John Harshman Genius Extraordinaire

[bill gatley]

Is about to stun us with his intellect.

He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.

Shoot John.

Can't wait for this gem.

[raven1]

What's your definition of "function"?

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 09:07:42 -0700 (PDT), bill gatley
<billg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Is about to stun us with his intellect.
>
>He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.

Does a habitual liar have a function?

>
>Shoot John.
>
>Can't wait for this gem.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[John Harshman]

On 9/8/12 9:07 AM, bill gatley wrote:
> Is about to stun us with his intellect.
>
> He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.
>
> Shoot John.

No, please don't shoot John. But thanks for the compliment.

[bill gatley]

You were supposed to name 1 item in the universe that has no
function.

Not be one.

Anyhoo my point is proven. Hope you enjoyed today's lesson.

[raven1]

The point you actually proved is not the one you intended.

[prawnster]

On Saturday, September 8, 2012 9:08:12 AM UTC-7, bill gatley wrote:
> Is about to stun us with his intellect. He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function. <<

Oh, I know! Hillary Clinton's vagina!

[deadrat]

On 9/8/12 3:23 PM, bill gatley wrote:
> On 8 Sep, 21:18, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 9/8/12 9:07 AM, bill gatley wrote:
>>
>>> Is about to stun us with his intellect.
>>
>>> He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.
>>
>>> Shoot John.
>>
>> No, please don't shoot John. But thanks for the compliment.
>
> You were supposed to name 1 item in the universe that has no
> function.

I believe that it's your claim that everything has a function. Thus
both the burdens of production and proof lie with you. To be fair, it
does seem that John has the easier job, since he would have to
demonstrate one thing that fails to have a function, while you have to
demonstrate that everything has a function.

Let's suppose that John is willing to do the job that's really yours and
he posits some thing that has no function. How can we tell he's right
in the context of your challenge without your giving an operational
definition of "function"? By "operational," I means something that
independent parties can measure and agree upon.

I'm sure your next post will give such a definition, and then we can see
whether we can rely on John's intellect and good humor.

> Not be one.
>
> Anyhoo my point is proven.

Ooh! A victory jig. I love those.

> Hope you enjoyed today's lesson.

Er, Sparky? You are today's object lesson.

[raven1]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 14:02:46 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

<plonk>

[bill gatley]

On 8 Sep, 22:03, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> On 9/8/12 3:23 PM, bill gatley wrote:
>
> > On 8 Sep, 21:18, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/8/12 9:07 AM, bill gatley wrote:
>
> >>> Is about to stun us with his intellect.
>
> >>> He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.
>
> >>> Shoot John.
>
> >> No, please don't shoot John. But thanks for the compliment.
>
> > You were supposed to name 1 item in the universe that has no
> > function.

> I believe that it's your claim that everything has a function. �Thus
> both the burdens of production and proof lie with you. �To be fair, it
> does seem that John has the easier job, since he would have to
> demonstrate one thing that fails to have a function, while you have to
> demonstrate that everything has a function.

Actually it was Johns claim that Junk DNA has no function. I am simply
asking him to name one object/thing that has no function.

And as you say, it would seem he has the easy job. I wonder why he's
finding it such a challenge?

> Let's suppose that John is willing to do the job that's really yours and
> he posits some thing that has no function. �How can we tell he's right
> in the context of your challenge without your giving an operational
> definition of "function"? �By "operational," I means something that
> independent parties can measure and agree upon.

In the context of the argument, "function" would be something of some
use to something else.

> How can we tell he's right.

We can't always.

Only when we observe the "something else" making use of the object in
question can we really know.

The fact that it's use is not observed doesn't negate it's function.

Only a fool would claim he knows the unknowable.

[raven1]

Argument from Ignorance is not terribly useful.

[Slow Vehicle]

Oh, I assure you he can provide lots of things.

(That's how _you_ answer similar questions, right?)

[Robert Camp]

Your definition of "function" appears to be so broad that the mere
existence of something - by which virtue it necessarily interacts with
something else - qualifies it as having a function. But the reality is
that the nature of "function" depends upon context, so that whenever
we call something "junk" we are making that determination based upon
an assumed set of conditions (e.g., just about anything in a junkyard
could be put to use in another circumstance).

You almost seem to tumble to this realization when you say, "If you
place the same equations in different environments, your Junk is
useful." But then you go on to undermine this apparent understanding
by talking about DNA enlarging the cell, and implying that everything
has a function - which of course diminishes the meaning of the word to
the point that your argument about DNA becomes impotent.

RLC

[David Hare-Scott]

Being a self-absorbed nym-shifting twit is a function?

D

[Walter Bushell]

In article <pofn48tqat7f3c88n...@4ax.com>,

raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

> Argument from Ignorance is not terribly useful.

Yes, but it costs very little because we have a lot of ignorance.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Rolf]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a458f77-60e5-4a96...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

But still a boomerang?

> RLC
>

[Nick Keighley]

in a sense nothing has an intrisic function. We attribute function to
things. Ok somewhere in the space between here and Andromeda there's a
helium atom. What's its purpose.

[Burkhard]

Yes, but that is gately's point: only because we haven't identified a
function for x does not mean x has no function - that would be the
argument from ignorance. The reason the challange fails here is that
we have other reasons to strongly suspect that there is no function
( e.g. The onion test John mentioned)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Your function on this group is serving as a magnet for obsessive loons
who put your name in the subject line of threads. You are doing an
excellent job.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 14:28:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by bill gatley
<billg...@gmail.com>:

<snip>

>Only a fool would claim he knows the unknowable.

The irony's getting a bit heavy today...
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

[Tom]

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 3:23:09 AM UTC-7, Nick Keighley wrote:
>
> in a sense nothing has an intrisic function. We attribute function to
> things. Ok somewhere in the space between here and Andromeda there's a
> helium atom. What's its purpose.

It's a placeholder.

[Glenn]

"Tom" <dant...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eb04f7e7-cccf-42a6...@googlegroups.com...

A turtle or two will work just as well.

[Slow Vehicle]

3 posts up...we may have a winner!

[William Morse]

On 09/08/2012 04:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:

Well, we already knew you are a genius. I am still waiting for the
functionless item, and teats on a boar hog and screen doors on a
submarine are valid but already taken. Any new suggestions?

Yours,

Bill

[Richard Norman]

Isn't there some sort of paradox where the function of the named
functionless item is to serve as an example of a functionless item?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Sep 9, 8:33�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:30:31 -0400, William Morse
>

"This is another thing that belongs in the group of things that don't
belong in any groups...

[Tom]

Indeed it would, but how you gonna get a turtle to crawl all the way out there?

