NASA, Science Magazine exposed
Wretch Fossil
Feb 14, 2011
Journal of Cosmology To Stop Publishing--Killed by Thieves and Crooks
JOC will publish its last edition in May of 2011.
The Journal of Cosmology (JOC) was founded in the summer of 2009,
published its first edition in October, and immediately became a
success. Within one year it was receiving nearly 1 million hits a
month and dozens of news articles were appearing regularly about its
content--a phenomenal achievement for a scientific journal.
Naturally, JOC's success posed a direct threat to traditional
subscription based science periodicals, such as "science" magazine;
just as online news killed many newspapers. Not surprisingly, JOC was
targeted by science magazine and others who engaged in illegal,
criminal, anti-competitive acts to prevent JOC from distributing news
about its online editions and books.
Because JOC's editorial policy was to publish all peer reviewed
science-based theory, including articles which directly challenged the
"sacred cows" of "conventional wisdom", its success posed a direct
threat to the entire scientific establishment and the "gate-keepers"
who wish to protect easily disproved myths and crush dissenting views.
Suddenly, here was this upstart, highly successful scientific journal,
with a prestigious editorial board, which was directly challenging the
status quo and their control over science.
JOC also threatened the status quo at NASA.
As we all know, the leadership at NASA is a disaster. Just last month
NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel concluded that NASA is "adrift"
and dysfunctional. Its leadership is under attack by Congress and is
good only at leading a retreat and killing programs. They are running
scared with their heads down, fearful of upcoming Congressional
hearings, fearful of more criticism, fearful of losing their jobs.
Fear. Fear. Fear. If these nincompoops and gutless wonders had been in
power during the 1960s we would have never made it to the Moon and
would not have a space program today. No clear goals, no direction, a
space program completely adrift, this is the leadership at NASA.
The Journal of Cosmology stepped into the leadership gap and published
a special edition explaining how a mission to Mars could be
accomplished and paid for--as detailed in a brilliant article by Dr.
Rhawn Joseph (Marketing Mars). Twenty four NASA scientists
contributed, including two astronauts who walked on the Moon, over 120
top scientists in total.
How did NASA's leadership respond? With fear. What if NASA's
leadership were asked to explain this before Congress? So, they
sabotaged, interfered with, and blocked press releases by their own
Senior Scientist, and kept secret, from reporters, a press conference
at NASA to discuss the human mission to Mars book and JOC's special
Mars edition edited by a member of their own science directorate. The
leadership at NASA headquarters is afraid of losing their jobs, they
are being attacked as incompetent failures by Congress, and here was
JOC and top NASA scientists saying: Onward to Mars. Better to kill the
messenger.
As it turned out, certain people at NASA have a business relationship
with JOC's competitors. As the folks at NASA admitted in a letter to
Dr. Joseph (dated 2/13/2011), they knowingly plagiarized his article,
they knew its purpose was to promote JOC and his business plan, and
they stripped his name and all mention of JOC from the article, and
used it instead to promote themselves and their publishing partners in
the private sector. Dr. Joseph summed it up this way: "What a bunch of
crooks."
When people working for NASA decide to steal from you, and when NASA
(the U.S. Government) is in business with your competitors, it is time
to say "Adios."
The April Edition of the Journal of Cosmology will be devoted to:
"Consciousness and the Universe" (edited by Sir Roger Penrose of
Oxford).
The final May edition, will be devoted to astrobiology,
astrochemistry, and the pioneering work of Fred Hoyle (who coined the
term "the big bang") and his colleague (and JOC editor) Chandra
Wickramasinghe who along with Hoyle, coined the term: "Astrobiology."
In this final edition, evidence will be presented, demonstrating that
life on Earth has a genetic pedigree extending backwards in time by
over 10 billion years (billions of years before Earth was formed). We
have the evidence. Its in our genes.
Life on Earth, Came From Other Planets ---and this is something the
Bible-thumpers, the "leadership" at NASA, and the status quo, do not
want the public to know.
With nearly a million hits a month, JOC turns off the lights as a
winner. The loser is the public... but this is the history of science,
and the nature of business. Its just the way it is.
Truly, Lana Tao
PS: Permission is granted to quote from and reprint this article.
March 6 statement:
NASA/Aliens--Why Not Science or Nature?
The Journal of Cosmology has received emails asking why Dr. Hoover's
paper was not published in "Science" or "Nature."
We are aware that individuals who may or may not be associated with
these publications are postingad hominem attacks, which essentially
wish the public to believe that if Dr. Hoover's article was really
important it would have been published by these other journals. These
are tantamount to school-yard taunts by jealous children.
1) First, Dr. Hoover's article was an original contribution and had
not been submitted to these two periodicals.
2) Secondly, both Science and Nature have a nasty history of rejecting
extremely important papers, some of which later earned the author's a
Noble Prize. Use google key words search for a wealth of info. Nature
magazine admits to this, though they put a positive spin on these
rejections.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6959/full/425645a.html
3) Editors at Science have been accused of using the Bible to make
editorial decisions by scientists such as Dr. Gil Levin (who devised
the famous NASA Viking Mars Experiments).
4) It is a matter of public record that the organization which
publishes science magazine have engaged in illegal anti-competitive
practices designed to harm the Journal of Cosmology. The continuing
success of JOC poses a competitive threat to their business model. We
should not be surprised their "hand puppets" are complaining that JOC
published this article, and not them.
5) Science and Nature are in the business of making money. The Journal
of Cosmology, is free, open access, and is in the business of
promoting science.
6) Science and Nature protect the status quo, and have a history of
rejecting great papers.
7) In less than 2 years, the Journal of Cosmology has become one of
the top online science journals, with nearly a million hits for
January.
Our mission is to advance science.
8) The ad hominem attacks and complaints by those say Dr. Hoover's
article should have been published in these other periodicals, and not
JOC, are just sour grapes and should not be taken seriously.
9) We have repeatedly offered to publish critical commentary. We are
still waiting.
Truly,
Lana Tao
Permission is granted to quote and reproduce this letter
March 18 statement:
--NASA Threatens NASA Scientist
-Microfossil Evidence Certified as Valid
--Nature & Science Editors Uncooperative - Know Meteor-Microfossil
Results are Valid
-The War Between Science (JOC) vs Religion (NASA)
(PRESS RELEASE REPRODUCED ON JOC WEBSITE)
http://JournalofCosmology.com
The Journal of Cosmology upon reviewing the evidence and the opinions
of experts who have submitted their comments and evaluations, does
hereby certify the paradigm shattering findings of Richard Hoover. We
confirm the validity of his discovery of ancient microfossils similar
to cyanobacteria in meteorites older than Earth.
We have been presented with absolutely no evidence that the results
from the Hoover study are not valid. Further, we believe the public
record
demonstrates that NASA's chief scientist has no credibility as he has
made and issued a number of false statements about the history of the
Hoover paper and the Journal of Cosmology (JOC),
and in so doing has maliciously disputed the legitimacy of the work of
two NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates who have published
five peer reviewed articles in JOC, and over 30 NASA scientists and 4
NASA astronauts who have also published their own peer reviewed work
in this same journal.
Equally astonishing, as NASA's chief scientist was proclaiming
"openness" to new ideas and discoveries and inviting the press to
speak with Richard Hoover, NASA officials were threatening and warning
Hoover not to speak with the media and were "screaming and yelling" at
him and demanding that he recant,
even as his wife lay dying and he was sick with cancer.
These terror tactics are reminiscent of totalitarian states and
theocracies, where defenders of the faith, and Grand Inquisitors,
armed with their Bibles, threatened, tortured, and killed those who
challenged prevailing dogma.
We have seen this before, when Galileo an Giordano Bruno were
threatened by the Inquisition, forcing Galileo to recant and torturing
and burning Bruno alive when he refused to deny that planets orbited
other stars. The same mindset is alive and thriving like a cancer at
NASA headquarters, with NASA's chief scientist acting as Grand
Inquisitor.
There has been a struggle, a war, between Science and Religion, for
almost 2,000 years, and this war continues to this day.
We believe the entire controversy over these momentous discoveries can
be characterized as science (life is everywhere, life on Earth came
from other planets) vs religion (Life came from Earth).
