Pre-Clovis big-game hunters?

[chris thompson]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/science/25mastodon.html

Chris

[Paul J Gans]

chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/science/25mastodon.html

>Chris

Hey Chris! Haven't seen you posting for a while. I trust everything
is OK?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Chris Thompson]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote in news:j7t5vo$q7b$2
@reader1.panix.com:

> chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/science/25mastodon.html
>
>>Chris
>
> Hey Chris! Haven't seen you posting for a while. I trust everything
> is OK?
>

Hi Paul,

Thanks for asking.

I got promoted to a senior position. However, to get the promotion, I had
to accept an evening shift...I now work 3-11 PM. On top of that, two days a
week, I teach an 8 AM class. It's hard getting used to this kind of
schedule. But yeah, all is good. Kid doing well in college, and I even get
to see my wife once in a while (usually Sunday afternoon, when I wake up).

Take care,

Chris

[Rolf]

chris thompson wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/science/25mastodon.html
>
> Chris

What I like about this, given todays well documented reliability of C14
dating,
is that it definitely pushes creation week back to more than 13.800 years
ago.

Rolf

[Paul J Gans]

Sounds like one of those "academic promotions" I learned to
be scared of.

There really ought to be a law against an 11 PM quitting time and
an 8 AM class the next day.

I hope that they are at least paying you a bit more for all this.

[Paul J Gans]

Nah. The year was longer then. So it all lines up.

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:10:01 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no>
wrote:

That's a rather young-earth age for creation, dontchathink?

[Chris Thompson]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote in

news:j7vcgi$1e5$2...@reader1.panix.com:

> Chris Thompson <chris.li...@google.com> wrote:
>>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote in news:j7t5vo$q7b$2
>>@reader1.panix.com:
>
>>> chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/science/25mastodon.html
>>>
>>>>Chris
>>>
>>> Hey Chris! Haven't seen you posting for a while. I trust
>>> everything is OK?
>>>
>
>>Hi Paul,
>
>>Thanks for asking.
>
>>I got promoted to a senior position. However, to get the promotion, I
>>had to accept an evening shift...I now work 3-11 PM. On top of that,
>>two days a week, I teach an 8 AM class. It's hard getting used to this
>>kind of schedule. But yeah, all is good. Kid doing well in college,
>>and I even get to see my wife once in a while (usually Sunday
>>afternoon, when I wake up).
>
> Sounds like one of those "academic promotions" I learned to
> be scared of.

Gah. Yeah. Now, in addition to doing the same things I did before, I get
to check to make sure all the other people are doing their jobs, too.
Plus paperwork. Gag.

>
> There really ought to be a law against an 11 PM quitting time and
> an 8 AM class the next day.

Well, I asked for it. Literally. I could have taught a somewhat later
class, but I was still in "morning-person" mode at the time. Of course,
to make life a little more surreal, the dogs are still stepping on my
face at 5AM (or thereabouts)...which is why I am on Usenet at 430 AM.

>
> I hope that they are at least paying you a bit more for all this.

They're not. When you get this kind of promotion at CUNY, they put you on
a different salary scale, but at the same pay rate. I have a higher
salary cap than before, but it will take about 3 years to really see a
difference.

On the plus side, some people have approached me about projects that they
might not have before. I am working on a couple of things that are really
interesting- new lab exercises, authoring a Lab Manual for microbiology,
getting a sustainability program off the ground at the college, and
keeping some professors in line while they design an Environmental
Sciences program at the school. No offense, but what is it about you guys
that makes you blind to logistical realities? Heh.

Take care, and let's get together soon!

Chris

[Ron O]

On Oct 22, 5:57 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:10:01 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no>

> wrote:
>
> >chris thompson wrote:
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/science/25mastodon.html
>
> >> Chris
>
> >What I like about this, given todays well documented reliability of C14
> >dating,
> >is that it definitely pushes creation week back to more than 13.800 years
> >ago.
>
> >Rolf
>
> That's a rather young-earth age for creation, dontchathink?

I recall some rumblings from the ICR after they moved to Texas that
the earth could be 50,000 years old. It had always been less than
20,000 years old before that. During the Arkansas creation science
fiasco around 1980 the claim was that the earth was only around 10,000
years old. I saw Gish give his speel around 1983 and he was claiming
less than 20,000.

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

[Mitchell Coffey]

Recent research has uncovered the surprising result that, no, the year
was not, as theretofore believed, longer. Bronze age sundials however
were twice as big, doubling the necessary time for shadows to transverse
them. Days, hence years, were calculated as taking twice their usual
length. Those biblical lifespans? Halve them.

Mitchell

[Glenn]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j81vve$mko$1...@dont-email.me...

You may be on to something, although I think you have it backwards. Since Noah,
they've had it about right, since 120 years could be compared to the longest
lifespan, and had their sundial sizes about right. But before that they had
teeny little stone sundials so that they could be carried on camel and goat,
being illiterate and knowing no better and having nothing to compare to, so the
reported ages before Noah should be at the least doubled.

[Paul J Gans]

Yeah, I know about this. And then 2 1/2 years from now the City
tells you that they can't afford *either* pay scale and you've
now been moved to one that is smaller than the other two.

>On the plus side, some people have approached me about projects that they
>might not have before. I am working on a couple of things that are really
>interesting- new lab exercises, authoring a Lab Manual for microbiology,
>getting a sustainability program off the ground at the college, and
>keeping some professors in line while they design an Environmental
>Sciences program at the school. No offense, but what is it about you guys
>that makes you blind to logistical realities? Heh.

I've noted that myself. I've been around long enough to know that
the most powerful people in a place are the janitors. The folks on
top make the money, but are clueless.

>Take care, and let's get together soon!

I'd like that. And we need to include other New York area folks
as well.

[Michael Siemon]

In article <j82ejo$eiq$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
...

> I've noted that myself. I've been around long enough to know that
> the most powerful people in a place are the janitors. The folks on
> top make the money, but are clueless.

Ah, DeadDog... :-)

> >Take care, and let's get together soon!
>
> I'd like that. And we need to include other New York area folks
> as well.

Would that I were still a New York area folk...

[John S. Wilkins]

Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:

> In article <j82ejo$eiq$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> ...
> > I've noted that myself. I've been around long enough to know that
> > the most powerful people in a place are the janitors. The folks on
> > top make the money, but are clueless.
>
> Ah, DeadDog... :-)

Janitors, security staff, administrative assistants and the catering
staff. Because you want to work in a clean place you can get into where
you can actually have things processed and get access to managers, and
where nobody spits in your coffee or lunch.

Everybody else is disposable in an institution.

>
>
> > >Take care, and let's get together soon!
> >
> > I'd like that. And we need to include other New York area folks
> > as well.
>
> Would that I were still a New York area folk...

Would that I became one...
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 10/24/2011 12:08 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Michael Siemon<mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> In article<j82ejo$eiq$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> Paul J Gans<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> I've noted that myself. I've been around long enough to know that
>>> the most powerful people in a place are the janitors. The folks on
>>> top make the money, but are clueless.
>>
>> Ah, DeadDog... :-)
>
> Janitors, security staff, administrative assistants and the catering
> staff. Because you want to work in a clean place you can get into where
> you can actually have things processed and get access to managers, and
> where nobody spits in your coffee or lunch.

An' secretaries & clerks, people who know what's going on, and who, and
hold the place together.

>
> Everybody else is disposable in an institution.
>>
>>
>>>> Take care, and let's get together soon!
>>>
>>> I'd like that. And we need to include other New York area folks
>>> as well.
>>
>> Would that I were still a New York area folk...
>
> Would that I became one...

Street Philosopher, you could be. Cloth motorcycle coat and sandals year
round. It would work in Manhattan.

Mitchell

[John S. Wilkins]

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

> On 10/24/2011 12:08 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > Michael Siemon<mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article<j82ejo$eiq$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >> Paul J Gans<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> I've noted that myself. I've been around long enough to know that
> >>> the most powerful people in a place are the janitors. The folks on
> >>> top make the money, but are clueless.
> >>
> >> Ah, DeadDog... :-)
> >
> > Janitors, security staff, administrative assistants and the catering
> > staff. Because you want to work in a clean place you can get into where
> > you can actually have things processed and get access to managers, and
> > where nobody spits in your coffee or lunch.
>
> An' secretaries & clerks, people who know what's going on, and who, and
> hold the place together.

We can't call 'em secretaries now, instead they are administrative
assistants. And clerks are administrators, but generally they are
unimportant to the running of the place (I speak as an ex-clerk).

Not this kind of Clerk:

For he would rather have at his bed's head
Some twenty books, all bound in black and red,
Of Aristotle and his philosophy
Than rich robes, fiddle, or gay psaltery.
Yet, and for all he was philosopher,
He had but little gold within his coffer;

> >
> > Everybody else is disposable in an institution.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Take care, and let's get together soon!
> >>>
> >>> I'd like that. And we need to include other New York area folks
> >>> as well.
> >>
> >> Would that I were still a New York area folk...
> >
> > Would that I became one...
>
> Street Philosopher, you could be. Cloth motorcycle coat and sandals year
> round. It would work in Manhattan.

Are you kidding? Who could out-philosophise somebody from Brooklyn?

[James Beck]

On Oct 24, 3:40 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/24/2011 12:08 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:

> > > Michael Siemon<mlsie...@sonic.net>  wrote:
>
> > >> In article<j82ejo$ei...@reader1.panix.com>,

Fear not the learned man in
Brooklyn's fair desmesnes.
Nor guns and knives of
shining, bitter steel--
ignore the rare bloodstain.

Verses, verses, south to north
from Dyker up to main
The women bite...
The women bite...
The thoughtful man's refrain.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1k9nc0i.1uhwg1b8pqzppN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> > Would that I were still a New York area folk...
>
> Would that I became one...

Be careful of what you wish for.

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Paul J Gans]

Thank you. Kindest words I've heard since moving to Brooklyn
two months ago.

[Paul J Gans]

As JFK famously did not say: We are all New Yorkers.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <j84v6e$k2p$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >In article <j82ejo$eiq$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >...
> >> I've noted that myself. I've been around long enough to know that
> >> the most powerful people in a place are the janitors. The folks on
> >> top make the money, but are clueless.
>
> >Ah, DeadDog... :-)
>
>
> >> >Take care, and let's get together soon!
> >>
> >> I'd like that. And we need to include other New York area folks
> >> as well.
>
> >Would that I were still a New York area folk...
>
> As JFK famously did not say: We are all New Yorkers.

Wasn't that Geraldine Ford who told New York to drop dead?

