The D. Spencer Hines Challenge
Peter Nyikos
of soc.history.medieval (and, occasionally, other newsgroups
where D. Spencer Hines posts) to give evidence for the sporadically
repeated claim that Hines is dishonest or insincere. The
only person to have made even a half-serious effort to meet
that challenge is Tim O'Neill, and serious weaknesses in
his effort have been pointed out in the ongoing thread,
O'Neill, Hines, Bernstein, Bayeux, tick, tick, tick
in soc.history.medieval. Tim even admitted, back in January,
to have made false statements which were crucial to the
strength of his case, and there is a *prima facie* case
for him having lied on this new thread to make his evidence seem
stronger than it is.
Since D. Spencer Hines has also been accused of dishonesty
by talk.origins regulars (e.g. Andy Groves) I think it
is fitting to make an Elsberry-style formal challenge out
of it, with an appropriate thread title. Can anyone
in these two newsgroups come up with credible evidence that
D. Spencer Hines is:
1. dishonest
2. a troll [a charge I've seen even more often than that
of dishonesty] or
3. a loon [a charge I've seen even more often than 1. and 2.]?
Those wishing to address 2 or 3 should define what they
mean by "troll" and "loon" since there is no consensus
in soc.history.medieval as to what these two words mean.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Peter Nyikos
that Hines is dishonest, a troll, or a loon can,
of course, be attributed to
several things. The two most natural theories are:
1. Hines, unlike Gans and numerous toadies and allies of Gans,
really has been careful to refrain from
clear-cut dishonesty and looniness his whole time on Usenet.
2. Hines's main detractors base most of their
derogatory comments about him on pure deceit,
and to start actually backing up the few true
comments would be to set a dangerous precedent--
readers would actually be expecting them to
back up ALL degogatory claims they make about Hines.
William Black
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:9gl86s$h...@theusc.csd.sc.edu...
> Can anyone
> in these two newsgroups come up with credible evidence that
> D. Spencer Hines is:
>
> 1. dishonest
>
> 2. a troll [a charge I've seen even more often than that
> of dishonesty] or
>
> 3. a loon [a charge I've seen even more often than 1. and 2.]?
>
> Those wishing to address 2 or 3 should define what they
> mean by "troll" and "loon" since there is no consensus
> in soc.history.medieval as to what these two words mean.
One hesitates, but not for long...
1. Define pogue, use both sides of the paper.
2. If your mother was a nun then write 'None'
3. Would you describe DSH as a bad king but a good man or a good king but a
bad man?
4. Religion or agriculture?
Do not attempt to answer more than one question at once.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Andy Groves
> Since D. Spencer Hines has also been accused of dishonesty
> by talk.origins regulars (e.g. Andy Groves) I think it
> is fitting to make an Elsberry-style formal challenge out
> of it, with an appropriate thread title.
I believe I have never called DSH dishonest. The closest I came to it
was in the following thread:
Andy
med...@bearfabrique.org
wrote:
>Since D. Spencer Hines has also been accused of dishonesty
>by talk.origins regulars...
That tells the whole story right there. The man (Hines) must be as
honest as the day is long.
Ted Holden
med...@bearfabrique.org
D. Spencer Hines
'Tis God's Truth.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
<med...@bearfabrique.org> wrote in message
news:3b2ed448....@news.fcc.net...
joeperd hermans
"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> schreef in bericht
news:2001061817...@kappa.math.sc.edu...
3. So many people have killfiled DSH that they don't even know about
this, and are happy not knowing...
<plunk>
Nell Wright
[snip]
>
> Since D. Spencer Hines has also been accused of dishonesty
> by talk.origins regulars (e.g. Andy Groves) I think it
> is fitting to make an Elsberry-style formal challenge out
> of it, with an appropriate thread title. Can anyone
> in these two newsgroups come up with credible evidence that
> D. Spencer Hines is:
>
> 1. dishonest
>
> 2. a troll [a charge I've seen even more often than that
> of dishonesty] or
>
> 3. a loon [a charge I've seen even more often than 1. and 2.]?
>
> Those wishing to address 2 or 3 should define what they
> mean by "troll" and "loon" since there is no consensus
> in soc.history.medieval as to what these two words mean.
I'll take trolls for $200, please, Alex.
According to the following definitions of "troll" Hines is indeed one.
(I'm using
these because they incorporate my own definitions, and I'm sure mine
alone
would not be good enough for Peter):
From http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html#one (thanks
are due to
Dave Horn for this one)
"The WWW gives this as a definition:
troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract
predictable
responses or flames.
Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies"; which in turn
comes from
mainstream
"trolling";, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through
a likely
spot hoping for a b
ite.
The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies
and flamers to make
themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while
subtly conveying to the more
savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If
you don't fall for the joke,
you get
to be in on it.
The following extract is from a broader expansion of the defining
comments given above:
In Usenet usage, a "troll" is not a grumpy monster that lives
beneath a bridge accosting
passers-by, but rather a provocative posting to a newsgroup
intended to produce a large
volume of frivolous responses. The content of a "troll" posting
generally falls into several
areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of
common knowledge, a
deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, or a
broad request for trivial
follow-up postings.
There are three reasons why people troll newsgroups:
People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt
newsgroups, and simply to make
trouble.
Career trollers tend for the latter two whilst the former is the mark
of the clueless newbie and
should be ignored."
*********************************************************
In all the newsgroups Hines posts to, he does precious little but
sneer, denigrate, attack
and cause trouble. The majority of his posts are remarkably
content-free, aside from a few on
geneology, where he really does appear to know something. He disrupts
every newsgroup he posts to; the sheer number of threads with his name
in the Subject line
are amazing: "FOUL CRAVEN, Musings on D Spencer Hines", "Troll Alert:
D Spencer Hines",
"D Spencer Hines, an uneccesary link in the human race", "Killfile
Score for August 30 D Spencer
Hines", "Put D Spencer Hines in your newsreader killfilter", etc,
etc...
And his antics on the Mediev-L list were disruptive enough to get him
banned.
I offer up the following as further proof of Hines' trollhood:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=d.+spencer+hines&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=2&ic=1&selm=65la85%24k9e%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=d.+spencer+hines&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=10&ic=1&selm=926203236snz%40westmore.demon.co.uk
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=d.+spencer+hines&start=10&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=14&ic=1&selm=347c7b0e.10153115%40gateway
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=d.+spencer+hines&start=20&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=21&ic=1&selm=199703062354.SAA27371%40freenet6.carleton.ca
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=D+Spencer+Hines+group:alt.walmart&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=37A8590A.7AEDCD05%40dspencer.hines
This next one's a goody:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=84f27e961ff0565f,13&seekm=cxGa6.3776%247b2.306121%40bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net#p
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=9ad34ec83eb007c3,18&ic=1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=D+Spencer+Hines&start=30&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=33&ic=1&selm=004701bdc90e%24b4854580%24f01d67d1%40morin-jm
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=D+Spencer+Hines&start=30&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=36&ic=1&selm=7119C3EAF02DD1118A6E006097D29603E5A9DE%40aptnt1
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=bca322d4093e52b,26&seekm=66f52q%248v6%40bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net#p
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=29a8599104c1e7db,14&seekm=33fda99a.35318802%40netnews.worldnet.att.net#p
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=627afb03a60b2232,21&seekm=385c2006.1290302447%40news.netinc.ca#p
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=D+Spencer+Hines&start=40&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=46&ic=1&selm=35EA10C1.7C67%40Highseas.mil
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=7687a35f7895b0ca,8&seekm=35BFE102.7231249F%40worldnet.att.net#p
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=407b39299308f1d2,7&seekm=38638D15.668F%40erols.com#p
So yes, Peter, D. Spencer Hines *IS* a troll. And not even a
particularly clever
one. See the following for more on trolls (thanks again to Dave for
this one 8-)
Fits our boy to a "T". http://www.gingicat.org/jacob/troll.html
Nell P. Wright
PS - If I know you, you'll accept none of the above or twist it beyond
all recognition,
go off into the blue on a wild tangent, and finish by berating the
wicked triumvirate of Gans,
Hershey, and Meyers for concocting a deep, dark, eeee-vil plot agin'
you and Hines.
pz
wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) wrote:
[snip]
> PS - If I know you, you'll accept none of the above or twist it
> beyond all recognition, go off into the blue on a wild tangent, and
> finish by berating the wicked triumvirate of Gans, Hershey, and
> Meyers for concocting a deep, dark, eeee-vil plot agin' you and
> Hines.
Waaah. Why am *I* always the member of the evil triumvirate who gets
his name misspelled?
--
pz
John Stockwell
>D. Spencer Hines is:
>
>1. dishonest
>
>2. a troll [a charge I've seen even more often than that
>of dishonesty] or
>
>3. a loon [a charge I've seen even more often than 1. and 2.]?
Well, he *has* received an endorsement from Ted Holden.
>
>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>
--
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our new book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
Andy Groves
> wrote:
>
>
> >Since D. Spencer Hines has also been accused of dishonesty
> >by talk.origins regulars...
>
> That tells the whole story right there. The man (Hines) must be as
> honest as the day is long.
>
Note to the reader: The above post was made at 21:20:01 PST........
Andy
Peter Nyikos
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
>news:9gl86s$h...@theusc.csd.sc.edu...
>> Can anyone
>> in these two newsgroups come up with credible evidence that
>> D. Spencer Hines is:
>>
>> 1. dishonest
>>
>> 2. a troll [a charge I've seen even more often than that
>> of dishonesty] or
>>
>> 3. a loon [a charge I've seen even more often than 1. and 2.]?
>>
>> Those wishing to address 2 or 3 should define what they
>> mean by "troll" and "loon" since there is no consensus
>> in soc.history.medieval as to what these two words mean.
>One hesitates, but not for long...
Au contraire, methinks you want to hesitate forever
as far as defininig "troll" and "loon" is concerned,
and also as far as which claim you are advocating.
>1. Define pogue, use both sides of the paper.
David Read posted a definition which is perfectly adequate
for all Hines-relevant purposes. The fact that people
who harp *ad nauseam* on this issue totally avoid
acknowledging the very existence of David Read's posting
speaks volumes.
I've flushed a bunch of even more irrelevant-looking assignments.
Peter Nyikos
>nyi...@math.sc.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote in message news:<9gl86s$h...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>...
>> Since D. Spencer Hines has also been accused of dishonesty
>> by talk.origins regulars (e.g. Andy Groves) I think it
>> is fitting to make an Elsberry-style formal challenge out
>> of it, with an appropriate thread title.
>I believe I have never called DSH dishonest. The closest I came to it
>was in the following thread:
Wait. What about the time you used variants of the
four-letter "f" word on him several times in the same post?
What was that all about?
In the above post, I see you saying:
So, prove me wrong. Post your sources. Let's see the evidence.
Otherwise you will confirm the impression that you are simply a
dishonest and malicious person, more interested in invective than in
debate.
Go ahead, D. Spencer Hines. Make my day.
Since Hines has not responded to your challenge
in all this time, your alleged "confirmation" would
seem to be in effect.
It's illogical, though. Hines says he protects his sources.
At best, you can insist that he either retract his claim
or give evidence for it. Retraction does not necessarily mean
that he repudiates it--just that he can't prove it
without giving away his sources.
Peter Nyikos
>"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> schreef in bericht
>news:2001061817...@kappa.math.sc.edu...
>> The fact that so few people have tried at all to show
>> that Hines is dishonest, a troll, or a loon can,
>> of course, be attributed to
>> several things. The two most natural theories are:
>>
>> 1. Hines, unlike Gans and numerous toadies and allies of Gans,
...most of whom have taken up Gans's battle cry "loon!"
or others' battle cry of "troll!"
at some point or another.
>> really has been careful to refrain from
>> clear-cut dishonesty and looniness his whole time on Usenet.
>>
>> 2. Hines's main detractors base most of their
>> derogatory comments about him on pure deceit,
>> and to start actually backing up the few true
>> comments would be to set a dangerous precedent--
>> readers would actually be expecting them to
>> back up ALL degogatory claims they make about Hines.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>>
>>
>3. So many people have killfiled DSH
Not as many as you might think: he posts lots of
interesting historical tidbits on a regular basis.
Even fanatical Gans allies
and Hines detractors like Michael Cook can
appreciate that, and they keep reading his posts.
> that they don't even know about
>this, and are happy not knowing...
That leaves his *numerous* detractors, who are happy knowing what
they are about but are playing keep-em-guessing.
><plunk>
The mark of a shill. De-lurks for one illogical post and announces
a killfiling.
Lblanch001
Hines Challenge" in a posting entitled "Historiography: The D. Spencer Hines
Challenge", April 1, 1998.
The web page referred to in the posting, as many long-time posters are aware,
was removed following Mr. Hines' complaints to the president of the University
of Pennsylvania that I was engaging in character assassination while on the
clock. He was, as usual, wrong.
Mr. Nyikos et al. should come up with another title.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lblan...@aol.com (or lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.r3.org/
(see http://orb.rhodes.edu/ to reach major medieval gateway sites)
D. Spencer Hines
2. Hines does not give a fig what Groves thinks ---- if Groves thinks
that Hines is lying ---- so be it.
3. Like any good journalist or intelligence agent ---- Hines protects
his sources.
4. If one does not protect his sources they soon dry up ---- or cut and
run.
Exitus Acta Probat.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:2001061920...@kappa.math.sc.edu...
Peter Nyikos
>nyi...@math.sc.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote in message news:<9gl86s$h...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>...
>According to the following definitions of "troll" Hines is indeed one.
>(I'm using
>these because they incorporate my own definitions, and I'm sure mine
>alone
>would not be good enough for Peter):
>From http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html#one (thanks
>are due to
>Dave Horn for this one)
>"The WWW gives this as a definition:
> troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract
>predictable
>responses or flames.
The sticking point is "designed to". You need to come
up with some clear cut examples where there is no other
purpose to the post in evidence.
[...]
>The following extract is from a broader expansion of the defining
>comments given above:
> In Usenet usage, a "troll" is not a grumpy monster that lives
>beneath a bridge accosting
> passers-by, but rather a provocative posting to a newsgroup
>intended to produce a large
> volume of frivolous responses.
Note the "itended to" and "frivolous responses". Seems
like everyone who makes a pun on these two newsgroups, AND
is in good with the Gans fans, is intending to produce a large
volume of frivolous responses. Just look at the long
cascades that almost inevitably result--virtually always
off topic, of course.
Hines simply lacks the following to be able to generate
such long cascades. So do I.
[...]
>In all the newsgroups Hines posts to, he does precious little but
>sneer, denigrate, attack
>and cause trouble.