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 22:24:50 -0700 (PDT), Tom <dant...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Ladder of other turtles?

[pnyikos]

Now go one step deeper, and ask yourself why it is Harshman rather
than, e.g., yourself, that is a magnet.

Here is one of many answers, a ditty by "prawnster":

--------------------
I appre'nded the nuance of 'paque college text,
I penned countless theses 'pon abstruse subject.
Yet when hemmed by logic 'gainst which none can guard,
I cry out "Stop! Uncle!" by feigning the 'tard.
========= end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16230e60c9f0f729

Lest there be any misunderstanding: prawnster's ditty is meant to be
coming from Harshman himself. And I can personally vouch for his
continually living up to it. I called attention to one example in:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f5da618dd5dd8fb3


He then employed another one of his favorite ways of crying out
"Stop!
Uncle!":


"But it contains nothing that needs a reply."


http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/26ed8776b887e26a


In my reply, I snipped that crying out but left the rest of what he
posted in:


Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.agnosticism
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Jun 27 2012 1:15 pm
Subject: Re: The atheism of J. Coyne Re: Intelligent Design Book
Meets
Obstacle


On Jun 26, 5:15 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:



> pnyikos wrote:
> This is a placeholder for a reply, just to let you know I saw this post.


And here I've snipped a paraphrasal of "I, John Harshman, can dish it
out, but I can't take it."

Peter Nyikos
================ end of post archived
at: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/22ec25847dd3b889

[pnyikos]

Like some of Harshman's evasive replies, like the one I documented in
reply to Hemidactylus just now.

Peter Nyikos

[Tom]

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 11:08:07 PM UTC-7, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 22:24:50 -0700 (PDT), Tom <dant...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 9, 2012 1:23:08 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>
> >> "Tom" <dant...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:eb04f7e7-cccf-42a6...@googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > On Sunday, September 9, 2012 3:23:09 AM UTC-7, Nick Keighley wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > in a sense nothing has an intrisic function. We attribute function to
> >> > > things. Ok somewhere in the space between here and Andromeda there's a
> >> > > helium atom. What's its purpose.
> >> >
> >> > It's a placeholder.
>
> .
>
> >> A turtle or two will work just as well.
> >
> >Indeed it would, but how you gonna get a turtle to crawl all the way
> >out there?
>
> Ladder of other turtles?

All carried on the back of Bertrand Russell.

[chris thompson]

Nominated in he category, "Look mom! Nine toes!" ("You hand me that bb
gun RIGHT NOW young man!")

>
> You were supposed to name 1 item in the universe that has no
> function.
>
> Not be one.
>

[chris thompson]

On Sep 8, 5:03�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2012 9:08:12 AM UTC-7, bill gatley wrote:
> > Is about to stun us with his intellect. He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function. <<
>
> Oh, I know! �Hillary Clinton's vagina!

We could probably expand that, in your case, to every vagina on the
planet.

Chris

Damn. Fed the troll again. But let's face it- he'll swallow anything.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<b405c901-1c43-4fc7...@r14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,

And Dilbert today (2012/09/10) shows one reason why he is still a
virgin.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <5rlp48d4frp0402uf...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 14:28:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by bill gatley
> <billg...@gmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Only a fool would claim he knows the unknowable.
>
> The irony's getting a bit heavy today...

Isn't there a line in the FAQ saying to disconnect your irony meter
whilst reading this froup?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:30:31 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by William Morse
<wdNOSP...@verizon.net>:

I recall something about priests and testicles...

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:03:16 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

Oh, my IronyMeter's fine; it's the "T.O Special" and has
only smoked mildly a couple of times.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Sep 9, 5:23�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, but that is gately's point: only because we haven't identified a
> function for x does not mean x has no function - that would be the
> argument from ignorance. The reason the challange fails here is that
> we have other reasons to strongly suspect that there is no function
> ( e.g. The onion test John mentioned)

I'm surprised (well, not really) that spintronic didn't make the
"least interesting number" argument: there cannot be a least-
interesting number because any potential candidate immediately becomes
interesting. Likewise, there cannot exist an x with no function, as
any candidate x now has the function of being a example.

(Apologies if someone else came up with this downthread.)

[Greg G.]

It's like trying to determine what thought is the furthest from your
mind.

[Earle Jones]

In article
<af5c265c-95e1-48be...@m17g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,

*
The argument as I recall it is this: There are no uninteresting numbers.

If there were a set of uninteresting numbers, there would be a least
member of that set, which of course, would be interesting. We must
therefore remove that number from the set.

Then, there is a least member of the new set. etc, etc.

ERGO, all numbers are interesting.

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article
<fd0f71e5-5e6b-4e87...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,

*
I can read your mind, and I know exactly what you're thinking.

You're thinking I can't.

Was I right?

earle
*

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:49:18 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<2322fe74-95ef-4d7f...@j10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 9, 4:08ï¿œpm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 9, 2012 3:23:09 AM UTC-7, Nick Keighley wrote:
>>
>>> in a sense nothing has an intrisic function. We attribute function to
>>> things. Ok somewhere in the space between here and Andromeda there's a
>>> helium atom. What's its purpose.
>>
>> It's a placeholder.
>
> Like some of Harshman's evasive replies,

oh, my.

> like the one I documented in
> reply to Hemidactylus just now.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

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

[Richard Norman]

Apologies are insufficient -- I demand royalties!

[Richard Norman]

That only works for integers or rationals. If you try it on the reals
you have to invoke the well ordering principle or an equivalent.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <4r9s48hvun3383ag5...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:30:31 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by William Morse
> <wdNOSP...@verizon.net>:
>
> >On 09/08/2012 04:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 9/8/12 9:07 AM, bill gatley wrote:
> >>> Is about to stun us with his intellect.
> >>>
> >>> He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.
> >>>
> >>> Shoot John.
> >>
> >> No, please don't shoot John. But thanks for the compliment.
> >>
> >Well, we already knew you are a genius. I am still waiting for the
> >functionless item, and teats on a boar hog and screen doors on a
> >submarine are valid but already taken. Any new suggestions?
>
> I recall something about priests and testicles...

You can't be promoted to Pope without testicles. I don't know if you
can be ordained without.

[Inez]

On Sep 8, 1:28�pm, bill gatley <billgat...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8 Sep, 21:18, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > On 9/8/12 9:07 AM, bill gatley wrote:
>
> > > Is about to stun us with his intellect.
>
> > > He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.
>
> > > Shoot John.
>
> > No, please don't shoot John. But thanks for the compliment.
>

> You were supposed to name 1 item in the universe that has no
> function.
>
You don't have a mirror in your house?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:09:04 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

Interesting...

Is there some sort of rational reason?

