Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/17/2012 8:18 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> In article <k86mmk$qd...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 16, 5:37?pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> messagenews:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.co >>>>>> m...
>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in
>>>>>>>> messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
>>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he
>>>>>>>> didn't say.
>>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
>>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
>>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
>>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you
>>>>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced
>>>>>>>> understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5 >>>>>>>> ?dmod...shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was
>>>>>>>> speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the
>>>>>>>> senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of
>>>>>>>> understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on
>>>>>>>> misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general
>>>>>>>> claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with
>>>>>>>> you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a
>>>>>>>> flat out lie.
>>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
>>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
>>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any sane
>>>>>> person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent microbes" to mean
>>>>>> "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same post as the original
>>>>>> quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were "My words were "No, you
>>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>>>>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
>>>>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
>>>>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
>>>> That's hard to know. But Peter commonly conflates different
>>>> things in one post. As I've just posted, I got that idea
>>>> someplace and posted it. Peter corrected me. I apologized
>>>> with faint hope that that would be the end of it. I was
>>>> wrong about that.
>>>> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
>>>> Doesn't bother me in the least. I've known that for about
>>>> 75 years. Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.
>>> possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)
>> I don't think so. He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?
>His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
>>>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>>>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>>>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>>>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he >>>>>>>>> didn't say.
>>>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
>>>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
>>>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
>>>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>>>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>>>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you >>>>>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced >>>>>>>>> understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>>>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>>>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefda >>>>>>>>> b5?dmod...shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was >>>>>>>>> speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the >>>>>>>>> senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of >>>>>>>>> understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted >>>>>>>>> on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general >>>>>>>>> claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed >>>>>>>>> with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be >>>>>>>>> insane" is a flat out lie.
>>>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>>>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
>>>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
>>>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any >>>>>>> sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent >>>>>>> microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same >>>>>>> post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were >>>>>>> "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>>>>>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
>>>>>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
>>>>>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
>>>>> O'Shea didn't use the word misunderstand. He said Peter flat out said >>>>> "anyone who disagreed with you". That implies anytime anyone disagrees >>>>> with Peter they must be insane.
>>>> No it doesn't. It doesn't imply "anytime." I could just as well refer to
>>>> disagreeing on one issue. Since in context it is indeed a reference to
>>>> one issue, that's it's default meaning.
>>>> Furthermore, you make too much about the differences between
>>>> "misunderstand" and "disagreed." The contextual meanings are "a sane and
>>>> non-stupid person wouldn't misunderstand what Peter meant" vs. "a sane
>>>> and non-stupid person wouldn't disagree with Peter about what Peter
>>>> meant." The difference is insignificant.
>>>> Finally, the problem is close reading is it assumes close writing. Peter
>>>> is calling O'Shea a liar and pathological based on one deep parsing of
>>>> ambiguous statements.
>>> Total horseshit.
>> Compelling as your analysis is, it's lacking is specifics.
>> The subject was one specific instance, therefore O'Shea was referring to >> one specific instance.
> source
> Peter:
> "You have alleged explicitly elsewhere that I have the same kind of > contempt for people who disagree with me that UC is manifesting here." > O'Shea:
> "You've said, point-blank, that anyone who doesn't agree with you must have > an > IQ of less than 50 and must be insane, so that would be a yes, you have > exhibited that level of contempt. And you've done it many, many, MANY times."
He's used that particular phrase once. He has, however, exhibited that level of contempt many, many, MANY times. Why, he's done it in this very thread.
>>> "Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:k86mmk$qd1$8@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 16, 5:37?pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
>>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he didn't say.
>>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
>>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
>>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
>>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5?dmod... that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a flat out lie.
>>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
>>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
>>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>>>>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
>>>>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
>>>>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
>>>> That's hard to know.
>>> You won't mind if I quote you now as saying that was not hard to know?
>>> Gans said "that was not hard to know".
>>>> But Peter commonly conflates different
>>>> things in one post. As I've just posted, I got that idea
>>>> someplace and posted it. Peter corrected me. I apologized
>>>> with faint hope that that would be the end of it. I was
>>>> wrong about that.
>>> And that is where your part in this ended, and where
>>> O'Shea's began, by claiming that Peter had said
>>> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you
>>> had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane"
>>> when in reality what Peter said to you was
>>> "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT
>>> microbes. My words would have produced understanding
>>> in a sane person with an IQ of 50".
>>> Perhaps you should consider that O'Shea should have
>>> apologized and that that would have been the end of it.
>> Glenn, you are trying too hard. I posted the bit about
>> the panspermists being microbes. What Peter wrote after
>> that is not my responsibility. I took care of my
>> responsibility when I apologized.
>> I have no idea why you want to put the IQ business on
>> me or why I should apologize for O'Shea or why O'Shey
>> should apologize or why even you should apologize.
>> I just wish you (and Peter) would stop conflating me
>> and O'Shea. We are not twins separated at birth.
>"Gans admits he and O'Shea are unseparated Siamese twins."
No, we are not twins separated at birth because we are triplets. Our missing brother is a mathematician.
> >> >> >> >"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >> >> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
> >> >> >> >> > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> >> >> >> >> > > (in article
> >> >> >> >> > > <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
> >> >> >> >> > > > On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> >> >> >> > > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> >> >> >> > > >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
> >> >> >> >> > > >> <snip reams of repetition>
> >> >> >> >> > > >>>> ...I have no
> >> >> >> >> > > >>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
> >> >> >> >> > > >>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
> >> >> >> >> > > >>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
> >> >> >> >> > > >>> Your post
> >> >> >> >> > > >> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
> >> >> >> >> > > > You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
> >> >> >> >> > > Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
> >> >> >> >> > I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he didn't say.
> >> >> >> >> > "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
> >> >> >> >> > panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
> >> >> >> >> > mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
> >> >> >> >> > Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
> >> >> >> >> > panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
> >> >> >> >> > possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ
> >> >> >> >> > of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
> >> >> >> >> > irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5?dmod... shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a flat out lie.
> >> >> >> >> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
> >> >> >> >> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
> >> >> >> >> It's not flat out anything.
