When the cat's away, the mice will play :-)

[pnyikos]

The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
comment by Paul Gans:

"When Peter is active, about half the postings
in t.o. are related to him. He's a major factor."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/490cfb69a19299fd?dmode=source
Message-ID: <kmpd2r$h5h$1...@reader1.panix.com>

And so, he attributed far more importance to me than I would. He
even coined the word "Petermania" in the same post to describe this
alleged phenomenon. In between, he gave a description of why the "mice-
analogues" play the way they do:

"So when Peter vanishes, a number of us like to
let off steam. We can't really do it
while he's active because all it does is
increase the number of his posts."

And so, in this May 12 post, he explained the "playing" of the mice-
analogues during my "away days" of May 8 - May 27.

.
Among the other ways mice-analogues played games, a masterpiece of
illogic by jillery, culminating in the following words, ranks high on
the list:

"your DP topics are just a front for ID,
which in turn is a front for Creationism."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/69b0acc0f7c8560d

If I were to use the same "logic," I would say that abiogenesis
topics are a front for the Gaia cult, which in turn is a front for
anti-Christianity.

Jillery admitted to newcomer Gary Bohn that "there are some posters
who like to play games." Characteristically, no such person was
identified in the post,
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/51d7b3aac80d275f

.
Also high on on the list was a correlation-causation fallacy by Mark
Isaak
in:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6baeae93ad753c63?dmode=source

.
Mitchell Coffey, who typically posts like Isaak on steroids, also came
up with a correlation - causation fallacy:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/188eb35b80053a6f?dmode=source

.
And Gans, not to be outdone, came up with another correlation -
causation fallacy:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3ded286416dc276b?dmode=source

Richard Norman picked up on that one:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3bd9f9abc65f8219?dmode=source

.
These examples are just the tip of the iceberg, even in the one thread
on which all of the above occurred while I was away. There are other
"icebergs," but those will be mentioned in later posts to this thread,
along with replies setting some of the "mice" straight. Some of them
play rough, and some play dirty, and some even play for keeps, but
I've purposely kept this post on the lighthearted side.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

The recent "meltdown" of Thrinaxodon, which can be traced back to May
17 although there were warning signs of it the day before, could also
be construed as coming under the Subject line of this thread. I would
be falling into a correlation-causation fallacy were I to claim that
the absence of the safest target of his irrationality (myself) was
responsible for this descent into craziness. But was it just a
coincidence that I had been gone so long (ten days)?

On to a more pleasant subject. I would be remiss if I did not
acknowledge that some of the playing around while I was gone was good
innocent fun. A fine example is the following exchange between
newcomer Gary Bohn and veteran Roger Shrubber, in a post by the
former:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:00:22 PM UTC-6, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> On May 9, 11:33 am, Gary Bohn <gary.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > This place is evil.

> It's how we know the terrorists are winning, you know, the ones that
> hate us for our freedom. There's only one way to defeat them.
> But you'll all have to do exactly as I say, when I say, and stop
> when I say. And while you're at it, call me Galadriel.

Can I finish my Oreo first?

--http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c932f9cf2237b629
Message-ID: <02fea02e-df5f-4501...@googlegroups.com>

Roger also had some good clean on-topic fun on the same thread, and
I've since replied to that post of his and hope he likes my reply.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
> comment by Paul Gans:

I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.

[pnyikos]

How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? Will you stay tuned to this
thread for other examples of his obsession with me?

Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

Are you the center of orbit?

[John Harshman]

First off, that's a really poor nickname. I would hope that you would
exercise a bit more creativity in your epithets.

Second, what does Gans not getting over you have to do with you not
getting over yourself? Am I required to discuss everyone's problems
equally? If so, please cite the page in the bylaws that says that.
Otherwise, stop being obsessed with his obsession with you. Exercise a
tiny bit of maturity here. Still awaiting.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I know you're promoting the new season, but maybe a little less fanfare
would help. Or was the previous season actually a dream?

[John Harshman]

On 5/30/13 4:47 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/30/13 4:07 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>
>>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>>>
>>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>>
>> How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? Will you stay tuned to this
>> thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>>
>> Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>
> First off, that's a really poor nickname. I would hope that you would
> exercise a bit more creativity in your epithets.

Might I suggest something like "Donatello Minuttan"? Just off the top of
my head. Surname needs work.

[Burkhard]

named after the turtle of the artist?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Donatello Minuteman? A revolutionary ninja turtle.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Is it possible you're already remaking the Titanic (steering us toward
the tip of the icebergs)?

Though as we who watch South Park know Cameron went to the depths of the
ocean recently in order to raise the bar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Bar_%28South_Park%29

So do you think you could help raise the bar?

[John Harshman]

There was an artist? And he had a turtle?

[John Harshman]

When they made a salad on the Titanic, what kind of lettuce did they
use? I've always wondered.

[*Hemidactylus*]

And ordered pizza!

[*Hemidactylus*]

Romaine?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:29:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Don't hold your breath.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/30/2013 09:21 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:29:10 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>
>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>>
>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>
> Don't hold your breath.

Let's raise the bar.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:knufq81vm8rjage7s...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:29:10 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>
> >On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> >> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
> >> comment by Paul Gans:
> >
> >I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>
> Don't hold your breath.
> --
>

Have you gotten over yourself?

[*Hemidactylus*]

And you?


--
*Hemidactylus*- Hey, let's be careful out there (HSB):
http://siteinspector.comodo.com/
http://csi.websense.com/
http://safeweb.norton.com/
http://www.virustotal.com/en/#url

[pnyikos]

All I'm getting out of your pontificating, which Hemidactylus has
joined, is that it is perfectly all right for Village Elders
(including you) to have fun at my expense; but if I try to have some
fun at the expense of Village Elders (as, in this case, Gans and Isaak
and Coffey), I'm going to be hit with accusations that I can't get
over myself.

Heck, even posting nice things about Roger Shrubber and newcomer Gary
Bohn is not enough to make up for my being so uppity in your eyes.

Let's see...which mantra will you hit me with next?

The "you are very bad at guessing people's motives" mantra?

The "you have no sense of humor" mantra?

The "you are paranoid" mantra?

The "you just can't stop whining" mantra?

Or will you just fall back on the "see, I told you you can't get over
yourself" mantra?

I'm *not* waiting with bated breath.

Peter Nyikos

[Harry K]

Ho hum, just another "pat myself on the back" thread by Peter. At
least it starts out not being another "peter whines again" thread.

Harry K

[Roger Shrubber]

On May 31, 12:59 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


> All I'm getting out of your pontificating, which Hemidactylus has
> joined, is that it is perfectly all right for Village Elders
> (including you) to have fun at my expense; but if I try to have some
> fun at the expense of Village Elders (as, in this case, Gans and Isaak
> and Coffey), I'm going to be hit with accusations that I can't get
> over myself.
>
> Heck, even posting nice things about Roger Shrubber and  newcomer Gary
> Bohn is not enough to make up for my being so uppity in your eyes.

Indeed. John, what is more important than things that sortakinda
are semi-quasi nice to me and "newcomer" Gary (who has been
a contributor for about 10 years or more). Let us focus on the
how this benefits me, Al Franken, in this, the Al Franken decade.
Refocus your energies in helping Peter be more effective in
his attempts to be nice to me, something that surely we can
all agree is a virtuous endeavor of highest importance. This
is best done by overlooking any fleeting impressions of megalomania
that predictably detract from the energy that could be spent
refining the messages that affirm my noble qualities, qualities
that you no doubt would wish that newcomer Gary will aspire
to emulate. Yes, the grandeur of challenge is probably
intimidating but do not let this discourage you. Even though
you will likely fail to steer the newsgroup to support me in
the style which I so clearly deserve, you yourself will be
better for having tried. Keep your chin up. Go get 'em.
Atta boy.

[jillery]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:15:04 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[...]

