The Nyikos problem

[Ron O]

There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it. I
suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making
comments on it that they likely will regret. Some TO posters can't
accept the facts or are ignorant of them. Richard Norman came out
with his outrageous statistic in relation to the problem between
myself and Nyikos and he was obviously ignorant of the reality of the
situation. He prompted me to do a brief survey. It is far from
complete and not an adequate sample, but it is all that I am willing
to do. If someone wants to wade through more of Nyikos' bogus posts
they can do it.

Basically I just used Google to look up the threads that Nyikos had
participated in, in March. 10 threads came up. I looked at my posts
in those threads and Nyikos' posts. There were two threads where
Nyikos and I exchanged posts. I did not participate in 7 of the
threads, and in one thread I made a post, but the post had nothing to
do with Nyikos. I counted all the posts where Nyikos mentions me by
name. I did not count the posts were he refers to the group against
him or the "unmagnificent seven" without mentioning me by name even
though he was including me in his disparaging comments, so this is a
minimum count.

Google has Nyikos making 171 posts in March. In the 8 threads that I
did not exchange posts with Nyikos he mentions me 24 times. It is
obvious that Nyikos mentions me in a significant number of his posts
when I am not posting to him. In the two threads that we exchanged
posts one was a draw at 6 posts each and the other was 15 Nyikos and 7
for me. Between November and February the skew will be worse because
Nyikos and I didn't interact much except for his claims that he would
soon deliver his third knockdown and it was delayed for another month.

Apparently people like Norman see Nyikos' posts and think that we are
going at it, but since October 2011 Nyikos doesn't post to me very
much. He gave up on what we were arguing about and just went into his
personal attack mode. Most of his whining and bleating is done to
other posters when I am not around. For the last year and a half
Nyikos has basically devoted himself to personal attacks and his
endeavor to deliver the three knockdowns that he claimed were terrible
things that I had done to him. Just after October 2011 there were two
months where Nyikos and I did not exchange posts. It was all
basically just Nyikos lying to other posters during that time. What
was Nyikos' first post to me after the two month break? He started a
whole thread to accuse me of running away from 1 post for two months.
The post was laden with personal attacks about family abuse and
nervous breakdowns and how bad someone would be for running from one
post. The post that I was supposedly running from was one that I
didn't even know existed and on a topic that I had no interest in.
Who was running from dozens of posts by his own definition of
running? Nyikos is just that bad.

There were three months between July and October where Nyikos did not
post to me and it was all Nyikos bleating and whining to other
posters. There will be weeks and months between our exchanges.
Basically for the last year and a half I have mostly limited my
responses to Nyikos to his posts to me. This seems to have been a
mistake because some people have gotten the mistaken belief that we
are at each other all the time when it is just Nyikos and it looks
like the squeaky wheel gets the grease and they think that there are
two sides responsible for this fiasco when I haven't defended myself.
Nyikos is just a delusional liar. I thought that no one would have to
be told that or be convinced of that fact. If he were not a
delusional liar would it have taken him a year and a half to deliver
his three knockdowns? Obviously, he went back through all our
exchanges and couldn't come up with anything worth mentioning. His
first knockdown was based on an out of context quote from a post that
was 4 months old when he made up the stupid story. His second and
third pathetic knockdown attempts didn't even exist when he claimed to
be able to deliver his three knockdowns. It doesn't take a genius to
go through what he claims as knockdowns to realize how delusional
Nyikos is.

It isn't just posts about me. Going through Nyikos' posts, posters
such as Gans, Coffey, O'shea, Jillery, Casanova, and Harshman get
negative mentions some more than I do, but they are posting to Nyikos
in those threads even though Nyikos may be talking about them to other
posters at times and not posting his junk to them. I have apparently
developed a cabal against Nyikos even though I basically ignore the
guy except when he posts to me. There seems to be 7 people on this
list. Nyikos' incessant bleating and whining is basically how it has
been for the last year and a half. My crime seems to be that Nyikos
was wrong about the ID scam and the bait and switch and he can't
accept his abject failure on the subject. For the last year and a
half he has just been harassing me over topics that I really don't
care to discuss with him. Even his dishonest denial about being a
creationist was a topic that had been dropped a year before he brought
it up again. Anyone that wants to can go back further and check it
out.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote

>
> There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
> there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it. I
> suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making
> comments on it that they likely will regret.

And they say laughter is the best medicine. Go figure.

snipe

[John Harshman]

Do you regret that comment yet?

[Glenn]

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

No worries.

[Ray Martinez]

True; he's invoked your name in a very negative manner to me in an on-
going debate where you are not involved. I told him the same was
petty, cease and desist.

> For the last year and a half
> Nyikos has basically devoted himself to personal attacks and his
> endeavor to deliver the three knockdowns that he claimed were terrible
> things that I had done to him.

Yes, one can easily find him attacking you personally here at
Talk.Origins.

> Just after October 2011 there were two
> months where Nyikos and I did not exchange posts. �It was all
> basically just Nyikos lying to other posters during that time. �What
> was Nyikos' first post to me after the two month break? �He started a
> whole thread to accuse me of running away from 1 post for two months.

He's pretty much done the same thing to me recently; he resurrects old
issues out of the blue and out of context.

I'm now added to said list, and I'm public enemy #1: According to
Peter I am the worst and most dishonest regular here at Talk.Origins.
And, according to Peter, I am personally responsible for driving Tony
and Kalkidas away. Apparently Peter is unable to see that his "driving
people away" accusation insults Tony and Kalkidas, not me.

In reality, the fact that I'm Satan in Peter's eyes simply means that
my arguments and criticisms of his claims hurt him the most.

> Nyikos' incessant bleating and whining is basically how it has
> been for the last year and a half. �My crime seems to be that Nyikos
> was wrong about the ID scam and the bait and switch and he can't
> accept his abject failure on the subject. �For the last year and a
> half he has just been harassing me over topics that I really don't
> care to discuss with him. �Even his dishonest denial about being a
> creationist was a topic that had been dropped a year before he brought
> it up again. �Anyone that wants to can go back further and check it
> out.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Since I've experienced much of what you've said concerning Peter, I
can confirm the truth of the general outline of your criticism, Ron.

And since Ron (a Darwinian Evolutionist) and I are not friendly, but
worldview opponents in the truest sense, I offer our agreement
concerning the "crimes" of Peter Nyikos as reflecting objective truth.

Ray (Paleyan Creationist)

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" wrote
> On Apr 14, 11:53 am, Ron O wrote:

snip

>
> Since I've experienced much of what you've said concerning Peter, I
> can confirm the truth of the general outline of your criticism, Ron.
>
> And since Ron (a Darwinian Evolutionist) and I are not friendly, but
> worldview opponents in the truest sense, I offer our agreement
> concerning the "crimes" of Peter Nyikos as reflecting objective truth.
>

You can't get more objective than that.

[jillery]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

I hope you put some camphor under your nose when you waded through all
that. Your statistics affirms my understanding of your situation. And
my personal experience correlates with your situation as well.

The question in my mind then becomes why are so many other posters so
desperate to disbelieve the reality unfolded before their eyes? Why
are so many posters so determined to deny the kind of evidence you
give above? He practices a tactic similar to Discotut's "teach the
controversy", a case I expect most of these naysayers should recognize
and understand. When they claim our behavior is functionally
equivalent to his, I have to wonder what alternate dimension they come
from. One of them even suggested that I should just killfile him.
Whoodathunkit!

Despite my affirming Godwin, I feel just a bit like an escaped refugee
trying to convince the wartime Allies that the horror stories really
are true.

[solar penguin]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700, Ron O wrote:

> There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
> there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it.

He certainly seems to be playing _a_ major role. But you and Jillery
seem to be as much to blame as him, at least "for the last several
weeks". It doesn't matter who started the quarrel originally, you're all
responsible for continuing it.

(e.g. You've actually started this thread just to bash him. That's
hardly going to reduce the amount of "poison in the air", is it?)

> I suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making
> comments on it that they likely will regret.

I tried to, but couldn't cope with all that annoying, "It's not fair, he
started it, he did, he did, he did!"-type bleating.

Nyikos and Jillery are already spending a month in my killfile, and
thanks to this post, you're going to join them!

[jillery]

Well, well. Someone actually claims to give Nyikos equal treatment.
That's progress, in it's own way.

[eridanus]

El domingo, 14 de abril de 2013 19:53:14 UTC+1, Ron O escribi�:

> There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
>
> there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it. I
>
> suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making
>
> comments on it that they likely will regret. Some TO posters can't
>
> accept the facts or are ignorant of them.

-------------

What reason can have someone to post here, or in any other place?
To have a response from others. It can be either a reply of outrage
or an offensive reply; it can be a mocking reply or any other form
of reply. Then, if you take the paradigm, "a behavior is maintained
by its consequences" you can understand any poster here, either if
it is a Greek or a Trojan.

Then, the people had different ways to reply to posters. Either
replying to the logic or lack of logic of the post, or by insulting
the poster. The most damaging reply to a poster is to have not any
reply. When I read some silly post here, I do not reply. It is
only when the post had a little logic that I post a reply. But this
reply I do not send it to please the original poster, but to please
any other reader that could be around this matter.

Then, if I visit a village, the idiot of the place can tell something
to me. If it is obvious that person is talking to me is the idiot
of the village, I do not reply to him.

If someone is intending to troll me, I should not reply back. But if
the trolling seems to have any sense, I reply for others to see, this
person is trolling me, simple for the pleasure that gives trolling
someone.

It is a fact of life, that someone get a great deal of pleasure by
trolling others. It is necessary to make this clear.

I had watched an episode of the series, "web therapy" in which two women
were like doing a therapy to each other. The supposed the therapist
was bitching and demeaning the other, but it soon happened that the
"client" was the sister of the therapist. In general, in other scenes
the therapist was presenting as a horrible bitch humiliating her
patients; but in this case things turned out badly, for the client, was
a more aggressive bitch than the therapist, and started to counterattack
to the therapist making her recalled when she was a "retarded child" of
the family that was most times ignored. Then, the "client" was attacking
the therapist to wreck her ego into a piece of crap. This sort of shit
is not rare to be encountered in the web therapy of this T.O. group.

It is rather normal, that instead of commenting the essence of the argument
of a poster, some people decide to attack them personally trying to demolish
the self-esteem of this person.

I can accept this a fact of social life. Some people love to attack the
self-esteem of another presuming his is sensible to this common social
shit. This sort of bitching should be considered peanuts. For if you go
to a web therapy you can end worse that you started.
The best attitude is to consider that we are living in a pack of aggressive wolves. And this is social life.

Eridanus

are the

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

Presumably this was intended as parody? If so, it was spot-on. I
couldn't get past the first few lines of yours either.

[Ron O]

On Apr 14, 2:39�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 4/14/13 12:16 PM, Glenn wrote:
>
>
>

> > "Ron O"<rokim...@cox.net> �wrote

>
> >> There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
> >> there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it. �I
> >> suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making
> >> comments on it that they likely will regret.
>
> > And they say laughter is the best medicine. Go figure.
>
> Do you regret that comment yet?

Glenn doesn't count, we all know what kind of person he is and what he
normally does. What is your excuse? Do you contest any facts? Make
any denials of what you know is going on? How sad is that? I don't
even know why you want to defend Nyikos when you of all people know
what he does and has done. It is almost creepy. What is your
motivation? It isn't to be fair, because you are not being fair and
you know it. Who has been the pest for the last year and a half? Who
has consistently lied about the situation to other posters? There is
no doubt that Nyikos is lying. You know from your own experience and
just the stupid fact that it took the boob a year and a half to
deliver his three tragic knockdown posts. If what he was claiming was
true would that be the case? What were the knockdowns? Do I want
Nyikos to post to me? Something is screwy and it is likely yourself
that you have to deal with.

What does Nyikos say about people that depend on dishonest deletia?
Why not respond to the whole post instead of crack with the cracker?
How sad is that behavior?

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Apr 14, 7:55�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>

I didn't really read much of the posts. I just basically skimmed
looking for my name. I probably missed some posts, but that is only
in my favor. I caught some of the "group against me" and
"unmagnificent seven" posts because the O in O'Shea caught my eye, but
I decided to leave them out unless Nyikos named me by name. Some of
the posts were doozies if you know what a whack job Nyikos is, so it
was humorous at times.