[pnyikos]

On Oct 23, 8:52 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 5:57 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:10:01 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no>
> > wrote:
>
> > >chris thompson wrote:
> > >>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/science/25mastodon.html

Only marginally pre-Clovis. Take a look at this report of a much
earlier date for tools found right here in South Carolina (the famous
"Topper" site):

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/17/carolina.dig/index.html

> > >> Chris
>
> > >What I like about this, given todays well documented reliability of C14
> > >dating,
> > >is that it definitely pushes creation week back to more than 13.800 years
> > >ago.
>
> > >Rolf
>
> > That's a rather young-earth age for creation, dontchathink?
>
> I recall some rumblings from the ICR after they moved to Texas that
> the earth could be 50,000 years old.

I wonder if the reason is that Albert Goodyear, who claimed a date of
50,000 years ago (see above url) for some Topper Site artifacts, is a
committed evangelical Christian.

Not that HE would make such a connection with the age of the earth.
He is a member of the University of South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, and is well enough versed in science not
to make such silly claims. But he has no control over what some YECs
might make of his discoveries.

Peter Nyikos

[Ron O]

It is sad that the Scientific creationists turned out to be more
honest than the ID perps.

I found something else for you to deny. It is an article that the ID
perps wrote about their initial notions of what the "Teach the
Controversy" creationist scam was about. I had to use Wayback to get
the article from the Discovery Institute web site from 2000 (you were
still posting on TO). It is from 1999.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010414020851/http://law.gonzaga.edu/people/dewolf/fte2.htm

Teaching the Controversy:
Darwinism, Design and the Public School
Science Curriculum

David K. DeWolf
Stephen C. Meyer
Mark E. DeForrest

I'll quote the conclusion of the piece:
QUOTE:
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of
Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific
controversy about the issue.(162) Nevertheless, teachers should be
reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the
problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the
previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to
permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an
alternative to Darwinian evolution--and this includes the use of
textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the
theory of intelligent design.
The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including
discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an
important goal of making education inclusive, rather than
exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important
demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and
citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-
minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:

This is a pretty definite statement about teaching intelligent design
in the public schools.

You can lie all you want to, but it doesn't change reality. The ID
perps do not deny selling the rubes the teach ID scam and they are
still claiming to be able to teach the claptrap nonsense. There is no
reason to continue to lie about this issue. In a few months the bait
and switch will have been going down for a decade. There is no excuse
for the bogousity of such a scam. The ID perps are not running the
scam on the science side. They are scamming their own creationist
support base.

To demonstrate that even the major IDiots were clueless about the bait
and switch about to go down on the Ohio rubes I found this Santorum
opinion piece from just before the bait and switch went down. He was
commenting directly on what was happening in the neighboring state of
Ohio.

http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/washtimes_santorum031402.htm

QUOTE:
This opposition to intelligent design is surprising since there is an
increasing body of theoretical and scientific evidence that suggests
an alternate theory is possible. Research has shown that the odds that
even one small protein molecule has been created by chance is 1 in a
billion. Thus, some larger force or intelligence, or what some call
agent causation, seems like a viable cause for creating information
systems such as the coding of DNA. A number of scientists contend that
alternate theories regarding the origins of the human species -
including that of a greater intelligence - are possible.

Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that
should be taught in science classes.
END QUOTE:

Remember the Santorum amendment? Too bad that they ran the bait and
switch on all IDiots the day the ID perps ran it on the Ohio rubes.
Santorum had to look like he was flip flopping on the issue in his
reelection year when Dover hit the fan in his home state. Isn't it
sad that Santorum probably wrote this at the same time that Meyer was
putting the final touches of the bait and switch that he was running
on the Ohio rubes. Santorum claims to be writing the piece the same
day that the ID perps were going to run the bait and switch. He
obviously did not know that the bait and switch was going to go down
and he looks like a clown today.

The only IDiots left that support the ID scam are the ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest. Why do you want to be all three just to
support a bogus scam?

I also found the Dembski article on teaching intelligent design using
wayback along with something that regulars might get a kick out of.
Remember that you claimed that the Wedge document was never officially
adopted. Before they changed the name of the scam wing of the
Discovery Institute this is what they had up as the institute's
mission statement.

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

This is the title from the Discovery Institute web page of 1998:

What is The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture All About?
The Mission of the Center

It is basically a short version of the Wedge document. Here is a
relevant quote.

QUOTE:
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and
Cultureseeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its
damning cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the
natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences,
the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and
cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism
and have re-opened the case for the supernatural. The Center awards
fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs
policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
END QUOTE:

What was that "never officially adopted nonsense?" Lie all you want
to about these bogus scam artists, but you know that they are only
using rubes like yourself for their dishonest political purposes.

Even though the ID perps have claimed that space alien designers are
their most scientific option for intelligent design I found this
little ditty from Gonzalez

http://web.archive.org/web/20010420233228/http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=147

Alien Intelligences?:
Think Again

Guillermo Gonzalez
Space.com
February 29, 2000

The ID perps obviously do not take your option seriously. What is the
institute's mission? Space aliens don't have much to do with that.

You have debased yourself for 9 months in order to defend a bunch of
low life scam artists.

Ron Okimoto

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <j84v6e$k2p$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >In article <j82ejo$eiq$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >...
>> >> I've noted that myself. I've been around long enough to know that
>> >> the most powerful people in a place are the janitors. The folks on
>> >> top make the money, but are clueless.
>>
>> >Ah, DeadDog... :-)
>>
>>
>> >> >Take care, and let's get together soon!
>> >>
>> >> I'd like that. And we need to include other New York area folks
>> >> as well.
>>
>> >Would that I were still a New York area folk...
>>
>> As JFK famously did not say: We are all New Yorkers.

>Wasn't that Geraldine Ford who told New York to drop dead?

Yup. NY was in financial difficulty and the Feds said "Go fish."

I want to stop bailing out Texas with New York money.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:17:18 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:

Of course not; New Yorkers lack the cream filling.
--

Bob C.

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

[chris thompson]

On Oct 25, 11:26 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> >In article <j84v6e$k2...@reader1.panix.com>,

> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> >> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> >In article <j82ejo$ei...@reader1.panix.com>,

> >> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >...
> >> >> I've noted that myself.  I've been around long enough to know that
> >> >> the most powerful people in a place are the janitors.  The folks on
> >> >> top make the money, but are clueless.
>
> >> >Ah, DeadDog... :-)
>
> >> >> >Take care, and let's get together soon!
>
> >> >> I'd like that.  And we need to include other New York area folks
> >> >> as well.
>
> >> >Would that I were still a New York area folk...
>
> >> As JFK famously did not say:  We are all New Yorkers.
> >Wasn't that Geraldine Ford who told New York to drop dead?
>
> Yup.  NY was in financial difficulty and the Feds said "Go fish."

I think Walter got you on that one, Paul.

Chris

[Paul J Gans]

Of course. Walter frequently gets me. He's good at it.

[Paul J Gans]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:17:18 +0000 (UTC), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com>:

>>Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>In article <j82ejo$eiq$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>...
>>>> I've noted that myself. I've been around long enough to know that
>>>> the most powerful people in a place are the janitors. The folks on
>>>> top make the money, but are clueless.
>>
>>>Ah, DeadDog... :-)
>>
>>
>>>> >Take care, and let's get together soon!
>>>>
>>>> I'd like that. And we need to include other New York area folks
>>>> as well.
>>
>>>Would that I were still a New York area folk...
>>
>>As JFK famously did not say: We are all New Yorkers.

>Of course not; New Yorkers lack the cream filling.

We ain't creme puffs. We is spicy.

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:j87go9$m22$3...@reader1.panix.com...

He is.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/200904_CREDITCRISIS/recipients.html

Sort the investment column highest first.

[pnyikos]

On Oct 25, 7:46 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 11:45 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > I recall some rumblings from the ICR after they moved to Texas that
> > > the earth could be 50,000 years old.
>
> > I wonder if the reason is that Albert Goodyear, who claimed a date of
> > 50,000 years ago (see above url) for some Topper Site artifacts, is a
> > committed evangelical Christian.
>
> > Not that HE would make such a connection with the age of the earth.
> > He is a member of the University of South Carolina Institute of
> > Archaeology and Anthropology, and is well enough versed in science not
> > to make such silly claims.  But he has no control over what some YECs
> > might make of his discoveries.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> It is sad that the Scientific creationists turned out to be more
> honest than the ID perps.

What Scientific Creationists are you referring to?

> I found something else for you to deny.

I never deny persuasive evidence. For the first time since we
encountered each other almost a year ago, you've posted what can
reasonably be thought as persuasive evidence for the existence of the
"bait" that you've been alleging all this time.

Only one little hitch: it wasn't written by people who were members of
the Discovery Institute itself back then, was it?

[In contrast, you kept posting mountains of uncontested evidence about
what you called "the switch". But as I kept pointing out, without bait
there is no switch and no scam.]

> It is an article that the ID
> perps wrote about their initial notions of what the "Teach the
> Controversy" creationist scam was about.  I had to use Wayback to get
> the article from the Discovery Institute web site from 2000 (you were
> still posting on TO).

Since it is not from TO itself, it is stupid for you to put in that
parenthetical claim--as though posting to TO made every participant
clairvoyant about everything relevant to anything that goes on in TO.

> It is from 1999.

Finally, something from before Dover. Even if it isn't from the DI.

> http://web.archive.org/web/20010414020851/http://law.gonzaga.edu/peop...

>
> Teaching the Controversy:
> Darwinism, Design and the Public School
> Science Curriculum
>
> David K. DeWolf
> Stephen C. Meyer
> Mark E. DeForrest
>
> I'll quote the conclusion of the piece:
> QUOTE:
> 9. Conclusion
>      Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
> pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
> origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of
> Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific
> controversy about the issue.(162) Nevertheless, teachers should be
> reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the
> problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the
> previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to
> permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an
> alternative to Darwinian evolution--and this includes the use of
> textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the
> theory of intelligent design.

So these people really thought that book presented evidence on a high
school level, eh? Did Meyer ever make this claim after joining the
DI? If so, you may have the case you've been dreaming of for almost a
year now.

>      The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
> Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
> to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
> scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
> Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
> religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including
> discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an
> important goal of making education inclusive, rather than
> exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important
> demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and
> citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-
> minded examination of the evidence.
> END QUOTE:
>
> This is a pretty definite statement about teaching intelligent design
> in the public schools.
>
> You can lie all you want to,

I don't lie, and never even was tempted to do so in talk.origins.

>but it doesn't change reality.  The ID
> perps do not deny selling the rubes the teach ID scam and they are
> still claiming to be able to teach the claptrap nonsense.

Sorry. I grant that some of them thought it was already teachable in
the public schools back then. But the expose of the purely cosmetic
changes in _Pandas and People_ from an edition that didn't even
mention ID cut the ground out from under the feet of these particular
authors. And I still deny that those two pathetic quotes you've
ripped out of context are evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the
DI is making claims of the same sort NOW.