>Among the other ways mice-analogues played games, a masterpiece of
>illogic by jillery, culminating in the following words, ranks high on
>the list:
>
> "your DP topics are just a front for ID,
> which in turn is a front for Creationism."
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/69b0acc0f7c8560d
>
> If I were to use the same "logic," I would say that abiogenesis
>topics are a front for the Gaia cult, which in turn is a front for
>anti-Christianity.

Yes, yes, that's a masterpiece of illogic you trot out regularly, that
your "arguments" for DP are equivalent to scientific arguments for
homegrown abiogenesis. The differences are 1. there is evidence for
homegrown abiogenesis, and 2. the scientists who argue for homegrown
abiogenesis don't worry about the weaknesses of DP.

Let me know if you ever actually provide evidence for DP. Until then,
all of your arguments are mere hot air and smoke, just like ID and
Creationism.

>Jillery admitted to newcomer Gary Bohn that "there are some posters
>who like to play games." Characteristically, no such person was
>identified in the post,
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/51d7b3aac80d275f

And characteristically, you don't identify the point you're trying to
make. Innuendo anyone?

[...]

[jillery]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:07:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> > The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>> > comment by Paul Gans:
>>
>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>
>How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? Will you stay tuned to this
>thread for other examples of his obsession with me?

My impression is that day came and went long ago, even assuming he had
any obsession with you in the first place.

>Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?

Pathetic evasion.

[jillery]

In your case that would be "baited" breath.

[John Harshman]

On 5/30/13 8:59 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On May 30, 7:47 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 5/30/13 4:07 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>>>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>>
>>>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>>
>>> How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? Will you stay tuned to this
>>> thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>>
>>> Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>>
>> First off, that's a really poor nickname. I would hope that you would
>> exercise a bit more creativity in your epithets.
>>
>> Second, what does Gans not getting over you have to do with you not
>> getting over yourself? Am I required to discuss everyone's problems
>> equally? If so, please cite the page in the bylaws that says that.
>> Otherwise, stop being obsessed with his obsession with you. Exercise a
>> tiny bit of maturity here. Still awaiting.
>
> All I'm getting out of your pontificating, which Hemidactylus has
> joined, is that it is perfectly all right for Village Elders
> (including you) to have fun at my expense; but if I try to have some
> fun at the expense of Village Elders (as, in this case, Gans and Isaak
> and Coffey), I'm going to be hit with accusations that I can't get
> over myself.

It's unfortunate that that's all you get. Ah, well, life has its
disappointments.

> Heck, even posting nice things about Roger Shrubber and newcomer Gary
> Bohn is not enough to make up for my being so uppity in your eyes.
>
> Let's see...which mantra will you hit me with next?
>
> The "you are very bad at guessing people's motives" mantra?
>
> The "you have no sense of humor" mantra?
>
> The "you are paranoid" mantra?
>
> The "you just can't stop whining" mantra?
>
> Or will you just fall back on the "see, I told you you can't get over
> yourself" mantra?
>
> I'm *not* waiting with bated breath.

All those are true, though you'll never see it.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I prefer a Daily Affirmation With Stuart Smalley:

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me."

[*Hemidactylus*]

Let's raise the bar.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Start by modeling good behavior and ignoring the bad responses. The rest
will come with time.

[pnyikos]

On May 31, 1:36 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:07:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >> > The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
> >> > comment by Paul Gans:

+++++++++++++repost of Harshman snip++++++++++++++++++

"When Peter is active, about half the postings
in t.o. are related to him. He's a major factor."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/490cfb69a19299fd?dmod...

Message-ID: <kmpd2r$h5h$1...@reader1.panix.com>

And so, he attributed far more importance to me than I would. He
even coined the word "Petermania" in the same post to describe this
alleged phenomenon. In between, he gave a description of why the
"mice-
analogues" play the way they do:

"So when Peter vanishes, a number of us like to
let off steam. We can't really do it
while he's active because all it does is
increase the number of his posts."

===============end of repost=============

> >> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>
> >How about the day Paul Gans gets over me?  Will you stay tuned to this
> >thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>
> My impression is that day came and went long ago, even assuming he had
> any obsession with you in the first place.

It came long ago, much longer ago than you probably suspect, since you
weren't around in mid-1995 when it started a few months after I joined
t.o.

Your impression that it went away long ago was made possible by the
selective snipping of Harshman, who is not above resorting to this
kind of trick which has become a staple with you.

That is, if you are at all sincere about what your impression is,
which I doubt.

Either way, here is something else that is relevant. It also got
snipped by Harshman, along with everything else:

_____________second repost_______

And Gans, not to be outdone, came up with another correlation -
causation fallacy:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3ded286416dc276b?dmod...

Richard Norman picked up on that one:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3bd9f9abc65f8219?dmod...
===============end of repost

If you click on either of these urls, you will see the relevance.
And there are many other examples on just the same thread of Gans's
continued obsession with me, but perhaps your reaction to them will be
the same as what I suspect Harshman's is:

> >Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>
> Pathetic evasion.

Of what? The formulaic insult "get over yourself"? Take a look at
how I dealt with it after Harshman, in reply to the same post to
which you are replying, continued to live up to another nickname I
have for him,
Unofficial TO Hall Monitor.

Perhaps even you can see the aptness of that nickname.

Peter Nyikos

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 09:38:24 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:

I like "Stuart Becomes a Senator".

[Mark Isaak]

[snip typical Nyikosity]

My impression is that, since Nyikos has returned, the number of posts
daily on t.o. has increased about 60%. Anyone have access to the actual
statistics?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Burkhard]

On 31 May, 14:39, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/31/2013 01:36 AM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:07:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
> > <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
> >>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>
> >>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>
> >> How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? �Will you stay tuned to this
> >> thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>
> > My impression is that day came and went long ago, even assuming he had
> > any obsession with you in the first place.
>
> >> Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>
> > Pathetic evasion.
>
> Let's raise the bar.
>
> --

Done, as commanded, after a few more pints. Oh, you said RAISE the
bar, so sorry, I thought you said "let's wreck the bar"

[Roger Shrubber]

Consider the original in its pure form. With doses of baseball bin
berra berra good to me.

Al Franken: Thank you, Jane. Well, the "me" decade is almost over,
and good riddance, and far as I'm concerned. The 70's were simply
10 years of people thinking of nothing but themselves. No wonder
we were unable to get together and solve any of the many serious
problems facing our nation. Oh sure, some people did do some
positive things in the 70's - like jogging - but always for the
wrong reasons, for their own selfish, personal benefit. Well,
I believe the 80's are gonna have to be different. I think
that people are going to stop thinking about themselves, and
start thinking about me, Al Franken. That's right. I believe
we're entering what I like to call the Al Franken Decade. Oh,
for me, Al Franken, the 80's will be pretty much the same as
the 70's. I'll still be thinking of me, Al Franken. But for you,
you'll be thinking more about how things affect me, Al Franken.
When you see a news report, you'll be thinking, "I wonder what
Al Franken thinks about this thing?", "I wonder how this
inflation thing is hurting Al Franken?" And you women will be
thinking, "What can I wear that will please Al Franken?", or
"What can I not wear?" You know, I know a lot of you out there
are thinking, "Why Al Franken?" Well, because I thought of it,
and I'm on TV, so I've already gotten the jump on you. So, I say
let's leave behind the fragmented, selfish 70's, and go into the
80's with a unity and purpose. That's what I think. I'm Al Franken.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/79/79fupdate.phtml

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:37:46 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote in talk.origins:

Fitting in with the natives?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Neither was all that blatant. I'm not sure who was alleged to have
called Gans an idiot and it seems to me Norman may have been making a
dig at Gans in his followup. Are you making mountains out of molehills here?

>>> Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>>
>> Pathetic evasion.
>
> Of what? The formulaic insult "get over yourself"? Take a look at
> how I dealt with it after Harshman, in reply to the same post to
> which you are replying, continued to live up to another nickname I
> have for him,
> Unofficial TO Hall Monitor.
>
> Perhaps even you can see the aptness of that nickname.