>
> The question in my mind then becomes why are so many other posters so
> desperate to disbelieve the reality unfolded before their eyes? �Why
> are so many posters so determined to deny the kind of evidence you
> give above? �He practices a tactic similar to Discotut's "teach the
> controversy", a case I expect most of these naysayers should recognize
> and understand. �When they claim our behavior is functionally
> equivalent to his, I have to wonder what alternate dimension they come
> from. �One of them even suggested that I should just killfile him.
> Whoodathunkit!
>
> Despite my affirming Godwin, I feel just a bit like an escaped refugee
> trying to convince the wartime Allies that the horror stories really
> are true.

As I said in the other thread, I have a new perspective on why the Big
Lie strategy works. It isn't just when the good do nothing, but there
is also the factor where the people that know better end up supporting
the Big Lie for personal reasons that may only be peripherally
associated with the Big Lie, but associates them with it in some way.
They have to rationalize their behavior in a way that is counter
intuitive. The Big Lie wins not just because people are ignorant, but
because some people choose to support it for personal reasons that may
only be peripherally associated with the Big Lie, when these people
know better.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Apr 15, 3:29�am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700, Ron O wrote:
> > There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
> > there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it.
>
> He certainly seems to be playing _a_ major role. �But you and Jillery
> seem to be as much to blame as him, at least "for the last several
> weeks". �It doesn't matter who started the quarrel originally, you're all
> responsible for continuing it.

This is the type of rationalization that I just don't get. The last
few weeks means more than a year and a half of stupidity. How do you
come to that conclusion?

>
> (e.g. You've actually started this thread just to bash him. �That's
> hardly going to reduce the amount of "poison in the air", is it?)

Again this weird rationalization. What has happened in the last few
weeks? What recourse do I have? How else am I going to alleviate the
ignorance? To no avail in your case.

>
> > I suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making
> > comments on it that they likely will regret.
>
> I tried to, but couldn't cope with all that annoying, "It's not fair, he
> started it, he did, he did, he did!"-type bleating.
>
> Nyikos and Jillery are already spending a month in my killfile, and
> thanks to this post, you're going to join them!

You actually feel justified in making your comments when you admit
that you didn't take the time to understand the situation? Why
comment at all?

Ron Okimoto

[eridanus]

El lunes, 15 de abril de 2013 12:59:39 UTC+1, Ron O escribi�:

> On Apr 15, 3:29�am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700, Ron O wrote:
>
> > > There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
>
> > > there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it.
>
> >
>
> > He certainly seems to be playing _a_ major role. �But you and Jillery
>
> > seem to be as much to blame as him, at least "for the last several
>
> > weeks". �It doesn't matter who started the quarrel originally, you're all
>
> > responsible for continuing it.
>
>
>
> This is the type of rationalization that I just don't get. The last
> few weeks means more than a year and a half of stupidity. How do you
> come to that conclusion?
>

I cannot believe you are worried by this shit, Ron. How can you be
affected by what some stupid people are telling of you?
Do you really had any need of their appreciation? You should remember
that only a small fraction of the people have enough intelligence.
The rest is nothing but trash, even they are posting in this group.

I really cannot understand that you will need to be worshiped by some
stupids. It reminds me a little, on the stupid idea I was taught when
I was a boy, "that god put us in the earth to sing his praises."

What need would had an omniscient and omnipotent god that these stupid
animals called humans were singing its praises? It is absurd. This was
the main reason I had become an atheist when I was 12 years old.

Eridanus

[jillery]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

[jillery]

So that's one more vote for "willfully ignorant". T.O. is looking
more like Afghanistan with each passing day.

[Mark Isaak]

> [...]

I agree. Nyikos posts more about other people, and does so gratuitously
and often maliciously, than anyone I have ever encountered.

But why do you want to make that problem worse? Nyikos appears not only
in those ten threads; he is also in your head, at your invitation. When
you turn off your computer, you carry Nyikos with you. That can't be
good for you.

Furthermore, most people need only see a behavior modeled in other to
feel justified in doing it themselves. If Nyikos ever feels a pang
about attacking someone, he need only think of your posts in order to
feel entirely justified. (And don't try to excuse yourself by pointing
out that other people are making attacks, too. You are responsible for
your behavior, not theirs.)

--
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

[Harry K]

On Apr 15, 1:29�am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

Playing a "major role"? I would say by the number of whining threads
he has sstarted his is playing almost a sole role in it.

He enters the "field of honor" and you expect everyone to just leave
it to him?

Harry K

[jillery]

Ron O. can speak for himself, but it's important to me that I point
out your comments above grossly misrepresent the situation and his
expressed opinions about it. I don't recall an instance where he has
tried to excuse his own behavior based on the behavior of others, so
why you suggest that he might I can only imagine. And in the
specific case of the post to which you replied, he identifies specific
evidence which clearly counters an expressed but baseless assertion
that his behavior and Nyikos' behavior are functionally identical.

Exactly what is the problem that you think Ron O. is making worse?

[Greg Guarino]

I'm trying to decide if the irony is intentional. Ron O. produces a
screed that is a dead ringer for any of several thread-starters by
Nyikos, and you respond almost exactly as Peter would when I tweak him
about it. How many people are in on the joke?

[Glenn]

"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kkhemk$arb$1...@dont-email.me...

They are all in cahoots. Just ask John Harshman.

[pnyikos]

On Apr 14, 5:01�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:53�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> > There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
> > there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it. �I
> > suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making
> > comments on it that they likely will regret. �Some TO posters can't
> > accept the facts or are ignorant of them. �Richard Norman came out
> > with his outrageous statistic in relation to the problem between
> > myself and Nyikos

...outrageous only because it grossly underestmated the number of
lines Ron O devotes to attacking me, in comparison to the number I
devote to attacking him.

Ron O is surveying only numbers of posts, not the number of lines in
them, let alone the number that are devoted to personal attack rather
than on-topic discussion.

[snip]

> > Apparently people like Norman see Nyikos' posts and think that we are
> > going at it, but since October 2011 Nyikos doesn't post to me very
> > much. �He gave up on what we were arguing about

Actually, I did a number of on-topic posts to Ron O these last two
months, but he is only interested in puking all over me. He gave up
on the last two topics -- mammalian ancestry and turtle relationships
-- immediately upon my posting on-topic replies to him on these
topics.

Documentation of the latter is included below.

> > and just went into his
> > personal attack mode.

Ron O is projecting, but he is so full of himself that he will not
admit it.

> >�Most of his whining and bleating is done to
> > other posters when I am not around.
>
> True; he's invoked your name in a very negative manner to me in an on-
> going debate where you are not involved. I told him the same was
> petty, cease and desist.

My comments had to do with places where you were behaving like a clone
of Ron O.

I had the impression you called them petty because you hated being
compared to a hate-driven pathological liar like him. Was I wrong?

> > For the last year and a half
> > Nyikos has basically devoted himself to personal attacks and his
> > endeavor to deliver the three knockdowns that he claimed were terrible
> > things that I had done to him.
>
> Yes, one can easily find him attacking you personally here at
> Talk.Origins.

And vice versa. On the most recent thread where we clashed, I made no
personal attacks on anyone, but Ron O made over a thousand lines of
attack on me, aided, abetted, and comforted by several other
unMagnificent Seven members.

This is the thread in question:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ff955402fbbc141e/fa615bcd06ef8b2f

And here are the four posts of exchanges between Ron O and me on that
thread:

My reply to Ron O's first post to the thread, totally on-topic:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/359066b269919ac9?dmode=source

Ron O's reply to that, totally off-topic and abusive:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/98b5a70fff8f9a50?dmode=source

My 31 line reply to that, devoid of personal attacks:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6abfc8865e2638c0?dmode=source

And Ron O's 107 line reply to that, full of personal attracks:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f6e64b9bd12c39a7?dmode=source

> > �What
> > was Nyikos' first post to me after the two month break? �He started a
> > whole thread to accuse me of running away from 1 post for two months.

I have no idea what this is about.

> He's pretty much done the same thing to me recently; he resurrects old
> issues out of the blue and out of context.

The "old issues" were your false allegations about B9 in my FAQ in a
thread devoted to the FAQ, and your implicit acceptance of speciation
when you moved the goalposts in an argument about the horse sequence.

I can see why you would want to run away from that "out of context old
issue" about multiple speciations within *Equidae* for the rest of
your life. But I don't intend to let you get away with it.

> > The post was laden with personal attacks about family abuse and
> > nervous breakdowns and how bad someone would be for running from one
> > post. �The post that I was supposedly running from was one that I
> > didn't even know existed and on a topic that I had no interest in.

The above is still way too vague for me to figure out what Ron O is
twisting here.

> > Who was running from dozens of posts by his own definition of
> > running? �Nyikos is just that bad.
>
> > There were three months between July and October where Nyikos did not
> > post to me and it was all Nyikos bleating and whining to other
> > posters. �There will be weeks and months between our exchanges.
> > Basically for the last year and a half I have mostly limited my
> > responses to Nyikos to his posts to me. �This seems to have been a
> > mistake because some people have gotten the mistaken belief that we
> > are at each other all the time when it is just Nyikos

The bottom line is, Ron O slaps crud on one expose after another of
mine about his dishonesty, and deludes himself into thinking he has
exonerated himself, and thereby shown me to have lied about him. He's
crowed victory about several threads, notably the Scottish verdict
thread and the "insane logic" thread where I amply proved my point,
simply because he did the last post in them.

He keeps bragging about these "victories" for the last year and a
half. He did it below again-- but I'm saving the truth about it for
my concluding reply to this post.

> > It isn't just posts about me. Going through Nyikos' posts, posters
> > such as Gans, Coffey, O'shea, Jillery, Casanova, and Harshman

Harshman far less than the others, and of a completely different and
less serious nature.

> > get
> > negative mentions some more than I do, but they are posting to Nyikos
> > in those threads even though Nyikos may be talking about them to other
> > posters at times and not posting his junk to them.

Harshman didn't give a damn about how people had been making negative
comments about him in a thread where Hemidactylus was defending him. I
joined in the csomments after Hemidactylus started defending him.

I assumed Hemidactylus had let Harshman know about this thread [I
would certainly appreciate it if someone would let me know about
threads on which I am attacked!] but Harshman labeled me "paranoid"
for thinking that!

I gave that only one exclamation mark because there has been massive
intellectual inbreeding on talk.origins about stretching the word
"paranoid" well past the breaking point. Otherwise it would get at
least four of them.

Concluded in next post.

Peter Nyikos

[Greg Guarino]

On 4/15/2013 3:02 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> Ron O is surveying only numbers of posts, not the number of lines in
> them,

I submit that for so important a task, neither measure is of adequate
precision. I suggest that you each instead tabulate the total length of
the line segments and arcs used in the letters that make up your
respective posts. (Courier, 12 point).

That should in fact solve the problem, at least for a while.

[pnyikos]

Interesting -- all this time I thought Ron O had a private definition
of a "bogus thread" as a thread done to make off-topic accusations
about people. Now it turns out that all it means is a thread done to
make off-topic accusations about Ron O. :-)

On Apr 14, 5:01�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 14, 11:53�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

The bottom line is, Ron O slaps crud on one expose after another of
mine about his dishonesty, and deludes himself into thinking he has
exonerated himself, and thereby shown me to have lied about him. He's
crowed victory about several threads, notably the Scottish verdict
thread and the "insane logic" thread where I amply proved my point,

simply because he did the last posts in them.

He keeps bragging about these "victories" for the last year and a
half. He did it below again.

But first, some other bones of contention:

> > I have apparently
> > developed a cabal against Nyikos

It's a category, not a cabal. Ron O is the "loner" in the bunch,
except when the others rally to his side, as three of them did on that
thread from which those urls were taken. jillery did it massively,
even attacking others who dared to make negative comments about Ron O,
or even to try to put us on the same level.

> I'm now added to said list,

I told you specifically why you were NOT added to the unMagnificent
Seven, who are:

Casanova Coffey Gans Isaak jillery Ron O O'Shea

> and I'm public enemy #1: According to
> Peter I am the worst and most dishonest regular here at Talk.Origins.

FALSE. I made no such comparisons of you with the others. "Worst"
does not even enter into my categories.

> And, according to Peter, I am personally responsible for driving Tony
> and Kalkidas away.

I note how my "may have" has been metamorphosed into "did" in your
self-righteous mind.

> Apparently Peter is unable to see that his "driving
> people away" accusation insults Tony and Kalkidas, not me.

Being stabbed repeatedly in the back by someone who is a fellow
creationist of theirs is ample cause for discouragement.

Fortunately, Kalkidas returned, however briefly, after I made those
comments, and I hope Pagano wasn't driven away by you either.

> In reality, the fact that I'm Satan in Peter's eyes simply means that
> my arguments and criticisms of his claims hurt him the most.