But you are enough of a madman to claim that anyone who thinks they
aren't IRONCLAD proof is insane, and lying.

[quote from a politician layman, without any evidence that the DI was
behind it, deleted]

> I also found the Dembski article on teaching intelligent design

Not on the high school level. Deleted.

> Even though the ID perps have claimed that space alien designers are
> their most scientific option for intelligent design I found this
> little ditty from Gonzalez

...about what? SETI. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence
NOW when the Crick-Orgel directed panspermia issue is whether earth
was seeded over three billion years ago.

> http://web.archive.org/web/20010420233228/http://www.discovery.org/vi...

>
> Alien Intelligences?:
> Think Again
>
> Guillermo Gonzalez
> Space.com
> February 29, 2000
>
> The ID perps obviously do not take your option seriously.

Gonzalez never addressed directed panspermia in the short webpage
you've linked. He did say he agreed that intelligent life "may be
exceedingly rare" in the cosmos--a point I've been making all along as
an INTEGRAL part of my rendition of the Crick-Orgel theory of directed
panspermia.

If you bothered to read my many posts on directed panspermia, you
would know that Gutierrez and I are in perfect agreement. But you
prefer to cling to a purely fictitious picture of me and my theories.

[hate-crazed coda by Ron O deleted]

Peter Nyikos

[Ron O]

On Oct 25, 8:38 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 7:46 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 24, 11:45 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > I recall some rumblings from the ICR after they moved to Texas that
> > > > the earth could be 50,000 years old.
>
> > > I wonder if the reason is that Albert Goodyear, who claimed a date of
> > > 50,000 years ago (see above url) for some Topper Site artifacts, is a
> > > committed evangelical Christian.
>
> > > Not that HE would make such a connection with the age of the earth.
> > > He is a member of the University of South Carolina Institute of
> > > Archaeology and Anthropology, and is well enough versed in science not
> > > to make such silly claims.  But he has no control over what some YECs
> > > might make of his discoveries.
>
> > > Peter Nyikos
>
> > It is sad that the Scientific creationists turned out to be more
> > honest than the ID perps.
>
> What Scientific Creationists are you referring to?

The guys like Gish and Morris. The ones that actually tried to teach
their bogus junk in Arkansas instead of running a stupid bait and
switch scam on their own creationist supporters. They have the excuse
of being mentally incompetent. The ID perps know what they did and
they are still willing to do it for the cause.

>
> > I found something else for you to deny.
>
> I never deny persuasive evidence.  For the first time since we
> encountered each other almost a year ago, you've posted what can
> reasonably be thought as persuasive evidence for the existence of the
> "bait" that you've been alleging all this time.

Bull pucky. You are such a liar that how can you stand yourself? You
have done everything except deal with the evidence. You have even
denied getting pretty much equivalent evidence back in April. Snipped
out links back to it and ran. lied about ever getting it. What about
writing an entire book about getting intelligent design into the
public school curriculum is not equivalent to writing an essay about
teaching the junk in the public schools. By these same authors.

>
> Only one little hitch: it wasn't written by people who were members of
> the Discovery Institute itself back then,  was it?

If you read the first part you would see that Meyer was the director
of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute and De Wolf was
Discovery Institute fellow in the ID scam wing and I believe he was on
the legal team for the Institute. Why keep prevaricating about this
junk. Reality isn't going to change. You were posting back then and
all you have done is lie about the issues. Hair splitting nonsense
isn't going to change reality. It is only your way to lie to
yourself. What about being director of the ID scam wing of the
Discovery Institute is not being involved with the institute?

Heck you ran from your lies about never getting the evidence and
started another thread to claim that someone else was insane.
Projection is a sign of insanity. What are you running from in those
pesky Sept 4 posts?

>
> [In contrast, you kept posting mountains of uncontested evidence about
> what you called "the switch". But as I kept pointing out, without bait
> there is no switch and no scam.]

All the ID perps have been doing for the past 9 years is running the
bait and switch on the creationist rubes that believe the ID
claptrap. Why shouldn't there be mountains of evidence for it? You
have never found an instance where the scientific theory of
intelligent design has ever been put forward to teach. It has all
been bait and switch. Pretty soon it will be a decade of bogus scam.
You were given the ID perps official claim about teaching the
scientific theory of ID back in July. There was no doubt about what
it was and who was making that claim. You dithered about it and ran
away. You finally started to lie about what was plainly written in
their official statement. What for?

>
> > It is an article that the ID
> > perps wrote about their initial notions of what the "Teach the
> > Controversy" creationist scam was about.  I had to use Wayback to get
> > the article from the Discovery Institute web site from 2000 (you were
> > still posting on TO).
>
> Since it is not from TO itself, it is stupid for you to put in that
> parenthetical claim--as though posting to TO made every participant
> clairvoyant about everything relevant to anything that goes on in TO.

You would have had to close your eyes and pretend just as you have
done for the past 9 months, except you would have had to do it for
years. You don't have to be clairvoyant, you would have just had to
read the junk that the Discovery Institute was producing.

Why haven't you gotten any of the other IDiots to try to deny what the
ID perps did? Pags was posting back then. Kalk never denied the bait
and switch, just tried his lame misdirection ploys and ran away. Why
is that the reality for IDiots?

>
> > It is from 1999.
>
> Finally, something from before Dover.  Even if it isn't from the DI.

Lie all you want, but you know what you are running from when you lied
and got caught in the Sept 4 posts. I didn't even need the April
evidence. It should have been good enough to see what the ID perps
were still claiming to be able to teach. Why wouldn't that be enough
for any reasonable person? Why would I have to go back and put up
evidence for something that no one ever denied that the ID perps did
when they were still doing it?

Meyer was director of the ID scam wing of the Discovery Institute and
had been since 1995. Before Johnson assembled the IDiots and the
Discovery Institute scam outfit was formed accounts claim that Meyer,
Dembski and Behe were involved in the second edition of Pandas even
though they were not credited. In one of the WIKI articles that I put
up Behe admits that he wrote part of the second edition of Pandas that
came out in the early 1990s. They were not credited for their efforts
at the time.

Dembski was the editor for the third Pandas, but they changed the
title, and no one hears about it because it was published after the
Dover fiasco and "cdesign proponentsists" (where they tried to change
creationists to design proponents) is something that the FTE
(creationist publishers) and Pandas is never going to live down. Just
check out Forrest's testimony in the Dover court case. Dembski sat in
on her deposition and then ran away and did not make his deposition,
nor testify.

>
>
> >      The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
> > Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
> > to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
> > scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
> > Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
> > religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including
> > discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an
> > important goal of making education inclusive, rather than
> > exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important
> > demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and
> > citizens to resolve scientific controversies--by a careful and fair-
> > minded examination of the evidence.
> > END QUOTE:
>
> > This is a pretty definite statement about teaching intelligent design
> > in the public schools.
>
> > You can lie all you want to,
>
> I don't lie, and never even was tempted to do so in talk.origins.

You just lied, what a boneheaded liar. What do you call claiming that
I never gave you additional evidence of the teach ID scam when I had
given it back in April and you lied about not getting it in Sept.?
What do you call the false accusation that you made to Bill in the
Dirty debating thread. You ran instead of claiming that it was a
mistake and you started the bogus Scottish verdict thread instead.
What do you lie about the current official statement that the ID perps
have on their web site about teaching the scientific theory of
intelligent design? These are all lies. They become bigger lies when
you lie about lying and or repeat the bogus lie. All you have done is
pretty much prevaricate about anything that you thought that might do
you any good in helping you lie to yourself about reality.

>
> >but it doesn't change reality.  The ID
> > perps do not deny selling the rubes the teach ID scam and they are
> > still claiming to be able to teach the claptrap nonsense.
>
> Sorry.  I grant that some of them thought it was already teachable in
> the public schools back then.  But the expose of the purely cosmetic
> changes in _Pandas and People_ from an edition that didn't even
> mention ID cut the ground out from under the feet of these particular
> authors.  And I still deny that those two pathetic quotes you've
> ripped out of context are evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the
> DI is making claims of the same sort NOW.

Meyer isn't just any of the ID perps. He was the official leader of
the other ID perps at the Discovery Institute. He was the guy that
handed out the money to the worthy. At one time Meyer had been
promoted to vice president of the whole Discovery Institute, but he
has been demoted since then.

>
> But you are enough of a madman to claim that anyone who thinks they
> aren't IRONCLAD proof is insane, and lying.

Lying about other people is stupid. You should have just taken your
lumps and limped away, and you wouldn't be known as such a bogus liar
and pretender now. 9 months of bogus prevarication was stupid and
shows a level of dishonesty and incompetence that no academic should
show to the world. You even tried to defend your bogus actions by
claiming that you were a professor of mathematics and that there was
no reason for you to lie. Just because your motives are stupid and
dishonest doesn't mean that you don't have the motives.

>
> [quote from a politician layman, without any evidence that the DI was
> behind it,  deleted]

You keep doing bogus things like this and making dishonest claims, but
you know that the Santorum amendment has been presented to you. You
know how the ID perps scammed a US senator, and you can snip out the
evidence and lie about it to do what? What evidence is needed. You
have the date of publication (a couple days after Meyer ran the bait
and switch on the Ohio state board). You have Santorum claiming to be
writing the piece the day that the bait and switch was going down in
Ohio. You have the definite statement by one of the most prominent
IDiot rubes on what they thought was going to go down in Ohio.
Instead Meyer ran the bait and switch and no intelligent design
science was put forward to teach. Why prevaricate? Does it make you
feel good for a few seconds? It obviously doesn't change reality.

>
> > I also found the Dembski article on teaching intelligent design
>
> Not on the high school level.  Deleted.

Actually I did not put up the Dembski link and instead I got off track
and put up the official mission statement of the Discovery Institute.
What Nyikos is snipping out is confirmation that the Wedge document
was officially accepted by the ID perps because the same claims were
repeated in their official mission statement.

ID was the limp noodle wedge of the ID scam.

>
> > Even though the ID perps have claimed that space alien designers are
> > their most scientific option for intelligent design I found this
> > little ditty from Gonzalez
>
> ...about what?  SETI.  The search for extraterrestrial intelligence
> NOW when the Crick-Orgel directed panspermia issue is whether earth
> was seeded over three billion years ago.

Not my problem. I just put up the Discovery Insitute article to show
what they thought of space alien designers. If you go back to the
mission statement that you snipped out you will see the picture that
they used to have on their logo of God and Adam in the heavens. No
joke. They were not as careful about hiding the bogousity of their
"ID science" back then.