Hall monitors are supposed to be impartial. But if you give the hall
monitor a hard time and call them names they don't like they might just
respond in kind.

What t.o. needs is a relationship counselor to stage an intervention.
Maybe Dr. Phil?

And have you stopped to consider that some of what takes place here is a
self-fulfilling prophecy that conforms to your preconceived narrative
about events? If you have negatively biased expectations of others you
will view them through those lenses and react to them in a given manner
until their behavior begins to actually fall in line with your
expectations. Then you knew it all along. You could drive the initially
impartial toward the "Pack".

But at least some of the Petermania (putative group obsession with you)
is self-sustaining even in your absence, so you may have a point. Gans
was following up to my observation of the self-sustaining nature of this
phenomenon when he coined the phrase.

And instead of making a completely fresh start, you seem to be showing
off your stamp collection of past posts. Collecting posts is the first
step toward taxonomy of posters. But does the collection drive the
classification or vice versa?

I suppose this post of mine could somehow fit into your grand narrative
schema.

[Roger Shrubber]

From my perspective, the bar is wrecked. 14 single malts (the theme)
4 Amagnacs (my subversion) 5 obscure spirits of dubious provenance
(??Graspa??) and the damage is done. Why the Chinese put essence
of lanolin and benzene into a fancy bottle I do not know. But they
have had a jolly good laugh at my expense. So odd that it was balanced
by nectar of unsurpassing delight. A 49 yo Glenfarclas was to die for.

[*Hemidactylus*]

OK, thanks for the context. Franken was part of that show for a long
time. One (the only?) bright point of 2 Broke Girls is that I get to see
an SNL alum from that era ("baseball been berra berra good to me").

I was always partial to Father Sarducci and Mr. Bill.

[pnyikos]

On May 31, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 5/30/13 8:59 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> > On May 30, 7:47 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net>  wrote:
> >> On 5/30/13 4:07 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net>    wrote:
> >>>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
> >>>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>
> >>>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>
> >>> How about the day Paul Gans gets over me?  Will you stay tuned to this
> >>> thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>
> >>> Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>
> >> First off, that's a really poor nickname. I would hope that you would
> >> exercise a bit more creativity in your epithets.

It's descriptive, whereas your suggested nickname is not. And it's
not the only nickname I have for you. In line with the "get over
yourself" theme, another is Self-Appointed TO Hall Monitor.

> >> Second, what does Gans not getting over you have to do with you not
> >> getting over yourself? Am I required to discuss everyone's problems
> >> equally?

No, and in all fairness to you, you DID take Gans to task over another
bit of "playing" that he did just hours before I went on my break,
also on that one thread from which all my examples [except
Thrinaxodon's meltdown] so far have been drawn.

> > > If so, please cite the page in the bylaws that says that.
> >> Otherwise, stop being obsessed with his obsession with you. Exercise a
> >> tiny bit of maturity here. Still awaiting.
>
> > All I'm getting out of your pontificating, which Hemidactylus has
> > joined, is that it is perfectly all right for Village Elders
> > (including you) to have fun at my expense; but if I try to have some
> > fun at the expense of Village Elders (as, in this case, Gans and Isaak
> > and Coffey), I'm going to be hit with accusations that I can't get
> > over myself.
>
> It's unfortunate that that's all you get. Ah, well, life has its
> disappointments.
>
> > Heck, even posting nice things about Roger Shrubber and  newcomer Gary
> > Bohn is not enough to make up for my being so uppity in your eyes.
>
> > Let's see...which mantra will you hit me with next?
>
> > The "you are very bad at guessing people's motives" mantra?
>
> > The "you have no sense of humor" mantra?
>
> > The "you are paranoid" mantra?
>
> > The "you just can't stop whining" mantra?
>
> > Or will you just fall back on the "see, I told you you can't get over
> > yourself" mantra?
>
> > I'm *not* waiting with bated breath.
>
> All those are true, though you'll never see it.

Be that as it may, it IS true that I have only accused you of one lie,
and you'll never see *that* because you keep wanting to construe all
kinds of comments about incorrect statements as accusations of lying.

You even asked me once what that one occasion was, but you disappeared
after I told you to google the word "boyo" [not "bozo"] in a post by
me to see your lie in context.

This is fairly important, because as I keep saying, there are huge
moral differences between lies, all the way from innocent white lies
to legally actionable libel, and yours was perhaps the second least
reprehensible variety. [The least is white lies to spare someone
discomfort, like in answer to "do you think this dress makes me look
fat?"]

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

You could help speed up the process. On the "Turtle genome sequence
and analysis" thread, I did just that, but when I told you how you
could have made your semi-on-topic post much more on-topic, you
disappeared.

Here was my reply, with your contribution still intact:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/addfa53144c18fc1

People reading this in Google Groups may need to click on -Show quoted
text- to see your contribution.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 09:39:04 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 05/31/2013 01:36 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:07:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>>>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>>>>
>>>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>>>
>>> How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? Will you stay tuned to this
>>> thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>>
>>
>> My impression is that day came and went long ago, even assuming he had
>> any obsession with you in the first place.
>>
>>
>>> Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>>
>>
>> Pathetic evasion.
>
>Let's raise the bar.

I assume you're objecting to "pathetic" or "evasion". Do you have
preferred synonyms for either?

[pnyikos]

On May 31, 12:32�am, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 12:59 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > All I'm getting out of your pontificating, which Hemidactylus has
> > joined, is that it is perfectly all right for Village Elders
> > (including you) to have fun at my expense; but if I try to have some
> > fun at the expense of Village Elders (as, in this case, Gans and Isaak
> > and Coffey), I'm going to be hit with accusations that I can't get
> > over myself.
>
> > Heck, even posting nice things about Roger Shrubber and newcomer Gary
> > Bohn is not enough to make up for my being so uppity in your eyes.
>
> Indeed. John, what is more important than things that sortakinda
> are semi-quasi nice to me and "newcomer" Gary (who has been
> a contributor for about 10 years or more).

To talk.origins? If so, it was extremely sporadic until this year, if
his Google Groups profile is to be trusted. His main stomping grounds
seems to have been alt.atheism.

> Let us focus on the
> how this benefits me, Al Franken, in this, the Al Franken decade.
> Refocus your energies in helping Peter be more effective in
> his attempts to be nice to me, something that surely we can
> all agree is a virtuous endeavor of highest importance. This
> is best done by overlooking any fleeting impressions of megalomania
> that predictably detract from the energy that could be spent
> refining the messages that affirm my noble qualities, qualities
> that you no doubt would wish that newcomer Gary will aspire
> to emulate. Yes, the grandeur of challenge is probably
> intimidating but do not let this discourage you. Even though
> you will likely fail to steer the newsgroup to support me in
> the style which I so clearly deserve, you yourself will be
> better for having tried. Keep your chin up. Go get 'em.
> Atta boy.

By the way, Roger, I would appreciate a bit of feedback on my reply to
your on-topic post to that thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9402247d5f77cf7c

The topic of the thread was the clash between the old systematics and
the new systematics, and my reply was very much on-topic too. I
mentioned both in the second post to this thread.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:02:23 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> My impression is that day came and went long ago, even assuming he had
>> any obsession with you in the first place.
>
>It came long ago, much longer ago than you probably suspect, since you
>weren't around in mid-1995 when it started a few months after I joined
>t.o.

My impression is that's plenty of time for a rational person to get
over it, even assuming there was any 'it' to get over.

[jillery]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:35:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>[snip typical Nyikosity]
>
>My impression is that, since Nyikos has returned, the number of posts
>daily on t.o. has increased about 60%. Anyone have access to the actual
>statistics?

If you mean his return from his most recent hiatus, there seems to be
some dissent about when he actually returned. Paul expressed some
doubt that some of the first few posts are authentic. Considering
that rockhead expressed no objection to them by now, I believe they
are as they appear to be. Perhaps Paul will let us know if he still
feels that way.

