Alan Feduccia again

[John Harshman]

For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:

Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.

It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
it's the same old crap.

[chris thompson]

Really? Auk lets him publish without peer review? That sucks.

Chris

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:46:50 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

He seems to have a persistent emotional stake in the
question; never a good start for a scientist.

I'm curious... Is the journal itself non-peer-reviewed, or
do they provide an unreviewed forum for "edge" topics? And
if the second, are the non-peer-reviewed articles clearly
identified as such?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Burkhard]

Well, just shows that the Auk is not really the best bird, it just
looks a bit like one in a really bad light.

[John Harshman]

They're called "perspectives" and are usually invited reviews.

[John Harshman]

On 2/21/13 9:50 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:46:50 -0800, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:
>
>> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
>> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>>
>> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>>
>> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
>> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
>> it's the same old crap.
>
> He seems to have a persistent emotional stake in the
> question; never a good start for a scientist.
>
> I'm curious... Is the journal itself non-peer-reviewed, or
> do they provide an unreviewed forum for "edge" topics? And
> if the second, are the non-peer-reviewed articles clearly
> identified as such?

No, yes, and yes.

[Dana Tweedy]

He's back on the B.A.N.D. wagon again, eh?

DJT

[John Harshman]

You're out of date. The new acronym is MANIAC (maniraptorans are not in
actuality coelurosaurs), because once the BANDits decided they could no
longer deny the feathers on, say, Caudipteryx and Microraptor, they
flipped to the position that all maniraptorans were really birds and not
dinosaurs at all.

[raven1]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:45:09 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 2/21/13 11:40 AM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> On 2/21/13 8:46 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
>>> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>>>
>>> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>>>
>>> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
>>> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
>>> it's the same old crap.
>>>
>>
>> He's back on the B.A.N.D. wagon again, eh?
>
>You're out of date. The new acronym is MANIAC (maniraptorans are not in
>actuality coelurosaurs),

I just spit coffee all over my screen...

[Rodjk #613]

That's ABSURD. Or did I mix my metaphors again?

Rodjk #613

[John Harshman]

It's spelled ABSRD, I believe.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 21 February 2013 21:45:46 UTC, Rodjk #613 wrote:
> That's ABSURD. Or did I mix my metaphors again?

As I've heard it, in this case, "dat's absoid".

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:53:53 -0800, the following appeared

Thanks. So long as such screeds are clearly marked as
non-reviewed (i.e., essentially as mail-in editorials) I
don't see the harm. It could even be beneficial, since it
puts such things in context ("This article is this person's
opinion, nothing more, and we don't endorse it.")

[John Harshman]

Actually, I think the fact that these articles (called "perspectives")
are invited, i.e. requested by the editor, does put a stamp of approval
on it.

[Paul J Gans]

I agree. There are times when minority opinions need to
be seen.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Ray Martinez]

Think like me or be censored.

Ray

[chris thompson]

Are you trying to say Feduccia was censored for holding contrarian
viewpoints? The section of _Auk_ where he published was for *invited*
papers, and he could say whatever he wanted and not have it subject to
peer review. That seems an odd form of censorship.

Chris

[Dana Tweedy]

That's just what you said in another thread when you ranted that all
"false" information on the internet should be deleted. Obviously it
was you who would determine what is false....

DJT

[John S. Wilkins]

Here's a list of his censored publications

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=alan+feduccia
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net

[chris thompson]

On Feb 22, 9:35�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

Of course I pressed "Send" before thinking everything through. It
occurred to me after the fact that Ray was probably thinking John
wanting to censor Feduccia. But John wrote that he was "annoyed" at
_Auk_ . John is one of the better writers on t.o.; he's clear,
concise, and means what he says (you're not so bad either, Dr.
Wilkins). Annoyance is not censorship. Harshman did not make any
mention of shutting down _Auk_, or car-bombing them, or even cutting
off his subscription (I suspect Harshman has a subscription to _Auk_,
it being the premier North American ornithological journal).

It seems Ray believes every crank and crackpot deserves to have a
place in peer-reviewed journals. The fact is (whether any of us like
it or not) someone like Feduccia *earned* the privelege of publishing
a non-peer-reviewed article.

Chris

[John Harshman]

Well, now, I don't think he actually did. It's the umpteenth article
with the same content, he's been debunked many times without any changes
on his part, and in short he closely resembles a creationist on this
issue. Once, many years ago, he did some interesting work in avian
paleontology, but I don't think that gives him the privilege.

If I were the editor, I never would have asked for the article, and I
don't think the editor should have, and I complained about it to him.
Crank papers should not be published in respectable journals. Now, if he
had some kind of new study, one that had been subject to peer review,
that would be another matter. One man's censorship is another's discretion.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:52:54 -0800, the following appeared

I didn't know about the "invited" part, but even so any
professional (which is, I presume, the audience at which the
journal is aimed) should be able to tell the difference.
Sort of like CNN inviting Boehner for an interview... ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

....and yet the specific comment was that, even in a
peer-reviewed professional journal, dissenting opinion was
*not* censored.

Do you ever actually read (and more importantly, understand)
the posts to which you make ill-informed replies?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:30:56 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dana Tweedy
<reddf...@gmail.com>:

*That* would be interesting...

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 22, 6:15�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No, I'm saying John Harshman thought the journal should not have
published Feduccia because he disagrees with him.

"It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology

continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,

it's the same old crap" (JH).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 23, 9:53�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >On Feb 21, 7:46 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
> >> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>
> >> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>
> >> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
> >> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
> >> it's the same old crap.
>
> >Think like me or be censored.
>
> ....and yet the specific comment was that, even in a
> peer-reviewed professional journal, dissenting opinion was
> *not* censored.

John expressed strong sentiment that Feduccia should not be given a
microphone in said journal.

> Do you ever actually read (and more importantly, understand)
> the posts to which you make ill-informed replies?

Anyone can fact check and confirm that it's you who has not read with
understanding, not me. You've opened your mouth without thinking----in
goes the foot.

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 2/23/13 10:28 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 22, 6:15 pm, chris thompson<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 4:31 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 21, 7:46 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
>>>> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>>
>>>> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>>
>>>> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
>>>> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
>>>> it's the same old crap.
>>
>>> Think like me or be censored.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> Are you trying to say Feduccia was censored for holding contrarian
>> viewpoints? The section of _Auk_ where he published was for *invited*
>> papers, and he could say whatever he wanted and not have it subject to
>> peer review. That seems an odd form of censorship.
>>
>> Chris
>
> No, I'm saying John Harshman thought the journal should not have
> published Feduccia because he disagrees with him.

Shouldn't have published, yes. But not because I disagree with him.
Because he had nothing to offer. He presented no good evidence, he
didn't address objections, his arguments were fallacious, and much of
the article was empty invective. In this way he resembles the typical
creationist. And this would be possible only in the absence of peer
review. Now, if he had had something to say, his publication would have
been OK even though I (and, I should mention, almost all biologists who
know anything about the subject) disagree with him.

[John Harshman]

Not much. CNN is in the business of investigating all important
viewpoints. They have to invite Boehner about as much as they invite
Pelosi. The editor of the Auk should certainly use the invitation to
invite voices he thinks aren't getting proper attention. But Feduccia
already has plenty of attention, much more than he deserves.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:35:50 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Feb 23, 9:53�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >On Feb 21, 7:46 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
>> >> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>>
>> >> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>>
>> >> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
>> >> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
>> >> it's the same old crap.
>>
>> >Think like me or be censored.
>>
>> ....and yet the specific comment was that, even in a
>> peer-reviewed professional journal, dissenting opinion was
>> *not* censored.
>
>John expressed strong sentiment that Feduccia should not be given a
>microphone in said journal.

No, he did not; he expressed annoyance that Auk, a
peer-reviewed journal, provided a forum for
non-peer-reviewed opinion. Learn to read for comprehension.

And even if he had, you still cling to the erroneous belief
that failure to provide a soapbox on demand from which to
rant constitutes censorship. It doesn't. The fact that one
is allowed to talk confers no obligation on *anyone* to
listen.

>> Do you ever actually read (and more importantly, understand)
>> the posts to which you make ill-informed replies?
>
>Anyone can fact check and confirm that it's you who has not read with
>understanding, not me. You've opened your mouth without thinking----in
>goes the foot.

Come back when you learn what "censorship" actually means.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:32:59 -0800, the following appeared

Point(s) taken. It's difficult to come up with an analogy
not in another technical field (an expanding-Earth
invitational piece in a geology journal?), and one wasn't
really required to make the point.

[John Harshman]

On 2/24/13 10:46 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:35:50 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
>> On Feb 23, 9:53 am, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 21, 7:46 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
>>>>> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>>>
>>>>> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>>>
>>>>> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
>>>>> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
>>>>> it's the same old crap.
>>>
>>>> Think like me or be censored.
>>>
>>> ....and yet the specific comment was that, even in a
>>> peer-reviewed professional journal, dissenting opinion was
>>> *not* censored.
>>
>> John expressed strong sentiment that Feduccia should not be given a
>> microphone in said journal.
>
> No, he did not; he expressed annoyance that Auk, a
> peer-reviewed journal, provided a forum for
> non-peer-reviewed opinion. Learn to read for comprehension.

Sorry to say it, but Ray is right in this instance. There is a place for
non-peer-reviewed opinion pieces. But not all opinions should be given
space. We can all agree (except Ray) that creationist opinion pieces
have no place in the Auk. Feduccia's article is only slightly less bogus.

> And even if he had, you still cling to the erroneous belief
> that failure to provide a soapbox on demand from which to
> rant constitutes censorship. It doesn't. The fact that one
> is allowed to talk confers no obligation on *anyone* to
> listen.

Now that's right.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:56:41 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

I disagree; see below.

> There is a place for
>non-peer-reviewed opinion pieces. But not all opinions should be given
>space. We can all agree (except Ray) that creationist opinion pieces
>have no place in the Auk. Feduccia's article is only slightly less bogus.
>
>> And even if he had, you still cling to the erroneous belief
>> that failure to provide a soapbox on demand from which to
>> rant constitutes censorship. It doesn't. The fact that one
>> is allowed to talk confers no obligation on *anyone* to
>> listen.
>
>Now that's right.

If that's right then you weren't advocating censorship
(i.e., suppression); you were advocating not providing a
soapbox, especially one in a respected journal. I believe
neither of us would object to an article in National
Enquirer, which negates any claim of censorship. IMHO, of
course.

>>>> Do you ever actually read (and more importantly, understand)
>>>> the posts to which you make ill-informed replies?
>>>
>>> Anyone can fact check and confirm that it's you who has not read with
>>> understanding, not me. You've opened your mouth without thinking----in
>>> goes the foot.
>>
>> Come back when you learn what "censorship" actually means.

[John Harshman]

It seems odd that you feel qualified to disagree with me about what my
opinion is. I can see that you might think I stated it unclearly the
first time, but how can you think I don't know what I meant?

>> There is a place for
>> non-peer-reviewed opinion pieces. But not all opinions should be given
>> space. We can all agree (except Ray) that creationist opinion pieces
>> have no place in the Auk. Feduccia's article is only slightly less bogus.
>>
>>> And even if he had, you still cling to the erroneous belief
>>> that failure to provide a soapbox on demand from which to
>>> rant constitutes censorship. It doesn't. The fact that one
>>> is allowed to talk confers no obligation on *anyone* to
>>> listen.
>>
>> Now that's right.
>
> If that's right then you weren't advocating censorship
> (i.e., suppression); you were advocating not providing a
> soapbox, especially one in a respected journal. I believe
> neither of us would object to an article in National
> Enquirer, which negates any claim of censorship. IMHO, of
> course.

