help .No money and alone

[jion li]

help .No money and alone

I have come to the conclusion that there is no way i can pay for the
medical bills i have or the food i need. I broke my collar bone a few
months ago and could not work. My boss decided to fire me and i could
not pay for my debt. The banks have taken a number of belongings from
me that i cherished. I am alone in a big city and need some help with
getting some of this fire i call debt extinguished. Anything will
help. God Bless.

for more,please visite

http://bitly.com/U7BaYd

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 01:59:38 -0500, jion li wrote
(in article
<39f936f4-d189-4be0...@nl3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

Hmm. Call Mitt. I hear that he's got some cash.

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

[prawnster]

On Dec 1, 6:21 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> [...]

> Hmm. Call Mitt. I hear that he's got some cash.
>

Hells, no -- don't listen to Mr. O'Gay. He's got it exactly
backwards, no surprise.

How to deal with debt? First, like all good 'muricans, you default on
that shit. Doner.

Don't have enough food? Get yer foodstamp on, duh. AmeriKKKa is
Foodstamp Nation under Brock H'ussein O'Yumyums, so get alls y'alls
some free grub, yo.

Can't pay for medical care? Get yer SSI on, and O'Yumyums picks up
the tab for all that, too! Hey, that's what AmeriKKKa voted for was
freebies and gimmedats -- you voted for Brock'O'Claus, so grab a Ho Ho
Hold of yer goodies!

Sing it!:

You better not work
You better not try
Get your hand out
I’m telling you why

Brock'O'Claus is comin’ to town!

I’ll pay you just for sleeping
Don’t work, stay home and play
You will care if you’re bad or good
‘Cause if you’re bad you get more cake"

Brock'O'Claus is comin’ to town!
~~ White comedian Paul Shanklin

Isn't communism neat?

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
called a consensus." ~ prawnystyle

[pnyikos]

On Dec 1, 3:21 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 6:21 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Hmm. Call Mitt. I hear that he's got some cash.
>
> Hells, no -- don't listen to Mr. O'Gay.  He's got it exactly
> backwards, no surprise.

Have you seen a statement by O'Shea that he is gay? And if so, are
you sure he wasn't lying about that, the way he lies about so many
things?

Peter Nyikos

[prawnster]

On Dec 3, 5:09 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> [...]

> Have you seen a statement by O'Shea that he is gay?  And if so, are
> you sure he wasn't lying about that, the way he lies about so many
> things?
>

He has a 600 megabyte killfile in RAID-3 configuration. What could be
gayer?

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is

called a consensus." ~ muthaprawnsta

[pnyikos]

On Dec 3, 9:15�am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 5:09 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Have you seen a statement by O'Shea that he is gay? And if so, are
> > you sure he wasn't lying about that, the way he lies about so many
> > things?
>
> He has a 600 megabyte killfile in RAID-3 configuration. �What could be
> gayer?

I know what a killfile is, but haven't the foggiest idea what RAID-3
configuration is. Could you explain it, and its relevance to my
questions?

> "When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
> hypothesis. �When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
> called a consensus." ~ muthaprawnsta

When one talk.origins poster not in good with the "in crowd" makes an
unproven assertion, it's a wild-assed guess. If he is in good with
the in-crowd, it often becomes a consensus with no further attempt at
evidence.

Peter Nyikos

[Ernest Major]

In message
<b995f071-dd95-4de9...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes

>On Dec 3, 9:15 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 5:09 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > Have you seen a statement by O'Shea that he is gay? And if so, are
>> > you sure he wasn't lying about that, the way he lies about so many
>> > things?
>>
>> He has a 600 megabyte killfile in RAID-3 configuration.  What could be
>> gayer?
>
>I know what a killfile is, but haven't the foggiest idea what RAID-3
>configuration is. Could you explain it, and its relevance to my
>questions?

Try making friends with WikiPedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#Standard_levels

>
>
>> "When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>> hypothesis.  When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>> called a consensus." ~ muthaprawnsta
>
>When one talk.origins poster not in good with the "in crowd" makes an
>unproven assertion, it's a wild-assed guess. If he is in good with
>the in-crowd, it often becomes a consensus with no further attempt at
>evidence.

That's pretty close to how you treat statements from creationists and
non-creationists. You're currently treating a schoolyard insult from
someone who isn't even a convincing creationist as worthy of serious
consideration.
--
alias Ernest Major

[pnyikos]

On Dec 4, 4:27 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <b995f071-dd95-4de9-a37d-e8f492f96...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes

>
> >On Dec 3, 9:15 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 3, 5:09 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> > [...]
> >> > Have you seen a statement by O'Shea that he is gay? And if so, are
> >> > you sure he wasn't lying about that, the way he lies about so many
> >> > things?
>
> >> He has a 600 megabyte killfile in RAID-3 configuration. What could be
> >> gayer?
>
> >I know what a killfile is, but haven't the foggiest idea what RAID-3
> >configuration is.  Could you explain it, and its relevance to my
> >questions?
>
> Try making friends with WikiPedia.
>
>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#Standard_levels
>
>
>
> >> "When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
> >> hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
> >> called a consensus." ~ muthaprawnsta
>
> >When one talk.origins poster not in good with the "in crowd" makes an
> >unproven assertion, it's a wild-assed guess.  If he is in good with
> >the in-crowd, it often becomes a consensus with no further attempt at
> >evidence.
>
> That's pretty close to how you treat statements from creationists and
> non-creationists.

I make no distinction on that basis. I treat the content, not the
messenger, and if you think I treat everything everyone says as a wild-
assed guess, you are completely out of it.

>You're currently treating a schoolyard insult from
> someone who isn't even a convincing creationist as worthy of serious
> consideration.

> alias Ernest Major

In this day and age, it only counts as an insult when coming from
someone on the political right, doesn't it? And even so, I did want
to know whether it was *just* an insult, and not simply a statement
about something he'd read somewhere.

Peter Nyikos

[prawnster]

On Dec 4, 1:27 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]

> That's pretty close to how you treat statements from creationists and
> non-creationists. You're currently treating a schoolyard insult from
> someone who isn't even a convincing creationist as worthy of serious
> consideration.

It's only as insulting as it is true. QED:

When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is

called a consensus. ~ prawnfarmster

Because when one scientist proves an unaccepted assertion, it is
called a theory. It takes just one. But when ten thousand dudes with
"Dr." in front of their names who don't practice medicine stroke their
second, third, and fourth chins and declare an unproven assertion a
theory, they're engaging in:

Appeal to numbers.
Appeal to authority (themselves, LOL).
Begging the question.
Autogladhandery.

So, everybody, say it loud, say it proud:

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is

called a consensus." ~ prawnenfunkenhamster

[RAM]

Your personality disorder is showing.

[Paul J Gans]

RAM <ramat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 5, 6:30?am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 1:27 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > That's pretty close to how you treat statements from creationists and
>> > non-creationists. You're currently treating a schoolyard insult from
>> > someone who isn't even a convincing creationist as worthy of serious
>> > consideration.
>>

>> It's only as insulting as it is true. ?QED:

>>
>> When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a

>> hypothesis. ?When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is

>> called a consensus. ~ prawnfarmster
>>
>> Because when one scientist proves an unaccepted assertion, it is

>> called a theory. ?It takes just one. ?But when ten thousand dudes with

>> "Dr." in front of their names who don't practice medicine stroke their
>> second, third, and fourth chins and declare an unproven assertion a
>> theory, they're engaging in:
>>
>> Appeal to numbers.
>> Appeal to authority (themselves, LOL).
>> Begging the question.
>> Autogladhandery.
>>
>> So, everybody, say it loud, say it proud:
>>
>> "When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a

>> hypothesis. ?When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is

>> called a consensus." ~ prawnenfunkenhamster

>Your personality disorder is showing.

He has a personality? What an idea!

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[pnyikos]

On Dec 5, 7:30 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 1:27 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > That's pretty close to how you treat statements from creationists and
> > non-creationists.

It'll be interesting to see whether, and if so, how, Ernest Major
deals with my reply to his ignorant assertion.

> > You're currently treating a schoolyard insult from
> > someone who isn't even a convincing creationist as worthy of serious
> > consideration.
>
> It's only as insulting as it is true.  QED:

To me it seems that the exact opposite is true, especially of the word
"gay" which would not be taken as an insult by a gay person in this
day and age, unless he was in the closet.

One would expect more "hateful" words like "homo" or "faggot" or
"fruit" to be used as insults on the schoolyard. But far more common
than those, at least when I was growing up, was dirty "jokes" or
graphic descriptions (or labels, like "the 69 position") of what the
people involved allegedly did.

Of course, the allegations were almost never true. That didn't deter
the insult-hurlers one whit. In fact, often there was a general
understanding that they were NOT true but were being said to relieve
boredom, or whatever.

> When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
> hypothesis.  When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
> called a consensus. ~ prawnfarmster
>
> Because when one scientist proves an unaccepted assertion, it is
> called a theory.

Ah, I see. The first sentence was a kind of anagram.

> It takes just one.  But when ten thousand dudes with
> "Dr." in front of their names who don't practice medicine stroke their
> second, third, and fourth chins and declare an unproven assertion a
> theory, they're engaging in:
>
> Appeal to numbers.
> Appeal to authority (themselves, LOL).
> Begging the question.
> Autogladhandery.
>
> So, everybody, say it loud, say it proud:

I can't say it proud[ly] without changing the first sentence. I'm not
into anagram-analogues.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Dec 5, 11:50 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

RAM would have done better, pun-wise, to write this at the end of the
post where prawnster linked RAID-3 with gayness. IMHO.

> He has a personality?  What an idea!

He has a much more varied one than your benefactee O'Shea, by all
evidence available to me.

And he seems to take life more seriously than you do, even though he
gets it wrong a great deal of the time.

But then, you get it wrong a great deal of the time too, and O'Shea
even more so.

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:26:46 PM UTC-5, pnyikos wrote:
> On Dec 5, 11:50�am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Dec 5, 6:30?am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>
> > >> hypothesis. ?When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>
> > >> called a consensus. ~ prawnfarmster
>
> >
>
> > >> Because when one scientist proves an unaccepted assertion, it is
>
> > >> called a theory. ?It takes just one. ?But when ten thousand dudes with
>
> > >> "Dr." in front of their names who don't practice medicine stroke their
>
> > >> second, third, and fourth chins and declare an unproven assertion a
>
> > >> theory, they're engaging in:
>
> >
>
> > >> Appeal to numbers.
>
> > >> Appeal to authority (themselves, LOL).
>
> > >> Begging the question.
>
> > >> Autogladhandery.
>
> >
>
> > >> So, everybody, say it loud, say it proud:
>
> >
>
> > >> "When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>
> > >> hypothesis. ?When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>
> > >> called a consensus." ~ prawnenfunkenhamster
>
> > >Your personality disorder is showing.
>
> RAM would have done better, pun-wise, to write this at the end of the
> post where prawnster linked RAID-3 with gayness. IMHO.