> >> >> >> >Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
> >> >> >> Glenn, let me give you a reality check. I made that post without
> >> >> >> having read the vast bulk of Peter's posts. Peter pointed out
> >> >> >> that I was wrong. I agreed and apologized.
> >> >> >> I have no idea why I thought he had the panspermists as microbes.
> >> >> >> I have no idea where he gets most of his ideas.
> >> >> >That is irrelevant to whether O'Shea's claim is true. Give yourself a reality check.
> >> >> I'm not O'Shea. I have no idea why Peter and you refer to both of
> >> >> us in the same post. I replied to what Peter wrote about me. His
> >> >> fixation with O'Shea is another matter.
> >> >If you feel it is all about you, you seem to have a point.
> >> Comments that name me by name *are* about me, idiot.
> >This is not "about" you. You are not the subject of all comments that include your name. "Joe met with his boss at Gan's Diner". Reality can bite you right in the ass, sparky.
> Goody for you. The comment I responded to was about me. Further,
> you know that but continue to try to provoke. That mostly gives
> information about you, not me.
You started this, Paul. I only copied text from the relevant post to provide context for Peter's statement, not to pick on you. Try a little objectivity, it might only hurt for a little while.
"J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in message news:k8b94o01a4h@news7.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:49:28 -0500, Glenn wrote
> (in article <glennsheldon-k8b7ci$r8...@dont-email.me>):
> > "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:k8b69r$oki$7@dont-email.me...
> >> On 11/18/2012 11:33 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>> news:k8b1v3$ebg$1@dont-email.me...
> >>>> On 11/16/2012 6:37 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>> news:9c4a22f1-d5b0-4585-81b5-19cc3154fe19@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>> On Nov 16, 5:37 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in > >>>>>>> messagenews:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegroup > >>>>>>> s.com...
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in > >>>>>>>>> messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> >>>>>>>>>> (in article
> >>>>>>>>>> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> >>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
> >>>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
> >>>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
> >>>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he > >>>>>>>>> didn't say.
> >>>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
> >>>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
> >>>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
> >>>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
> >>>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
> >>>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you > >>>>>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced > >>>>>>>>> understanding in a sane person with an IQ
> >>>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
> >>>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefda > >>>>>>>>> b5?dmod...shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was > >>>>>>>>> speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the > >>>>>>>>> senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of > >>>>>>>>> understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted > >>>>>>>>> on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general > >>>>>>>>> claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed > >>>>>>>>> with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be > >>>>>>>>> insane" is a flat out lie.
> >>>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
> >>>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
> >>>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
> >>>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any > >>>>>>> sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent > >>>>>>> microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same > >>>>>>> post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were > >>>>>>> "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
> >>>>>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
> >>>>>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
> >>>>>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
> >>>>> O'Shea didn't use the word misunderstand. He said Peter flat out said > >>>>> "anyone who disagreed with you". That implies anytime anyone disagrees > >>>>> with Peter they must be insane.
> >>>> No it doesn't. It doesn't imply "anytime." I could just as well refer to
> >>>> disagreeing on one issue. Since in context it is indeed a reference to
> >>>> one issue, that's it's default meaning.
> >>>> Furthermore, you make too much about the differences between
> >>>> "misunderstand" and "disagreed." The contextual meanings are "a sane and
> >>>> non-stupid person wouldn't misunderstand what Peter meant" vs. "a sane
> >>>> and non-stupid person wouldn't disagree with Peter about what Peter
> >>>> meant." The difference is insignificant.
> >>>> Finally, the problem is close reading is it assumes close writing. Peter
> >>>> is calling O'Shea a liar and pathological based on one deep parsing of
> >>>> ambiguous statements.
> >>> Total horseshit.
> >> Compelling as your analysis is, it's lacking is specifics.
> >> The subject was one specific instance, therefore O'Shea was referring to > >> one specific instance.
> > source
> > Peter:
> > "You have alleged explicitly elsewhere that I have the same kind of > > contempt for people who disagree with me that UC is manifesting here." > > O'Shea:
> > "You've said, point-blank, that anyone who doesn't agree with you must have > > an > > IQ of less than 50 and must be insane, so that would be a yes, you have > > exhibited that level of contempt. And you've done it many, many, MANY times."
> He's used that particular phrase once. He has, however, exhibited that level > of contempt many, many, MANY times. Why, he's done it in this very thread.
Sorry, you equated what you claim Peter said and meant to how UC behaved in that thread.
Here's another lie of yours, from the same thread, concerning the statement in question:
"I quoted you directly and exactly. It ain't libel when I use your own words, you lying mofo."
Sorry, you neither quoted him "directly" or "exactly" or used his own words.
> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in message > news:k8b94o01a4h@news7.newsguy.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:49:28 -0500, Glenn wrote
>> (in article <glennsheldon-k8b7ci$r8...@dont-email.me>):
>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:k8b69r$oki$7@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 11/18/2012 11:33 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:k8b1v3$ebg$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On 11/16/2012 6:37 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:9c4a22f1-d5b0-4585-81b5-19cc3154fe19@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 5:37 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>> messagenews:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegro >>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>> s.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>>>>> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ):
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something >>>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>> didn't say.
>>>>>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
>>>>>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
>>>>>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
>>>>>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>>>>>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you >>>>>>>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have >>>>>>>>>>> produced >>>>>>>>>>> understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>>>>>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>>>>>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eef >>>>>>>>>>> da
>>>>>>>>>>> b5?dmod...shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he >>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>> speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the >>>>>>>>>>> senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of >>>>>>>>>>> understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have >>>>>>>>>>> insisted >>>>>>>>>>> on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general >>>>>>>>>>> claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed >>>>>>>>>>> with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be >>>>>>>>>>> insane" is a flat out lie.
>>>>>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>>>>>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at >>>>>>>>>> hand.
>>>>>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
>>>>>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any >>>>>>>>> sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent >>>>>>>>> microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the >>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>> post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>>>>>>>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
>>>>>>>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
>>>>>>>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
>>>>>>> O'Shea didn't use the word misunderstand. He said Peter flat out said >>>>>>> "anyone who disagreed with you". That implies anytime anyone disagrees >>>>>>> with Peter they must be insane.