On March 11, 2011, and in the interest of advancing science, we
invited our critics and competitors, the editors at Science and Nature
magazines, to join in forming an independent commission to investigate
the Hoover findings. Despite their loud complaints, they ignored our
offer. Why?
Science and Nature have been repeatedly accused of refusing to publish
research which contradicts or challenges prevailing dogma. Dr. Gil
Levin who designed NASA's famous Viking Mars Life experiment, has
accused Science magazine of making editorial decisions based on the
Bible. Although lacking any empirical, scientific support, the
Biblical story of life's origins, minus the word "god" is in fact the
official position of NASA, and Science and Nature magazine; i.e. life
on Earth came from Earth. They have dressed religion in the language
of science.
The critical but uncooperative behavior at the magazines Science and
Nature and the defamatory, unsavory conduct of NASA administrators,
does not promote science but is anti-science, and serves to protect
religious beliefs; i.e. that life on Earth came from earth exactly as
detailed in the Bible and the Five Books of Moses.
Unlike our critics and competitors, the Journal of Cosmology does not
make editorial and scientific decisions based on the Bible and the
"Laws of Moses", but on the laws of science. The Hoover findings are
valid.
In sifting through the many false, deceptive, slanderous, and
dishonest statements issued by NASA's chief scientist, it is
noteworthy that NASA has not declared the Hoover results invalid. In
fact, NASA approved these results for publication in 2007, but only if
no mention was made of their extraterrestrial cometary origin. Nor has
NASA provided any evidence the data is false. Instead, they have
resorted to slander and defamation, and behind the scenes terror
tactics designed to intimidate, frighten, and force Hoover to recant.
Hoover's results have been peer reviewed by only one scientific
periodical, The Journal of Cosmology which has been edited in the past
by a NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate. We have taken the
unprecedented step of inviting over 5000 members of the scientific
community to review and comment on the Hoover paper, which was made
available before it was published. We are so confident of the results,
we invited our critics and competitors to cooperate in the creation of
a scientific commission to investigate the validity of these findings.
Because they also know the results are valid, the editors at the
magazines Science and Nature have been uncooperative.
No one has proved the results are false. Slander and histrionic
tirades do not constitute legitimate scientific doubt.
The choice is simple: Science as advocated by the Journal of
Cosmology, or religion masquerading as science as advocated by our
critics.
The implications of the Hoover discovery published by the Journal of
Cosmology are profound.
The media has a responsibility to tell the truth and to retract the
many slanders and lies. The truth is:
1) NASA approved these results for publication in 2007.
2) The Journal of Cosmology is a peer reviewed scientific journal
which has been edited by a NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate,
Dr. Joel Levine, and which has published five peer reviewed papers by
two NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates, and the peer reviewed
work of over 30 NASA scientists, four NASA astronauts, and top
scientists from around the world.
3) Hoover's data was peer reviewed and published after 4 months of
scientific scrutiny.
4) Crackpots, fake experts, and various media outlets slandered and
defamed the Journal of Cosmology and Richard Hoover.
5) Richard Hoover has been threatened and ordered to recant by NASA
officials
6) NASA's chief scientist has repeatedly made false statements to the
press and is not credible.
7) The preponderance of evidence is that the microfossils discovered
in the three meteorites, in the article published by the peer reviewed
Journal of Cosmology, are evidence of ancient extraterrestrial life.
How can science advance if lunatics are unleashed to throw filth upon
the reputations of legitimate scientists and the journals which dare
to publish their findings? The media has a responsibility to tell the
truth and to hold the media, the crackpots and NASA's chief scientist
accountable.
Did NASA pay reporters to slander Richard Hoover and the Journal of
Cosmology? Before the Hoover paper was published, JOC had repeatedly
complained that NASA was providing funding to our competitors, and had
paid a reporter to write an article for space.com and MSNBC which they
published and which they plagiarized word-for-word from JOC.
It is these same two media outlets which led the slander campaign
against JOC and Richard Hoover, featuring the ravings of charlatans
and a NASA administrator. How many reporters and media outlets are on
NASA payrolls?
We should also ask: Why would NASA administrators go to such extra-
ordinary lengths to destroy the reputations of legitimate scientists
and a scientific journal edited by one of its own Senior Scientists
Science Directorates, for the single purpose of covering up one of the
greatest discoveries in the history of humanity?
What else are they covering up? The media has a responsibility to
investigate and to tell the truth.
In conclusion: The Journal of Cosmology has reviewed the evidence, has
solicited commentary, we have invited scientific criticism, we have
reached out to our competitors who have refused to cooperate because
they know the data is real, and therefore, the only logical conclusion
is that the Journal of Cosmology and Hoover study are beyond
reproach.
As reported in the peer reviewed Journal of Cosmology, evidence of
extraterrestrial microfossils of bacteria in meteorites older than
Earth has been discovered and no legitimate scientist has been able to
disprove the findings. The findings are valid.
The implications are staggering and the public deserves to know the
truth, that life may be everywhere, throughout the cosmos. The Journal
of Cosmology has compiled this wealth of data, along with the Hoover
paper and commentaries, and the peer reviewed discoveries of numerous
independent scientists, in a single inexpensive book, titled:
"The Discovery of Alien ExtraTerrestrial life" which features the
landmark discovery of Richard Hoover.
Based on the evidence compiled in "The Discovery of Alien
ExtraTerrestrial life" and the Hoover discovery, the conclusions are
threefold:
We are not alone. Life is everywhere.
Life on Earth, came from other planets.
Wretch Fossil said: Life did not come from other planets
http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2010/09/human-origin.html
pnyikos
... a little bit at the end of a long post where he quotes two press
releases at length. I have added talk.origins to the newsgroups.
Wretch Fossil has been banned from there, he says, so his replies may
have to remove that newsgroup from the crossposts, but I'll be glad to
fill people in t.o. about anything he says that I think is worthwhile
for them to know about.
> Press Releases from the Journal of Cosmology
> Feb 14, 2011
> Journal of Cosmology To Stop Publishing--Killed by Thieves and Crooks
> JOC will publish its last edition in May of 2011.
>
> The Journal of Cosmology (JOC) was founded in the summer of 2009,
> published its first edition in October, and immediately became a
> success. Within one year it was receiving nearly 1 million hits a
> month and dozens of news articles were appearing regularly about its
> content--a phenomenal achievement for a scientific journal.
But they probably had to sacrifice a lot of rigor and popularize the
articles the way Scientific American and Discover magazines do; these
two magazines introduce lot of errors and oversimplifications into
many of their articles.
> Naturally, JOC's success posed a direct threat to traditional
> subscription based science periodicals, such as "science" magazine;
> just as online news killed many newspapers.
Can JOC be accessed for free? how? I'm very interested in what
Penrose has to say [see below] and even more interested in something
else, further below.
> Not surprisingly, JOC was
> targeted by science magazine and others who engaged in illegal,
> criminal, anti-competitive acts to prevent JOC from distributing news
> about its online editions and books.
These are serious charges, and I'd like to see the opposing side have
their say.
[big snip here]
> The April Edition of the Journal of Cosmology will be devoted to:
> "Consciousness and the Universe" (edited by Sir Roger Penrose of
> Oxford).
>
> The final May edition, will be devoted to astrobiology,
> astrochemistry, and the pioneering work of Fred Hoyle (who coined the
> term "the big bang") and his colleague (and JOC editor) Chandra
> Wickramasinghe who along with Hoyle, coined the term: "Astrobiology."
>
> In this final edition, evidence will be presented, demonstrating that
> life on Earth has a genetic pedigree extending backwards in time by
> over 10 billion years (billions of years before Earth was formed). We
> have the evidence. Its in our genes.
I am fascinated and would love to see the evidence. It fits in
perfectly with the theory of directed panspermia, develped by Nobel
Laureate Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel and a bit further by myself,
which is described below after something I made the Quote of the Week
in talk.origins way back in 2000:
The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of
microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
combine all the desirable properties within one single type
of organism or to send many different organisms is not
completely clear.
--Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
Simon and Schuster, 1981
The "senders" to which Crick refers are hypothetical directed
panspermists: intelligent creatures of almost 4 billion years
ago who sent microorganisms to earth, which according to the
hypothesis had an ocean rich in amino acids and various
other organic materials but no living things as yet. He developed
this
hypothesis together with Leslie Orgel. He doesn't claim
this is more likely or less likely than life arising here
spontaneously,
precisely because he doesn't know what the odds are.