> I don't know if you can be ordained without.
--

[Karel]

On 11 sep, 18:58, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:09:04 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >In article <4r9s48hvun3383ag5sv32vafi3ru8c2...@4ax.com>,

> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:30:31 -0400, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by William Morse

> >> <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net>:

>
> >> >On 09/08/2012 04:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >> >> On 9/8/12 9:07 AM, bill gatley wrote:
> >> >>> Is about to stun us with his intellect.
>
> >> >>> He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.
>
> >> >>> Shoot John.
>
> >> >> No, please don't shoot John. But thanks for the compliment.
>
> >> >Well, we already knew you are a genius. I am still waiting for the
> >> >functionless item, and teats on a boar hog and screen doors on a
> >> >submarine are valid but already taken. Any new suggestions?
>
> >> I recall something about priests and testicles...
>
> >You can't be promoted to Pope without testicles.
>
> Interesting...
>
> Is there some sort of rational reason?
>
> > I don't know if you can be ordained without.

In principle, you can't and there is a rational reason
of sorts. Priests are supposed to sacrifice their lives
to God, and the sacrifice should be without blemish
(insert bible refferences). Blemishes include amputations
of any kind, but also tattoos and piercings or strictly
speaking, scars. How strictly the rule is enforced I
have no idea.

Regards,

Karel

[James Beck]

In the category: The Pope has only one orb

[James Beck]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:09:04 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

There are no records of any such inspection of the papal ballsack.
After the First Council of Nicea, what you could *not* do and still be
promoted was cut off your own junk.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/10/2012 09:47 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Sep 9, 9:08 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 09/08/2012 04:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/8/12 9:07 AM, bill gatley wrote:
>>>> Is about to stun us with his intellect.
>>
>>>> He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.
>>
>>>> Shoot John.
>>
>>> No, please don't shoot John. But thanks for the compliment.
>>
>> Your function on this group is serving as a magnet for obsessive loons
>> who put your name in the subject line of threads. You are doing an
>> excellent job.
>
> Now go one step deeper, and ask yourself why it is Harshman rather
> than, e.g., yourself, that is a magnet.

Never gave that much thought. He can be rather brash, thus leading to
hurt feelings.

> Here is one of many answers, a ditty by "prawnster":
>
> --------------------
> I appre'nded the nuance of 'paque college text,
> I penned countless theses 'pon abstruse subject.
> Yet when hemmed by logic 'gainst which none can guard,
> I cry out "Stop! Uncle!" by feigning the 'tard.
> ========= end of excerpt
> from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16230e60c9f0f729

You need to pick better exemplars.

> Lest there be any misunderstanding: prawnster's ditty is meant to be
> coming from Harshman himself. And I can personally vouch for his
> continually living up to it. I called attention to one example in:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f5da618dd5dd8fb3

A post where you get hung up on who is an atheist or Christian.

> He then employed another one of his favorite ways of crying out
> "Stop!
> Uncle!":
>
>
> "But it contains nothing that needs a reply."
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/26ed8776b887e26a
>
>
> In my reply, I snipped that crying out but left the rest of what he
> posted in:
>
>
> Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.agnosticism
> From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
> Local: Wed, Jun 27 2012 1:15 pm
> Subject: Re: The atheism of J. Coyne Re: Intelligent Design Book
> Meets
> Obstacle
>
>
> On Jun 26, 5:15 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> pnyikos wrote:
>> This is a placeholder for a reply, just to let you know I saw this post.
>
>
> And here I've snipped a paraphrasal of "I, John Harshman, can dish it
> out, but I can't take it."

If we are getting hung up on atheists versus Christians it seems a Mr.
Martinez is calling you out for alleged atheism:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/R_eO1Sek5RM/qQ-6q1bCPXUJ

I'm not sure you want directed panspermy being shorthanded by the
acronym DPism. Ray might be getting a little too much joy with this
acronym. But if you are being mocked for belief that aliens could have
seeded our planet, you might ask Ray to talk about his ideas on Atlantis
and eels:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/527Ad16cABQ/te9ygHtDeowJ

[george bailey]

On 12 Sep, 10:53, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> Never gave that much thought. He can be rather brash, thus leading to
> hurt feelings.

Really? You act as though the people he pisses off are 6 years old.

It has nothing to do with "hurt feelings". (Your ignorance, arrogance,
& ability to be sucked in astound me)

It has to do with the fact that he is more than half the time wrong,
but you fools kiss his ass as if he is jesus-fucking-christ.

Like Thunderfoot. He is a nobody ass-hole troll. Who pisses people off
for the attention he seeks.

His I.Q. is lower than my pet poodle.

[pnyikos]

On Sep 12, 5:53�am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 09:47 AM, pnyikos wrote:

> > On Sep 9, 9:08 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 09/08/2012 04:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>> On 9/8/12 9:07 AM, bill gatley wrote:
> >>>> Is about to stun us with his intellect.
>
> >>>> He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.
>
> >>>> Shoot John.
>
> >>> No, please don't shoot John. But thanks for the compliment.
>
> >> Your function on this group is serving as a magnet for obsessive loons
> >> who put your name in the subject line of threads. You are doing an
> >> excellent job.
>
> > Now �go one step deeper, and ask yourself why it is Harshman rather
> > than, e.g., yourself, that is a magnet.
>
> Never gave that much thought. He can be rather brash, thus leading to
> hurt feelings.

I think his disdain for the thinking behind *Habeas corpus* and the
6th Amendment to the US Constitution goes a bit beyond brashness. He
has accused me of paranoia numerous times, and to his latest charge, I
replied as follows.

___________________________________
Your original claim that my "paranoia ascends to the skies" was based
on the false premise that I had claimed that n people were Howard
Hershey, where n was a number considerably above 1, where in fact n
was and still is no greater than 1.

Have you come up with any valid examples of paranoia by me? I can
recall none.
======================== end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e30a829fca5bb908

He thumbed his nose at that:

____________ begin excerpt________________________
> Have you come up with any valid examples of paranoia by me? I can
> recall none.

I have no interest in indulging you here.

>> 4) And lovely red uniforms. I'll come in again.

> Is that an allusion to some film or book?

No. But it's an allusion. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, you
know.

================= end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9e3617a60af5d2a7


> > Here is one of my answers, a ditty by "prawnster":

>
> > --------------------
> > I appre'nded the nuance of 'paque college text,
> > I penned countless theses 'pon abstruse subject.
> > Yet when hemmed by logic 'gainst which none can guard,
> > I cry out "Stop! Uncle!" by feigning the 'tard.
> > ========= end of excerpt

> > fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16230e60c9f0f729

>
> You need to pick better exemplars.