This is, I believe, demonstrably false. What's more,
you are too sporadic a participant to be in a
position to make such claims. On top of everything
else, your posts to soc.history.medieval fit the description
you give above, in spades. When have you ever involved
yourself in discussion of medieval history?
[typical blame-the-victim comments deleted]
>And his antics on the Mediev-L list were disruptive enough to get him
>banned.
Explain, please, how one is to confirm this claim.
[snip urls to be read when I have a bit more time
on my hands today or tomorrow]
>PS - If I know you,
You don't.
[bizarre speculation deleted]
Peter Nyikos
>[snip]
I'll be glad to write "Paul Gas" now and then if that
will make you happy. :-)
It fits his fraudulent comments about an experiment
involving hydrogen gas, after all. Your mutual
devoted ally Ken Cox gave him a big assist on
the way to fraud-city stardom, by the way.
D. Spencer Hines
did not agree with Blanchard and the pages were promptly removed.
The pages were simply another very lame-brained exercise by Blanchard,
alias Jade Fox, in faulty logic, childish smear and poor-girl's,
incompetent statistics ---- a personal attack residing on a Penn
server ---- totally improper.
The University of Pennsylvania responded quite promptly, acted with
dispatch and did the right thing immediately. Judith Rodin is no
fool ---- unlike Jade Fox ---- Blanchard.
Blanchard acted like a dirty-necked trollop ---- [her usual sullen
demeanour] ---- whined, kvetched and cried in her beer. There are
certainly no surprises there.
Of course, Blanchard has roundly hated Hines ever since he drove her out
of the closet and exposed her flatulent posing as RichardWeb ---- way
back in 1997.
At the time she was 'Igora' to Gans and the
Gansocoprophaga-in-Chief ---- but she tired of that subordinate,
gender-bound role and departed ---- leaving a sorely disappointed
Gans ---- who had come to rely on her for all sorts of menial services.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
How Sweet It Is!
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Lblanch001" <lblan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010619163930...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
sophia
<my...@mac.com> writes
>
<snip>
>
>Waaah. Why am *I* always the member of the evil triumvirate who gets
>his name misspelled?
>
even spell your name right you may appear. Demons, magical
creatures and right names you know... :)
--
Sophia (very evil indeed)
Faith in Fabulousness
www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
icq: 93834408
pz
sophia <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <myers-A398F4....@news.onvoy.net>, pz
> <my...@mac.com> writes
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >Waaah. Why am *I* always the member of the evil triumvirate who gets
> >his name misspelled?
> >
> Perhaps because people are scared that you are so eee-vil that if they
> even spell your name right you may appear. Demons, magical
> creatures and right names you know... :)
I think I like that explanation.
--
pz
Andy Groves
>
> >nyi...@math.sc.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote in message news:<9gl86s$h...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>...
>
> >> Since D. Spencer Hines has also been accused of dishonesty
> >> by talk.origins regulars (e.g. Andy Groves) I think it
> >> is fitting to make an Elsberry-style formal challenge out
> >> of it, with an appropriate thread title.
>
> >I believe I have never called DSH dishonest. The closest I came to it
> >was in the following thread:
>
> Wait. What about the time you used variants of the
> four-letter "f" word on him several times in the same post?
> What was that all about?
That was me calling him a poisonous fuck. I don't recall calling him a
*dishonest* poisonous fuck, but I could be wrong.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=groves+hines+dishonest&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=3&ic=1&selm=8je1a7%244q0%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
>
> In the above post, I see you saying:
>
> So, prove me wrong. Post your sources. Let's see the evidence.
>
> Otherwise you will confirm the impression that you are simply a
> dishonest and malicious person, more interested in invective than in
> debate.
>
> Go ahead, D. Spencer Hines. Make my day.
>
>
> Since Hines has not responded to your challenge
> in all this time, your alleged "confirmation" would
> seem to be in effect.
The thing that occurred to me during the exchange you cite is that I'm
sure DSH would not have wasted an opportunity to prove me wrong if he
could. In fact he would probably relish it. I found his unwillingness
to prove me wrong rather revealing.
> It's illogical, though. Hines says he protects his sources.
> At best, you can insist that he either retract his claim
> or give evidence for it.
That's exactly what I did do. I asked him to post the evidence!
Google is not good at citing particular posts, but all of the
following quotes of mine come from that thread:
"Mr. Hines, please post documentary evidence of your assertions that
faculty at NYU hold Dr. Gans in low esteem. Otherwise we will have to
conclude that you are simply a malicious and dishonest person who
would
rather make attacks on people than discuss substantive issues."
"You will, I presume, post the documenting URLS fro Dejanews now?
That's
how we work in this group. Rather than just blustering, it is
considered
appropriate to back up your assertions with proof.
I should tell you, by the way, that I just did a search on Dejanews
for
articles authored by ga...@panix.com featuring the strings "retir* NYU"
and did not find any articles of the sort you mention."
"The use of hearsay is particularly odious. "Word has it...".
"reportedly..." etc. Who are these sources, Mr. Hines? Where is your
documentation?"
> Retraction does not necessarily mean
> that he repudiates it--just that he can't prove it
> without giving away his sources.
In fact, DSH dealt with the issue by simply ignoring it. Despite my
repeatedly asking him for evidence, he simply stopped posting to the
thread. He didn't retract anything - he just walked away. What are we
to conclude from that?
How would you feel if I responded to your "challenge" by:
1. Claiming that DSH is dishonest
2. When pressed for evidence, replying that I have sources to protect
3. Ceased posting to the thread.
Hmmmm?
Andy
D. Spencer Hines
1. Hines stands by what he has posted.
2. Groves is free to disbelieve Hines ---- that is certainly his
prerogative.
3. Hines gives not a fig what Groves thinks.
Exitus Acta Probat.
Nell P. Wright
Oh, quit crying. If I can live with being "Neil" my whole life, you
can put up with "Meyers". At least *you* get to be part of an evil
triumvirate...
Neil
pz
Evil isn't tolerant. One of the requirements of the job is that we have
to be capricious, and throw temper tantrums over trivia.
> At least *you* get to be part of an evil
> triumvirate...
Hey, it's no bed of roses, I tell you. There's all the behind-the-scenes
jockeying for power, the backstabbing, the assassination
attempts...sometimes we get so caught up in all the scheming against
each other that we forget to do our Evil Deed for the Day. I'm looking
forward to the day I get to be an Evil Principate -- there won't be any
misspelling of my name then, you can bet.
--
pz
Paul J. Gans
> I object to this series of postings. I first used the subject "The D. Spencer
> Hines Challenge" in a posting entitled "Historiography: The D. Spencer Hines
> Challenge", April 1, 1998.
> The web page referred to in the posting, as many long-time posters are aware,
> was removed following Mr. Hines' complaints to the president of the University
> of Pennsylvania that I was engaging in character assassination while on the
> clock. He was, as usual, wrong.
> Mr. Nyikos et al. should come up with another title.
As I recall you were answering a challenge presented by
Mr. Hines himself. He seems not to have liked the results
of your research.
---- Paul J. Gans
PS: How 'bout "gans gans gans" as the title of the thread?
It should satisfy the desires (physical and emotional) of
my two loons.
Paul J. Gans
And zebra fish. Don't forget the zebra fish.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> Neil
Interesting question: Can a chainsaw lady be part of an umvirate?
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> Hmmmm?
> Andy
I've got both Hines and Nyikos killfiled so this is the first
I've seen of this particular bit of past history.
Hines made such assertions regularly. He also claimed that
students of mine from my current medieval class had contacted
him to complain about my poor teaching.
And that's just for starters.
But I gather that Nyikos is still looking for evidence that
Hines tells lies, makes up things, and is generally untrustworthy.
Does anyone recall the bit about his French friend in Paris who
assured him that certain (incorrect) French phraseology was
indeed correct? Or his Jewish friends who told him...
Oh well, those were the good old days... :-)
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
It's the zebra fish.
Besides, there's no backstabbing. We use poison.
----- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
and needs to be stroked and pampered again.
Where's the Gotham Groupie? Nowhere to be seen.
She used to be quite proficient at this ---- indeed it was one of her
assigned tasks.
Yes, she just showed up for the dinner at Kalamazoo and then fled the
coop.
As is to be expected, Gans has dragged up Tales From The Crypt and is
lying about Hines and Nyikos again ---- you'd think he'd have better
things to do ---- but apparently not.
Do stroke the Godfather ---- and give him some emotional and sexual
release. He's obviously quite frustrated and anxious again.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:_tTX6.5$Cc6...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
pz
It's "zebrafish". One word. All these misspellings -- it's a conspiracy,
I tell ya.
>
> Besides, there's no backstabbing. We use poison.
Huh? No way. It's got to be something with lasers. Or tanks of piranha.
Something intricate and nefarious. Using something as gauche as poison
would get you drummed out of the triumvirate. Jeez, next you'll be
talking about using something as crude as a gun.
--
pz
sophia
<ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes
>
>And zebra fish. Don't forget the zebra fish.
Zebra fish? You don't mean to tell me that SHM is under threat from
THEM as well? As if Hines and Knickers weren't sufficiently
pernicious...
--
Sophia, worried now.
Peter Nyikos
post to which I am following up]
John Stockwell <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> writes:
>Hi Peter. Are people giving your new "boot black" DSH a hard time?
Even Derek Stevenson, who is second only to you in supercilious
cynicism among all the people I've ever encountered on Usenet,
knows better than to think DSH is anything like a bootblack for me.
But you are too smug and self-satisfied to let even THAT ruffle
your feathers, eh?
>>D. Spencer Hines is:
>>
>>1. dishonest
>>
>>2. a troll [a charge I've seen even more often than that
>>of dishonesty] or
>>
>>3. a loon [a charge I've seen even more often than 1. and 2.]?
>Well, he *has* received an endorsement from Ted Holden.
An attempted guilt by association?
If so, your smugness is once again betraying you: even
Andy Groves was able to detect that Ted Holden was partly
tongue in cheek.
Now go crawl back into your one-man mutual admiration
society headquarters.
[Oh, wait. Maybe you'll find Martin Reboul there.]
Peter Nyikos
it's hard to see when (if ever) she takes her tongue completely
out of her cheek.
lblan...@aol.com (Lblanch001) writes:
>I object to this series of postings. I first used the subject "The D. Spencer
>Hines Challenge" in a posting entitled "Historiography: The D. Spencer Hines
>Challenge", April 1, 1998.
Do you *really* object, Laura?
On top of everything else, I note the April 1 date.
>The web page referred to in the posting, as many long-time posters are aware,
>was removed following Mr. Hines' complaints to the president of the University
>of Pennsylvania that I was engaging in character assassination while on the
>clock.
Is there any way of confirming the truth of that
final clause?
>He was, as usual, wrong.
Is there any way of confirming the truth of that?
>Mr. Nyikos et al. should come up with another title.
It was my choice and mine alone. Evidently you are another
person who has not woken up and smelled the coffee that
Derek Stevenson and the person who told me belatedly,
"Meet Spencer Hines" smelled earlier this month.
Peter Nyikos
>In article <myers-A398F4....@news.onvoy.net>, pz
><my...@mac.com> writes
>>
><snip>
>>
>>Waaah. Why am *I* always the member of the evil triumvirate who gets
>>his name misspelled?
>>
>Perhaps because people are scared that you are so eee-vil that if they
>even spell your name right you may appear. Demons, magical
>creatures and right names you know... :)
Evidently Myers and Sophia both think "evil" and "wicked"
are terms of approbation, perhaps invoking a comedian
with a trident and forked tail, dressed in red tights.
>--
>Sophia (very evil indeed)
More evasive than evil, it would seem. See the following
post, the last of its thread--still unreplied to by you,
or anyone else, evidently:
From: Peter Nyikos (nyi...@math.sc.edu)
Subject: Re: Medieval taxes
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
Date: 2001-06-18 11:31:03 PST
sophia <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<BFd3WDA7...@arxana.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <uZUU6.19$AZ3....@typhoon.nyu.edu>, Paul J. Gans
><ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes
>>Yup. Almost all long distance trade of any sort in western Europe
>>went by sea until, as you say, the railroad was developed.
I wonder whether Gans has forgotten about major Western European
rivers such as the Seine and Rhine. I believe the navigable
parts of both fall in the "Bermuda Triangle", that strange
cramped geographical entity which gets its name from the looniness
of Gans, and from his habit of spending
virtually all his on-topic posting time on it,
while showing complete ignorance of large chunks of medieval European
history pertaining to such Gans-esoteric places as Bohemia.
Gans may have put in "Western" because he didn't count any
river in Western Europe as qualifying for "long distance,"
and because he'd vaguely
heard of a river in central Europe called the Danube
and didn't want to go out on a limb about it.
The Hungarians had a joke about the Danube during the
Soviet hegemony over Hungary: the Soviets had the
privilege of navigating the length of the Danube,
while the Hungarians had the privilege of navigating
its width.
Huge quantities of Hungarian goods were moved via the
Danube to the Black Sea and points beyond, hence the joke.
>Though in this case there was another reason apart from
>convenience of bulk transport: the English and Scottish borderlands
>were incredibly lawless and bandit haunted and remained so for
>centuries. Merchants taking their goods through the region had good
>reason to fear that the inhabitants might do a bit of 'taxation' of their
>own.
Sophia has confined herself to Britain as far as I can tell,
even wanting to stretch "medieval" a bit so she could
taunt Hines about not wanting to spend time arguing
with him/her about Henry VIII. Somehow 'e never noticed
that while Hines had recommended two history books and
one book of historical fiction on Henry VIII, 'e hadn't
posted about a single one 'e'd read.
I mentioned that if Hines had read the two history books
he'd recommended, he probably knew more about Henry VIII
than I did. Sophia's bluff in response to that was
that I might be out of my depth on the subject, then.
However, I've read the parts relevant to Henry VIII in a fine
book on Thomas More, whose title is based on one
of More's last statements: "I die the King's good
servant, but God's first." [quoted from memory]
Mentioning this fact puts me one up on Sophia.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
============ end included post
I slipped up at one point and used "herself" rather than "him/herself",
but you get the idea.
>Faith in Fabulousness
>www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
When one clicks on "Enter", one gets to see a picture
of Sophia wearing a fancy gown
that is dated for women, but probably very much "in" for
female impersonators. I wonder when proud-to-admit-it
transvestite Sherilyn will treat us to similar pictures of himself.
Peter Nyikos
>Groves, who is obviously none too bright, still doesn't get it:
True, he claims to be sure that you would prove him
wrong if you had any chance at all to do it--which
shows how completely out of touch he is with your
posting habits.
>1. Hines stands by what he has posted.
>2. Groves is free to disbelieve Hines ---- that is certainly his
>prerogative.
Hines prefers to prove people wrong about on-topic matters,
for starters. Just look at the excellent post he did
on Tim O'Neill's ignorance about historical analyses
concerning the provenance of the Bayeux Tapestry, excerpted below.