Prawnster links every thing with gayness that he doesn't link with his racism and/or every wingnut cliche.

> > He has a personality? �What an idea!
>
> He has a much more varied one than your benefactee O'Shea, by all
> evidence available to me.
>
> And he seems to take life more seriously than you do, even though he
> gets it wrong a great deal of the time.
>
> But then, you get it wrong a great deal of the time too, and O'Shea
> even more so.
>
> Peter Nyikos

So when confronted with a horrific racist, homophobe, rape-apologist, pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket, you fall back on your paranoid obsessions and your signature fallacy that, when confronted with a fault of you or someone else, it's a logical counter-argument that you claim one of the people of your obsession is worse.

I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.

Mitchell Coffey

[Paul J Gans]

Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:26:46 PM UTC-5, pnyikos wrote:

>> On Dec 5, 11:50???am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >On Dec 5, 6:30?am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > >> When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>>
>> > >> hypothesis. ?When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>>
>> > >> called a consensus. ~ prawnfarmster
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >> Because when one scientist proves an unaccepted assertion, it is
>>
>> > >> called a theory. ?It takes just one. ?But when ten thousand dudes with
>>
>> > >> "Dr." in front of their names who don't practice medicine stroke their
>>
>> > >> second, third, and fourth chins and declare an unproven assertion a
>>
>> > >> theory, they're engaging in:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >> Appeal to numbers.
>>
>> > >> Appeal to authority (themselves, LOL).
>>
>> > >> Begging the question.
>>
>> > >> Autogladhandery.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >> So, everybody, say it loud, say it proud:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > >> "When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>>
>> > >> hypothesis. ?When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>>
>> > >> called a consensus." ~ prawnenfunkenhamster
>>
>> > >Your personality disorder is showing.
>>
>> RAM would have done better, pun-wise, to write this at the end of the
>> post where prawnster linked RAID-3 with gayness. IMHO.

>Prawnster links every thing with gayness that he doesn't link with his racism and/or every wingnut cliche.

>> > He has a personality? ???What an idea!

>>
>> He has a much more varied one than your benefactee O'Shea, by all
>> evidence available to me.
>>
>> And he seems to take life more seriously than you do, even though he
>> gets it wrong a great deal of the time.
>>
>> But then, you get it wrong a great deal of the time too, and O'Shea
>> even more so.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos

>So when confronted with a horrific racist, homophobe, rape-apologist, pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket, you fall back on your paranoid obsessions and your signature fallacy that, when confronted with a fault of you or someone else, it's a logical counter-argument that you claim one of the people of your obsession is worse.

>I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.

My guess is that Peter does not remember. For my part I don't
recall that Peter ever admitted that I was right.

[prawnster]

On Dec 5, 11:04 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Prawnster links every thing with gayness that he doesn't link with his racism and/or every wingnut cliche.

> [...]

> So when confronted with a horrific racist, homophobe, rape-apologist, pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket, you fall back on your paranoid obsessions and your signature fallacy that, when confronted with a fault of you or someone else, it's a logical counter-argument that you claim one of the people of your obsession is worse.
>
> I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.

No, no, no. I first link everything with weak, effete posture (e.g,
Harshboi and the late, unlamented Harter) or morbid obesity (e.g.,
Chrissi Thompson, AKA Cap'n 9/11). Whether these poofsters are latent
fudgepackers or not, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

And nobody's afraid of fudgepackers. Keep in mind: these are men who
are terrified by gash.

Regarding "rape-apologist," I present this for your eluctation:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188112/Mother-jailed-making-TWO-false-rape-claims-men-dating-didnt-liaison.html

Quod.
Erat.
Demonstrandum, y'all!

Who's Matt Giw*er? Is that pronounced Matt Giwasterisker? Sounds
Dutch.

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a

hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
called a consensus." ~ prawnsterstyle

[Karel]

On 6 dec, 00:03, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 11:04 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Prawnster links every thing with gayness that he doesn't link with his racism and/or every wingnut cliche.
> > [...]
> > So when confronted with a horrific racist, homophobe, rape-apologist, pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket, you fall back on your paranoid obsessions and your signature fallacy that, when confronted with a fault of you or someone else, it's a logical counter-argument that you claim one of the people of your obsession is worse.
>
> > I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.
>
> No, no, no.  I first link everything with weak, effete posture (e.g,
> Harshboi and the late, unlamented Harter) or morbid obesity (e.g.,
> Chrissi Thompson, AKA Cap'n 9/11).  Whether these poofsters are latent
> fudgepackers or not, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.
>
> And nobody's afraid of fudgepackers.  Keep in mind: these are men who
> are terrified by gash.
>
> Regarding "rape-apologist," I present this for your eluctation:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188112/
>

> Quod.
> Erat.
> Demonstrandum, y'all!

That is a nicely balanced article that does not "demonstrate" as
strongly as I might have wished. There must be other stories that
show more convincingly that, yes, false rape accusations do exist.
And I am not claiming otherwise. This is just a deluded girl who was
unintelligent enough to follow a false accusation by others through.

> Who's Matt Giw*er?  Is that pronounced Matt Giwasterisker?  Sounds
> Dutch.

No, it doesn't.

Regards, Karel

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:04:57 -0500, Mitchell Coffey wrote
(in article <b4192ec2-c2c8-4746...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:26:46 PM UTC-5, pnyikos wrote:

>> On Dec 5, 11:50ï¿œam, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Dec 5, 6:30?am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>>
>>>>> hypothesis. ?When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>>
>>>>> called a consensus. ~ prawnfarmster
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> Because when one scientist proves an unaccepted assertion, it is
>>
>>>>> called a theory. ?It takes just one. ?But when ten thousand dudes with
>>
>>>>> "Dr." in front of their names who don't practice medicine stroke their
>>
>>>>> second, third, and fourth chins and declare an unproven assertion a
>>
>>>>> theory, they're engaging in:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> Appeal to numbers.
>>
>>>>> Appeal to authority (themselves, LOL).
>>
>>>>> Begging the question.
>>
>>>>> Autogladhandery.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> So, everybody, say it loud, say it proud:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> "When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>>
>>>>> hypothesis. ?When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>>
>>>>> called a consensus." ~ prawnenfunkenhamster
>>
>>>> Your personality disorder is showing.
>>
>> RAM would have done better, pun-wise, to write this at the end of the
>> post where prawnster linked RAID-3 with gayness. IMHO.
>
> Prawnster links every thing with gayness that he doesn't link with his racism

> and/or every wingnut cliche.
>

>>> He has a personality? ï¿œWhat an idea!

>>
>> He has a much more varied one than your benefactee O'Shea, by all
>> evidence available to me.
>>
>> And he seems to take life more seriously than you do, even though he
>> gets it wrong a great deal of the time.
>>
>> But then, you get it wrong a great deal of the time too, and O'Shea
>> even more so.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>
> So when confronted with a horrific racist, homophobe, rape-apologist,
> pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket, you fall back on your

> paranoid obsessions and your signature fallacy that, when confronted with a
> fault of you or someone else, it's a logical counter-argument that you claim
> one of the people of your obsession is worse.
>
> I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust
> denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul
> disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
>

that's Peter, ever the charming gentleman who supports those not in favor
with the Gans Regime, no matter how repellant they may be. They are worthy of
his support simply because they are in disfavor. It does not matter why. It
only matters if they oppose Gans, or anyone Peter thinks (and I use the term
loosely) is a part of the oh-so-oppressive Gans Regime.

And then he gets all butt-hurt when some people consider him to be scum.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:02:11 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
(in article <k9o983$2rh$1...@reader1.panix.com>):

of course hge remembers. He remembers _everything_, going back over a decade.

> For my part I don't
> recall that Peter ever admitted that I was right.

I suspect that the answer to that is 'no'. Of course, if I'm in error about
this I'm certain that Peter can provide a cite with a correction.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 3:02:11 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:26:46 PM UTC-5, pnyikos wrote:
> >> On Dec 5, 11:50???am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> > RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >On Dec 5, 6:30?am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> >> > >Your personality disorder is showing.
>
> >> RAM would have done better, pun-wise, to write this at the end of the
> >> post where prawnster linked RAID-3 with gayness. IMHO.
>
> >Prawnster links every thing with gayness that he doesn't link with his racism and/or every wingnut cliche.
>
> >> > He has a personality? ???What an idea!
>
> >> He has a much more varied one than your benefactee O'Shea, by all
> >> evidence available to me.
> >> And he seems to take life more seriously than you do, even though he
> >> gets it wrong a great deal of the time.
> >> But then, you get it wrong a great deal of the time too, and O'Shea
> >> even more so.
>
> >> Peter Nyikos
>
> >So when confronted with a horrific racist, homophobe, rape-apologist, pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket, you fall back on your paranoid obsessions and your signature fallacy that, when confronted with a fault of you or someone else, it's a logical counter-argument that you claim one of the people of your obsession is worse.
>
> >I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.
>
> My guess is that Peter does not remember. For my part I don't
> recall that Peter ever admitted that I was right.

No, he did admit eventually that M.G. was antisemitic. I don't know if he ever recognized that M.G. was a Nazi sympathizer. Peter didn't have to admit you were right, as his demanding evidence, then waving it away, was well intended. As he posted a month later, "I have only defended one creationist [...] and have only sought justice for maybe half a dozen others, the way I am seeking justice for Matt Giwer. And that justice includes calling him on palpably dishonest actions, like his game with the word 'law'."

Should people think I'm being over dramatic, here's part of a post to you by Peter, after someone mistook David Hines as the one defending M.G. It includes Peter's quote of another of his posts, in which he explained that he was not "defending 'the Nazi Giwer'." He was so sure of his argument therein that he quoted it again a day or so later.

I found it in soc.history.medieval, from May 19 2001, in "Slavery and technology in Roman Empire (Re: damn Romans!)":

[quote]

Peter Nyikos

May 19 2001, 5:30 am
"Paul J. Gans" <g...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes:

>Gryphon801 <gryphon...@aol.com> wrote:
>> It is particularly unamusing to those whose family members and friends were
>> murdered by the Nazis in cold blood. Yet DSH defends Giwer. Why?
>Has he?

He denies having done it, and I haven't even seen him
question the claim that Giwer is a Nazi, though I also
haven't seen him claim that Giwer is a Nazi.

Even Pat James, who resembles Gryphon in many respects, puts in
a good word for Hines in the post I append below and denies the charge
Gryphon makes.

> That's too bad. I've just explained to some folks over
>on talk.origins that even Hines had more sense.

You have? Then perhaps I should also let the folks over
in talk.origins know that I've never seen anyone except
Matt Giwer defend Matt Giwer. So I've added talk.origins
as well as soc.history.ancient and sci.econ.

> I'll likely have
>to post a correction there now, if someone will send me the post.
> ---- Paul J. Gans

The only kinds of posts Gans is likely to be sent are
posts like the following, where I correct the canard
that I am defending "the Nazi Giwer."

Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
Subject: Re: Slavery and technology in Roman Empire (Re: damn Romans!)
References: <9e0qed$8bh$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> <20010517133510...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0

<01HW.B7298BCF0...@enews.newsguy.com>

Pat James <patja...@newsguy.com> writes:
>On Thu, 17 May 2001 12:35:10 -0500, Gryphon801 wrote
>(in message <20010517133510.26043.00000...@ng-bk1.aol.com>):
>> If DSH is defending Matt Giwer there is no depth to which he might not sink.
>> The account by D. D. Guttenplan of the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial in London
>> contains much evidence, and refers to much more, about the "delousing
>> facilities" at Auscwitz and elsewhere. There is none so blind as one who
>> will not see.
>I hate to do this, but... I gotta say something nice about Hiney. (I'll wash
>my hands afterwards, don't worry.) Hiney is not the one defending der
>sturmbanfuhrer; Petey is.

I am not the one either; Giwer is.

I am merely pointing out that Giwer's dogged insistence
on the lack of evidence of the Holocaust being what
it is generally believed to be, is not (in and of itself)
convincing evidence that he is a Nazi or even a Nazi
sympathizer.

He might do the same if he were a Palestinian sympathizer,
like the famous British actress Vanessa Redgrave. He might
be jealous of the way the Israelis play on the sympathies of
the West via accounts of the Holocaust, and frustrated
by the lack of accounts of similar magnitude of atrocities against
the Palestinians. Who has even *tried* to show otherwise?
[snip]

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Dec 6, 2:29 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 3:02:11 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:

> References: <9e0qed$8b...@bob.news.rcn.net> <20010517133510.26043.00000...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
>
> <01HW.B7298BCF001BD9E10ADFA...@enews.newsguy.com>

Reasonable people will rightly role their eyes at a gratuitous
rehashing of a eleven year old posts. What causes me to bring this up
now is that in recent days Peter has taken in the thread " Behe
speaking in TO this week" to referring an oppressed class in T.O., of
whom he is a member, which he calls the "Untermenschen," and who are
under the heal of the "Herrenvolk" here.

Mitchell Coffey

[pnyikos]

On Dec 5, 2:04 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:26:46 PM UTC-5, pnyikos wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 11:50 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >On Dec 5, 6:30?am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:


> > > >> Because when one scientist proves an
> > > >> unaccepted assertion, it is

> > > >> called a theory. It takes just one.

Like a stopped clock that is correct twice a day, prawnster came up
with a sensible statement here.

> > > >Your personality disorder is showing.

> > RAM would have done better, pun-wise, to write
> > this at the end of the post where prawnster
> > linked RAID-3 with gayness. IMHO.
>
> Prawnster links every thing with gayness that he doesn't
> link with his racism and/or every wingnut cliche.

Thanks for the comment. I'll be on the lookout for more such
behavior.

You bring up a lot of labels for his behavior below, but you seem to
be so wrapped up in what I call pejorativism that he actually gave
some support to my next comment, by charging prawnster with having an
extremely varied and strong personality -- of a despicable sort, to be
sure.

> > > He has a personality? What an idea!


> > He has a much more varied one than your benefactee
> > O'Shea, by all evidence available to me.

You made no attempt to counter this assessment, so the gross effect of
your screed below was also the net effect on the issue that Gans
brought up.

> > And he seems to take life more seriously than you do,
> > even though he gets it wrong a great deal of the time.

You made no effort to counter this, either, even though I'm sure
you've noticed that Gans cultivates a laid-back, lighthearted, and
often flippant posting personality.

> > But then, you get it wrong a great deal of the time
> > too, and O'Shea even more so.

Looks like you really saw red when you saw this, because it made you
forget all about the issue Gans brought up.

> > Peter Nyikos
>
> So when confronted with a horrific racist

I can't recall any racist comments from him. Can you provide some?

I did look on one thread where wiki trix made inappropriate use of the
n-word (the "Richard Harter: a remembrance" thread) but I didn't find
any racist comments by prawnster there. I did find lots of places
where he made some obnoxious comments about Harter, and I came down
hard on him for some of them:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d16b3b68e9b7b06f

> homophobe,

Bozo, that's what I've been trying to ascertain right on this thread.
So far I have one piece of evidence, and your unsupported say-so.

> rape-apologist,

That's something else I've been trying to figure out. Do you have
clear-cut documentation that he actually condones some forms of rape?

You left out "ageist," by the way. I went kind of easy on him the
first time around, because I wanted to see what was behind his
comments:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c39c25317ac85012

> pathological liar

Got evidence?

Don't worry, I won't spin-doctor the evidence like you and Casanova
have been spin-doctoring the evidence that O'Shea libeled me (in
mutually contradictory ways, no less!) If I see evidence even half as
massive as what I've presented wrt O'Shea, I will agree.

> and all-around ignorant
> slime bucket,

...I stick to the topic that Gans brought up, except in the last two
sentences, while you not only fail to address it, you actually add
credence to what I wrote prior to those two sentences.

> you fall back on your paranoid obsessions

Look who's talking about obsessions. You are so bent on putting
prawnster and me in the worst possible light, you lose complete sight
of the original issue.

> and
> your signature fallacy that, when confronted with a fault of
> you or someone else, it's a logical counter-argument that
> you claim one of the people of your obsession is worse.

What are you babbling about? Gans was the one who made the claim of
prawnster's alleged lack of personality, and you've done at least as
much to counter that claim as I did. The other person I mentioned,
O'Shea, was the person who set prawnster off in the first place.

Maybe I should have said "slobbering" instead of "babbling" just now:

> I remember when you went slobbering around testing a
> notorious Holocaust denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was
> really antisemitic

Yup. Is the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" alien to your
way of thinking? How about "Everyone's entitled to a fair trial"?

I don't recall whether it was Matt or someone else who turned out to
be merely a "gas chambers at Auschwitz denier" while not denying that
millions of Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in other ways. Can
you recall the outcome of my investigations?

> because Paul disapproved of him.
> Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.

Got evidence?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Dec 6, 10:24 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:04:57 -0500, Mitchell Coffey wrote
> (in article <b4192ec2-c2c8-4746...@googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:26:46 PM UTC-5, pnyikos wrote:

> >> On Dec 5, 11:50 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>> RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Dec 5, 6:30?am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>
> >>>>> hypothesis. ?When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>
> >>>>> called a consensus. ~ prawnfarmster
>
> >>>>> Because when one scientist proves an unaccepted assertion, it is
>
> >>>>> called a theory. ?It takes just one. ?But when ten thousand dudes with
>
> >>>>> "Dr." in front of their names who don't practice medicine stroke their
>
> >>>>> second, third, and fourth chins and declare an unproven assertion a
>
> >>>>> theory, they're engaging in:
>
> >>>>> Appeal to numbers.
>
> >>>>> Appeal to authority (themselves, LOL).
>
> >>>>> Begging the question.
>
> >>>>> Autogladhandery.
>
> >>>>> So, everybody, say it loud, say it proud:
>
> >>>>> "When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>
> >>>>> hypothesis. ?When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>
> >>>>> called a consensus." ~ prawnenfunkenhamster
>
> >>>> Your personality disorder is showing.
>
> >> RAM would have done better, pun-wise, to write this at the end of the
> >> post where prawnster linked RAID-3 with gayness.  IMHO.
>
> > Prawnster links every thing with gayness that he doesn't link with his racism
> > and/or every wingnut cliche.
>

> >>> He has a personality? What an idea!

>
> >> He has a much more varied one than your benefactee O'Shea, by all
> >> evidence available to me.
>
> >> And he seems to take life more seriously than you do, even though he
> >> gets it wrong a great deal of the time.
>
> >> But then, you get it wrong a great deal of the time too, and O'Shea
> >> even more so.
>
> >> Peter Nyikos
>
> > So when confronted with a horrific racist, homophobe, rape-apologist,
> > pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket, you fall back on your
> > paranoid obsessions and your signature fallacy that, when confronted with a
> > fault of you or someone else, it's a logical counter-argument that you claim
> > one of the people of your obsession is worse.
>
> > I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust
> > denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul
> > disapproved of him.

Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it: when someone is the
target of unsupported accusations, I do try to find out what the truth
is. And I saw unsupported accusations against Giwer, just as I see
unsupported accusations galore about prawnster from Mitchell in the
paragraph on which you, J.J., have put your stamp of approval.

As I said to Mitchell just now:

Yup. Is the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" alien to your
way of thinking? How about "Everyone's entitled to a fair trial"?

I don't recall whether it was Matt or someone else who turned out to
be merely a "gas chambers at Auschwitz denier" while not denying that
millions of Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in other ways. Can
you recall the outcome of my investigations?

> Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.

> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> that's Peter, ever the charming gentleman who supports those not in favor
> with the Gans Regime,

As is typical of your kind, you are confusing "trying to find out the
truth" with "support".

You would have felt right at home in Paris around the "trial" of
Danton. You might have sided with Saint-Just when he said "No further
proofs are needed. The very resistance of these wretches is an
acknowledgement of their guilt" and decreed that "every accused person
who resisted or insulted the national justice should be forbidden to
plead."

And so Danton was silenced as far as the kangaroo court proceedings
were concerned.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Dec 6, 10:24 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:02:11 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote

> (in article <k9o983$2r...@reader1.panix.com>):

Funny how no one, not even you, O'Shea, tried to contradict this
statement.

> >>> And he seems to take life more seriously than you do, even though he
> >>> gets it wrong a great deal of the time.
>
> >>> But then, you get it wrong a great deal of the time too, and O'Shea
> >>> even more so.

And nobody denied this one, either.

> >>> Peter Nyikos

[snip stuff I dealt with in reply to Mitchell]

> >> I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust
> >> denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul
> >> disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since
> >> Giw*er.

And now we are treated to a simulation of a good-cop-bad-cop routine:

> > My guess is that Peter does not remember.
>
> of course hge remembers. He remembers _everything_, going back over a decade.

I say "simulation" because otherwise you will slobber all over your
keyboard with "paranoid" and "conspiracy".

> >  For my part I don't
> > recall that Peter ever admitted that I was right.
>
> I suspect that the answer to that is 'no'. Of course, if I'm in error about
> this I'm certain that Peter can provide a cite with a correction.

And if I did, you would ignore it and continue your rant about how I
'supported' Giw*er, wouldn't you?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

What are you trying to heal me of?

I wasn't claiming oppression, I was implying a condescending and
sometimes dehumanizing *attitude* towards us.

However I've decided to tone down the rhetoric. People who have
posted steadily for at least 15 years to talk.origins, other than
creationists, are now Village Elders, and the inspiration for this
particular appellation is a post that Mark Isaak did in July
contrasting village members with Others.