I'm beginning to see why Ron O judged you to be insane. Not even he
deludes himself to this extent, although he came quite close with his
next comment:

> > Nyikos' incessant bleating and whining is basically how it has
> > been for the last year and a half. My crime seems to be that Nyikos
> > was wrong about the ID scam and the bait and switch and he can't
> > accept his abject failure on the subject.

This is the absolute reverse of the truth. Ron O has been running a
bait and switch ever since we first encountered each other.

THE RON O BAIT: "The DI is running a bait and switch scam about
having ID science in a form ready to teach in the public schools as a
rival to the neo-Darwinist synthesis."

The part after "about" is the bait of which he accuses the DI above.

THE RON O SWITCH: Myriads of lines about how they have not provided
public schools with the science Ron O claims they promised. Nothing
since well before the Dover debacle about the alleged DI bait except
a pathetic pair of quotes saying that teachers have a constitutional
right to teach what ID science there is, or they believe there is.

The Scottish verdict thread showed Ron O posting hundreds if not
thousands of lines of THE RON O SWITCH and personal attacks on me, but
nothing more about the alleged DI bait. And that thread *expressly*
had to do with that alleged bait. That is what the term "Sottish
verdict" . ("Not Proven.") refers to -- not the Ron O switch.

NO ONE who participated on that thread except Ron O said that Ron O
had made his case with those two pathetic quotes [actually, only one
up to that point] and Robert Camp even agreed that they did not make
the case for the DI bait Ron O was claiming.

When I pointed this out to Ron O, he slapped on the irrelevant
statement that Camp had criticized the DI on other grounds. With
that, Ron O deluded himself into thinking that he had not only proven
his case, but that anyone who claims that the "constitutional right"
statements do not fully prove THE RON O BAIT is insane, and a liar.

> > Even his dishonest denial about being a
> > creationist

The denial was totally honest, and Ron O's argument that it was
dishonest was a diabolical piece of propaganda suggestive of clinical
insanity, as was the performance I've described in the preceding
paragraph.

>> was a topic that had been dropped a year before he brought
> > it up again.

Actually, Ron O brings it up, implicitly if not explicitly, every time
he includes me in one of his "By their Fruits" posts.

> Since I've experienced much of what you've said concerning Peter, I
> can confirm the truth of the general outline of your criticism, Ron.

A self-serving claim.

> And since Ron (a Darwinian Evolutionist) and I are not friendly, but
> worldview opponents in the truest sense, I offer our agreement
> concerning the "crimes" of Peter Nyikos as reflecting objective truth.

Ron O claims to be a creationist, just as you do, and you've pleaded
*nolo contendere* to multiple speciation in the horse sequence, so you
are far from being worlview opponents in the *truest* sense.

I could say more about the way you resemble each other, but I'll save
that for another day. Duty calls.

Peter Nyikos

[Ron O]

There is no doubt that the actions of some make it more difficult to
deal with the Nyikos problem. It just does not go away, and
pretending does nothing, but let the loser fester. He obviously gets
off on this junk and it only encourages him.

There is a need to set the record straight because ignorance of this
situation should not be the reason for continuing the ostrich
treatment and pretending that sense will win out. It never has with
Nyikos and it never will. I don't bug the sactimonious crowd, but
they have to bug me. Make stupid claims and for what? The thing is
that I don't read most of Nyikos' stupid posts, and I can't imagine
that the sactimonious would have any reason to either. They likely
read the crap that Nyikos posts to other posters and obviously get the
idea that we are constantly going at it, when the facts are that
Nyikos will go months with out posting that crap to me. They have to
deal with Nyikos and obviously do not do a very good job, so why blame
me? Just because I am not there to defend myself from the stupidity,
doesn't meant that they should believe a liar like Nyikos. Really,
who would have thought that anyone would take Nyikos seriously?
Should I have been following Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper?
For months at a time the problem is theirs, and not mine, and look how
they deal with it.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Apr 15, 6:19�am, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Presumably this was intended as parody? If so, it was spot-on. I
> couldn't get past the first few lines of yours either.

The willful ignorance is appalling. The Nyikos problem is just that.
Something that TO apparently can't face. Why comment if you want to
remain ignorant?

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Apr 15, 12:54�pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/15/2013 9:09 AM, jillery wrote:> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 04:19:55 -0700 (PDT), "g...@risky-biz.com"

> > <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Presumably this was intended as parody? If so, it was spot-on. I
> >> couldn't get past the first few lines of yours either.
>
> > So that's one more vote for "willfully ignorant". �T.O. is looking
> > more like Afghanistan with each passing day.
>
> I'm trying to decide if the irony is intentional. Ron O. produces a
> screed that is a dead ringer for any of several thread-starters by
> Nyikos, and you respond almost exactly as Peter would when I tweak him
> about it. How many people are in on the joke?

I did do it for partly that reason, but it was to see how many people
would fixate on that, and not see through to the fact that I haven't
done anything like it before, and discuss the facts instead. People
need excuses, and sometimes they have to be shown that they are just
excuses. This obviously applies to this case, and I knew that going
in. So far no one has wanted to discuss the facts. Isn't that
telling? As I told Jillery in a post above, I have a new perspective
on why the Big Lie type of argument wins for any period of time. It
isn't just when the people that know better do nothing, but when they
support the Big Lie, not because they believe it but because some
peripheral issue that is important to them for personal reasons is
challenged and it allies them with the Big Lie. I doubt that any sane
and informed person wants to support Nyikos, so why are they doing it?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:62dd8443-e1fe-4d6d...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

If you don't know when to stop, you'll fall off a cliff.

[Paul J Gans]

solar penguin <solar....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700, Ron O wrote:

>> There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
>> there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it.

>He certainly seems to be playing _a_ major role. But you and Jillery
>seem to be as much to blame as him, at least "for the last several
>weeks". It doesn't matter who started the quarrel originally, you're all
>responsible for continuing it.

That's a NO. As I've pointed out elsewhere, you will be regularly
condemned even if you haven't posted in t.o. for a decade.

>(e.g. You've actually started this thread just to bash him. That's
>hardly going to reduce the amount of "poison in the air", is it?)

>> I suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making
>> comments on it that they likely will regret.

>I tried to, but couldn't cope with all that annoying, "It's not fair, he
>started it, he did, he did, he did!"-type bleating.

>Nyikos and Jillery are already spending a month in my killfile, and
>thanks to this post, you're going to join them!

If you've killfiled Nyikos, how can you comment on his posts?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Ron O]

I can leave Nyikos alone for months. It isn't the case for Nyikos,
and for some that have to support the boob it doesn't seem to matter
that I basically only respond to Nyikos when he posts to me. It seems
that I should have been following Nyikos around TO and defending
myself because there is the false impression that we are constantly
going at it, when that just is not true.

As for how I deal with Nyikos, that is the only thing that keeps him
away for any length of time. Do you have anything that has worked
better with Nyikos? You can't beat around the bush with Nyikos
because he just doesn't get it until he can't deny reality any longer
and has to run away and let is delusions recover. If I had ever done
anything to Nyikos that was wrong or out of line with reality would it
have taken Nyikos a year and a half to deliver his three knockdowns?
Would his knockdowns have been so pathetic? Nyikos understand that,
if he didn't he would have delivered his three knockdowns within a
couple weeks like he first claimed. They would have all been as
delusionally bogus as the three that he came up with and it would have
been over. Instead he knew with enough conviction that he couldn't
deliver and lied to himself for a year and a half. It is the only
thing that Nyikos understands. I just have to point out that after
Nyikos' more than half a year late bombastic claim that he would
deliver his second knockdown soon in July he didn't post to me for
three months. Everyone else had to deal with the liar for those three
months and it wasn't pleasant for everyone else, but it wasn't my
fault. I wasn't reading Nyikos' posts, and I wasn't responding to the
ones that I did see from time to time. It was all Nyikos and everyone
else.

If Nyikos doesn't post to me all anyone would see is Nyikos bleating
and whining. I have left Nyikos alone. It is just a fact that, that
strategy doesn't work with an ass like Nyikos. If you say that I
should adopt a strategy like I have with Ray, the situation is not the
same. If you could present evidence that Nyikos is insane, and not
just a malicious jerk that enjoys hurting people, I would leave him
alone. The last thing that I want to do is hurt someone that should
be getting help instead of abuse. I just have the opinion (backed up
by over two years of experience) that Nyikos shouldn't get a free pass
for his pathetic malicious behavior. When he gets in my face I have
no problem letting him know just what he actually is, not what he
thinks himself to be. If anything that I say to him isn't true, we
would have known about it by now, instead of the stories that he has
to make up. That is just a fact.

Ron Okimoto

[Paul J Gans]

I love playing with my dictionary:

"cahoots":

accompaniment, accordance, affiliation, agreement, alignment,
alliance, amalgamation, association, co-working, coaction,
coadunation, coalescence, coalition, coincidence, collaboration,
colleagueship, collectivity, collegialism, collegiality, collusion,
combination, combined effort, comradeship, concert,
concerted action, concomitance, concordance, concourse,
concurrence, confederacy, confederation, confluence, confraternity,
conjunction, consilience, consolidation, conspiracy, cooperation,
copartnership, copartnery, correspondence, federation, fellowship,
fraternalism, fraternity, fraternization, freemasonry, fusion,
hookup, inclusion, incorporation, integration, junction, league,
merger, parasitism, partnership, saprophytism, simultaneity,
sodality, sorority, symbiosis, synchronism, synergy, tie-in,
tie-up, unification, union, united action

[Roger Shrubber]

One font is not enough, and Courier is the wrong font. Certainly
you'll want a justified font.

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kki5qg$1rn$1...@reader1.panix.com...

Cabal is not included. It must be a conspiracy.

[Paul J Gans]

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

This should be a doable problem. Most fonts these days are
specified mathematically and fairly simply; the data consisting
of a set of points and splines connecting small groups of them.
That's what allows them to be scaled from very small to 80 point
monsters.

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:06:00 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

[...]

>Should I have been following Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper?

Well, you know it's a Dirty Job, but Mike Rowe hasn't got around to
it.

[jillery]

The above is presented as a type specimen of the Nyikos Problem.

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:54:03 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I intend no irony. If I assume you do not also, perhaps you will
answer my question: why do you not think relevant the facts presented
by Ron O.?

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:36:35 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

Egad, a voice of reason singing out against the chorus of willful
ignorance. My faith in humanity is restored!

[Roger Shrubber]

On Apr 16, 9:52�am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

But in this case you want the _Kidnap_ font. It's typically cut and
pasted from elsewhere and haphazardly justified in an ad hoc
manner toward justification that is clear to the composer but
seldom translates as neatly to the audience.

[jillery]

Very good!

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Apr 15, 4:29�am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>

wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700, Ron O wrote:
> > There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
> > there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it.
>
> He certainly seems to be playing _a_ major role. �But you and Jillery
> seem to be as much to blame as him, at least "for the last several
> weeks". �It doesn't matter who started the quarrel originally, you're all
> responsible for continuing it.
>
> (e.g. You've actually started this thread just to bash him. �That's
> hardly going to reduce the amount of "poison in the air", is it?)
>
> > I suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making
> > comments on it that they likely will regret.
>
> I tried to, but couldn't cope with all that annoying, "It's not fair, he
> started it, he did, he did, he did!"-type bleating.
>
> Nyikos and Jillery are already spending a month in my killfile, and
> thanks to this post, you're going to join them!

On Apr 15, 4:29 am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>

wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700, Ron O wrote:
> > There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
> > there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it.
>
> He certainly seems to be playing _a_ major role. But you and Jillery
> seem to be as much to blame as him, at least "for the last several
> weeks". It doesn't matter who started the quarrel originally, you're all
> responsible for continuing it.
>
> (e.g. You've actually started this thread just to bash him. That's
> hardly going to reduce the amount of "poison in the air", is it?)
>
> > I suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making
> > comments on it that they likely will regret.
>
> I tried to, but couldn't cope with all that annoying, "It's not fair, he
> started it, he did, he did, he did!"-type bleating.
>
> Nyikos and Jillery are already spending a month in my killfile, and
> thanks to this post, you're going to join them!

That'll show 'em. The problem with your argument is that, you've
posited a case where Ron and Jillery have sinned against Diacope - the
Ancient God of Belaboring the Friggin' Obvious. (Diacope' usual
punishment for those guilty for such manner of sin was to have them
sit for a couple of hours at the right hand of Zeus and listen to him
bitch about his wife - generally agreed to be a considerably worse
punishment than it sounds; most thusly chastised concurring it would
have been preferable to have been chained on a rock for a fortnight,
pecked upon by birds.)