Even a stopped clock tells correct time twice a day. This was an
example of accurate "telling" by prawnster.

> > Lest there be any misunderstanding: prawnster's ditty is meant to be
> > coming from Harshman himself. �And I can personally vouch for his
> > continually living up to it. �I called attention to one example in:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f5da618dd5dd8fb3
>
> A post where you get hung up on who is an atheist or Christian.

Do you disagree that Harshman "played the [re]tard" on that occasion?

It's liable to get us sidetracked but...What exactly do you see wrong
with the way I got "hung up," as you put it?

> > He then employed another one of his favorite ways of crying out
> > "Stop!
> > Uncle!":
>
> > � � "But it contains nothing that needs a reply."
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/26ed8776b887e26a
>
> > In my reply, I snipped that crying out but left the rest of what he
> > posted in:
>
> > Newsgroups: talk.origins, alt.agnosticism
> > From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
> > Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:15:24 -0700 (PDT)

> > Subject: Re: The atheism of J. Coyne Re: Intelligent Design Book
> > Meets Obstacle
>
> > On Jun 26, 5:15 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >> This is a placeholder for a reply, just to let you know I saw this post.
>
> > And here I've snipped a paraphrasal of "I, John Harshman, can dish it
> > out, but I can't take it."
>
> If we are getting hung up on atheists versus Christians it seems a Mr.
> Martinez is calling you out for alleged atheism:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/R_eO1Sek5RM/qQ-6q1bCPXUJ

I am aware of it, and have taken appropriate action. But thanks for
the warning--I'm very busy these days and could easily miss such
threads, even those with my name on them

> I'm not sure you want directed panspermy being shorthanded by the
> acronym DPism. Ray might be getting a little too much joy with this
> acronym. But if you are being mocked for belief that aliens could have
> seeded our planet, you might ask Ray to talk about his ideas on Atlantis
> and eels:
>

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/527Ad16cABQ/te9ygHtDeowJ- Hide quoted text -

Thanks for the tip.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 12, 6:08�am, george bailey <georgebailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 Sep, 10:53, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Never gave that much thought. He can be rather brash, thus leading to
> > hurt feelings.
>
> Really? You act as though the people he pisses off are 6 years old.
>
> It has nothing to do with "hurt feelings". (Your ignorance, arrogance,
> & ability to be sucked in astound me)

I've been going easy on Hemidactylus, because he seems to have cleaned
up his act since we last tangled in the 1990's. Do you have worse
examples than this one?

Believe me, there are lots of people posting to talk.origins who are
far, far worse than he is here.

If you don't believe me, I can name some people, with documentation
galore to back me up.

> It has to do with the fact that he is more than half the time wrong,
> but you fools kiss his ass as if he is jesus-fucking-christ.

I do believe you are over-reacting here. Harshman seems to be pretty
much on his own during almost all of our long debates with each
other. Hemidactylus's deflection of my criticism by accusing me of
being "hung up" on who is an atheist and who isn't, is actually a bit
unusual.

When I say "long debates," I mean it. I'd estimate more than one-
third of my total output in talk.origins since I returned in December
2010 has been in direct reply to Harshman. I have no idea what
fraction of his output has been in reply to me, but it has to be high.

In sci.bio.paleontology, it is more like two-thirds. And IIRC nobody
has intervened on his side there, except when the discussion/debate is
crossposted to talk.origins.

> Like Thunderfoot. He is a nobody ass-hole troll. Who pisses people off
> for the attention he seeks.
>
> His I.Q. is lower than my pet poodle.

He feigns that frequently, as "prawnster" has independently observed,
but AFAIK almost always when he senses he is on the losing end of a
debate, or at least is making zero headway. I have a great example of
the latter, if you are interested.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 10, 10:08�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:03:05 -0700, Earle Jones
>
>
>
>
>

> <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >In article
> ><af5c265c-95e1-48be-80e4-0b0255617...@m17g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,

> > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 9, 5:23�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> > Yes, but that is gately's point: only because we haven't identified a
> >> > function for x does not mean x has no function - that would be the
> >> > argument from ignorance. The reason the challange fails here is that
> >> > we have other reasons to strongly suspect that there is no function
> >> > ( e.g. The onion test John mentioned)
>
> >> I'm surprised (well, not really) that spintronic didn't make the
> >> "least interesting number" argument: �there cannot be a least-
> >> interesting number because any potential candidate immediately becomes
> >> interesting. �Likewise, there cannot exist an x with no function, as
> >> any candidate x now has the function of being a example.
>
> >> (Apologies if someone else came up with this downthread.)
>
> >*
> >The argument as I recall it is this: �There are no uninteresting numbers.
>
> >If there were a set of uninteresting numbers, there would be a least
> >member of that set, which of course, would be interesting. �We must
> >therefore remove that number from the set.
>
> >Then, there is a least member of the new set. �etc, etc.
>
> >ERGO, all numbers are interesting.
>
> That only works for integers or rationals. �If you try it on the reals
> you have to invoke the well ordering principle or an equivalent.

And even that is inadequate unless you work inside a countable model
of Godel's Constructible Universe. Otherwise, you might run up
against such things as order indiscernibles.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Specialty: set-theoretic topology

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 8 de septiembre de 2012 22:33:11 UTC+1, bill gatley escribi�:
> On 8 Sep, 22:03, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9/8/12 3:23 PM, bill gatley wrote:

>
> >
>
> > > On 8 Sep, 21:18, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > >> On 9/8/12 9:07 AM, bill gatley wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >>> Is about to stun us with his intellect.
>
> >
>
> > >>> He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.
>
> >
>
> > >>> Shoot John.
>
> >
>
> > >> No, please don't shoot John. But thanks for the compliment.
>
> >
>

> > > You were supposed to name 1 item in the universe that has no
>
> > > function.
>
>
>
> > I believe that it's your claim that everything has a function. �Thus
>
> > both the burdens of production and proof lie with you. �To be fair, it
>
> > does seem that John has the easier job, since he would have to
>
> > demonstrate one thing that fails to have a function, while you have to
>
> > demonstrate that everything has a function.
>
>
>
> Actually it was Johns claim that Junk DNA has no function. I am simply
>
> asking him to name one object/thing that has no function.

He probably is echoing some specialists in genetics that said this. as we are not specialist in genetics, we cannot be sure. Then, it does not make any sense to argument about things we do not know well, but by reading some papers.

I am not sure if those specialist are wrong or not. It is their responsibility for the saying or writing. Perhaps they have reason, perhaps not, perhaps, some pieces of junk DNA are useful for something.

I do not see any sense in arguing over this point except from the point of view of a god-creator, that made all things perfect. In the case of perfect god, it looks demeaning that a perfect omniscient god would had created something like junk DNA without a clear purpose.