The Others include anyone who consistently tries to correct
misrepresentations of Behe, and anyone who falls under the FAQ
definition of "creationist". Thus Ron O, despite calling himself a
creationist, is very much a member of the talk.origins village.

An enormous amount of camaraderie and solidarity has inevitably grown
up among the Village Elders, and the other members of the talk.origins
village enjoy all kinds of privileges (such as kid-gloves treatment by
other village members).

A striking case in point is the way Village Elders Gans and Coffey
have taken villager O'Shea under their wing, and even overlook his
simulations of being one of the Village Elders himself.

These simulations consist of regularly making comments about me that
sound like they come from someone who was posting back 15 years ago,
when I was very active. But he keeps ducking questions of what
posting handle (if any) he had back then.

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Dec 11, 12:22 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 3:22 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > referring an oppressed class in T.O., of
> > whom he is a member, which he calls the "Untermenschen," and who are
> > under the heal of the "Herrenvolk" here.
>
> What are you trying to heal me of?

[snip]

It was a misspelling. I meant "heil," of course.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

It's true: not to deny in every possible case is to agree.

> > >>> Peter Nyikos
>
> [snip stuff I dealt with in reply to Mitchell]
>
> > >> I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust
> > >> denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul
> > >> disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since
> > >> Giw*er.
>
> And now we are treated to a simulation of a good-cop-bad-cop routine:
>
> > > My guess is that Peter does not remember.
>
> > of course hge remembers. He remembers _everything_, going back over a decade.
>
> I say "simulation" because otherwise you will slobber all over your
> keyboard with "paranoid" and "conspiracy".

You don't get that neither is being the good-cop, both are insulting
you, albeit mildly by T.O. standards.

> > >  For my part I don't recall that Peter ever admitted that I was right.
>
> > I suspect that the answer to that is 'no'. Of course, if I'm in error about
> > this I'm certain that Peter can provide a cite with a correction.
>
> And if I did, you would ignore it and continue your rant about how I
> 'supported' Giw*er, wouldn't you?

Good answer, Peter, except didn't you just imply that failure to deny
implies agreement?

And the gratuitous rant about you and Giw*er is mine, not O'Shea's.

Mitchell Coffey

[Paul J Gans]

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

>On Dec 6, 10:24?am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:04:57 -0500, Mitchell Coffey wrote
>> (in article <b4192ec2-c2c8-4746...@googlegroups.com>):

[much trimmed to get to this]

>> > I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust
>> > denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul
>> > disapproved of him.

>Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it: when someone is the
>target of unsupported accusations, I do try to find out what the truth
>is. And I saw unsupported accusations against Giwer, just as I see
>unsupported accusations galore about prawnster from Mitchell in the
>paragraph on which you, J.J., have put your stamp of approval.

Peter, you are shameful. "Unsupported accusations", eh? At the
time I told you to go google "Matt Giwer" and see for yourself.
You'd not have accepted any extracts I posted. That's an old
internet trick to avoid facing reality.

Yet you pretend (and I say "pretend" advisedly) that there is no
compelling evidence around. Again, all you have to do is google
"Matt Giwer". You can ignore what others say about him. You can
go to his own web pages and see.

Go ahead, do it. You'll be a better man for it.

[prawnster]

On Dec 11, 10:45 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> [...blah blah blah...]

> Go ahead, do it.  You'll be a better man for it.
>

You go ahead and get a hobby already.

Plus, do you think Pete's really keeping tabs on a discussion titled
"Brock'O'Claus is comin' to town!"?

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a

hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
called a consensus." ~ prawn'o'claws

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Dec 11, 11:22 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2:04 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:26:46 PM UTC-5, pnyikos wrote:
> > > On Dec 5, 11:50 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > > RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >On Dec 5, 6:30?am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Because when one scientist proves an
> > > > >> unaccepted assertion, it is
> > > > >> called a theory. It takes just one.
>
> Like a stopped clock that is correct twice a day, prawnster came up
> with a sensible statement here.
>
> > > > >Your personality disorder is showing.
> > > RAM would have done better, pun-wise, to write
> > > this at the end of the post where prawnster
> > > linked RAID-3 with gayness. IMHO.
>
> > Prawnster links every thing with gayness that he doesn't
> > link with his racism and/or every wingnut cliche.
>
> Thanks for the comment. I'll be on the lookout for more such
> behavior.
>
> You bring up a lot of labels for his behavior below, but you seem to
> be so wrapped up in what I call pejorativism that he actually gave
> some support to my next comment, by charging prawnster with having an

> extremely varied and strong personality-- of a despicable sort, to be

> sure.
>
> > > > He has a personality? What an idea!
>>
> > > He has a much more varied one than your benefactee
> > > O'Shea, by all evidence available to me.
>
> You made no attempt to counter this assessment, so the gross effect of
> your screed below was also the net effect on the issue that Gans
> brought up.

The comment about Prawnster's personality wasn't mine. Anyway, why is
it you think I need to respond on every issue in every post I've
involved in, however unimportant it might be? And why do you assume
that failure to response on an implies agreement? I know you don't
reply to everything you could, nor would I expect you to. And why do
you think anyone has to bother arguing opinions issues as trivial as
the relative strength and variation of O'Shea's and Prawnster's
personalities? You think this is important?

> > > And he seems to take life more seriously than you do,
> > > even though he gets it wrong a great deal of the time.
>
> You made no effort to counter this, either, even though I'm sure
> you've noticed that Gans cultivates a laid-back, lighthearted, and
> often flippant posting personality.

Are you talking to me? If so, see above. Also, I don't get your point
about Gans' posting personality. Are you saying that I'm a hypocrite
for condemning a mild posting personality in Prawnster (which I
didn't) while presumably approving Gans' frequently calm demeanor on
T.O. (which I assure you contrasts utterly with Paul's mephistophelian
presence whenever we gather our black-cloaked operatives in secret to
plot against you)? Is that what you meant? Sheesh.

> > > But then, you get it wrong a great deal of the time
> > > too, and O'Shea even more so.
>
> Looks like you really saw red when you saw this, because it made you
> forget all about the issue Gans brought up.

Why would I give a shit that you think I'm wrong a lot? Particularly,
your implication that any T.O. regular - me, Glenn, Martinez, you,
anybody - get's it "wrong" approximately as much as Prawnster only
calls your judgement into question.

I'm not sure which issue you think I should have remembered. Or that I
really forgot it. Like you and everybody else, I don't respond to
every issue, particularly unimportant ones. Seriously, you really
think people care that much about what you think? Weird...

> > > Peter Nyikos
>
> > So when confronted with a horrific racist
>
> I can't recall any racist comments from him. Can you provide some?

I could. And so could you if you actually read Prawnster and noticed
and cared about things like racism.

> I did look on one thread where wiki trix made inappropriate use of the
> n-word (the "Richard Harter: a remembrance" thread) but I didn't find
> any racist comments by prawnster there. I did find lots of places
> where he made some obnoxious comments about Harter, and I came down
> hard on him for some of them:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d16b3b68e9b7b06f

Prawnster's used the n-word, but he's the most persistently racist
regular poster in a long time. If you're this dim about racism you
really need to reevaluate your life.

> > homophobe,
>
> Bozo, that's what I've been trying to ascertain right on this thread.

Would there have been a reason for this 3-grade insult even had you
previously indicated to me you were in the process of a ascertaining
whether Prawnster was a homophobe?

> So far I have one piece of evidence, and your unsupported say-so.

An maybe every third post he makes. Do I need to prove to you that
Martinez is a creationist?

> > rape-apologist,
>
> That's something else I've been trying to figure out. Do you have
> clear-cut documentation that he actually condones some forms of rape?

Yes. He thinks only" violent rape" is rape, and that most rape is
really consensual, that women falsely claim rape all the time.

> You left out "ageist," by the way. I went kind of easy on him the
> first time around, because I wanted to see what was behind his
> comments:

Yeah, I forgot ageist.

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c39c25317ac85012
>
> > pathological liar
>
> Got evidence?

Yes. Prawnster's posts.

> Don't worry, I won't spin-doctor the evidence like you and Casanova
> have been spin-doctoring the evidence that O'Shea libeled me (in
> mutually contradictory ways, no less!) If I see evidence even half as
> massive as what I've presented wrt O'Shea, I will agree.

Your Casanova story is just more of your moral idiocy: you were unable
to response rationally to something I wrote, so you've invented this
new moral calculus, where another person's argument doesn't count if
you claim a third person take a differing view, and you assert the two
are conspiring against you.

> > and all-around ignorant
> > slime bucket,
>
> ...I stick to the topic that Gans brought up, except in the last two
> sentences, while you not only fail to address it, you actually add
> credence to what I wrote prior to those two sentences.

As far as I can tell, looking up your post, is that "the topic that
Gans brought up," was his jocular question, referencing Prawnster, "He
has a personality?" You are strange.

> > you fall back on your paranoid obsessions
>
> Look who's talking about obsessions. You are so bent on putting
> prawnster and me in the worst possible light, you lose complete sight
> of the original issue.

What do you think "the original issue" was? The strength and variety
of Prawnster's personality, v. O'Shea?

My issues here are Prawnster's bigotry and your moral idiocy on the
subject.

> > and
> > your signature fallacy that, when confronted with a fault of
> > you or someone else, it's a logical counter-argument that
> > you claim one of the people of your obsession is worse.
>
> What are you babbling about?

You do have trouble reading, don't you?

> Gans was the one who made the claim of
> prawnster's alleged lack of personality, and you've done at least as
> much to counter that claim as I did. The other person I mentioned,
> O'Shea, was the person who set prawnster off in the first place.

My God! I was right! You really think I brought up Prawster's various
bigotries to distract from the real issue of the day: because when

> Maybe I should have said "slobbering" instead of "babbling" just now:
>
> > I remember when you went slobbering around testing a
> > notorious Holocaust denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was
> > really antisemitic
>
> Yup. Is the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" alien to your
> way of thinking? How about "Everyone's entitled to a fair trial"?

Giwer had for years a notorious antisemite and Nazi apologist, made no
secret of his opinions of Jews and Nazis, and only a stupid,
phenomenally ignorant or moral vacant person could not tell so by
glancing at Giwer's web sites, Giwer's posts, and the voluminous
material collected by anti-Holocaust denial and anti-Neonazi
activists.

You are misrepresenting your claim, though. An additional part of your
concept was that people who had been familiar with Giwer for years,
people very familiar with Holocaust denial, were being unfair to Giwer
because you weren't convinced Giwer was a neo-Nazi bigot yet. Hell,
pretty much what you're claiming above, right now.

> I don't recall whether it was Matt or someone else who turned out to
> be merely a "gas chambers at Auschwitz denier" while not denying that
> millions of Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in other ways. Can
> you recall the outcome of my investigations?