But were does that leave your sins and those who make like arguments?
Which God did the Ancients have rule against those guilty of false
equivalence? No, no, I understand your situation: you don't want to
read - and don't - boorishly endless exchanges. Who may blame you? But
this also means that you don't know what your talking about: that you
equivalence the arguably boorish with the genuinely monstrous? Don't
know what I'm talking about? Think Dr. Nyikos is just some dyspeptic
eccentric suffering an ongoing war between his cognitive processing
capacities and social cues? Fine. Makes you happy. Ignore his posts
and Ron and Jillery's and especially mine (you won't get the jokes.)
But you don't know what your' talking about and the key sin here is
false equivalence.

Mitchell Coffey

[eridanus]

El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 00:06:00 UTC+1, Ron O escribi�:

I would ignore totally this affair of Nyikos.
Behave as if he do not existed, and its posts were
not printed here. And even if he mentions your name,
the best thing is to ignore it. You cannot know what he
has said if you do not read his posts, and any replies some
other people make to his posts you should be stop reading
them when you see the word Nyikos. It is a sort of
"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse" applied to
Nyikos, or "Carthago delenda est".

Eridanus

[eridanus]

El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 08:21:58 UTC+1, Mitchell Coffey escribi�:

I loved this paragraph. A great punishment.

>
> But were does that leave your sins and those who make like arguments?
> Which God did the Ancients have rule against those guilty of false
> equivalence? No, no, I understand your situation: you don't want to
> read - and don't - boorishly endless exchanges. Who may blame you? But
> this also means that you don't know what your talking about: that you
> equivalence the arguably boorish with the genuinely monstrous? Don't
> know what I'm talking about? Think Dr. Nyikos is just some dyspeptic
> eccentric suffering an ongoing war between his cognitive processing
> capacities and social cues? Fine. Makes you happy. Ignore his posts
> and Ron and Jillery's and especially mine (you won't get the jokes.)
> But you don't know what your' talking about and the key sin here is
> false equivalence.

This paragraph was also very interesting, specially the last phrase,
that took me a while to understand.

I cannot believe they are making a drama out of this silliness.

Eridanus

in some parts.
>
> Mitchell Coffey

[Ron O]

Easier said than done. Like I said Nyikos is a malicious asshole. I
really don't mind reminding him of that fact when he decides to post
to me.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Yeppers. By his logic, England and Germany are equally to blame for
WWII. [1]

[1] Actually it was all France's fault. [2]

[2] Just kidding. Everyone knows it was the fault of the Jews. [3]

[3] Just kidding again. I blame the Estonians.

[jillery]

OTOH you could always follow your own advice and not read anything of
this affair. But I understand that for most people following their
own advice is a lot harder than giving it.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

To compare with WWII is rather daring and somewhat paranoid, dont you
think so?

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/15/13 4:28 PM, Ron O wrote:
> [...] I doubt that any sane

> and informed person wants to support Nyikos, so why are they doing it?

I have skipped many of the posts in this thread. Who (besides Nyikos)
is supporting Nyikos?

[chris thompson]

On Apr 14, 2:53�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and

> there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it. �I

> suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making

> comments on it that they likely will regret. �Some TO posters can't

> accept the facts or are ignorant of them. �Richard Norman came out
> with his outrageous statistic in relation to the problem between

> myself and Nyikos and he was obviously ignorant of the reality of the
> situation. �He prompted me to do a brief survey. �It is far from
> complete and not an adequate sample, but it is all that I am willing
> to do. �If someone wants to wade through more of Nyikos' bogus posts
> they can do it.
>
> Basically I just used Google to look up the threads that Nyikos had
> participated in, in March. �10 threads came up. �I looked at my posts
> in those threads and Nyikos' posts. �There were two threads where
> Nyikos and I exchanged posts. �I did not participate in 7 of the
> threads, and in one thread I made a post, but the post had nothing to
> do with Nyikos. �I counted all the posts where Nyikos mentions me by
> name. �I did not count the posts were he refers to the group against
> him or the "unmagnificent seven" without mentioning me by name even
> though he was including me in his disparaging comments, so this is a
> minimum count.
>
> Google has Nyikos making 171 posts in March. �In the 8 threads that I
> did not exchange posts with Nyikos he mentions me 24 times. �It is
> obvious that Nyikos mentions me in a significant number of his posts
> when I am not posting to him. �In the two threads that we exchanged
> posts one was a draw at 6 posts each and the other was 15 Nyikos and 7
> for me. �Between November and February the skew will be worse because
> Nyikos and I didn't interact much except for his claims that he would
> soon deliver his third knockdown and it was delayed for another month.
>

> Apparently people like Norman see Nyikos' posts and think that we are
> going at it, but since October 2011 Nyikos doesn't post to me very

> much. �He gave up on what we were arguing about and just went into his
> personal attack mode. �Most of his whining and bleating is done to
> other posters when I am not around. �For the last year and a half

> Nyikos has basically devoted himself to personal attacks and his
> endeavor to deliver the three knockdowns that he claimed were terrible

> things that I had done to him. �Just after October 2011 there were two
> months where Nyikos and I did not exchange posts. �It was all
> basically just Nyikos lying to other posters during that time. �What

> was Nyikos' first post to me after the two month break? �He started a
> whole thread to accuse me of running away from 1 post for two months.

> The post was laden with personal attacks about family abuse and
> nervous breakdowns and how bad someone would be for running from one
> post. �The post that I was supposedly running from was one that I
> didn't even know existed and on a topic that I had no interest in.

> Who was running from dozens of posts by his own definition of
> running? �Nyikos is just that bad.
>
> There were three months between July and October where Nyikos did not
> post to me and it was all Nyikos bleating and whining to other
> posters. �There will be weeks and months between our exchanges.
> Basically for the last year and a half I have mostly limited my
> responses to Nyikos to his posts to me. �This seems to have been a
> mistake because some people have gotten the mistaken belief that we

> are at each other all the time when it is just Nyikos and it looks
> like the squeaky wheel gets the grease and they think that there are
> two sides responsible for this fiasco when I haven't defended myself.
> Nyikos is just a delusional liar. �I thought that no one would have to
> be told that or be convinced of that fact. �If he were not a
> delusional liar would it have taken him a year and a half to deliver
> his three knockdowns? �Obviously, he went back through all our
> exchanges and couldn't come up with anything worth mentioning. �His
> first knockdown was based on an out of context quote from a post that
> was 4 months old when he made up the stupid story. �His second and
> third pathetic knockdown attempts didn't even exist when he claimed to
> be able to deliver his three knockdowns. �It doesn't take a genius to
> go through what he claims as knockdowns to realize how delusional
> Nyikos is.

>
> It isn't just posts about me. �Going through Nyikos' posts, posters

> such as Gans, Coffey, O'shea, Jillery, Casanova, and Harshman get

> negative mentions some more than I do, but they are posting to Nyikos
> in those threads even though Nyikos may be talking about them to other

> posters at times and not posting his junk to them. �I have apparently
> developed a cabal against Nyikos even though I basically ignore the
> guy except when he posts to me. �There seems to be 7 people on this
> list. �Nyikos' incessant bleating and whining is basically how it has
> been for the last year and a half. �My crime seems to be that Nyikos

> was wrong about the ID scam and the bait and switch and he can't

> accept his abject failure on the subject. �For the last year and a
> half he has just been harassing me over topics that I really don't
> care to discuss with him. �Even his dishonest denial about being a
> creationist was a topic that had been dropped a year before he brought
> it up again. �Anyone that wants to can go back further and check it
> out.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Please. Enough of this. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Chris

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:54:26 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

First, my comparison is not of the events but of the logic. I realize
the distinction might be too subtle for some, but it's an important
one nevertheless.

Second, I'll go along with my description being hyperbolic, to
illustrate the argument in the extreme. To use paranoid is to imply I
describe something imaginary, which is incorrect.

[Roger Shrubber]

On Apr 16, 11:22�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 4/15/13 4:28 PM, Ron O wrote:
>
> > [...] �I doubt that any sane
> > and informed person wants to support Nyikos, so why are they doing it?
>
> I have skipped many of the posts in this thread. �Who (besides Nyikos)
> is supporting Nyikos?

Nobody. But these fools play at some game where we are either with
them against history's greatest monster or are leading comfort to
the enemy. If we point out their foul behavior, we are somehow
claiming equivalency in their minds.

I don't happen to mind that much when people I generally disagree
with make an obvious ass of themselves. I no longer actually like
fostering that behavior, but it serves its own purpose. In fact,
their own words make the point about them better than I can do.
And better than anyone can do by repetition which is an enemy
they don't seem to grasp.

I do mind when the only good that comes out of that person being
an ass, repeatedly, maliciously, and ineffectively, is neutralized,
either by over-the-top self-absorbed zealotry or by petulantly
juvenile name calling.

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:22:45 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 4/15/13 4:28 PM, Ron O wrote:
>> [...] I doubt that any sane
>> and informed person wants to support Nyikos, so why are they doing it?
>
>I have skipped many of the posts in this thread. Who (besides Nyikos)
>is supporting Nyikos?

There are several posters who expressly declared they killfiled Ron
and I because we criticize Nyikos, but they say nothing about Nyikos.

There are several posters who expressly criticized Nyikos' critics,
but do not criticize Nyikos.

There are several posters who expressly stated they see no evidence of
Nyikos doing the things his critics say he does. And when said
critics present said evidence, they refuse to look at it, and instead
blame the critics.

Perhaps the above doesn't qualify to you as support for him, but
Nyikos thinks it does.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/15/13 5:06 PM, Ron O wrote:
> On Apr 15, 10:16 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 4/14/13 11:53 AM, Ron O wrote:
>>
>>> There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
>>> there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it.

>>> [...]
>>
>> I agree. Nyikos posts more about other people, and does so gratuitously
>> and often maliciously, than anyone I have ever encountered.
>>
>> But why do you want to make that problem worse? Nyikos appears not only
>> in those ten threads; he is also in your head, at your invitation. When
>> you turn off your computer, you carry Nyikos with you. That can't be
>> good for you.
>>
>> Furthermore, most people need only see a behavior modeled in other to

>> feel justified in doing it themselves. [...]

>
> I can leave Nyikos alone for months. It isn't the case for Nyikos,
> and for some that have to support the boob it doesn't seem to matter
> that I basically only respond to Nyikos when he posts to me. It seems
> that I should have been following Nyikos around TO and defending
> myself because there is the false impression that we are constantly
> going at it, when that just is not true.
>
> As for how I deal with Nyikos, that is the only thing that keeps him
> away for any length of time. Do you have anything that has worked
> better with Nyikos? You can't beat around the bush with Nyikos
> because he just doesn't get it until he can't deny reality any longer
> and has to run away and let is delusions recover. If I had ever done
> anything to Nyikos that was wrong or out of line with reality would it
> have taken Nyikos a year and a half to deliver his three knockdowns?
> Would his knockdowns have been so pathetic? Nyikos understand that,
> if he didn't he would have delivered his three knockdowns within a
> couple weeks like he first claimed. They would have all been as
> delusionally bogus as the three that he came up with and it would have
> been over. Instead he knew with enough conviction that he couldn't
> deliver and lied to himself for a year and a half. It is the only
> thing that Nyikos understands. I just have to point out that after
> Nyikos' more than half a year late bombastic claim that he would
> deliver his second knockdown soon in July he didn't post to me for

> three months. [...]

I have my doubts. Correlation does not imply causation.

> If Nyikos doesn't post to me all anyone would see is Nyikos bleating
> and whining. I have left Nyikos alone. It is just a fact that, that
> strategy doesn't work with an ass like Nyikos.

On the contrary, it shows quite plainly that his behavior is to bleat
and whine.

> If you could present evidence that Nyikos is insane, and not
> just a malicious jerk that enjoys hurting people, I would leave him
> alone.

"Insane" is a poorly delineated term. Some would say that being "a
malicious jerk that enjoys hurting people" is enough to declare the
person insane. By some criteria, everybody is insane. For example,
people make moral judgments faster than they make conscious thoughts.
This usually serves well in small social groups, but many times,
especially in fora like this, it leads to people attacking the person
instead of the argument. Such behavior is irrational and dysfunctional,
and would likely be called "insane" if it were not universal.

Peter obviously has some kind of problem with social interactions. My
suspicion is that a qualified psychologist could put a diagnostic label
on it, but I dunno, nor does it matter much. He needs help regardless
of how his problem is labeled. But that does not matter much, either,
because he does not accept such help and certainly will not accept it
from any of us.


Meanwhile, what to do about the "Nyikos problem"? Here are a few
practical suggestions, not just for Nyikos, but for dealing with any
attacks.