>
> >http://web.archive.org/web/20010420233228/http://www.discovery.org/vi...
>
> > Alien Intelligences?:
> > Think Again
>
> > Guillermo Gonzalez
> > Space.com
> > February 29, 2000
>
> > The ID perps obviously do not take your option seriously.
>
> Gonzalez never addressed directed panspermia in the short webpage
> you've linked.  He did say he agreed that intelligent life "may be
> exceedingly rare" in the cosmos--a point I've been making all along as
> an INTEGRAL part of my rendition of the Crick-Orgel theory of directed
> panspermia.
>
> If you bothered to read my many posts on directed panspermia, you
> would know that Gutierrez and I are in perfect agreement.  But you
> prefer to cling to a purely fictitious picture of me and my theories.
>
> [hate-crazed coda by Ron O deleted]
>
> Peter Nyikos

I don't care about space aliens and neither do the ID perps. That is
just a fact.

Get back to defending your lies in other threads. You have a lot more
to lie about. It isn't worth it, is it? Right now you would be
arguing that the world is flat just so that you could keep lying to
yourself about some stupid things. The ID perps ran the teach ID
scam. They are still claiming to be able to teach their scientific
theory of ID in the public schools. They have run the bait and switch
on every single IDiot rube that believed them and the switch scam
doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. Trying to defend a bunch
of dishonest losers like that has made you look like a dishonest loser
yourself. What have you had to lie about? What bogus and dishonest
deeds have you had to debase yourself with? All for what purpose?
You are the most bogus and dishonest academic that I have ever
encountered. That is a fact. What kind of loser would quote mine
Camp and think that they could get away with it? I am sure that it
took all your academic ability as a professor of mathematics to
perform that bogus deed.

Ron Okimoto

[Paul J Gans]

Sorry, I wasn't talking about the "bailout", but about the fact that
some states are net recipients of tax receipts and others are net
"donors" of tax monies.

[pnyikos]

On Oct 26, 8:11 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 8:38 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 25, 7:46 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> > > It is sad that the Scientific creationists turned out to be more
> > > honest than the ID perps.
>
> > What Scientific Creationists are you referring to?
>
> The guys like Gish and Morris.  The ones that actually tried to teach
> their bogus junk in Arkansas instead of running a stupid bait and
> switch scam on their own creationist supporters.  They have the excuse
> of being mentally incompetent.  The ID perps know what they did and
> they are still willing to do it for the cause.

That remains to be seen.

> > > I found something else for you to deny.
>
> > I never deny persuasive evidence.  For the first time since we
> > encountered each other almost a year ago, you've posted what can
> > reasonably be thought as persuasive evidence for the existence of the
> > "bait" that you've been alleging all this time.
>
> Bull pucky.  You are such a liar that how can you stand yourself?  

Thus speaks a madman of the sort G.K. Chesterton warned people about.

>You
> have done everything except deal with the evidence.  You have even
> denied getting pretty much equivalent evidence back in April.

"Pretty much equivalent" only in your deranged brain. Your cherry-
picked, ripped-out-of-context quote was so pathetic, I didn't even
realize for a good while that it was meant as serious evidence, let
alone ironclad proof, that the DI was claiming to have their idea of
the science of ID in a form suitable for teaching in the public
schools as a rival to the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

That quote, and the more recent one your deranged brain views as
ironclad proof that they are still making that claim, talks only about
the RIGHT of a public school teacher to teach an UNSPECIFIED form of
ID science if he or she wants to. You admitted as much back in April,
leaving out only the words "only" and "unspecified form of", but then
backpedaled to your deranged fantasy when I agreed with you about
THAT.

> Snipped
> out links back to it and ran.

Your deranged brain interprets just about every snip of mine as
dishonest, so much so that you sometimes accuse me of lying about what
I snipped without even bothering to check what it is I snipped. That
happened back in April too, on the Scottish thread, when I noted
something about which we were in agreement and then said I was
snipping a comment of yours that was irrelevant to our agreement.

In fact, it was a lie by you, but I didn't say that because I was
totally focused on trying to get really persuasive evidence, like the
one you finally provided, for "bait."

> lied about ever getting it.  

"it" being PROOF that the DI was making the claim. Your deranged
brain interpreted what I wrote the way it wanted to.

It seems that you were hopelessly mired in the delusion that only a
liar and an insane person would fail to see immediately that your
pathetic quote WAS ironclad proof, and fail to admit it.

You are so deeply in the grip of this delusion that you even posted
the slander that I had AGREED that the DI was lying--several times,
even after being called on this slander.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to when I have more time.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:j89ae8$np4$1...@reader1.panix.com...

Care to get a little more specific than "tax receipts" and provide a reference
or two?

[Ron O]

On Oct 26, 11:59 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 8:11 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 25, 8:38 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 25, 7:46 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > It is sad that the Scientific creationists turned out to be more
> > > > honest than the ID perps.
>
> > > What Scientific Creationists are you referring to?
>
> > The guys like Gish and Morris.  The ones that actually tried to teach
> > their bogus junk in Arkansas instead of running a stupid bait and
> > switch scam on their own creationist supporters.  They have the excuse
> > of being mentally incompetent.  The ID perps know what they did and
> > they are still willing to do it for the cause.
>
> That remains to be seen.

No, another lie. Just go back to the current Discovery Institute
stance on teaching the "scientific theory of intelligent design" in
the public schools and try to deny that they are still running the
teach ID scam. You have gotten the link plenty of times and I even
quoted the whole statement in one of the posts that you are currently
running from. You make the bogus posts, if you aren't going to defend
your lies, just stop lying.

>
> > > > I found something else for you to deny.
>
> > > I never deny persuasive evidence.  For the first time since we
> > > encountered each other almost a year ago, you've posted what can
> > > reasonably be thought as persuasive evidence for the existence of the
> > > "bait" that you've been alleging all this time.
>
> > Bull pucky.  You are such a liar that how can you stand yourself?  
>
> Thus speaks a madman of the sort G.K. Chesterton warned people about.

Lying like this is stupid and projection is a sign of insanity. You
do it so often that it is just a way of life for you.

>
> >You
> > have done everything except deal with the evidence.  You have even
> > denied getting pretty much equivalent evidence back in April.
>
> "Pretty much equivalent" only in your deranged brain.  Your cherry-
> picked, ripped-out-of-context quote was so pathetic, I didn't even
> realize for a good while that  it was meant as serious evidence, let
> alone ironclad proof, that the DI was claiming to have their idea of
> the science of  ID in a form suitable  for teaching in the public
> schools as a rival to the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

Go back to the posts that you are running from and the evidence
presented and demonstrate that what you claim is true. Why can't you
do that? Why can I just point to the Sept. 4 posts with plenty of
links back to your bogus deeds? You can only make up junk and run.
Where is your evidence? Why can't you put up a post and demonstrate
that what you are claiming is true?

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f2b726f7959acf77?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3b97e1564472c17d?hl=en

These are just the posts that made you run and start the insane logic
thread.

You wouldn't even put up the post where you got the quote that you are
basing the Insane logic thread on. What happened when I tracked down
the quote and put it back into context? A post from back in April and
you had to start trying to make a big deal about it in Sept because
you had to run from your bogus deeds. How sad is that?

>
> That quote, and the more recent one your deranged brain views as
> ironclad proof that they are still making that claim, talks only about
> the RIGHT of a public school teacher to teach an UNSPECIFIED form of
> ID science if he or she wants to.  You admitted as much back in April,
> leaving out only the words  "only" and "unspecified form of", but then
> backpedaled to your deranged fantasy when I agreed with you about
> THAT.

Projection is so sad. To teach the "scientific theory of intelligent
design," not unspecified, just not elaborated on because there is no
such scientific theory. The ID perps are lying about having a
scientific theory to teach. What they are calling a scientific theory
is just an untestable hypothesis. This is so far from what a
scientific theory is in modern scientific usage that it is a bogus lie
in itself to call it a scientific theory. Nyikos knows what a
scientific theory such as cell theory or the theory of biological
evolution is, but he cuts the ID perps slack because he has to lie to
himself about what they are claiming in order to look like he has some
type of legitimate argument. Do the ID perps have a scientific theory
of ID as defined by modern science? No. They only have unverifiable
speculation. This is only a theory in the common sense that it is
used in the general population and not within science.

The quote and link so Nyikos can lie about it again.

QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3164

>
> > Snipped
> > out links back to it and ran.
>
> Your deranged brain interprets just about every snip of mine as
> dishonest, so much so that you sometimes accuse me of lying about what
> I snipped without even bothering to check what it is I snipped.  That
> happened back in April too, on the Scottish thread, when I noted
> something about which we were in agreement and then said I was
> snipping a comment of yours that was irrelevant to our agreement.

Projection and lying are just normal for you. That is sad. Go for
it. Demonstrate what you claim is true. Why haven't you ever done
anything that simple. What happened when I found the post that the
Insane logic quote came from? Why are you running from those posts?
What happened when you linked back to bogus lie that you told Bill in
the dirty debating thread? You keep projecting your bad behavior onto
others, but who always ends up to be the liar and prevaricator? Go
for it. You have the Sept 4 posts for comparison. Put up something
as bad as that on my part. Justify the Dirty debating thread and the
lie that you told to Bill about me. Who was the dirty debater?

>
> In fact, it was a lie by you, but I didn't say that because I was
> totally focused on trying to get really persuasive evidence, like the
> one you finally provided, for "bait."

Demonstrate it. Put up the links. Why can't you do that? I didn't
have any problem coming up with evidence of your bogus lying.

>
> > lied about ever getting it.  
>
> "it" being PROOF that the DI was making the claim.  Your deranged
> brain interpreted what I wrote the way it wanted to.

Why even try to lie at this point?

>
> It seems that you were hopelessly mired in the delusion that only a
> liar and an insane person would fail to see immediately that your
> pathetic quote WAS ironclad proof, and fail to admit it.

All that you have done since Dec is run, and lie in anyway that you
thought that you could get away with.

>
> You are so deeply in the grip of this delusion that you even posted
> the slander that I had AGREED that the DI was lying--several times,
> even after being called on this slander.

Projection is a sign of insanity. What was the quote about in
context? What was the context that I always defended the quote in?
What have you been denying, and have decided that you can no longer
deny when you have had the Discovery Institute's own claims about
teaching the junk since July? Ran from additional evidence since
April? Started lying about ever getting additional evidence just in
the last couple of months? What you do is slander. Telling the truth
may make you look pathetic, but it isn't slander.

>
> Remainder deleted, to be replied to when I have more time.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Run it doesn't matter. What are you going to do now? You know what
the ID perps did, and what they are still claiming. So what are you
going to do now. More lies and prevarication?

Ron Okimoto

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:07:07 -0400, Ron O wrote
(in article
<4643a5c4-7fbf-43bc...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):

> Run it doesn't matter. What are you going to do now? You know what the ID
> perps did, and what they are still claiming. So what are you going to do
> now. More lies and prevarication?