Then, if the basic problem is this, we can start to argument about the perfection of god's work. What is the purpose that a human is born blind? What the purpose of a child being born a deaf-mute? What is the purpose of the twisters in the US, or the Hurricanes, or the tsunamis?
What is the purpose of some people being born with congenital defects that made their life a hell?

Then, the crap would had changed from arguing about the defects of the theory of evolution to the defects of the work of god.
The theory of evolution is the work of human beings, that are not omniscient.
While the defects on the works of god have not extenuating circumstances.
What if next week the super-volcano of Yellowstone blows up and destroys about three fourths of the US? To a naturalist philosopher, this can happen any moment, this year, in the next decade, or so, and it does not make any sense to argue if this is good or bad. It just happens; that's all. We are nothing from the perspective of the whole Universe, even if many of us believe humans
are the omphalos of the Universe.

Eridanus






>
>
> And as you say, it would seem he has the easy job. I wonder why he's
>
> finding it such a challenge?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Let's suppose that John is willing to do the job that's really yours and
>
> > he posits some thing that has no function. �How can we tell he's right
>
> > in the context of your challenge without your giving an operational
>
> > definition of "function"? �By "operational," I means something that
>
> > independent parties can measure and agree upon.
>
>
>
> In the context of the argument, "function" would be something of some
>
> use to something else.
>
>
>
> > How can we tell he's right.
>
>
>
> We can't always.
>
>
>
> Only when we observe the "something else" making use of the object in
>
> question can we really know.
>
>
>
> The fact that it's use is not observed doesn't negate it's function.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:23:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Karel
<tex...@gmail.com>:

OK. So extraction of an impacted wisdom tooth can cut short
a career? Again, interesting...

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <40g158te15rbsfr19...@4ax.com>,

James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In the category: The Pope has only one orb

That doesn't scan to the Colonel Bogey March.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Paul J Gans]

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

Has it ever occurred to you that there is no need to chime in
on Harshman's behalf. He seems to be able to present his points
with clarity and simplicity.

And I remind you, don't complain about the number of your posts.
You don't have to post that much. You could stick to the main
topic instead of wandering all over the lot.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:13:00 -0400, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

IIUC the Pope must be male and Roman Catholic. The scrotal inspection
traditionally covers the first case. I don't know how the second case
is verified. Also, I don't know about record-keeping for either test.

[Burkhard]

On Sep 13, 3:47�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:13:00 -0400, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:09:04 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> >wrote:
>

> >>In article <4r9s48hvun3383ag5sv32vafi3ru8c2...@4ax.com>,

> >> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 22:30:31 -0400, the following appeared
> >>> in talk.origins, posted by William Morse

> >>> <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net>:

>
> >>> >On 09/08/2012 04:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> >> On 9/8/12 9:07 AM, bill gatley wrote:
> >>> >>> Is about to stun us with his intellect.
>
> >>> >>> He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.
>
> >>> >>> Shoot John.
>
> >>> >> No, please don't shoot John. But thanks for the compliment.
>
> >>> >Well, we already knew you are a genius. I am still waiting for the
> >>> >functionless item, and teats on a boar hog and screen doors on a
> >>> >submarine are valid but already taken. Any new suggestions?
>
> >>> I recall something about priests and testicles...
>
> >>You can't be promoted to Pope without testicles. I don't know if you
> >>can be ordained without.
>
> >There are no records of any such inspection of the papal ballsack.
> >After the First Council of Nicea, what you could *not* do and still be
> >promoted was cut off your own junk.
>
> IIUC the Pope must be male and Roman Catholic. �The scrotal inspection
> traditionally covers the first case. �I don't know how the second case
> is verified.

scrotal for the first, scatological for the second. You just go to the
woods and look for... oh hang on, or was that bears?

>�Also, I don't know about record-keeping for either test.

[James Beck]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:23:45 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <40g158te15rbsfr19...@4ax.com>,
>James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>In the category: The Pope has only one orb
>
>That doesn't scan to the Colonel Bogey March.

Latex
The Papal doc's best friend
Latex
For ev'ry crease and bend
Squeeze him
Don't try to please him
Protect your finger
Don't linger
Or wend

[pnyikos]

On Sep 12, 7:47嚙緘m, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Sep 12, 6:08?am, george bailey <georgebailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12 Sep, 10:53, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Never gave that much thought. He can be rather brash, thus leading to
> >> > hurt feelings.
>
> >> Really? You act as though the people he pisses off are 6 years old.
>
> >> It has nothing to do with "hurt feelings". (Your ignorance, arrogance,
> >> & ability to be sucked in astound me)
> >I've been going easy on Hemidactylus, because he seems to have cleaned

> >up his act since we last tangled in the 1990's. 嚙瘩o you have worse

> >examples than this one?
> >Believe me, there are lots of people posting to talk.origins who are
> >far, far worse than he is here.
> >If you don't believe me, I can name some people, with documentation
> >galore to back me up.
> >> It has to do with the fact that he is more than half the time wrong,
> >> but you fools kiss his ass as if he is jesus-fucking-christ.

> >I do believe you are over-reacting here. 嚙瘡arshman seems to be pretty

> >much on his own during almost all of our long debates with each

> >other. 嚙瘡emidactylus's deflection of my criticism by accusing me of

> >being "hung up" on who is an atheist and who isn't, is actually a bit
> >unusual.

> >When I say "long debates," I mean it. 嚙瘢'd estimate more than one-

> >third of my total output in talk.origins since I returned in December

> >2010 has been in direct reply to Harshman. 嚙瘢 have no idea what

> >fraction of his output has been in reply to me, but it has to be high.

> >In sci.bio.paleontology, it is more like two-thirds. 嚙璀nd IIRC nobody

> >has intervened on his side there, except when the discussion/debate is
> >crossposted to talk.origins.
> >> Like Thunderfoot. He is a nobody ass-hole troll. Who pisses people off
> >> for the attention he seeks.
>
> >> His I.Q. is lower than my pet poodle.
> >He feigns that frequently, as "prawnster" has independently observed,
> >but AFAIK almost always when he senses he is on the losing end of a

> >debate, or at least is making zero headway. 嚙瘢 have a great example of

> >the latter, if you are interested.
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that there is no need to chime in
> on Harshman's behalf.

If you think I'm chiming in on Harshman's behalf, the expression
"setting the record straight" may have no meaning for you.

>嚙瘡e seems to be able to present his points
> with clarity and simplicity.

YOU are chiming in on Harshman's behalf here, in spades. Do you deny
this?

> And I remind you, don't complain about the number of your posts.