>3. Hines gives not a fig what Groves thinks.
More to the point, Groves has not posted one iota of
evidence that what Hines wrote was *false*, let
alone a lie. And that leaves Tim O'Neill, the target
of the post excerpted below, all by his lonesome as
far as people even *attempting* to prove that Hines
ever lied on Usenet.
========================= begin excerpt from Hines post
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
Subject: Re: O'Neill, Hines, Bernstein, Bayeux, tick, tick, tick
References: <4dc82dcf.01061...@posting.google.com> <9gb391$dlg$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com> <3B292248...@bigpond.com> <4dc82dcf.01061...@posting.google.com> <3B2A9D39...@bigpond.com> <4dc82dcf.01061...@posting.google.com> <y3Mx9DAD...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> <3B2BCC54...@bigpond.com> <3B2BD040...@bigpond.com> <4dc82dcf.01061...@posting.google.com>
Lines: 290
Message-ID: <KNrX6.842$Um3....@eagle.america.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:27:56 +0100
"Far more. No-one has seriously challenged the consensus view for over
a century, for the simple reason that the evidence - stylistic,
orthographic and historical - is overwhelming."
Tim O'Neill ---- Tasmanian Devil ---- Gansocoprophagus-in-Chief
Vide infra pro risibus.
----------------------Cordon Sanitaire--------------
That is clearly a false statement ---- and probably a lie ---- and we
can put paid to it quite quickly. We have the example of Wolfgang Grape
before us, writing in the 1990's.
We also have the work of the French historian, A. Leve', _La Tapisserie
de la reine Mathilde, dite la Tapisserie de Bayeux_, (Paris, 1919) and
Jean Verrier's _La Broderie de Bayeux_ (Paris, 1946).
But O'Neill is not proficient in French and pays no heed to what French
Historians say about the Bayeux Tapestry. How *deucedly* curious.
Even WORSE, O'Neill is TOTALLY BOLLIXED about what he calls, quite
obtusely, ignorantly and stupidly -- I might add, "the consensus view
for over a century."
Please keep that pratfall phrase in mind. O'Neill says that "the
consensus view for over a century" is decidedly in favour of the English
Origin of the Bayeux Tapestry ---- and that the evidence is
"overwhelming."
Until Francis Wormald wrote his piece, _Style and Design_ in Sir Frank
Stenton's magisterial book _The Bayeux Tapestry_ in 1957 ---- "the
consensus view" in many quarters was that the Bayeux Tapestry had been
produced in NORMANDY. Francis Wormald, F.B.A., Professor of
Palaeography in the University of London, was the person who really
shook that view. A precursor, with early evidence, was Roger Sherman
Loomis, writing in 1923 and in 1937 ---- hardly a CENTURY ago. Sir Eric
Maclagan, writing in 1943, also touted an English origin for the Bayeux
Tapestry.
O'Neill seems to be ignorant of ALL these important Historical Facts.
But then, he has no training or education in HISTORY. He's a LITERARY
man ---- who can't read very well. So, we should be most unwise to
expect much from this 34-year-old, apparently-failed-academic, who is
now a corporate head-hunter ---- working in personnel ---- but who loves
to dabble and pontificate on SHM ---- from the Bottom of His Own
Personally Constructed Deep Pit of Ignorance.
============================= end of excerpt
Needless to say, Tim O'Neill--the only person ever to have
made a serious public attempt to prove Hines lied about anything,
AFAIK--has made no reply to that post.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
Nell Wright
I thought zebrafish *were* poison.
Nell P. Wright
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
Peter Nyikos
>Lblanch001 <lblan...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I object to this series of postings.
Does she really? I've addressed this question in
direct followup to Laura Blanchard, and I do NOT
expect any replies from her.
>As I recall you were answering a challenge presented by
>Mr. Hines himself. He seems not to have liked the results
>of your research.
Gans is indulging in wishful thinking, made possible
by his having killfiled Hines.
> ---- Paul J. Gans
>PS: How 'bout "gans gans gans" as the title of the thread?
>It should satisfy the desires (physical and emotional) of
>my two loons.
Gans's two biggest loons are Pat James and Jose' "tiglath" Suriol.
The latter posted a huge amount of looniness on Goedel's
incompleteness theorems last month, interlaced with extensive
plagiarism to make it look like he knew SOMETHING worthwhile
about those theorems. And even that was, of course, totally
off-topic for s.h.m.
After suffering in silence for the
longest time about this, Brian M. Scott
(whose training at the U of Wisconsin equipped him very nicely
for setting Suriol straight)
finally corrected
Suriol on one of scores of silly statements.
But Suriol hit back, and Brian had no stomach for
continuing to expose the kookiness of his fellow
Gans ally.
As for Pat James--I defy anyone to try and argue that
Pat James is NOT a loon or NOT a troll, except for Pat James himself,
who is an archetypal Kamikaze Pig, totally willing
to coat himself with pig feces from head to toe in
the hopes that some of it will rub off on the person
he is attacking.
But both Pat James and Tiglath are very, very careful
not to post derogatory comments about Paul Gans. This
explains the kid gloves treatment Suriol received
from Brian Scott, along with much else, including Gans's
willingness to prostitute his integrity
last autumn, in order to deflect attention from
Pat James having been caught lying on Gans's behalf.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
UNRETRACTED LIES BY GANS TO NYIKOS:
1. You accused him [Southern] of near-heresy
--Message-ID: <NhWN5.16$Ab7...@typhoon.nyu.edu>
2. and disregarded what he said.
--*ibid*
Material relevant to these lies was posted in soc.history.medieval
on the thread,
How Gans faked acceptance of a correction
earlier this year.
Nell Wright
[..]
> > >
> > >Waaah. Why am *I* always the member of the evil triumvirate who gets
> > >his name misspelled?
> >
> > Oh, quit crying. If I can live with being "Neil" my whole life, you
> > can put up with "Meyers".
>
> Evil isn't tolerant. One of the requirements of the job is that we have
> to be capricious, and throw temper tantrums over trivia.
Ah. I see. For some strange reason this reminds me of someone
else...can't think who...
>
> > At least *you* get to be part of an evil
> > triumvirate...
>
> Hey, it's no bed of roses, I tell you. There's all the behind-the-scenes
> jockeying for power, the backstabbing, the assassination
> attempts...sometimes we get so caught up in all the scheming against
> each other that we forget to do our Evil Deed for the Day. I'm looking
> forward to the day I get to be an Evil Principate -- there won't be any
> misspelling of my name then, you can bet.
Yes, Your Evilness. I mean no...I mean...<backs out of room, bowing
and scraping> (where *did* i put that thrice-blasted chainsaw?)
Nell P. Wright
Peter Nyikos
>In soc.history.medieval sophia <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <myers-A398F4....@news.onvoy.net>, pz
>> <my...@mac.com> writes
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>Waaah. Why am *I* always the member of the evil triumvirate who gets
>>>his name misspelled?
"Paul Gas" is a misspelling of which I am rather fond,
and I employ it below just to make Myers's statement obsolete,
and to remind people of the professional chicanery the
chemist Gans indulged in wrt a hydrogen experiment.
By the way, there is no evil triumvirate, the closest thing
being the five-member Lowest of the Low list.
>> Perhaps because people are scared that you are so eee-vil that if they
>> even spell your name right you may appear. Demons, magical
>> creatures and right names you know... :)
>> --
>> Sophia (very evil indeed)
>> Faith in Fabulousness
>> www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
>> icq: 93834408
Paul Gas now added the following one-liner.
>And zebra fish. Don't forget the zebra fish.
Indeed. One might be fooled by the zebra fish into thinking
that Paul Myers is an ichthyologist, but he was very careful
not to post ANY ichthyology on the long thread about Lampreys.
Paul Myers is a philistine careerist who styles himself a developmental
biologist; his specialty happens to be the developmental
biology of zebra fish, just as
that of Paul Gas is some obscure corner of chemistry that
does not require him to participate in experiments involving
hydrogen gas.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
Peter Nyikos
>In article <GuTX6.6$Cc6...@typhoon.nyu.edu>, Paul J. Gans
><ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes
>>
>>And zebra fish. Don't forget the zebra fish.
>Zebra fish? You don't mean to tell me that SHM is under threat from
>THEM as well? As if Hines and Knickers weren't sufficiently
>pernicious...
You prefer floor-length gowns to knickers, I see.
>--
>Sophia, worried now.
You should be. You are mentioned in the following post
that I did via Google a short while ago.
From: nyi...@math.sc.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
Subject: Re: About D. Spencer trolling in another newsgroup.
References: <9gg27n$onp$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> <20010616141136...@ng-bj1.aol.com> <9gg7tc$34n6$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com> <p5dX6.4$I%3....@typhoon.nyu.edu> <#pzT7559AHA.278@cpmsnbbsa07> <9gk29s$lhq$1...@samba.rahul.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.252.222.2
Message-ID: <4dc82dcf.01062...@posting.google.com>
Wolf<capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.org> wrote in message news:<9gk29s$lhq$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>D. Spencer Hines (reaching for one drink to many) wrote:
And maybe some day he'll reach for one drink too many...
In the meantime, it's sporting of him to drink to the health
of many, eh, wot?
>Lost anyother ISP I see.
A rose by anyother name... ;-)
>: Deus Vult.
>Hearing voices again.
Are these empty taunts all you can manage? Do you
really expect Hines meet your challenge below to fight back?
Could it be that you are playing *agent provocateur* for
Gryphon, who also participated in this 3-post thread? Take
a gander at the last post in the following thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=84f27e961ff0565f,13&seek\
m=cxGa6.3776%247b2.306121%40bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net#p
The last post of the ten is typical sexist garbage,
by the hate-driven "Gryphon801" expecting
"ladies" [whatever he means by that--probably net.barbarians
who happen to be women] to be given preferential treatment
over men by Hines.
Whatever Gryphon meant, he could not have been thinking
of truly obscene attacks like the one Gryphon ally
Jose "tiglath" Suriol made against you:
Read by lips: G-O F-U-C-K Y-O-U-R-S-E-L-F Jesus' freak.
>: Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
>: Annie should *always* keep in mind that there are kickers and kickees.
>: She is a kickee.
>So Hinesy, when DID you stop beating your wife?
You are far more close to libel than I was when I
asked Gryphon how many times he had been disbarred.
Gryphon easily answered "None" to that one, but that didn't deter
some shill from claiming that my question created the presumption
that he had been disbarred at least once.
Gryphon then showed that he probably DESERVED to be disbarred by
proudly patting the shill on the back and suggesting
that the shill's words should convince me that he (Gryphon)
had been right in saying I was dangerously close
to libel.
> You sound like get real
>pleasure out of kicking those who (you think) can't kick back.
Oh, Ms. Gilbert is good at insults, but I doubt that she
can meet The D. Spencer Hines Challenge any better
than Paul Gans can.
I'm referring to a thread I started this week, with that title.
><21 additional lines of Hines' unnecessary grot deleted>
>I think I shall leave you out of the killfile for a day
>or two to see if you've got the guts to respond like a
>sober adult male, instead of your usual puerile drivel.
First Sophia and now you, taunting Hines to fight like
a man. You at least have one advantage
over Sophia: you actually had the guts to tell us you
are a woman. Sophia still hasn't told us whether 'e
is a woman or a male transvestite.
> Wolf,
> Bard
>--
>**********************************
>Dolor ad tempus est.
Tempus fugit; memento mori.
D. Spencer Hines
particularly during 1997 and 1998, when I read this. The Old Left never
dies, it just fades away ---- and "evolves" into either the New Left or
the Leftover Left. Gans is presently a charter member of the Leftover
Left.
This is yet another honest story by a New York, Jewish, red-diaper baby
about the way it really was:
----
_Commies : A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover
Left_ ---- Hardcover - (April 2001) 238 pages
--------------------------
"Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Ronald Radosh, the scholar who is probably most responsible for showing
that Julius Rosenberg was indeed a spy for the Soviet Union, offers this
honest memoir of growing up a red-diaper baby in New York and, many
years later, falling out of favor with his fellow travelers. Born into
a family that was both Jewish and Communist, Radosh spent much of his
life orbiting these worlds (especially the latter) as an activist for
all sorts of left-wing causes. The FBI even began keeping a file on
him.
There's a certain amount of score settling on these pages, much of it
amusing. What makes Commies fascinating, however, is Radosh's virtual
banishment from left-wing politics for publishing The Rosenberg File, a
book that definitively showed Julius Rosenberg was not the innocent
martyr of liberal mythology but a traitor to his country.
Radosh actually started the book believing he could vindicate Rosenberg;
through the course of his research, however, he concluded the man was
guilty, and set about saying so. This was too much for many of his
friends, who soon refused to be seen with him in public. Here is a man
who viewed the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 as very possibly a
portent of "extreme reaction, if not fascism," suddenly blacklisted by
the Left. He became disenchanted with how he had spent his life and
"started to question the whole project of the Left."
He even suffered professionally: in 1993, Radosh was denied a job in
George Washington University's history department. "If I had still been
a Communist writing left-wing history, I probably would have breezed in.
But faculty members practicing a politically correct version of
McCarthyism blackballed me."
Radosh is not a left-winger who has become a right-winger, like David
Horowitz, but he is clearly a person who has had second thoughts about
what he once believed. America, he writes, is "a country where I was
born but didn't fully discover until middle age." Commies is a
valuable document describing radicalism in the 1950s and 1960s from the
inside. -- John J. Miller"
----
pz
wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) wrote:
No, they are quite tasty on pizza.
--
pz
pz
wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) wrote:
> pz <my...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<myers-
>
> [..]
>
> > > >
> > > >Waaah. Why am *I* always the member of the evil triumvirate who gets
> > > >his name misspelled?
> > >
> > > Oh, quit crying. If I can live with being "Neil" my whole life, you
> > > can put up with "Meyers".
> >
> > Evil isn't tolerant. One of the requirements of the job is that we have
> > to be capricious, and throw temper tantrums over trivia.
>
> Ah. I see. For some strange reason this reminds me of someone
> else...can't think who...
I know *exactly* who you are thinking of, and isn't it clear that he is
already master of a principality of one?
>
> >
> > > At least *you* get to be part of an evil
> > > triumvirate...
> >
> > Hey, it's no bed of roses, I tell you. There's all the behind-the-scenes
> > jockeying for power, the backstabbing, the assassination
> > attempts...sometimes we get so caught up in all the scheming against
> > each other that we forget to do our Evil Deed for the Day. I'm looking
> > forward to the day I get to be an Evil Principate -- there won't be any
> > misspelling of my name then, you can bet.
>
> Yes, Your Evilness. I mean no...I mean...<backs out of room, bowing
> and scraping> (where *did* i put that thrice-blasted chainsaw?)
