history
seemed too much misrepresented in the original post to let it pass.

Olivier


On 3/13/06, cino hilliard <hillcino368 at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> I read and deleted all the entries in this thread, except this one. I do
> not
> remember who wrote
> what. Nevertheless, my mind formed some thoughts about this subject. I
> present them here.


Did your mind try to organize your thoughts and check basic facts before
presenting them ?

It is wonderful that Shakespeare wrote ABOUT  Kings and Queens and the
> Wealthy and the
> affluent and the in the know and not TO them. Why? Because they would have
> thought it
> uninteresting.


Many kings and influent people in the past have enjoyed plays, historical
ones
as well as those involving with merchant' sons and trader's daughters,
allowing
the very development of theatre.  And most playwrights were forced to write
a lot
to wealthy people to dedicate their plays, obtain the right to have them
represented,
printed, and were often court poets, making circumstancial pieces to
congratulate
the kings and queens they were writing to.  And the latter found those
letters,
odes, and epics speaking of their glory sufficiently interesting to give the
poets
money or privileges.

Davinci, Galileo, and many others wrote and kept their ideas
> secret. Why? because
> the Big shots the Journals and the Oppressive would find their work
> uninteresting.


They were both in close contact to the most powerful people of their
time and land, and were directly funded by them. Notably the Medicis family
and the Ferrare dukes. Galilelo published a lot, was a member of the
Academia dei Lincei, etc.  Vinci was researched for his knowledge in
architecture, casting and his design for war machines.


> So it
> was, so be it.


So it rarely was, and we can try to make it even better.


> Thanks for hearing me out.
>
> Heire is what I try to do in submitting sequences. Some of these are from
> the Book.
>
> 1. Is it in a publication?
> 2. Does a conjecture or theorem follow?
> 3. Is it from a website post or idea?
> 4. Is it less than 4 repetitions of the same concept with different
> parameters in the GF?
> 5. Why is it interesting to me?  It occurred in a dream, watching a ball
> game for example.
> 6. Will the man on the street understand it? Can you explain it William F
> Buckley or George Bush?
> 7. Does it have a practical application?
>
> At least 2 of these should be answered.
> Number 4 should be manditory, unless done by the Editors. Sometime you
> need
> filler to curb
> future trivial inventions to save editorial time. Number 6 is my
> philosophy.
> If you cannot explain it to the man on the street it Ain't worth knowing.
> That is my philosopy but I do not always abide.
> Number 7 is 1 in a million. Perhaps the answer is a resounding yes: it is
> FUN and down the road important! This is in the same sense as does a new
> born child have a practical application? Yes indeed!


This kind of personal rule is to your honor. You could probably add a few
items in the list. Our current problem is with people having no restraint.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.seqfan.eu/pipermail/seqfan/attachments/20060313/03aea137/attachment.htm>