>>>>>> No it doesn't. It doesn't imply "anytime." I could just as well refer to
>>>>>> disagreeing on one issue. Since in context it is indeed a reference to
>>>>>> one issue, that's it's default meaning.
>>>>>> Furthermore, you make too much about the differences between
>>>>>> "misunderstand" and "disagreed." The contextual meanings are "a sane and
>>>>>> non-stupid person wouldn't misunderstand what Peter meant" vs. "a sane
>>>>>> and non-stupid person wouldn't disagree with Peter about what Peter
>>>>>> meant." The difference is insignificant.
>>>>>> Finally, the problem is close reading is it assumes close writing. Peter
>>>>>> is calling O'Shea a liar and pathological based on one deep parsing of
>>>>>> ambiguous statements.
>>>>> Total horseshit.
>>>> Compelling as your analysis is, it's lacking is specifics.
>>>> The subject was one specific instance, therefore O'Shea was referring to >>>> one specific instance.
>>> source
>>> Peter:
>>> "You have alleged explicitly elsewhere that I have the same kind of >>> contempt for people who disagree with me that UC is manifesting here." >>> O'Shea:
>>> "You've said, point-blank, that anyone who doesn't agree with you must >>> have >>> an >>> IQ of less than 50 and must be insane, so that would be a yes, you have >>> exhibited that level of contempt. And you've done it many, many, MANY >>> times."
>> He's used that particular phrase once. He has, however, exhibited that >> level >> of contempt many, many, MANY times. Why, he's done it in this very thread.
> Sorry, you equated what you claim Peter said and meant to how UC behaved in > that thread.
> Here's another lie of yours, from the same thread, concerning the statement > in question:
> "I quoted you directly and exactly. It ain't libel when I use your own words, > you lying mofo."
> Sorry, you neither quoted him "directly" or "exactly" or used his own words.
"My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ of 50." That's an exact quote of his words. It's not my fault if his own words damn him.
> Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 8:22 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Glenn <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message >>>> news:k86mmk$qd1$8@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 16, 5:37?pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>>> messagenews:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegroup >>>>>>> s.com...
>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in >>>>>>>>> messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>>> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
>>>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>>>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>>>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>>>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he >>>>>>>>> didn't say.
>>>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
>>>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
>>>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
>>>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>>>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>>>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you >>>>>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced >>>>>>>>> understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>>>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>>>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefda >>>>>>>>> b5?dmod...shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was >>>>>>>>> speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the >>>>>>>>> senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of >>>>>>>>> understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted >>>>>>>>> on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general >>>>>>>>> claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed >>>>>>>>> with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be >>>>>>>>> insane" is a flat out lie.
>>>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>>>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
>>>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
>>>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any >>>>>>> sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent >>>>>>> microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same >>>>>>> post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were >>>>>>> "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>>>>>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
>>>>>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
>>>>>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
>>>>> That's hard to know.
>>>> You won't mind if I quote you now as saying that was not hard to know?
>>>> Gans said "that was not hard to know".
>>>>> But Peter commonly conflates different
>>>>> things in one post. As I've just posted, I got that idea
>>>>> someplace and posted it. Peter corrected me. I apologized
>>>>> with faint hope that that would be the end of it. I was
>>>>> wrong about that.
>>>> And that is where your part in this ended, and where
>>>> O'Shea's began, by claiming that Peter had said
>>>> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you
>>>> had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane"
>>>> when in reality what Peter said to you was
>>>> "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT
>>>> microbes. My words would have produced understanding
>>>> in a sane person with an IQ of 50".
>>>> Perhaps you should consider that O'Shea should have
>>>> apologized and that that would have been the end of it.
>>> Glenn, you are trying too hard. I posted the bit about
>>> the panspermists being microbes. What Peter wrote after
>>> that is not my responsibility. I took care of my
>>> responsibility when I apologized.
>>> I have no idea why you want to put the IQ business on
>>> me or why I should apologize for O'Shea or why O'Shey
>>> should apologize or why even you should apologize.
>>> I just wish you (and Peter) would stop conflating me
>>> and O'Shea. We are not twins separated at birth.
>> "Gans admits he and O'Shea are unseparated Siamese twins."
> No, we are not twins separated at birth because we > are triplets. Our missing brother is a mathematician.
J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 13:25:27 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
>(in article <k8b96n$q1...@reader1.panix.com>):
>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2012 8:22 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> Glenn <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> "Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:k86mmk$qd1$8@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 5:37?pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>>>> messagenews:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegroup >>>>>>>> s.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>>>> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>>>>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>>>>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he >>>>>>>>>> didn't say.
>>>>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
>>>>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
>>>>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
>>>>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>>>>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>>>>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you >>>>>>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced >>>>>>>>>> understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>>>>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>>>>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefda >>>>>>>>>> b5?dmod...shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was >>>>>>>>>> speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the >>>>>>>>>> senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of >>>>>>>>>> understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted >>>>>>>>>> on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general >>>>>>>>>> claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed >>>>>>>>>> with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be >>>>>>>>>> insane" is a flat out lie.
>>>>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>>>>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
>>>>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
>>>>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any >>>>>>>> sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent >>>>>>>> microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same >>>>>>>> post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were >>>>>>>> "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>>>>>>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
>>>>>>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
>>>>>>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
>>>>>> That's hard to know.
>>>>> You won't mind if I quote you now as saying that was not hard to know?
>>>>> Gans said "that was not hard to know".
>>>>>> But Peter commonly conflates different
>>>>>> things in one post. As I've just posted, I got that idea
>>>>>> someplace and posted it. Peter corrected me. I apologized
>>>>>> with faint hope that that would be the end of it. I was
>>>>>> wrong about that.
>>>>> And that is where your part in this ended, and where
>>>>> O'Shea's began, by claiming that Peter had said
>>>>> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you
>>>>> had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane"
>>>>> when in reality what Peter said to you was
>>>>> "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT
>>>>> microbes. My words would have produced understanding
>>>>> in a sane person with an IQ of 50".
>>>>> Perhaps you should consider that O'Shea should have
>>>>> apologized and that that would have been the end of it.
>>>> Glenn, you are trying too hard. I posted the bit about
>>>> the panspermists being microbes. What Peter wrote after
>>>> that is not my responsibility. I took care of my
>>>> responsibility when I apologized.