Giwer denied the Holocaust, period. You only allowed yourself to
absorb information about him drop-by-drop. As I recall you eventually
acknowledged that Giwer was an antisemite, while exhibiting the sort
of historical ignorance and moral casuistry you're displaying above.
As above, you parsed differences, like "gas chambers at Auschwitz
denier" v. "Holocaust denier" (hint: a million or more people we
murdered at Auschwitz; maybe a quarter by disease, before they could
be dispatched to the gas chambers; the reason deniers emphasize gas
chamber denial and not typhus denial is that if there were ). You also
didn't get that being a Holocaust denier, or even just a "gas
chambers at Auschwitz denier," made one ipso facto an antisemite.

Peter, you don't want to re-parse this episode. I'm sorry I brought it
up.

> > because Paul disapproved of him.
> > Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.
>
> Got evidence?
>
> Peter Nyikos

Well, yeah: all the evidence of Prawnster's multiple bigotries. But,
actually, you have a point. Prawnster is by far the worse bigot to
appear on T.O. in a long time, as far as I recall, but hardly anyone's
in Giwer's league. While what I wrote was technically true, it's
diminished Giwer's depravity to associate a relatively quotidian hate-
merchant like Prawnster with him. I withdraw the comment.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Dec 11, 3:45 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 11, 10:45 am, Paul J Gans <> wrote:
>
> > [...blah blah blah...]
> > Go ahead, do it. You'll be a better man for it.
>
> You go ahead and get a hobby already.
>
> Plus, do you think Pete's really keeping tabs on a discussion titled
> "Brock'O'Claus is comin' to town!"?

He's already posted in this thread today, so yes. Go to the nice man,
he wants to help you.

I tell you what, why don't you play a game? That's the ticket, little
man - why don't you post some of your greatest hits! Nyikos will never
agree now that you're a racist and woman-hater, a resented of his
intellectual betters, an all around incorrigible liar; also dumb as a
post that's been stuck in the muck just below the surface for decades,
in the foul brine, slowly being rotted from the inside and consumed by
slime molluscs.

You can go to town! Have a ball! You deserve it: it must just eat at
you up something nasty, all those hard working guys from the south
taking your jobs... all those women who won't give you the time of
day... fancy college grads with their big words and well-paying
jobs...

Hey, surely you keep your one last nice brown shirt somewhere for
special occasions? Press it! Put it on! You need to get out...

Mitchell Coffey

[pnyikos]

On Dec 6, 2:29 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 3:02:11 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:

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

> > >I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.

My, my, my! Looks like you were off base on all these points, except
perhaps for prawnster being antisemitic, or whatever makes him the
closest equivalent to Giwer here.

And on that last detail, nobody has provided any fresh inputs as of
the time of the Coffey post to which I am replying.

> > My guess is that Peter does not remember.  For my part I don't
> > recall that Peter ever admitted that I was right.
>
> No, he did admit eventually that M.G. was antisemitic. I don't know if he ever recognized that M.G. was a Nazi sympathizer. Peter didn't have to admit you were right, as his demanding evidence, then waving it away, was well intended.

You also seem to be off base on this last bit. What suggests a demand
for evidence on my part?

And what was Gans supposed to be right about? I don't see him taking
a stand below, unlike "Gryphon".

> As he posted a month later, "I have only defended
> one creationist [...] and have only sought justice
> for maybe half a dozen others, the way I am seeking
> justice for Matt Giwer. And that justice includes
> calling him on palpably dishonest actions,
> like his game with the word 'law'."

I don't expect any of you bozos to remember the fact that my concept
of justice for Giwer included nailing him for dishonesty, and I expect
a certain person involved in this brouhaha to go on defaming me with
claims that I was "supporting" Giwer.

> Should people think I'm being over dramatic, here's part of a post to you by Peter, after someone mistook David Hines as the one defending M.G. It includes Peter's quote of another of his posts, in which he explained that he was not "defending 'the Nazi Giwer'." He was so sure of his argument therein that he quoted it again a day or so later.

Do you disagree with the argument?

> References: <9e0qed$8b...@bob.news.rcn.net> <20010517133510.26043.00000...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
>
> <01HW.B7298BCF001BD9E10ADFA...@enews.newsguy.com>
>

By the way, has ANY of you been able to figure out whether Giwer was a
denier of the Holocaust or merely a denier of gas chambers being used
at Auschwitz?

It shouldn't be up to ME to dig up the evidence. You bozos are the
ones who have been ragging on me with undocumented allegations.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Dec 11, 1:45 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Dec 6, 10:24?am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:04:57 -0500, Mitchell Coffey wrote
> >> (in article <b4192ec2-c2c8-4746...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> [much trimmed to get to this]
>
> >> > I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust
> >> > denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul
> >> > disapproved of him.
> >Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it: when someone is the
> >target of unsupported accusations, I do try to find out what the truth
> >is.  And I saw unsupported accusations against Giwer, just as I see
> >unsupported accusations galore about prawnster from Mitchell in the
> >paragraph on which you, J.J., have put your stamp of approval.
>
> Peter, you are shameful.  "Unsupported accusations", eh?

Yup. And your *immediate* change of subject suggests that you can't
provide any evidence where Mitchell's charges against prawnster are
concerned.

> At the
> time I told you to go google "Matt Giwer" and see for yourself.

That is SOP by the likes of you, telling people to start looking for
evidence that YOU should be familiar with.

As I've said on innumerable such occasions, I don't like hunting
through haystacks for possibly nonexistent needles.

NOW you tell me, eleven and a half years later, at the end of your
post [snipped] that I should look up his webpage. You could easily
have provided the url back then, or even just said "Google "Matt
Giwer" and look at his webpage"

But did you? Evidently not, by the looks of what you write next.

> You'd not have accepted any extracts I posted.  That's an old
> internet trick to avoid facing reality.

What a con job! It is YOU who indulged in an old internet trick,
defaming me by predicting in advance that I would not accept evidence,
as an excuse for refusing to provide any.

You sneer at what you called my "lists," and yet you've put me on a
list just now:

PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NEVER BE SHOWN EVIDENCE
BY ANYONE WHO HAS BELITTLED THEM, BECAUSE
THEY WILL DENY WHAT THEY SEE WITH THEIR OWN EYES
Gans lists: Peter Nyikos

> Yet you pretend (and I say "pretend" advisedly) that there is no
> compelling evidence around.

This dirty use of "pretend" strongly suggests that you projected
YOUR dirty ways onto me when you alleged that I expect folks to read
everything I post.

Turns out you expect me to read everything anyone posts before daring
to ask for evidence for despicable behavior with which they are
charged.

> Again, all you have to do is google
> "Matt Giwer".

Look who's trying to revive ancient issues.

But that's to be expected: when I returned to talk.origins after an
absence of over nine years, I told Harshman that I was letting bygones
be bygones [with one expeption, but he is not participating on this
thread].

You almost immediately showed that bygones were mostly what you care
about, where I am concerned. You've posted innumerable unsupported
insults denigrating me in a large variety of ways, and yet your only
plausible "evidence" had to be back in 1995-2001 for all but a handful
of it.

When people not in good with you ask on what grounds you say things
like "Peter expects people to read everything he posts," do you just
tell them "Google Peter Nyikos"?

Peter Nyikos

[Paul J Gans]

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

>On Dec 6, 2:29?pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 3:02:11 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> > Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > >I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.

>My, my, my! Looks like you were off base on all these points, except
>perhaps for prawnster being antisemitic, or whatever makes him the
>closest equivalent to Giwer here.

>And on that last detail, nobody has provided any fresh inputs as of
>the time of the Coffey post to which I am replying.

>> > My guess is that Peter does not remember. ?For my part I don't

>> >> murdered by the Nazis in cold blood. ?Yet DSH defends Giwer. ?Why?

>> >Has he?
>>
>> He denies having done it, and I haven't even seen him
>> question the claim that Giwer is a Nazi, though I also
>> haven't seen him claim that Giwer is a Nazi.
>>
>> Even Pat James, who resembles Gryphon in many respects, puts in
>> a good word for Hines in the post I append below and denies the charge
>> Gryphon makes.
>>

>> > ?That's too bad. ?I've just explained to some folks over

>> >on talk.origins that even Hines had more sense.
>>

>> You have? ?Then perhaps I should also let the folks over

>> in talk.origins know that I've never seen anyone except

>> Matt Giwer defend Matt Giwer. ?So I've added talk.origins

>> as well as soc.history.ancient and sci.econ.
>>

>> > ?I'll likely have

>> >to post a correction there now, if someone will send me the post.

>> > ? ?---- Paul J. Gans

>>
>> The only kinds of posts Gans is likely to be sent are
>> posts like the following, where I correct the canard
>> that I am defending "the Nazi Giwer."
>>
>> Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
>> Subject: Re: Slavery and technology in Roman Empire (Re: damn Romans!)
>> References: <9e0qed$8b...@bob.news.rcn.net> <20010517133510.26043.00000...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
>> User-Agent: G2/1.0
>>
>> <01HW.B7298BCF001BD9E10ADFA...@enews.newsguy.com>
>>
>> Pat James <patja...@newsguy.com> writes:
>> >On Thu, 17 May 2001 12:35:10 -0500, Gryphon801 wrote
>> >(in message <20010517133510.26043.00000...@ng-bk1.aol.com>):
>> >> If DSH is defending Matt Giwer there is no depth to which he might not sink.
>> >> The account by D. D. Guttenplan of the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial in London
>> >> contains much evidence, and refers to much more, about the "delousing

>> >> facilities" at Auscwitz and elsewhere. ?There is none so blind as one who

>> >> will not see.
>> >I hate to do this, but... I gotta say something nice about Hiney. (I'll wash
>> >my hands afterwards, don't worry.) Hiney is not the one defending der
>> >sturmbanfuhrer; Petey is.
>>
>> I am not the one either; Giwer is.
>>
>> I am merely pointing out that Giwer's dogged insistence
>> on the lack of evidence of the Holocaust being what
>> it is generally believed to be, is not (in and of itself)
>> convincing evidence that he is a Nazi or even a Nazi
>> sympathizer.
>>
>> He might do the same if he were a Palestinian sympathizer,

>> like the famous British actress Vanessa Redgrave. ?He might

>> be jealous of the way the Israelis play on the sympathies of
>> the West via accounts of the Holocaust, and frustrated
>> by the lack of accounts of similar magnitude of atrocities against

>> the Palestinians. ?Who has even *tried* to show otherwise?

>> [snip]
>>
>> Mitchell Coffey

>By the way, has ANY of you been able to figure out whether Giwer was a
>denier of the Holocaust or merely a denier of gas chambers being used
>at Auschwitz?

>It shouldn't be up to ME to dig up the evidence. You bozos are the
>ones who have been ragging on me with undocumented allegations.

No Peter no. You will not take anything we say as evidence.
You've made that abundantly clear. So it is up to you to
bite the bullet and open Google and type "Matt Giwer" into
the proper space.

You can start with what Wikipedia says. Or if that doesn't
seem interesting enough, try Giwer's web pages.

But do your own research because you won't trust anyone else's.