> Life on Earth, Came From Other Planets ---and this is something the
> Bible-thumpers, the "leadership" at NASA, and the status quo, do not
> want the public to know.
If it is true, it is something a great many atheists don't want to
know either. They have a vested interest, it seems, in extending
biological evolution backwards on earth to the primordial soup
(especially that surrounding undersea vents and in contact with
certain wonderful clays) and making it all look inevitable. I've
argued with quite a few of them in talk.origins over the years.
But yes, there is at least one Bible-thumper in talk.origins who has
falsely charged me with being an atheist for the way I champion the
Crick-Orgel hypothesis.
Anyway, that figure of 10 billion years is one I've said to be
eminently reasonable. If evolution from the first prokaryotes
typically takes 4 billion years, this gives the panspermists 2 billion
years to evolve from pre-prokaryotes that Woese calls genotes (or
advanced progenotes) to full-fledged prokaryotes.
Genotes and advanced progenotes are at a stage where there is still a
great deal of "horizontal" transfer of genetic material between
contemporaries in addition to "vertical" transfer from one generation
to the next, but there are broad avenues of inheritance sufficiently
differentiated so that one broad avenue could have given rise to
eubacteria while another gave rise to archae. Transferring this
process to another planet gives much more lead time than the earth had
to produce the first prokaryote--only about a half a billion years, it
would seem.
And there could still have been another billion years to produce the
first advanced progenotes from primordial soup on such a hypothesized
planet.
> With nearly a million hits a month, JOC turns off the lights as a
> winner. The loser is the public... but this is the history of science,
> and the nature of business. Its just the way it is.
> Truly, Lana Tao
>
> PS: Permission is granted to quote from and reprint this article.
[I've deleted much of another long article here, leaving the
following.]
> Science and Nature have been repeatedly accused of refusing to publish
> research which contradicts or challenges prevailing dogma. Dr. Gil
> Levin who designed NASA's famous Viking Mars Life experiment, has
> accused Science magazine of making editorial decisions based on the
> Bible. Although lacking any empirical, scientific support, the
> Biblical story of life's origins, minus the word "god" is in fact the
> official position of NASA, and Science and Nature magazine; i.e. life
> on Earth came from Earth. They have dressed religion in the language
> of science.
This is not much of a stretch, provided this really is the editorial
position of these two magazines. Quite a few of the atheists I argue
with in talk.origins are emotionally committed to this "religion".
I've sometimes satirized their attitude by paraphrasing a famous
evangelical/fundie bit of verse:
Mother Earth did it, this I know;
For Ockham's Razor tells me so.
> The critical but uncooperative behavior at the magazines Science and
> Nature and the defamatory, unsavory conduct of NASA administrators,
> does not promote science but is anti-science, and serves to protect
> religious beliefs; i.e. that life on Earth came from earth exactly as
> detailed in the Bible and the Five Books of Moses.
Well...not exactly. The chronological sequence in Genesis 1 is at
odds with the usually held one; the worst offender is trees with seed
encased in fruit coming before fish and "creeping things".
> Unlike our critics and competitors, the Journal of Cosmology does not
> make editorial and scientific decisions based on the Bible and the
> "Laws of Moses", but on the laws of science. The Hoover findings are
> valid.
That remains to be seen, but I'm very interested.
[...]
> We are not alone. Life is everywhere.
> Life on Earth, came from other planets.
>
> Wretch Fossil said: Life did not come from other planets
Well, it's very big of you to post these long articles despite this
conviction of yours, Wretch Fossil. You show more open-mindedness in
this respect, at any rate, than the majority of people I have
encountered in talk.origins.
> http://wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2010/09/human-origin.html
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
> On Mar 27, 4:52 am, Wretch Fossil <wretchfos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ... a little bit at the end of a long post where he quotes two press
> releases at length. I have added talk.origins to the newsgroups.
> Wretch Fossil has been banned from there, he says, so his replies may
> have to remove that newsgroup from the crossposts, but I'll be glad to
> fill people in t.o. about anything he says that I think is worthwhile
> for them to know about.
What could that possibly be? Have you read any of his previous posts? Do
you imagine for an instant that you can engage him in any real
discussion of anything?
Kadaitcha Man
> On Mar 27, 4:52 am, Wretch Fossil<wretchfos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ... a little bit at the end of a long post where he quotes two press
> releases at length. I have added talk.origins to the newsgroups.
> Wretch Fossil has been banned from there, he says, so his replies may
> have to remove that newsgroup from the crossposts, but I'll be glad to
> fill people in t.o. about anything he says that I think is worthwhile
> for them to know about.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
<aside>
Fucking n0oBs.
--
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.atheism.
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.
John Harshman
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:31:01 -0700, John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Mar 27, 4:52 am, Wretch Fossil <wretchfos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What could that possibly be?
>
Nyikos is a mentally ill troll? Not in my experience.
pnyikos
I like to give people who seem sincere plenty of opportunity to redeem
themselves. And note, I did say "I think is worthwhile".
The smart money says there won't be any of it, but the smart money has
been wrong before, like in the first Joe Louis -Max Schmeling fight
and the Mike Tyson - Buster Douglas fight.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
I repeat: have you read any of his previous posts? He may be sincere,
but he's also insane. He can see anything in any picture. He regularly
finds mammal fossils in meteorites and Sojourner photos. He thinks god
talks to him frequently. He thinks dinosaurs are mammals. And those are
some of his more rational ideas.
Your credulity toward this wacko is inexplicable, unless you just bend
over backwards to anyone with a whiff of panspermia.
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 3:31 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Mar 27, 4:52 am, Wretch Fossil <wretchfos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ... a little bit at the end of a long post where he quotes two press
> >>> releases at length. I have added talk.origins to the newsgroups.
> >>> Wretch Fossil has been banned from there, he says, so his replies may
> >>> have to remove that newsgroup from the crossposts, but I'll be glad to
> >>> fill people in t.o. about anything he says that I think is worthwhile
> >>> for them to know about.
> >> What could that possibly be? Have you read any of his previous posts? Do
> >> you imagine for an instant that you can engage him in any real
> >> discussion of anything?
>
> > I like to give people who seem sincere plenty of opportunity to redeem
> > themselves. And note, I did say "I think is worthwhile".
>
> > The smart money says there won't be any of it, but the smart money has
> > been wrong before, like in the first Joe Louis -Max Schmeling fight
> > and the Mike Tyson - Buster Douglas fight.
>
> I repeat: have you read any of his previous posts? He may be sincere,
> but he's also insane. He can see anything in any picture.
Perhaps.
> He regularly
> finds mammal fossils in meteorites and Sojourner photos. He thinks god
> talks to him frequently. He thinks dinosaurs are mammals. And those are
> some of his more rational ideas.
These latter statements are too true,
> Your credulity toward this wacko is inexplicable, unless you just bend
> over backwards to anyone with a whiff of panspermia.
What credulity? I haven't given credence to a single thing he's
written, except for his claim that he has been banned from
talk.origins.
Are you too amoral to realize the import of the following statement?
I suffer fools gladly, but knaves with great difficulty or not at
all.
I've said this several times in talk.origins.
Peter Nyikos
Father Haskell
>
> I repeat: have you read any of his previous posts? He may be sincere,
> but he's also insane. He can see anything in any picture. He regularly
> finds mammal fossils in meteorites and Sojourner photos. He thinks god
> talks to him frequently. He thinks dinosaurs are mammals. And those are
> some of his more rational ideas.
This one's kinda hard to top:
Cheaply cure high blood pressure forever.
Method: Adhere a piece of lead to the back of your wrist watch and
wear the watch for over eight hours a day.
Effect: The disease of high blood pressure will be cured forever in
three months if the patient gets the disease for less than three
years. More serious cases take a bit longer time to cure forever with
the piece of lead. People will be immune from the disease of high
blood pressure if they wear the lead piece before getting the
disease.
Details for the piece of lead: The lead must weigh at least seven
grams. Lead alloy is OK too, but the lead part in the alloy must
weigh
over seven grams.
Warning: After cure, people should continue to wear the lead at least
15 days per month.
(Wretch Fossil, Oct 4, 2010)
John Harshman
And yet you seem unwilling to accept that the probability that he will
say anything sensible is too small to be worth considering. Why?