>>>> I have no idea why you want to put the IQ business on
>>>> me or why I should apologize for O'Shea or why O'Shey
>>>> should apologize or why even you should apologize.
>>>> I just wish you (and Peter) would stop conflating me
>>>> and O'Shea. We are not twins separated at birth.
>>> "Gans admits he and O'Shea are unseparated Siamese twins."
>> No, we are not twins separated at birth because we >> are triplets. Our missing brother is a mathematician.
>> >> >> >> >"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> >> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
>> >> >> >> >> > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>> >> >> >> >> > > (in article
>> >> >> >> >> > > <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>> >> >> >> >> > > > On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> >> >> >> > > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> >> >> >> >> > > >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>> >> >> >> >> > > >> <snip reams of repetition>
>> >> >> >> >> > > >>>> ...I have no
>> >> >> >> >> > > >>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>> >> >> >> >> > > >>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>> >> >> >> >> > > >>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> Your post
>> >> >> >> >> > > >> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>> >> >> >> >> > > > You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>> >> >> >> >> > > Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>> >> >> >> >> > I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he didn't say.
>> >> >> >> >> > "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
>> >> >> >> >> > panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
>> >> >> >> >> > mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
>> >> >> >> >> > Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>> >> >> >> >> > panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>> >> >> >> >> > possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>> >> >> >> >> > of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>> >> >> >> >> > irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5?dmod... shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a flat out lie.
>> >> >> >> >> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>> >> >> >> >> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
>> >> >> >> >> It's not flat out anything.
>> >> >> >> >Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>> >> >> >> Glenn, let me give you a reality check. I made that post without
>> >> >> >> having read the vast bulk of Peter's posts. Peter pointed out
>> >> >> >> that I was wrong. I agreed and apologized.
>> >> >> >> I have no idea why I thought he had the panspermists as microbes.
>> >> >> >> I have no idea where he gets most of his ideas.
>> >> >> >That is irrelevant to whether O'Shea's claim is true. Give yourself a reality check.
>> >> >> I'm not O'Shea. I have no idea why Peter and you refer to both of
>> >> >> us in the same post. I replied to what Peter wrote about me. His
>> >> >> fixation with O'Shea is another matter.
>> >> >If you feel it is all about you, you seem to have a point.
>> >> Comments that name me by name *are* about me, idiot.
>> >This is not "about" you. You are not the subject of all comments that include your name. "Joe met with his boss at Gan's Diner". Reality can bite you right in the ass, sparky.
>> Goody for you. The comment I responded to was about me. Further,
>> you know that but continue to try to provoke. That mostly gives
>> information about you, not me.
>You started this, Paul. I only copied text from the relevant post to provide context for Peter's statement, not to pick on you. Try a little objectivity, it might only hurt for a little while.
When did any discussion about Peter become your private preserve.
I'd never cleared the air about what Peter regards as a significant
sin on my part. I used this thread to do it. So what? You
might have ignored it on your O'Shea crusade.
> J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 13:25:27 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
>> (in article <k8b96n$q1...@reader1.panix.com>):
>>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2012 8:22 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>> Glenn <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> "Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:k86mmk$qd1$8@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>>>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 5:37?pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>> messagenews:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegro >>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>> s.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>>>>> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ):
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something >>>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>> didn't say.
>>>>>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
>>>>>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
>>>>>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
>>>>>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>>>>>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you >>>>>>>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have >>>>>>>>>>> produced >>>>>>>>>>> understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>>>>>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>>>>>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eef >>>>>>>>>>> da
>>>>>>>>>>> b5?dmod...shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he >>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>> speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the >>>>>>>>>>> senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of >>>>>>>>>>> understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have >>>>>>>>>>> insisted >>>>>>>>>>> on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general >>>>>>>>>>> claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed >>>>>>>>>>> with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be >>>>>>>>>>> insane" is a flat out lie.
>>>>>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>>>>>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at >>>>>>>>>> hand.
>>>>>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
>>>>>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any >>>>>>>>> sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent >>>>>>>>> microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the >>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>> post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>>>>>>>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
>>>>>>>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
>>>>>>>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
>>>>>>> That's hard to know.
>>>>>> You won't mind if I quote you now as saying that was not hard to know?
>>>>>> Gans said "that was not hard to know".
>>>>>>> But Peter commonly conflates different
>>>>>>> things in one post. As I've just posted, I got that idea
>>>>>>> someplace and posted it. Peter corrected me. I apologized
>>>>>>> with faint hope that that would be the end of it. I was
>>>>>>> wrong about that.
>>>>>> And that is where your part in this ended, and where
>>>>>> O'Shea's began, by claiming that Peter had said
>>>>>> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you
>>>>>> had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane"
>>>>>> when in reality what Peter said to you was
>>>>>> "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT
>>>>>> microbes. My words would have produced understanding
>>>>>> in a sane person with an IQ of 50".
>>>>>> Perhaps you should consider that O'Shea should have
>>>>>> apologized and that that would have been the end of it.
>>>>> Glenn, you are trying too hard. I posted the bit about
>>>>> the panspermists being microbes. What Peter wrote after
>>>>> that is not my responsibility. I took care of my
>>>>> responsibility when I apologized.
>>>>> I have no idea why you want to put the IQ business on
>>>>> me or why I should apologize for O'Shea or why O'Shey
>>>>> should apologize or why even you should apologize.
>>>>> I just wish you (and Peter) would stop conflating me
>>>>> and O'Shea. We are not twins separated at birth.
>>>> "Gans admits he and O'Shea are unseparated Siamese twins."
>>> No, we are not twins separated at birth because we >>> are triplets. Our missing brother is a mathematician.
>>>>>>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.co >>>>>>>>>> m...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something >>>>>>>>>>>> he didn't say.
>>>>>>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], >>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
>>>>>>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>>>>>>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you >>>>>>>>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have >>>>>>>>>>>> produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>>>>>>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>>>>>>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395ee >>>>>>>>>>>> fdab5?dmod...clearly shows that Peter meant that anyone could >>>>>>>>>>>> understand he was speaking of microbes being sent, not that >>>>>>>>>>>> microbes were the senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or >>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement, but of understanding semantics,and the quote in >>>>>>>>>>>> question you have insisted on misrepresenting was made in a >>>>>>>>>>>> specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, >>>>>>>>>>>> flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you had to have an IQ of >>>>>>>>>>>> less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a flat out lie.