1. When attacked, do not respond immediately. Mark the post for later
attention, and come back to it the next day, or at the very least after
an hour. This, first, gives you a chance to get your conscious mind
engaged and your initial emotional response to moderate. Second, it
gives you time to think about what response is appropriate.

2. Keep your response shorter than the attack. This will help prevent
the attack from escalating. When someone is being a jerk, others can
see it as well as you, so you do not need to elaborate, and no response
at all is often an appropriate response. If you are afraid others will
believe the attack, a simple "That was inaccurate" will suffice.
Remember that nobody else is interested in all your supporting evidence.
If you doubt that, simply add, "Supporting evidence available upon
request," and see how many people request it.

3. Never respond to the same attack more than once.

4. Keep any response only to what you know, and you do not know the
other person's motivations or state of mind.

5. Above all, remember that you are not going to solve any problems by
attacking back (or attacking in the first place). The counterattack
gets you past the usually brief period of your ego being threatened, but
that's all. If there are other problems beyond that, the way to deal
with them is to identify the problems specifically, state them clearly,
and address them as a rational adult.

[Greg Guarino]

I recently chided Peter in a thread he started to once again document
the alleged crimes of his antagonists. I told him over a few exchanges
that this was the reason that I seldom read his posts; endless petty
feuds don't interest me.

And just as his original post bore a striking similarity to the original
post in *this* thread (to whatever degree I read either of them), your
response (and Ron's) mimic Peter's perfectly. That alone should give you
pause. All of you lament my personal failings; ignorance and apathy
among them. If only I would devote the proper time and effort to
examining the meticulously researched evidence that (Peter/Ron) has
amassed, I would surely condemn (Ron/Peter) as the
liar/hypocrite/monster that he is rightly judged to be.

Wherever the "fault" may lie it seems awfully damned odd to me that
adults would spend time pursuing the same tired *virtual, online*
grievance for years. The research to document the other side's
transgressions is especially peculiar. The remedy is simple, really. If
you ignore your opponent's nonsense, there are two possible outcomes,
both favorable: He will tire of jousting with no one and stop, or he
will look like an ass for continuing alone.

Do as you please, but examining either side's "facts" for "relevance" is
not a profitable use of my time.

[Paul J Gans]

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

>On Apr 16, 9:52?am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 16, 4:19?am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 4/15/2013 3:02 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> >> > Ron O is surveying only numbers of posts, not the number of lines in
>> >> > them,
>>
>> >> I submit that for so important a task, neither measure is of adequate
>> >> precision. I suggest that you each instead tabulate the total length of
>> >> the line segments and arcs used in the letters that make up your
>> >> respective posts. (Courier, 12 point).
>>
>> >> That should in fact solve the problem, at least for a while.
>> >One font is not enough, and Courier is the wrong font. Certainly
>> >you'll want a justified font.
>>

>> This should be a doable problem. ?Most fonts these days are

>> specified mathematically and fairly simply; the data consisting
>> of a set of points and splines connecting small groups of them.
>> That's what allows them to be scaled from very small to 80 point
>> monsters.

>But in this case you want the _Kidnap_ font. It's typically cut and
>pasted from elsewhere and haphazardly justified in an ad hoc
>manner toward justification that is clear to the composer but
>seldom translates as neatly to the audience.

If it is a scalable font...

Now I don't intend to do it myself. It is a bit too wiggly for
me.

[Mitchell Coffey]

[4] Latvia. But, seriously, who can tell the difference?

Mitchell

[Paul J Gans]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:37:49 -0700 (PDT), Roger Shrubber
><rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>On Apr 16, 4:19?am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/15/2013 3:02 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>
>>> > Ron O is surveying only numbers of posts, not the number of lines in
>>> > them,
>>>
>>> I submit that for so important a task, neither measure is of adequate
>>> precision. I suggest that you each instead tabulate the total length of
>>> the line segments and arcs used in the letters that make up your
>>> respective posts. (Courier, 12 point).
>>>
>>> That should in fact solve the problem, at least for a while.
>>
>>One font is not enough, and Courier is the wrong font. Certainly
>>you'll want a justified font.


>Very good!

Hmm. Missed that. I took it as meaning a variable width font,
often used in justified lines of type.

[Paul J Gans]

Good advice. I shall attempt to follow it.

[Mitchell Coffey]

I do agree that it's best to ignore Nyikos' personal attacks, as well
as to avoid personal attacks on Nyikos more so than on others, as it
leads to unending sorrow. It's the false equivalence that bothers me.

Mitchell Coffey

[pnyikos]

On Apr 15, 11:36 am, Harry K <turn...@q.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 1:29 am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700, Ron O wrote:
> > > There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
> > > there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it.
>

> > He certainly seems to be playing _a_ major role.  But you and Jillery
> > seem to be as much to blame as him, at least "for the last several
> > weeks".  It doesn't matter who started the quarrel originally, you're all
> > responsible for continuing it.
>
> > (e.g. You've actually started this thread just to bash him.  That's
> > hardly going to reduce the amount of "poison in the air", is it?)
>
> > > I suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making
> > > comments on it that they likely will regret.
>
> > I tried to, but couldn't cope with all that annoying, "It's not fair, he
> > started it, he did, he did, he did!"-type bleating.
>
> > Nyikos and Jillery are already spending a month in my killfile, and
> > thanks to this post, you're going to join them!

Like Ron O, you are counting threads rather than sheer volume of
personal insults, where Ron O has it over me many times over -- in the
wrong way. Even so, you are stacking the deck in his favor.

> Playing a "major role"?  I would say by the number of whining threads

> he has started his is playing almost a sole role in it.

You are forgetting about the "By their Fruits " threads ,where Ron O
"whines" about me being a creationist, which is an insult-- one of the
biggest insults in t.o, given the demographics of this newsgroup --
unless Ron O spells out that by "creationist" he means anyone who
believes in any kind of supernatural intervention in our universe.

And even then, it is a falsehood where I am concerned. But I can't
recall him spelling out that I am NOT a creationist in the usual
talk.origins sense of the word, and so I have been insulted.

> He enters the "field of honor" and you expect everyone to just leave
> it to him?

No, Ron O expects everyone to ignore me, but for completely fraudulent
reasons.

> Harry K

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 16, 11:22 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 4/15/13 4:28 PM, Ron O wrote:
>>
>> > [...]  I doubt that any sane
>> > and informed person wants to support Nyikos, so why are they doing it?
>>
>> I have skipped many of the posts in this thread.  Who (besides Nyikos)
>> is supporting Nyikos?
>
>Nobody. But these fools play at some game where we are either with
>them against history's greatest monster or are leading comfort to
>the enemy. If we point out their foul behavior, we are somehow
>claiming equivalency in their minds.

Your deliberate and repeated misrepresentation of other posters'
expressed positions makes you look like a fool.

>I don't happen to mind that much when people I generally disagree
>with make an obvious ass of themselves. I no longer actually like
>fostering that behavior, but it serves its own purpose. In fact,
>their own words make the point about them better than I can do.
>And better than anyone can do by repetition which is an enemy
>they don't seem to grasp.
>
>I do mind when the only good that comes out of that person being
>an ass, repeatedly, maliciously, and ineffectively, is neutralized,
>either by over-the-top self-absorbed zealotry or by petulantly
>juvenile name calling.

Right, you mean like what you do above.

[eridanus]

El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 11:52:49 UTC+1, Ron O escribi嚙�
> On Apr 16, 5:16嚙窮m, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 00:06:00 UTC+1, Ron O 嚙箴scribi嚙�
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > On Apr 15, 7:48嚙窮m, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > El lunes, 15 de abril de 2013 12:59:39 UTC+1, Ron O 嚙箴scribi嚙�
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Apr 15, 3:29嚙窮m, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>

>
> >
>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700, Ron O wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it.
>
> >
>

> > > > > > He certainly seems to be playing _a_ major role. 嚙畿ut you and Jillery

>
> >
>
> > > > > > seem to be as much to blame as him, at least "for the last several
>
> >
>

> > > > > > weeks". 嚙瘢t doesn't matter who started the quarrel originally, you're all
>
> >
>
> > > > > > responsible for continuing it.
>
> >
>
> > > > > This is the type of rationalization that I just don't get. 嚙確he last
>
> >
>
> > > > > few weeks means more than a year and a half of stupidity. 嚙瘡ow do you

>
> >
>
> > > > > come to that conclusion?
>
> >
>
> > > > I cannot believe you are worried by this shit, Ron. How can you be
>
> >
>
> > > > affected by what some stupid people are telling of you?
>
> >
>

> > > > Do you really had any need of their appreciation? 嚙磐ou should remember

>
> >
>
> > > > that only a small fraction of the people have enough intelligence.
>
> >
>
> > > > The rest is nothing but trash, even they are posting in this group.
>
> >
>
> > > > I really cannot understand that you will need to be worshiped by some
>
> >
>

> > > > stupids. 嚙瘢t reminds me a little, on the stupid idea I was taught when

>
> >
>
> > > > I was a boy, "that god put us in the earth to sing his praises."
>
> >
>
> > > > What need would had an omniscient and omnipotent god that these stupid
>
> >
>

> > > > animals called humans were singing its praises? 嚙瘢t is absurd. 嚙確his was

>
> >
>
> > > > the main reason I had become an atheist when I was 12 years old.
>
> >
>
> > > > Eridanus
>
> >
>
> > > There is no doubt that the actions of some make it more difficult to
>
> >
>

> > > deal with the Nyikos problem. 嚙瘢t just does not go away, and
>
> >
>
> > > pretending does nothing, but let the loser fester. 嚙瘡e obviously gets

>
> >
>
> > > off on this junk and it only encourages him.
>
> >
>
> > > There is a need to set the record straight because ignorance of this
>
> >
>
> > > situation should not be the reason for continuing the ostrich
>
> >
>

> > > treatment and pretending that sense will win out. 嚙瘢t never has with
>
> >
>
> > > Nyikos and it never will. 嚙瘢 don't bug the sactimonious crowd, but
>
> >
>
> > > they have to bug me. 嚙瞎ake stupid claims and for what? 嚙確he thing is

>
> >
>
> > > that I don't read most of Nyikos' stupid posts, and I can't imagine
>
> >
>

> > > that the sactimonious would have any reason to either. 嚙確hey likely

>
> >
>
> > > read the crap that Nyikos posts to other posters and obviously get the
>
> >
>
> > > idea that we are constantly going at it, when the facts are that
>
> >
>

> > > Nyikos will go months with out posting that crap to me. 嚙確hey have to

>
> >
>
> > > deal with Nyikos and obviously do not do a very good job, so why blame
>
> >
>

> > > me? 嚙皚ust because I am not there to defend myself from the stupidity,
>
> >
>
> > > doesn't meant that they should believe a liar like Nyikos. 嚙磋eally,

>
> >
>
> > > who would have thought that anyone would take Nyikos seriously?
>
> >
>
> > > Should I have been following Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper?
>
> >
>
> > > For months at a time the problem is theirs, and not mine, and look how
>
> >
>
> > > they deal with it.
>
> >
>
> > > Ron Okimoto
>
> >
>
> > I would ignore totally this affair of Nyikos.
>
> > Behave as if he do not existed, and its posts were
>
> > not printed here. And even if he mentions your name,
>

> > the best thing is to ignore it. 嚙磐ou cannot know what he

>
> > has said if you do not read his posts, and any replies some
>
> > other people make to his posts you should be stop reading
>

> > them when you see the word Nyikos. 嚙瘢t is a sort of

>
> > "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse" applied to
>
> > Nyikos, or "Carthago delenda est".
>
> >
>
> > Eridanus
>
>
>
> Easier said than done. Like I said Nyikos is a malicious asshole. I
>
> really don't mind reminding him of that fact when he decides to post
>
> to me.
>
>
>
> Ron Okimoto

I will tell you something. It is possible or even advisable with our
children, to immunize them against "social aversives". I mean aversive
controls that exist in social life. I am using aversives as an adjective
"substantivated". I am not sure if this word exists in English.
Probably not. The process of immunization to aversives, consist in
conditioning the child to bear mild insults and some pushing, or rubbing
while replying with clear smile. To achieve this we should start with the
mildest insults and pushing on the child, perhaps some mild hit, and
slowly in successive sessions increase the teasing. We should use some
sort of reinforcing of the child by smiling and behaving as if nothing
had passed. This makes these exercises bearable.
What happened is probably, like in my case, I was a very sensible child,
and did not bear well the ordinary rubbing and pushing, and the mild
insults most children use with others. These social aversives make
sensible boys less sociable in general, and more prone to solitary
activities like reading books and studying.