> Are you too amoral to realize the import of the following statement?
From this you infer that I'm amoral?
> I suffer fools gladly, but knaves with great difficulty or not at
> all.
>
> I've said this several times in talk.origins.
As I recall, you have frequently alleged dishonesty on my part. From
that I infer that you aren't all that good at distinguishing fools from
knaves.
Wretch Fossil
I wonder whether some people did what God WROTE about how to cure high
blood pressure. That's the best imaginable method. I did it and was
cured. Try it for less than 3 months. I am here forever waiting for
your good news.
pnyikos
What difference does that make to you? Aren't you constantly after me
to stop getting into personal attacks with people, as though you
wanted me to stay on topic?
And yet, on this thread, you've snipped ALL my on-topic [except
perhaps for s.b.p.] comments from my LONG first post and have focused
on this personal issue wrt Wretch Fossil.
WHY?
> > Are you too amoral to realize the import of the following statement?
>
> From this you infer that I'm amoral?
I am not inferring anything about you at this point. I'm just as
generous to you as I am to Wretch Fossil, and so am giving plenty of
opportunity to exhibit a moral dimension.
I admit my question was a loaded one, but your aggressive attitude
towards my perception of Wretch Fossil is just the latest of a number
of straws in the wind. But it takes lots of straws to break the
camel's back.
> > I suffer fools gladly, but knaves with great difficulty or not at
> > all.
>
> > I've said this several times in talk.origins.
>
> As I recall, you have frequently alleged dishonesty on my part.
Name one example besides you using the blatantly false claim that I
accused MANY people of being sock puppets of Howard Hershey as grounds
for alleging that my paranoia ascends to the skies.
>From
> that I infer that you aren't all that good at distinguishing fools from
> knaves.
OK, so you were a fool on that one occasion. Any others?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Huh????
Are you one of those people who believes God "wrote" the Bible by
literally dictating it to the human beings who did the actual writing?
That's just my preliminary question. Obviously, the Bible does not
mention wrist watches, although there are jokes about someone being
the smallest man in the Bible because he "stood on his watch".
[Bildad the Shuhite, if memory serves.]
So where the hell [excuse the expression] is God supposed to have
written that cure???
>That's the best imaginable method. I did it and was
> cured. Try it for less than 3 months. I am here forever waiting for
> your good news.
The best news for me at this point, in these newsgroups, would be that
you are not insane. But the prognosis doesn't look good.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
Of course. But trying to draw WF into a discussion is just as much a
waste of effort, if not more so. Mostly, though, I was curious as to
your expectations. So I asked, and your answer seemed to give WF much
more credit than the most cursory survey of his history would warrant.
Comparing the chance that he would say anything sensible to the chance
of one or another fighter winning a bout? Better you should compare the
chances in the famous (though apocryphal) Ali-Einstein fight.
> And yet, on this thread, you've snipped ALL my on-topic [except
> perhaps for s.b.p.] comments from my LONG first post and have focused
> on this personal issue wrt Wretch Fossil.
>
> WHY?
It wasn't really on-topic. It was a series of attacks on unspecified
posters in TO. They're too stupid or brainwashed to see your arguments.
But you didn't actually make the arguments.
>>> Are you too amoral to realize the import of the following statement?
>> From this you infer that I'm amoral?
>
> I am not inferring anything about you at this point. I'm just as
> generous to you as I am to Wretch Fossil, and so am giving plenty of
> opportunity to exhibit a moral dimension.
>
> I admit my question was a loaded one, but your aggressive attitude
> towards my perception of Wretch Fossil is just the latest of a number
> of straws in the wind. But it takes lots of straws to break the
> camel's back.
One cliche in time saves nine?
>>> I suffer fools gladly, but knaves with great difficulty or not at
>>> all.
>>> I've said this several times in talk.origins.
>> As I recall, you have frequently alleged dishonesty on my part.
>
> Name one example besides you using the blatantly false claim that I
> accused MANY people of being sock puppets of Howard Hershey as grounds
> for alleging that my paranoia ascends to the skies.
That one will do. It may be blatantly false, but that's how I remembered
it. I am therefore a fool, not a knave. See?
>> From
>> that I infer that you aren't all that good at distinguishing fools from
>> knaves.
>
> OK, so you were a fool on that one occasion. Any others?
Several as I remember, but I can't cite chapter and verse. If you have
never accused my of dishonesty, my memory is playing tricks.
pnyikos
OK, I'm beginning to see your point here. I agree with your
comparison.
But you ducked my questions.
And this isn't the first example of anomalous behavior on your part.
For instance, you were extra keen on who I thought was more
narcissistic, myself or Pagano. The answer to that is that I don't
know enough about Pagano to make any estimates on his narcissism
whatsoever. I have seen very few of his posts so far.
However, I do know enough about you to estimate that you are less
than 5% as narcissistic as Ron Okimoto. Maybe even less than 1%.
But you definitely seem to be more narcissistic than I am.
> > And yet, on this thread, you've snipped ALL my on-topic [except
> > perhaps for s.b.p.] comments from my LONG first post and have focused
> > on this personal issue wrt Wretch Fossil.
>
> > WHY?
>
> It wasn't really on-topic.
You evidently didn't read the article.
------------------------ begin excerpt
================= end of first excerpt, begin second
Anyway, that figure of 10 billion years is one I've said to be
eminently reasonable. If evolution from the first prokaryotes
typically takes 4 billion years, this gives the panspermists 2 billion
years to evolve from pre-prokaryotes that Woese calls genotes (or
advanced progenotes) to full-fledged prokaryotes.
Genotes and advanced progenotes are at a stage where there is still a
great deal of "horizontal" transfer of genetic material between
contemporaries in addition to "vertical" transfer from one generation
to the next, but there are broad avenues of inheritance sufficiently
differentiated so that one broad avenue could have given rise to
eubacteria while another gave rise to archae. Transferring this
process to another planet gives much more lead time than the earth had
to produce the first prokaryote--only about a half a billion years, it
would seem.
And there could still have been another billion years to produce the
first advanced progenotes from primordial soup on such a hypothesized
planet.
+++++++++++++++++++++++ end of second excerpt
> It was a series of attacks on unspecified
> posters in TO.
You don't see a single one up there, do you?
> But you didn't actually make the arguments.
You could have commented on the estimates in the second excerpt.
> >>> Are you too amoral to realize the import of the following statement?
> >> From this you infer that I'm amoral?
>
> > I am not inferring anything about you at this point. I'm just as
> > generous to you as I am to Wretch Fossil, and so am giving plenty of
> > opportunity to exhibit a moral dimension.
>
> > I admit my question was a loaded one, but your aggressive attitude
> > towards my perception of Wretch Fossil is just the latest of a number
> > of straws in the wind. But it takes lots of straws to break the
> > camel's back.
>
> One cliche in time saves nine?
>
> >>> I suffer fools gladly, but knaves with great difficulty or not at
> >>> all.
> >>> I've said this several times in talk.origins.
> >> As I recall, you have frequently alleged dishonesty on my part.
>
> > Name one example besides you using the blatantly false claim that I
> > accused MANY people of being sock puppets of Howard Hershey as grounds
> > for alleging that my paranoia ascends to the skies.
>
> That one will do.
For "frequently"? You have some strange standards.
> It may be blatantly false, but that's how I remembered
> it. I am therefore a fool, not a knave. See?
Wrong. You *behaved like* a fool. We all do from time to time.
> >> From
> >> that I infer that you aren't all that good at distinguishing fools from
> >> knaves.
>
> > OK, so you were a fool on that one occasion. Any others?
>
> Several as I remember, but I can't cite chapter and verse.
Nor able to give even a vague description? These senior moments
should be guarded against.
> If you have
> never accused my of dishonesty, my memory is playing tricks.
I believe it is, because even wrt that one occasion, I didn't accuse
you of outright dishonesty, just of cracking mean-spirited jokes.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
On second thought, it is very uncharitable to think that Wretch Fossil
couldn't come up with ANYTHING sensible to say. Those kinds of across
the board evaluations are the stuff of incorrigible flamers.
> But you ducked my questions.
Correction: You did answer them after a fashion, but I am still
perplexed by the inconsistency in your repeated put-downs of Wretch
Fossil on the one hand and your reprimands of me on the other. Did
Wretch Fossil ever accuse you of lying or obfuscation?