>>>>>>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>>>>>>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at >>>>>>>>>>> hand.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
>>>>>>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think >>>>>>>>>> any sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent >>>>>>>>>> microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the >>>>>>>>>> same post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that >>>>>>>>>> quote, were "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT >>>>>>>>>> microbes."
>>>>>>>>> Glenn, let me give you a reality check. I made that post without
>>>>>>>>> having read the vast bulk of Peter's posts. Peter pointed out
>>>>>>>>> that I was wrong. I agreed and apologized.
>>>>>>>>> I have no idea why I thought he had the panspermists as microbes.
>>>>>>>>> I have no idea where he gets most of his ideas.
>>>>>>>> That is irrelevant to whether O'Shea's claim is true. Give yourself a >>>>>>>> reality check.
>>>>>>> I'm not O'Shea. I have no idea why Peter and you refer to both of
>>>>>>> us in the same post. I replied to what Peter wrote about me. His
>>>>>>> fixation with O'Shea is another matter.
>>>>>> If you feel it is all about you, you seem to have a point.
>>>>> Comments that name me by name *are* about me, idiot.
>>>> This is not "about" you. You are not the subject of all comments that >>>> include your name. "Joe met with his boss at Gan's Diner". Reality can >>>> bite you right in the ass, sparky.
>>> Goody for you. The comment I responded to was about me. Further,
>>> you know that but continue to try to provoke. That mostly gives
>>> information about you, not me.
>> You started this, Paul. I only copied text from the relevant post to >> provide context for Peter's statement, not to pick on you. Try a little >> objectivity, it might only hurt for a little while.
> When did any discussion about Peter become your private preserve.
> I'd never cleared the air about what Peter regards as a significant
> sin on my part. I used this thread to do it. So what? You
> might have ignored it on your O'Shea crusade.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
>>>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>>>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>>>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>>>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he didn't say.
>>>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
>>>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
>>>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
>>>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>>>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>>>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>>>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>>>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5?dmod... that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a flat out lie.
>>>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>>>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
>>>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
>>>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>>>>>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
>>>>>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
>>>>>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
>>>>> O'Shea didn't use the word misunderstand. He said Peter flat out said "anyone who disagreed with you". That implies anytime anyone disagrees with Peter they must be insane.
>>>> No it doesn't. It doesn't imply "anytime." I could just as well refer to
>>>> disagreeing on one issue. Since in context it is indeed a reference to
>>>> one issue, that's it's default meaning.
>>>> Furthermore, you make too much about the differences between
>>>> "misunderstand" and "disagreed." The contextual meanings are "a sane and
>>>> non-stupid person wouldn't misunderstand what Peter meant" vs. "a sane
>>>> and non-stupid person wouldn't disagree with Peter about what Peter
>>>> meant." The difference is insignificant.
>>>> Finally, the problem is close reading is it assumes close writing. Peter
>>>> is calling O'Shea a liar and pathological based on one deep parsing of
>>>> ambiguous statements.
>>> Total horseshit.
>> Compelling as your analysis is, it's lacking is specifics.
>> The subject was one specific instance, therefore O'Shea was referring to
>> one specific instance.
> partial repost from
> https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c67f016de72860b6?hl=... > Peter:
> "You have alleged explicitly elsewhere that I have the same kind of
> contempt for people who disagree with me that UC is manifesting here."
> O'Shea:
> "You've said, point-blank, that anyone who doesn't agree with you must have an
> IQ of less than 50 and must be insane, so that would be a yes, you have
> exhibited that level of contempt. And you've done it many, many, MANY times."
> Get some more lipstick on that pig, Mitchell.
He gave that as one of many examples. Again, O'Shea was referring to one specific instance.
> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in message news:k8b94o01a4h@news7.newsguy.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:49:28 -0500, Glenn wrote
>> (in article <glennsheldon-k8b7ci$r8...@dont-email.me>):
>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:k8b69r$oki$7@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 11/18/2012 11:33 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:k8b1v3$ebg$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> On 11/16/2012 6:37 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:9c4a22f1-d5b0-4585-81b5-19cc3154fe19@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 5:37 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> messagenews:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegroup >>>>>>>>> s.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>>>>> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't say.
>>>>>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
>>>>>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
>>>>>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
>>>>>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>>>>>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you
>>>>>>>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>>>>>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>>>>>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefda >>>>>>>>>>> b5?dmod...shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was
>>>>>>>>>>> speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the
>>>>>>>>>>> senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted
>>>>>>>>>>> on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general
>>>>>>>>>>> claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed
>>>>>>>>>>> with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be
>>>>>>>>>>> insane" is a flat out lie.
>>>>>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>>>>>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
>>>>>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
>>>>>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any
>>>>>>>>> sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent
>>>>>>>>> microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same
>>>>>>>>> post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were
>>>>>>>>> "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>>>>>>>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
>>>>>>>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
>>>>>>>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
>>>>>>> O'Shea didn't use the word misunderstand. He said Peter flat out said
>>>>>>> "anyone who disagreed with you". That implies anytime anyone disagrees
>>>>>>> with Peter they must be insane.
>>>>>> No it doesn't. It doesn't imply "anytime." I could just as well refer to
>>>>>> disagreeing on one issue. Since in context it is indeed a reference to
>>>>>> one issue, that's it's default meaning.
>>>>>> Furthermore, you make too much about the differences between
>>>>>> "misunderstand" and "disagreed." The contextual meanings are "a sane and
>>>>>> non-stupid person wouldn't misunderstand what Peter meant" vs. "a sane
>>>>>> and non-stupid person wouldn't disagree with Peter about what Peter
>>>>>> meant." The difference is insignificant.
>>>>>> Finally, the problem is close reading is it assumes close writing. Peter
>>>>>> is calling O'Shea a liar and pathological based on one deep parsing of
>>>>>> ambiguous statements.
>>>>> Total horseshit.
>>>> Compelling as your analysis is, it's lacking is specifics.