[pnyikos]

This is a reply to the post where jillery came up with her masterpiece
of illogic, which merely *culminated* in the bit I quoted earlier.

On May 7, 8:59 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On May 7, 1:11 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 May 2013 09:22:11 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On May 7, 11:39 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> >> >> Peter does like that word "amoral". But after all, you will never find a
> >> >> more wretched hive of scum and villainy than TO.
>
> >> >Au contraire, talk.abortion has descended far lower, and everyone here
> >> >fails to heed signs that TO is headed in the same direction. I am a
> >> >modern day Cassandra in that respect.
>
> >> I noticed that T.O. started heading in the same direction almost
> >> immediately after you started posting here again. Coincidence?
>
> >No, my presence initiated an immediate downward slide led by Ron O,
> >with you the second biggest culprit. Gans made some moves to join,
> >but he really got going only after I'd been posting for a year and a
> >half.
>
> >I bring out the worst in some people, who cannot abide anyone who
> >makes even a totally unique and scientifically based case for the
> >possibility of intelligent design, not even when it is due to a
> >civilization like ours.

Note the words "intelligent design" in particular. It certainly
includes the sort of thing that Crick had in mind when he wrote:

The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of
microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
combine all the desirable properties within one single type
of organism or to send many different organisms is not
completely clear.
--Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
Simon and Schuster, 1981

[snip]

> But it's good to know that you admit your DP topics are just a front

> for ID, which in turn is a front for Creationism.

All you are doing here is revealing your own prejudice and polemical
mindset, which has blinded you to the fact that I used "intelligent
design," not "ID", a term to which you have given your own private
definition. You made it clear, all the way back in December of 2010,
that what Crick wrote about in the passage I quoted did NOT fit this
undivulged definiton of yours:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/48a7d57727badf16


> It puts the lie to
> your denials.

That's an extra bit of "garbage out (GO)" to go with the GIGO that
preceded it.

> >Ours, you know, is deeply involved in that very thing, with
> >recombinant DNA, etc.

...and that seems to be the sort of intelligent design Crick had in
mind.

> Sadly, NOTA has anything to do with the likelihood of DP.

What does NOTA stand for?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 31, 11:40 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:02:23 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On May 31, 1:36 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> My impression is that day came and went long ago, even assuming he had
> >> any obsession with you in the first place.

I read this too hastily. I took it to mean that Gans's obsession came
and went long ago, hence I replied as follows:

> >It came long ago, much longer ago than you probably suspect, since you
> >weren't around in mid-1995 when it started a few months after I joined
> >t.o.

> My impression is that's plenty of time for a rational person to get
> over it, even assuming there was any 'it' to get over.

Did anyone ever accuse Paul Gans of being rational? He continued his
obsession even while boycotting me for a year and a half, with me
saying almost nothing about it except to point out that he was
boycotting me without telling anyone about it.

Then, when he stopped boycotting me a bit less than a year ago, he
really gave vent to his obsession.

By "boycotting me" I mean not replying directly to any of my posts
["boycotting my posts" is more precise, but it takes longer to
type]. He did, however, make lots of insulting comments about me
during that year and a half, just like you did while you had me
killfiled.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 31, 11:53�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:35:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
>
> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >[snip typical Nyikosity]
>
> >My impression is that, since Nyikos has returned, the number of posts
> >daily on t.o. has increased about 60%. �Anyone have access to the actual
> >statistics?
>
> If you mean his return from his most recent hiatus, there seems to be
> some dissent about when he actually returned. �Paul expressed some
> doubt that some of the first few posts are authentic.

He flat out claimed it, with no apparent reason whatsoever.

Maybe the madness of Thrinaxodon is contagious. :-) It was on the
thread Thrinaxodon started with the express purpose of labeling me a
troll, and which I only discovered almost two months later.

> Considering
>that rockhead expressed no objection to them by now, I believe
> they are as they appear to be.

In fact, I corrected Gans in direct reply to him: those posts were
mine.

> Perhaps Paul will let us know if he still
> feels that way.

I sure hope he doesn't feel that way any more. Otherwise that smiley
will turn into one of irony.

Peter Nyikos

[Greg Guarino]

On 5/31/2013 11:24 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>> First off, that's a really poor nickname. I would hope that you would
>>>> > >>exercise a bit more creativity in your epithets.

> It's descriptive, whereas your suggested nickname is not.

You might want to look at it again, then, and then review Mantra #3

[pnyikos]

On May 31, 12:16 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 31, 11:53 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:35:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
>
> > <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> > >[snip typical Nyikosity]
>
> > >My impression is that, since Nyikos has returned, the number of posts
> > >daily on t.o. has increased about 60%. Anyone have access to the actual
> > >statistics?
>
> > If you mean his return from his most recent hiatus, there seems to be
> > some dissent about when he actually returned. Paul expressed some
> > doubt that some of the first few posts are authentic.
>
> He flat out claimed it, with no apparent reason whatsoever.

What I meant to say here was that he flat out claimed that the person
who did my posts was not me.

Peter Nyikos

[Inez]

On May 30, 8:59�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 30, 7:47�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/30/13 4:07 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > > On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> > >> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > >>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
> > >>> comment by Paul Gans:
>
> > >> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>
> > > How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? �Will you stay tuned to this
> > > thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>

> > > Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>

> > First off, that's a really poor nickname. I would hope that you would
> > exercise a bit more creativity in your epithets.
>

> > Second, what does Gans not getting over you have to do with you not
> > getting over yourself? Am I required to discuss everyone's problems
> > equally? If so, please cite the page in the bylaws that says that.
> > Otherwise, stop being obsessed with his obsession with you. Exercise a
> > tiny bit of maturity here. Still awaiting.
>

> All I'm getting out of your pontificating, which Hemidactylus has
> joined, is that it is perfectly all right for Village Elders
> (including you) to have fun at my expense; but if I try to have some
> fun at the expense of Village Elders (as, in this case, Gans and Isaak
> and Coffey), I'm going to be hit with accusations that I can't get
> over myself.

I believe you will get less flack if you just post your sassy comments
in the threads where they are made. When you make a new thread
listing grievances you just look like you're taking things too
seriously. It gives the impression that you are still thinking about
them days after they were written, which is probably more attention
than they deserve.

[pnyikos]

On May 31, 12:35 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Despite the e-mail handle, you are NOT one of the "mice" to which
the Subject line refers, Inez. Just thought I'd make that clear.

Thanks for the suggestion, Inez, but it has drawbacks. I do want to
keep threads on-topic nowadays, and I have replied to on-topic posts
in the threads where all this "mice playing" took place, even ones
that took place in my absence. As I noted earlier, Roger Shrubber
made such a post and I've replied to it over there.

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

If Kant had ever married his wife would dislike his categorical imperative.

[*Hemidactylus*]

My point was that David Icke might have knowledge about the hidden
nature of cladistics. I'm just not that interested in turtle genealogy
right now, but we are picking out a suitable chelonian nickname for our
Hall Monitor.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I don't doubt you have been mistreated or possibly bullied in the past,
either here or elsewhere. It would be nice if everyone could clean the
slate and move on. But as tit for tat goes, your personal cache of
accumulated grievances is just as deep as the cache of those who have
perceived you as acting in a not nice manner towards them. The
cumulative negativity is usually why threads where you're involved wind
up going asunder along tangents, tipping off into personal invective
land. That is why the times when you and Hershey (note I refrained from
the obligatory quotes of a bygone era) got along on the Dr. Dr. threads
were such a breath of fresh air. And it's not entirely implausible that
if you guys had never participated in the group and met somehow in real
life, you and Gans might have actually found each other at least
tolerable, maybe sharing a pitcher of beer (on Shrubber's tab of
course). And I can see your intention for this thread may have been
lighthearted jesting. Yet it's hard for people to forget the
interpersonal sparring from the not too distant past, so the
misunderstanding becomes mutual and the consequences become magnified
towards yet another showdown of epic proportions. So if you could dial
it back and others follow suit, that would be helpful. Or we get to see
another episode of WWE Monday Night Raw play itself out. Some people
like to spectate such things.