> And this isn't the first example of anomalous behavior on your part.
> For instance, you were extra keen on who I thought was more
> narcissistic, myself or Pagano.
That was a real bolt out of the blue.
[rest snipped]
John Harshman
What difference? Not much, but usenet posting takes little effort. What
credulity? Your inapt fight comparisons, for one thing. Were those the
questions?
> And this isn't the first example of anomalous behavior on your part.
> For instance, you were extra keen on who I thought was more
> narcissistic, myself or Pagano. The answer to that is that I don't
> know enough about Pagano to make any estimates on his narcissism
> whatsoever. I have seen very few of his posts so far.
Let me know when you have enough data. I don't recall asking the
question, but it was probably not intended literally.
> However, I do know enough about you to estimate that you are less
> than 5% as narcissistic as Ron Okimoto. Maybe even less than 1%.
> But you definitely seem to be more narcissistic than I am.
Your mileage may vary. I merely point out that every thread eventually
ends up being about you.
>>> And yet, on this thread, you've snipped ALL my on-topic [except
>>> perhaps for s.b.p.] comments from my LONG first post and have focused
>>> on this personal issue wrt Wretch Fossil.
>>> WHY?
>> It wasn't really on-topic.
>
> You evidently didn't read the article.
I read it. I was talking about your comments.
[snip]
>> It was a series of attacks on unspecified
>> posters in TO.
>
> You don't see a single one up there, do you?
Sure. You didn't post those in your excerpts. How about
"If it is true, it is something a great many atheists don't want to
know either. They have a vested interest, it seems, in extending
biological evolution backwards on earth to the primordial soup
(especially that surrounding undersea vents and in contact with
certain wonderful clays) and making it all look inevitable. I've
argued with quite a few of them in talk.origins over the years."
and
"This is not much of a stretch, provided this really is the editorial
position of these two magazines. Quite a few of the atheists I argue
with in talk.origins are emotionally committed to this "religion".
I've sometimes satirized their attitude by paraphrasing a famous
evangelical/fundie bit of verse:
Mother Earth did it, this I know;
For Ockham's Razor tells me so."
>> But you didn't actually make the arguments.
>
> You could have commented on the estimates in the second excerpt.
I didn't see any estimates. I saw some numbers that you made up with no
justification, and a few others based on combining them. Nothing to
comment on unless you have some reason for them.
>>>>> Are you too amoral to realize the import of the following statement?
>>>> From this you infer that I'm amoral?
>>> I am not inferring anything about you at this point. I'm just as
>>> generous to you as I am to Wretch Fossil, and so am giving plenty of
>>> opportunity to exhibit a moral dimension.
>>> I admit my question was a loaded one, but your aggressive attitude
>>> towards my perception of Wretch Fossil is just the latest of a number
>>> of straws in the wind. But it takes lots of straws to break the
>>> camel's back.
>> One cliche in time saves nine?
>>
>>>>> I suffer fools gladly, but knaves with great difficulty or not at
>>>>> all.
>>>>> I've said this several times in talk.origins.
>>>> As I recall, you have frequently alleged dishonesty on my part.
>>> Name one example besides you using the blatantly false claim that I
>>> accused MANY people of being sock puppets of Howard Hershey as grounds
>>> for alleging that my paranoia ascends to the skies.
>> That one will do.
>
> For "frequently"? You have some strange standards.
No, just too little invested to look up any more.
>> It may be blatantly false, but that's how I remembered
>> it. I am therefore a fool, not a knave. See?
>
> Wrong. You *behaved like* a fool. We all do from time to time.
Good enough.
>>>> From
>>>> that I infer that you aren't all that good at distinguishing fools from
>>>> knaves.
>>> OK, so you were a fool on that one occasion. Any others?
>> Several as I remember, but I can't cite chapter and verse.
>
> Nor able to give even a vague description? These senior moments
> should be guarded against.
What senior moments? Who are you?
>> If you have
>> never accused my of dishonesty, my memory is playing tricks.
>
> I believe it is, because even wrt that one occasion, I didn't accuse
> you of outright dishonesty, just of cracking mean-spirited jokes.
Hard to tell.
John Harshman
Read a few more of his posts and then get back to me. He's been posting
for a long time, and I think we have a good enough sample. If he's never
said anything worthwhile in at least a thousand posts, would you feel
confident in predicting the nature of future posts?
>> But you ducked my questions.
>
> Correction: You did answer them after a fashion, but I am still
> perplexed by the inconsistency in your repeated put-downs of Wretch
> Fossil on the one hand and your reprimands of me on the other. Did
> Wretch Fossil ever accuse you of lying or obfuscation?
He seldom engages enough to make any sort of personal comment. And those
aren't put-downs, just assessments based on considerable experience.
>> And this isn't the first example of anomalous behavior on your part.
>> For instance, you were extra keen on who I thought was more
>> narcissistic, myself or Pagano.
>
> That was a real bolt out of the blue.
Probably not intended literally, just a way of saying that both you and
Pagano seem narcissistic. My opinion.
Ferd Farkel
>
> - Show quoted text -
I thought it was mercury that made you insane and lead
that made you stupid. I stand corrected.
John Baker
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>HumBug! wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:31:01 -0700, John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>> On Mar 27, 4:52 am, Wretch Fossil <wretchfos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What could that possibly be?
>>
>> PLEASE, DO NOT converse with mentally ill trolls!!!!!
>
>Nyikos is a mentally ill troll? Not in my experience.
He may not be certifiable, but he's definitely a couple of bricks shy
of a load.
Father Haskell
>
> - Show quoted text -
What flavor dip you want with your paint chips?
Wretch Fossil
You just don't know. God (Father of God) is now a living person. He
wrote in Chinese. He is the editor of quite a few books and a
quarterly magazine. The magazine has existed for over 35 years.
The magazine has thousands of readers. By the way, God, who created
this physical universe and Heaven, died in Japan over 30 years ago.
I cannot reveal details. I am not authorized to disclose details
mentioned above. Let me assure you that God wants no fame. I have
personally considered His teachings for numerous times for over 30
years.
>
> >That's the best imaginable method. I did it and was
> > cured. Try it for less than 3 months. I am here forever waiting for
> > your good news.
>
> The best news for me at this point, in these newsgroups, would be that
> you are not insane. But the prognosis doesn't look good.
>
> Peter Nyikos- 隱藏被引用文字 -
>
> - 顯示被引用文字 -
Wretch Fossil
And those
> aren't put-downs, just assessments based on considerable experience.
>
> >> And this isn't the first example of anomalous behavior on your part.
> >> For instance, you were extra keen on who I thought was more
> >> narcissistic, myself or Pagano.
>
> > That was a real bolt out of the blue.
>
> Probably not intended literally, just a way of saying that both you and
> Pagano seem narcissistic. My opinion.- 隱藏被引用文字 -
>
> - 顯示被引用文字 -
Wretch Fossil
>
> - 顯示被引用文字 -
Thank you for mentioning Usenet. I will learn to use it someday before
I cease to post any more.
John Harshman
"mentally ill troll"?
Wretch Fossil
I didn't pat your shoulders but I did ask you to see your doctor in
order to recognize mammalian red blood cells vs. non-mammalian red
blood cells.
Did you ever learn how to tell the difference?
>
> >> And this isn't the first example of anomalous behavior on your part.
> >> For instance, you were extra keen on who I thought was more
> >> narcissistic, myself or Pagano.
>
> > That was a real bolt out of the blue.
>
> Probably not intended literally, just a way of saying that both you and
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 4:05 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Mar 29, 12:01 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> And yet you seem unwilling to accept that the probability that he will
> >>>> say anything sensible is too small to be worth considering. Why?
>
> >>> What difference does that make to you? Aren't you constantly after me
> >>> to stop getting into personal attacks with people, as though you
> >>> wanted me to stay on topic?
[...]
> What difference? Not much, but usenet posting takes little effort. What
> credulity? Your inapt fight comparisons, for one thing.
Those came well after you accused me of credulity, and I stand by
them, because the thing they were compared to was the probability of
Wretch Fossil *EVER* coming up with anything sensible.
> > And this isn't the first example of anomalous behavior on your part.