True. But you "corrected" Ray when he said "John expressed strong

sentiment that Feduccia should not be given a microphone in said

journal." And said journal was not the National Enquirer. I wasn't
claiming Ray was right about everything he said, just about that one
statement.

[pnyikos]

On Feb 25, 1:21�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/25/13 10:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:56:41 -0800, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman

> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net>:

>
> >> On 2/24/13 10:46 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:35:50 -0800 (PST), the following
> >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> >>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >>>> On Feb 23, 9:53 am, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> � wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST), the following
> >>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:46 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> � wrote:
> >>>>>>> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
> >>>>>>> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>
> >>>>>>> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>
> >>>>>>> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
> >>>>>>> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
> >>>>>>> it's the same old crap.
>
> >>>>>> Think like me or be censored.

Ray has a point, John. If it is the same old crap, you should be able
to point us to posts where you have refuted it--or else refute it
again.

Heck, I don't even know whether Feduccia is talking about Aves or
Neornithes, because you've given us no clues as to the content--you
and everyone else are having a virtual Howlerfest poor-mouthing
Feduccia.

Did he repeat the theory that was described in the following 2000 post
in sci.bio.paleontology [added by me to the newsgroups] by your old
nemesis, Cal King?

In article <85dfl0$18...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>, nyi...@math.sc.edu (Peter
Nyikos) wrote:
> get...@nobull.net (Cal King) writes:
>
>>Since the radiation of modern orders occurred in the Tertiary, there really
>>isn't any incontrovertible Neornitheans in the Cretaceous. There were
>>numerous Ornithurine birds in the Cretaceous, but these were, according to
>>Feduccia, only "transitional shorebirds"
>
>What about the Charadriiformes? Kenneth Kinman says they
>are uncontroversial modern birds of the Cretaceous.
>
>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
>University of South Carolina
>Columbia, SC 29208

Feduccia (1996) calls them "transitional shorebirds". This group
appeared to
have been the only group of birds to have survived the K-T holocaust.
My
speculation is that toothlessness is adaptive in the sand sifting
niche (no
sand will get between one's teeth if one has no teeth). Since the
transitional shorebirds are likely to be toothless, their status as
sole
survivors and ancestors of modern bird orders is the reason why all
modern
birds are toothless. From this group sprung the shorebird-modern
order
mosaics in the early Tertiary. The transitional shorebirds are
therefore
ancestral to the Neornithes, but not Neornitheans themselves.
========== end of included post,
Message-ID: <85fjp0$qsm$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>

Note the similarity to the recent theory that Placentalia dates only
back to the Paleocene, for which I started a new thread today.

[snip]

> >>>> John expressed strong sentiment that Feduccia should not be given a
> >>>> microphone in said journal.
>
> >>> No, he did not; he expressed annoyance that Auk, a
> >>> peer-reviewed journal, provided a forum for
> >>> non-peer-reviewed opinion. Learn to read for comprehension.
>
> >> Sorry to say it, but Ray is right in this instance.
>
> > I disagree; see below.
>
> It seems odd that you feel qualified to disagree with me about what my
> opinion is. I can see that you might think I stated it unclearly the
> first time, but how can you think I don't know what I meant?

I've seen Casanova take statements out of context and insist that he
is correct, because he is only replying to the cherry-picked stuff.
This may be more of the same.

> >> There is a place for
> >> non-peer-reviewed opinion pieces. But not all opinions should be given
> >> space. We can all agree (except Ray) that creationist opinion pieces
> >> have no place in the Auk. Feduccia's article is only slightly less bogus.

There you go, just making unhelpful catty remarks instead of refuting
or even stating the "bogus" claims.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

I could just point you to papers where others have refuted it, but try
looking at the literature for yourself first. And if Ray had a point, it
certainly wasn't that. I

> Heck, I don't even know whether Feduccia is talking about Aves or
> Neornithes, because you've given us no clues as to the content--you
> and everyone else are having a virtual Howlerfest poor-mouthing
> Feduccia.

I don't particularly care whether you know what Feduccia is talking
about. But you could certainly find out by searching if you care to.

> Did he repeat the theory that was described in the following 2000 post
> in sci.bio.paleontology [added by me to the newsgroups] by your old
> nemesis, Cal King?

No.

> There you go, just making unhelpful catty remarks instead of refuting
> or even stating the "bogus" claims.

If you would like to discuss Feduccia's claims, I would be glad to. But
you must first familiarize yourself with them. You can see at least the
first page here:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/auk.2013.130.1.1?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101700989033

and I would imagine you can get access through your university for the
whole thing.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:21:38 -0800, the following appeared

I didn't; see below...

>>> There is a place for
>>> non-peer-reviewed opinion pieces. But not all opinions should be given
>>> space. We can all agree (except Ray) that creationist opinion pieces
>>> have no place in the Auk. Feduccia's article is only slightly less bogus.
>>>
>>>> And even if he had, you still cling to the erroneous belief
>>>> that failure to provide a soapbox on demand from which to
>>>> rant constitutes censorship. It doesn't. The fact that one
>>>> is allowed to talk confers no obligation on *anyone* to
>>>> listen.
>>>
>>> Now that's right.
>>
>> If that's right then you weren't advocating censorship
>> (i.e., suppression); you were advocating not providing a
>> soapbox, especially one in a respected journal. I believe
>> neither of us would object to an article in National
>> Enquirer, which negates any claim of censorship. IMHO, of
>> course.
>
>True. But you "corrected" Ray when he said "John expressed strong
>sentiment that Feduccia should not be given a microphone in said
>journal." And said journal was not the National Enquirer. I wasn't
>claiming Ray was right about everything he said, just about that one
>statement.

Ray's original statement, to which the one you cited was a
follow-up, was specifically about censorship; my comments
were intended to correct Ray specifically about the meaning
of censorship and whether your original comment could be
classified as such, and I assumed (mea culpa) that your
follow-up comment related to that rather than to Ray's
follow-up taken in isolation, and I didn't realize that "in
this instance" referred to *only* that comment, rather than
to the thread as a whole. Again, mea culpa, and sorry if
that wasn't clear.

>>>>>> Do you ever actually read (and more importantly, understand)
>>>>>> the posts to which you make ill-informed replies?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone can fact check and confirm that it's you who has not read with
>>>>> understanding, not me. You've opened your mouth without thinking----in
>>>>> goes the foot.
>>>>
>>>> Come back when you learn what "censorship" actually means.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:58:57 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Feb 25, 1:21�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>> On 2/25/13 10:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:56:41 -0800, the following appeared
>> > in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net>:

>> >> On 2/24/13 10:46 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> >>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:35:50 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

<snip>

>[snip]
>
>> >>>> John expressed strong sentiment that Feduccia should not be given a
>> >>>> microphone in said journal.
>>
>> >>> No, he did not; he expressed annoyance that Auk, a
>> >>> peer-reviewed journal, provided a forum for
>> >>> non-peer-reviewed opinion. Learn to read for comprehension.
>>
>> >> Sorry to say it, but Ray is right in this instance.
>>
>> > I disagree; see below.
>>
>> It seems odd that you feel qualified to disagree with me about what my
>> opinion is. I can see that you might think I stated it unclearly the
>> first time, but how can you think I don't know what I meant?
>
>I've seen Casanova take statements out of context and insist that he
>is correct, because he is only replying to the cherry-picked stuff.
>This may be more of the same.

And yet, once again, you would be mistaken, as should be
clear from my response to John elsethread. I may have been
mistaken in my interpretation of John's meaning, but I based
my last response to him *specifically* on the full context
of the subthread of Ray's claim of censorship, rather than
on his last reply to Ray taken in isolation. Of course, you
snipped that context (what were you whining about "out of
context" again?); I've left in all you included of it.

Grow up, stop whining and starting endlessly-recursive posts
which are damn near impossible to follow, and I may take you
out of my "avoid this person for your sanity's sake" basket.

[John Harshman]

That was part of Ray's original statement, and was part of what you were
replying to. We can agree that what I propose isn't censorship. But you
also tried to correct Ray on the substance of what I propose, and in
that you were wrong.

> my comments
> were intended to correct Ray specifically about the meaning
> of censorship and whether your original comment could be
> classified as such, and I assumed (mea culpa) that your
> follow-up comment related to that rather than to Ray's
> follow-up taken in isolation, and I didn't realize that "in
> this instance" referred to *only* that comment, rather than
> to the thread as a whole. Again, mea culpa, and sorry if
> that wasn't clear.

That wasn't clear at all. In fact, it's clearly contradicted by the
structure of your post. Now in fact you had two paragraphs. The first
paragraph says I didn't say what Ray thought I said, which was wrong. It
was your second paragraph that addressed the meaning of censorship, and
on that we agree. When you take issue with specifics, I assume you are
taking issue with specifics. A point by point analysis, in which claimss
are addressed individual rather than as a gestalt, has much to recommend
it, and that's what you did. Don't backpedal now.

[pnyikos]

On Feb 23, 12:23�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:


> Well, now, I don't think he actually did. It's the umpteenth article
> with the same content, he's been debunked many times without any changes
> on his part, and in short he closely resembles a creationist on this
> issue.

I wonder how many people here would say the same things about me and
directed panspermia, without lifting a finger to write just where the
alleged debunking took place.

>Once, many years ago, he did some interesting work in avian
> paleontology, but I don't think that gives him the privilege.

Ah, yes, only *active* innovators deserve to be heard in prestigious
journals. :-) :-(

> If I were the editor, I never would have asked for the article, and I
> don't think the editor should have, and I complained about it to him.

Did you offer to write a rebuttal article, or suggest the name of
someone who could be invited to do one?

Have you received any reply to what you did write?

> Crank papers should not be published in respectable journals. Now, if he
> had some kind of new study, one that had been subject to peer review,
> that would be another matter. One man's censorship is another's discretion.

See above about innovators.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

I was talking about a point which anyone can see if they interpret
"censoring" as liberally as you interpret "paranoia".

You are "censoring" all information in this thread about the contents
of Feduccia's latest oeuvre, while laying the burden on us if we want
to know what's wrong with what Feduccia wrote.

You, who almost seem to be proud of how lazy you are, certainly don't
cut slack for anyone else--you make us compensate for your laziness.

> > Heck, I don't even know whether Feduccia is talking about Aves or
> > Neornithes, because you've given us no clues as to the content--you
> > and everyone else are having a virtual Howlerfest poor-mouthing
> > Feduccia.

Now I get the "me Tarzan, you nobody" treatment:

> I don't particularly care whether you know what Feduccia is talking
> about. But you could certainly find out by searching if you care to.

And so could everyone else, but you've got them (except Ray) eating
out of your hand, so why would they bother?

You got quite a few people to go along with your unsupported
sneering. Will you act as though ALL of them knew just what was wrong
with Feduccia's latest offering, without even bothering to poll them?

I have a good mind to quiz each one of them. Would that mean that I
am "obsessed" with you?

> > Did he repeat the theory that was described in the following 2000 post
> > in sci.bio.paleontology [added by me to the newsgroups] by your old
> > nemesis, Cal King?
>
> No.