[John Harshman]

On 5/31/13 8:24 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On May 31, 8:55 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 5/30/13 8:59 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>>> On May 30, 7:47 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/13 4:07 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>>>>>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>>
>>>>>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>>
>>>>> How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? Will you stay tuned to this
>>>>> thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>>
>>>>> Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>>
>>>> First off, that's a really poor nickname. I would hope that you would
>>>> exercise a bit more creativity in your epithets.
>
> It's descriptive, whereas your suggested nickname is not. And it's
> not the only nickname I have for you. In line with the "get over
> yourself" theme, another is Self-Appointed TO Hall Monitor.

My nickname is too descriptive. Yours, while descriptive, is boring. You
need to emulate my friend Mr. Punovall, first name Theophilus.

>>>> Second, what does Gans not getting over you have to do with you not
>>>> getting over yourself? Am I required to discuss everyone's problems
>>>> equally?
>
> No, and in all fairness to you, you DID take Gans to task over another
> bit of "playing" that he did just hours before I went on my break,
> also on that one thread from which all my examples [except
> Thrinaxodon's meltdown] so far have been drawn.

So, in fairness to me, why don't you get over yourself?

Is it actually possible to limit a google search to posts by you? If so,
how. And it would seem easier for all concerned if you would just link
to that important post.

> This is fairly important, because as I keep saying, there are huge
> moral differences between lies, all the way from innocent white lies
> to legally actionable libel, and yours was perhaps the second least
> reprehensible variety. [The least is white lies to spare someone
> discomfort, like in answer to "do you think this dress makes me look
> fat?"]

Why do we always have to talk about you?

[John Harshman]

That isn't even Peter's nickname for me. It's Tony Pagano's.

[John Harshman]

On 5/31/13 7:02 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On May 31, 1:36 am, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:07:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>

>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>>>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>

> +++++++++++++repost of Harshman snip++++++++++++++++++
>
> "When Peter is active, about half the postings
> in t.o. are related to him. He's a major factor."
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/490cfb69a19299fd?dmod...
> Message-ID:<kmpd2r$h5h$1...@reader1.panix.com>
>
> And so, he attributed far more importance to me than I would. He
> even coined the word "Petermania" in the same post to describe this
> alleged phenomenon. In between, he gave a description of why the
> "mice-
> analogues" play the way they do:
>
> "So when Peter vanishes, a number of us like to
> let off steam. We can't really do it
> while he's active because all it does is
> increase the number of his posts."
> ===============end of repost=============
>

>>>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>>
>>> How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? Will you stay tuned to this
>>> thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>>

>> My impression is that day came and went long ago, even assuming he had
>> any obsession with you in the first place.
>

> It came long ago, much longer ago than you probably suspect, since you
> weren't around in mid-1995 when it started a few months after I joined

> t.o.
>

> Your impression that it went away long ago was made possible by the
> selective snipping of Harshman, who is not above resorting to this
> kind of trick which has become a staple with you.

At the risk of being accused of mantraism, that's paranoid.

> That is, if you are at all sincere about what your impression is,
> which I doubt.
>
> Either way, here is something else that is relevant. It also got
> snipped by Harshman, along with everything else:
>
> _____________second repost_______
>
> And Gans, not to be outdone, came up with another correlation -
> causation fallacy:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3ded286416dc276b?dmod...
>
> Richard Norman picked up on that one:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3bd9f9abc65f8219?dmod...
> ===============end of repost
>
> If you click on either of these urls, you will see the relevance.
> And there are many other examples on just the same thread of Gans's
> continued obsession with me, but perhaps your reaction to them will be
> the same as what I suspect Harshman's is:
>

>>> Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>>

>> Pathetic evasion.
>
> Of what? The formulaic insult "get over yourself"? Take a look at
> how I dealt with it after Harshman, in reply to the same post to
> which you are replying, continued to live up to another nickname I
> have for him,
> Unofficial TO Hall Monitor.
>
> Perhaps even you can see the aptness of that nickname.

Tony Pagano's, wasn't it? And why "unofficial"?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Donatello Minuteman?

Where's Pags been lately? We could use another center of orbit for a
figure 8.

[John Harshman]

No, Hall Monitor. Donatello Minuteman is your nonsensical reading of
Donatello Minuttan, which actually makes sense.

> Where's Pags been lately? We could use another center of orbit for a
> figure 8.

If experience is a guide, he'll be back, having forgotten everything
that happened before.

[Greg Guarino]

On 5/31/2013 4:48 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> Where's Pags been lately? We could use another center of orbit for a
>> figure 8.
>
> If experience is a guide, he'll be back, having forgotten everything
> that happened before.

Not everything. He always remembers the trouncings he has administered
to his opponents, even though they always seem to forget.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I googled Donatello Minuttan

http://www.google.com/search?q=Donatello+Minuttan

No sense was made. It referred back to this thread. Are you sure you
didn't mean Donatello Minutia?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minutia


If so I resubmit my proposal as Donatello Minutiaman.

>> Where's Pags been lately? We could use another center of orbit for a
>> figure 8.
>
> If experience is a guide, he'll be back, having forgotten everything
> that happened before.

That's fine enough.

[jillery]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 09:09:07 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>Did anyone ever accuse Paul Gans of being rational?

The person that needs to get rational is you. And no, I haven't seen
anybody accuse you of it.

[John Harshman]

If all this is intended as a joke, I find it boring. If you're serious,
it's still boring but I have some sympathy for your inability to
understand puns. Would it help if I told you Minuttan was accented on
the second syllable ?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:25:41 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:knufq81vm8rjage7s...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:29:10 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>>
>> >On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> >> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>> >> comment by Paul Gans:
>> >
>> >I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>>

>> Don't hold your breath.
>> --
>>
>Have you gotten over yourself?

You first.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 20:59:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On May 30, 7:47 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 5/30/13 4:07 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> > On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net>  wrote:

>> >> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> >>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>> >>> comment by Paul Gans:
>>
>> >> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>>

>> > How about the day Paul Gans gets over me?  Will you stay tuned to this
>> > thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>>
>> > Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>>
>> First off, that's a really poor nickname. I would hope that you would
>> exercise a bit more creativity in your epithets.
>>
>> Second, what does Gans not getting over you have to do with you not
>> getting over yourself? Am I required to discuss everyone's problems
>> equally? If so, please cite the page in the bylaws that says that.
>> Otherwise, stop being obsessed with his obsession with you. Exercise a
>> tiny bit of maturity here. Still awaiting.
>
>All I'm getting out of your pontificating, which Hemidactylus has
>joined, is that it is perfectly all right for Village Elders
>(including you) to have fun at my expense; but if I try to have some
>fun at the expense of Village Elders (as, in this case, Gans and Isaak
>and Coffey), I'm going to be hit with accusations that I can't get
>over myself.

If that's all you got from John's post, perhaps it's past
time for you to take stock of your ability to understand
plain English.

>Heck, even posting nice things about Roger Shrubber and newcomer Gary
>Bohn is not enough to make up for my being so uppity in your eyes.
>
>Let's see...which mantra will you hit me with next?
>
>The "you are very bad at guessing people's motives" mantra?
>
>The "you have no sense of humor" mantra?
>
>The "you are paranoid" mantra?
>
>The "you just can't stop whining" mantra?
>
>Or will you just fall back on the "see, I told you you can't get over
>yourself" mantra?

Those are cliches here, not mantras (I doubt he's
worshipping you or anything you claim). And the thing about
cliches is that they become so because they're true.

>I'm *not* waiting with bated breath.

Pity...

[*Hemidactylus*]

Still oblivious. Sorry. Maybe Peter can explain to a simpleton like me.