--
pz
Ken Cox
> "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > Besides, there's no backstabbing. We use poison.
> Huh? No way. It's got to be something with lasers. Or tanks of piranha.
> Something intricate and nefarious.
Clearly your triumvirate has organizational problems.
*My* evil triumvirate worked out these petty issues
long ago, allowing us to focus on the real issues --
like, do we order anchovies on the pizza, or not?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Oh, quit crying. If I can live with being "Neil" my whole life, you
> can put up with "Meyers". At least *you* get to be part of an evil
> triumvirate...
But, Nell, so do you. *Everyone* is a member of an evil
triumvirate, and all the triumvirates are disjoint. In
fact, one of the main reasons for the development of the
Internet was to link enough computational resources to
solve this NP-complete problem.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes:
> >And zebra fish. Don't forget the zebra fish.
> Zebra fish? You don't mean to tell me that SHM is under threat from
> THEM as well? As if Hines and Knickers weren't sufficiently
> pernicious...
No, one of the Pauls has a lab filled with mutant
zebrafish. He's never said just what mutations he
has handy -- rumor suggests optic laser blasts.
Anyway, he uses the tanks to dispose of his enemies,
in proper Evil Genius fashion.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Nell Wright
>
> >nyi...@math.sc.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote in message news:<9gl86s$h...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>...
>
> >(I'm using
> >these because they incorporate my own definitions, and I'm sure mine
> >alone
> >would not be good enough for Peter):
>
> >From http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html#one (thanks
> >are due to
> >Dave Horn for this one)
>
> >"The WWW gives this as a definition:
>
> > troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract
> >predictable
> >responses or flames.
>
> The sticking point is "designed to". You need to come
> up with some clear cut examples where there is no other
> purpose to the post in evidence.
I did. You didn't bother to read them.
>
> [...]
>
> >The following extract is from a broader expansion of the defining
> >comments given above:
>
> > In Usenet usage, a "troll" is not a grumpy monster that lives
> >beneath a bridge accosting
> > passers-by, but rather a provocative posting to a newsgroup
> >intended to produce a large
> > volume of frivolous responses.
>
> Note the "itended to" and "frivolous responses". Seems
> like everyone who makes a pun on these two newsgroups, AND
> is in good with the Gans fans, is intending to produce a large
> volume of frivolous responses. Just look at the long
> cascades that almost inevitably result--virtually always
> off topic, of course.
There is a big difference between an occasional pun cascade, and the
number of frivolous flame-threads generated by Hines. And yourself,
come to think...
>
> Hines simply lacks the following to be able to generate
> such long cascades. So do I.
One doesn't need a "following" to generate a volume of responses, or
disrupt a newsgroup. Your thread on "Below 50 IQ Simulation" for
example. Or all of the threads Hines starts with "Gans" in the title.
Or the threads started by you with "Gans" in the title. Or the volume
of "who the hell is this guy?" posts and threads when he starts
inflicting himself on a new group. Check out the links below for more
examples of same.
>
> [...]
Note the snippage of the rest of the description of a troll, which
fits Hines so very, very well. And, come to think of it, yourself...
>
> >In all the newsgroups Hines posts to, he does precious little but
> >sneer, denigrate, attack
> >and cause trouble.
>
> This is, I believe, demonstrably false.
No. Again, you didn't bother to read the evidence. The vast majority
of Hines' posts consist of snide one- and two-liners, or long-winded
personal attacks. Don't believe me? Do your own search and start
counting...
>What's more,
> you are too sporadic a participant to be in a
> position to make such claims. On top of everything
> else, your posts to soc.history.medieval fit the description
> you give above, in spades. When have you ever involved
> yourself in discussion of medieval history?
1) I have, on the occasions where I felt I actually knew something
about the subject
2) I do not inundate the newsgroups with flame-threads and cross-posts
3) I try not to hold forth on subjects I know next to nothing about
4) We are not discussing me, we are discussing Hines
5) In football, the best defense is often a good offense; we are not
playing football here
>
>
> [typical blame-the-victim comments deleted]
[typical blame-the-victim comments restored]
"...He disrupts
every newsgroup he posts to; the sheer number of threads with his name
in the Subject line
are amazing: "FOUL CRAVEN, Musings on D Spencer Hines", "Troll Alert:
D Spencer Hines",
"D Spencer Hines, an uneccesary link in the human race", "Killfile
Score for August 30 D Spencer
Hines", "Put D Spencer Hines in your newsreader killfilter", etc,
etc..."
<snicker> Whole reams of them, there were. Perhaps you'd care to
actually read the threads mentioned above, and comment on whether or
not the advent of Hines in the newsgroups concerned (not to mention
his continued participation) did or did not cause disruption and
disturbance? Or perhaps that would hit too close to home?
>
> >And his antics on the Mediev-L list were disruptive enough to get him
> >banned.
>
> Explain, please, how one is to confirm this claim.
Well, one could have actually *read* the links below, but since I'm
feeling generous today, here:
http://www.ukans.edu/~medieval/melcher/19981201.med/msg00472.html
>
> [snip urls to be read when I have a bit more time
> on my hands today or tomorrow]
Too much trouble to bother reading before replying, huh?
>
> >PS - If I know you,
>
> You don't.
But I do. Along with everyone else on these newsgroups, probably
better than your wife and kids. We get to see the *real* Peter,
unfortunately for us.
>
> [bizarre speculation deleted]
[Bizarre speculation confirmed]
Nell P. Wright
Bryn Fraser
<my...@mac.com> writes
>In article <209dde33.01062...@posting.google.com>,
> wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) wrote:
>
>> "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:<oSTX6.10$Cc6...@typhoon.nyu.edu>...
>> > In soc.history.medieval pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
>> > > In article <lb10jt08eu03isgh8...@4ax.com>,
>> > > "Nell P. Wright" <wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> On 19 Jun 2001 13:31:19 -0400, pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >[snip]
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> PS - If I know you, you'll accept none of the above or twist it
>> > >> >> beyond all recognition, go off into the blue on a wild tangent, and
>> > >> >> finish by berating the wicked triumvirate of Gans, Hershey, and
>> > >> >> Meyers for concocting a deep, dark, eeee-vil plot agin' you and
>> > >> >> Hines.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >his name misspelled?
>> > >>
>> > >> can put up with "Meyers".
>> >
>> > > to be capricious, and throw temper tantrums over trivia.
>> >
>> > >> triumvirate...
>> >
>> > > jockeying for power, the backstabbing, the assassination
>> > > attempts...sometimes we get so caught up in all the scheming against
>> > > each other that we forget to do our Evil Deed for the Day. I'm looking
>> > > forward to the day I get to be an Evil Principate -- there won't be any
>> > > misspelling of my name then, you can bet.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>No, they are quite tasty on pizza.
>
I'll stick with the black olives. I'm a bit conservative...
Bryn
Remember grasshopper, its easier to run backwards for a
hundred miles than to get the egg back into the chicken...
http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk http://www.thefrasers.com
Foot & Mouth update:
http://www.eastpenrest.freeserve.co.uk/foot-and-mouth.htm
Ken Cox
> wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) wrote:
> > pz <my...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<myers-
> > > to be capricious, and throw temper tantrums over trivia.
> > Ah. I see. For some strange reason this reminds me of someone
> > else...can't think who...
> I know *exactly* who you are thinking of, and isn't it clear that he is
> already master of a principality of one?
But is he master of his own domain?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
pz
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
Somehow, I just don't think so.
--
pz
Andy Groves
<snip>
> Paul Myers is a philistine careerist
<snip>
You evidence for this is.....?
Andy
Andy Groves
<snip>
>
> More to the point, Groves has not posted one iota of
> evidence that what Hines wrote was *false*, let
> alone a lie.
Indeed. I simply asked him to post evidence for the objectionable
things he posted.
Personally, I think that if someone posts accusations about someone on
the Internet, they should have the decency to back up their
accusations with evidence.
It may be, Peter, that you have different opinions about this.
However, given the amount of time you waste hooting about "slander", I
would be surprised......
Andy
Peter Nyikos
title to the new one where I reissue the challenge to
all three newsgroups. This is my second followup to
the only post so far that even went thru the motions of attempting
to meet the challenge. The first was done before I had a chance
to study the urls provided by Nell.
wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) writes:
>nyi...@math.sc.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote in message news:<9gl86s$h...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>...
>[snip]
>> of it, with an appropriate thread title. Can anyone
>> in these two newsgroups come up with credible evidence that
>> D. Spencer Hines is:
>>
>> 1. dishonest
>>
>> 2. a troll [a charge I've seen even more often than that
>> of dishonesty] or
>>
>> 3. a loon [a charge I've seen even more often than 1. and 2.]?
>>
>> Those wishing to address 2 or 3 should define what they
>> mean by "troll" and "loon" since there is no consensus
>> in soc.history.medieval as to what these two words mean.
>According to the following definitions of "troll" Hines is indeed one.
>(I'm using
>these because they incorporate my own definitions, and I'm sure mine
>alone
>would not be good enough for Peter):
>From http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html#one (thanks
>are due to
>Dave Horn for this one)
Of Dave Horn, the less said the better. But let's
look at the url:
>"The WWW gives this as a definition:
What pretension! But at least you ARE giving us a definition
we can use as a starting point.
> troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract
>predictable
>responses or flames.
The sticking point is "designed". We'll come
back to it later.
[...]
> The well-constructed troll is a post
This accounts for the "noun" part of this inchoate definition,
I suppose.
[...]
>The following extract is from a broader expansion of the defining
>comments given above:
Nell is still quoting from the same url, which gives no hint
of where in the WWW this is supposed to be from.
> In Usenet usage, a "troll" is not a grumpy monster that lives
>beneath a bridge accosting
> passers-by, but rather a provocative posting to a newsgroup
>intended to produce a large
> volume of frivolous responses.
Note how this definition still has to do with posts,
not the people who make them.
And the sticking point is "intended".
[...]
>Career trollers tend for the latter two whilst the former is the mark
>of the clueless newbie and
>should be ignored."
Note, "trollers" rather than "trolls".
> *********************************************************
>In all the newsgroups Hines posts to, he does precious little but
>sneer, denigrate, attack
>and cause trouble.
Unsupported and unsupportable claim where s.h.m. is concerned,
and probably where s.g.m. is concerned too. Nell is in
no position to say otherwise since she spends very little
of her time posting to s.h.m.
> The majority of his posts are remarkably
>content-free, aside from a few on
>geneology, where he really does appear to know something.
Hines has shown more knowledge of
on-topic things in soc.history.medieval
than Nell or even (gasp!) Paul Gans, Nell's hero,
in the time I have been posting here. Hines has
caught Gans in dozens of errors during this time
and Nell has been utterly powerless to help Gans.
> He disrupts
>every newsgroup he posts to;
Correction: his adversaries disrupt every newsgroup Hines
posts to, at least judging from what Nell writes next:
> the sheer number of threads with his name
>in the Subject line
>are amazing: "FOUL CRAVEN, Musings on D Spencer Hines", "Troll Alert:
>D Spencer Hines",
>"D Spencer Hines, an uneccesary link in the human race", "Killfile
>Score for August 30 D Spencer
>Hines", "Put D Spencer Hines in your newsreader killfilter", etc,
>etc...
>And his antics on the Mediev-L list were disruptive enough to get him
>banned.
I have challenged Nell to post evidence of this and so far
she has posted none.
>I offer up the following as further proof of Hines' trollhood:
"further proof"! What a laugh! The following urls only seem to
indicate that Nell's *sincere* definition of "troll"
is "a person lots of people love to hate". If that is the case,
only Matt Giwer and maybe Ludwig Plutonium are more
clearly Nell-trolls than Hines, of all the people I
have ever heard of on Usenet.
Antagonist spewing undocumented flames. Absolutely
no evidence that Hines posted anything "designed" or
"intended" to elicit the flames.
No evidence of anything *designed* to elicit flames.
Ditto. Antagonist even calls self "Mad Madam Mim".
The next two are more of the same.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=d.+spencer+hines&start=20&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=21&ic=1&selm=199703062354.SAA27371%40freenet6.carleton.ca
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=D+Spencer+Hines+group:alt.walmart&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=37A8590A.7AEDCD05%40dspencer.hines
>This next one's a goody:
A whole thread.
Colin Bevan may be the only responsible one of the bunch.
The last post of the ten is typical sexist garbage,
by the hate-driven "Gryphon801" expecting
"ladies" [whatever he means by that--probably net.barbarians
who happen to be women] to be given preferential treatment
over men by Hines.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=9ad34ec83eb007c3,18&ic=1
The ongoing thread begun by stalker-simulator Victor Chan. Does
Nell have a high opinion of this jerk?
Another piece of unsupported flaming.
A perfectly reasonable followup (considering the identity
of the addressee) by Hines
to the tough cookie Renia Simmonds is answered
by a bunch of flames from another woman, purportedly referring to other
posts, none of which is quoted from.
The rest of the urls also shed precious little light
on the "intent" and "designed" aspect of these things.
They do include a thread from soc.genealogy.medieval,
spurring me to include that newsgroup.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=bca322d4093e52b,26&seekm=66f52q%248v6%40bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net#p
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=29a8599104c1e7db,14&seekm=33fda99a.35318802%40netnews.worldnet.att.net#p
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=627afb03a60b2232,21&seekm=385c2006.1290302447%40news.netinc.ca#p
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=D+Spencer+Hines&start=40&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=46&ic=1&selm=35EA10C1.7C67%40Highseas.mil
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=7687a35f7895b0ca,8&seekm=35BFE102.7231249F%40worldnet.att.net#p
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=407b39299308f1d2,7&seekm=38638D15.668F%40erols.com#p
>So yes, Peter, D. Spencer Hines *IS* a troll. And not even a
>particularly clever
>one. See the following for more on trolls (thanks again to Dave for
>this one 8-)
>Fits our boy to a "T". http://www.gingicat.org/jacob/troll.html
It fits the flames directed at him in the urls above far better.
Most of the flamers remind me of "rick", who posts inept flames
of the truly unsatisfactory Matt Giwer and anyone who doesn't
join him in demonizing Giwer. "rick" seemed to be doing
this mostly for the purpose of racking up brownie points
with the Giwer-demonizers of the various newsgroups.
[snip inept flames by Nell, aimed at me. They earned her
brownie points, which is probably why she posted them.]
Andy Groves
> lblan...@aol.com (Lblanch001) writes:
<snip>
> >The web page referred to in the posting, as many long-time posters are aware,
> >was removed following Mr. Hines' complaints to the president of the University
> >of Pennsylvania that I was engaging in character assassination while on the
> >clock.
>
> Is there any way of confirming the truth of that
> final clause?