You sure are a man of few words when it comes to on-topic discussion
of people you poor-mouth and who aren't even around to defend
themselves. Would that you were so taciturn when sneering and
caviling.

> > There you go, just making unhelpful catty remarks instead of refuting
> > or even stating the "bogus" claims.
>
> If you would like to discuss Feduccia's claims, I would be glad to.

Taking the easy way out, not even trying to say which of his claims
are right and which ones are wrong.

> But
> you must first familiarize yourself with them.

Why don't you tell all your ardent fans to first familiarize
themselves with Feduccia's claims before agreeing with you about them?

Oh. Right. You assume they are very well informed and sophisticated,
just as you assumed Ron O was sophisticated about "crown groups" and
"stem groups". Well, you can see how sophisticated he was about just
getting the main theme of a _Science_ article right -- he couldn't
even follow a BBC popularization.

talk.origins is full of "honorary experts" -all they have to do is to
avoid irritating you, and they get super kid gloves treatment, and
have all kinds of unmerited expertise ascribed to them.

>You can see at least the
> first page here:
>

> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/auk.2013.130.1.1?uid=3739560&ui...

>
> and I would imagine you can get access through your university for the
> whole thing.

I got the whole thing right away, and printed it out - the whole 21
pages, of which almost 5 are references. Do you expect me to read the
whole thing, word for word, before deigning to tell me what is wrong,
and why?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 26, 12:32�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:58:57 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

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

The words "once again" are deceitful. You took the opposite tack from
Mitchell Coffey, who insisted on the full context of the quote in
question -- but ignored the wider context of other, virtually
identical quotes from James that had no such accompanying context.

And so you both came out looking like a pair of jerks, with Coffey
even stuffily saying he knew what you were doing-- but he did not
spell out what he was implying you were doing.

You adamantly refused to look at anything except the quote, even
though it had ambiguous aspects, and thus shackled yourself to a libel
by James just as firmly as Coffey did.

> I may have been
> mistaken in my interpretation of John's meaning, but I based
> my last response to him *specifically* on the full context
> of the subthread of Ray's claim of censorship,

"No, he did not" is not salvaged by the full context. Quite the
contrary.

> rather than
> on his last reply to Ray taken in isolation. Of course, you
> snipped that context (what were you whining about "out of
> context" again?);

You are indulging in a dirty debating tactic called "The One Shade of
Gray Meltdown", paying no attention to the issue of what the context
does or does not show.

> I've left in all you included of it.
>
> Grow up, stop whining

Stop being dishonest, insincere, and hypocritical, and there will be
nothing to "whine" about.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:A6Kdnd1VIqj...@giganews.com...

> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>
> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>
> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
> it's the same old crap.
>

"Perspectives are points of view expressed on a particular subject. They are normally solicited by the editor and, beginning with the January 2007 issue, are reviewed externally by at least one person, as well as by the Editor. "
http://www.aou.org/auk/

Not exactly non-peer-reviewed.

[Glenn]

"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:8b33d121-4cb1-41f6...@r13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

It's the day of whine and roses.

[John Harshman]

On 2/26/13 11:57 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 23, 12:23 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Well, now, I don't think he actually did. It's the umpteenth article
>> with the same content, he's been debunked many times without any changes
>> on his part, and in short he closely resembles a creationist on this
>> issue.
>
> I wonder how many people here would say the same things about me and
> directed panspermia, without lifting a finger to write just where the
> alleged debunking took place.

I wonder how many people would use even the slightest chance to make a
thread about themselves.

>> Once, many years ago, he did some interesting work in avian
>> paleontology, but I don't think that gives him the privilege.
>
> Ah, yes, only *active* innovators deserve to be heard in prestigious
> journals. :-) :-(

I don't know where you're going with this.

>> If I were the editor, I never would have asked for the article, and I
>> don't think the editor should have, and I complained about it to him.
>
> Did you offer to write a rebuttal article, or suggest the name of
> someone who could be invited to do one?

No.

> Have you received any reply to what you did write?

No.

>> Crank papers should not be published in respectable journals. Now, if he
>> had some kind of new study, one that had been subject to peer review,
>> that would be another matter. One man's censorship is another's discretion.
>
> See above about innovators.

I saw it. But you need to make your point, whatever it is, more plainly.

[John Harshman]

Read Feduccia's paper, then we can talk. Until then, there's nothing to
talk about. Feel free to call me lazy if that amuses you.

>>> Heck, I don't even know whether Feduccia is talking about Aves or
>>> Neornithes, because you've given us no clues as to the content--you
>>> and everyone else are having a virtual Howlerfest poor-mouthing
>>> Feduccia.
>
> Now I get the "me Tarzan, you nobody" treatment:
>
>> I don't particularly care whether you know what Feduccia is talking
>> about. But you could certainly find out by searching if you care to.
>
> And so could everyone else, but you've got them (except Ray) eating
> out of your hand, so why would they bother?
>
> You got quite a few people to go along with your unsupported
> sneering. Will you act as though ALL of them knew just what was wrong
> with Feduccia's latest offering, without even bothering to poll them?
>
> I have a good mind to quiz each one of them. Would that mean that I
> am "obsessed" with you?

You would certainly be obsessed with something. I'm thinking that many
people are familiar with Feduccia's line, even if you aren't. Nor is it
necessary to have read his current article to find out, provided you
have read some of his previous rants on the subject.

>>> Did he repeat the theory that was described in the following 2000 post
>>> in sci.bio.paleontology [added by me to the newsgroups] by your old
>>> nemesis, Cal King?
>>
>> No.
>
> You sure are a man of few words when it comes to on-topic discussion
> of people you poor-mouth and who aren't even around to defend
> themselves. Would that you were so taciturn when sneering and
> caviling.

Would that you would be taciturn, ever. I told you succinctly that the
subject wasn't what you might have imagined it was. As anyone familiar
with Feduccia should know, the subject is whether birds are dinosaurs.

>>> There you go, just making unhelpful catty remarks instead of refuting
>>> or even stating the "bogus" claims.
>>
>> If you would like to discuss Feduccia's claims, I would be glad to.
>
> Taking the easy way out, not even trying to say which of his claims
> are right and which ones are wrong.

In order to do so, I would first have to explain his claims to you in
detail. Wouldn't it be simpler all around if you familiarized yourself
with them first?

>> But
>> you must first familiarize yourself with them.
>
> Why don't you tell all your ardent fans to first familiarize
> themselves with Feduccia's claims before agreeing with you about them?
>
> Oh. Right. You assume they are very well informed and sophisticated,
> just as you assumed Ron O was sophisticated about "crown groups" and
> "stem groups". Well, you can see how sophisticated he was about just
> getting the main theme of a _Science_ article right -- he couldn't
> even follow a BBC popularization.
>
> talk.origins is full of "honorary experts" -all they have to do is to
> avoid irritating you, and they get super kid gloves treatment, and
> have all kinds of unmerited expertise ascribed to them.
>
>> You can see at least the
>> first page here:
>>
>> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/auk.2013.130.1.1?uid=3739560&ui...
>>
>> and I would imagine you can get access through your university for the
>> whole thing.
>
> I got the whole thing right away, and printed it out - the whole 21
> pages, of which almost 5 are references. Do you expect me to read the
> whole thing, word for word, before deigning to tell me what is wrong,
> and why?

Yes. Or at the very least skim it in sufficient detail to know what is
being said. How do you hope to discuss a paper without doing so? Don't
worry, it won't take as long as you think, as much of it is empty
invective with no actual content. Rather like this post of yours.

[John Harshman]

Yes. And that's why I said "non-peer-reviewed".

[Burkhard]

"They laughed about Einstein", i guess - but then they also laughed
about Bozo the clown, or so the saying goes.

[chris thompson]

Wow. Just, wow. John's a grown-up and can defend his position for
himself, but this begs a reply.

Just because John doesn't present a point-by-point rebuttal of
Feduccia's article does not in any way constitute "censorship". If you
want to know Feduccia's position, open your wallet and read his
piece.

If you want to know what's wrong with Feduccia's position, take 10
years to study the literature, look at the fossils, do the DNA
sequencing- then get back to us.

Peter, a few months ago you reappeared on t.o. You seemed pretty
reasonable then. You've devolved.

Chris

> > > Heck, I don't even know whether Feduccia is talking about Aves or
> > > Neornithes, because you've given us no clues as to the content--you
> > > and everyone else are having a virtual Howlerfest poor-mouthing
> > > Feduccia.
>
> Now I get the "me Tarzan, you nobody" treatment:
>
> > I don't particularly care whether you know what Feduccia is talking
> > about. But you could certainly find out by searching if you care to.
>
> And so could everyone else, but you've got them (except Ray) eating
> out of your hand, so why would they bother?
>
> You got quite a few people to go along with your unsupported

> sneering. 嚙磕ill you act as though ALL of them knew just what was wrong

> with Feduccia's latest offering, without even bothering to poll them?
>

> I have a good mind to quiz each one of them. 嚙磕ould that mean that I

> am "obsessed" with you?
>
> > > Did he repeat the theory that was described in the following 2000 post
> > > in sci.bio.paleontology [added by me to the newsgroups] by your old
> > > nemesis, Cal King?
>
> > No.
>
> You sure are a man of few words when it comes to on-topic discussion
> of people you poor-mouth and who aren't even around to defend

> themselves. 嚙磕ould that you were so taciturn when sneering and

> caviling.
>
> > > There you go, just making unhelpful catty remarks instead of refuting
> > > or even stating the "bogus" claims.
>
> > If you would like to discuss Feduccia's claims, I would be glad to.
>
> Taking the easy way out, not even trying to say which of his claims
> are right and which ones are wrong.
>
> > But
> > you must first familiarize yourself with them.
>
> Why don't you tell all your ardent fans to first familiarize
> themselves with Feduccia's claims before agreeing with you about them?
>

> Oh. 嚙磋ight. 嚙磐ou assume they are very well informed and sophisticated,

> just as you assumed Ron O was sophisticated about "crown groups" and

> "stem groups". 嚙磕ell, you can see how sophisticated he was about just

> getting the main theme of a _Science_ article right -- he couldn't
> even follow a BBC popularization.
>
> talk.origins is full of "honorary experts" -all they have to do is to
> avoid irritating you, and they get super kid gloves treatment, and
> have all kinds of unmerited expertise ascribed to them.
>
> >You can see at least the
> > first page here:
>
> >http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/auk.2013.130.1.1?uid=3739560&ui...
>
> > and I would imagine you can get access through your university for the
> > whole thing.
>
> I got the whole thing right away, and printed it out - the whole 21

> pages, of which almost 5 are references. 嚙瘩o you expect me to read the

[John Harshman]

On 2/26/13 12:25 PM, Glenn wrote:
>

I suppose you refer to "seen by at least one other person". Did that
other person have the power to enforce changes? A normal, peer reviewed
paper is seen by three other persons, each of whom has an expectation
that changes he suggests will be made. A very careful choice of peers
would have been necessary in order for Feduccia's paper to survive.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:QLKdnf56E8B...@giganews.com...

That it isn't non-peer-reviewed is why you said it was makes perfect sense.