Then, we are adults now. But you should realize, the many people,
some are in this group, had got a taste for bitching others, or for
complaining that it is you who is bitching him. In general, we all
love to show our intelligence by arguing about something. This results
offensive, specially when they do no see a way out at replying.
This little game looks a little like we are bitching each other.
We can do it with a glove of velvet, we can do it with gardening glove.
This mean we are all "a little bitching each other".
There are several ways of bitching each other, and each person has his
own way of bitching, otherwise also called trolling, while pretending
he is being very polite.

You have to understand that a "troller", or a "bitcher", neologisms
that I had freshly minted here, get a lot of pleasure of this sport.
Sometimes the bitcher feigns to be offended. In general, there is
a way of bitching in which when you say, "stop trolling me" he feigns
to be offended and replies... "pretencieux qui? moi?"
It is suppose that you can not accuse anyone of being trolling you.
It is bad manners.

You should watch at least one episode of the series, "web therapy".
It is a comedy in which the therapist is bitching the client and
making him feel like distilled shit.
On the other hand. There is a social taboo about declaring oneself
offended or tolled by another. It is more tolerable to reply to
someone "fuck off" than being complaining.

I am dissecting social relations like it were an insect. Then, you have
to accept that a lot of people get a lot of pleasure of bitching
others. And there is not any other solution than to show them you are
immune. Or you can simple reply "fuck off" and that's all.

We are potentially somewhat social predators, that extract a lot of
pleasure bitching others. You had seen a few examples watching a
married couple bitching each other. This is a way of life. And
nobody would come at your rescue.

I am not sure, how this explanation can help you. You must think
of humans as a bunch of little bastards, ready to downplay or
humiliate anyone around. Observe how much we behave like chimps,
teasing each other. There is only a solution for this problem
to smile, and ignore anyone that complains about you.
You are a nice dude, Ron. I take you as a sort of scientist.
Do not get depressed by this little shit. This is nothing.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

we had been committing the error of paying his post too much
attention with countless replies. To this crappy argument he
is presenting there is not any reason to produce so much
traffic of post. It is not that is impossible philosophical
that a panespermia could exist. It is that it makes not any
sense to argument about this shit. It is a waste of time.
I suppose we must have serious question to worry and argument
about.
Think about the paradigm. If we are almost unable to talk much
about abiogenesis, what improvement would we find in thinking
about panespermia? It is demented.

Eridanus


Eridanus

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:48:51 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 4/15/2013 9:22 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:54:03 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/15/2013 9:09 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 04:19:55 -0700 (PDT), "g...@risky-biz.com"
>>>> <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Presumably this was intended as parody? If so, it was spot-on. I
>>>>> couldn't get past the first few lines of yours either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So that's one more vote for "willfully ignorant". T.O. is looking
>>>> more like Afghanistan with each passing day.
>>>>
>>> I'm trying to decide if the irony is intentional. Ron O. produces a
>>> screed that is a dead ringer for any of several thread-starters by
>>> Nyikos, and you respond almost exactly as Peter would when I tweak him
>>> about it. How many people are in on the joke?
>>
>>
>> I intend no irony. If I assume you do not also, perhaps you will
>> answer my question: why do you not think relevant the facts presented
>> by Ron O.?
>>
>I recently chided Peter in a thread he started to once again document
>the alleged crimes of his antagonists. I told him over a few exchanges
>that this was the reason that I seldom read his posts; endless petty
>feuds don't interest me.

Me either.

>And just as his original post bore a striking similarity to the original
>post in *this* thread (to whatever degree I read either of them), your
>response (and Ron's) mimic Peter's perfectly. That alone should give you
>pause.

What gives me pause here is that you again admit to a cursory and/or
partial read of these posts, and yet you again insist they are the
same. Do you understand that's what "willful ignorance" means, to
refuse to look at all of the available evidence?

>All of you lament my personal failings; ignorance and apathy
>among them. If only I would devote the proper time and effort to
>examining the meticulously researched evidence that (Peter/Ron) has
>amassed, I would surely condemn (Ron/Peter) as the
>liar/hypocrite/monster that he is rightly judged to be.
>
>Wherever the "fault" may lie it seems awfully damned odd to me that
>adults would spend time pursuing the same tired *virtual, online*
>grievance for years. The research to document the other side's
>transgressions is especially peculiar. The remedy is simple, really. If
>you ignore your opponent's nonsense, there are two possible outcomes,
>both favorable: He will tire of jousting with no one and stop, or he
>will look like an ass for continuing alone.
>
>Do as you please, but examining either side's "facts" for "relevance" is
>not a profitable use of my time.

Ok, you stated your position fairly clearly. Thank you for your
reply.

[jillery]

Don't they herd reindeer or something?

[jillery]

Ok, it could have been an unintentional pun. I still think it's
funny.

[Paul J Gans]

Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 16, 7:39?am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:21:58 -0700 (PDT), Mitchell Coffey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 15, 4:29 am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700, Ron O wrote:
>> >> > There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
>> >> > there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it.
>>

>> >> He certainly seems to be playing _a_ major role. ?But you and Jillery

>> >> seem to be as much to blame as him, at least "for the last several

>> >> weeks". ?It doesn't matter who started the quarrel originally, you're all
>> >> responsible for continuing it.
>>
>> >> (e.g. You've actually started this thread just to bash him. ?That's

>> Yeppers. ?By his logic, England and Germany are equally to blame for

>> WWII. [1]
>>
>> [1] Actually it was all France's fault. [2]
>>

>> [2] Just kidding. ?Everyone knows it was the fault of the Jews. [3]
>>
>> [3] Just kidding again. ?I blame the Estonians.

>[4] Latvia. But, seriously, who can tell the difference?

Harumpf. Lithuania. It was Litvaks all the way.

[Richard Norman]

Damn straight. The Grand Duchy of Lithania ruled from the Baltic to
the Black Sea back in the 14th Century, the largest state in Europe.

Well, maybe not my variety of Litvak. But Litvaks nonetheless.

[Paul J Gans]

I agree.

[Paul J Gans]

Don't look at me. I'm Galitzianer all the way down.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:03:33 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

So's my wife. I tell people I have a mixed marraige.

Well, that plus the fact that I am from The Bronx whereas she's from
Brooklyn.

[Paul J Gans]

That is worse.

I myself am a traitor. I was mainly raised in the Bronx and
Manhattan and now find myself a refugee living in Brooklyn.

But actually I'm a midwesterner, born in Chicago. My wife
is from the Cleveland area. I met her when she was a college
freshman and I was an ancient grad student. She was with a
group of friends who admitted that they hoped to find a
future husband before graduation (think pre-Mad Men days).
But my future wife claimed that she was there for a degree.

I bet her a quarter she'd get married before she graduated.
I still have the quarter.

Why am I in New York? Because academics go to where the job
is...

[Harry K]

More whining.

Harry K

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:38:43 -0700, Mark Isaak

Not to disagree with your suggestions above, but to understand the
scope of how and when you think they apply, I describe the following
actual events. There have been from time-to-time numerous 1000-post
threads, and even some multi-1000 post threads. Also there are
numerous threads based on the same subject but with different titles.
They are a substantial fraction of the activity on T.O.

As a very occasional participant of these threads, I say with
authority that, in both these cases, almost all of the arguments and
assertions presented therein are recycled. Almost everything that
could be said about these topics has been said a long time ago. Yet
these topics are very popular, especially among the "village elders",
who tend to dominate them.

If your suggestions above are intended as a means of avoiding the
negative consequences of specific provocations, then why don't you
apply your suggestions to these cases as well? ISTM if that was done,
these cases would disappear almost overnight, and you might think
that's a good thing. However, I suspect if you tried, you would get
shouted down very quickly.

[eridanus]

El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 22:07:02 UTC+1, jillery escribi�:

what if the cause of WWII was the crash of wall street?

Eridanus

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:23:35 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>what if the cause of WWII was the crash of wall street?

Which one?

[eridanus]

El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 10:00:07 UTC+1, jillery escribi�:

the crash of 1929
eridanus

[Ron O]

It isn't just a correlation it is fact. Nyikos kept lying about all
the terrible things that I had done to him, but what did he do? If I
was really guilty would it have taken a year and a half to deliver his
three knockdowns? His first two knockdowns were based on made up
stories (the second knockdown supposedly occurred last May). Nyikos
understands that because he refused to defend the made up stories.
His last knockdown is just Nyikos projecting his own bogus behavior
onto me. He is the one that depends on dishonest deletia and running
away from what he can't deal with. Could Nyikos come up with a single
other instance where I had done what he claims that I did? No. The
topic wasn't even about anything that we had disagreed about or even
discussed before. He hasn't even told me that he has delivered the
third knockdown. That is how much faith he has in his own stupid
behavior. He knows that what he does is stupid and dishonest, but he
does it anyway. Telling me that he delivered his third knockdown,
without informing me is just something too terrible to face because it
would violate one of Nyikos' stupid rules that he uses to maintain his
delusions. It is far more than a correlation. I don't make up the
Nyikosian rules. Nyikos has admitted to his one post lying rule, and
anyone that has interacted with Nyikos for any length of time
understands just how assiduously Nyikos keeps to that rule. The
others that I have picked up are based on the obvious Nyikosian
repetitive behavior in how he deals with material that he can't
defend. He has these delusional rules because he has to maintain his
lies about never lying on the internet and never losing a contested
argument on the internet.

Really, I just found out this one when I went back and counted up the
posts. Nyikos really claims that he has never lost an argument that
he has contested on the internet. He made that claim in one of his
March posts. I quoted it somewhere. My crime for the past two years
is demonstrating that, that delusion is wrong. Within the first
couple of weeks it was demonstrated that Nyikos was wrong about
something that he was being an ass about and demanding evidence for
it. When the evidence was put forward and the Google search term
provided to get as much other evidence as he wanted to deal with he
literally ran away and started attacking me in other posts. His
delusion explains his stupid behavior back then and for all the
subsequent times that he has just been plain wrong.

>
> > If Nyikos doesn't post to me all anyone would see is Nyikos bleating
> > and whining. �I have left Nyikos alone. �It is just a fact that, that
> > strategy doesn't work with an ass like Nyikos.
>
> On the contrary, it shows quite plainly that his behavior is to bleat
> and whine.

Not with some posters other than Nyikos.

>
> > If you could present evidence that Nyikos is insane, and not
> > just a malicious jerk that enjoys hurting people, I would leave him
> > alone.
>
> "Insane" is a poorly delineated term. �Some would say that being "a
> malicious jerk that enjoys hurting people" is enough to declare the
> person insane. �By some criteria, everybody is insane. �For example,
> people make moral judgments faster than they make conscious thoughts.
> This usually serves well in small social groups, but many times,
> especially in fora like this, it leads to people attacking the person
> instead of the argument. �Such behavior is irrational and dysfunctional,
> and would likely be called "insane" if it were not universal.
>
> Peter obviously has some kind of problem with social interactions. �My
> suspicion is that a qualified psychologist could put a diagnostic label
> on it, but I dunno, nor does it matter much. �He needs help regardless
> of how his problem is labeled. �But that does not matter much, either,
> because he does not accept such help and certainly will not accept it
> from any of us.

I don't claim that he is insane either. If I thought that he was
insane I would not post to the guy. He is a delusional malicious jerk
and I don't mind demonstrating that when he posts to me.

>
> Meanwhile, what to do about the "Nyikos problem"? �Here are a few
> practical suggestions, not just for Nyikos, but for dealing with any
> attacks.

I can't agree with some of these rules.

>
> 1. �When attacked, do not respond immediately. �Mark the post for later
> attention, and come back to it the next day, or at the very least after
> an hour. �This, first, gives you a chance to get your conscious mind
> engaged and your initial emotional response to moderate. �Second, it
> gives you time to think about what response is appropriate.

I often do this.

>
> 2. �Keep your response shorter than the attack. �This will help prevent
> the attack from escalating. �When someone is being a jerk, others can
> see it as well as you, so you do not need to elaborate, and no response
> at all is often an appropriate response. �If you are afraid others will
> believe the attack, a simple "That was inaccurate" will suffice.
> Remember that nobody else is interested in all your supporting evidence.
> � If you doubt that, simply add, "Supporting evidence available upon
> request," and see how many people request it.