I think that Ron just made it onto a List.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Richard Harter]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:11:52 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:07:07 -0400, Ron O wrote
>(in article
><4643a5c4-7fbf-43bc...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> Run it doesn't matter. What are you going to do now? You know what the ID
>> perps did, and what they are still claiming. So what are you going to do
>> now. More lies and prevarication?
>
>I think that Ron just made it onto a List.

As far as I can tell Ron's objective is to make Peter look good by
comparison. This is not easy to do.

[Glenn]

"Richard Harter" <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:4ea9bc97...@text.giganews.com...

Ron will be pleased by your compliment.

[Ron O]

On Oct 27, 3:19�pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:11:52 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>

> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:07:07 -0400, Ron O wrote
> >(in article

> ><4643a5c4-7fbf-43bc-a078-2707fe721...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):

>
> >> Run it doesn't matter. �What are you going to do now? �You know what the ID
> >> perps did, and what they are still claiming. �So what are you going to do
> >> now. �More lies and prevarication?
>
> >I think that Ron just made it onto a List.
>
> As far as I can tell Ron's objective is to make Peter look good by
> comparison. �This is not easy to do.

Beats me where this comes from. Do you know what you are talking
about? Just in this short series of posts Nyikos has finally admitted
that the ID perps ran the teach ID scam. All his prevarications over
the last 9 months have been senseless. His only defense is his claim
that I never put up this type of evidence before, but The Sept 4 posts
that I link to demonstrate that Nyikos got similar evidence back in
April. He just ran from it, so it never got addressed. He was linked
back to that evidence , but he snipped it out and ran, and similar
evidence was put in several posts that he ran from. He has no excuse,
but he still has to try to make them.

If you look just through this short series of posts you will see
Nyikos trying to accuse me of multiple misdeeds, but he never
demonstrates that I ever did what he claims. I just have to put up
some links to bogus things that he has actually been caught doing and
all he can do is snip out the material and run and make more false
accusations. It has been that way for the last 9 months on a topic
that was over back in December when Nyikos ran from his first posts.
One post where he demanded evidence for a certain point and told me to
hop to it, but when I put up the evidence he ran. It wasn't just
running. When I quoted part of the post he snipped out the relevant
quote and link and claimed that it didn't mean what I claimed. When I
put back the deleted material he snipped out the same material that he
had before and lied about it again. Once could have been an accident,
but twice when you have been called on the bogus deed is just pure
dishonesty. There is no doubt that he ran from that Dec. post and it
has been all down hill from there.

Just check out this short series of posts in this thread. I have to
keep two windows open to see how Nyikos is manipulating the post. You
may have to do the same thing. You have to have my post open and then
see what gets deleted. It is just sad. I don't mind rubbing Nyikos'
face in his pathetic deeds because he has tried some really bogus
ploys in the last 9 months.

A brief history is provided in the latest thread Nyikos started to run
from some of his bogus deeds. In it I supply links so that anyone can
check things out. This is something that Nyikos rarely does because
when he does it goes badly for him.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26?hl=en

You didn't see any links to to support Nyikos' prevarications in this
thread.

The quote above that you are talking about is just the end game.
Nyikos has just admitted that the ID perps ran the teach ID scam. He
had denied it for 9 months even though he has been given the
information from the Discovery Institute's web site where they are
still claiming to be able to teach the scientific theory of

intelligent design in the public schools.

So what is there left to deny? What was all the prevarication for?
Why did Nyikos debase himself for the last 9 months in order to try to
defend a bunch of scam artists who's guts he likely hates more than
mine at this time.

It may look bad, but Nyikos has actually been this bad for the last 9
months. All to defend a bogus scam. Once he started lying he
couldn't stop. All he could do was project his bogus behavior onto
someone else as some type of lame excuse. Nyikos couldn't even admit
to his stupid mistakes. This just compounded his bogus behavior.
That is the saddest part of this whole fiasco. Just ask Nyikos who
the dirty debater was in that thread. I even held that out as a
mutual mistake and all Nyikos could do was snip and run and then run
when confronted by his bogus behavior, and he started the stupid
Scottish verdict thread to pretend that I was doing something else
wrong.

So now, what is Nyikos going to do? There is no reason to maintain
his denial. All you see him doing in this thread is trying to claim
that it wasn't him that was doing all the lying, or that it was my
fault that he didn't get the evidence that he needed, but you just
have to look it up and find out that Nyikos was the one that would not
address the evidence. Blaming someone else for his own stupidity and
dishonesty is about the only thing Nyikos has done in his defense of
the ID perps. If I go back far enough I can probably pull up the post
where Nyikos tried to blame the IDiot rubes for blowing the ID scam.
That was in the original thread that started this whole mess. That
was a first for an IDiot. I can't recall another IDiot supporter that
has tried to blame the victims of the bait and switch, but Nyikos did
it.

It may be difficult to believe, but Nyikos has done it all. I can't
change that reality, and why should I hide it under a rock when it is
Nyikos that keeps starting more threads to, in his own words, make me
look bad.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1251055c-4ef2-4f30...@s14g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

Movie tonight at 8.

[Ron O]

On Oct 27, 8:10 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1251055c-4ef2-4f30...@s14g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
SNIP:
>
> Movie tonight at 8.

Hey, Glenn, did you ever figure out what you were arguing about the
last time we exchanged a few posts? I never did see your response
where you explained what the problem was.

What is sad is that you have just become a sniper, and have pretty
much given up on defending the creationist claptrap. At least, Nyikos
tried in his own pathetic way.

How sad is that reality?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

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

news:6b233af0-864e-44c9...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

It is yours, and seems sad to me, but you're the one that has to live with it, I
can't really comment on how sad you may be.

[Ron O]

On Oct 27, 8:42 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6b233af0-864e-44c9...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 8:10 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1251055c-4ef2-4f30...@s14g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > SNIP:
>
> > > Movie tonight at 8.
>
> > Hey, Glenn, did you ever figure out what you were arguing about the
> > last time we exchanged a few posts?  I never did see your response
> > where you explained what the problem was.
>
> > What is sad is that you have just become a sniper, and have pretty
> > much given up on defending the creationist claptrap.  At least, Nyikos
> > tried in his own pathetic way.
>
> > How sad is that reality?
>
> It is yours, and seems sad to me, but you're the one that has to live with it, I
> can't really comment on how sad you may be.

Is that your only comeback? Don't you wish that you had a real
argument? Why just satisfy yourself by snipping from the side lines.
When did you give up? How many years ago was that? It isn't my fault
that you never had an argument worth defending. That is just the
reality that you live in. If it weren't you wouldn't have given up
and started the sniper act.

Scientific creationism never amounted to anything. The ID scam turned
into a bogus bait and switch scam that the perpetrators ran on their
own creationist supporters. No one ever got the promised ID science
to teach. All they ever got was a stupid obfuscation scam that
doesn't even mention that ID ever existed. If that wasn't all true
there might be something to argue about, but all there is, is failure
and dishonesty.

If you still think that you have a valid argument go for it. Put it
forward and get it evaluated. Wouldn't that be the sensible thing to
do? Don't you think that it is sad that ignorance is the only valid
excuse at this time. Ignorance isn't such a bad thing, but you are no
longer ignorant.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

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

news:08d47bc0-446f-4afe...@m19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

Blah, blah, blah.

[Ron O]

I guess that you never did have a real argument, so why snipe?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

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

news:06f13f78-6ab8-4106...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

It's appropriate.

[Ron O]

Blah, blah, blah, was more honest.

Ron Okimoto

[Richard Harter]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:04:12 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Oct 27, 3:19 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:11:52 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>
>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:07:07 -0400, Ron O wrote
>> >(in article
>> ><4643a5c4-7fbf-43bc-a078-2707fe721...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> >> Run it doesn't matter.  What are you going to do now?  You know what the ID
>> >> perps did, and what they are still claiming.  So what are you going to do
>> >> now.  More lies and prevarication?
>>
>> >I think that Ron just made it onto a List.
>>
>> As far as I can tell Ron's objective is to make Peter look good by
>> comparison.  This is not easy to do.
>
>Beats me where this comes from.

[snip repetitive, bile laden rant]

It comes from observing your obsessive reposting of repetitive, bile
laden rants. I do hope you cut and paste this stuff - it seems a
shame if you must continually retype it even though your fingers are
on autopilot.

[Glenn]

"Richard Harter" <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message

news:4eaac35a....@text.giganews.com...

Maybe he's short on shame. It's all economics.

[Ron O]

On Oct 28, 10:20�am, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:04:12 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>

Well the last thing that I want to do is tick off anyone except
Nyikos. You may want to just stop reading the junk. I don't read
much of anything Nyikos writes except his posts to me. I don't expect
anyone else to read this junk.

You did leave out one thing, that the repetitive rants are all true.
They are repetitive because you can still see Nyikos lying about the
junk. I only repeat it to get Nyikos to acknowledge that fact
whenever he has to run. There is no reason for me to sugar coat the
junk when he has been this bogus for the past 9 months. You may
already know that he is a junior Pagano type. Nyikos makes bogus
claims and runs away. To justify his running and pretending he has to
start bogus threads with bogus titles. I'm not the one that does
that. The Dirty debating thread is an example. I didn't notice the
thread because I really don't read Nyikos' other posts. I wouldn't
have known that Nyikos was lying about me to other posters until he
started pestering me that I was not addressing his posts in that
thread. When Nyikos found out that he had just made up the dirty
debating deed in his own mind he ran and started the Scottish verdict
thread the next day. No apology, he just started another vindictive
and dishonest thread. This is the guy that couldn't address the
evidence in the initial stages of this long brawl and started the
misdirection thread to try to claim that I was the one that was
running from something. As laughable as it may seem he was claiming
that I was running from Ray. We aren't talking about someone that I
have any reason to be nice to.

Again, the only reason to repeat the junk is because Nyikos keeps
coming back with his bogus denials. I don't mind doing it, because
Nyikos is just a low life vindictive scum bag. If you have any
additional information on Nyikos that would make me change that
opinion you might want to tell me instead of going round about it.
The last thing that I want to do is pick on someone that can't defend
themselves.