[Glenn]

"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3e4b765e-1260-4ade...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

He needs to catch up with us?
>

[John Harshman]

On 2/26/13 12:50 PM, chris thompson wrote:

Ten years isn't necessary. A week or two should do. All you have to do
is look at a few papers on dinosaur phylogeny. You could do worse than
just to read Rick Prum's two papers in the Auk, one of them a direct
response to one of Feduccia's rants.

And DNA sequencing has nothing to do with it. You may mistake the
question here. Until we get some actual Tyrannosaurus DNA, there's
nothing to be done.


Prum, R. O. 2002. Why ornithologists should care about the theropod
origin of birds. Auk 119:1-17.

Prum, R. O. 2003. Are current critiques of the theropod origin of birds
science? Rebuttal to Feduccia (2002). Auk 120:550-561.

[John Harshman]

Sorry, missed your "non".

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:psudnUEm2KQ...@giganews.com...

It was yours not mine.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:56ednSXnLdR...@giganews.com...

I don't know whether "survive" is a useful or even rational concept here,
it obviously does exist in the Journal, and it seems your opinion of the
article is not shared by the Journal. As to what is "normal' with respect
to peer-review, again it appears your opinion is subjective and perhaps
biased, certainly lacking in support.

[Burkhard]

On Feb 26, 9:22�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in messagenews:56ednSXnLdR...@giganews.com...

> > On 2/26/13 12:25 PM, Glenn wrote:
>

> > > "John Harshman"<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote in messagenews:A6Kdnd1VIqj...@giganews.com...

> > >> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
> > >> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>
> > >> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>
> > >> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
> > >> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
> > >> it's the same old crap.
>
> > > "Perspectives are points of view expressed on a particular subject.
> > > They are normally solicited by the editor and, beginning with the
> > > January 2007 issue, are reviewed externally by at least one person,
> > > as well as by the Editor."
> > >http://www.aou.org/auk/
>
> > > Not exactly non-peer-reviewed.
>
> > I suppose you refer to "seen by at least one other person". Did that
> > other person have the power to enforce changes? A normal, peer reviewed
> > paper is seen by three other persons, each of whom has an expectation
> > that changes he suggests will be made. A very careful choice of peers
> > would have been necessary in order for Feduccia's paper to survive.
>
> I don't know whether "survive" is a useful or even rational concept here,
> it obviously does exist in the Journal, and it seems your opinion of the
> article is not shared by the Journal. As to what is "normal' with respect
> to peer-review, again it appears your opinion is subjective and perhaps
> biased, certainly lacking in support.

Here is a paper you might find interesting, by one of my favourite
philosophers, on peer review including the different forms, and what
it does and does not achieve

http://www.as.miami.edu/phi/haack/PRPUB.pdf

[jillery]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:50:52 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually, his recent incarnation started on December 2, 2010 with this
post:

<7dd5cb89-4578-4f05...@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>

where he injected his support for DP, ID, and M.B. In his next
several posts, he demonstrated many of his trademark tactics,
including but not limited to; replying to multiple people in one post,
vague references to decades-old posts, references to posters not
participating in the topic, bald assertions and innuendo.

He might have seemed to you "reasonable then" in comparison to now,
but that's a very low bar.

>> > > Heck, I don't even know whether Feduccia is talking about Aves or
>> > > Neornithes, because you've given us no clues as to the content--you
>> > > and everyone else are having a virtual Howlerfest poor-mouthing
>> > > Feduccia.
>>
>> Now I get the "me Tarzan, you nobody" treatment:
>>
>> > I don't particularly care whether you know what Feduccia is talking
>> > about. But you could certainly find out by searching if you care to.
>>
>> And so could everyone else, but you've got them (except Ray) eating
>> out of your hand, so why would they bother?
>>
>> You got quite a few people to go along with your unsupported

>> sneering. �Will you act as though ALL of them knew just what was wrong

>> with Feduccia's latest offering, without even bothering to poll them?
>>

>> I have a good mind to quiz each one of them. �Would that mean that I

>> am "obsessed" with you?
>>
>> > > Did he repeat the theory that was described in the following 2000 post
>> > > in sci.bio.paleontology [added by me to the newsgroups] by your old
>> > > nemesis, Cal King?
>>
>> > No.
>>
>> You sure are a man of few words when it comes to on-topic discussion
>> of people you poor-mouth and who aren't even around to defend

>> themselves. �Would that you were so taciturn when sneering and

>> caviling.
>>
>> > > There you go, just making unhelpful catty remarks instead of refuting
>> > > or even stating the "bogus" claims.
>>
>> > If you would like to discuss Feduccia's claims, I would be glad to.
>>
>> Taking the easy way out, not even trying to say which of his claims
>> are right and which ones are wrong.
>>
>> > But
>> > you must first familiarize yourself with them.
>>
>> Why don't you tell all your ardent fans to first familiarize
>> themselves with Feduccia's claims before agreeing with you about them?
>>

>> Oh. �Right. �You assume they are very well informed and sophisticated,

>> just as you assumed Ron O was sophisticated about "crown groups" and

>> "stem groups". �Well, you can see how sophisticated he was about just

>> getting the main theme of a _Science_ article right -- he couldn't
>> even follow a BBC popularization.
>>
>> talk.origins is full of "honorary experts" -all they have to do is to
>> avoid irritating you, and they get super kid gloves treatment, and
>> have all kinds of unmerited expertise ascribed to them.
>>
>> >You can see at least the
>> > first page here:
>>
>> >http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/auk.2013.130.1.1?uid=3739560&ui...
>>
>> > and I would imagine you can get access through your university for the
>> > whole thing.
>>
>> I got the whole thing right away, and printed it out - the whole 21

>> pages, of which almost 5 are references. �Do you expect me to read the

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:c297a665-171d-4fb0...@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

No pictures and too many words. Besides, it is said that
philosophy is dead.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4keqi8h25pnssgcqe...@4ax.com...

And people say you're obsessed with Peter. Hmpf!

[John Harshman]

I'm willing to share.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:LuydnX0vL9F...@giganews.com...

Share seeing what you wanted to see, and not considering the likelihood that my cite would be a refutation of your claim?
No thanks, I'll be in the waiting room. You go in by yourself.

[John Harshman]

That's our Glenn!

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:_uudndGJlYs...@giganews.com...

You may give us a kiss on the toe, Brave Sir John.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 2/26/2013 3:50 PM, chris thompson wrote:

It didn't appear Peter was familiar even with Feduccia's basic schtick.
If he did, wasn't aware, or didn't care, what the current scientific
thinking of the issue was. He's just in his
Nuremberg-Trials-Were-a-Witch-Hunt mode.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

Is that really going to help with someone who still thinks cladistics is
the Devil's work? In Prum's rebuttal, wasn't Feduccia's failure to
incorporate cladistics one of Prum's basic criticisms?

Mitchell

[John Harshman]

What evidence do you have that Chris Thompson thinks cladistics is the
devil's work? And yes, that was one of the criticisms. Of course, by
"cladistics" all that's meant here is the use of all the data in as
complete a form as possible, rather than fixing on one magic character
and calling everything that contradicts it "homoplasy".

[Mitchell Coffey]

It was nothing.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

[snip]

He left Usenet shortly after his long Holocaust denial defense period. I
assumed his department, or family, had forced him into treatment. It's
possible he went off his meds, and December 2, 2010 marked the day the
last metabolite flushed from his system.

Mitchell

[jillery]

Sounds to me like a working hypothesis.

[Mitchell Coffey]

The Devil told me Chris thinks cladistics is the Devil's work. The Devil
was pleased with the fact, as he values Chris' opinion.

Good thing Peter supports cladistics. The Devil hates that mofo,
considers him competition.

Mitchell

[pnyikos]

On Feb 26, 4:04锟絧m, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/26/13 12:50 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Feb 26, 3:02 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> 锟絯rote:
> >> On Feb 25, 10:01 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> 锟絯rote:

>
> >>> On 2/25/13 5:58 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>

> >>>> On Feb 25, 1:21 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> 锟絯rote:

> >>>>> On 2/25/13 10:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:56:41 -0800, the following appeared
> >>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> >>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net>:
>
> >>>>>>> On 2/24/13 10:46 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:35:50 -0800 (PST), the following
> >>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >>>>>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>

> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 9:53 am, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> 锟絯rote:

> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST), the following
> >>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >>>>>>>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>

> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:46 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> 锟絯rote:

Heh. Heh. I don't rate such references, but you want to be damn sure
your ardent fans can raise their heads high when the festivities
begin.

Anyway, now that I've seen them, I'll be better equipped to focus in
on what Feduccia is doing.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

> <7dd5cb89-4578-4f05-90ac-3bfad8954...@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>

>
> where he injected his support for DP, ID, and M.B. � In his next
> several posts, he demonstrated many of his trademark tactics,
> including but not limited to; replying to multiple people in one post,
> vague references to decades-old posts,

...which Paul Gans has indulged in, along with Mitchell Coffey, far
more than I have.

But these two are alllies of jillery.

I suppose this means jillery is actually flattering me with this last
comment. :-)

> references to posters not
> participating in the topic,

Gans and Coffey have made references to Giwer, whose last post to t.o.
was more than four years ago.

Coffey also made references to Pat James, who is either the same
person as J. J. O'Shea [likely, but Coffey is trying to argue against
it] or has been gone for a decade [not as likely].

> bald assertions and innuendo.

Almost none of which is challenged -- or if it is, the challenger
often beats a retreat.

Jillery did that when I demolished her attempt to make a stupid
blunder by Doolittle, world clotting expert who thought he had refuted
Behe, look like something other than a stupid blunder.

I think that defeat played at least as big a role in jillery's
decision to killfile me as the things she is accusing me of here.

> He might have seemed to you "reasonable then" in comparison to now,
> but that's a very low bar.

My biggest mistake was to tip my hand when DIG said, "Now, people, be
nice to Peter" and I replied that it was way down on my wish list, and
that at the top was the hope that if I am defamed, then people would
not ALL play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" when I show
how baseless the defamation was.

This was like a "kick me" sign on my back, an invitation for low-lifes
like jillery and Ron O to attack me.

They had no reason to doubt my word that this WAS high on my wish
list, and they drew the obvious conclusion: they could hit me with
every dirty trick in the book, and then some, with impunity.

Jillery hit me with copious and obvious flamebait, in reply to a very
friendly first reply to her by me, and I reacted in a measured way.

To make a long story short, I treated jillery at least as moderately
as Harshman has been treating her, until many months later.