> > For instance, you were extra keen on who I thought was more
> > narcissistic, myself or Pagano. The answer to that is that I don't
> > know enough about Pagano to make any estimates on his narcissism
> > whatsoever. I have seen very few of his posts so far.
>
> Let me know when you have enough data.
That might take years. I seldom follow threads involving Pagano.
> I don't recall asking the
> question, but it was probably not intended literally.
>
> > However, I do know enough about you to estimate that you are less
> > than 5% as narcissistic as Ron Okimoto. Maybe even less than 1%.
> > But you definitely seem to be more narcissistic than I am.
>
> Your mileage may vary. I merely point out that every thread eventually
> ends up being about you.
Really? I thought most of the threads that ended up being about me
also started out to be about me. I only read a small fraction of the
threads in talk.origins, you know.
> >>> And yet, on this thread, you've snipped ALL my on-topic [except
> >>> perhaps for s.b.p.] comments from my LONG first post and have focused
> >>> on this personal issue wrt Wretch Fossil.
> >>> WHY?
> >> It wasn't really on-topic.
>
> > You evidently didn't read the article.
>
> I read it. I was talking about your comments.
>
> [snip]
You deleted a long pair of excerpts, much longer than what I deleted
below.
> >> It was a series of attacks on unspecified
> >> posters in TO.
>
> > You don't see a single one up there, do you?
>
> Sure. You didn't post those in your excerpts. How about
[deletia of quotes from a small fraction of a post which was described
above as "It was a series..."]
> >> But you didn't actually make the arguments.
>
> > You could have commented on the estimates in the second excerpt.
>
> I didn't see any estimates. I saw some numbers that you made up
Wrong. You saw one number that I "inherited" from the announcement of
what the May issue of JOC will bring, and you saw a generally accepted
estimate of when life on earth first appeared.
And then you saw logical deductions from those two estimates.
> with no
> justification, and a few others based on combining them.
I'm looking forward to that May article for the justification of that
10 million figure. I hope it will be a reasonable deduction, although
I suspect there will be ample room for argument about the validity of
the methodology.
[...]
> > Nor able to give even a vague description? These senior moments
> > should be guarded against.
>
> What senior moments? Who are you?
:-) :-)
> >> If you have
> >> never accused my of dishonesty, my memory is playing tricks.
>
> > I believe it is, because even wrt that one occasion, I didn't accuse
> > you of outright dishonesty, just of cracking mean-spirited jokes.
>
> Hard to tell.
I very literally and explicitly accused you of that, not just once but
several times, and none of those times seemed to sit too well with
you. Were you hoping for actual accusations of lying that you could
really sink your teeth into?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
AAAUUGH!!! another one of those crackpots like "Father Divine" of the
1930's.
What evidence did he ever give anyone that he is "Father of God"?
>The magazine has existed for over 35 years.
> The magazine has thousands of readers. By the way, God, who created
> this physical universe and Heaven, died in Japan over 30 years ago.
Do you think he totally ceased to exist, even in spirit form? Don't
you think that is incredibly anthropocentric?
> I cannot reveal details. I am not authorized to disclose details
> mentioned above.
Not even as to the title of that alleged magazine?
>Let me assure you that God wants no fame. I have
> personally considered His teachings for numerous times for over 30
> years.
>
>
>
> > >That's the best imaginable method. I did it and was
> > > cured. Try it for less than 3 months. I am here forever waiting for
> > > your good news.
>
> > The best news for me at this point, in these newsgroups, would be that
> > you are not insane. But the prognosis doesn't look good.
>
> > Peter Nyikos-
It suddenly got a lot worse.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
> On Mar 29, 7:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Mar 29, 4:05 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 29, 12:01 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> And yet you seem unwilling to accept that the probability that he will
>>>>>> say anything sensible is too small to be worth considering. Why?
>>>>> What difference does that make to you? Aren't you constantly after me
>>>>> to stop getting into personal attacks with people, as though you
>>>>> wanted me to stay on topic?
> [...]
>
>> What difference? Not much, but usenet posting takes little effort. What
>> credulity? Your inapt fight comparisons, for one thing.
>
> Those came well after you accused me of credulity, and I stand by
> them, because the thing they were compared to was the probability of
> Wretch Fossil *EVER* coming up with anything sensible.
It should be obvious by now that he's crazy and never will come up with
anything sensible. So stop standing by that comparison. Find a
comparison in which the probability of success is much less than .5;
something more like .000001.
>>> And this isn't the first example of anomalous behavior on your part.
>>> For instance, you were extra keen on who I thought was more
>>> narcissistic, myself or Pagano. The answer to that is that I don't
>>> know enough about Pagano to make any estimates on his narcissism
>>> whatsoever. I have seen very few of his posts so far.
>> Let me know when you have enough data.
>
> That might take years. I seldom follow threads involving Pagano.
Ask yourself why you do that.
>> I don't recall asking the
>> question, but it was probably not intended literally.
>>
>>> However, I do know enough about you to estimate that you are less
>>> than 5% as narcissistic as Ron Okimoto. Maybe even less than 1%.
>>> But you definitely seem to be more narcissistic than I am.
>> Your mileage may vary. I merely point out that every thread eventually
>> ends up being about you.
>
> Really? I thought most of the threads that ended up being about me
> also started out to be about me. I only read a small fraction of the
> threads in talk.origins, you know.
I mean every subthread in which you participate.
>>>>> And yet, on this thread, you've snipped ALL my on-topic [except
>>>>> perhaps for s.b.p.] comments from my LONG first post and have focused
>>>>> on this personal issue wrt Wretch Fossil.
>>>>> WHY?
>>>> It wasn't really on-topic.
>>> You evidently didn't read the article.
>> I read it. I was talking about your comments.
>>
>> [snip]
>
> You deleted a long pair of excerpts, much longer than what I deleted
> below.
>
>>>> It was a series of attacks on unspecified
>>>> posters in TO.
>>> You don't see a single one up there, do you?
>> Sure. You didn't post those in your excerpts. How about
>
> [deletia of quotes from a small fraction of a post which was described
> above as "It was a series..."]
>
>
>>>> But you didn't actually make the arguments.
>>> You could have commented on the estimates in the second excerpt.
>> I didn't see any estimates. I saw some numbers that you made up
>
> Wrong. You saw one number that I "inherited" from the announcement of
> what the May issue of JOC will bring, and you saw a generally accepted
> estimate of when life on earth first appeared.
>
> And then you saw logical deductions from those two estimates.
We can argue about whether those were logical deductions, and whether
the estimates qualify as anything more than "just made up".
>> with no
>> justification, and a few others based on combining them.
>
> I'm looking forward to that May article for the justification of that
> 10 million figure. I hope it will be a reasonable deduction, although
> I suspect there will be ample room for argument about the validity of
> the methodology.
Good luck on that.
> [...]
>>> Nor able to give even a vague description? These senior moments
>>> should be guarded against.
>> What senior moments? Who are you?
>
> :-) :-)
>
>>>> If you have
>>>> never accused my of dishonesty, my memory is playing tricks.
>>> I believe it is, because even wrt that one occasion, I didn't accuse
>>> you of outright dishonesty, just of cracking mean-spirited jokes.
>> Hard to tell.
>
> I very literally and explicitly accused you of that, not just once but
> several times, and none of those times seemed to sit too well with
> you. Were you hoping for actual accusations of lying that you could
> really sink your teeth into?
I have no wish to try your head on, certainly. Why not stop this and
replace it with a post that makes whatever substantive point I have
missed. Restate your estimates and reasoning. No need to add lengthy
excerts from what seems to have been a press release from a journal of
doubtful legitimacy, regarding an article of even more doubtful legitimacy.
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 7:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> For instance, you were extra keen on who I thought was more
> >>> narcissistic, myself or Pagano. The answer to that is that I don't
> >>> know enough about Pagano to make any estimates on his narcissism
> >>> whatsoever. I have seen very few of his posts so far.
>
> >> Let me know when you have enough data.
>
> > That might take years. I seldom follow threads involving Pagano.
>
> Ask yourself why you do that.
I've already told you: he is a creationist, and what creationists have
to say holds very little interest for me.
Unlike you, I am not the least bit worried that creationism will ever
make it big-time, not even in the Bible belt, as far as government and
university and public school policy is concerned.