Sorry, no. Laura protects her sources.
> >He was, as usual, wrong.
>
> Is there any way of confirming the truth of that?
Sorry, no. Laura protects her sources.
See how this works, Peter darling?
Andy
Ken Cox
> Personally, I think that if someone posts accusations about someone on
> the Internet, they should have the decency to back up their
> accusations with evidence.
> It may be, Peter, that you have different opinions about this.
It depends on whether the person is a FOP (Friend Of Peter)
or not. Take a simplified example, without names.
Person A says "X". Person B disagrees with Person A.
1) If Person A is a FOP and Person B is not, the burden
lies with Person B -- Person B must give evidence that
X is not true.
2) If Person B is a FOP and Person A is not, the burden
lies with Person A -- Person A must give evidence that
X is true.
Specific instances:
1) Hines writes something, Andy disagrees. Andy must
post evidence that what Hines claims is false.
2) Someone calls Giwer a Nazi, Peter disagrees. The
first person must post evidence that their claim
is true.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Andy Groves
> 1. Hines stands by what he has posted. No Regrets.
>
> 2. Hines does not give a fig what Groves thinks ---- if Groves thinks
> that Hines is lying ---- so be it.
>
> 3. Like any good journalist or intelligence agent ---- Hines protects
> his sources.
>
> 4. If one does not protect his sources they soon dry up ---- or cut and
> run.
More bluffing. You don't have a shred of evidence to back up what you
said about Gans.
You should be thankful that other posters here are decent enough to
refrain from fabricating "facts" about you, then refusing to name
*their* "sources".
Andy
Peter Nyikos
Mostly piggybacking...
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes:
>In soc.history.medieval Andy Groves <gro...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message news:<2001061920...@kappa.math.sc.edu>...
>>> gro...@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) writes:
>>>
>>> >nyi...@math.sc.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote in message news:<9gl86s$h...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>...
>>>
>>> >> Since D. Spencer Hines has also been accused of dishonesty
>>> >> by talk.origins regulars (e.g. Andy Groves) I think it
>>> >> is fitting to make an Elsberry-style formal challenge out
>>> >> of it, with an appropriate thread title.
>>>
>>> >I believe I have never called DSH dishonest. The closest I came to it
>>> >was in the following thread:
>>>
>>> Wait. What about the time you used variants of the
>>> four-letter "f" word on him several times in the same post?
>>> What was that all about?
>> That was me calling him a poisonous fuck. I don't recall calling him a
>> *dishonest* poisonous fuck, but I could be wrong.
And for what reason? Andy did not divulge that.
>>> >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=groves+hines+dishonest&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=3&ic=1&selm=8je1a7%244q0%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
>>>
>>> In the above post, I see you saying:
>>>
>>> So, prove me wrong. Post your sources. Let's see the evidence.
>>>
>>> Otherwise you will confirm the impression that you are simply a
>>> dishonest and malicious person, more interested in invective than in
>>> debate.
>>>
>>> Go ahead, D. Spencer Hines. Make my day.
>>>
>>>
>>> Since Hines has not responded to your challenge
>>> in all this time, your alleged "confirmation" would
>>> seem to be in effect.
Andy flagrantly ducked the issue of the above being
a *de facto* accusation of dishonesty, continuing:
>> The thing that occurred to me during the exchange you cite is that I'm
>> sure DSH would not have wasted an opportunity to prove me wrong if he
>> could.
Andy is dissembling, I believe. Hines has proved people
wrong innumerable times, and has NOTHING to show for it
except the reluctance of some people to argue with him,
and my willingness to remind people of these occasions.
See my followup to Hines' followup to Andy for a fine
on-topic example in soc.history.medieval. The stony
silence of O'Neill and all other Hines critics in the wake
of that example is highly
revealing of what a naive fool/dissembler Andy Groves is.
>> In fact he would probably relish it. I found his unwillingness
>> to prove me wrong rather revealing.
...of Andy's own mindset, yes.
>>> It's illogical, though. Hines says he protects his sources.
>>> At best, you can insist that he either retract his claim
>>> or give evidence for it.
>> That's exactly what I did do. I asked him to post the evidence!
See above for what ELSE Andy did, folks.
[...]
>> "You will, I presume, post the documenting URLS fro Dejanews now?
>> That's
>> how we work in this group. Rather than just blustering, it is
>> considered
>> appropriate to back up your assertions with proof.
Andy is flagrantly dissembling. He knows, for instance, that
Howard Hershey NEVER cited an url while unleashing a torrent
of libel against me, and NOBODY but me ever called Hershey
to account for his defamatory accusations. Not even Andy,
who meekly stated that he hadn't seen evidence of overt
homophobia by me.
Howard Hershey's performance was quite typical of him. He
almost never bothered to give urls for anything, yet Andy
lapped up most of what he posted.
Nor is Howard Hershey at all atypical. Gans and Myers and
Cox and Wade Hines also refrain from giving urls except on the rarest
of occasions.
Yet Andy probably holds these people in higher esteem than
he does ANYONE who cites urls frequently.
[...]
>> In fact, DSH dealt with the issue by simply ignoring it. Despite my
>> repeatedly asking him for evidence, he simply stopped posting to the
>> thread. He didn't retract anything - he just walked away. What are we
>> to conclude from that?
See Hines's own replies to Groves for that.
Groves has not followed up to Hines. What are we to
conclude from THAT?
>> How would you feel if I responded to your "challenge" by:
>> 1. Claiming that DSH is dishonest
>> 2. When pressed for evidence, replying that I have sources to protect
>> 3. Ceased posting to the thread.
>> Hmmmm?
Comparing private e-mail with public postings. Andy doesn't
even TRY to sound convincing.
Hines is being crucified on the basis of alleged
PUBLIC behavior. Andy is pretending not to notice
that fact.
>I've got both Hines and Nyikos killfiled so this is the first
>I've seen of this particular bit of past history.
>Hines made such assertions regularly. He also claimed that
>students of mine from my current medieval class had contacted
>him to complain about my poor teaching.
And nobody has shown any evidence that any of this is false
or even *unlikely*. If Gans is as dishonest to his students
as he is to the readers of Usenet, it would be a miracle
if students did NOT complain to Hines.
Why, Gans has even indulged in wholesale dishonesty
wrt a chemistry experiment--and he is a Professor of Chemistry.
>And that's just for starters.
I'd like to see what Gans can come up with next.
>But I gather that Nyikos is still looking for evidence that
>Hines tells lies, makes up things, and is generally untrustworthy.
I certainly am. And nobody has presented any that
hold water so far.
>Does anyone recall the bit about his French friend in Paris who
>assured him that certain (incorrect) French phraseology was
>indeed correct? Or his Jewish friends who told him...
>Oh well, those were the good old days... :-)
> ----- Paul J. Gans
Note, not a single url. Will Andy demand that Paul produce
any? Will the next Pope be a Muslim?
Peter Nyikos
>In soc.history.medieval pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <lb10jt08eu03isgh8...@4ax.com>,
>> "Nell P. Wright" <wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> On 19 Jun 2001 13:31:19 -0400, pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <209dde33.01061...@posting.google.com>,
>>> > wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >[snip]
>>> >
>>> >> PS - If I know you,
Nell doesn't know me. The following not only is
devoid of reality, but it may even fit the definition
Nell gave us of a "troll": a posting designed to
elicit frivolous responses.
>>> >> you'll accept none of the above or twist it
>>> >> beyond all recognition, go off into the blue on a wild tangent, and
>>> >> finish by berating the wicked triumvirate of Gans, Hershey, and
>>> >> Meyers for concocting a deep, dark, eeee-vil plot agin' you and
>>> >> Hines.
For sure, the responses WERE frivolous, and Nell herself
joined in them.
>>> >Waaah. Why am *I* always the member of the evil triumvirate who gets
>>> >his name misspelled?
>>>
>>> Oh, quit crying. If I can live with being "Neil" my whole life, you
>>> can put up with "Meyers".
>> Evil isn't tolerant. One of the requirements of the job is that we have
>> to be capricious, and throw temper tantrums over trivia.
Note the frivolity in the following statement by Nell.
>>> At least *you* get to be part of an evil
>>> triumvirate...
>> Hey, it's no bed of roses, I tell you. There's all the behind-the-scenes
>> jockeying for power, the backstabbing, the assassination
>> attempts...sometimes we get so caught up in all the scheming against
>> each other that we forget to do our Evil Deed for the Day. I'm looking
>> forward to the day I get to be an Evil Principate -- there won't be any
>> misspelling of my name then, you can bet.
>It's the zebra fish.
>Besides, there's no backstabbing. We use poison.
> ----- Paul J. Gans
Myers is a narrow specialist who makes a career of the developmental
biology of zebra fish. His incompetence at on-topic matters
in talk.origins (such as evolutionary biology) is nicely
illustrated by the incident I recalled in the following
exchange, which also illustrates Myers's habitual
dishonesty:
================================= begin excerpt from post to which
no one ever followed up, names added:
[Nyikos:]
> >And "Hemidactylus" is one of the few people with enough
> >knowledge of embryology to know what utter bilge
> >Myers was guilty of when he tried to draw conclusions
> >about how the human amnion was formed from the way
> >the mouse amnion is formed. All the way back in
> >1946 it was already known [Arey] that monkeys and guinea
> >pigs have a different way of forming it than rats do,
> >so unless Myers thinks that mice are closer to humans
> >than they are to rats, and humans are closer to mice
> >than they are to monkeys, he was posting nonsense even
> >from his POV.
> >
[Myers:]
> Let's see...you start off by saying it's utter bilge to try and draw
> any conclusions about human development from mouse development.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Nyikos:]
Note the slanderous use of "any" in the face of a highly
specific example which I amply justified. Myers failed
utterly to address the specific points I made.
All in all, a shocking display of a lack of professionalism
towards Myers's own field, developmental biology.
========================== end of included excerpt
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
William Black
> sophia <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >Faith in Fabulousness
> >www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
>
> When one clicks on "Enter", one gets to see a picture
> of Sophia wearing a fancy gown
> that is dated for women, but probably very much "in" for
> female impersonators. I wonder when proud-to-admit-it
> transvestite Sherilyn will treat us to similar pictures of himself.
Oh dear, we're back to poor Peter not knowing about Goths again.
Look at the dress, it's not old fashioned, it's parody. The sleeve length
and body shape gives the game away. Mind you the hairstyle should be
something of a clue.
You know for a man who sets himself up as some sort of authority you really
are ignorant of modern clothing style/group indicators.
You're the sort of person who makes nasty comments about only gay men
wearing makeup around a psycho/metal crowd and wonders why he got stabbed...
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
John Stockwell
>post to which I am following up]
>
>John Stockwell <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> writes:
>
>>Hi Peter. Are people giving your new "boot black" DSH a hard time?
>
>Even Derek Stevenson, who is second only to you in supercilious
>cynicism among all the people I've ever encountered on Usenet,
>knows better than to think DSH is anything like a bootblack for me.
>
>But you are too smug and self-satisfied to let even THAT ruffle
>your feathers, eh?
Why should my feathers be ruffled, Peter? Certainly DSH is better quality
sidekick than Joe Potter or Pagano, but, really there is no social mobility in
the world of Peter. Peter is the lord, and everybody else is a commoner.
That *is* the way it works, isn't it, Peter?
>>>D. Spencer Hines is:
>>>
>>>1. dishonest
>>>
>>>2. a troll [a charge I've seen even more often than that
>>>of dishonesty] or
>>>
>>>3. a loon [a charge I've seen even more often than 1. and 2.]?
>
>>Well, he *has* received an endorsement from Ted Holden.
>
>An attempted guilt by association?
>
>If so, your smugness is once again betraying you: even
>Andy Groves was able to detect that Ted Holden was partly
>tongue in cheek.
With his grasp of reality (or lack thereof) an endorsement from Ted is
similar to a "Ted Badge of Courage" award, but in reverse.
>Now go crawl back into your one-man mutual admiration
>society headquarters.
Really, Peter, after I defended you in talk.origins, and everything. Where
is your gratitude?
>
>[Oh, wait. Maybe you'll find Martin Reboul there.]
So, I take it that you don't like this Martin Reboul person?
(Should we tell Peter the truth, that Martin Reboul, D. Spencer Hines, and Wade
Hines are all the same person? Nah. That would spoil Wade's fun.)
>
>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>
--
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our new book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
Peter Nyikos
>Of course, I thought of some of Gans's hard-leftist prattlings on SHM,
>particularly during 1997 and 1998, when I read this.
We sure could use a few salient examples, now
that the Gans fans have pretty thoroughly diverted
this thread from its original purposes.
>--------------------------
>"Editorial Reviews
>Amazon.com
Just as anyone posting derogatory personal attacks on Gans
in soc.history.medieval is treated as a pariah by Gans's toadies.
I got a taste of that last year, as one Gans fan after
another made unprovoked attacks on me. The only s.h.m.
Gans fan I recall attacking before he had a chance to
attack me was Tim O'Neill. Almost all the others were
treated to my standard two-week grace period where I
try to figure out whether they are merely fooled
by the other Nyikos-defamers into posting garbage
that they just don't know to be garbage.
>Radosh actually started the book believing he could vindicate Rosenberg;
>through the course of his research, however, he concluded the man was
>guilty, and set about saying so. This was too much for many of his
>friends, who soon refused to be seen with him in public. Here is a man
>who viewed the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 as very possibly a
>portent of "extreme reaction, if not fascism," suddenly blacklisted by
>the Left. He became disenchanted with how he had spent his life and
>"started to question the whole project of the Left."
Reminds me of Susan Sonntag, who had the honesty to say
that she read more truth about the Soviet Union in
_Readers' Digest_ than in all the prestigious magazines
esteemed by the Left (Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly,
The Saturday Review of Literature, The New Yorker,
The New York Review of Books, New Republic,...)
She said she was subjected to far more vilification
from the Left in a few months for that one comment than she had
received all her life from right-wingers.
>He even suffered professionally: in 1993, Radosh was denied a job in
>George Washington University's history department. "If I had still been
>a Communist writing left-wing history, I probably would have breezed in.
>But faculty members practicing a politically correct version of
>McCarthyism blackballed me."
A similar dynamic may be at work in NYU wrt the hiring,
tenure, promotion, etc. of the shockingly incompetent
"scientist" Paul Gans.
>Radosh is not a left-winger who has become a right-winger, like David
>Horowitz, but he is clearly a person who has had second thoughts about
>what he once believed. America, he writes, is "a country where I was
>born but didn't fully discover until middle age." Commies is a
>valuable document describing radicalism in the 1950s and 1960s from the
>inside. -- John J. Miller"
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
D. Spencer Hines
They have already done that numerous times. That 'Hines FAQ' thing by
Brewer is riddled with errors, slurs, lies, dissimulations, distortions,
misrepresentations and smears.