What jillery did many months later was to issue a defamatory
accusation, and when I demonstrated that she was not only wrong, but
almost surely knew she was wrong (hence lying in the strict sense),
she made herself my implacable enemy.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:35:37 -0800, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>On 2/26/13 9:20 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:21:38 -0800, the following appeared

>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman

>> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>>
>>> On 2/25/13 10:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:56:41 -0800, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman

>>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>>>>
>>>>> On 2/24/13 10:46 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:35:50 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

>>>>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 9:53 am, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>>>>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:46 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
>>>>>>>>>> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
>>>>>>>>>> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
>>>>>>>>>> it's the same old crap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think like me or be censored.
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> ....and yet the specific comment was that, even in a
>>>>>>>> peer-reviewed professional journal, dissenting opinion was
>>>>>>>> *not* censored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John expressed strong sentiment that Feduccia should not be given a
>>>>>>> microphone in said journal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, he did not; he expressed annoyance that Auk, a
>>>>>> peer-reviewed journal, provided a forum for
>>>>>> non-peer-reviewed opinion. Learn to read for comprehension.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to say it, but Ray is right in this instance.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree; see below.
>>>
>>> It seems odd that you feel qualified to disagree with me about what my
>>> opinion is. I can see that you might think I stated it unclearly the
>>> first time, but how can you think I don't know what I meant?
>>
>> I didn't; see below...
>>
>>>>> There is a place for
>>>>> non-peer-reviewed opinion pieces. But not all opinions should be given
>>>>> space. We can all agree (except Ray) that creationist opinion pieces
>>>>> have no place in the Auk. Feduccia's article is only slightly less bogus.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And even if he had, you still cling to the erroneous belief
>>>>>> that failure to provide a soapbox on demand from which to
>>>>>> rant constitutes censorship. It doesn't. The fact that one
>>>>>> is allowed to talk confers no obligation on *anyone* to
>>>>>> listen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that's right.
>>>>
>>>> If that's right then you weren't advocating censorship
>>>> (i.e., suppression); you were advocating not providing a
>>>> soapbox, especially one in a respected journal. I believe
>>>> neither of us would object to an article in National
>>>> Enquirer, which negates any claim of censorship. IMHO, of
>>>> course.
>>>
>>> True. But you "corrected" Ray when he said "John expressed strong
>>> sentiment that Feduccia should not be given a microphone in said
>>> journal." And said journal was not the National Enquirer. I wasn't
>>> claiming Ray was right about everything he said, just about that one
>>> statement.
>>
>> Ray's original statement, to which the one you cited was a
>> follow-up, was specifically about censorship;
>
>That was part of Ray's original statement, and was part of what you were
>replying to. We can agree that what I propose isn't censorship. But you
>also tried to correct Ray on the substance of what I propose, and in
>that you were wrong.

....as I acknowledged below. At least, that was my intent.

>> my comments
>> were intended to correct Ray specifically about the meaning
>> of censorship and whether your original comment could be
>> classified as such, and I assumed (mea culpa) that your
>> follow-up comment related to that rather than to Ray's
>> follow-up taken in isolation, and I didn't realize that "in
>> this instance" referred to *only* that comment, rather than
>> to the thread as a whole. Again, mea culpa, and sorry if
>> that wasn't clear.
>
>That wasn't clear at all. In fact, it's clearly contradicted by the
>structure of your post. Now in fact you had two paragraphs. The first
>paragraph says I didn't say what Ray thought I said, which was wrong. It
>was your second paragraph that addressed the meaning of censorship, and
>on that we agree. When you take issue with specifics, I assume you are
>taking issue with specifics. A point by point analysis, in which claimss
>are addressed individual rather than as a gestalt, has much to recommend
>it, and that's what you did. Don't backpedal now.

I'm not; I'm simply admitting I was incorrect in my
assumptions regarding the intent of your second response to
Ray, as apparently I was.

Can we agree that the following is an accurate summary?

Ray tacitly accused you of censorship.

I corrected him.

Ray responded that your statement was of "strong sentiment";
I interpreted this to mean that he believed that such
sentiment is equivalent to censorship, and commented
accordingly. (Note that I *should* have made the assumed
implied equivalence, which I think he still believes, clear,
and that I was responding to that.)

You said Ray was correct; I misunderstood that your comment
was specifically about Ray's claim of "strong sentiment",
rather than about the implied (to me, anyway) equivalence
with censorship.

I disagreed, but I was still thinking about the implied
equivalence, not about your statement regarding your
sentiment per se.

Which brings us to the latest round, in which I believe
we're now clear regarding who said what, but more
importantly who *meant* what.

Fair assessment?

>>>>>>>> Do you ever actually read (and more importantly, understand)
>>>>>>>> the posts to which you make ill-informed replies?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone can fact check and confirm that it's you who has not read with
>>>>>>> understanding, not me. You've opened your mouth without thinking----in
>>>>>>> goes the foot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Come back when you learn what "censorship" actually means.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[pnyikos]

I've set follow-ups to talk.origins alone. I almost never set follow-
ups, but this is a very special case.
People are, of course, free to restore the other newsgoup if they so
wish, and I won't complain.

On Feb 26, 11:09�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You are defaming me with that last sentence. You've learned well the
lesson jillery and Ron O learned very early on: that the top item on
my wish list has not been granted, nor is it likely that it ever will.

That is, unless Glenn sticks out his neck further than he has, and
risks being attacked as viciously as I was by you when I dared to say
that prawnster had at least as strong a personality as Gans does.

All I meant was that Gans was a wishy-washy person in a lot of ways,
hiding a lot of his true opinions under his perennial clowning, while
prawnster was anything but wishy-washy.

I even clarified that I believed prawnster had the WRONG kind of
strong personality, but you were bound and determined to paint me as a
defender of a "horrific racist, homophobe, rape apologist," ... and
also of a "pro-Nazi, anti-semitic, Holocaust denier."

Never mind that I did a far more impressive job of showing how
viciously anti-semitic Giwer was on an 11 year old thread than you
did--you have learned the lesson behind my "kick me sign" all too
well.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:19:13 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Feb 26, 12:32�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:58:57 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

>>
>> >On Feb 25, 1:21�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> On 2/25/13 10:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:56:41 -0800, the following appeared
>> >> > in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>> >> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net>:
>> >> >> On 2/24/13 10:46 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> >>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:35:50 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> >>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> >>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>

>> <snip>
>
>> >[snip]

>>
>> >> >>>> John expressed strong sentiment that Feduccia should not be given a
>> >> >>>> microphone in said journal.
>>
>> >> >>> No, he did not; he expressed annoyance that Auk, a
>> >> >>> peer-reviewed journal, provided a forum for
>> >> >>> non-peer-reviewed opinion. Learn to read for comprehension.
>>
>> >> >> Sorry to say it, but Ray is right in this instance.
>>
>> >> > I disagree; see below.
>>
>> >> It seems odd that you feel qualified to disagree with me about what my
>> >> opinion is. I can see that you might think I stated it unclearly the
>> >> first time, but how can you think I don't know what I meant?
>>

>> >I've seen Casanova take statements out of context and insist that he
>> >is correct, because he is only replying to the cherry-picked stuff.
>> >This may be more of the same.
>>
>> And yet, once again, you would be mistaken, as should be
>> clear from my response to John else thread.
>
>The words "once again" are deceitful.

Wrong *again*; you've posted incorrect assessments of my
posts and motivations on multiple occasions.

> You took the opposite tack from
>Mitchell Coffey, who insisted on the full context of the quote in
>question -- but ignored the wider context of other, virtually
>identical quotes from James that had no such accompanying context.
>
>And so you both came out looking like a pair of jerks, with Coffey
>even stuffily saying he knew what you were doing-- but he did not
>spell out what he was implying you were doing.
>
>You adamantly refused to look at anything except the quote, even
>though it had ambiguous aspects, and thus shackled yourself to a libel
>by James just as firmly as Coffey did.

Still whining about that *one* exchange, huh? Grow up and
put it behind you.

>> I may have been
>> mistaken in my interpretation of John's meaning, but I based
>> my last response to him *specifically* on the full context
>> of the subthread of Ray's claim of censorship,
>
>"No, he did not" is not salvaged by the full context. Quite the
>contrary.

Wrong *again*; it's obvious that either you didn't read what
I posted to John (in which I explained in detail exactly
what I meant by that comment and what it related to), or
you've decided to lie about it. Neither is especially
laudable.

>> rather than
>> on his last reply to Ray taken in isolation. Of course, you
>> snipped that context (what were you whining about "out of
>> context" again?);
>
>You are indulging in a dirty debating tactic called "The One Shade of
>Gray Meltdown", paying no attention to the issue of what the context
>does or does not show.

Funny, that's exactly how I would have characterized your
comment above regarding "No, he did not" and its relation to
the context you snipped.

>> I've left in all you included of it.
>>
>> Grow up, stop whining
>
>Stop being dishonest, insincere, and hypocritical, and there will be
>nothing to "whine" about.

Stop making the error of believing that what you see in the
mirror is applicable to the motives of your correspondents.

[pnyikos]

And, of course, it is not to be confused with cladophilia, which is
the adamant refusal to sanction any classification system that does
not restrict itself to clades and only clades.

I've often proposed that there be a dual classification system, the
traditional and the cladistic, just like there are both a Dewey
Decimal system and a Library of Congress system, but you are
implacably opposed to such a thing.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:53:50 -0800, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>On 2/26/13 12:25 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>
>> "John Harshman"<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:A6Kdnd1VIqj...@giganews.com...

>>> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
>>> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>>>
>>> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>>>
>>> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
>>> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
>>> it's the same old crap.
>>>

>> "Perspectives are points of view expressed on a particular subject.
>> They are normally solicited by the editor and, beginning with the
>> January 2007 issue, are reviewed externally by at least one person,
>> as well as by the Editor."
>> http://www.aou.org/auk/
>>
>> Not exactly non-peer-reviewed.
>>

>I suppose you refer to "seen by at least one other person". Did that
>other person have the power to enforce changes? A normal, peer reviewed
>paper is seen by three other persons, each of whom has an expectation
>that changes he suggests will be made. A very careful choice of peers
>would have been necessary in order for Feduccia's paper to survive.

I should have read the entire thread before I posted my
question; consider it withdrawn.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:49:49 -0800, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>On 2/26/13 12:25 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>
>> "John Harshman"<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:A6Kdnd1VIqj...@giganews.com...
>>> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
>>> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>>>
>>> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>>>
>>> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
>>> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
>>> it's the same old crap.
>>>
>> "Perspectives are points of view expressed on a particular subject. They are normally solicited by the editor and, beginning with the January 2007 issue, are reviewed externally by at least one person, as well as by the Editor."
>> http://www.aou.org/auk/
>>
>> Not exactly non-peer-reviewed.
>>

>Yes. And that's why I said "non-peer-reviewed".

Am I missing something? Glenn, based on the quote he
provided, says it's *not* non-peer-reviewed; your response
seems to indicate you read his comment as "Not exactly
peer-reviewed". Or am I missing some subtlety, as has been
known to happen? ;-)

[pnyikos]

On Feb 26, 11:58�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > <7dd5cb89-4578-4f05-90ac-3bfad8954...@35g2000prb.googlegroups.com>

>
> > where he injected his support for DP, ID, and M.B. � In his next
> > several posts, he demonstrated many of his trademark tactics,
> > including but not limited to; replying to multiple people in one post,
> > vague references to decades-old posts, references to posters not
> > participating in the topic, bald assertions and innuendo.
>
> > He might have seemed to you "reasonable then" in comparison to now,
> > but that's a very low bar.
>
> [snip]
>
> He left Usenet shortly after his long Holocaust denial defense period.

At first I thought you were talking about Giwer, but what you
subsequently wrote shows that you have apparently decided that I am
vermin, to be figuratively ground under your heel with relentless
defamation, of which the above is a sample.

And you've done it in reply to someone who has me killfiled, and if
you have anything to do with it, jillery will never learn just how
deceitfully you are posting about me.

You are stuck, yea mired, in the mindset of the most extreme youthful
radicals of the sixties, unable to fathom the behavior of someone who
has long outgrown such phases.