> >> I don't recall asking the
> >> question, but it was probably not intended literally.
>
> >>> However, I do know enough about you to estimate that you are less
> >>> than 5% as narcissistic as Ron Okimoto. Maybe even less than 1%.
> >>> But you definitely seem to be more narcissistic than I am.
>
> >> Your mileage may vary. I merely point out that every thread eventually
> >> ends up being about you.
>
> > Really? I thought most of the threads that ended up being about me
> > also started out to be about me.
...or begun by me.
> > I only read a small fraction of the
> > threads in talk.origins, you know.
>
> I mean every subthread in which you participate.
Are you envious because you can't say the same about the subthreads in
which you participate?
[...]
> >>> You could have commented on the estimates in the second excerpt.
> >> I didn't see any estimates. I saw some numbers that you made up
>
> > Wrong. You saw one number that I "inherited" from the announcement of
> > what the May issue of JOC will bring, and you saw a generally accepted
> > estimate of when life on earth first appeared.
>
> > And then you saw logical deductions from those two estimates.
>
> We can argue about whether those were logical deductions, and whether
> the estimates qualify as anything more than "just made up".
Until that May issue comes out, I'm not playing, for reasons that any
sensible person would agree with.
> >> with no
> >> justification, and a few others based on combining them.
>
> > I'm looking forward to that May article for the justification of that
> > 10 million figure. I hope it will be a reasonable deduction, although
> > I suspect there will be ample room for argument about the validity of
> > the methodology.
>
> Good luck on that.
I'm sure you'll be glad to argue against the validity of the
methodology. You may have your work cut out for you if it is based on
"biological clocks."
[...]
> Restate your estimates and reasoning.
Why, have the posts out of which you snipped them (the original and
the repost) already expired in your newsreader?
If so, it might be time for you to switch to one that doesn't expire
posts so rapidly.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
On Mar 30, 11:07 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> John Baker wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:42:11 -0700, John Harshman
> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> HumBug! wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:31:01 -0700, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 27, 4:52 am, Wretch Fossil <wretchfos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> What could that possibly be?
> >>> PLEASE, DO NOT converse with mentally ill trolls!!!!!
> >> Nyikos is a mentally ill troll? Not in my experience.
>
> > He may not be certifiable, but he's definitely a couple of bricks shy
> > of a load.
>
I sent John Baker a private e-mail a while back, in response to the
post where he wrote the above, asking him what issues he had with
me. He has never replied, and I tried to pin him down on another
thread with the following May 25 post:
http://groups.google.com/group/tx.politics/msg/b24fcad9c089f95d?dmode=source
But he hasn't responded to that either.
As far as I remember, we never interacted before he wrote the above,
and I suspect he was relying on pure hearsay about me by two people
with whom each of us has interacted: Jon Young and "LC", both of whom
are irresponsible people, especially Jon.
John Baker and Jon Young are bitter enemies, and "LC" and Jon Young
are even more bitter enemies. In fact, I've never seen an enmity
quite like that between the latter two, not even on Usenet.
> I'll go so far as to agree his behavior is at times very odd. But
> "mentally ill troll"?
Perhaps John Baker is ticked off because I refuse to ally myself with
LC in his clashes with Jon Young. I am engaged in a disirnterested
search for the truth about these two people, and both of them are
uncooperative on the whole.
Peter Nyikos
J
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ba34fcb4-30a6-4a14...@c1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>
> John Baker and Jon Young are bitter enemies, and "LC" and Jon Young
> are even more bitter enemies. In fact, I've never seen an enmity
> quite like that between the latter two, not even on Usenet.
Bitter enemies? I have never met either one of the assholes and wouldn't
recognize them if I saw them. This is Usenet, jerkoff, where people sit in
front of a computer and type messages. Some people agree and some don't.
When attacks become overwhelmingly personal, I respond in kind. It's not my
fault that I'm smarter than those asswipes who can't find anything truly
personal to attack me about. I can and do, but only when absolutely
appropriate. But bitter enemies? Give yourself a break and take time away
from Usenet.
>
>> I'll go so far as to agree his behavior is at times very odd. But
>> "mentally ill troll"?
>
> Perhaps John Baker is ticked off because I refuse to ally myself with
> LC in his clashes with Jon Young. I am engaged in a disirnterested
> search for the truth about these two people, and both of them are
> uncooperative on the whole.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Eric Berg hasn't posted under the nym 'LC" in a while now, so why do you
care so much about some idiotic accusation that even he himself can't prove
and hasn't been heard from since? If it makes you happy believing his tales,
be my guest and enjoy yourself. If you hadn't noticed these past few years,
I really don't care.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
pnyikos
letting on in the post to which I am following up.
On Jun 9, 1:01 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ba34fcb4-30a6-4a14...@c1g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> > John Baker and Jon Young are bitter enemies, and "LC" and Jon Young
> > are even more bitter enemies. In fact, I've never seen an enmity
> > quite like that between the latter two, not even on Usenet.
>
> Bitter enemies? I have never met either one of the assholes and wouldn't
> recognize them if I saw them.
Really? You found the photo of a person you were convinced was his
father, taken straight from an OBITUARY, and called this dead man a
"fiend" and made other unsupported defamations of him.
You also posted the photo of one "Marcia" and we've seen some really
bizarre posts by "Marcia Berg." Her name appears in that dead man's
obituary as the wife of Eric F. Berg.
To add to the bizarreness, someone identifying himself as a long time
poster and suspected sock puppet of yours, "Auric Hellman" just
happened to have found that same obitiuary, and left his condolences:
Do you REALLY expect me to believe that you never found a photo of
Eric F. Berg anywhere on the internet?
>This is Usenet, jerkoff, where people sit in
> front of a computer and type messages.
And engage in various other activities, see above. Your point?
>Some people agree and some don't.
> When attacks become overwhelmingly personal, I respond in kind.
I defy you to find anyone who has done unto you what you have done
unto Eric F. Berg/LC.
> It's not my
> fault that I'm smarter than those asswipes who can't find anything truly
> personal to attack me about. I can and do,
The others probably have other ways, like forging posts that look like
you forged them, and accusing you of having forged them. If LC does
that to you, I can see why you might resort to despicable tactics like
defaming a dead man you never met and who AFAIK never posted to
Usenet.
Would you venture to say that "Auric Hellman" is one of those
forgeries by someone else?
> but only when absolutely
> appropriate. But bitter enemies? Give yourself a break and take time away
> from Usenet.
Why do I suspect that YOU will go on a permanent vacation from this
thread?
[Harshman:]
> >> I'll go so far as to agree his behavior is at times very odd. But
> >> "mentally ill troll"?
>
> > Perhaps John Baker is ticked off because I refuse to ally myself with
> > LC in his clashes with Jon Young. I am engaged in a disirnterested
> > search for the truth about these two people, and both of them are
> > uncooperative on the whole.
And you've gotten even more uncooperative in this post.
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> Eric Berg hasn't posted under the nym 'LC" in a while now,
Ah, so you still assert that LC is Eric F. Berg, eh?
Your funeral. ;-) ;-) :-)
> so why do you
> care so much about some idiotic accusation that even he himself can't prove
> and hasn't been heard from since? If it makes you happy believing his tales,
> be my guest and enjoy yourself. If you hadn't noticed these past few years,
> I really don't care.
Oh, but you publicly claimed to be terrified of that "fiend" who
turned out to have been dead for over a year.
Do I have to document everything I've written here, or will you
disappear from this thread quietly?
Peter Nyikos
J
> In this post I show that I know a lot more about Jon Young than he is
> letting on in the post to which I am following up.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
If you think you'll gain credibility with your Usenet adversaries by
attacking me with your idiotic delusions, you're sadly mistaken. You are,
and will remain, their whipping-boy. Find someone else to try and divert
their attention
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Ray Fischer
>If you think you'll gain credibility with your Usenet adversaries by
>attacking me with your idiotic delusions, you're sadly mistaken.
Does it gain you credibility with your fellow nazi turds to constantly
attack gays, women, blacks, Muslims, liberals, ...
--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
J
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4df1f050$0$2132$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>J <jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>If you think you'll gain credibility with your Usenet adversaries by
>>attacking me with your idiotic delusions, you're sadly mistaken.