Ariadne and the thread? Minotaur?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:37:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>On 31 May, 14:39, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> On 05/31/2013 01:36 AM, jillery wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:07:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos

>> > <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> >>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>> >>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>>
>> >>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>>
>> >> How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? �Will you stay tuned to this
>> >> thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>>

>> > My impression is that day came and went long ago, even assuming he had
>> > any obsession with you in the first place.
>>

>> >> Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>>

>> > Pathetic evasion.
>>
>> Let's raise the bar.
>>
>> --
>
>Done, as commanded, after a few more pints. Oh, you said RAISE the
>bar, so sorry, I thought you said "let's wreck the bar"

I would have sworn it was "raze the bar".

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 08:31:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On May 31, 9:41�am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/30/2013 11:59 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > On May 30, 7:47 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>> >> On 5/30/13 4:07 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> >>> On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
>> >>>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>> >>>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>>
>> >>>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>>
>> >>> How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? �Will you stay tuned to this
>> >>> thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>>

>> >>> Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>>

Perhaps he prefers to ignore condescension?

>Here was my reply, with your contribution still intact:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/addfa53144c18fc1
>
>People reading this in Google Groups may need to click on -Show quoted
>text- to see your contribution.
>

>Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:57:49 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Greg Guarino
<gdgu...@gmail.com>:

He's another bestower of "time outs" when cornered.

[James Beck]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:55:32 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 5/30/13 4:47 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/30/13 4:07 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>> On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>>>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>>>>
>>>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>>>
>>> How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? Will you stay tuned to this
>>> thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>>>
>>> Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>>
>> First off, that's a really poor nickname. I would hope that you would
>> exercise a bit more creativity in your epithets.
>

>Might I suggest something like "Donatello Minuttan"? Just off the top of
>my head. Surname needs work.

Huh-huh-huh-huh. You said 'nuttin.' It's good of you to entertain us.

[Paul J Gans]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

[cut to the core]

>Second, what does Gans not getting over you have to do with you not
>getting over yourself? Am I required to discuss everyone's problems
>equally? If so, please cite the page in the bylaws that says that.
>Otherwise, stop being obsessed with his obsession with you. Exercise a
>tiny bit of maturity here. Still awaiting.

I do not have an obsession with Nyikos. Why you let yourself
think that I am responding to him simply because he mentions
my name in every other post he makes is beyond me. I've not
responded to him since his "break".

My advince is not to pin psychological terms on folks unless you
have been following them closely in what they do or do not post.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On 5/30/13 5:36 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

>> On 05/30/2013 04:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>>>

>>> "When Peter is active, about half the postings
>>> in t.o. are related to him. He's a major factor."

>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/490cfb69a19299fd?dmode=source

>>>
>>> Message-ID: <kmpd2r$h5h$1...@reader1.panix.com>
>>>
>>> And so, he attributed far more importance to me than I would. He
>>> even coined the word "Petermania" in the same post to describe this
>>> alleged phenomenon. In between, he gave a description of why the "mice-
>>> analogues" play the way they do:
>>>
>>> "So when Peter vanishes, a number of us like to
>>> let off steam. We can't really do it
>>> while he's active because all it does is
>>> increase the number of his posts."
>>>

>>> And so, in this May 12 post, he explained the "playing" of the mice-
>>> analogues during my "away days" of May 8 - May 27.
>>>
>>> .
>>> Among the other ways mice-analogues played games, a masterpiece of
>>> illogic by jillery, culminating in the following words, ranks high on
>>> the list:
>>>
>>> "your DP topics are just a front for ID,
>>> which in turn is a front for Creationism."
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/69b0acc0f7c8560d
>>>
>>> If I were to use the same "logic," I would say that abiogenesis
>>> topics are a front for the Gaia cult, which in turn is a front for
>>> anti-Christianity.
>>>
>>> Jillery admitted to newcomer Gary Bohn that "there are some posters
>>> who like to play games." Characteristically, no such person was
>>> identified in the post,
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/51d7b3aac80d275f
>>>
>>> .
>>> Also high on on the list was a correlation-causation fallacy by Mark
>>> Isaak
>>> in:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6baeae93ad753c63?dmode=source
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>> Mitchell Coffey, who typically posts like Isaak on steroids, also came
>>> up with a correlation - causation fallacy:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/188eb35b80053a6f?dmode=source
>>>
>>>
>>> .

>>> And Gans, not to be outdone, came up with another correlation -
>>> causation fallacy:
>>>

>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3ded286416dc276b?dmode=source

>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Norman picked up on that one:
>>>

>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3bd9f9abc65f8219?dmode=source
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>> These examples are just the tip of the iceberg, even in the one thread
>>> on which all of the above occurred while I was away. There are other
>>> "icebergs," but those will be mentioned in later posts to this thread,
>>> along with replies setting some of the "mice" straight. Some of them
>>> play rough, and some play dirty, and some even play for keeps, but
>>> I've purposely kept this post on the lighthearted side.
>>
>> Is it possible you're already remaking the Titanic (steering us toward
>> the tip of the icebergs)?
>>
>> Though as we who watch South Park know Cameron went to the depths of the
>> ocean recently in order to raise the bar.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Bar_%28South_Park%29
>>
>> So do you think you could help raise the bar?
>>
>When they made a salad on the Titanic, what kind of lettuce did they
>use? I've always wondered.

Iceberg lettuce of course.

[Paul J Gans]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 05/30/2013 09:21 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:29:10 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>>

>>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>>>

>>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>>

>> Don't hold your breath.

>Let's raise the bar.

Why do you want to raze a bar?

[Paul J Gans]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>[snip typical Nyikosity]

>My impression is that, since Nyikos has returned, the number of posts
>daily on t.o. has increased about 60%. Anyone have access to the actual
>statistics?

I don't, but that seems about right. I'd privately estimated
50%, but I never really counted.

And in truth, we may both be too low since posts such as this one
probably should be counted in the total as well.

[Paul J Gans]

Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Burkhard wrote:
>> On 31 May, 14:39, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>>>

>>> Let's raise the bar.
>>>

>>> --
>>
>> Done, as commanded, after a few more pints. Oh, you said RAISE the
>> bar, so sorry, I thought you said "let's wreck the bar"

> From my perspective, the bar is wrecked. 14 single malts (the theme)
>4 Amagnacs (my subversion) 5 obscure spirits of dubious provenance
>(??Graspa??) and the damage is done. Why the Chinese put essence
>of lanolin and benzene into a fancy bottle I do not know. But they
>have had a jolly good laugh at my expense. So odd that it was balanced
>by nectar of unsurpassing delight. A 49 yo Glenfarclas was to die for.

While the essense of lanoling and benzine was to die from. So you
see that the Chinese version wasn't that far from the 49 yo Glenfarclas
after all!

[Paul J Gans]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:35:56 -0700, Mark Isaak

><eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>>[snip typical Nyikosity]
>>
>>My impression is that, since Nyikos has returned, the number of posts
>>daily on t.o. has increased about 60%. Anyone have access to the actual
>>statistics?

>If you mean his return from his most recent hiatus, there seems to be
>some dissent about when he actually returned. Paul expressed some
>doubt that some of the first few posts are authentic. Considering
>that rockhead expressed no objection to them by now, I believe they
>are as they appear to be. Perhaps Paul will let us know if he still
>feels that way.

I don't know. They were stylistically different. And
uncharacteristically, those threads vanished when the "real"
Peter showed up.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Awesome!

Mitchell

[jillery]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 08:52:19 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


[...]

>> Sadly, NOTA has anything to do with the likelihood of DP.
>
>What does NOTA stand for?


None Of The Above. It's a significant time-saving acronym when
replying to your posts.

HTH

[jillery]

In reply to my post, he's claimed all the post with his name as his.
So, styles notwithstanding, at least you have one persona to blame for
them.

[Paul J Gans]

If he claims them, then I withdraw my claims to the contrary.

[jillery]

On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 18:33:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

If? What does it take to convince you?

[Paul J Gans]

I'm taking your word for the fact that he claimed them.