[snip giveaway]

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 26, 3:41�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/26/13 11:57 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 12:23 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
>
> >> Well, now, I don't think he actually did. It's the umpteenth article
> >> with the same content, he's been debunked many times without any changes
> >> on his part, and in short he closely resembles a creationist on this
> >> issue.
>
> > I wonder how many people here would say the same things about me and
> > directed panspermia, without lifting a finger to write just where the
> > alleged debunking took place.
>
> I wonder how many people would use even the slightest chance to make a
> thread about themselves.

I know of two: UC and "vowel boy." Perhaps Martinez and Pagano would
also qualify.

Perhaps "I am not a chemist" also qualifies, although his person-
oriented threads seem more oriented on you than on himself.

None of the threads I start are about myself. If you're thinking
about the latest thread about setting straight what the _Science_
article has, I share star billing with you, "alias Ernest Major," John
Wilkins, Walter Bushell, Jim T., jillery, and, of course, Ron O.

All of the above posted in the earlier thread about that article after
Ron O made his gaffe about what the authors of that article did,
except for you.

But, on the other hand, you not only posted a mere seven minutes
before he made it, you were the only person in that thread besides
Steven L. who did a reply to Ron O.

> >> Once, many years ago, he did some interesting work in avian
> >> paleontology, but I don't think that gives him the privilege.
>
> > Ah, yes, only *active* innovators deserve to be heard in prestigious
> > journals. � :-) � �:-(
>
> I don't know where you're going with this.

It's systemic all through the 20-21st century intellectual world. One
has to be innovative to be thought of as a leader in one's field.
Merely dishing up eternal verities, or abstruse facts in a way
intelligible to laymen, or even doing the kind of historical research
that humanists are renowned for, just doesn't cut it.

Hawking may be an exception, but I doubt that his failure to submit
his speculations to peer review sits well with most professional
cosmologists.

And you have jumped on this bandwagon.

> >> If I were the editor, I never would have asked for the article, and I
> >> don't think the editor should have, and I complained about it to him.
>
> > Did you offer to write a rebuttal article, or suggest the name of
> > someone who could be invited to do one?
>
> No.

If so, and if your message was anything like your performance in this
thread so far, you were probably dismissed as just another spleen-
venter.

However, after you posted this and your other reply to me of
yesterday, you started to finally become helpful to Chris Thompson,
and so now I know a lot more than what you have deigned to tell me so
far.

Were you that helpful to the editors too? If so, you did implicitly
suggest a good candidate's name, and so your "No" up there is rather
misleading.

> > Have you received any reply to what you did write?
>
> No.
>
> >> Crank papers should not be published in respectable journals. Now, if he
> >> had some kind of new study, one that had been subject to peer review,
> >> that would be another matter. One man's censorship is another's discretion.
>
> > See above about innovators.
>
> I saw it. But you need to make your point, whatever it is, more plainly.

I don't cater to your slow-wittedness.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 26, 3:48�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/26/13 12:02 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 10:01 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

> >> On 2/25/13 5:58 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>

> >>> On Feb 25, 1:21 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> � �wrote:

> Read Feduccia's paper, then we can talk. Until then, there's nothing to
> talk about.

Chris Thompson should realize you are BSing here. Read on.

> >>> Heck, I don't even know whether Feduccia is talking about Aves or
> >>> Neornithes, because you've given us no clues as to the content--you
> >>> and everyone else are having a virtual Howlerfest poor-mouthing
> >>> Feduccia.

[small snip]

> > You got quite a few people to go along with your unsupported
> > sneering. �Will you act as though ALL of them knew just what was wrong
> > with Feduccia's latest offering, without even bothering to poll them?
>
> > I have a good mind to quiz each one of them. �Would that mean that I
> > am "obsessed" with you?
>

> You would certainly be obsessed with something. I'm thinking that many
> people are familiar with Feduccia's line, even if you aren't.

And Chris Thompson is even less familiar than I? Is that why you told
him something that would have helped me too?

And how many of those "many people" are participating on this thread,
do you think?


> Nor is it
> necessary to have read his current article to find out, provided you
> have read some of his previous rants on the subject.

I do recall a number of "rants" by Cal King, but I don't recall you
having the upper hand over him in that debate.

> >>> Did he repeat the theory that was described in the following 2000 post
> >>> in sci.bio.paleontology [added by me to the newsgroups] by your old
> >>> nemesis, Cal King?
>
> >> No.

> > You sure are a man of few words when it comes to on-topic discussion
> > of people you poor-mouth and who aren't even around to defend
> > themselves. �Would that you were so taciturn when sneering and
> > caviling.
>

> Would that you would be taciturn, ever. I told you succinctly that the
> subject wasn't what you might have imagined it was. As anyone familiar
> with Feduccia should know, the subject is whether birds are dinosaurs.

Baloney. Cal King cited Feduccia in the post I reposted, and that was
NOT on that subject.

Is that why you made an unmarked snip of my repost?

And why you deleted sci.bio.paleontology from the newsgroups?

> >>> There you go, just making unhelpful catty remarks instead of refuting
> >>> or even stating the "bogus" claims.
>
> >> If you would like to discuss Feduccia's claims, I would be glad to.
>
> > Taking the easy way out, not even trying to say which of his claims
> > are right and which ones are wrong.
>

> In order to do so, I would first have to explain his claims to you in
> detail.

Don't be silly. You could start with a description of what you think
is the most egregious claim.

And if its simply "birds are not descended from dinosaurs" in your
opinion, you need to think a little more about what sort of shoddy
scholarship REALLY deserves to be called the most egregious claim.

> Wouldn't it be simpler all around if you familiarized yourself
> with them first?

No. It's a good thing you and Chris Thompson are on better terms than
you and I, and you didn't think of saying such a condescending thing
to him, but pointed him to some published critiques of Feduccia.

>
> >> But
> >> you must first familiarize yourself with them.
>
> > Why don't you tell all your ardent fans to first familiarize
> > themselves with Feduccia's claims before agreeing with you about them?

[small snip]

> > talk.origins is full of "honorary experts" -all they have to do is to
> > avoid irritating you, and they get super kid gloves treatment, and
> > have all kinds of unmerited expertise ascribed to them.
>
> >> You can see at least the
> >> first page here:
>
> >>http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/auk.2013.130.1.1?uid=3739560&ui...
>
> >> and I would imagine you can get access through your university for the
> >> whole thing.
>
> > I got the whole thing right away, and printed it out - the whole 21
> > pages, of which almost 5 are references. �Do you expect me to read the
> > whole thing, word for word, before deigning to tell me what is wrong,
> > and why?
>

> Yes. Or at the very least skim it in sufficient detail to know what is
> being said. How do you hope to discuss a paper without doing so?

Were I in your shoes, I would say at least some things I think are
wrong, to alert you what to pay special attention to when you read the
paper.

But that's me.

> Don't
> worry, it won't take as long as you think, as much of it is empty
> invective with no actual content. Rather like this post of yours.

But not as bad as this whole thread was until I showed up.

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

Demonstrate that this is not a lie. You demand evidence, make the false
claims that you weren't not provided 12 years ago with proof that Giwer
was a Holocaust denier and pro-Nazi. Then when I bang on the table the
evidence you demanded, you say what I've don't is comparable to your
irrelevant injections of past references to people and groups no one
other than you has had any connection to.

> But these two are alllies of jillery.
>
> I suppose this means jillery is actually flattering me with this last
> comment. :-)
>
>> references to posters not
>> participating in the topic,
>
> Gans and Coffey have made references to Giwer, whose last post to t.o.
> was more than four years ago.

Because you demanded evidence. Jesus you're dishonest.

> Coffey also made references to Pat James, who is either the same
> person as J. J. O'Shea [likely, but Coffey is trying to argue against
> it] or has been gone for a decade [not as likely].

See above. You made the antisemitic slur that I didn't care about Nazis
or the Holocaust because I wouldn't respond to your childish challenge
to address Topaz. Pat James was relevant in demonstrating why you're the
last person I'd want arguing with a Nazi.

[snip]

>
> What jillery did many months later was to issue a defamatory
> accusation, and when I demonstrated that she was not only wrong, but
> almost surely knew she was wrong (hence lying in the strict sense),
> she made herself my implacable enemy.

I had to leave this bit of narcissism in.

Mitchell Coffey

[pnyikos]

On Feb 27, 1:21锟絧m, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:19:13 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

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

> >On Feb 26, 12:32锟絧m, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:58:57 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>

Truth by Blatant Assertion (TbBA). The reason you can get away with
it is that Harshman and Isaak have repeated the same canard about me,
and so I am "outvoted" despite no one ever showing that I was wrong in
my opinions.

Isaak couldn't even remember a specific example, not a single one,
when pressed.


> > 锟結ou took the opposite tack from

> >Mitchell Coffey, who insisted on the full context of the quote in
> >question -- but ignored the wider context of other, virtually
> >identical quotes from James that had no such accompanying context.
>
> >And so you both came out looking like a pair of jerks, with Coffey
> >even stuffily saying he knew what you were doing-- but he did not
> >spell out what he was implying you were doing.
>
> >You adamantly refused to look at anything except the quote, even
> >though it had ambiguous aspects, and thus shackled yourself to a libel
> >by James just as firmly as Coffey did.
>
> Still whining about that *one* exchange, huh? Grow up and
> put it behind you.

You've given us all a naked display of what Hannah Arendt called "the
arrogance of power."

I note the lack of any attempt to refute what I wrote, or even to deny
it.

> >> I may have been
> >> mistaken in my interpretation of John's meaning, but I based
> >> my last response to him *specifically* on the full context
> >> of the subthread of Ray's claim of censorship,
>

> >"No, he did not" is not salvaged by the full context. 锟絈uite the

> >contrary.
>
> Wrong *again*; it's obvious that either you didn't read what
> I posted to John (in which I explained in detail exactly
> what I meant by that comment and what it related to),

More tortuous than any of my explanations over the years, and I don't
think the last word is in on it yet.

> or
> you've decided to lie about it. Neither is especially
> laudable.

You are tossing around that word "lie" in the same way that Mark Isaak
described on another thread:

The charge of "lie" has been thrown around so frequently and
gratuitously lately that it has all the force of calling someone a
"poop-head". If I wanted to discover anyone who really is lying,
reading accusations of lying would be the last place I look.


> >> 锟絩ather than

> >> on his last reply to Ray taken in isolation. Of course, you
> >> snipped that context (what were you whining about "out of
> >> context" again?);
>
> >You are indulging in a dirty debating tactic called "The One Shade of
> >Gray Meltdown", paying no attention to the issue of what the context
> >does or does not show.
>
> Funny, that's exactly how I would have characterized your
> comment above regarding "No, he did not" and its relation to
> the context you snipped.

Repost what YOU think of as exoneration of you from stupidity and
obdurateness.

> >> I've left in all you included of it.
>
> >> Grow up, stop whining
>
> >Stop being dishonest, insincere, and hypocritical, and there will be
> >nothing to "whine" about.
>
> Stop making the error of believing that what you see in the
> mirror is applicable to the motives of your correspondents

> Bob C.

"I know you are but what am I?"
Grow up, Asshole.
-- Ray Fischer
<46831dd2$0$14085$742e...@news.sonic.net>

Ray was the number one insult addict in talk.abortion. In that
respect he resembled you, but even he could be right on the money
sometimes, just like a stopped clock is twice a day.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 27, 2:48�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You keep posting new accusations going back to 11 years or more. Do
you deny this?