I see you are clueless about why I said what I did about numbers of
posts.

Here is a little hint: I am GRATEFUL to Harshman for being so ready to
comment on my sci.bio.paleontology posts. If it weren't for him, I
might have given up trying to rescue the newsgroup from commercial
spammers and from that kook of kooks, "Wretch Fossil".

Concluded in next reply.

Peter Nyikos
> You don't have to post that much. 嚙磐ou could stick to the main

[pnyikos]

On Sep 12, 7:47�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> You don't have to post that much. �You could stick to the main
> topic instead of wandering all over the lot.

...glass houses ...stones.

Here is an excerpt from a post in a thread where you cherry-picked
one post [NOT the one I am reposting, even though that came in more
than a whole day before yours] which shows how hypocritical your last
sentence is.

Robert Camp was doing his usual high school debate coach performance
about directed panspermia, giving Ray Martinez tips about how to
criticize it--tips he cannot seem to apply himself, by the way:

_______________begin excerpt________________

> Of course, if at some point you decide to base your argument on what
> we know of physics, biology and intelligent beings you'll be on much
> more solid ground.

It ain't happened yet. Right on Drake equation thread and the other
thread I told Ray about, Paul Gans claimed he wanted to discuss the
physics of DP, but instead we got, just from the inimitable Gans:

1. A snow job about how panspermists are unlikely to hit their
targets because planetary orbits are "chaotic".

2. A snow job about how the solar wind would blow a spaceship bigger
than the Saturn V off course.

3. A comment that I suspect was an attempt at a snow job about
Project Daedalus, but could have been due to ignorance about both it
and Project Orion, even though I had specifically told him to google
Project Daedalus earlier and he seemed to have gone ahead and done so:

"Uncontrolled fusion is a bomb, a very very deadly bomb.
I doubt such a reaction could power a rocket."

4. Trolling about how he couldn't understand how microbes could build
a spaceship.

5. A dumb question about where the methane on the early earth could
have come from.

6. A dumb question about how cyanobacteria could have developed the
Krebs Citric Cycle, as though he didn't believe it could have evolved.

All this comes under the rubric of "garbage time," as I described in
my own reply to Ray's post.

Peter Nyikos
====================== end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c246732c8c3a4d6f

> --
> � �--- Paul J. Gans

The selfsame Gans I am describing above, folks. Let's see how (and,
indeed, whether) he reacts to this post.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 13, 5:17�am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:23:45 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>
> Ciszek) wrote:
>

> >In article <40g158te15rbsfr19mhcgk330sok294...@4ax.com>,

> >James Beck �<jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>In the category: The Pope has only one orb
>
> >That doesn't scan to the Colonel Bogey March.
>
> Latex
> The Papal doc's best friend
> Latex
> For ev'ry crease and bend
> Squeeze him

Is this supposed to be a reference to Pope Benedict saying that it is
a sign of responsibility when one uses a condom rather than risking
spreading AIDS?

> Don't try to please him
> Protect your finger
> Don't linger
> Or wend

Or act like a responsible adult. No danger of you doing that where
the Pope is concerned, is there, Beck?

[You can blame Hemidactylus for not jumping back in response to the
two posts I did yesterday, one a reply to him and one a discussion
about him. If he had reacted to them before this, I'd go after him
rather than small fry like you.]

[That "You can blame..." bit is an allusion to Gans's reply to my
second post of yesterday. If he lingers on this thread, he'll
probably cherry-pick this post of mine for response, and be afraid to
touch my "...glass houses...stones" reply to him with a ten foot
pole.]

Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos

[Paul J Gans]

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

[big snip]

>Here is a little hint: I am GRATEFUL to Harshman for being so ready to
>comment on my sci.bio.paleontology posts. If it weren't for him, I
>might have given up trying to rescue the newsgroup from commercial
>spammers and from that kook of kooks, "Wretch Fossil".

[small snip]

Superman lives among us! All hail the savior of sci.bio.paleontology!

[johnu...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:58:12 PM UTC+1, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 09:07:42 -0700 (PDT), bill gatley

And this is all this *GROUP* (note GROUP) does.


> Does a habitual liar have a function?

<snip>

[johnu...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 8, 2012 5:08:12 PM UTC+1, bill gatley wrote:
> Is about to stun us with his intellect.
>
>
>
> He is about to name 1 item in this universe that has no function.
>
>
>
> Shoot John.
>
>
>

> Can't wait for this gem.

Still waiting John.

Maybe a suicidal microbe on the papal sack?

Maybe, one day, (WHEN YOU'RE ALL GROWED UP). You'll stop hanging around with retards, pretending you're the kool kid with his ("Red Hand Gang")

[Karel]

And now we have a johnutahsomething! With all these
newcomers this group has a great future!

Regards,

Karel

[James Beck]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 06:15:29 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Sep 13, 5:17�am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:23:45 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
>>
>> Ciszek) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <40g158te15rbsfr19mhcgk330sok294...@4ax.com>,
>> >James Beck �<jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>In the category: The Pope has only one orb
>>
>> >That doesn't scan to the Colonel Bogey March.
>>
>> Latex
>> The Papal doc's best friend
>> Latex
>> For ev'ry crease and bend
>> Squeeze him

>> Don't try to please him
>> Protect your finger
>> Don't linger
>> Or wend

>
>Is this supposed to be a reference to Pope Benedict saying that it is
>a sign of responsibility when one uses a condom rather than risking
>spreading AIDS?

No. The subject of the Chez Watt is the ridiculous myth that someone
manually checks the Pope for the presence of testicles, a ritual for
which there is no historical record. The category: The Pope has only
one orb, is an illusion to the orb that tops the Papal crown--the only
one the Pope needs.

Paul Ciszek correctly noted that 'the Pope has only one orb' doesn't
scan to the Colonel Bogey March, so I wrote a related ditty that does.
It has the added advantage of alluding to the new 'hand condom' that
was recently introduced in the consumer market. Humorless wankers will
require a different form of prophylaxis.

>Or act like a responsible adult. No danger of you doing that where
>the Pope is concerned, is there, Beck?

Presumably, the Pope can take care of himself and his own narrow
political interests. Unfortunately, as Arrow's theorem implies, the
Pope's narrow interests are unlikely to align either with my interests
or with those of the world. Irrational squabbling doesn't elicit my
admiration.

>[You can blame Hemidactylus for not jumping back in response to the
>two posts I did yesterday, one a reply to him and one a discussion
>about him. If he had reacted to them before this, I'd go after him
>rather than small fry like you.]

>[That "You can blame..." bit is an allusion to Gans's reply to my
>second post of yesterday. If he lingers on this thread, he'll
>probably cherry-pick this post of mine for response, and be afraid to
>touch my "...glass houses...stones" reply to him with a ten foot
>pole.]