[Paul J Gans]

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

>On Dec 11, 1:45?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Dec 6, 10:24?am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:04:57 -0500, Mitchell Coffey wrote
>> >> (in article <b4192ec2-c2c8-4746...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> [much trimmed to get to this]
>>
>> >> > I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust
>> >> > denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul
>> >> > disapproved of him.
>> >Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it: when someone is the
>> >target of unsupported accusations, I do try to find out what the truth

>> >is. ?And I saw unsupported accusations against Giwer, just as I see

>> >unsupported accusations galore about prawnster from Mitchell in the
>> >paragraph on which you, J.J., have put your stamp of approval.
>>

>> Peter, you are shameful. ?"Unsupported accusations", eh?

>Yup. And your *immediate* change of subject suggests that you can't
>provide any evidence where Mitchell's charges against prawnster are
>concerned.

I am not dealing with prawnster here. I have no idea why you
think I should. I am dealing with Matt Giwer and your
semi-psychotic inability to come to grips with that.

>> At the
>> time I told you to go google "Matt Giwer" and see for yourself.

>That is SOP by the likes of you, telling people to start looking for
>evidence that YOU should be familiar with.

No Peter, you would not believe me. And I am familiar with
the record. I've lived with the record. There are organizations
in the US that tracked neo-Nazis in the US for years, studying
person after person. I got my information from the person
the FBI called for information when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Office Building was blown up in Oklahoma City. That's the
same person who alerted the FBI that the FIRST World Trade
Center bombing was part of a larger plot. And the person
who has been involved with many police forces in the US on trying
to prosecute people guilty of hate crimes.

I lived that stuff for years, talked about it at the dinner
table, discussed it at night, until that person finally retired.

One of the reason why rats like him are still around is the
inability of folks like you to get up off your ass and check
it out yourself. People DIE because of people like Giwer.

Now either look it up yourself or shut up about it. Your
constant wimpering that I don't post details is just crap.

>As I've said on innumerable such occasions, I don't like hunting
>through haystacks for possibly nonexistent needles.

>NOW you tell me, eleven and a half years later, at the end of your
>post [snipped] that I should look up his webpage. You could easily
>have provided the url back then, or even just said "Google "Matt
>Giwer" and look at his webpage"

>But did you? Evidently not, by the looks of what you write next.

In fact I did. And I gave you a reference to a URL that
directly discussed Giwer. You wouldn't look at it then.


>> You'd not have accepted any extracts I posted. ?That's an old

>> internet trick to avoid facing reality.

>What a con job! It is YOU who indulged in an old internet trick,
>defaming me by predicting in advance that I would not accept evidence,
>as an excuse for refusing to provide any.




>You sneer at what you called my "lists," and yet you've put me on a
>list just now:

> PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NEVER BE SHOWN EVIDENCE
> BY ANYONE WHO HAS BELITTLED THEM, BECAUSE
> THEY WILL DENY WHAT THEY SEE WITH THEIR OWN EYES
> Gans lists: Peter Nyikos

>> Yet you pretend (and I say "pretend" advisedly) that there is no
>> compelling evidence around.

Now you've branded yourself as a liar, making J.J O'Shea correct.
I never put you on any list and what you wrote above was written
by YOU, not me.

>This dirty use of "pretend" strongly suggests that you projected
>YOUR dirty ways onto me when you alleged that I expect folks to read
>everything I post.

>Turns out you expect me to read everything anyone posts before daring
>to ask for evidence for despicable behavior with which they are
>charged.

>>?Again, all you have to do is google

>> "Matt Giwer".

>Look who's trying to revive ancient issues.

No sir. I am not. I did not bring Giwer up. And please stop
trying to change the subject. You could have googled Giwer in
the time it took you to write this.

>But that's to be expected: when I returned to talk.origins after an
>absence of over nine years, I told Harshman that I was letting bygones
>be bygones [with one expeption, but he is not participating on this
>thread].

>You almost immediately showed that bygones were mostly what you care
>about, where I am concerned. You've posted innumerable unsupported
>insults denigrating me in a large variety of ways, and yet your only
>plausible "evidence" had to be back in 1995-2001 for all but a handful
>of it.

>When people not in good with you ask on what grounds you say things
>like "Peter expects people to read everything he posts," do you just
>tell them "Google Peter Nyikos"?

I'm sorry. You just flunked subject shifting.

[prawnster]

On Dec 11, 2:23 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...buncha simpering...]

> Hey, surely you keep your one last nice brown shirt somewhere for
> special occasions? Press it! Put it on! You need to get out...
>

Ha ha ha! You're such the drama queen, Mitchibaby. Like I told
someone else, time to get a hobby already, pinbun.

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is

called a consensus." ~ einprawn

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 12/11/2012 9:08 PM, prawnster wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2:23 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...buncha simpering...]
>> Hey, surely you keep your one last nice brown shirt somewhere for
>> special occasions? Press it! Put it on! You need to get out...
>>
>
> Ha ha ha! You're such the drama queen, Mitchibaby. Like I told
> someone else, time to get a hobby already, pinbun.

My, you're afraid of homosexuality, aren't. You use it as an insult,
unaware that normal people don't consider it an insult. But there you
are, someone similar in belief and manner to the Nazis, and yet are
dimly aware that being comparable to Nazis is socially unacceptable -
and too dumb to understand the rest of the joke - when appropriately
compared to a Nazi you rewrite what I wrote and drag out pretty much the
only insult you know, being yourself in such fear of gays. If you
weren't devoid of positive or useful qualities you'd be pathetic. Isn't
it your bedtime?

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 12/11/2012 6:22 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2:29 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 3:02:11 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.
>
> My, my, my! Looks like you were off base on all these points, except
> perhaps for prawnster being antisemitic, or whatever makes him the
> closest equivalent to Giwer here.

On what basis are you claiming I was off base on all those points? You
post no evidence. Are you actually claiming, despite the evidence of
Google that you didn't testa notorious Holocaust denier to see if he was
really antisemitic? Or are you merely denying that it was because Paul
didn't like Giwer, despite what is suggested by the context? You didn't
do this for moral reasons, from context this is clear. I was going to
drop it, but now you're just lying about a very important issue. I
suggest you go back and read what you wrote back then, read up on the
Holocaust, Naziism and antisemitism, realize what you were doing, then
shut up.

> And on that last detail, nobody has provided any fresh inputs as of
> the time of the Coffey post to which I am replying.

It's not credible, Peter, that you are unfamiliar with Prawnster's
racism, misogyny, and views on rape, or with his habitual lying. He does
it every day. But for more examples, for now, get your own.

Sept. 7, in the thread 'Legitimate Rape', Prawnster responded to a post
by TomS:

"And though I have never had to defend myself against a charge of rape,
I've known people who have. And because of my experience I caution, any
young man who will listen that he should never fuck a woman who seems
very drunk or high, no matter how much she begs for a good dicking,
because she might, upon sober reflection the next morning, decide he is
beneath her, and then claim that she was taken advantage of and raped in
her drug-addled state. Have that tattooed on your forehead."


TomS then responded to Prawnster, strongly objecting.

To which Prawnster responded, deleting all of TomS's response, cutting
and rewriting attributions such as to falsely show TomS as responsible
for Prawnster's above remarks, beginning at "And because of my
exprerience...," and ending with "Have that tattooed on your forehead."
Prawnster then wrote, as if he were merely agreeing with Tom,

"Every young man should tattoo this sage advice under his eyelids. Just
keep in mind: if that boozed-up chick decides the morning after that you
weren't worthy of her pussy, you could spend the next decade-plus in
prison, where you may be subject to legitimate rape."

"So regret rape may beget legitimate rape. Proceed with caution."


To which Glenn responded:

"Not every young man, just those that regard women the way you do. And
if it were up to me, the tattoing would be mandatory, along with removal
of gonads."


To which Prawnster responded:

"I was just clipping my fingernails when inspiration struck:

"'Lay a chick who's drunk, become a nigger's punk.'

"Yeah, it's raw. But it's memorable and easier to fit on the eyelids."


After which, 3 hours later, you, Peter Nyikos, responded to Glenn's post:

"Why, has he [Prawnster] raped someone? If not, then you are
over-reacting, if I may be permitted a gross under-statement."


It's not credible, Peter, that you are unfamiliar with Prawnster's
racism, misogyny, and views on rape, or with his habitual lying. He does
it every day. But for more examples, for now, get your own.

>>> My guess is that Peter does not remember. For my part I don't
>>> recall that Peter ever admitted that I was right.
>>
>> No, he did admit eventually that M.G. was antisemitic. I don't know if he
>> ever recognized that M.G. was a Nazi sympathizer. Peter didn't have to
>>admit you were right, as his demanding evidence, then waving it away,
was
>>well intended.

Note my last sentence above is ambiguous. I was characterizing Peter's
attitude as believing he didn't have to admit you were right because he,
Peter, believed he was well intended.

> You also seem to be off base on this last bit. What suggests a demand
> for evidence on my part?

What are you talking about? The whole episode is stored by Google.

> And what was Gans supposed to be right about? I don't see him taking
> a stand below, unlike "Gryphon".

Gans was right that Giwer was antisemitic, also that Giwer was a
Holcaust denier, also that Giwer was pro-Nazi. Do you think the quote
below is the only part of your "testing" of Giwer that is still on
Google? If so, you are deluded as you were above that there is no record
of your knowledge of Prawnster's racism, misogyny, homophobia, lying
and depraved views on rape.

>> As he posted a month later, "I have only defended
>> one creationist [...] and have only sought justice
>> for maybe half a dozen others, the way I am seeking
>> justice for Matt Giwer. And that justice includes
>> calling him on palpably dishonest actions,
>> like his game with the word 'law'."
>
> I don't expect any of you bozos to remember the fact that my concept
> of justice for Giwer included nailing him for dishonesty, and I expect
> a certain person involved in this brouhaha to go on defaming me with
> claims that I was "supporting" Giwer.

Anyone can search and get the truth, Peter.

Of course I know the answer to that.

> It shouldn't be up to ME to dig up the evidence. You bozos are the
> ones who have been ragging on me with undocumented allegations.
>
> Peter Nyikos

I guess you are so morally depraved and ignorant of history that you
think the quote above don't document the allegations. I'm going to let
you stew in your juices for now, since you're decided to attack my
veracity when I'm telling the truth. And because I've just gone back and
read some of the relevant posts. I'd forgotten in particular how you
would claim, in quite the non sequitor, that those of us who were
criticizing Giwer for denying the Holocaust and being pro-Nazi were
somehow not upset by Stalin and other Communists' comparable murders.
(See regard this last the thread "Matt Giwer the Nazi".)

Anyone interested in exactly how depraved Peter Nyikos was, and have a
strong stomach, may search Google Groups, using "nyikos giwer
holocaust." The scores of posts involved are from 2001 and later.


Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

Those interested in how accurate Nyikos' is being in his comparison of
Matt Giwer to a great martyr of democracy, and of me to Maximilien
Robespierre's chief confidant, a notorious judicial murderer who was
known in his time as "The Angel of Death," can search Google Groups
under "nyikos giwer holocaust."

Mitchell Coffey

[pnyikos]

On Dec 12, 1:44 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 12/11/2012 12:01 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> > On Dec 6, 10:24 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:04:57 -0500, Mitchell Coffey wrote
> >> (in article <b4192ec2-c2c8-4746...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> >>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:26:46 PM UTC-5, pnyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 5, 11:50 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>> Your personality disorder is showing.
>
> >>>> RAM would have done better, pun-wise, to write this at the end of the
> >>>> post where prawnster linked RAID-3 with gayness.  IMHO.
>
> >>> Prawnster links every thing with gayness that he doesn't link with his racism
> >>> and/or every wingnut cliche.
>
> >>>>> He has a personality? What an idea!
>
> >>>> He has a much more varied one than your benefactee O'Shea, by all
> >>>> evidence available to me.
>
> >>>> And he seems to take life more seriously than you do, even though he
> >>>> gets it wrong a great deal of the time.
>
> >>>> But then, you get it wrong a great deal of the time too, and O'Shea
> >>>> even more so.

Coffey, you revealed your bias against me already when you repeatedly
interpreted a purely factual statement about the lack of response to
these things as a conclusion on my part that you agreed with my
assessment above.

You'd give me a schoolmarmish tongue-lashing if I were to milk factual
statements like that in that way, with nothing but an innocent word
"Funny" to hang such a ridiculous charge on, wouldn't you?

But the bias you reveal below makes even this much seem like child's
play.

> >>>> Peter Nyikos
>
> >>> So when confronted with a horrific racist, homophobe, rape-apologist,
> >>> pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket, you fall back on your
> >>> paranoid obsessions and your signature fallacy that, when confronted with a
> >>> fault of you or someone else, it's a logical counter-argument that you claim
> >>> one of the people of your obsession is worse.
>
> >>> I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust
> >>> denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul
> >>> disapproved of him.
>
> > Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it: when someone is the
> > target of unsupported accusations, I do try to find out what the truth
> > is.  And I saw unsupported accusations against Giwer, just as I see
> > unsupported accusations galore about prawnster from Mitchell in the
> > paragraph on which you, J.J., have put your stamp of approval.
>
> > As I said to Mitchell just now:
>
> > Yup.  Is the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" alien to your
> > way of thinking?  How about "Everyone's entitled to a fair trial"?

Did anyone make a direct response to these questions?

> > I don't recall whether it was Matt or someone else who turned out to
> > be merely a "gas chambers at Auschwitz denier" while not denying that
> > millions of Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in other ways.  Can
> > you recall the outcome of my investigations?

You sure spun an illogical tongue-lashing out of the above paragraph,
Mitchell.

> >> Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.
>
> >>> Mitchell Coffey
>
> >> that's Peter, ever the charming gentleman who supports those not in favor
> >> with the Gans Regime,
>
> > As is typical of your kind, you are confusing "trying to find out the
> > truth" with "support".
>
> > You would have felt right at home in Paris around the "trial" of
> > Danton.  You might have sided with Saint-Just when he said "No further
> > proofs are needed.  The very resistance of these wretches is an
> > acknowledgement of their guilt" and decreed that "every accused person
> > who resisted or insulted the national justice should be forbidden to
> > plead."
>
> > And so Danton was silenced as far as the kangaroo court proceedings
> > were concerned.
>
> > Peter Nyikos

Mitchell now reveals how blinded he is with bias against me.

> Those interested in how accurate Nyikos' is being in his comparison of
> Matt Giwer to a great martyr of democracy,

Only someone blinded with bias, and confident that the majority of his
readers are similarly biased, would claim that I was comparing Giwer
to Danton. Anyone thinking about the context, and not blinded by
bias, would see that I was on the hot seat for asking for evidence,
and caring about the right of even a man as screwed up as Giwer was to
some semblance of a fair trial on the *specific* thing he was charged
with.

No one else seems to care about such things. As I said to a
reasonable person on another thread yesterday:

[excerpt:]
And no one seems to care about my right to anything resembling a fair
trial here. I am as isolated as Danton was before the kangaroo court
that sentenced him to death.

[Comparison partly inspired by your French e-mail address.]

Obviously, it is only the isolation that I am comparing here. My
stakes are minuscule in comparison, but they still affect me
profoundly: will I continue to be considered fair game for anyone
(other than a creationist in the FAQ sense) wishing to attack me in
talk.origins with impunity?

Or will enough people challenge my non-creationist detractors to prove
their case? That might strongly discourage future wild attacks on me.

All it takes is one challenger per case, if that challenger is willing
to see the thing to the end, but so far the last time such a thing
happened was in the 1990's, and the person who was like that is long
gone.
[end of excerpt]

> and of me to Maximilien
> Robespierre's chief confidant,

Relax. It isn't you who is being compared [wherever did you get that
paranoid notion?] nor even the person to whom I was replying. It is
only that y'all's "verdict first, gathering of evidence afterwards"
attitude towards your unsupported accusations that would make the two
of you feel right at home in that kind of atmosphere.

> a notorious judicial murderer who was
> known in his time as "The Angel of Death," can search Google Groups
> under "nyikos giwer holocaust."

They will not find anything remotely resembling the wild ideas that
you are falsely attributing to me here.

And now, I've said everything on *this* thread that I have time for
today.

Your ["You" meaning you and Gans and O'Shea] kangaroo court can
function very well in my absence, as I have already seen. Just don't
expect too many others to join in the festivities--I think they are
too extreme for all but a few Village Elders to stomach.

Not that they'd publicly criticize y'all for them, of course.

Peter Nyikos

[John Stockwell]

Wait, I think that you have a future as a blues song writer:




On Friday, November 30, 2012 11:59:38 PM UTC-7, jion li wrote:
> help .

No money and alone
(the busted and down-and out blues)


Dah dah duh duh duh dah

>
>

I have come to the conclusion
that there is no way i can pay

for the medical bills i have or the food i need (today).

I broke my collar bone and could not (go to) work.
My boss decided to fire me, (he is a total jerk)


( I've go those busted down and out blues,
I just can't pay the dues.
So if yo have got some spare change,
anything I can use.)


Dah dah duh duh duh dah


The banks have taken a number
of belongings from me
I cherished them well.
(I'm broke and down and out, and its a living hell)


I am alone in a big city and (really need some aid)
getting some of this fire i call debt extinguished (I'd really have it made)..


( I've go those busted down and out blues,
I just can't pay the dues.
So if yo have got some spare change,
anything I can use.)

>
>
>
> for more,please visite
>
>
>
> http://bitly.com/U7BaYd

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Dec 12, 9:38 am, pnyikos <t> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 1:44 am, Mitchell Coffey <>

> wrote:
>
> > On 12/11/2012 12:01 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> > > On Dec 6, 10:24 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:04:57 -0500, Mitchell Coffey wrote> >> (in article <b4192ec2-c2c8-4746...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> > >>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:26:46 PM UTC-5, pnyikos wrote:

> > >>>> On Dec 5, 11:50 am, Paul J Gans <> wrote:

>
> > >>>>> RAM <> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Your personality disorder is showing.
>
> > >>>> RAM would have done better, pun-wise, to write this at the end of the
> > >>>> post where prawnster linked RAID-3 with gayness. IMHO.
>
> > >>> Prawnster links every thing with gayness that he doesn't link with his racism
> > >>> and/or every wingnut cliche.
>
> > >>>>> He has a personality? What an idea!
>
> > >>>> He has a much more varied one than your benefactee O'Shea, by all
> > >>>> evidence available to me.
>
> > >>>> And he seems to take life more seriously than you do, even though he
> > >>>> gets it wrong a great deal of the time.
>
> > >>>> But then, you get it wrong a great deal of the time too, and O'Shea
> > >>>> even more so.
>
> Coffey, you revealed your bias against me already when you repeatedly
> interpreted a purely factual statement about the lack of response to
> these things as a conclusion on my part that you agreed with my
> assessment above.

Cut the crap. If you really asked those question without any
rhetorical purpose, that doesn't mean it isn't natural for people to
suppose you did, since the question is so strange otherwise.

It took me a while original to realize what you're issue in these
passages was. Your issue here is so trivial that it didn't occur to me
that it was what all your whining was about. You really think that
when Paul had written about the despicable Prawnster "He has a
personality? What an idea!" it was a serious criticism, that it was
unfair to Prawnster and indefensible. That Paul and I refused to
acknowledge your claim that in fact Prawnster had as stronger and more
varied personality than O'Shea, and that we failed to concur with you.
You think we did these things out of bias against you and perhaps
Prawnster, and in favor of O'Shea. You believe that this was a serious
and non-trivial subject, and if was nefarious of us in some way to
respond as we did. You also believe that all the meaning and
significance you impute to this passage was so obvious that you had no
reason to be specific in your complaints, and there was something
biased and unethical in Paul and I either not responding, or
responding as if we had no idea in bloody hell what you were all up
about.

As I recall you also believe you think I was crushed to the hear that
you said that I get it wrong a great deal of the time.

As I said, you've been vague about all this. I may well still
misunderstand what you're on about. Whichever the case, your thought
process here hovers above the borderlands between eccentricity and
insanity. I'm not discussing it with you further.

> You'd give me a schoolmarmish tongue-lashing if I were to milk factual
> statements like that in that way, with nothing but an innocent word
> "Funny" to hang such a ridiculous charge on, wouldn't you?

There's no way to disprove a subjunctive accusations, which is why
they're fallacious and unethical. I shall now point out one of the
many lapses in your moral education: if you do something wrong it
doesn't make it OK just because the guy pointing it out has done it
too. It's even more fallacious a defense if the guy pointing it out
hasn't done it, you agree, but you claim that in reversed
circumstances he'd do the same thing.

> But the bias you reveal below makes even this much seem like child's
> play.
>
>
> > >>>> Peter Nyikos
>
> > >>> So when confronted with a horrific racist, homophobe, rape-apologist,
> > >>> pathological liar and all-around ignorant slime bucket, you fall back on your
> > >>> paranoid obsessions and your signature fallacy that, when confronted with a
> > >>> fault of you or someone else, it's a logical counter-argument that you claim
> > >>> one of the people of your obsession is worse.
>
> > >>> I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust
> > >>> denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul
> > >>> disapproved of him.
>
> > > Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it: when someone is the
> > > target of unsupported accusations, I do try to find out what the truth
> > > is. And I saw unsupported accusations against Giwer, just as I see
> > > unsupported accusations galore about prawnster from Mitchell in the
> > > paragraph on which you, J.J., have put your stamp of approval.