What I have posted is true ---- people are free to believe it or
not ---- as they wish.
Gans tries to do a straddle between chemistry and slack-jawed
sociology ---- and winds up falling between two stools --- his students
in both disciplines suffer ---- there is no secret to that.
Gans has absolutely no training in History, or even sociology ---- and
by his own testimony ---- is not allowed to work with graduate students
on their dissertations in chemistry. He reportedly teaches only
lower-level chemistry courses. He reportedly lost the honors organic
chemistry course several years ago to a more competent, knowledgeable
professor ---- again, by his own admission.
Many people in New York are aware of all this. Hell, there are
something on the order of 7,500,000 in Gotham and Gommorah on the
Hudson. Hines knows many people in New York and often visits there.
These things are not hard to find out if one has the smarts and the
will.
Groves should get up off his fat duff, wake up, smell the flowers and
consult the archives.
He pontificates from the bottom of his own personally constructed deep
Pit of Ignorance.
Hines's previous posts clearly speak for themselves.
Exitus Acta Probat.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Andy Groves" <gro...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:991ea4ae.01062...@posting.google.com...
D. Spencer Hines
more truth about the Soviet Union in _Readers' Digest_ than in all the
prestigious magazines esteemed by the Left (Harper's, The Atlantic
Monthly, The Saturday Review of Literature, The New Yorker, The New York
Review of Books, New Republic,...)
She said she was subjected to far more vilification from the Left in a
few months for that one comment than she had received all her life from
right-wingers."
Peter Nyikos
-----------------
Indeed. That's an excellent example of the phenomenon.
_The New York Times_ and particularly _The New York Times Magazine_
[Weekly: Sunday] should be added to that list.
Gans gets his daily infusion to his hardening arteries of Leftover Left
pabulum from _The New York Times_.
D. Spencer Hines
The gansocoprophagi and their little cooks and bottlewashers keep trying
to play this silly buggers game.
They taunt Peter about supposedly being *my* bootblack and toady ----
then they turn around and taunt *me* about supposedly being Peter's
bootblack and toady.
Hilarious!
It's all a *very* clumsy effort to sow seeds of mistrust, jealousy and
dissension between Nyikos and Hines.
Patently Absurd On The Face Of It.
Childish ---- Not Worth A Farthing.
Elementary School Playground Folderol and Sham.
Stockwell is obviously just another scruffy little academic who is so
stupid as to think that people can be led around by their noses.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"John Stockwell" <jo...@dix.Mines.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.01062...@wenzel.Mines.EDU...
Martin Reboul
John Stockwell wrote:
Blast! How did you find out? I thought I everyone fooled, now you've spoiled it
John!
Why does the Mad Arithmetic Teacher always seem to associate us, when we have never
met, and hardly even inhabit the same newsgroups I wonder?
Could it be that he may not like either of us perhaps.....? That would be an
association according to the twisted, obscure and incomprehensible dictates of
Nyikosian Logic.
Cheers
Martin
sophia
Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> writes
>>>
>>>Waaah. Why am *I* always the member of the evil triumvirate who gets
>>>his name misspelled?
>>>
>>even spell your name right you may appear. Demons, magical
>>creatures and right names you know... :)
>
>Evidently Myers and Sophia both think "evil" and "wicked"
>are terms of approbation, perhaps invoking a comedian
>with a trident and forked tail, dressed in red tights.
You really never did grasp the concept of humour, did you, Peter?
>
>>--
>>Sophia (very evil indeed)
>
>More evasive than evil, it would seem.
Evasive? This word comes ill from you considering your behaviour
recently, for instance over the matter of the meaning of the word
'pogue'. People in glass houses, hon.
> See the following
>post, the last of its thread--still unreplied to by you,
No, I didn't reply to this spectacularly empty headed piece of trollery
as it's pretty much content free, plus ill written and ill mannered to
boot. I come to SHM for amusement, because I like mediaeval history,
because I respect many of the people here and because I often learn
fascinating things. I do not come here to argue with tiresome little
oiks. Face it, Peter, the kind of stuff you are posting at the moment is
not worth a second of my time.
>or anyone else, evidently:
Seems that everyone else agrees with me then.
>
<snip tripe>
>
Just before I go, let me add a spot of advice: cut out the wittering
about your egregious obsession with the contents of my knickers (a
matter that is of interest only to my lovers and my doctor, and you
are neither). I know you think it's a clever tactic to annoy, but it isn't
working and just makes you look cheap and, frankly, schoolboyish.
ps: I'm sorry you didn't like my wedding dress - it was fashionable in
the early 1990s when it was bought. Take it up with Harvey Nich's.
Love and hisses,
--
Sophia
Faith in Fabulousness
www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
icq: 93834408
D. Spencer Hines
V55.0203 Energy and the Environment (Spring, 2001)
V65.0003 Medieval Technology and Everyday Life (Spring, 2001)
V25.0651 Physical Chemistry I (Fall, 2000)
V25.0109 General Chemistry I (Honors) (Fall, 2000)
http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/
-----------------------------------
Does anyone see any Medieval History courses in there?
Yet, because the man wants to play Godfather on the Medieval History
USENET newsgroup ---- he tries to pose as some sort of expert on
Medieval History [N.B. 1066 to 1347 ---- England Only, to be sure ----
DSH] ---- a "medievalist" he calls himself.
No Latin, No French, No Dutch, No Spanish, No Portuguese, No Italian, No
German, No Russian ---- No *History* ---- but "a medievalist".
Hilarious!
Hines, Read, Nyikos and others have caught him in *scores* of gaffes,
errors and lies over the past four years ---- concerning his deficits in
Mediaeval History.
Apparently, he has turned in the same, sorry, charlatanistic, fraudulent
performance on talk.origins ---- but there are others here far better
qualified than I to speak to that.
Fortem Posce Animum.
pz
gro...@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote:
I think he's protecting his sources.
--
pz
I'm not even sure what a "philistine careerist" *does*.
Ken Cox
> These are supposedly the courses that Gans teaches:
You mean you don't?
Perhaps you have a more restrictive definition of "history"
than I do, but courses like "Life in Ancient Palestine" or
"Elizabethan Society" or "Roman Engineering and Weaponry"
qualify as history. History is, or should be, more than
lists of kings and dates of battles.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
pz
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
> These are supposedly the courses that Gans teaches:
>
> V55.0203 Energy and the Environment (Spring, 2001)
>
> V65.0003 Medieval Technology and Everyday Life (Spring, 2001)
>
> V25.0651 Physical Chemistry I (Fall, 2000)
>
> V25.0109 General Chemistry I (Honors) (Fall, 2000)
>
> http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/
> -----------------------------------
>
> Does anyone see any Medieval History courses in there?
Yes, the second one. Why? Were you unable to read what you had
typed?
Can I see the list of Medieval History courses that *you* teach?
Would you suggest that there should be some minimum teaching
requirement before someone is allowed to call themselves a
"medievalist" or contribute to soc.history.medieval? That'll
clear out the newsgroup in a hurry, I'm sure.
[snip]
--
pz
D. Spencer Hines
lower-level chemistry courses ---- are more complex than I had
previously stated them.
After allegedly NOT teaching General Chemistry (Honors) for a while ----
Gans is now apparently teaching the FIRST term of it, while Professor
Tuckerman may be teaching the SECOND ---- and more advanced term of the
course to NYU undergraduates.
Not surprising.
Dr. Tuckerman seems to be quite well qualified indeed to be teaching
college chemistry:
http://www.nyu.edu/pages/chemistry/faculty/tuckerman.html
And:
Please note that Gans teaches NO GRADUATE COURSES.
Apposite and Revealing.
-----------------------
But, it is hard to be sure of all this ---- because Gans is too damned
lazy properly to update the Chemistry Department Undergraduate Courses
webpage. He has not done so since March 2000.
Vide infra pro risibus.
--------------------------
Undergraduate Courses in the Department of Chemistry
V25.0101 College Chemistry I (Halpin)
V25.0102 College Chemistry II (Halpin)
V25.0103 Introduction to Lab Techniques (Rugg)
V25.0104 Introduction to Quantitative Analysis (Halpin)
V25.0109 Honors Chemistry I (Tuckerman)
V25.0111 Chemical Experimentation I (Brenner and Halpin)
V25.0111 Chemical Experimentation II (Brenner and Halpin)
V25.0240 Principles of Organic Chemistry (Fishman)
V25.0243 Organic Chemistry I (Schuster and Wilson)
V25.0244 Organic Chemistry II (Fishman and Zhao)
V25.0651 Physical Chemistry I (Gans)
V25.0652 Physical Chemistry II (Geacintov)
--------------------
Graduate Courses in the Department of Chemistry
G25.1312 Organic Synthesis (Wilson)
G25.1314 Organic Reaction Mechanisms (Schuster)
G25.1638 Introduction to Research in Chemistry (Staff)
G25.1814 Biophysical Chemistry (Geacintov)
G25.1882 Biochemistry II (Shapiro)
G25.2651 Statistical Mechanics (Tuckerman)
G25.2666 Quantum Mechanics (Zhang)
G25.2932.001 Research (staff)
G25.2932.002 Library Research (Fedunok)
G25.3011 Physical Chemistry Seminar (Brenner)
G25.3012 Organic Chemistry Seminar (Schuster/Canary)
G25.3013 Biomolecular Seminar (Seeman)
--------------------
Courses Taught in other Programs
V55.0203 Energy and the Environment (Gans)
V65.0003 Medieval Technology and Everyday Life (Gans)
******This page was built and is maintained by Paul J. Gans. Please
address all comments and suggestions to him.******
Page last modified: Saturday, 25-Mar-2000 14:04:30 EST
http://www.nyu.edu/pages/chemistry/courses_web.html
--------------------
Here is a post that Hines made in August of 2000:
From: D. Spencer Hines (D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu)
Subject: Re: Gans Dissembles About Honors Chemistry
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval, talk.origins
Date: 2000/08/24
Recte:
The various ways in which Gans prevaricates, obscures, blurs and
dissembles are always starkly revealing and deeply amusing. It's an
across the board phenomenon, not just restricted to his posts to these
two newsgroups.
He tells us frankly on his Home Page that:
"My teaching in the chemistry department this year again includes
physical chemistry and our honors general chemistry."
http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/~gans/gans.html
Actually, he hasn't taught that course in over two years. Wiser heads
obviously prevailed in the chemistry department at NYU and the Honors
Chemistry Course for undergraduates was assigned to a younger and no
doubt brighter and more dynamic professor, Mark Tuckerman ---- who has a
quite impressive _curriculum vitae_ for such a young scholar. Here's
just a bit of it:
Professor Mark Tuckerman
Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Ph.D. 1993 (physics), M.Phil. 1988
(physics), Columbia; B.A. 1986 (physics), California (Berkeley).
A version of the rest of it can be seen at:
http://www.nyu.edu/pages/chemistry/faculty/tuckerman.html
Mark Tuckerman appears to be only about 35 years old. That would make
him 32 years younger than P. J. Gans
Dr. Tuckerman also actually seems to have a continuing interest in
_Chemistry_, rather than Medieval History, lambasting the Kansas school
board authorities and redefining "historical fact" ---- highly desirable
in a Professor of Chemistry.
Honors Chemistry Students now get a teacher who is on the cutting edge
of his profession, not a superannuated fud who is actually more heavily
involved in avocational poaching in other private intellectual pastures,
having little or nothing to do with Honors Chemistry.
Then, in an act of what can only be described as abject carelessness,
sloth and sloppiness, [N.B. But so typical of the man. After all, he's
only right 60% of the time, on average ---- he tells us.] ---- Gans
says, on a different page:
"These pages are obsolete and will soon be removed from this server. My
teaching schedule has changed and I am no longer teaching this course."
http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/~honors/honors.html
"...Will soon be removed from this server..."
Tosh and Balderdash.
He wrote that no later than March of 1999.
The wheels certainly grind slowly in Gansian Chemistry Land ---- no
doubt because he spends so much time on trivia, excoriation,
throat-clearing, web-spinning, thumb-sucking and "playing devil's
advocate" trying to redefine the word "fact" on SHM and T.O. ---- rather
than in his own field of presumed expertise ---- Chemistry.
Finally, New York University might well be able to hire TWO Tuckermans
to replace ONE superannuated Gans, ---- or a similar multiple ---- as
P.J. himself has told us in his own words.
I imagine that thought has crossed the mind of the Departmental
Chairman, Dr. Nicholas E. Geacintov. Gans, himself, has already told us
that some of his colleagues would not be adverse at all to his
retirement. "Movin' on up to the East Side" [of Manhattan] for them,
hopefully.
Then, in complete retirement, P. J. could spend most ALL of his waking
hours on SHM and T.O.
Now, wouldn't that be special?
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Exitus Acta Probat.
Fortem Posce Animum.
And This One:
From: D. Spencer Hines (D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu)
Subject: Re: Gans Dissembles About Honors Chemistry
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval, talk.origins
Date: 2000/08/25
| > (Paul is listed in the current course listings, conveniently
| > on-line as teaching both courses.)
A. Groves ---- Pogue Extraordinaire
-----------------------------------------------
Groves is yet another of these arrogant, narrow, little undereducated
Ph.D.'s ---- probably in some obscure field. He doesn't define what he
means by "both courses" ---- too ignorant to do that ---- insuring
clarity. He seems to have bollixed and flummoxed himself.
He has screwed the pooch badly and committed Massive Elephantine
Pratfall [MEP] before the assembled multitude.
Honors Chemistry at New York University, according to their own web
pages, is being taught by Dr. Mark E. Tuckerman, as I previously stated.
http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/deptlinks.html
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/honors.chem/
http://www.nyu.edu/pages/chemistry/faculty/tuckerman.html
Honors Chemistry
V25.0109: Honors Chemistry I
Professor M. Tuckerman
100lL Main Building
Phone: 8-8471
E-mail: mark.tu...@nyu.edu
As Casey Stengel was wont to say, "You can look it up." Or you could
email him.
Now, get up off your derriere on the floor, Groves, and read Professor
Tuckerman's syllabus. Note how much better it is than Gans's sorry,
insipid, senile effort. Tuckerman obviously has a hands-on approach to
teaching and grading.
Now, will Pogue Groves have the common courtesy and cojones to apologize
for his Massive Gaffe and lies about me? Don't bet on it, as the man is
one of those little guttersnipes who hang out at talk.origins. They
play by an entirely different rulebook.
Finally, it is Gans himself who is supposed to maintain these web pages.
That's one of his principal chores at NYU and probably a major reason
why they keep him on the payroll.
So, if there are conflicts, inconsistencies and outright falsehoods ----
they are his responsibility to fix.