>
> Does it gain you credibility with your fellow nazi turds to constantly
> attack gays, women, blacks, Muslims, liberals, ...
>
You are providing the exact example of what I'm telling the nincompoop;
attacking me isn't going to make him look better in anyone else's eyes
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Ray Fischer
>>>If you think you'll gain credibility with your Usenet adversaries by
>>>attacking me with your idiotic delusions, you're sadly mistaken.
>>
>> Does it gain you credibility with your fellow nazi turds to constantly
>> attack gays, women, blacks, Muslims, liberals, ...
>
>You are providing the exact example of what I'm telling the nincompoop;
You are the fine example of an evil nazi turd.
>attacking me isn't going to make him look better in anyone else's eyes
Does attacking all of the many people that you hate make you look better
to your fellow nazi turds?
Colanth
John, it's not possible to "attack" you. No one who doesn't know you
would accept praise of you as being anything less than all-out attack.
(And you're probably not intelligent enough to understand what that
means.)
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
pnyikos
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c65a1259-13c6-4552...@dr5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In this post I show that I know a lot more about Jon Young than he is
> > letting on in the post to which I am following up.
>
> > < nothing >
Your funeral. :-)
You know I told the truth about an event of about a year ago. Admit
it.
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> If you think you'll gain credibility with your Usenet adversaries by
> attacking me with your idiotic delusions,
I defy you to "correct" even one of these alleged "delusions," which
you snipped.
This has nothing to do with wanting any kind of credibility. It has
to do with simple justice. I took you to task for the following about
a year ago, and you ran away from the responsibility to make amends
for it.
You found the photo of a person you were convinced was the
father of "LC," taken straight from an OBITUARY, and called this
dead man a "fiend" and made other unsupported defamations of him.
You also posted the photo of one "Marcia" and we've seen some really
bizarre posts by "Marcia Berg." Her name appears in that dead man's
obituary as the wife of Eric F. Berg.
To add to the bizarreness, someone identifying himself as a long time
poster and suspected sock puppet of yours, "Auric Hellman" just
happened to have found that same obitiuary, and left his condolences:
> You are,
> and will remain, their whipping-boy. Find someone else to try and divert
> their attention
John Baker will do nicely, in addition to you. Or was the "John
Baker" post that attacked me in sci.bio.paleontology a forgery by
you? by LC?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4df1f050$0$2132$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> >J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>If you think you'll gain credibility with your Usenet adversaries by
> >>attacking me with your idiotic delusions, you're sadly mistaken.
This was followed by a crack about me being the "whipping boy" of the
abortion newsgroups. But if you paid any attention to what is going
on there, Jon, you'd know that the number one whipping boy is Bob
"Osprey" Heishman, posting as "Eagle46" since he came back,
temporarily, after over a year's absence.
All though that year-plus-several-months, "elizabeth" kept acting as
though various people, including myself, were sock puppets of
Heishman, so completely self-righteous she is. She just can't imagine
people independently noticing what a dishonest hypocrite she is.
And now that Heishman is gone again, she is not only as obsessed with
him as ever, and has not only claimed outright that I am he, she has
also said some things about him that make it seem like she thinks YOU
are Heishman!
Specifically, she has said that he has bragged about how he can return
any time under a different name, from a different ISP, and that he was
posting all during that year-plus and also during his recent absence,
under different nyms.
This sounds suspiciously like she was referring to a quote that people
kept attributing to you from time to time, even though it was posted
under a different name. You know, the one about 17 different ISPs,
etc.
> > Does it gain you credibility with your fellow nazi turds to constantly
> > attack gays, women, blacks, Muslims, liberals, ...
>
> You are providing the exact example of what I'm telling the nincompoop;
> attacking me isn't going to make him look better in anyone else's eyes
It is you who are the nincompoop: if you paid attention to my postings
about you, AND if the concept of "justice" meant anything to you, you
would realize that I try to obtrain justice for you. Most of the time
it means taking all the nyms that people (especially LC and Chilton,
with John Baker in there from time to time as well) accuse of being
sock puppets on a case by case basis.
For instance, the evidence for you being "Auric Hellman" is very good,
but AFAIK that for being "IBen Getiner" is slim to nonexistent. And
almost all other examples are in the "IBen" boat, partly because your
accusers don't want to take the trouble to do a thorough job of
documentation.
But sometimes, justice for you means documenting or recalling
irresponsible (to say the least) behavior like that which you
exhibited in regard to the dead father of Eric F. Berg.
But the concept of disinterested justice doesn't seem to have ever
taken hold in your brain. You look upon people purely from the point
of whether they are "usually on your side" or "not often on your
side", and since I am not often on your side, you call me a
"nincompoop" and think that my latest attack on you was done for
purely selfish reasons.
I tell you, it isn't easy to go on asking for that documentation on a
case by case basis, with you perceiving it as a neutral or even
hostile act, but my sense of justice impels me to continue.
A final note: with LC and Humphrey gone for God only knows how long,
I seem to be the only one posting these days who finds that family-
attacking behavior of yours to be over the top. The others don't seem
to give a rat's ass how you treated the never-posting relatives of
Eric F. Berg.
And I suspect the reason is that the others who follow your posts want
to stay in good with "elizabeth," and know "elizabeth" attacks absent
family members of opponents, simply because they are family members
and for no other reason.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:15:31 -0400, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >news:4df1f050$0$2132$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >>J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>>If you think you'll gain credibility with your Usenet adversaries by
> >>>attacking me with your idiotic delusions, you're sadly mistaken.
>
> >> Does it gain you credibility with your fellow nazi turds to constantly
> >> attack gays, women, blacks, Muslims, liberals, ...
> >You are providing the exact example of what I'm telling the nincompoop;
> >attacking me isn't going to make him look better in anyone else's eyes
>
> John, it's not possible to "attack" you. No one who doesn't know you
> would accept praise of you as being anything less than all-out attack.
> (And you're probably not intelligent enough to understand what that
> means.)
I take it you are referring to his bizarre logic which seems to accept
the claims (including the "fellow nazi turds" bit) as praise. I know
"Topaz" is proud of being a Nazi (or at least a Nazi sympathizer) but
I thought Jon denied posting all those anti-Semitic comments made
under other names, like "Auric Hellman", which are widely believed to
be his doing.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<f90af7fc-21a5-4382...@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 3:15 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:4df1f050$0$2132$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >
> > >J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > >>If you think you'll gain credibility with your Usenet adversaries by
> > >>attacking me with your idiotic delusions, you're sadly mistaken.
>
> This was followed by a crack about me being the "whipping boy" of the
> abortion newsgroups. But if you paid any attention to what is going
> on there, Jon, you'd know that the number one whipping boy is Bob
> "Osprey" Heishman, posting as "Eagle46" since he came back,
> temporarily, after over a year's absence.
but you gave him a hell of a run for his money. some days you even
posted more lies, plagiarist. he has gone again so, in balance, you are
the whipping boy now.
pnyikos
On Jun 13, 9:13 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <f90af7fc-21a5-4382-9c7a-b901f558a...@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 3:15 pm, "J" <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:4df1f050$0$2132$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> > > >J <jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> > > >>If you think you'll gain credibility with your Usenet adversaries by
> > > >>attacking me with your idiotic delusions, you're sadly mistaken.
>
> > This was followed by a crack about me being the "whipping boy" of the
> > abortion newsgroups. But if you paid any attention to what is going
> > on there, Jon, you'd know that the number one whipping boy is Bob
> > "Osprey" Heishman, posting as "Eagle46" since he came back,
> > temporarily, after over a year's absence.
>
> but you gave him a hell of a run for his money.
In the sense that the Cozy Clique members decided I needed to be shown
how exposing one or more of their company as dishonest, or
hypocritical, called for them trying to whip me.
And, since I am better at documenting dishonesty and hypocrisy than
Heishman usually is, there must have been days when y'all decided that
I was more in need of being attacked.
> some days you even
> posted more lies,
Impossible: he'd have to have posted fewer than 0 (zero) lies on those
days, a feat only as illogical a person as you would deem possible.
> he has gone again so, in balance, you are
> the whipping boy now.
I'm sorry that you don't deem Bill Mosco dangerous enough to make him
as big a target of your slanderous "whippings" as you make me.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
That is part of what tenure is all about, but I don't think Keegan and
his minions know the first thing about tenure.