This is not a formal timed debate, and there is no reason to let any
lying scoundrel off the hook when they employ the Gish gallop. One of
the things that gets to me is that over 2 years ago I stopped reading
most of Nyikos' posts to other posters, and I can't see why anyone
that has been involved in TO for those years would read my responses
to Nyikos unless they want to. Nyikos gets what he deserves. The
only way to get Nyikos to realize what a delusional jerk he is, is to
plainly demonstrate it to him. Nyikos can pack several lies into a
paragraph. It does take time and verbage to get that message across.
There is no reason to let a jerk get away with what they do. This is
a written forum. Nyikosian quote mining and dishonest deletia and
post manipulations can be dealt with and it really is the only way to
deal with Peter and he runs for weeks or months after.

>
> 3. �Never respond to the same attack more than once.

I do this often, but not always. Just in Nyikos' last attack I didn't
need to respond to his stupidity over and over. I just had to point
out that he was using the Twain quote about repetitive insane behavior
and he was obviously the one that posted 4 posts all with the same
repetitive delusional material in them. I just had to point that out
and demonstrate how delusional Nyikos was and his repetitive delusions
became his third knockdown, which he decided to slink away from and
not even tell me that he had delivered it. I really had no idea that
he had delivered his third knockdown because he claimed that he would
stop posting to me after delivering it, but he obviously posted
multiple posts to me after the fact. This is just what I have been
dealing with for over two years.

I will say that it is obvious from the reponses of some other posters
that if you do not defend yourself against bogus repetitive attacks
that they get the wrong impression and the squeaky wheel gets the
grease. There will be months where I do not defend myself against the
repetitive Nykosian attacks, and my lack of defending myself seems to
have given some people the wrong impression.

>
> 4. �Keep any response only to what you know, and you do not know the
> other person's motivations or state of mind.

If I did not do this Nyikos would have had no trouble delivering his
three knockdowns. As it turned out all his knockdowns were made up
stories that he can't defend. That is a fact.

>
> 5. �Above all, remember that you are not going to solve any problems by
> attacking back (or attacking in the first place). �The counterattack
> gets you past the usually brief period of your ego being threatened, but
> that's all. �If there are other problems beyond that, the way to deal
> with them is to identify the problems specifically, state them clearly,
> and address them as a rational adult.

We are talking about Nyikos and it really is the only way to make him
evaluate the situation so as to, at least, run from what he is guilty
of. It is the only respite that you are going to get with the loser.
So like all rules there are exceptions, and in Nyikos' case what is
said about him are things that he can't deny. If he could deny them
the situation would be very different.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Apr 16, 9:22�am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 4/15/13 4:28 PM, Ron O wrote:
>
> > [...] �I doubt that any sane
> > and informed person wants to support Nyikos, so why are they doing it?
>
> I have skipped many of the posts in this thread. �Who (besides Nyikos)
> is supporting Nyikos?
>

> --
> 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

I will not name the posters because I believe that this is a Nyikos
problem, and there is no reason to make anyone more defensive than
thay already are.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:999e822c-071a-4db4...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

I don't know how much more of this I can take.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Apr 16, 5:38�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

<snip for focus>

> Meanwhile, what to do about the "Nyikos problem"? �Here are a few
> practical suggestions, not just for Nyikos, but for dealing with any
> attacks.

> 1. �When attacked, do not respond immediately. �Mark the post for later
> attention, and come back to it the next day, or at the very least after
> an hour. �This, first, gives you a chance to get your conscious mind
> engaged and your initial emotional response to moderate. �Second, it
> gives you time to think about what response is appropriate.

> 2. �Keep your response shorter than the attack. �This will help prevent
> the attack from escalating. �When someone is being a jerk, others can
> see it as well as you, so you do not need to elaborate, and no response
> at all is often an appropriate response. �If you are afraid others will
> believe the attack, a simple "That was inaccurate" will suffice.
> Remember that nobody else is interested in all your supporting evidence.
> � If you doubt that, simply add, "Supporting evidence available upon
> request," and see how many people request it.

> 3. �Never respond to the same attack more than once.

> 4. �Keep any response only to what you know, and you do not know the
> other person's motivations or state of mind.

> 5. �Above all, remember that you are not going to solve any problems by
> attacking back (or attacking in the first place). �The counterattack
> gets you past the usually brief period of your ego being threatened, but
> that's all. �If there are other problems beyond that, the way to deal
> with them is to identify the problems specifically, state them clearly,
> and address them as a rational adult.

Your practical suggestions are indeed as wise as possible.
However do you expect that they will be followed by someone who did
not ask for them?
See Jillery and Ron O' s replies to your advice.

[eridanus]

El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 12:48:34 UTC+1, Ron O escribi�:

dear Ron. Just a brief comment. Being delusional, malicious and paranoiac,
and even more, it is about the same thing wrapped in the same packet.
I do not understand how you got this shock with this almost demented man.
Forget about him! If someone is following him, must have about the same
level of intelligence as him. And you should not worry about what moron
people think of you.
On the other hand, do not be impressed by morons using scientific
jargon. They are like the proverbial "wolf wearing a sheep fur" metaphor
used in the gospels. Not all those that are using a scientific jargon
are scientists. Most are people simulating they had an intelligence.
It is quite easy. I recommend you to read "Intellectual Impostures" of
some guy called Alan Sokal and other guy. Look in the google.

> 'A splendid book.' Richard Dawkins, Nature 'A delicious revelation
> that even the perpetrators of postmodern philosophy often have no
> idea what they're saying.'
> The Observer 'The exposure of ignorance, pomposity and pseudo-science
> in this book are truly breathtaking.'
> Sunday Telegraph 'A forensic examination of sackloads of ordure from
> the postmodern stable.'

Eridanus.

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

And they have definitely become very defensive.

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:12:51 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 10:00:07 UTC+1, jillery escribi�:
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:23:35 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>>
>> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >what if the cause of WWII was the crash of wall street?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Which one?
>
>the crash of 1929

Just as the Cold War was the result of unresolved and new issues from
WWII, WWII was the result of unresolved and new issues from WWI, and
the Wall Street Crash of 1929 was a part of the general chaos during
the interregnum.

And one can argue that WWI was the result of unresolved and new issues
from the Franco-Prussian War of1870. A point being that if wars
resolve anything, they also create and leave other things unresolved,
and there is no net gain.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On 17 avr, 18:07, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:12:51 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 10:00:07 UTC+1, jillery �escribi�:
> >> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:23:35 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

> >> >what if the cause of WWII was the crash of wall street?
> >> Which one?
> >the crash of 1929
> Just as the Cold War was the result of unresolved and new issues from
> WWII, WWII was the result of unresolved and new issues from WWI, and
> the Wall Street Crash of 1929 was a part of the general chaos during
> the interregnum.
> And one can argue that WWI was the result of unresolved and new issues
> from the Franco-Prussian War of1870. �A point being that if wars
> resolve anything, they also create and leave other things unresolved,
> and there is no net gain.

You seem surprised that there can be wars between humans but if you
look at the unreasonable quarrels and inflexible hatreds that can
arise in this forum you should not be surprised.

[eridanus]

El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 17:07:50 UTC+1, jillery escribi�:

it can be argued any shit whatever. We are going to believe the most
repeated theories
I favor the most weird theory, that one I had never read, or heard talk about.
Which is my explanation? The economic crisis. The crisis made people
suffer and feel anguish. No to say to feel some hunger, and some doubts
about what they were going to eat the next day. It is in this context
that you should analyze the situation. The conservatives, that were
the theoretical owners of the money, were unable to solve the crisis.
The kept saying that "the market" would cure itself. The same shit are
now saying. Then, existed some groups speaking about solutions. Like
the communists, that preached a revolution. Other, like the Nazis, wanted
to kill democracy, for democracy was unable to solve the crisis. And this
was true, not only in Germany, but in US as well, and in France and in the
UK, and you name any other Western nation.

If there would not had existed the crash of wall street... well... to
analyze it more precisely... the cause was not the "real crash" of 29.
The cause were the conditions in which the stock exchange was working.
They way it was working... we can argue about this point if you like...
the way it was working was a perfect formula for a crash. It was an
easy prediction. Of course, ordinary people that was investing in
Wall Street could not predict any shit, or they would not be investing.
But those that did were misled with false information and delusions
of becoming richer. Those that had information to predict the crash
were too busy ruining the others and enriching themselves. They could
not worry about the crash. In fact, in the last year before the crash
they were selling their own shares to swindled investors at the
incredible higher prices.
In objective terms, the crash ware easily predictable by anyone
with a minimum sense for mathematics.

There are other things that are going to happen and are predictable as
well. But... do you remember the myth of the Princess Cassandra? Apollo
gave her the gift of foreseeing in dreams the impending catastrophes.
But Cassandra was ungrateful with the god, and refused to be in bed with
him. The god Apollo was rather pissed off, as you were after giving a
nice girl a very expansive ring with a lot of diamonds.
The god was rather pissed off, but he could not do anything. There is
cosmic rule that prohibit the gods to take off any given gift.
Apollo consulted with his attorneys to see what action he could do
to punish the ungrateful Cassandra. On the advice of his advocates,
the god added a coarse to the gift. Cassandra could foresee any impending catastrophe, but nobody would believe in her prophetic dreams.

Perhaps, you know well this story. But there is someone that
had not heard this story of Cassandra.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 18:12:58 UTC+1, marc.t...@wanadoo.fr escribi�:

there is not any quarrels here, just a little rubbing of egos.

Each one of us is the most intelligent of the pack. And we want
to show it, and to impress others with our intelligence. The problem
is very simply. We are all intelligent. We all believe we have
the right knowledge, and what is real and what is false.

There is not other problem now.
If you want to prove something that the others deem false, you are
on a wrong road. You can only prove that the other people thinks
it is real, or that it is deemed as something real or that looks
as being real. Taking real as meaning valid.

All this is rather subjective, and depends on the rules your brain
as using. If we both are using the same rules, we can easily be
in accord. But if we are using different rules of reasoning we will
accuse each other of being a moron.
the key of all this is the rules we are using. You can think there
is an universal way reasoning and an unique set of logic rules; but
there aren't.
In part, the impotence of the logic mechanics can be observed in that
we are unable to solve a lot of problems we have awaiting a solution.
If the rules of logic were fool-prove, as some people figure, there
would not exist any puzzle of problem without a proper solution.

The rules of logic are only valid for trivial questions. For the
rest of questions there is not any set of fool-prove logic.

And that's all. But we all want to prove others, how intelligent we
are. It is but an innocent show of petulance. We love ourselves,
and we are proud of our intelligence that had been cultivated for
many years by reading "the intelligence of others".
We are not in war with each other. We are only rubbing elbows or
pushing a little on the back of others.
There is not more.

Eridanus

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:12:58 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

I am surprised that you infer surprise. I intended nothing of the
kind.

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:41:47 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 17:07:50 UTC+1, jillery escribi�:
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:12:51 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>>
>> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 10:00:07 UTC+1, jillery escribi�:
>>
>> >> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:23:35 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >what if the cause of WWII was the crash of wall street?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Which one?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >the crash of 1929
>>
>>
>> Just as the Cold War was the result of unresolved and new issues from
>> WWII, WWII was the result of unresolved and new issues from WWI, and
>> the Wall Street Crash of 1929 was a part of the general chaos during
>> the interregnum.
>>
>> And one can argue that WWI was the result of unresolved and new issues
>> from the Franco-Prussian War of1870. A point being that if wars
>> resolve anything, they also create and leave other things unresolved,
>> and there is no net gain.
>
>it can be argued any shit whatever. We are going to believe the most
>repeated theories

You can argue any shit whatever if you want. I don't. You asked a
question. I answered it. Enjoy yourself.

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 18:12:58 UTC+1, marc.t...@wanadoo.fr escribi�:
>> On 17 avr, 18:07, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:12:51 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>>
>> > <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 10:00:07 UTC+1, jillery �escribi�:
>>
>> > >> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:23:35 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>>
>> > >> >what if the cause of WWII was the crash of wall street?
>>
>> > >> Which one?
>>
>> > >the crash of 1929
>>
>> > Just as the Cold War was the result of unresolved and new issues from
>>
>> > WWII, WWII was the result of unresolved and new issues from WWI, and
>>
>> > the Wall Street Crash of 1929 was a part of the general chaos during
>>
>> > the interregnum.
>>
>> > And one can argue that WWI was the result of unresolved and new issues
>>
>> > from the Franco-Prussian War of1870. �A point being that if wars
>>
>> > resolve anything, they also create and leave other things unresolved,
>>
>> > and there is no net gain.
>>
>>
>>
>> You seem surprised that there can be wars between humans but if you
>>
>> look at the unreasonable quarrels and inflexible hatreds that can
>>
>> arise in this forum you should not be surprised.
>
>there is not any quarrels here, just a little rubbing of egos.