It makes NYU's Chemistry Department look very disorganized indeed.
Perhaps someone should send an email to the Departmental Chairman,
Norman Geacintov at:
And tell him about these problems and that he needs to get Gans off his
arse.
"What do you think, Watson."
Hmmmmmmm.
"Capital Idea, Holmes."
syvanen
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:rd8Y6.1284$Um3....@eagle.america.net...
> Gans's adventures in chemistry ---- and his drift down to the
> lower-level chemistry courses ---- are more complex than I had
> previously stated them.
>
> After allegedly NOT teaching General Chemistry (Honors) for a while ----
> Gans is now apparently teaching the FIRST term of it, while Professor
> Tuckerman may be teaching the SECOND ---- and more advanced term of the
> course to NYU undergraduates.
So he teaches NYU undergraduates. Your point is?
Mike Syvanen
D. Spencer Hines
You really do need to keep up and do your homework.
Pathetic!
And:
Hilarious!
You work at Lucent?
No wonder they have been having severe problems keeping abreast ----
with ignorant pogues such as yourself on the payroll.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3B310AA8...@research.bell-labs.com...
Ken Cox
> Gans HIMSELF says that V65.0003 is NOT a History course.
If he does say that -- and merely the fact that it is
*you* claiming it makes me doubt -- does he mean "it
is not offered through the history department" or "it
does not discuss history"?
These are two different things, and when you asked if
there was a history course on the list, I took you to
mean the latter. As I explained.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Michael Kuettner
> Feh!
>
> They have already done that numerous times. That 'Hines FAQ' thing by
> Brewer is riddled with errors, slurs, lies, dissimulations,
distortions,
> misrepresentations and smears.
>
You've misspelled 'Hines' in the above sentence.
> What I have posted is true ---- people are free to believe it or
> not ---- as they wish.
>
Like in "Believe it or not" ?
Or - to cut a long story short - you wouldn't know truth if it
spit in your eye.
> Gans tries to do a straddle between chemistry and slack-jawed
> sociology ---- and winds up falling between two stools --- his
students
> in both disciplines suffer ---- there is no secret to that.
>
And again your old diffamations.
<snip rest>
I've read the lot of your posts since I've unkillfiled you.
You haven't changed a iota. You're a waste of time.
I haven't seen one post with any worthwile medieval
content from you.
While I don't always agree with Paul Gans, it's possible
to have a conversation with him.
Because he has something which you lack entirely :
manners.
I've even seen him admitting errors and apologizing
for sloppy formulations.
The only thing I've seen from you is fast back-pedalling.
And trying to divert from your errors by insults, cross-
posting and what-have-you.
You're not only dishonest, but also disgusting.
You're not even able to tell another participant in a
discussion that (s)he has made a mistake *in a polite
way* ; for you it's always a 'pratfall' or a similar
quaint and annoying construction.
You're annoyingly arrogant; but you aren't nearly
bright enough for it.
Or - to use some Latin - :
Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi.
One last hint : Jupiter doesn't refer to you.
Back to the killfile.
<plonk>,
Michael Kuettner
D. Spencer Hines
Gans has.
2. Yet, Hines has corrected Gans on Mediaeval History scores of
times ---- so have many others on SHM.
3. The bottom line is that Gans is sloppy and careless ---- often
"posting from memory" ---- without having checked his facts and
interpretations. This is predictable, indeed a self-fulfilling
prophecy, because Gans tells us he does not *believe* in historical
facts.
4. As we discovered, with reference to the Battle of Hastings ---- one
of Gans's favourite hobby horses ---- he has NOT EVEN READ THE PRINCIPAL
SOURCES.
5. Gans is a fraud, a poseur and a charlatan when it comes to Mediaeval
History.
6. His course is a *Sociology* course, focused on medieval technology
in everyday life ---- as he HIMSELF is the first to confess.
7. At one point, and for a long time, Gans APOLOGIZED to his
students ---- IN THE SYLLABUS ---- about the fact that there was some
HISTORY in his little course.
8. When Hines revealed that on SHM, Gans was embarrassed ---- and took
it out.
Hilarious!
How Sweet It Is!
Deus Vult.
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
Andy Groves
I think I addressed the issue with my words " The closest I came to it
was in the following..."
> >> The thing that occurred to me during the exchange you cite is that I'm
> >> sure DSH would not have wasted an opportunity to prove me wrong if he
> >> could.
>
> Andy is dissembling, I believe. Hines has proved people
> wrong innumerable times, and has NOTHING to show for it
> except the reluctance of some people to argue with him
*I* was willing to argue with him. He droppped out of the exchange.
> See my followup to Hines' followup to Andy for a fine
> on-topic example in soc.history.medieval. The stony
> silence of O'Neill and all other Hines critics in the wake
> of that example is highly
> revealing of what a naive fool/dissembler Andy Groves is.
>
>
> >> In fact he would probably relish it. I found his unwillingness
> >> to prove me wrong rather revealing.
>
> ...of Andy's own mindset, yes.
Errr...no. Given his behavior in s.h.m., I would have expected him to
prove me wrong as quickly as he could - and then label me a "pogue",
or crow that I had committed a "Massive Elephantine Pratfall" or....
well, you get the picture.
>
> >>> It's illogical, though. Hines says he protects his sources.
> >>> At best, you can insist that he either retract his claim
> >>> or give evidence for it.
>
> >> That's exactly what I did do. I asked him to post the evidence!
>
> See above for what ELSE Andy did, folks.
>
> [...]
>
> >> "You will, I presume, post the documenting URLS fro Dejanews now?
> >> That's
> >> how we work in this group. Rather than just blustering, it is
> >> considered
> >> appropriate to back up your assertions with proof.
>
> Andy is flagrantly dissembling. He knows, for instance, that
> Howard Hershey NEVER cited an url while unleashing a torrent
> of libel against me,
Actually, Peter, I didn't know that, but I'll take your (unevidenced)
word for it.....
>and NOBODY but me ever called Hershey
> to account for his defamatory accusations.
I suggest you start a thread called "The Howard Hershey
Challenge".......
> Not even Andy,
> who meekly stated that he hadn't seen evidence of overt
> homophobia by me.
Not overt, no.
> Howard Hershey's performance was quite typical of him. He
> almost never bothered to give urls for anything, yet Andy
> lapped up most of what he posted.
Evidence of this "lapping up"? Or is that from one of your "sources"?
> Nor is Howard Hershey at all atypical. Gans and Myers and
> Cox and Wade Hines also refrain from giving urls except on the rarest
> of occasions.
>
> Yet Andy probably holds these people in higher esteem than
> he does ANYONE who cites urls frequently.
Note the weasel "probably", folks.....
(That was a Nyikosism, btw)
>
> >> In fact, DSH dealt with the issue by simply ignoring it. Despite my
> >> repeatedly asking him for evidence, he simply stopped posting to the
> >> thread. He didn't retract anything - he just walked away. What are we
> >> to conclude from that?
>
> See Hines's own replies to Groves for that.
>
> Groves has not followed up to Hines. What are we to
> conclude from THAT?
Err... yes I have. Ooops.
> >> How would you feel if I responded to your "challenge" by:
>
> >> 1. Claiming that DSH is dishonest
> >> 2. When pressed for evidence, replying that I have sources to protect
> >> 3. Ceased posting to the thread.
>
> >> Hmmmm?
>
> Comparing private e-mail with public postings. Andy doesn't
> even TRY to sound convincing.
What on earth are you talking about? It was a perfectly good example.
Here's another example. How would you feel if someone posted this on
the Internet:
" Word has it that many of his younger colleagues in the maths
department at the University of South Carolina see him as an ageing
academic fossil who
should have retired years ago. They reportedly see his sharp interest
in evolution, which has obviously passed him by, as particularly
amusing.
These younger folks want to clear out the dead wood at the top of the
academic pyramid, so they can move on up ---- certainly a reasonable
expectation. They seem to feel that Dr. Nyikos has fallen far behind
the
power curve in Maths [which is, after all, supposedly his core
academic discipline] and mucks about constantly in Medieval Sociology
and Evolutionary Theory on these newsgroups.
I'm not surprised that many of them are quite impatient with the old
fart and think he should have the simple decency to retire and turn
the
job over to someone who really gives a damn about conquering new
frontiers in Science ---- not bashing scientists and pimply-faced-kids
on USENET newsgroups for his geriatric jokes and jollies."
I think you would label it as "libel" or "slander", wouldn't you? You
would certainly press for evidence, wouldn't you?
Hmmmm?
<snip>
>
>
>
> >Does anyone recall the bit about his French friend in Paris who
> >assured him that certain (incorrect) French phraseology was
> >indeed correct? Or his Jewish friends who told him...
>
> >Oh well, those were the good old days... :-)
>
> > ----- Paul J. Gans
>
> Note, not a single url. Will Andy demand that Paul produce
> any?
Hey Paul - I could do with a laugh. Please post the URLs if you have
them, there's a love......
Andy
D. Spencer Hines
He has been hoist with his own petard ---- yet again.
No one would want to converse with anyone this stupid and ignorant about
the History of SHM over the past four years for very long.
Even GANS has admitted that some of the younger faculty members at NYU
would love to see him move on out to pasture ---- and figuratively put
on a horse collar of his liking ---- and theirs.
But no, he prefers to stay "active" and continue to fill young skulls
full of mush.
The only REAL losers, I suppose, are the students themselves.
Michael Kuettner
Bryn Fraser <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:izJvoGAS...@finhall.demon.co.uk...
<snip>
> >> I thought zebrafish *were* poison.
> >
> >No, they are quite tasty on pizza.
> >
>
> I'll stick with the black olives. I'm a bit conservative...
>
You're a dirty racist !
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR GREEN OLIVES !
Politically correctly yours,
Michael Kuettner
Wolf
: In article <lb10jt08eu03isgh8...@4ax.com>,
: "Nell P. Wright" <wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:> On 19 Jun 2001 13:31:19 -0400, pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
<schnip>
:> >Waaah. Why am *I* always the member of the evil triumvirate who gets
:> >his name misspelled?
:>
:> Oh, quit crying. If I can live with being "Neil" my whole life, you
:> can put up with "Meyers".
: Evil isn't tolerant. One of the requirements of the job is that we have
: to be capricious, and throw temper tantrums over trivia.
*GASP!!* But, but, but that's how PN and DSH act! You mean???!!
:> At least *you* get to be part of an evil
:> triumvirate...
: Hey, it's no bed of roses, I tell you. There's all the behind-the-scenes
: jockeying for power, the backstabbing, the assassination
: attempts...sometimes we get so caught up in all the scheming against
: each other that we forget to do our Evil Deed for the Day. I'm looking
: forward to the day I get to be an Evil Principate -- there won't be any
: misspelling of my name then, you can bet.
Sounds like a perfectly normal day in most university departments, to me.
Especially the English and Maths departments. We won't discuss the
History department..... ;>.
Wolf,
Bard
--
**********************************
Dolor ad tempus est.
Sanatur vulni.
Cicatrices amantur a scortillis.
**********************************
http://www.rahul.net/starwolf/shm
Nell P. Wright
this...altho I've had some right interesting responses from some of
them... 8-)
On 20 Jun 2001 13:03:37 -0400, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
wrote:
[snippety, snippety, snip]
>>And his antics on the Mediev-L list were disruptive enough to get him
>>banned.
>
>I have challenged Nell to post evidence of this and so far
>she has posted none.
You seem somehow to have missed this:
209dde33.01062...@posting.google.com
>
[snip Peter missing the point completely...yet again]
Nell P. Wright
Wolf
: "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
<schnip>
:>
:> Besides, there's no backstabbing. We use poison.
: Huh? No way. It's got to be something with lasers. Or tanks of piranha.
: Something intricate and nefarious. Using something as gauche as poison
: would get you drummed out of the triumvirate. Jeez, next you'll be
: talking about using something as crude as a gun.
From the cave entrance comes the hollow sounding voice of someone unseen.
"There are piranha in the moat."
...
...
...
"Beware the blackwidow spiders in the privy."
Wolf (I love Delphi6.)
Wolf
<schnip>
: But is he master of his own domain?
Nope. dspencerhines.com, net and org and dshines.com, net and org are
not registered to him (or anyone else for that matter ;>). So I think we
can safely say that he is NOT the master of his own domain.
Wolf,
Nell P. Wright
>pz wrote:
>> "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> > Besides, there's no backstabbing. We use poison.
>
>> Huh? No way. It's got to be something with lasers. Or tanks of piranha.
>> Something intricate and nefarious.
>
>Clearly your triumvirate has organizational problems.
>*My* evil triumvirate worked out these petty issues
>long ago, allowing us to focus on the real issues --
>like, do we order anchovies on the pizza, or not?
We *DO*. And don't forget the beer.
Nell P. Wright
wrote:
[snip]
Now why does it not surprise me that this thread has turned into
attacks on Paul Gans by the mutual admiration society of Hines and
Nyikos?
I win, I win!! 1,000,000 quatloos! I win!!!
Nell P. Wright
Nell P. Wright
[..]
>> I thought zebrafish *were* poison.
>
>No, they are quite tasty on pizza.
Well, you would be the one to know. Personally, I prefer anchovies...
Nell
Nell P. Wright
>> >
>> > Evil isn't tolerant. One of the requirements of the job is that we have
>> > to be capricious, and throw temper tantrums over trivia.
>>
>> Ah. I see. For some strange reason this reminds me of someone
>> else...can't think who...
>
>I know *exactly* who you are thinking of, and isn't it clear that he is
>already master of a principality of one?
I thought it was a Tweedleduumvirate...
[..]
> pz
Louann Miller
<capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.org> wrote:
>In soc.history.medieval pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
>: In article <oSTX6.10$Cc6...@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
>: "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
><schnip>
>
>:>
>:> Besides, there's no backstabbing. We use poison.
>
>: Huh? No way. It's got to be something with lasers. Or tanks of piranha.
>: Something intricate and nefarious. Using something as gauche as poison
>: would get you drummed out of the triumvirate. Jeez, next you'll be
>: talking about using something as crude as a gun.
>
>From the cave entrance comes the hollow sounding voice of someone unseen.
>
>"There are piranha in the moat."
I feel like I'm in a maze of twisty messages, all exactly alike.
Louann
Paul J. Gans
> "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message news:<oSTX6.10$Cc6...@typhoon.nyu.edu>...
>> > "Nell P. Wright" <wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> >In article <209dde33.01061...@posting.google.com>,
>> >> > wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >[snip]
>> >> >
>> >> >> PS - If I know you, you'll accept none of the above or twist it
>> >> >> beyond all recognition, go off into the blue on a wild tangent, and
>> >> >> finish by berating the wicked triumvirate of Gans, Hershey, and
>> >> >> Meyers for concocting a deep, dark, eeee-vil plot agin' you and
>> >> >> Hines.