>>>> The subject was one specific instance, therefore O'Shea was referring to
>>>> one specific instance.
>>> source
>>> Peter:
>>> "You have alleged explicitly elsewhere that I have the same kind of
>>> contempt for people who disagree with me that UC is manifesting here."
>>> O'Shea:
>>> "You've said, point-blank, that anyone who doesn't agree with you must have
>>> an
>>> IQ of less than 50 and must be insane, so that would be a yes, you have
>>> exhibited that level of contempt. And you've done it many, many, MANY times."
>> He's used that particular phrase once. He has, however, exhibited that level
>> of contempt many, many, MANY times. Why, he's done it in this very thread.
> Sorry, you equated what you claim Peter said and meant to how UC behaved in that thread.
How is that not true? He gave one example of how Peter treated one person, and stated that Peter did similar many times, which is true.
> Here's another lie of yours, from the same thread, concerning the statement in question:
> "I quoted you directly and exactly. It ain't libel when I use your own words,
> you lying mofo."
> Sorry, you neither quoted him "directly" or "exactly" or used his own words.
Right, he paraphrased Peter accurately, rather than quoting him directly and exactly. Peter should see a lawyer and take O'Shea for all he's worth.
> Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 11/17/2012 8:18 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>> In article <k86mmk$qd...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 16, 5:37?pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> messagenews:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.co > >>>>>> m...
> >>>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in
> >>>>>>>> messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> >>>>>>>>> (in article
> >>>>>>>>> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> >>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
> >>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
> >>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
> >>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
> >>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he
> >>>>>>>> didn't say.
> >>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
> >>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
> >>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
> >>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
> >>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
> >>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you
> >>>>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced
> >>>>>>>> understanding in a sane person with an IQ
> >>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
> >>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5 > >>>>>>>> ?dmod...shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was
> >>>>>>>> speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the
> >>>>>>>> senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of
> >>>>>>>> understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on
> >>>>>>>> misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general
> >>>>>>>> claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with
> >>>>>>>> you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a
> >>>>>>>> flat out lie.
> >>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
> >>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
> >>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
> >>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any sane
> >>>>>> person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent microbes" to mean
> >>>>>> "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same post as the original
> >>>>>> quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were "My words were "No, you
> >>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
> >>>>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
> >>>>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
> >>>>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
> >>>> That's hard to know. But Peter commonly conflates different
> >>>> things in one post. As I've just posted, I got that idea
> >>>> someplace and posted it. Peter corrected me. I apologized
> >>>> with faint hope that that would be the end of it. I was
> >>>> wrong about that.
> >>>> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
> >>>> Doesn't bother me in the least. I've known that for about
> >>>> 75 years. Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.
> >>> possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)
> >> I don't think so. He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?
> >His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.
> You shipped that one out, didn't you?
You liked that joke? Lot more where that came from. I got a armada of
them!
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:45:55 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
<mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 18, 1:27 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >>>> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
>> >>>> Doesn't bother me in the least. I've known that for about
>> >>>> 75 years. Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.
>> >>> possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)
>> >> I don't think so. He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?
>> >His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.
>> You shipped that one out, didn't you?
>You liked that joke? Lot more where that came from. I got a armada of
>them!
Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 18, 1:27?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 11/17/2012 8:18 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> >> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >>> In article <k86mmk$qd...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> >>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >>>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Nov 16, 5:37?pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>>>> messagenews:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.co >> >>>>>> m...
>> >>>>>>> On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in
>> >>>>>>>> messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>> >>>>>>>>> (in article
>> >>>>>>>>> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> >>>>>>>>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...I have no
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your post
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>> >>>>>>>>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>> >>>>>>>>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>> >>>>>>>> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he
>> >>>>>>>> didn't say.
>> >>>>>>>> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
>> >>>>>>>> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
>> >>>>>>>> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
>> >>>>>>>> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>> >>>>>>>> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>> >>>>>>>> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you
>> >>>>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced
>> >>>>>>>> understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>> >>>>>>>> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>> >>>>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5 >> >>>>>>>> ?dmod...shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was
>> >>>>>>>> speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the
>> >>>>>>>> senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of
>> >>>>>>>> understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on
>> >>>>>>>> misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general
>> >>>>>>>> claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with
>> >>>>>>>> you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a
>> >>>>>>>> flat out lie.
>> >>>>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>> >>>>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
>> >>>>>>> It's not flat out anything.
>> >>>>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any sane
>> >>>>>> person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent microbes" to mean
>> >>>>>> "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same post as the original
>> >>>>>> quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were "My words were "No, you
>> >>>>>> insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>> >>>>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
>> >>>>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
>> >>>>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
>> >>>> That's hard to know. ?But Peter commonly conflates different
>> >>>> things in one post. ?As I've just posted, I got that idea
>> >>>> someplace and posted it. ?Peter corrected me. ?I apologized
>> >>>> with faint hope that that would be the end of it. ?I was
>> >>>> wrong about that.
>> >>>> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
>> >>>> Doesn't bother me in the least. ?I've known that for about
>> >>>> 75 years. ?Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.
>> >>> possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)
>> >> I don't think so. ?He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?
>> >His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.
>> You shipped that one out, didn't you?
>You liked that joke? Lot more where that came from. I got a armada of
>them!
jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:45:55 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
> <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 18, 1:27 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >> >>>> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
> >> >>>> Doesn't bother me in the least. I've known that for about
> >> >>>> 75 years. Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.
> >> >>> possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)
> >> >> I don't think so. He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?
> >> >His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.
> >> You shipped that one out, didn't you?
> >You liked that joke? Lot more where that came from. I got a armada of
> >them!
> So what's armada with you?
Reminds me of when Bullwinkle went to college, What's Armada U.
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <lnmka85044dhbr6qfupgruq3v5quatu...@4ax.com>,
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:45:55 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
>> <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 18, 1:27?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> >>>> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
>> >> >>>> Doesn't bother me in the least. ?I've known that for about
>> >> >>>> 75 years. ?Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.
>> >> >>> possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)
>> >> >> I don't think so. ?He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?
>> >> >His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.
>> >> You shipped that one out, didn't you?
>> >You liked that joke? Lot more where that came from. I got a armada of
>> >them!