I don't recommend it if you can't stomach the bile, but I do give a
brief history of events in the last vindictive and bogus thread Nyikos
started. In that thread Nyikos claimed that he was going for the
knock out. He admitted to another poster that he started the thread
to make me look bad. He claimed that the Insane Logic post was only
the first knock down, and that he had two more knock downs coming, but
they never appeared, and it is now the end of October. It looks bad,
and is stupid, but that is Nyikos.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26?hl=en

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Oct 28, 2:48 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Richard Harter" <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4eaac35a....@text.giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:04:12 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>

> > wrote:
>
> > >On Oct 27, 3:19 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:11:52 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>
> > >> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > >> >On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:07:07 -0400, Ron O wrote
> > >> >(in article
> > >> ><4643a5c4-7fbf-43bc-a078-2707fe721...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > >> >> Run it doesn't matter. What are you going to do now? You know what the
> ID
> > >> >> perps did, and what they are still claiming. So what are you going to do
> > >> >> now. More lies and prevarication?
>
> > >> >I think that Ron just made it onto a List.
>
> > >> As far as I can tell Ron's objective is to make Peter look good by
> > >> comparison. This is not easy to do.
>
> > >Beats me where this comes from.
>
> > [snip repetitive, bile laden rant]
>
> > It comes from observing your obsessive reposting of repetitive, bile
> > laden rants.  I do hope you cut and paste this stuff - it seems a
> > shame if you must continually retype it even though your fingers are
> > on autopilot.
>
> Maybe he's short on shame. It's all economics.

Is that your excuse for all your one liners?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 07:15:34 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

Glen needs no excuse. He is a sociopath and beyond shame.

[Ron O]

On Oct 29, 11:31 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 07:15:34 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>

I try to be nice to Glenn. Anyone has to admit that just calling him
a sniper is pretty low key, since basically all he does is snipe from
the sidelines. Lately he seems to be having more of a problem
tracking what he is arguing. His scatter shot approach doesn't help
much. You have to go back around 10 or more years to see that Glenn
was one of the few anti-evolution types that tried to put forward any
type of valid argument, and he was likely one of the better ones at it
at the time. He doesn't do that anymore because any half way
intelligent person can only run into the brick wall so many times
before he either puts on a helmet or gives up. Glenn couldn't give
up, so all you see is what he does today.

Ron Okimoto

[pnyikos]

On Oct 27, 2:11 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:07:07 -0400, Ron O wrote
> (in article

> <4643a5c4-7fbf-43bc-a078-2707fe721...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > Run it doesn't matter.  What are you going to do now?  You know what the ID
> > perps did, and what they are still claiming.  So what are you going to do
> > now.  More lies and prevarication?
>
> I think that Ron just made it onto a List.

Wake up, J.J. van Winkle. I haven't posted a list to talk.origins in
over a decade.

Besides, Ron O is so much *sui generis*, any t.o. list that does him
justice would be a one-man list. I've never encountered anyone else
like him anywhere, on the internet or off it.

Peter Nyikos

[Ron O]

Nyikos is such a sad and pathetic person. Why even try to pretend? I
guess you aren't going for that second and third knock down that you
claimed you were going to perform especially since you snipped and ran
and then lied about your first knockdown. Are you going to start a
new bogus thread? Are you going to run from all those posts that you
posted in Sept and Oct? You are such a jerk and dishonest low life
that your bogus claim above is just pathetically stupid. Demonstrate
otherwise. You could address the posts that you were running from
when you started the Insane logic thread. You could admit to who was
the dirty debater and why you had to start the Scottish verdict
thread. You could own up to starting the misdirection thread when you
were the one that was running from posts.

Really, claiming that someone else is running to cover your own
dishonest butt is so pathetically lame, but that is what you did. Why
did you start the dirty debating thread? That turned out so well for
you. Now, all you can do is Pagnoistic posturing and running. Where
is that knock out? Why run instead of deliver? Why make claims that
you can't back up and then run away?

Ron Okimoto

[pnyikos]

On Nov 2, 6:33 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 11:13 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 2:11 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:07:07 -0400, Ron O wrote
> > > (in article
> > > <4643a5c4-7fbf-43bc-a078-2707fe721...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > > Run it doesn't matter.  What are you going to do now?  You know what the ID
> > > > perps did, and what they are still claiming.  So what are you going to do
> > > > now.  More lies and prevarication?
>
> > > I think that Ron just made it onto a List.
>

> > Wake up, J.J.vanWinkle.  I haven't posted a list to talk.origins in

> > over a decade.
>
> > Besides, Ron O is so much *sui generis*, any t.o.  list that does him
> > justice would be a one-man list.  I've never encountered anyone else
> > like him anywhere, on the internet or off it.
>
> > Peter Nyikos

[...]

>  I
> guess you aren't going for that second and third knock down that you
> claimed you were going to perform

You guess wrong. I was just swamped at work these last few weeks.
But next week I should have time to do it.

> especially since you snipped and ran

What you call running is me applying YOUR standards for Ray Martinez
to you. You refuse to respond to Ray almost all the time on the
grounds that he is insane. I refuse to respond to much that you type
on the grounds that you are insane.

> and then lied about your first knockdown.

You are off in la-la land. You have essentially forfeited that round
by not supporting the ridiculous (yea, insane) and false claim that I
was trying to deny having admitted that the Discovery Institute (DI)
did not have the science in a form ready to teach in the public
schools in a way that is competitive with the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

NOTHING I posted supported that claim. Everything I posted about the
admission showed that I was perfectly happy with having admitted it.
So you were demonstrating your insanity by making that charge.

In response to my pointing this out on the Insane Logic thread, you
reminded me that you had also posted a mountain of verbiage along with
that insane and false charge, and that I had snipped most of it. As
if that somehow took the insanity away from your ridiculous charge.

[...]

> You could address the posts that you were running from
> when you started the Insane logic thread.

Is this the way you treat your family when confronted with your
wrongdoing? By bringing up other things having nothing to do with the
contemptible thing they caught you redhanded with, and demanding that
they deal with those things before you answer their charges?

I can't see any other reason for your behavior except that you are so
used to "getting away with murder" in this way for decades on end,
that you think this is normal adult behavior, and that everyone can
see how normal it is.

Are you the absolute dictator of your nuclear family? Knowing how
subservient millions of Japanese woman are, it would not surprise me
in the least.

In other words: you could address the numerous lies and hypocrisies
with which I have caught YOU red-handed. But as long as you have the
excuse that there is *something* I have not addressed among the
myriads of lines you've posted in reply to me, you will NEVER accept
responsibility for any of them, will you?

> You could admit to who was
> the dirty debater

Why, you, of course.

>and why you had to start the Scottish verdict
> thread.

It was because the thread we were arguing in had run to over 500 posts
and nobody else seemed to be following it.

And of course, you loved it that way. After all, as Jesus said, men
preferred darkness to the light, because their deeds were evil (Gospel
of John, Chapter 3).

And I decided to move the argument into the light, where lots of
people could see it -- and did. I kept focusing on the weak link in
your chain of reasoning (the alleged "bait") and you could not cope
with that except with a broken record routine. You made NO attempt
anywhere on that thread to actually reason out why that quote really
said what you claimed.

What you claimed obviously was NOT explicitly said in that quote, but
you were inferring it. But since you could give no coherent
explanation of this inference, you did what I suspect you do to your
own family members, and kept making personal accusations having
nothing to do with the "bait," and posting mountains of stuff about
what you call "the switch" -- mountains that I never tried to contest,
because I basically agreed with them.

But I also kept pointing out that with no bait, there is no switch.
And you never had a rational comeback to that.

[rest deleted, in accordance with your own policy against Ray
Martinez]

Peter Nyikos

[Ron O]

On Nov 4, 11:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 6:33 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 2, 11:13 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 27, 2:11 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:07:07 -0400, Ron O wrote
> > > > (in article
> > > > <4643a5c4-7fbf-43bc-a078-2707fe721...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > > > Run it doesn't matter.  What are you going to do now?  You know what the ID
> > > > > perps did, and what they are still claiming.  So what are you going to do
> > > > > now.  More lies and prevarication?
>
> > > > I think that Ron just made it onto a List.
>
> > > Wake up, J.J.vanWinkle.  I haven't posted a list to talk.origins in
> > > over a decade.
>
> > > Besides, Ron O is so much *sui generis*, any t.o.  list that does him
> > > justice would be a one-man list.  I've never encountered anyone else
> > > like him anywhere, on the internet or off it.
>
> > > Peter Nyikos
>
> [...]
>
> >  I
> > guess you aren't going for that second and third knock down that you
> > claimed you were going to perform
>
> You guess wrong.  I was just swamped at work these last few weeks.
> But next week I should have time to do it.

[This post is long because Nyikos claims no documentation, so I give
it to him.]

Well, what is going to be your argument now that you know that the
bait and switch scam has been going down for over 9 years, and that
you were so wrong about that, that anything that you could claim would
be laughable?

This should be interesting, but likely just more lies and running.

>
> > especially since you snipped and ran
>
> What you call running is me applying YOUR standards for Ray Martinez
> to you.  You refuse to respond to Ray almost all the time on the
> grounds that he is insane.  I refuse to respond to much that you type
> on the grounds that you are insane.

This might be one out for you, but you request the responses and
demand the evidence, but when you get it you run. That obviously is
not something that you can deny doing, and obviously does not apply to
this excuse.

You do a lot of demanding, but in all your lies and prevarications
over the last 9 months, when have you ever supported your side with
evidence? Where is your evidence that the ID perps never ran the
teach ID scam? Where is your evidence that they are not still
claiming to be able to teach the bogus ID science? All that you have
been faced with or have ever dealt with is the evidence that supports
my position, and you are the one calling someone else insane.

>
> > and then lied about your first knockdown.
>
> You are off in la-la land. You have essentially forfeited that round
> by not supporting the ridiculous (yea, insane) and false claim that I
> was trying to deny having admitted that the Discovery Institute (DI)
> did not have the science in a form ready to teach in the public
> schools in a way that is competitive with the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

You know what the argument was, but you lied to yourself about it.
You took a stupid quote out of context in order to make the dishonest
ploy believable. When confronted by the evidence you ran, and even
lied about me not making a direct rebuttal to the bogus post. That is
the reality of the events. You even went back and tried to rebut my
rebuttal, but all you got through was the first paragraph of the
rebuttal portion with a single sentence from the next paragraph, and
when you got to the evidence part you snipped and ran away again. How
sad is that?

Nyikos trying to rebut the rebuttal:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/af78317b2f7e9f8c?hl=en

You can't really tell because Nyikos cuts up the material so much, but
he is only addressing one paragraph.

This is the intact paragraph:
QUOTE:
It isn't so much as proving anything, but acknowledging reality.
Nyikos did admit that ID was just a scam and that there was no ID
science ready to teach in the public schools. It is a no brainer
that
the ID perps ran the teach ID scam for years before they ran the bait
and switch and that they are still running the teach ID scam, they
just claim that they never wanted ID mandated to be taught. Those
are
facts that Nyikos can't deny, well, he has tried to lie about it for
months, but that is Nyikos. Really, no one not even the ID perps
deny
that they ran the teach ID scam. Nyikos has never put up a denial by
the ID perps because they are still claiming to be able to teach the
bogus junk in the public schools.
END QUOTE:

What Nyikos Snipped out and ran from:

Extended QUOTE:
So Nyikos has acknowledged that the ID perps were lying about having
the ID science to teach in the public schools. That lie is the main
reason that they have had to run a stupid bait and switch scam on
their own IDiot support base. If they had the ID science ready to
teach, why would they only give the rubes a switch scam that doesn't
even mention that ID ever existed. Where is the scientific theory of
intelligent design that they claim to have when they need the ID
science to teach?

