I think you misread and/or misinterpreted OP's point and then jumped on a smug rant on a topic that was honestly quite irrelevant. Later came these repeated and almost manic allegations of some secret cabal of MODs (using your capitalization) who are after you. And then the repeated claims that the wretched lot of ungrateful CS profs should justly suffer, now that they do not have your help to drag them out of their wretched mess.
It would also help if you could be less dramatic please. No, even though you think so, it is not really a "scandal".
Though I downvoted you for your tone, for sounding too full of yourself, harping on personal issues that I think were irrelevant and for your unfounded insistence about personal persecution, I have to admit that the puerile delusion of grandeur on display was mildly amusing and continues to amuse me. FYI I am just a random unregular on HN. No MOD this. You complained that downvoters did not leave explanatory comments, well, your tone does not really encourage that behavior. Remember it is always a tradeoff. People will evaluate whether it is worth enough to engage in the discussion.
Your so called "help" amounted to a rant about your knowledge about measure theory and anecdotes about how you got yourself published, what I gather in journals, and the ignorance and/or the lack of background of the editors/reviewers (I gather) in continuous math.
Its great that you have learned some measure theory and real analysis. But assertions of the like, if I may put it in my own words, "I know measure theory. Learn about conditional expectation and Radon-Nikodym theorem and Shannon's work you bumbling fools" does not exactly constitute help or a contribution or as you put it "I did a great service to some lost CS profs".
On other hand if you can show that your favorite Neveu calculus can be proved sound according to some computable logic, that would indeed be helpful. Dont let your knowledge in continuous math let you believe that it has never occurred to computer theorists to "mathematize" CS. Computer science (as opposed to engineering or practice) is after all a branch of mathematics. The major chunk of real analysis cant be used in CS because no one yet has a proof that it is sound. Non standard analysis is field that is developing tools so that those concepts can be built ground up keeping computability and soundness in mind.
As you have passive aggressively conjectured, a lot indeed has changed in the last 5~6 years in CS publishing and publishing in journals and conferences are a lot different. For example, to follow up on your own example, you wouldn't have had a chance to address the editor or reviewers queries in a conference. This is regardless of whose deficiency it was, such a submission will just get dropped and in the competitive conferences it takes no more than one less than flattering review to ensure a rejection.
It would also help if you could be less dramatic please. No, even though you think so, it is not really a "scandal".
Though I downvoted you for your tone, for sounding too full of yourself, harping on personal issues that I think were irrelevant and for your unfounded insistence about personal persecution, I have to admit that the puerile delusion of grandeur on display was mildly amusing and continues to amuse me. FYI I am just a random unregular on HN. No MOD this. You complained that downvoters did not leave explanatory comments, well, your tone does not really encourage that behavior. Remember it is always a tradeoff. People will evaluate whether it is worth enough to engage in the discussion.
Your so called "help" amounted to a rant about your knowledge about measure theory and anecdotes about how you got yourself published, what I gather in journals, and the ignorance and/or the lack of background of the editors/reviewers (I gather) in continuous math.
Its great that you have learned some measure theory and real analysis. But assertions of the like, if I may put it in my own words, "I know measure theory. Learn about conditional expectation and Radon-Nikodym theorem and Shannon's work you bumbling fools" does not exactly constitute help or a contribution or as you put it "I did a great service to some lost CS profs".
On other hand if you can show that your favorite Neveu calculus can be proved sound according to some computable logic, that would indeed be helpful. Dont let your knowledge in continuous math let you believe that it has never occurred to computer theorists to "mathematize" CS. Computer science (as opposed to engineering or practice) is after all a branch of mathematics. The major chunk of real analysis cant be used in CS because no one yet has a proof that it is sound. Non standard analysis is field that is developing tools so that those concepts can be built ground up keeping computability and soundness in mind.
As you have passive aggressively conjectured, a lot indeed has changed in the last 5~6 years in CS publishing and publishing in journals and conferences are a lot different. For example, to follow up on your own example, you wouldn't have had a chance to address the editor or reviewers queries in a conference. This is regardless of whose deficiency it was, such a submission will just get dropped and in the competitive conferences it takes no more than one less than flattering review to ensure a rejection.