>> >> >
>> >> >Waaah. Why am *I* always the member of the evil triumvirate who gets
>> >> >his name misspelled?
>> >>
>> >> Oh, quit crying. If I can live with being "Neil" my whole life, you
>> >> can put up with "Meyers".
>>
>> > to be capricious, and throw temper tantrums over trivia.
>>
>> >> triumvirate...
>>
>> > Hey, it's no bed of roses, I tell you. There's all the behind-the-scenes
>> > jockeying for power, the backstabbing, the assassination
>> > attempts...sometimes we get so caught up in all the scheming against
>> > each other that we forget to do our Evil Deed for the Day. I'm looking
>> > forward to the day I get to be an Evil Principate -- there won't be any
>> > misspelling of my name then, you can bet.
>>
>>
>> Besides, there's no backstabbing. We use poison.
> I thought zebrafish *were* poison.
> Nell P. Wright
Only if you eat the eyeballs raw.
---- Paul J. Gans
Michael L. Siemon
<wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
+ On 20 Jun 2001 10:40:00 -0400, pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
+
+
+ >> >
+ >> > Evil isn't tolerant. One of the requirements of the job is that we have
+ >> > to be capricious, and throw temper tantrums over trivia.
+ >>
+ >> Ah. I see. For some strange reason this reminds me of someone
+ >> else...can't think who...
+ >
+ >I know *exactly* who you are thinking of, and isn't it clear that he is
+ >already master of a principality of one?
+
+ I thought it was a Tweedleduumvirate...
Very nice. Posters (no cross-posters, please!) to s.h.m. should keep it
in mind for future use...
Peter Nyikos
to her irresponsible post, perhaps unaware that
I did a second followup to the same post on
"The D. Spencer Hines Challenge II".
I have added soc.genealogy.medieval
to the newsgroups, thanks directly to some of the
urls Nell posted.
The reason for the title shift is that she
and her allies have diluted this first thread
beyond all reason.
wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) writes:
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message news:<2001061920...@kappa.math.sc.edu>...
>> wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) writes:
>>
>> >nyi...@math.sc.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote in message news:<9gl86s$h...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>...
>>
>> >According to the following definitions of "troll" Hines is indeed one.
>> >(I'm using
>> >these because they incorporate my own definitions, and I'm sure mine
>> >alone
>> >would not be good enough for Peter):
>>
>> >From http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html#one (thanks
>> >"The WWW gives this as a definition:
What a stupid comment! the post gives no clue as
to where in the WWW the definition comes from.
>> > troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract
>> >predictable
>> >responses or flames.
>>
>> The sticking point is "designed to". You need to come
>> up with some clear cut examples where there is no other
>> purpose to the post in evidence.
>I did. You didn't bother to read them.
It is YOU who didn't bother to read them, or else
you are lying through your teeth. There are precious few
posts by Hines in those urls in the first place,
and none show "designed to" half as much as your
own posts right to this thread
are designed to generate predictable responses
or flames of others.
I did read them, and posted on what I found to that
other thread. See you there.
Torrent of falsehoods and unsupportable opinions
by you snipped. If anyone out
there besides you says they took them seriously,
I will go further into them, with them.
Peter Nyikos
than to attempt to un-dilute a thread which has been
subjected to a ThreadDilutingKaffeeklatsch on the
magnitude of this one.
Bryn Fraser <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <myers-D75DBD....@news.newsguy.com>, pz
><my...@mac.com> writes
>>In article <209dde33.01062...@posting.google.com>,
>> wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) wrote:
>>
>>> "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:<oSTX6.10$Cc6...@typhoon.nyu.edu>...
>>> > In soc.history.medieval pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> > > In article <lb10jt08eu03isgh8...@4ax.com>,
>>> > > "Nell P. Wright" <wrigh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >> On 19 Jun 2001 13:31:19 -0400, pz <my...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> >In article <209dde33.01061...@posting.google.com>,
>>> > >> > wrigh...@my-deja.com (Nell Wright) wrote:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >[snip]
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >> PS - If I know you, you'll accept none of the above or twist it
>>> > >> >> beyond all recognition, go off into the blue on a wild tangent, and
>>> > >> >> finish by berating the wicked triumvirate of Gans, Hershey, and
>>> > >> >> Meyers for concocting a deep, dark, eeee-vil plot agin' you and
>>> > >> >> Hines.
Nell trolled that the above has been confirmed, whereas
none of it has. She's been left far behind on this thread,
with the action on her urls taking place on the new one.
This thread is a bust as far as the challenge is concerned.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
>>> > >> >Waaah. Why am *I* always the member of the evil triumvirate who gets
>>> > >> >his name misspelled?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Oh, quit crying. If I can live with being "Neil" my whole life, you
>>> > >> can put up with "Meyers".
>>> >
>>> > > Evil isn't tolerant. One of the requirements of the job is that we have
>>> > > to be capricious, and throw temper tantrums over trivia.
>>> >
>>> > >> At least *you* get to be part of an evil
>>> > >> triumvirate...
>>> >
>>> > > Hey, it's no bed of roses, I tell you. There's all the behind-the-scenes
>>> > > jockeying for power, the backstabbing, the assassination
>>> > > attempts...sometimes we get so caught up in all the scheming against
>>> > > each other that we forget to do our Evil Deed for the Day. I'm looking
>>> > > forward to the day I get to be an Evil Principate -- there won't be any
>>> > > misspelling of my name then, you can bet.
>>> >
>>> > It's the zebra fish.
>>> >
>>> > Besides, there's no backstabbing. We use poison.
>>>
>>> I thought zebrafish *were* poison.
>>
>>No, they are quite tasty on pizza.
>>
>I'll stick with the black olives. I'm a bit conservative...
>Bryn
>Remember grasshopper, its easier to run backwards for a
>hundred miles than to get the egg back into the chicken...
>http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk http://www.thefrasers.com
>Foot & Mouth update:
>http://www.eastpenrest.freeserve.co.uk/foot-and-mouth.htm
>
Paul J. Gans
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
> news:2001062012...@kappa.math.sc.edu...
>> sophia <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> >Faith in Fabulousness
>> >www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
>>
>> When one clicks on "Enter", one gets to see a picture
>> of Sophia wearing a fancy gown
>> that is dated for women, but probably very much "in" for
>> female impersonators. I wonder when proud-to-admit-it
>> transvestite Sherilyn will treat us to similar pictures of himself.
> Oh dear, we're back to poor Peter not knowing about Goths again.
> Look at the dress, it's not old fashioned, it's parody. The sleeve length
> and body shape gives the game away. Mind you the hairstyle should be
> something of a clue.
> You know for a man who sets himself up as some sort of authority you really
> are ignorant of modern clothing style/group indicators.
> You're the sort of person who makes nasty comments about only gay men
> wearing makeup around a psycho/metal crowd and wonders why he got stabbed...
It's not the dress that he's interested in, it's the pictures.
I'd tell you how I know this, but if I did, I'd not be protecting
my sources.
----- Paul J. Gans
Peter Nyikos
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message news:<2001062012...@kappa.math.sc.edu>...
><snip>
>>
>> More to the point, Groves has not posted one iota of
>> evidence that what Hines wrote was *false*, let
>> alone a lie.
>Indeed. I simply asked him to post evidence for the objectionable
>things he posted.
>Personally, I think that if someone posts accusations about someone on
>the Internet, they should have the decency to back up their
>accusations with evidence.
No, you don't. You posted NOTHING like that when Howard Hershey
repeatedly libeled me, and even damned me with a little faint
praise yourself, only saying weakly that you thought Howard
went too far.
But it's never too late to reform.
Let's see you post an url for the post of Hines that
made you such a determined anti-Hines fanatic that you
even posted obscenities about him on at least two
occasions.
>It may be, Peter, that you have different opinions about this.
>However, given the amount of time you waste hooting about "slander", I
>would be surprised......
No, it is you who have different opinions, and the
fact is that Hershey's slanders have been adopted in part
by Mitchell Coffey and Pat James; and that none
of this has generated one
peep out of you for a request of an url.
But you sure knew how to badger Hines for proof of something
he wrote about Gans.
And you also knew how to ask with mock innocence why I wanted
to know what had made you such a devoted enemy of Hines, as
though you thought everyone on the internet should fight
his own battles and not intervene on behalf of others.
Gans has innumerable fans trying to get justice for him
whenever no proof is given. Why must you be so concerned
for him while obstructing justice for Hines?
Paul J. Gans
He's just jealous. Besides, his use of the word "teaches"
is incorrect. The correct word is "taught". But then,
English isn't his first language.
----- Paul J. Gans
Peter Nyikos
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message news:<2001062013...@kappa.math.sc.edu>...
><snip>
>> Paul Myers is a philistine careerist
><snip>
>You evidence for this is.....?
Part of it was snipped by you.
Lots of it is scattered in five years of posts.
Part of it is in another post to this thread,
but I'll gladly repeat it here:
Myers is a narrow specialist who makes a career of the developmental
biology of zebra fish. His incompetence at on-topic matters
in talk.origins (such as evolutionary biology) is nicely
illustrated by the incident I recalled in the following
exchange, which also illustrates Myers's habitual
dishonesty:
================================= begin excerpt from post to which
no one ever followed up, names added:
[Nyikos:]
> >And "Hemidactylus" is one of the few people with enough
> >knowledge of embryology to know what utter bilge
> >Myers was guilty of when he tried to draw conclusions
> >about how the human amnion was formed from the way
> >the mouse amnion is formed. All the way back in
> >1946 it was already known [Arey] that monkeys and guinea
> >pigs have a different way of forming it than rats do,
> >so unless Myers thinks that mice are closer to humans
> >than they are to rats, and humans are closer to mice
> >than they are to monkeys, he was posting nonsense even
> >from his POV.
> >
[Myers:]
> Let's see...you start off by saying it's utter bilge to try and draw
> any conclusions about human development from mouse development.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Nyikos:]
Note the slanderous use of "any" in the face of a highly
specific example which I amply justified. Myers failed
utterly to address the specific points I made.
All in all, a shocking display of a lack of professionalism
towards Myers's own field, developmental biology.
========================== end of included excerpt
Deal with the above, if you can. You can find
the posts in Google, perhaps even the original
exchange on mouse amnions, back in 1997 or 1998.
Peter Nyikos
>Andy Groves wrote:
>> Personally, I think that if someone posts accusations about someone on
>> the Internet, they should have the decency to back up their
>> accusations with evidence.
>> It may be, Peter, that you have different opinions about this.
Groves was dissembling; see my direct followup to him.
I do believe, by the way, that Groves would NEVER think of asking
to see an url that shows Matt Giwer to be a Nazi. That
is the closing theme of this post, more or less.
Cox was totally out of it in his response; he's had
me killfiled for two years, and he came up with
a generic piece of fiction that suits almost
anyone on this thread better than it does me.
Only in the end did he get specific:
[...]
>1) Hines writes something, Andy disagrees.
Andy did MUCH more than just disagree; he wrote:
So, prove me wrong. Post your sources. Let's see the evidence.
Otherwise you will confirm the impression that you are simply a
dishonest and malicious person, more interested in invective than in
debate.
Go ahead, D. Spencer Hines. Make my day.
> Andy must
> post evidence that what Hines claims is false.
Pure reason dictates that either Andy committed an
outrageous fallacy in what I have quoted just now,
or else he DOES have such evidence.
>2) Someone calls Giwer a Nazi, Peter disagrees.
This is typical of how out of it Cox is. I never disagreed that Giwer
was a Nazi. I just asked for evidence, and none came.
Any time anyone produces evidence, I'll gladly acknowledge
it. I have a low opinion of Giwer already.
But Cox and his low-life kind are content with nothing
less than complete demonization of Giwer, evidence or
no evidence.
Giwer is just too useful to them as an all-purpose
scapegoat. If Giwer did not exist, it would be
necessary for them to invent him.
And maybe that's exactly what they did--the Nazi Giwer,
that is.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
Paul J. Gans
Being as I have Hines killfiled, if there is a legitimate
question somewhere in all this, I'd be glad to answer.
To clarify one point, V65.0003, Medieval Technology and
Everyday Life is a course offered by the Medieval and
Renaissance Studies Program at NYU. That is the group
controlling all majors in medieval studies in the Under-
graduate College at NYU. The course counts toward that
major.
It is not a course offered by the history department.
Medieval studies encompasses many subject areas, not just
history. The faculty in the program is equally varied
and includes:
Professors: Barkan (English), Beaujour (French), Benardete (Classics),
Bonfante (Classics), Boorman (Music), Cantor (History),
Carruthers (English), Chazan (Hebrew and Judaic Studies),
Chelkowski (Middle Eastern Studies), Claster (History),
Costello (Linguistics), Freccero (Italian), Gans (Chemistry),
Gilman (English), Gurland (Philosophy), Hsia (History),
Hyman (Fine Arts), Ivry (Hebrew and Judaic Studies),
Javitch (Comparative Literature), Johnson (History),
Krinsky (Fine Arts), Low (English), Martinez (Spanish and Portuguese),
McChesney (Middle Eastern Studies), Mitsis (Classics),
Oliva (History), Peters (Middle Eastern Studies), Raymo (English),
Regalado (French), Regalado (Spanish and Portuguese),
Reiss (Comparative Literature), Roesner (Music), Sandler (Fine Arts),
Santirocco (Classics), Scaglione (Italian),
Schiffman (Hebrew and Judaic Studies), Sifakis (Classics),
Sullivan (Fine Arts), Turner (Fine Arts), Vitz (French),
Walton (Fine Arts), Weil-Garris Brandt (Fine Arts),
Wolfson (Religious Studies)
Associate Professors: Crabtree (Anthropology), Deakins (English),
Erspamer (Italian), Hicks (History), Hoover (English),
Krabbenhoft (Spanish and Portuguese), Lowrie (Classics),
Mikhail (Middle Eastern Studies), Ross (Spanish and Portuguese),
Zezula (French)
Assistant Professors: Arnal (Religious Studies), Baun (History),
Feros (History), Kennedy (Middle Eastern Studies), Momma (English),
Rubenstein (Hebrew and Judaic Studies), Rubidge (French)
Senior Language Lecturer: Campbell (French)
Adjunct Professors: Fletcher (Pierpont Morgan Library),
Kardon (Guggenheim Foundation), Voelkle (Pierpont Morgan Library),
Westrem (English, CUNY Graduate Center), Wieck (Pierpont Morgan Library)
[Note that this list is from the official NYU web site at:
http://www.nyu.edu/cas/bulletin/dept/mars.htm -- but nevertheless
is a year out of datel.]
The point here is that history makes up only a small part of
medieval studies.
----- Paul J. Gans