[jillery]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:25:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

That's scary. I never would have expected anybody on T.O. would take
me as an authority on anything, much less an authority on what
rockhead says.

[Paul J Gans]

I don't get you. Clearly, I have not been reading very many
examples of Peter's deathless prose. I saw no post in which
he claimed authorship of the ones I complained about.

Your post was the first I knew of such a thing. All I wanted
was a clear statement from somebody that he'd claimed those
posts.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 00:55:46 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

I don't get you. I am being very clear.

>Clearly, I have not been reading very many
>examples of Peter's deathless prose. I saw no post in which
>he claimed authorship of the ones I complained about.
>
>Your post was the first I knew of such a thing. All I wanted
>was a clear statement from somebody that he'd claimed those
>posts.

Which I provided. Do you disagree? If not, why did you say "if"?

>What is so hard to understand about that?

Because you didn't say that's what you wanted. OTOH you implied I had
not. How does that sound clear to you?

[Paul J Gans]

You've lost me.

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 19:29:56 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Then don't worry about it. Perhaps another time.

[pnyikos]

On May 31, 3:47�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/13 7:02 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 1:36 am, jillery<69jpi...@gmail.com> �wrote:

> >> On Thu, 30 May 2013 16:07:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>

> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> �wrote:

> >>> On May 30, 6:29 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

> >>>> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>>>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
> >>>>> comment by Paul Gans:
>

> > +++++++++++++repost of �Harshman snip++++++++++++++++++
>
> > � �"When Peter is active, about half the postings

> > � � in t.o. are related to him. �He's a major factor."

> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/490cfb69a19299fd?dmod...
> > Message-ID:<kmpd2r$h5...@reader1.panix.com>
>
> > � �And so, he attributed far more importance to me than I would. He

> > even coined the word "Petermania" in the same post to describe this
> > alleged phenomenon. In between, he gave a description of why the
> > "mice-
> > analogues" play the way they do:
>
> > � � "So when Peter vanishes, a number of us like to
> > � � �let off steam. �We can't really do it
> > � � �while he's active because all it does is
> > � � �increase the number of his posts."

> > ===============end of repost=============

>
> >>>> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>

> >>> How about the day Paul Gans gets over me? �Will you stay tuned to this
> >>> thread for other examples of his obsession with me?
>

> >> My impression is that day came and went long ago, even assuming he had
> >> any obsession with you in the first place.

As I told jillery, I badly misread the above remark; I thought "day"
referred to Paul's obsession, and didn't even notice that I had used
the word "day" very differently. And so I replied as follows.


> > It came long ago, much longer ago than you probably suspect, since you
> > weren't around in mid-1995 when it started a few months after I joined
> > t.o.
>
> > Your impression that it went away long ago was made possible by the
> > selective snipping of Harshman, who is not above resorting to this
> > kind of trick which has become a staple with you.
>
> At the risk of being accused of mantraism, that's paranoid.

Where the word "paranioid" is concerned, the thing you are being
accused of is allowing yourself to become caught up in the
intellectual inbreeding that has taken place in politicized newsgroups
over the last two decades. The word has become watered down in t.o.
to the point where it is almost never used in its proper meaning.

In fact, you contributed to the watering-down of the word "paranoid"
on one occasion that was so ridiculous, I thought even you could be
made to see its ridiculousness. I had opined that Hemidactylus might
well have informed you in e-mail about how he was defending you
against several people who were criticizing you in a thread from which
you were absent. This is the most natural thing in the world for
normal people to do, but you got it into your head to label that
opinion "paranoid."

Heck, if I am being defended on a thread where people are attacking me
in absentia, I would sure like to know about it. For one thing, the
defender might not have all the information he needs to do an
effective defense.

[snip]

> > If you click on either of �these urls, you will see the relevance.
> > And there are many other examples on just the same thread of Gans's
> > continued obsession with me, but perhaps your reaction to them will be
> > the same as what I suspect Harshman's is:

>
> >>> Or will you live up to your nickname, Dontwanna Hearaboutit?
>

> >> Pathetic evasion.
>
> > Of what? �The formulaic �insult "get over yourself"? �Take a look at
> > how I dealt with it after Harshman, in reply to the same post �to
> > which you are replying, continued to live up to another nickname I
> > have for him,
> > Unofficial TO Hall Monitor.
>
> > Perhaps even you can see the aptness of that nickname.
>
> Tony Pagano's, wasn't it? And why "unofficial"?-

Tony Pagano actually called you that? If I ever knew it, I've
forgotten. The nickname I saw him give you is "The Clown Master of
TO."

As for "Unofficial" -- who appointed you besides yourself?

Peter Nyikos

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 6/3/13 4:23 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On May 31, 3:47 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 5/31/13 7:02 AM, pnyikos wrote:

>>> Your impression that it went away long ago was made possible by the
>>> selective snipping of Harshman, who is not above resorting to this
>>> kind of trick which has become a staple with you.
>>
>> At the risk of being accused of mantraism, that's paranoid.
>
> Where the word "paranioid" is concerned, the thing you are being
> accused of is allowing yourself to become caught up in the
> intellectual inbreeding that has taken place in politicized newsgroups
> over the last two decades. The word has become watered down in t.o.
> to the point where it is almost never used in its proper meaning.

I'm going with "imagining persecution that isn't happening", in this
case supposing that any snippage by other posters is intended as a trick
to deprive you of your victory.

I'm now going to snip some shit I find too boring to respond to. Take it
as you will.

>>> Perhaps even you can see the aptness of that nickname.
>>
>> Tony Pagano's, wasn't it? And why "unofficial"?-
>
> Tony Pagano actually called you that? If I ever knew it, I've
> forgotten. The nickname I saw him give you is "The Clown Master of
> TO."

I may be misremembering.

> As for "Unofficial" -- who appointed you besides yourself?

I didn't appoint me. Tony did. Or maybe you did.

[pnyikos]

On May 31, 9:33�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> [cut to the core]
>
> >Second, what does Gans not getting over you have to do with you not
> >getting over yourself? Am I required to discuss everyone's problems
> >equally? If so, please cite the page in the bylaws that says that.
> >Otherwise, stop being obsessed with his obsession with you. Exercise a
> >tiny bit of maturity here. Still awaiting.
>
> I do not have an obsession with Nyikos.

Get real. You've said almost nothing to me or about me that wasn't
belittling me either explicitly or implicitly, and/or rewriting Usenet
history about me, since I returned in December 2010. That includes
the year and a half when you did not reply to any of my posts. You
admitted to Harshman while I was away that you sporadically wrote
about me in that year and a half.

However, you alleged that you had done it because you wanted to let
people know what I was like. Exactly the opposite happened: you
hindered people in knowing what I was like by repeatedly doing put-
downs that had very little basis in reality.

And that's not even getting into your behavior during the years
1995-2001 about which you rewrote Usenet history scant hours before I
went on my posting break.

Were you hoping that I would not revisit that thread, so that the
contents of that post would go unchallenged for three weeks and thus
become cemented as part of the virtual reality of talk.origins?

> Why you let yourself
> think that I am responding to him simply because he mentions
> my name in every other post he makes is beyond me.

What a bunch of garbage! "every other post" must refer to the ones
you read, which is a small fraction of the ones I make. You haven't
even read a reply I did to you the day I came back from my break.
[I'll be reposting that to this thread, in reply to you. Will you
miss that one too?]

And you are doing something that Harshman loves to accuse me of:
trying to read his (Harshman's) mind. In fact, you are implicitly
claiming to have actually read his mind, something I would never dream
of doing.

>� I've not

> responded to him since his "break".

But you've said a good bit about me during that almost-3-week break.
And, as that year and a half shows, the only difference is in how
thick and fast your put-downs come, not in their contents.

> My advince is not to pin psychological terms on folks unless you
> have been following them closely in what they do or do not post.