I inferred no rubbing of egos, but I'm not surprised that you do.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 04/16/2013 07:57 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 03:16:37 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 00:06:00 UTC+1, Ron O escribi�:
>>> On Apr 15, 7:48 am, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> El lunes, 15 de abril de 2013 12:59:39 UTC+1, Ron O escribi�:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> On Apr 15, 3:29 am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700, Ron O wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>

>>>>>> He certainly seems to be playing _a_ major role. But you and Jillery
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> seem to be as much to blame as him, at least "for the last several
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> weeks". It doesn't matter who started the quarrel originally, you're all
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> responsible for continuing it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>

>>>>> This is the type of rationalization that I just don't get. The last
>>>
>>>>> few weeks means more than a year and a half of stupidity. How do you
>>>
>>>>> come to that conclusion?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I cannot believe you are worried by this shit, Ron. How can you be
>>>
>>>> affected by what some stupid people are telling of you?
>>>
>>>> Do you really had any need of their appreciation? You should remember
>>>
>>>> that only a small fraction of the people have enough intelligence.
>>>
>>>> The rest is nothing but trash, even they are posting in this group.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I really cannot understand that you will need to be worshiped by some
>>>
>>>> stupids. It reminds me a little, on the stupid idea I was taught when
>>>
>>>> I was a boy, "that god put us in the earth to sing his praises."
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> What need would had an omniscient and omnipotent god that these stupid
>>>
>>>> animals called humans were singing its praises? It is absurd. This was
>>>
>>>> the main reason I had become an atheist when I was 12 years old.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Eridanus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no doubt that the actions of some make it more difficult to
>>>
>>> deal with the Nyikos problem. It just does not go away, and
>>>
>>> pretending does nothing, but let the loser fester. He obviously gets
>>>
>>> off on this junk and it only encourages him.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a need to set the record straight because ignorance of this
>>>
>>> situation should not be the reason for continuing the ostrich
>>>
>>> treatment and pretending that sense will win out. It never has with
>>>
>>> Nyikos and it never will. I don't bug the sactimonious crowd, but
>>>
>>> they have to bug me. Make stupid claims and for what? The thing is
>>>
>>> that I don't read most of Nyikos' stupid posts, and I can't imagine
>>>
>>> that the sactimonious would have any reason to either. They likely
>>>
>>> read the crap that Nyikos posts to other posters and obviously get the
>>>
>>> idea that we are constantly going at it, when the facts are that
>>>
>>> Nyikos will go months with out posting that crap to me. They have to
>>>
>>> deal with Nyikos and obviously do not do a very good job, so why blame
>>>
>>> me? Just because I am not there to defend myself from the stupidity,
>>>
>>> doesn't meant that they should believe a liar like Nyikos. Really,
>>>
>>> who would have thought that anyone would take Nyikos seriously?
>>>
>>> Should I have been following Nyikos around TO with a pooper scooper?
>>>
>>> For months at a time the problem is theirs, and not mine, and look how
>>>
>>> they deal with it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>
>> I would ignore totally this affair of Nyikos.
>> Behave as if he do not existed, and its posts were
>> not printed here. And even if he mentions your name,
>> the best thing is to ignore it. You cannot know what he
>> has said if you do not read his posts, and any replies some
>> other people make to his posts you should be stop reading
>> them when you see the word Nyikos. It is a sort of
>> "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse" applied to
>> Nyikos, or "Carthago delenda est".
>
>
> OTOH you could always follow your own advice and not read anything of
> this affair. But I understand that for most people following their
> own advice is a lot harder than giving it.

How exactly does anyone go about not reading of this affair given its
dominance of the group's discussion? It spreads like an invasive species.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Speaking for the relatively silent non-aligned group...screw you, Ron O
and Nyikos for this crap. I (maybe we) am sick of this crap already. I
don't care who started it. Finish it in email. That's not me being
defensive, but intentionally offensive I hope! Tit for tat.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 04/17/2013 03:24 AM, jillery wrote:

[snip]

> As a very occasional participant of these threads, I say with
> authority that, in both these cases, almost all of the arguments and
> assertions presented therein are recycled.

To quote "a very occasional participant of these threads". Really?
Occasional? Participant or partisan?

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 04/16/2013 10:29 AM, chris thompson wrote:

> On Apr 14, 2:53 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and

>> there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it. I

>> suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making

>> comments on it that they likely will regret. Some TO posters can't
>> accept the facts or are ignorant of them. Richard Norman came out
>> with his outrageous statistic in relation to the problem between
>> myself and Nyikos and he was obviously ignorant of the reality of the
>> situation. He prompted me to do a brief survey. It is far from
>> complete and not an adequate sample, but it is all that I am willing
>> to do. If someone wants to wade through more of Nyikos' bogus posts
>> they can do it.
>>
>> Basically I just used Google to look up the threads that Nyikos had
>> participated in, in March. 10 threads came up. I looked at my posts
>> in those threads and Nyikos' posts. There were two threads where
>> Nyikos and I exchanged posts. I did not participate in 7 of the
>> threads, and in one thread I made a post, but the post had nothing to
>> do with Nyikos. I counted all the posts where Nyikos mentions me by
>> name. I did not count the posts were he refers to the group against
>> him or the "unmagnificent seven" without mentioning me by name even
>> though he was including me in his disparaging comments, so this is a
>> minimum count.
>>
>> Google has Nyikos making 171 posts in March. In the 8 threads that I
>> did not exchange posts with Nyikos he mentions me 24 times. It is
>> obvious that Nyikos mentions me in a significant number of his posts
>> when I am not posting to him. In the two threads that we exchanged
>> posts one was a draw at 6 posts each and the other was 15 Nyikos and 7
>> for me. Between November and February the skew will be worse because
>> Nyikos and I didn't interact much except for his claims that he would
>> soon deliver his third knockdown and it was delayed for another month.
>>
>> Apparently people like Norman see Nyikos' posts and think that we are
>> going at it, but since October 2011 Nyikos doesn't post to me very
>> much. He gave up on what we were arguing about and just went into his
>> personal attack mode. Most of his whining and bleating is done to
>> other posters when I am not around. For the last year and a half
>> Nyikos has basically devoted himself to personal attacks and his
>> endeavor to deliver the three knockdowns that he claimed were terrible
>> things that I had done to him. Just after October 2011 there were two
>> months where Nyikos and I did not exchange posts. It was all
>> basically just Nyikos lying to other posters during that time. What
>> was Nyikos' first post to me after the two month break? He started a
>> whole thread to accuse me of running away from 1 post for two months.
>> The post was laden with personal attacks about family abuse and
>> nervous breakdowns and how bad someone would be for running from one
>> post. The post that I was supposedly running from was one that I
>> didn't even know existed and on a topic that I had no interest in.
>> Who was running from dozens of posts by his own definition of
>> running? Nyikos is just that bad.
>>
>> There were three months between July and October where Nyikos did not
>> post to me and it was all Nyikos bleating and whining to other
>> posters. There will be weeks and months between our exchanges.
>> Basically for the last year and a half I have mostly limited my
>> responses to Nyikos to his posts to me. This seems to have been a
>> mistake because some people have gotten the mistaken belief that we
>> are at each other all the time when it is just Nyikos and it looks
>> like the squeaky wheel gets the grease and they think that there are
>> two sides responsible for this fiasco when I haven't defended myself.
>> Nyikos is just a delusional liar. I thought that no one would have to
>> be told that or be convinced of that fact. If he were not a
>> delusional liar would it have taken him a year and a half to deliver
>> his three knockdowns? Obviously, he went back through all our
>> exchanges and couldn't come up with anything worth mentioning. His
>> first knockdown was based on an out of context quote from a post that
>> was 4 months old when he made up the stupid story. His second and
>> third pathetic knockdown attempts didn't even exist when he claimed to
>> be able to deliver his three knockdowns. It doesn't take a genius to
>> go through what he claims as knockdowns to realize how delusional
>> Nyikos is.
>>
>> It isn't just posts about me. Going through Nyikos' posts, posters
>> such as Gans, Coffey, O'shea, Jillery, Casanova, and Harshman get
>> negative mentions some more than I do, but they are posting to Nyikos
>> in those threads even though Nyikos may be talking about them to other
>> posters at times and not posting his junk to them. I have apparently
>> developed a cabal against Nyikos even though I basically ignore the
>> guy except when he posts to me. There seems to be 7 people on this
>> list. Nyikos' incessant bleating and whining is basically how it has
>> been for the last year and a half. My crime seems to be that Nyikos
>> was wrong about the ID scam and the bait and switch and he can't
>> accept his abject failure on the subject. For the last year and a
>> half he has just been harassing me over topics that I really don't
>> care to discuss with him. Even his dishonest denial about being a
>> creationist was a topic that had been dropped a year before he brought
>> it up again. Anyone that wants to can go back further and check it
>> out.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> Please. Enough of this. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

I am over it too. I wish Nyikos would cease and desist from his attacks
and RonO/jillery from their attacks. I have had enough. This soap opera/
pro wrestling script has been allowed to go on long enough (ca. 1998).

[Bill]

On Apr 18, 7:38�am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/17/2013 11:28 AM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:54:36 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>

Hear, hear, a plague on both their houses.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 04/16/2013 02:56 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Apr 15, 11:36 am, Harry K <turn...@q.com> wrote:

>> On Apr 15, 1:29 am, solar penguin <solar.peng...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:53:14 -0700, Ron O wrote:
>>>> There has been poison in the air on TO for the last several weeks, and
>>>> there is no doubt that Nyikos has played the major role in it.
>>

>>> He certainly seems to be playing _a_ major role. But you and Jillery
>>> seem to be as much to blame as him, at least "for the last several
>>> weeks". It doesn't matter who started the quarrel originally, you're all
>>> responsible for continuing it.
>>

>>> (e.g. You've actually started this thread just to bash him. That's
>>> hardly going to reduce the amount of "poison in the air", is it?)
>>

>>>> I suggest that anyone interested read this whole post before making
>>>> comments on it that they likely will regret.
>>

>>> I tried to, but couldn't cope with all that annoying, "It's not fair, he
>>> started it, he did, he did, he did!"-type bleating.
>>
>>> Nyikos and Jillery are already spending a month in my killfile, and
>>> thanks to this post, you're going to join them!
>

> Like Ron O, you are counting threads rather than sheer volume of
> personal insults, where Ron O has it over me many times over -- in the
> wrong way. Even so, you are stacking the deck in his favor.
>
>> Playing a "major role"? I would say by the number of whining threads
>> he has started his is playing almost a sole role in it.
>
> You are forgetting about the "By their Fruits " threads ,where Ron O
> "whines" about me being a creationist, which is an insult-- one of the
> biggest insults in t.o, given the demographics of this newsgroup --
> unless Ron O spells out that by "creationist" he means anyone who
> believes in any kind of supernatural intervention in our universe.
>
> And even then, it is a falsehood where I am concerned. But I can't
> recall him spelling out that I am NOT a creationist in the usual
> talk.origins sense of the word, and so I have been insulted.
>
>> He enters the "field of honor" and you expect everyone to just leave
>> it to him?
>
> No, Ron O expects everyone to ignore me, but for completely fraudulent
> reasons.

Get over yourselves self-absorbed, obnoxious jerks! Can't you let
anything go Nyikos! Has this group transformed into your vendetta blog
where you settle long due scores from over a decade ago? As a
non-aligned member I say this crap has gone on long enough. Go on
sabbatical til you all can remember what being an adult means. I have
had enough of this crap...not that anyone gives a shit!

Get over yourselves all of you.

[Paul J Gans]

Try being a target and then report back to us.

[Paul J Gans]

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>On 17 avr, 18:07, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:12:51 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >El mi?rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 10:00:07 UTC+1, jillery ?escribi?:

>> >> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:23:35 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>> >> >what if the cause of WWII was the crash of wall street?
>> >> Which one?
>> >the crash of 1929
>> Just as the Cold War was the result of unresolved and new issues from
>> WWII, WWII was the result of unresolved and new issues from WWI, and
>> the Wall Street Crash of 1929 was a part of the general chaos during
>> the interregnum.
>> And one can argue that WWI was the result of unresolved and new issues

>> from the Franco-Prussian War of1870. ?A point being that if wars

>> resolve anything, they also create and leave other things unresolved,
>> and there is no net gain.

>You seem surprised that there can be wars between humans but if you
>look at the unreasonable quarrels and inflexible hatreds that can
>arise in this forum you should not be surprised.

What hatred? I don't hate anybody and I'm sure that most
others here don't hate anyone either. I do feel a great
sadness for one or two though.

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kknhef$1rb$3...@reader1.panix.com...

You must be joking.