>> So what's armada with you?
>Reminds me of when Bullwinkle went to college, What's Armada U.
Google "Golden Hind". Compare to Sir Francis Drake above.
Cower in fear because he has an armada of them. I certainly
am.
>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:45:55 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
>>> <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Nov 18, 1:27?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> >> >>>> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
>>> >> >>>> Doesn't bother me in the least. ?I've known that for about
>>> >> >>>> 75 years. ?Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.
>>> >> >>> possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)
>>> >> >> I don't think so. ?He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?
>>> >> >His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.
>>> >> You shipped that one out, didn't you?
>>> >You liked that joke? Lot more where that came from. I got a armada of
>>> >them!
>>> So what's armada with you?
>>Reminds me of when Bullwinkle went to college, What's Armada U.
>Google "Golden Hind". Compare to Sir Francis Drake above.
>Cower in fear because he has an armada of them. I certainly
>am.
There are few things worse (hi again Walter) than the insinuation
someone missed a great pun by another who missed a pun that
acknowleded the first pun.
...not even an unexpected bite of bakers chocolate.
>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:45:55 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
>>>> <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >On Nov 18, 1:27?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> >> >>>> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
>>>> >> >>>> Doesn't bother me in the least. ?I've known that for about
>>>> >> >>>> 75 years. ?Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.
>>>> >> >>> possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)
>>>> >> >> I don't think so. ?He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?
>>>> >> >His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.
>>>> >> You shipped that one out, didn't you?
>>>> >You liked that joke? Lot more where that came from. I got a armada of
>>>> >them!
>>>> So what's armada with you?
>>>Reminds me of when Bullwinkle went to college, What's Armada U.
>>Google "Golden Hind". Compare to Sir Francis Drake above.
>>Cower in fear because he has an armada of them. I certainly
>>am.
>There are few things worse (hi again Walter) than the insinuation
>someone missed a great pun by another who missed a pun that
>acknowleded the first pun.
>...not even an unexpected bite of bakers chocolate.
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> (in article
> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
> > On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
> >> <snip reams of repetition>
> >>>> ...I have no
> >>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
> >>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
> >>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
> >>> Your post
> >> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
> > You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
Wrong, simpleton. YOU are trying to mind-read me. I was just being
optimistic about Casanova changing his mind. And he DID change his
mind about something he said to Brenner "I'm outta here."
> > How was I to know
> > that wasn't one of them?
And indeed, "I'm outta here" was another one.
As a result of staying longer, he has shackled himself to your libel,
almost as much as you have shackled yourself to Ron O's lie,
"admitting to having a sadistic streak."
You keep strengthening the chain that binds you to Ron O with each new
emulation of his stonewalling in the wake of that lie.
And so, the closing salutation I gave Bob applies to you too:
> > > >> "My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
> > > >> with an IQ of 50."
> > > >> [O'Shea]
> > > >> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with
> > > >> you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be
> > > >> insane."
> > > >> I'm not interested in anything but those two statements;
> > > >> your history with him is irrelevant to whether his
> > > >> characterization of your comment was accurate. It was.
> > > > You're claiming context is irrelevant. That doesn't become true just because you aren't interested in it.
> > > > The two statements are both context dependent. And even if both refer to a specific subject, "understanding" and "disagreeing" are entirely different concepts. But Peter's quote appears to be reference to a specific comment; "my words", and not a reference to everything he has ever said. O'Shea's characterization does not make that clear, and can be interpreted to refer to everything Peter said.
> > > There's certainly linguistic ambiguity, but did O'Shea ever claim that
> > > Peter referred to understanding anymore than one particular thing Peter
> > > said?
> > Jeez, Mitchell, isn't the use to which he put the word "anyone" enough
> > of a clue?
> > "You stated, flat out, that ***anyone***
> > who disagreed with you had to have an
> > IQ of less than 50 and also had to be
> > insane."
> > [asterisks added to make the word stand out]
> Compare:
With the above? Sure: the following is a huge amelioration of the
above.
> "You stated, flat out, that ***anyone***
> who disagreed [on more than one subject]
> with you had to have an IQ of less than 50
> and also had to be insane."
> With:
And now comes yet another huge amelioration:
> "You stated, flat out, that ***anyone***
> who disagreed [on that one subject]
> with you had to have an IQ of less than 50
> and also had to be insane."
> The use of the word "anyone" doesn't make make O'Shea claiming that
> you'd referred to not understanding anymore than one particular thing
> you'd said.
That is some real spin-doctoring on your part, Mitchell. Much better
is:
The use of the word "anyone" doesn't make O'Shea claim that
you'd referred to disagreeing with anything less than anything
you've ever said in talk.origins.
"anyone who disagrees with you" is a blanket statement with no
exceptions implied. More about this below.
> He may have meant what you think he meant, but what
> O'Shae wrote was in fact ambiguous on that point, and the word
> "anyone" makes no difference..
So you allege. But the fact that you completely disregarded the most
natural and straightforward interpretation ruins all pretense at
freedom of bias in what you say next:
> See, this is what I mean: you massively quote posts, indignantly
> proclaiming the quotes to be slam dunk evidence of your victimhood
> and other people's depravity.
I've done that to Ron O, and no one else since December 2010, not even
O'Shea so far. This is relevant to something I say about December 2010
below.
> But if one has the patients wade
> through,
Does anyone have the patience to wade through more than 0.1% of the
dealings between me and Ron O? Do even YOU have it?
> it come clear that people aren't saying what you clearly believe
> they're
> say. The above is a thankfully short and specific example.
I doubt that you can name even a single one that has been subjected to
one-tenth the amount of analysis that this "thankfully short and
specific example" has been subjected to.
>Yet you clearly
> think that O'Shae's use of the word "anyone" means I was misreading
> him when I asked "There's certainly linguistic ambiguity, but did
> O'Shea
> ever claim that Peter referred to understanding anymore than one
> particular thing Peter said?" That's disturbing.
Only to a biased observer. "anyone who disagrees with you" includes
people from all walks of life, interested in a limitless variety of
things, and having all possible perspectives on anything I might say.