As for Gans, every demeaning thing he posted about me last year HAD to
go back 11 years or more, because NOTHING I wrote since I returned in
December 2010.

> You demand evidence,

Because you accuse me of defending people whom you describe in a way
that I have not seen you demonstrate. You thus make it seem that I am
defending behavior you haven't documented to begin with.

>make the false
> claims that you weren't not provided 12 years ago with proof that Giwer
> was a Holocaust denier and pro-Nazi.

I wasn't. I was provided with urls.

Need I remind you that you claimed that none of my urls do what I
claim for them? You cannot turn around and say that providing me with
urls that I can't recall reading is the same thing as providing me
with proof.

You inspired Gans to do a copycat piece, in which he falsely claimed
that an url of mine did not do what he claimed for it.

He even thanked you publicly, cunning liar that he is.

>Then when I bang on the table the
> evidence you demanded,

Evidence of things compared to which your claims were grotesque
hyperboles.

How was I to know that you are the most exaggeration-prone person I've
ever encountered in talk.origins, with the possible (but doubtful)
exception of Ron Okimoto?

> you say what I've don't is comparable to your
> irrelevant injections of past references to people and groups no one
> other than you has had any connection to.

I can't even imagine what I said that could possibly be spin-doctored
to the description you've given, even by a mind as warped as yours.

> > But these two are alllies of jillery.
>
> > I suppose this means jillery is actually flattering me with this last
> > comment. �:-)
>
> >> references to posters not
> >> participating in the topic,
>
> > Gans and Coffey have made references to Giwer, whose last post to t.o.
> > was more than four years ago.
>
> Because you demanded evidence.

You are lying about the chronology. I couldn''t even remember who
Giwer was at first, when you brought his case out of the blue, and
started making accusations about me in connection with him.

> Jesus you're dishonest.

All you are doing here is showing that you have no respect for Jesus.
And that you are a deceitful snake in the grass.

> > Coffey also made references to Pat James, who is either the same
> > person as J. J. O'Shea [likely, but Coffey is trying to argue against
> > it] or has been gone for a decade [not as likely].
>
> See above. You made the antisemitic slur that I didn't care about Nazis

About Topaz. Stop lying.

And what makes my "slur" antisemitic? The fact that you are a Jew?

> or the Holocaust because I wouldn't respond to your childish challenge
> to address Topaz.

Topaz regularly posts reams of pro-Nazi propaganda almost unhindered,
and you call it childish to invite you and Paul to attack him?

Do you realize how seriously you are undermining the things you posted
earlier in this very post by this admission?

> Pat James was relevant in demonstrating why you're the
> last person I'd want arguing with a Nazi.

A completely bogus excuse.

I think the real reason you declined to attack Topaz is that you don't
have the background knowledge needed to refute him, while your
strongest weapons -- accusing him of being pro-Nazi or anti-semitic or
racist -- would be accepted cheerfully by him, and thus rendered
harmless.

Peter Nyikos

[chris thompson]

On Feb 27, 2:40�am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Cladistics is just a tool evilutionists use to blind the unwary. As
such, the EAC (which does not exist) supports it, but it is not the
main point. The big picture espoused by the EAC (no, you were not
awakened by helicopters in the middle of the night) is not to be
questioned (here, look at my pen).

Chris

[Glenn]

"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:691a9df2-d236-4d9f...@l13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

Neither one of you seems interested in evidencing claims about the other.
Doesn't that ring a bell?

[jillery]

I am having trouble believing that even a borderline sociopath doesn't
recognize the difference between relevant information and gratuitous
noise.

>> But these two are alllies of jillery.
>>
>> I suppose this means jillery is actually flattering me with this last
>> comment. :-)
>>
>>> references to posters not
>>> participating in the topic,
>>
>> Gans and Coffey have made references to Giwer, whose last post to t.o.
>> was more than four years ago.
>
>Because you demanded evidence. Jesus you're dishonest.
>
>> Coffey also made references to Pat James, who is either the same
>> person as J. J. O'Shea [likely, but Coffey is trying to argue against
>> it] or has been gone for a decade [not as likely].
>
>See above. You made the antisemitic slur that I didn't care about Nazis
>or the Holocaust because I wouldn't respond to your childish challenge
>to address Topaz. Pat James was relevant in demonstrating why you're the
>last person I'd want arguing with a Nazi.
>
>[snip]
>>
>> What jillery did many months later was to issue a defamatory
>> accusation, and when I demonstrated that she was not only wrong, but
>> almost surely knew she was wrong (hence lying in the strict sense),
>> she made herself my implacable enemy.
>
>I had to leave this bit of narcissism in.

I'm glad you did. It helps to affirm my assertion above, that
rockhead hasn't changed his tune in over two years. He will almost
certainly take his fantasies to his grave.

[Paul J Gans]

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

>As for Gans, every demeaning thing he posted about me last year HAD to
>go back 11 years or more, because NOTHING I wrote since I returned in
>December 2010.

So I've either posted nothing on directed panspermia and
surrounding issues or you are exaggerating just slightly?

Must be the former since the latter couldn't be true,
could it?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[John Harshman]

On 2/27/13 11:00 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Feb 26, 3:41 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2/26/13 11:57 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 23, 12:23 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, now, I don't think he actually did. It's the umpteenth article
>>>> with the same content, he's been debunked many times without any changes
>>>> on his part, and in short he closely resembles a creationist on this
>>>> issue.
>>
>>> I wonder how many people here would say the same things about me and
>>> directed panspermia, without lifting a finger to write just where the
>>> alleged debunking took place.
>>
>> I wonder how many people would use even the slightest chance to make a
>> thread about themselves.
>
> I know of two: UC and "vowel boy." Perhaps Martinez and Pagano would
> also qualify.

Another question: how little self-knowledge is it possible for a person
to have? Is it necessary to explain that I was talking about you turning
a complaint about Feduccia into a whine about your treatment on TO.

> Perhaps "I am not a chemist" also qualifies, although his person-
> oriented threads seem more oriented on you than on himself.
>
> None of the threads I start are about myself.

I didn't say anything about the threads you start. I was talking about
the threads you try to turn into being about yourself, as in the example
I commented on.

> If you're thinking
> about the latest thread about setting straight what the _Science_
> article has, I share star billing with you, "alias Ernest Major," John
> Wilkins, Walter Bushell, Jim T., jillery, and, of course, Ron O.
>
> All of the above posted in the earlier thread about that article after
> Ron O made his gaffe about what the authors of that article did,
> except for you.
>
> But, on the other hand, you not only posted a mere seven minutes
> before he made it, you were the only person in that thread besides
> Steven L. who did a reply to Ron O.

And here you are again making it all about you and your obsessions, like
who replies to Ron O.

>>>> Once, many years ago, he did some interesting work in avian
>>>> paleontology, but I don't think that gives him the privilege.
>>
>>> Ah, yes, only *active* innovators deserve to be heard in prestigious
>>> journals. :-) :-(
>>
>> I don't know where you're going with this.
>
> It's systemic all through the 20-21st century intellectual world. One
> has to be innovative to be thought of as a leader in one's field.
> Merely dishing up eternal verities, or abstruse facts in a way
> intelligible to laymen, or even doing the kind of historical research
> that humanists are renowned for, just doesn't cut it.
>
> Hawking may be an exception, but I doubt that his failure to submit
> his speculations to peer review sits well with most professional
> cosmologists.
>
> And you have jumped on this bandwagon.

That assumes that Feduccia is right and almost all other paleontologists
are wrong. What makes you think so?

>>>> If I were the editor, I never would have asked for the article, and I
>>>> don't think the editor should have, and I complained about it to him.
>>
>>> Did you offer to write a rebuttal article, or suggest the name of
>>> someone who could be invited to do one?
>>
>> No.
>
> If so, and if your message was anything like your performance in this
> thread so far, you were probably dismissed as just another spleen-
> venter.
>
> However, after you posted this and your other reply to me of
> yesterday, you started to finally become helpful to Chris Thompson,
> and so now I know a lot more than what you have deigned to tell me so
> far.
>
> Were you that helpful to the editors too? If so, you did implicitly
> suggest a good candidate's name, and so your "No" up there is rather
> misleading.

>>> Have you received any reply to what you did write?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>>> Crank papers should not be published in respectable journals. Now, if he
>>>> had some kind of new study, one that had been subject to peer review,
>>>> that would be another matter. One man's censorship is another's discretion.
>>
>>> See above about innovators.
>>
>> I saw it. But you need to make your point, whatever it is, more plainly.
>
> I don't cater to your slow-wittedness.

It's just that your point seems to have nothing to do with the case at
hand. That's what caused my difficulties. Birds as dinosaurs isn't
popular because it's innovative; it's popular because there is very
strong evidence in its favor.

[John Harshman]

You are appallingly bad at this. Have you read Feduccia yet?

>>>>> Heck, I don't even know whether Feduccia is talking about Aves or
>>>>> Neornithes, because you've given us no clues as to the content--you
>>>>> and everyone else are having a virtual Howlerfest poor-mouthing
>>>>> Feduccia.
>
> [small snip]
>
>>> You got quite a few people to go along with your unsupported
>>> sneering. Will you act as though ALL of them knew just what was wrong
>>> with Feduccia's latest offering, without even bothering to poll them?
>>
>>> I have a good mind to quiz each one of them. Would that mean that I
>>> am "obsessed" with you?
>>
>> You would certainly be obsessed with something. I'm thinking that many
>> people are familiar with Feduccia's line, even if you aren't.
>
> And Chris Thompson is even less familiar than I? Is that why you told
> him something that would have helped me too?

No, at least he knew what the topic was, so that's something. He also
seemed familiar with at least some of Feduccia's arguments.

> And how many of those "many people" are participating on this thread,
> do you think?

I wouldn't care to quantify.

>> Nor is it
>> necessary to have read his current article to find out, provided you
>> have read some of his previous rants on the subject.
>
> I do recall a number of "rants" by Cal King, but I don't recall you
> having the upper hand over him in that debate.

Since we aren't talking about Cal King but about Alan Feduccia, I don't
see the relevance. And what you do or don't recall is equally irrelevant.

>>>>> Did he repeat the theory that was described in the following 2000 post
>>>>> in sci.bio.paleontology [added by me to the newsgroups] by your old
>>>>> nemesis, Cal King?
>>
>>>> No.
>
>>> You sure are a man of few words when it comes to on-topic discussion
>>> of people you poor-mouth and who aren't even around to defend
>>> themselves. Would that you were so taciturn when sneering and
>>> caviling.
>>
>> Would that you would be taciturn, ever. I told you succinctly that the
>> subject wasn't what you might have imagined it was. As anyone familiar
>> with Feduccia should know, the subject is whether birds are dinosaurs.
>
> Baloney. Cal King cited Feduccia in the post I reposted, and that was
> NOT on that subject.

That's right. It was off-topic. Read the paper.

> Is that why you made an unmarked snip of my repost?

Because it was irrelevant.

> And why you deleted sci.bio.paleontology from the newsgroups?

I find your attempts to revive the newsgroup occasionally reasonable,
but not always.

>>>>> There you go, just making unhelpful catty remarks instead of refuting
>>>>> or even stating the "bogus" claims.
>>
>>>> If you would like to discuss Feduccia's claims, I would be glad to.
>>
>>> Taking the easy way out, not even trying to say which of his claims
>>> are right and which ones are wrong.
>>
>> In order to do so, I would first have to explain his claims to you in
>> detail.
>
> Don't be silly. You could start with a description of what you think
> is the most egregious claim.