Beyond partially satisfying my admittedly rather morbid interest in
diagnosing your peculiar mental illness, your spats with other posters
hold no particular fascination for me. You are, of course, free to
weave any tale you like to explain why 'small fry' like me don't
bother to engage with you.

[pnyikos]

Nor do my on-topic posts, which would explain why my view of you may
be distorted, as yours of me ("mental illness") obviously is.

> You are, of course, free to
> weave any tale you like to explain why 'small fry' like me don't
> bother to engage with you.

You got that last bit backwards, but the part of your reply preceding
"mental illness" suggests that you are not the "small fry" I initially
took you for. My apologies for (at best) jumping the gun.

Peter Nyikos

Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

If he would apply some of the criticism he doles out to others to the
mirror also, he could lead by example. He can be quite cogent when he
sticks to tasks and not the people involved.

The late 90s called and it wants its metadiscussion marathons back.

[*Hemidactylus*]

When has escalation ever worked out well? I'd rather you replied to my
post in the Bill Nye malignment thread where I posted a two parter from
Youtube of Nye talking evolution at a kid's level (his target audience).
Your benign neglect is reminiscent of the serious effort I put into that
A Beka textbook that you left lingering quite a while back. Focus man.
Focus.

You're getting caught up in too much interpersonal stuff again. You
showed your ability to focus on task when you participated in the
neverending Dr. Dr. thread and even seemed to be in awkward alliance
with Hershey. What happened?

> [That "You can blame..." bit is an allusion to Gans's reply to my
> second post of yesterday. If he lingers on this thread, he'll
> probably cherry-pick this post of mine for response, and be afraid to
> touch my "...glass houses...stones" reply to him with a ten foot
> pole.]

How many people reading this post even know what the heck you're talking
about here? And if you go on one of your long winded repaste sessions
you will lose most of us about three of four words in. That's about my
limit anymore.

You tend to anger people...somehow...and go on about it over and over.
Have you ever thought maybe that sticking to a task and focusing on the
topic and ignoring people's jibes might do more for your cause than
letting yourself and others get you all worked up into anger and
righteous indignation? Be positive.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:29:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by johnu...@gmail.com:

Hey, David! YASN? (Yet Another Spinnie Nym?)

Seems so from the text...

[pnyikos]

On Sep 13, 7:22�pm, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/13/2012 11:41 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>

> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > [big snip]
>
> >> Here is a little hint: I am GRATEFUL to Harshman for being so ready to
> >> comment on my sci.bio.paleontology posts. � If it weren't for him, I
> >> might have given up trying to rescue the newsgroup from commercial
> >> spammers and from that kook of kooks, "Wretch Fossil".
>
> > [small snip]
>
> > Superman lives among us! �All hail the savior of sci.bio.paleontology!
>
> If he would apply some of the criticism he doles out to others to the
> mirror also, he could lead by example. He can be quite cogent when he
> sticks to tasks and not the people involved.

Are you talking about me, or about Harshman? :-)

Harshman and many others make disparaging remarks about me and
others. Judging from your own words, the "kooks" he encounters get a
mouthful from him quite often. And, judging from what he's done in
reply to me, he often indulges in flamebait with them too, and I
expect his opponents go for the bait very often.

And it isn't just kooks and me. Here is something Charles Brenner
wrote on one of the 1000-post Kleinman threads.

"Challenged, you change the subject. That's
not sensible. I'd like to know who you are,
what you have done with John Harshman,
and why you are posting in his name."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a904d4db0a781e52

> The late 90s called and it wants its metadiscussion marathons back.

You are trying to be excessively "value-free". You even barged in
when I was documenting what a pathological liar and illogical jerk Ron
Okimoto is, and requested that this "food fight" [sorry, I can't
remember your exact words, but it was along the same value-free lines]
cease.

It might make you happy to know that I have not replied to Ron O in
over two months, even though this means having left a massive
rewriting of Usenet history, full of libel against me, unanswered.

But as long as heavyweights like you and Harshman play "see no evil,
hear no evil, speak no evil" where pathological liars who are faithful
anti-ID "team players" are concerned, I need to do something to keep
my reputation from completely going to pot. So Ron O hasn't heard the
last of me.

Peter Nyikos

[Walter Bushell]

In article <eve1581ouooj70kln...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> OK. So extraction of an impacted wisdom tooth can cut short
> a career? Again, interesting...

It can result in death, which certainly ends a career.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <k2r6n9$e2m$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

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

> And I remind you, don't complain about the number of your posts.
> You don't have to post that much. You could stick to the main
> topic instead of wandering all over the lot.

From his POV, what fun is that? We in NYC have raised kvetching to an
art form. I remember, on my first trip to the City as an adult, seeing
a woman splashed by a taxi and complaining at the top of her lungs.
But I could see she was happy.

Anyway let's not crimp his pleasure, doubtless he has few enough.

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <eve1581ouooj70kln...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> OK. So extraction of an impacted wisdom tooth can cut short
>> a career? Again, interesting...

>It can result in death, which certainly ends a career.

Not so. A number of well-known folks have had a better career
after death than before. Think ElRon for one.

[Paul J Gans]

Good point.

[pnyikos]

On Sep 14, 11:32�am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <k2r6n9$e2...@reader1.panix.com>,

> �Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > And I remind you, don't complain about the number of your posts.
> > You don't have to post that much. �You could stick to the main
> > topic instead of wandering all over the lot.
>
> From his POV, what fun is that?

It would be great fun, but given the raw material I have to work with,
like Gans wandering all over the map, and almost no one sticking to
the topic I introduce in threads I start, it's just a dream.

I get to live that dream in sci.bio.paleontology, only it depresses me
to see that there is only one person besides me who makes a
commitment to the charter of that newsgroup, and posts fairly
regularly to it.

>We in NYC have raised kvetching to an
> art form. I remember, on my first trip to the City as an adult, seeing
> a woman splashed by a taxi and complaining at the top of her lungs.
> But I could see she was happy.
>
> Anyway let's not crimp his pleasure, doubtless he has few enough.

All of what you say here applies more to Gans than to me. Did you
see the post where I replied to the same post of his that you are
replying to here? I listed six examples of what I am talking about in
my first paragraph.

And that's in addition to him being a long time NYC resident.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

I'd rather not get into that here. I am very short on time, and
besides, I get the impression that you are trying to extricate
yourself from the corner (John Harshman's corner, to be exact) into
which you've started to paint yourself.

So I'll be brief here.

>I'd rather you replied to my
> post in the Bill Nye malignment thread where I posted a two parter from
> Youtube of Nye talking evolution at a kid's level (his target audience).