> > Anyway, I'm surprised to see you here after you said confidently on
> > another thread that you know what I mean by defamation. O'Shea's
> > bizarre statement above is one example. O'Shea has made a host of
> > others directed at me. Would you like to see them, and perhaps re-
> > assess your confident comment?
> I'm here because I find Glenn's take on the meaning of passages
> interesting. And I've shown above exactly the sort of thing you
> mean by defamation. I shown that you've conjured a "libel" and
> "pathological lying" out of your strange inablity to understand plain
> English.
It may seem that way to you; I have no idea of what strange upbringing
you might have had to so radically affect your idea of what is "plain
English."
So let's take a simpler example: a ridiculously false claim which has
been repeated dozens of times at the ends (except for the .sig) of
replies by O'Shea to posts of mine, with insignificant and immaterial
variations in the wording.
Would you back me up if I replied to this with, "Mitchell Coffey
believes that nobody in talk.origins, not even you, takes literally
what you said here?"
If that isn't too tough for you, here is a tougher one: what if I said
"seriously" instead of "literally"?
> > Anyway, now you know who Y is. Can you also guess who Z is? I am
> > referring to the following comments I made on that thread:
> > _________________________
> > Also, NOBODY but myself ever accuses anyone of lying about me (except
> > perhaps Martinez on rare occasions), even though I am
> > about by a tiny number of people. So what is a person to think when X
> > goes on being palsy-walsy with Y when Y is massively defaming me, and
> > X is a respected regular in the newsgroup?
> > And what is a person to think when Z (another respected regular)
> > actually tries to show that Y did not lie about me on a given set of
> > occasions? It happened yesterday.
> > Peter Nyikos
> Madre de Dios: T.O. FAQs don't include the "defamations" you call from
> the
> mists, and would see in Rorschach blotches.
Ah, but some of those FAQs were written by real low-lifes. What is a
person to think when, curious to see what kinds of everyday dealings
with others the author had, follows some talk.origins threads and sees
derogatory claims galore by the FAQ author, attested to by a number of
other people on the same thread?
> I'm not stroking your narcisim by play your guessing game.
Instead, you stroked O'Shea's narcissism by playing a guessing game of
your own. And the available evidence strongly suggests that O'Shea is
far more narcissistic than I am, difficult though it may be for
someone with your biases against me to believe.
How far back do those biases go? I told you on another thread that
any biases I might have only go back to December 2010.
[snip highly biased tongue-lashing by you, to get to a demonstrably
false statement]
> you are not capable of civil
> discourse or of inducing it in others,
Not only have I conducted unblemished civil discourse with lots of
t.o. regulars, I have even treat people who attack me courteously if I
believe they are sincere. Such was the case with Arkalen on two
separate occasions. I have been unfailingly civil with her.
> you can�t enter the least
> controversial topic
> without it becoming a hate fest:
Also demonstrably false.
>you are the nastiest, most over-self-
> regarding
> poster on T.O., beyond the clear bedlamites, like Prawnster and
> Nando.
You are completely ignorant of what Ron O is really like, then. AFAIK
nobody but I gives a damn which of us is telling the truth; but if you
were to count up the sheer number of accusations of lying, being a
scumbag, etc. that have gone between us, you'd find it's Ron O, no
contest.
And if you think I am self-regarding, you haven't seen how Ron O acts
when I've caught him in lies.
> In message
> <9c4a22f1-d5b0-4585-81b5-19cc3154f...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Nov 16, 5:37 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>messagenews:18439131-784d-4617-ba3e-8eae31326719@u9g2000vbm.googlegroup > >>s.com...
> >> > On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> > > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in
> >> > >messagenews:k85f8l02ic@news3.newsguy.com...
> >> > > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> >> > > > (in article
> >> > > > <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
> >> > > > > On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> > > > >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> > > > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> > > > >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
> >> > > > >> <snip reams of repetition>
> >> > > > >>>> ...I have no
> >> > > > >>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
> >> > > > >>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
> >> > > > >>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
> >> > > > >>> Your post
> >> > > > >> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
> >> > > > > You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
> >> > > > Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
> >> > > I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something
> >> > >he didn't say.
> >> > > "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
> >> > > panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
> >> > > mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
> >> > > Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
> >> > > panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
> >> > > possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you
> >> > >insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have
> >> > >produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ
> >> > > of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5?dmod... Peter meant that anyone could understand he was speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a flat out lie.
> >> > How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
> >> > on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
> >> > It's not flat out anything.
> >> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any
> >>sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent
> >>microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same
> >>post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were
> >>"My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
> >Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
> >they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
> >do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
> As I recall, J.J. referred to agreement, not understanding. It seems
> that Professor Nyikos has a valid complaint on that point. But if
> Professor Nyikos hadn't found it necessary to indulge in a gratuitous
> insult
Which gratuitous insult would that be? The only actual insult was
"No, you insufferable twit!"
The bit about "sane" and "IQ over 50" was a purely illustrative
statement in the wake of Paul's incorrect "IIRC" recollection that I
had merely said "Wrong". Rather than wait for confirmation, Paul waded
in with a remark about how unhelpful that one-word reply was.
My comment was not directed at Paul at all, but only was meant to
counter the claim of "unhelpful." Note, I had given Paul the benefit
of the doubt and assumed he was really working off a false
recollection.
Contrary to Mitchell's highly biased tongue-lashing, I did NOT assume
Paul had deliberately misrepresented what I'd said, in order to
falsely accuse me of being unhelpful.
> the issue would never have come up. (Getting confused by the
> various just so stories, especially if not paying close attention, is
> quite credible.)
I'd like to see what "just so stories" this cryptic comment alludes
to.
On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:17:16 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article <403211a3-47ba-4c8a-aa4b-61bb8efe1...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
>> you are the nastiest, most over-self-
>> regarding
>> poster on T.O., beyond the clear bedlamites, like Prawnster and
>> Nando.
That's obvious.
> You are completely ignorant of what Ron O is really like, then.
Oh, we know. We merely don't agree with you.
> AFAIK nobody > but I gives a damn which of us is telling the truth;
Oh, we know that, too. And it ain't you.
> but if you were to count > up the sheer number of accusations of lying, being a scumbag, etc. that have > gone between us, you'd find it's Ron O, no contest.
Well... you _are_ a lying scumbag. The truth hurts, don't it?