These are the current claims of the ID perps:

QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3164

The above quote is from the ID perps official stance on teaching the
junk in the public schools. Nyikos keeps snipping out this quote and
denying what it says, but he can't bring himself to specifically
address this quote for some reason. It is as if Nyikos has some
limit
to the lies that he thinks that he can get away with.

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
she should have the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

http://www.discovery.org/a/4299

This is the quote that Nyikos keeps trying to prevaricate about even
though it says the same thing as the ID perps official stance on
teaching the bogus junk.
Other evidence that Nyikos has been given one of the posts that
Nyikos
is currently using this thread to run from.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=en&

He has gotten other evidence over the months such as the Wedge
document, and material about the Ohio bait and switch scam. The ID
perps do not deny selling the IDiot rubes the teach ID scam, so why
should Nyikos make the denial for them? Heck, they are still telling
the rubes that they can teach the junk.

> To see that it follows the same format, you should know that I have
> consistently maintained that Ron O's evidence for (II) is inadequate
> (in fact, it is incredibly strained, IMO). More about this below.


Inadequate means that he has snipped and run from the evidence, just
run from the evidence, lied about the evidence in any way that he
could, but the evidence still exists and he has to lie or go into his
hair splitting nonsense to deny something that even the ID scam
artists do not deny doing. That is how sad Nyikos is. What did I
tell you about having to choose between two lies. Right now, Nyikos
is lying about not understanding the teach ID scam. He is not
denying
that he has admitted that there was no legitimate ID science ready to
teach in the public schools.

> Had Ron O stopped here, I would have left off the word "insane" but an
> incredible performance by Ron O today justifies it. In the face of
> multiple reiterations of the "admission" in (I) and even a statement
> that I have consistently maintained it, plainly visible in the post to
> which he was replying, and even adjacent or practically adjacent to
> it, Ron O wrote:

> (IV) "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted that the ID science
> wasn't
> ready to teach in the public schools."


Again no denial that he has claimed that there is no ID science ready
to teach. Only this prevarication about that admission. Note that
the blatant lie about not getting the evidence is gone from these
prevarications because anyone can look up how Nyikos got caught in
such lies in the links that I provided. So what exactly is Nyikos
trying to accomplish with this line of argument? He doesn't say. He
only prevaricates.

Nyikos admits that the ID science that the ID perps were peddling was
too bogus to teach in the public schools. Even though he does not
state that specifically, that seems to be what he wants people to
understand even if he can't bring himself to state it again. He only
prevaricates about not being convinced by the evidence that the ID

perps ran the teach ID scam.

> It is as though I had confirmed and reconfirmed my statement that the
> earth has a moon, and Ron O had written, "Nyikos is trying to deny
> that he admitted the earth has a moon."
> The sequence (I)-(IV) can be seen in stark simplicity in my reply to
> the post where Ron O posted (IV):
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2


See my response to this post:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0e4bb1948dcc31d3

> I suspect that Ron O was so carried away by his "logic" that he
> figured that by denying (III) I was trying to deny (I) as well!
> What about (II), you may well ask? Well, the bulk of the time that
> the (I)-(II)-(III) sequence was playing out, the sole evidence Ron O
> had for the claim in (II) was the following quote from a website of
> the DI:

> QUOTE:
> Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

> No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> she should have the academic freedom to do so.
> END QUOTE linked from:

> http://www.discovery.org/a/4299

> Nowhere in the website linked from there does anything else suggestive
> of (II) appear; in fact, the website goes on and on about a totally
> different recommendation, to teach about the weaknesses of current
> evolutionary theory.


Prevarication like this is all that Nyikos can do. It isn't just
this
quote even though it specifically states that ID has not been banned
from the public schools. Lying about this quote is all that Nyikos
can do. You don't see the same denial about the ID perp's official
stance on teaching the junk. Why does Nyikos think that he can lie
about this quote and ignore the other evidence? Doesn't the other
evidence make any prevarication about this quote senseless?
Really, can anyone find where the ID perps deny running the teach ID
scam? Nyikos lived through TO at the time that the ID perps were
running the teach ID scam full tilt back at the turn of the century.
Where did the IDiot rubes get the idea that they could teach the
bogus
junk?

> This was the ONLY piece of evidence Ron O had for (II) for the longest
> time, and I started a thread to show this evidence to the general
> readership and get their comments on it:


Nyikos lies again. I didn't think that he would, but he must be
getting desperate. What is one of the reasons why you had to dig up
this lame point? What post is Nyikos running from where he comes up
with this very lie and then gets the links and evidence given back in
April, linked back to, but snipped out by Nyikos and given at least
once again. This is such a lame lie, but it is all Nyikos can think
of to do.

This should be the same post that I linked to before:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=e...

QUOTE:

> It never even OCCURRED to me that the quote of which you are so
> inordinately fond is the ONLY documentation you have for the claim
> that the DI is running a bait and switch.

It isn't the ONLY documentation. Why lie like this. You have gotten
other evidence multiple times about the ID perps selling the rubes
that they had the ID science to teach in the public schools before
the
bait and switch went down. That shouldn't even be needed because the
ID perps do not deny selling the rubes the ID scam. They only claim
that they never wanted it mandated to be taught. From the first time
that I put up this quote I claimed that it was only evidence that the
ID perps were still claiming to be able to teach the bogus ID scam
junk. I have even put up their current claims on their official web
site with the same claim.

Posts where Nyikos has gotten other documentation about the ID perps
selling the rubes that they had the ID science to teach in the public
schools:

From back in April:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4dea96d935b7522c?hl=en

This is where I link back to this post in response to one of Nyikos'
denials. Nyikos responded to this post, but snipped out the link and
response and ran.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/402dde0861d6785e?hl=e...
END QUOTE:

I provide quotes from the links in the above post.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3b97e1564472c17d?hl=e...

MY QUOTED material:

Nyikos QUOTE:

> QUOTE:> >> >I keep urging Okimoto to add more evidence than this single quote,
> > >> >especially to show that the DI was already saying it had the theory in
> > >> >a ready form BEFORE the Dover fiasco, but he cannot seem to find
> > >> >anything to supplement the following flimsy evidence for the Central
> > >> >Issue:
> END OF QUOTE

END Nyikos QUOTE:

What post did this come from?

I have just provided the links to the documentation that you claim
was
never given, and it turns out that it was first provided in April,
but
Nyikos has just run from it or snipped out links back to it without
acknowledging that it has been provided multiple times. I recall
three times, but I could only find two in my search.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=en

So Nyikos do not lie about this issue again. Address the evidence
that you have been given and stop lying about it.
END MY QUOTED Material:

> Subject: Scottish verdict on accusation of a "bait and switch scam"http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2437ba1ac91c46ef

> No one on that thread besides Ron O would endorse (II) and Robert Camp
> even posted a comment suggesting that he disagreed:

> "You are correct that there isn't much hard
> evidence as to the DI's position on teaching ID in schools."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d382ecb6f4a56ddf?dmod...


The sad thing is that Nyikos is currently running from his bogus
deeds
involving this quote. It is a classic case of quote mining. In a
standard rhetorical device Camp put up the negative argument and then
destroyed it. Nyikos has to just put up the negative argument and
snip out the rest of the quote in order to claim that Camp supported
his position when Camp actually claimed that ID was a scam from the
very beginning and that the ID perps purposely ran it that way. You
can't make this junk up. In Nyikos you have met someone bogus enough
to do such a stupid and dishonest manipulation of a quote. I can't
recall another creationist cretin that tried such a bogus and
dishonest ploy. It is stupid in that all anyone has to do is to go
up
one post and see how Nyikos manipulated the quote to understand how
bogus he is. Usually the creationist cretin does the dirty deed in a
book or article where the source can't be checked out immediately.

Nyikos quote mining Camp:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3c8d3f3f728062b8?hl=e...

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so incompetent or
pathological that they would quote mine when anyone can just go up
one
post to see how they doctored the post, but that is how Nyikos has
been for the past 9 months.

> Now, only a few posts ago on the thread where the (I)-(IV) drama has
> played out, Ron O has posted another statement by the DI which pretty
> much amounts to the same thing the first quote did:

> QUOTE:
> Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
> of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
> nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
> theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
> efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
> scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
> appropriate manner.
> END QUOTE:

> http://www.discovery.org/a/3164

> I wouldn't make an issue of all this, except that Ron O has spent
> literally thousands of lines accusing me of habitual lying and even
> insanity.


As I said above this just means that Nyikos has come to his limit
about lying about a quote and can't figure out a way to manipulate
the
quote or prevaricate about it that meets with his limit for lying.
He
knows that this quote means, but has to lie to himself about it, but
in this case can't bring himself to openly lie about it in a public
post. Considering how bogus Nyikos has been over the last 9 months
this should tell anyone that Nyikos understands what this quote
means.

The ID perps are still selling the IDiot rubes that they have the
science of ID to teach in the public schools. They have run the bait
and switch on every single IDiot rube that has popped up and claimed
to want to teach the bogus ID science since Ohio in 2002. Not a
single IDiot rube has ever gotten the ID science to teach from the
scam artists in the last 9 years. The only IDiots left that support
the bogus ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest, and
Nyikos is all three rolled into one. The ID perps sell the rubes one
thing and only give them the booby prize. That is the classic bait
and switch scam, and Nyikos has been lying about it for months.

Starting new threads like this will not change reality, and does not
make all the posts that Nyikos is running from go away.

Ron Okimoto
END Extended QUOTE:



It is obvious that I made a direct rebuttal to a lot of things in
Nyikos' post that he had to run from. What type of character would
belabor pretty much only one paragraph to make believe that he
actually had an argument?

>
>  NOTHING I posted supported that claim. Everything I posted about the
> admission showed that I was perfectly happy with having admitted it.
> So you were demonstrating your insanity by making that charge.

You have to lie about the ID perps and the teach ID scam. You admit
that it was a scam because you admit that there never was any ID
science worth teaching. Really, what is your point now that you know
that the ID perps definitely ran the teach ID scam? You knew it was a
scam, you just could not admit it for some stupid reason. You lied
about it for months, but where has it gotten you? Can you continue to
lie about it? You know what I meant, but you had to take the quote
out of context and make some big deal about it, that now is no longer
relevant because you know that the bait and switch has been going down
for over 9 years.