I've been intending to get back to that thread all week, and I'm
making a high priority of it for Monday. As you may know, I only post
to Usenet on weekends under the most extraordinary circumstances.

> Your benign neglect is reminiscent of the serious effort I put into that
> A Beka textbook that you left lingering quite a while back. Focus man.
> Focus.
>
> You're getting caught up in too much interpersonal stuff again. You
> showed your ability to focus on task when you participated in the
> neverending Dr. Dr. thread and even seemed to be in awkward alliance
> with Hershey.

If there was anything awkward about it, it was on his side. I was
quite happy with it.

> What happened?

Check out my thread,"Evolutionary benchmarks from prebiotic soup to
Homo sapiens," which I started last week. After a rocky start, it
seems to be going OK.

> > [That "You can blame..." bit is an allusion to Gans's reply to my
> > second post of yesterday. �If he lingers on this thread, he'll
> > probably cherry-pick this post of mine for response, and be afraid to
> > touch my "...glass houses...stones" reply to him with a ten foot
> > pole.]

Instead, you've cherry-picked it.

> How many people reading this post even know what the heck you're talking
> about here? And if you go on one of your long winded repaste sessions
> you will lose most of us about three of four words in. That's about my
> limit anymore.
>
> You tend to anger people...somehow...and go on about it over and over.
> Have you ever thought maybe that sticking to a task and focusing on the
> topic and ignoring people's jibes

Jibes I have no trouble with. It is dishonesty and hypocrisy that
gets my hackles up, most especially baseless defamation.

And even there, I wait until I've really taken the person's measure
before really ripping into him/her.

> might do more for your cause than
> letting yourself and others get you all worked up into anger and
> righteous indignation? Be positive.

Did you notice how mildly I reacted to James Beck calling me
"mentally ill"? That's SOP with me in my first encounters with people
who aren't obviously dishonest.

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:03:07 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<46730399-cd17-46b3...@d6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):

> Did you notice how mildly I reacted to James Beck calling me "mentally ill"?

> That's SOP with me in my first encounters with people who aren't obviously
> dishonest.

Oh, my.

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

[Mark Isaak]

For what it's worth, Peter, you yourself do far, far more damage to your
reputation that Ron O, O'Shea, or anyone else does. The above post and
others like it are the main reason why.

You will not understand this. Get a social worker, psychologist, or
someone in a related profession to explain it to you.

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

[Walter Bushell]

In article <k2vtie$ol6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

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

> Not so. A number of well-known folks have had a better career
> after death than before. Think ElRon for one.

A career is only viable if you're around to enjoy it.

[Richard Norman]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:07:48 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <k2vtie$ol6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Not so. A number of well-known folks have had a better career
>> after death than before. Think ElRon for one.
>
>A career is only viable if you're around to enjoy it.

"Viable" is certainly not a useful word to apply to something dead.

Kafka had essentially no recognition while alive. And then there is
Jesus whose career soared enormously after his death.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:38:07 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:

And there was this carpenter a while ago...

[Walter Bushell]

In article <pk3958lb2t2femsbg...@4ax.com>,

Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:07:48 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <k2vtie$ol6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Not so. A number of well-known folks have had a better career
> >> after death than before. Think ElRon for one.
> >
> >A career is only viable if you're around to enjoy it.
>
> "Viable" is certainly not a useful word to apply to something dead.

I chose that word with malice afore thought.

>
> Kafka had essentially no recognition while alive. And then there is
> Jesus whose career soared enormously after his death.

A career has no meaning to a dead person.

And good ole JC was dead for two nights. A bad weekend, basically.

<http://www.jesusandmo.net/>

[Glenn]

"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-810FDD....@news.panix.com...

Who is the artist. Off with his head!

[*Hemidactylus*]

But Jesus will return to enjoy the spoils of his kingdom. He's merely on
extended walkabout.

[Glenn]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8oOdne5anOKkIMnN...@giganews.com...

Off with your head!

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <k2vtie$ol6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> Not so. A number of well-known folks have had a better career
>> after death than before. Think ElRon for one.

>A career is only viable if you're around to enjoy it.

Well, *that's* true, but still... ElRon has published more while
dead than most folks do while alive.

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:k32omq$mr5$1...@reader1.panix.com...

Hubbard? If he himself did the publishing I suspect that the reports of his
death may have been somewhat exaggerated.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Tupac Shakur hasn't done too badly.

Does anyone remember him on the movie _Nothing but Trouble_ when he was
an unknown part of the Digital Underground?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur#Posthumous_solo_albums

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rose_That_Grew_from_Concrete

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rose_That_Grew_from_Concrete_%28book%29

But I remember this work by Jim Morrison as being significant after his
death:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_American_Prayer

But some authors live on and publish books after their death, such as
Robert Ludlum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ludlum#Credited_to_Ludlum.2C_published_posthumously

[Walter Bushell]

In article <k32omq$mr5$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

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

> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <k2vtie$ol6$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Not so. A number of well-known folks have had a better career
> >> after death than before. Think ElRon for one.
>
> >A career is only viable if you're around to enjoy it.
>
> Well, *that's* true, but still... ElRon has published more while
> dead than most folks do while alive.

A lot more than me for sure, unless you count my posts here. Hmm, I
could say my posts here are peer reviewed.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <0kb958dfmcr4m2a33...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:38:07 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
> <gan...@panix.com>:
>
> >Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>In article <eve1581ouooj70kln...@4ax.com>,
> >> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >>> OK. So extraction of an impacted wisdom tooth can cut short
> >>> a career? Again, interesting...
> >
> >>It can result in death, which certainly ends a career.
> >
> >Not so. A number of well-known folks have had a better career
> >after death than before. Think ElRon for one.
>
> And there was this carpenter a while ago...

Who spent a weekend dead for tax purposes.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <8oOdne5anOKkIMnN...@giganews.com>,

Well yes, he's on his way to Heaven, but not yet out of the galaxy
traveling at lightspeed. You see his Father told him that he would
only be gone for a few days, and that is why he thought that he would
be back before his generation died out. Time dilation you know. But in
our coordinate system millions or billions of years will pass. Maybe,
he'll return before the Sun becomes a red giant and boils the oceans
etcetera.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <glennsheldon-k32f5a$hao$1...@dont-email.me>,

The Queen of Hearts strikes again.

[Glenn]

"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:proto-8138B4....@news.panix.com...

Henry the Eighth I yam I yam.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:50:24 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<glenns...@invalid.invalid>:

Perhaps it's the influence of the tarts...?

>Henry the Eighth I yam I yam.

Sweet potatoie!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:09:09 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

It's impossible to tax porpoises.