I would prefer if you would read something and state a claim you think
might merit discussion.

> And if its simply "birds are not descended from dinosaurs" in your
> opinion, you need to think a little more about what sort of shoddy
> scholarship REALLY deserves to be called the most egregious claim.

Not clear what this means. Are you accusing Feduccia of having shoddy
scholarship and even worse claims, or are you changing the topic again?

>> Wouldn't it be simpler all around if you familiarized yourself
>> with them first?
>
> No. It's a good thing you and Chris Thompson are on better terms than
> you and I, and you didn't think of saying such a condescending thing
> to him, but pointed him to some published critiques of Feduccia.

It isn't the terms; it's the need for condescension.

>>>> But
>>>> you must first familiarize yourself with them.
>>
>>> Why don't you tell all your ardent fans to first familiarize
>>> themselves with Feduccia's claims before agreeing with you about them?
>
> [small snip]
>
>>> talk.origins is full of "honorary experts" -all they have to do is to
>>> avoid irritating you, and they get super kid gloves treatment, and
>>> have all kinds of unmerited expertise ascribed to them.
>>
>>>> You can see at least the
>>>> first page here:
>>
>>>> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/auk.2013.130.1.1?uid=3739560&ui...
>>
>>>> and I would imagine you can get access through your university for the
>>>> whole thing.
>>
>>> I got the whole thing right away, and printed it out - the whole 21
>>> pages, of which almost 5 are references. Do you expect me to read the
>>> whole thing, word for word, before deigning to tell me what is wrong,
>>> and why?
>>
>> Yes. Or at the very least skim it in sufficient detail to know what is
>> being said. How do you hope to discuss a paper without doing so?
>
> Were I in your shoes, I would say at least some things I think are
> wrong, to alert you what to pay special attention to when you read the
> paper.
>
> But that's me.

Fortunately, only you are you.

>> Don't
>> worry, it won't take as long as you think, as much of it is empty
>> invective with no actual content. Rather like this post of yours.
>
> But not as bad as this whole thread was until I showed up.

You give yourself too little credit. You have made the thread much worse
so far. First, you had no idea what the subject was, and then you make
all manner of irrelevant complaints, ignoring the subject entirely. I
would be happy to discuss Feduccia's paper with you, but you don't seem
interested.

[John Harshman]

Yes. It's a pointless idea.

[John Harshman]

On 2/27/13 9:43 AM, pnyikos wrote:

> On Feb 26, 4:04 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2/26/13 12:50 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> On Feb 26, 3:02 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>> On Feb 25, 10:01 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 2/25/13 5:58 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>

>>>>>> On Feb 25, 1:21 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/25/13 10:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:56:41 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>>>>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net>:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/13 10:46 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:35:50 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>>>>>>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>

>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 23, 9:53 am, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>>>>>>>>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>

Your persecution complex is increasing daily. This is not an attractive
behavior.

[John Harshman]

Fair enough that I'm willing never to talk about it again.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:WYmdnY_jyvU...@giganews.com...

Self-censorship.

[Augray]

On Feb 26, 3:02�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 10:01 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2/25/13 5:58 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 1:21 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > >> On 2/25/13 10:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > >>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:56:41 -0800, the following appeared
> > >>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman

> > >>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net>:

>
> > >>>> On 2/24/13 10:46 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > >>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:35:50 -0800 (PST), the following
> > >>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> > >>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
> > >>>>>> On Feb 23, 9:53 am, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:31:41 -0800 (PST), the following
> > >>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > >>>>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 7:46 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> For those with any interest, Alan Feduccia has published yet another
> > >>>>>>>>> diatribe against the idea that birds are dinosaurs:
>
> > >>>>>>>>> Feduccia, A. 2013. Bird origins anew. Auk 130:1-12.
>
> > >>>>>>>>> It annoys me that the Auk, the major U.S. journal of ornithology,
> > >>>>>>>>> continues to give him a non-peer-reviewed forum. As for the article,
> > >>>>>>>>> it's the same old crap.
>
> > >>>>>>>> Think like me or be censored.
>

> > > Ray has a point, John. If it is the same old crap, you should be able
> > > to point us to posts where you have refuted it--or else refute it
> > > again.
>
> > I could just point you to papers where others have refuted it, but try
> > looking at the literature for yourself first. And if Ray had a point, it
> > certainly wasn't that. I
>
> I was talking about a point which anyone can see if they interpret
> "censoring" as liberally as you interpret "paranoia".
>
> You are "censoring" all information in this thread about the contents
> of Feduccia's latest oeuvre, while laying the burden on us if we want
> to know what's wrong with what Feduccia wrote.
>
> You, who almost seem to be proud of how lazy you are, certainly don't
> cut slack for anyone else--you make us compensate for your laziness.

I don't see how being asked to read the paper is a sign of Harshman's
purported laziness,

> > > Heck, I don't even know whether Feduccia is talking about Aves or
> > > Neornithes, because you've given us no clues as to the content--you
> > > and everyone else are having a virtual Howlerfest poor-mouthing
> > > Feduccia.
>

> Now I get the "me Tarzan, you nobody" treatment:
>
> > I don't particularly care whether you know what Feduccia is talking
> > about. But you could certainly find out by searching if you care to.
>
> And so could everyone else, but you've got them (except Ray) eating
> out of your hand, so why would they bother?

>
> You got quite a few people to go along with your unsupported
> sneering. �Will you act as though ALL of them knew just what was wrong
> with Feduccia's latest offering, without even bothering to poll them?

The regulars are probably aware of Feduccia's proclivities.

> I have a good mind to quiz each one of them. �Would that mean that I
> am "obsessed" with you?
>

> > > Did he repeat the theory that was described in the following 2000 post
> > > in sci.bio.paleontology [added by me to the newsgroups] by your old
> > > nemesis, Cal King?
>
> > No.
>
> You sure are a man of few words when it comes to on-topic discussion
> of people you poor-mouth and who aren't even around to defend
> themselves. �Would that you were so taciturn when sneering and
> caviling.
>

> > > There you go, just making unhelpful catty remarks instead of refuting
> > > or even stating the "bogus" claims.
>
> > If you would like to discuss Feduccia's claims, I would be glad to.
>
> Taking the easy way out, not even trying to say which of his claims
> are right and which ones are wrong.

I'll go with the false dichotomy of dinosaurs/ground up versus
"pseudosuchian"/trees down origins of flight.

> > But
> > you must first familiarize yourself with them.
>
> Why don't you tell all your ardent fans to first familiarize
> themselves with Feduccia's claims before agreeing with you about them?

Do you want Harshman to hold your hand?


> Oh. �Right. �You assume they are very well informed and sophisticated,
> just as you assumed Ron O was sophisticated about "crown groups" and
> "stem groups". �Well, you can see how sophisticated he was about just
> getting the main theme of a _Science_ article right -- he couldn't
> even follow a BBC popularization.

>
> talk.origins is full of "honorary experts" -all they have to do is to
> avoid irritating you, and they get super kid gloves treatment, and
> have all kinds of unmerited expertise ascribed to them.

That's not the talk.origins that I remember.

> >You can see at least the
> > first page here:
>
> >http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/auk.2013.130.1.1?uid=3739560&ui...
>
> > and I would imagine you can get access through your university for the
> > whole thing.
>
> I got the whole thing right away, and printed it out - the whole 21
> pages, of which almost 5 are references.

My copy is only 12 pages, with 2 pages of references. Are you sure you
printed out the right paper?


>�Do you expect me to read the

> whole thing, word for word, before deigning to tell me what is wrong,
> and why?

There's so much wrong with it that it would be easier for you to just
read it, rather than have Harshman reword it *and* explain what's
wrong.


> Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/27/13 12:16 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> On Feb 27, 1:21 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:19:13 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>

>>> On Feb 26, 12:32 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:58:57 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>

That I do not obsess about your behavior to the point of keeping
references to old posts simply shows that I am sane. That you somehow
expect I should says something different about you.

And though I do not remember particular posts, I do remember it has
happened often enough. And just to make you blissfully happy, I
searched for an instance. In a post to me on May 5, 1997, you told me
that I "have this bee in your bonnett about LeComte duNuoy", which,
needless to say, was dead wrong. Your assumption that Gans is
"clowning" is one of your latest examples, showing that your behavior
has changed little over the decades.

In my search, in case you are interested, I found comments by others
suggesting that you had the reputation of being wrong about people's
motivations at least by 1995.

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

[Mitchell Coffey]

That isn't even the point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Feduccia isn't
known for dishing up eternal verities, or abstruse facts in a way

intelligible to laymen, or even doing the kind of historical research

that humanists are renowned for. Peter's observation, if true, was
besides the point. Neither was is a bandwagon you jumped on.

It's popular with 7 year old boys, and 7 year old boys of all ages,
because it just tickles them that dinosaurs fly past their window.

Mitchell


Mitchell

[pnyikos]

On Feb 27, 4:41�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:691a9df2-d236-4d9f...@l13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

I am very interested, now that you've made this comment.

The thing is, you are the first person in over two years to show a
disinterested search for the truth behind what some people call "a
food fight" and others "mudslinging".

In fact, some people go out of their way to stress that they don't
care who is doing it, they just want it to stop. This is especially
the case with John Harshman; hence my nickname for him, Dontwanna
Hearaboutit.

And, since I was pressed for time yesterday (and still am to some
extent today) I just didn't bother to document what I wrote.

Today, once I am done teaching my second class for today, I can start
providing you with evidence. I just hope you stick around to actually
read it.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 27, 4:50 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am having trouble believing that even a borderline sociopath doesn't
> recognize the difference between relevant information and gratuitous
> noise.

This is true of Coffey, but even the "doesn't recognize the
difference"
only applies to me if Coffey's defamatory accusations are simply
gratuitous noise and are not meant to be taken as relevant information
about me.

The same applies to the defamatory accusations jillery makes against
me.

All this is relevant to what I said to Glenn just now. There are a
number of people here who even criticize me for defending myself
against defamation by the likes of Coffey, without of course naming
the opponents of mine who defame me.

Of course, they don't put it that way. They say I participate in
"mudslinging" etc. and since I am the non-creationist regular here who
has the greatest attacker/defender ratio, they can always paint me as
the main culprit, without ever having to mention the others.

In fact, some of them become incensed when I even mention the names of
others whom I defend myself against.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 27, 5:17 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >As for Gans, every demeaning thing he posted about me last year HAD to
> >go back 11 years or more, because NOTHING I wrote since I returned in
> >December 2010.

I meant to add, "can even be spin-doctored to justify his demeaning
claims of last year." Even by such expert spin doctors as Gans and
Coffey.

> So I've either posted nothing on directed panspermia and
> surrounding issues or you are exaggerating just slightly?

I said "every demeaning thing." Perhaps the new addition above will
help this to sink in this time around.

> Must be the former since the latter couldn't be true,
> could it?

These disingenouous questions of yours illustrate one of MANY things
about you that have earned my evaluation of you as *by* *far* the most
cunningly dishonest person in talk.origins.

Other people exhibit one or a few of your cunningly devious traits,
but you exhibit so much more, and so much more strongly, that I have
to go outside of this newsgroup for a meaningful comparison.

Peter Nyikos