Can you keep denying that? So what is the point about prevaricating
about this stupid point, when you never had the argument to begin
with? Did I really lie? What was the quote about in context? What
were you denying? What was the point of the statement, and wasn't it
true? You know for a fact that the reality is that it was a true
statement. You only were lying and prevaricating about that point.
Look at the official statement by the Discovery Institute on teaching
the bogus ID science that you got in July. You dithered about that
statement, but you knew what it meant. You eventually started to lie
about that statement claiming that I took it out of context, but where
is the context that you need? You claim that the ID perps have not
wanted to teach the bogus junk in the public schools and that they do
not claim to have any ID science ready to teach, but all you can find
is them claiming to be talking about teaching the junk in the public
schools, and claiming that ID is a scientific theory that can be
taught.

Wasn't the quote dead on in context? You either lie about ID not
being ready to teach or you lie about the ID perps claiming to be able
to teach the bogus junk. What kind of choice is that?

>
> In response to my pointing this out on the Insane Logic thread, you
> reminded me that you had also posted a mountain of verbiage along with
> that insane and false charge, and that I had snipped most of it.  As
> if that somehow took the insanity away  from your ridiculous charge.

I just put up all the rebuttal that you snipped out and lied about not
getting. Are you going to snip it out again and lie about that?
Since you only addressed one paragraph and a single follow on sentence
from the next paragraph and then snipped out all the rest, we can all
see who the liar is. That was even after your lie about not getting
the rebuttal. Before that you snipped out all of the rebuttal portion
of the post.

You are such a bogus liar, that I find it hard to believe that you
even believe yourself for the few seconds that it takes to write the
lies.

>
> [...]
>
> > You could address the posts that you were running from
> > when you started the Insane logic thread.
>
> Is this the way you treat your family when confronted with your
> wrongdoing?  By bringing up other things having nothing to do with the
> contemptible thing they caught you redhanded with, and demanding that
> they deal with those things before you answer their charges?

Projection is a sign of insanity. There was no wrong doing on my
part. The bogus pretender was obviously yourself. So are you
admitting that this is how you deal with your problems at home? How
sad is that? You get caught red handed and this is what you do?

Doesn't this mean that you are worse off than the bogus liar that I
make you out to be?

Why not get back to the posts that made you start the insane logic
thread? If you had I probably wouldn't have had to put up the
additional evidence that you can't deny in this thread. The evidence
from April would have likely been enough for any sensible person.

What is not equivalent evidence where the April evidence contained
citation for a book by Meyer and DeWolf on the same subject of
incorporating intelligent design in public school education?
Shouldn't you have faced that evidence instead of running from it
multiple times and then lying about never getting it?

This from one of the posts that you are running from:

Extended QUOTE:
You have to go to other places in the web to get the references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
QUOTE:
Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American scholar, philosopher and
advocate for intelligent design, a concept regarded by the scientific
community and American courts as pseudoscientific creationism.[1] He
helped found theCenter for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery
Institute (DI), which is the driving force behind the intelligent
design movement. Previous to joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at
Winthrop University.[2][3][4] Meyer is currently vice president and a
senior fellow at CSC, and a director of the Access Research Network.
[5]
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
In 1999, Meyer with David DeWolf and Mark DeForrest laid out a legal
strategy for introducing intelligent design into public schools in
their book Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum.
END QUOTE:
END Extended QUOTE:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=en

>
> I can't see any other reason for your behavior except that you are so
> used to "getting away with murder" in this way for decades on end,
> that you think this is normal adult behavior, and that everyone can
> see how normal it is.

Projection is a sign of insanity. I have done no such thing. You, on
the other hand have repeatedly stooped to degenerate and bogus
behavior. Projection is a sign of insanity in this case, I would put
money on it at this time.

Just go back and demonstrate how bogus you accusation was about dirty
debating that you made to Bill. Who was the dirty debater? Really,
just put up one example where I have done anything like that. What
about lying about me not making a rebuttal? Find something from me
equivalent to that. Go for it you have 9 months of posts and I don't
have any problem finding bogus junk that you have repeatedly done.

>
> Are you the absolute dictator of your nuclear family?  Knowing how
> subservient millions of Japanese woman are, it would not surprise me
> in the least.

I hope this isn't really projection, but it likely is from all your
previous bogus ranting. If you do treat your family like this, you do
need help.

Really, what kind of pathetic person are you? All that I have ever
done is put up what you are actually guilty of. Why make up bogus and
degenerate stories about me just so you can lie to yourself? How sad
of a person can you be?

>
> In other words: you could address the numerous lies and hypocrisies
> with which I have caught YOU red-handed.  But as long as you have the
> excuse that there is *something* I have not addressed among the
> myriads of lines you've posted in reply to me, you will NEVER accept
> responsibility for any of them, will you?

You could demonstrate where I have ever lied or committed anything
like what you are claiming. Go for it. Put up the posts and let us
see what you are talking about.

>
> > You could admit to who was
> > the dirty debater
>
> Why, you, of course.

Nyikos finding out who the dirty debater was:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a995034f6931eba4?hl=enKf4c1af25c978cf

Extended QUOTE:
> But my statement at the beginning is true, for he did indeed indulge
> in an earlier bait and switch which was documented in the same post
> where I wrote that opening paragraph. My documentation consisted of
> the following url:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6703b9aa27d7c037


This is crazy. This is where Nyikos is claiming that I am running a
misdirection ploy? I am accusing him of leaving in the material, but
making some stupid statement that doesn’t address the material and
then running. That is one type of misdirection ploy, but anyone can
read the thread and see that it is true. That Nyikos did exactly
that. Did he address the material with his bogus verbage about not
snipping it out? Did I misrepresent what he did? No. He did not
address the material, he only made some inane comments about not
snipping it and ran. Why would anyone be proud enough of doing
something that bogus, link back to it? It didn’t occur to me that
Nyikos was claiming that I was misdirecting the argument. I just
thought that he was denying his own stupidity again.

This is my statement about what Nyikos did when he did it without all
Nyikos’ manipulations and deletions.

QUOTE:
> > actually accurate because at that time intelligent design was the
> > default explanation for anything that we didn't understand about
> > nature. The designer did it. Who made the seasons change? Who
> > pulled the sun and moon across the sky? Who made thunder and
> > lightning? Who caused disease? Who made those complex babies? Who
> > made the complex flagellum? It isn't a scientific theory, it is only
> > a place holder for when we don't have all the answers.

> The above left in because RonO plays games with the word "dishonest"
> and calls me dishonest for not leaving in everything from the post to
> which I am replying --- AND because RonO's post is short enough so
> that leaving in everything he wrote won't make this post of mine so
> long that people reading it in Google won't have to click "read more"
> in order to be able to see it all.

No, only when you snip and run. You have left this in, but have run
from it at the same time. You are misdirecting the argument because
you have no counter to the statement. That is also bogus and
dishonest. You would likely have been better off just snipping and
running like you usually do. You have to run because it is the
reason why Behe can equate astrology from the dark ages with
intelligent
design, because at that time they were equivalent and intelligent
design never advanced past that point.
END QUOTE:

The last statement was what I claimed Nyikos did and it is what he
actually did. There is no denying it. I did not claim that he
snipped and ran. I just claimed that he left the material in and ran
from it anyway. Anyone can see that Nyikos only made some bogus
statement about not snipping and then did not address the material.
This is the kind of stupid and boneheaded junk that Nyikos constantly
does. Why would I misdirect from something bogus that Nyikos
actually
did?
END EXTENDED QUOTE:

Nyikos snipped out this part of the post from his response and ran.
When asked to acknowledge what he had done he ran and started the
bogus Scottish verdict thread the next day.

I do not make this junk up. Nyikos has done it all.

>
> >and why you had to start the Scottish verdict
> > thread.
>
> It was because the thread we were arguing in had run to over 500 posts
> and nobody else seemed to be following it.

That is why you changed the heading and continued to prevaricate in
that thread on another topic. What a liar. Anyone can use the link
back to that thread and see that there are only 129 posts in that
thread and that a lot of them were made after Nyikos ran and started
the Scottish verdict thread in April. I count over 50 of the 129
posts posted after Nyikos ran from his bogus deed.

>
> And of course, you loved it that way. After all, as Jesus said, men
> preferred darkness to the light, because their deeds were evil (Gospel
> of John, Chapter 3).

Nyikos must be getting badly off. He is starting to spout Bible
verses again, and this is the guy that claimed that he wasn't a
creationist at the beginning of this whole farce.

>
> And I decided to move the argument into the light, where lots of
> people could see it -- and did.  I kept focusing on the weak link in
> your chain of reasoning (the alleged "bait") and you could not cope
> with that except with a broken record routine. You made NO attempt
> anywhere on that thread to actually reason out why that quote really
> said what you claimed.

All you have ever done is prevaricate about the issue. Demonstrate
that you ever put up any positive evidence for your position. Have
you ever demonstrated that the ID perps do not claim to be able to
teach the bogus junk? Have you ever been able to produce any evidence
that they never wanted to teach the junk in the public schools? All
you have ever done is nay say, and lie about the issues. When did you
ever put any light on the subject. You admitted to another poster
that you started the insane logic thread to make me look bad. What
was the purpose of the dirty debating thread and the misdirection
thread? What kind of light is that shedding on the topic? Hell fire
and damnation seem to be your light source.

>
> What you claimed obviously was NOT explicitly said in that quote, but
> you were inferring it.  But since you could give no coherent
> explanation of this inference, you did what I suspect you do to your
> own family members, and kept making personal accusations having
> nothing to do with the "bait," and posting mountains of stuff about
> what you call "the switch" -- mountains that I never tried to contest,
> because I basically agreed with them.

What inference? Put up the quote that you are talking about and
demonstrate that I am wrong. That should have been easy enough for
you to do, but you have never done it. Find the context in the
official statement or the ID propaganda pamphlet that demonstrates
that I am wrong about what the quotes mean. Go for it. You should
have done that months ago.

>
> But I also kept pointing out that with no bait, there is no switch.
> And you never had a rational comeback to that.

Now, you can't deny that ID was the bait. So what is your position
going to be. Just demonstrating that the ID perps were still using ID
as the bait wasn't good enough for you. When you got the additional
evidence you ran for months. So what is your plan now? You know that
the ID perps are still using ID as the bait. Their bogus scam doesn't
make much sense for what they are trying to do with out the lame
junk. What about the Wedge document or their official mission
statement from 1998?

>
> [rest deleted, in accordance with your own policy against Ray
> Martinez]
>
> Peter Nyikos

Run, so what? Reality will be the same tomorrow. You aren't like
Ray, you are more like Pagano. You start bogus threads with bogus
titles, and runs when you can't put up any type of decent argument.
You like and posture and then run and then you repeat the same lies
again in other posts. When are you going to try to support your
claims? Just lying about the junk isn't any type of support worth
jack, so put up the posts and demonstrate that what you claim is true.

Ron Okimoto