You should be glad he isn't doing that. He would have discovered an
abundance of dishonesty, unfairness, insincerity and hypocrisy. Of
course, in your moral code (and maybe even his), obsession might rank
as being a lot worse than any of those traits.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Jun 3, 3:29嚙緘m, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 00:55:46 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> >>jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:25:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>

> >>>>jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 18:33:39 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >>>>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>

> >>>>>>jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 02:22:57 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >>>>>>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>>jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>On Fri, 31 May 2013 07:35:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
> >>>>>>>>><eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>[snip typical Nyikosity]
>
> >>>>>>>>>>My impression is that, since Nyikos has returned, the number of posts

> >>>>>>>>>>daily on t.o. has increased about 60%. 嚙璀nyone have access to the actual

> >>>>>>>>>>statistics?
>
> >>>>>>>>>If you mean his return from his most recent hiatus, there seems to be

> >>>>>>>>>some dissent about when he actually returned. 嚙瞑aul expressed some
> >>>>>>>>>doubt that some of the first few posts are authentic. 嚙瘠onsidering

> >>>>>>>>>that rockhead expressed no objection to them by now, I believe they

> >>>>>>>>>are as they appear to be. 嚙瞑erhaps Paul will let us know if he still
> >>>>>>>>>feels that way.
>
> >>>>>>>>I don't know. 嚙確hey were stylistically different. 嚙璀nd

> >>>>>>>>uncharacteristically, those threads vanished when the "real"
> >>>>>>>>Peter showed up.

Did the thread from which the post documented below is taken also
vanish from your newsreader?

> >>>>>>>In reply to my post, he's claimed all the post with his name as his.
> >>>>>>>So, styles notwithstanding, at least you have one persona to blame for
> >>>>>>>them.
>
> >>>>>>If he claims them, then I withdraw my claims to the contrary.
>

> >>>>>If? 嚙磕hat does it take to convince you?

>
> >>>>I'm taking your word for the fact that he claimed them.
>

> >>>That's scary. 嚙瘢 never would have expected anybody on T.O. would take

> >>>me as an authority on anything, much less an authority on what
> >>>rockhead says.

And rightly so--many a thing which jillery claims I've said has been
garbled, to say the least

> >>I don't get you.

> >I don't get you. 嚙瘢 am being very clear.

> >>Clearly, I have not been reading very many

> >>examples of Peter's deathless prose. 嚙瘢 saw no post in which

> >>he claimed authorship of the ones I complained about.

On how many threads did you post these "complaints," and what cause
did you think to have for complaint? I posted on one t.o. thread on
May 23, the first day I returned from my almost-3-week break. Were
there other threads where you saw posts on May 23 that seemed to come
from me?

> >>Your post was the first I knew of such a thing. 嚙璀ll I wanted

> >>was a clear statement from somebody that he'd claimed those
> >>posts.

> >Which I provided. 嚙瘩o you disagree? 嚙瘢f not, why did you say "if"?

> >>What is so hard to understand about that?

> >Because you didn't say that's what you wanted. 嚙瞌TOH you implied I had
> >not. 嚙瘡ow does that sound clear to you?
>
> You've lost me.

That's because jillery is much more fond of repartee than she is of
documenting her claims. Anyway, here is the one denial I have done in
direct reply to you.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 10:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, May 27 2013 1:19 pm
Subject: Re: Pnyikos: Comes here to troll.
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this
author
On May 23, 4:15 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:


> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >pnyikoswrote:
> >> I overlooked this whole thread until Thrinaxodon's recent meltdown,
> >> and only found it (almost two months after it began and ended!)
> >> because I clicked on his profile to see whether the nutjob Thrinaxodon
> >> is the same as the original.

> >> The following bizarre, paranoid comment strongly supports the thesis
> >> that the two are the same.
> >And that he is suffering from organic mental illness.
> >Why feed the disease? It cannot help.


> The poster is not Nyikos. Don't waste your energy on a bad troll.



Who are you talking about? The poster of whom Shrubber was talking
was Thrinaxodon, not me. The other poster was definitely me.

If you are talking about Thrinaxodon, that's quite a change from your
behavior of two months ago. Did he con you back then about being
sincere? Or did you know he was a bad troll, but didn't let on
because he was a "useful idiot" in your perennial campaign to
discredit me?


Peter Nyikos
======================= end of post archived
at http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e422f86a39237a09


Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Jun 1, 12:34�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 08:52:19 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

The following marks the place where jillery, figuratively speaking,
kicked over the checkerboard after realizing she had a lost game:

> [...]

And here is the game she was about to lose: the game of pretending
that I had actually admitted that DP (directed panspermia) is a front
for ID, for which she has a secret definition whereby it is a front
for creationism.


________________ begin repost, names added in brackets_______

[Peter:]
> >I bring out the worst in some people, who cannot abide anyone who
> >makes even a totally unique and scientifically based case for the
> >possibility of intelligent design, not even when it is due to a
> >civilization like ours.


[Peter:]
Note the words "intelligent design" in particular. It certainly
includes the sort of thing that Crick had in mind when he wrote:

The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of
microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic
conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to
combine all the desirable properties within one single type
of organism or to send many different organisms is not
completely clear.
--Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_
Simon and Schuster, 1981


[snip]

[jillery:]
> But it's good to know that you admit your DP topics are just a front

> for ID, which in turn is a front for Creationism.

[Peter:]
All you are doing here is revealing your own prejudice and polemical
mindset, which has blinded you to the fact that I used "intelligent
design," not "ID", a term to which you have given your own private
definition. You made it clear, all the way back in December of 2010,
that what Crick wrote about in the passage I quoted did NOT fit this
undivulged definiton of yours:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/48a7d57727badf16

[jillery:]
> It puts the lie to
> your denials.

[Peter:]
That's an extra bit of "garbage out (GO)" to go with the GIGO that
preceded it.

> >Ours, you know, is deeply involved in that very thing, with
> >recombinant DNA, etc.

...and that seems to be the sort of intelligent design Crick had in
mind.
===========end of repost of text snipped by jillery

> >> Sadly, NOTA has anything to do with the likelihood of DP.

Actually, the allegation jillery snipped had plenty to do with the
likelihood of DP: were it really a front for creationism, it would be
something utterly different from the hypothesis I have been promoting,
and therefore its likelihood would be infinitesimal.

> >What does NOTA stand for?
>
> None Of The Above. �It's a significant time-saving acronym when
> replying to your posts.

Yeah, lots of things save time when you are into winning games by
cheating, like kicking over checkerboards.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:51:55 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[...]

>> I do not have an obsession with Nyikos.
>
>Get real.

<PING!>

Dang it, even my Binford Executive Irony Meter didn't survive that
one.

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:03:30 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[...]

>And rightly so--many a thing which jillery claims I've said has been
>garbled, to say the least

Especially since you are the one who garbles my claims.

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:03:30 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


[...]

>> You've lost me.
>
>That's because jillery is much more fond of repartee than she is of
>documenting her claims.

No, that's because Jillery has trouble understanding what Paul is
trying to say. In the meantime, rockhead will use any excuse to add
gratuitious noise at other posters' expense.

[jillery]

If you have a specific complaint to make about me, then make it
clearly and concisely, without the gratuitous noise and obfuscating
garbage you obsessively add to every post.

[dav...@agent.com]

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>That's because jillery is much more fond of repartee
>than she is of documenting her claims.

You got THAT right!

[Nashton]

On 05-30-13 7:29 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/30/13 1:15 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> The title of this thread was inspired by a hilariously exaggerated
>> comment by Paul Gans:
>

> I eagerly await the day you get over yourself.
>

You first ;)

[Thrinaxodon]

> Peter �Nyikos

Ah yes, Asshat. No, DP is a front for creationism. See, the aliens,
came here and created life on Earth, i.e. DP. Of course, that's
nonsense, but it demonstrates, DP is a front.

[jillery]

Considering that both of you have demonstrated a marked inability to
recognize valid documentation, you two deserve each other.