In fact, you're lying now. Paul and I and others have giving a more
than fair among of documented support for accusations against Giwer,
and I know for a fact and can document that you know we supported
those accusations. I the same documentation also shows that you have
read and rejected that evidence (which you claim doesn't exist),
consisting of statements by Giwer that anyone with a moral sense would
recognize as vicious antisemitism, Nazi apologetic and Holocaust
denial. What you're doing here is worse than lying, and worse than
attacking the morals of people despite knowing they are telling the
truth.

That you have not seen my support for accusations wrt to Prawnster
does not mean that I haven't given support for them. In fact, I have,
over many months, and so have others. But it strains reason that
anyone with a moral sense who had read many of Prawnster's post, as
you have, was unaware of Prawnster's racism, misogyny, endless
homophobia, and repellant views on rape. You had claimed you hadn't
see any of this, except one example of his homophobia. I have since in
this thread shown that you almost certainly had seen posts where he
exhibited these bigotries, including one in which he malevolently used
the n-word.

> > > As I said to Mitchell just now:
>
> > > Yup. Is the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" alien to your
> > > way of thinking? How about "Everyone's entitled to a fair trial"?

This is obviously lying because you've seen my evidence. I've quoted
one part of a post in this thread, and evidence was what all that
business 11 years ago was about.

> Did anyone make a direct response to these questions?

I have no idea. I'm not even sure which questions you mean. Since
you're so obviously promoting a lie, that I've not provided evidence
against Giwer, I'm not interested in some game about who answered
which questions.

> > > I don't recall whether it was Matt or someone else who turned out to
> > > be merely a "gas chambers at Auschwitz denier" while not denying that
> > > millions of Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in other ways. Can
> > > you recall the outcome of my investigations?
>
> You sure spun an illogical tongue-lashing out of the above paragraph,
> Mitchell.

What would that be? I notice you don't say what that what that tougue-
lashing was, or why it was illogical. Notice the Nyikos-style in that
last sentence.

As I recall I told certain details regrading Auschwitz, the Holocaust
and the standard practices of Holocaust deniers, regarding which you
were ignorant. What I wrote wasn't original, was true, and explained
why knowledgeable and moral people are repulsed and uninterested in
playing along when you join the Nazi-apologists' game of parsing how
Holocaust victims died: some uncertain number of them died of disease
before the Nazis could murder them by more modern means. Holocaust
deniers like to play upon the ignorance of people like you, and
pretend that Auschwitz victims who died of disease were just a set of
unfortunates, not marked for death by the Nazis, and merely died in
the normal course of the war.

This is where your "merely a 'gas chambers at Auschwitz denier'" usage
come from, know it or not. (Your "merely" at the beginning over there
is not an artifact of dealing with Holocaust deniers, it's an adverb
you stuck there yourself, it is an example of how you treated the
whole subject; it is evidence you are lying when you claim you only
want even-handed justice; it is loathsome.)

Your phrase "while not denying that millions of Jews were exterminated
by the Nazis in other ways" is also your interpretation, not that of
Giwer. Neither Giwer, nor any Holocaust denier, would never have said
that Jews were"exterminated" by the Nazis; for many decades it has
become part of their lies that Jews died in the war, many in German
custody, mostly because they were rounded up as member of some class
of enemies of the state, and happened to be Jews. But it is the point
of Holocaust denier's existence that there was no German-wide,
organized attempt to exterminate Jews as a people, particularly that
was ordered from the top.

There is no class of "gas chambers at Auschwitz deniers" who do not
deny "that millions of Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in other
ways." The reason that word "exterminated" is there is because you put
it there, due to your unwillingness to educate yourself about the
Holocaust and Holocaust denial, while claiming to be the fair judge of
accused Holocaust deniers, being unjustly tried and convicted without
sufficient evidence by Paul, me, people who dedicated their lives to
fight those who abuse the memory of the Holocaust, and other, let's
say it, Jews who lie about Giwer and the sort for reasons you've never
been able to explain.

You never bothered to learn these things; you were nonetheless told
these things; ou never tried to confirm them; you forgot these things.
Now I had to teach them to you again; which you call "an illogical
tongue-lashing," while claiming to support justice though discussions
like this:



From post by Peter Nyikos in soc.history.ancient, in the thread

"Slavery and technology in Roman Empire (Re: damn Romans!)"

May 22 2001, 9:05 am

[begin quote of Peter Nyikos]

[Matt Giwer]
> > As to you slaughtered fantasy, that is still a fact not in evidence.
> > You should know that by now. And please refrain from citing your
> > religious beliefs. Lay your physical evidence on the table and do not
> > pretend to theological indignation.

[Pat James]
>My uncle has pix of the remnants of the gas chambers.

[Peter Nyikos]
ALL of them? Or less than one-fourth of them? Matt
seems to be backpedaling from his claim of no gas
chambers--if he ever made it. His latest on this issue is:

[Nyikos is quoting a different post by Giwer]
[begin quote of Giwer]
In the twenty years following the war
3/4 of the gas chambers disappeared and millions would not have
been
exterminated save for the 6 million minus 4 million equals 6
million
school of arithmetic.
--Message-ID: <3B0A048B.8E79D...@tampabay.rr.com>
[/end quote of Giwer]

He seems to be saying that the Holocaust claimed only
about 2 million Jewish lives.

[/end quote of Peter Nyikos]

Peter, you are comparing Giwer to Danton and me to Saint-Just. I know
this because I can read English and know what the word "comparison"
means. It does not necessarily mean equivalence, but people do exploit
this ambiguity in meaning when they make invidious comparisons
("Philip was one of those rare vegetarians back in the 1930's, like
Hitler) . I don't think you know what you're doing when you do this,
but it is your natural nastiness coming through.

I also know that despite what at this point has to be called your lie,
neither Paul nor I have failed to present evidence against Giwer, 11
years ago or now. I even quoted in this thread part of post from
2001.

It was not possible in 2001 to take a half-hour or more and read
Giwer's posts, web pages, and the material collected about him by
others, and not to realize he was an antisemite, a Holocaust denier,
and a Nazi apologist. Yet you took months reading and arguing that
evidence, and evidence that we brought to you (and regarding which you
now lie that we didn't show you). For months you dismissed most of the
evidence showing Giwer was an antisemite, a Holocaust denier, and a
Nazi apologist. You dismissed it through your filter of ignorance,
illogic and immorality, producing such revolting lines defending Giwer
as the one I quoted above: "He seems to be saying that the Holocaust
claimed only about 2 million Jewish lives." Your claims were that such
stuff meant that he wasn't an antisemite, a Holocaust denier, or a
Nazi apologist, or wasn't so bad a one.

That's how you dismissed evidence against Giwer, and is the basis of
your lie above about Peter and I conducting a kangaroo court, and you
just wanting to be fair to Giwer. For this reason it's clear you have
no intention of honest treatment and I'm not going to be suckered by
you into searching for and presenting 2001 post and any rate faster
than I have time for, and at my convenience.

Mitchell Coffey

[prawnster]

On Dec 11, 10:44 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [...]

> Those interested in how accurate Nyikos' is being in his comparison of
> Matt Giwer to a great martyr of democracy, and of me to Maximilien
> Robespierre's chief confidant, a notorious judicial murderer who was
> known in his time as "The Angel of Death," can search Google Groups
> under "nyikos giwer holocaust."
>

[crickets...]

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a

hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
called a consensus." ~ The Law of Prawn

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Dec 12, 11:20 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 10:44 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Those interested in how accurate Nyikos' is being in his comparison of
> > Matt Giwer to a great martyr of democracy, and of me to Maximilien
> > Robespierre's chief confidant, a notorious judicial murderer who was
> > known in his time as "The Angel of Death," can search Google Groups
> > under "nyikos giwer holocaust."
>
> [crickets...]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question &
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony.

Note: No doubt I've confused you. What I've just done is an
intellectual convention. "See: " directs the reader (i.e., in this
case, you [1]) to go to the cited sources (" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
& http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony") and read the material there.
Ideally, having read said material you would no longer misunderstand
the passage above as implying an actual expectation of popular
interest in the literal accuracy of Nyikos' invidious comparisons.[2]
A utopian aspiration, I'm sure, but I've done my best.

[1] i.e., "you" = "Prawnster."

[2] "Invidious comparison" = How about you take things one at a time?

Mitchell Coffey

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:20:00 -0800 (PST), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 11, 10:44 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> [...]
>> Those interested in how accurate Nyikos' is being in his comparison of
>> Matt Giwer to a great martyr of democracy, and of me to Maximilien
>> Robespierre's chief confidant, a notorious judicial murderer who was
>> known in his time as "The Angel of Death," can search Google Groups
>> under "nyikos giwer holocaust."
>>
>
>[crickets...]

ISTM cricket claiming works when it's you who wrote the comment.

[pnyikos]

On Dec 11, 8:51锟絧m, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Dec 11, 1:45?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >> >Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it: when someone is the
> >> >target of unsupported accusations, I do try to find out what the truth
> >> >is. ?And I saw unsupported accusations against Giwer, just as I see
> >> >unsupported accusations galore about prawnster from Mitchell in the
> >> >paragraph on which you, J.J., have put your stamp of approval.
>
> >> Peter, you are shameful. ?"Unsupported accusations", eh?

> >Yup. 锟紸nd your *immediate* change of subject suggests that you can't

> >provide any evidence where Mitchell's charges against prawnster are
> >concerned.
>

> I am not dealing with prawnster here. 锟絀 have no idea why you
> think I should. 锟絀 am dealing with Matt Giwer and your

> semi-psychotic inability to come to grips with that.

I've come to grips in the way that the subject deserves.
Matt Giwer is long gone, his last Usenet post under that name was in
2008. Meanwhile, there are *certified* Nazis posting to Usenet
*right* *now,* like "Topaz," whom I fought against during the year
before I returned to talk.origins.

When have you fought against a publicly open Nazi on Usenet, Gans?

> >> At the
> >> time I told you to go google "Matt Giwer" and see for yourself.

I did, and it only confirmed what I'd confirmed earlier: rabid,
voluminous anti-semite, gas chamber denier. But I couldn't find a
clear denial of the Holocaust itself, nor any indication that his anti-
Zionism is motivated by Nazi ideology.

> >That is SOP by the likes of you, telling people to start looking for
> >evidence that YOU should be familiar with.
>
> No Peter, you would not believe me.

I don't believe your unsupported say-so on much of anything, and that
is perfectly legitimate. It is your refusal to provide documentation
that is the issue here.

>锟紸nd I am familiar with
> the record. 锟絀've lived with the record. 锟絋here are organizations

> in the US that tracked neo-Nazis in the US for years, studying
> person after person.

I saw no explicit statement that Giwer is a Nazi anywhere below.

Here is a little sample of how openly Nazi "Topaz" is: a post done on
the eve of the last election.

http://groups.google.com/group/us.politics/msg/8028b00f000ce05d?dmode=source
[Excerpt:]
Christians are great for telling what some of the problems are, such
as homosexual perversion, feminism etc. But to actually solve these
problems one should look elsewhere. Who do Christians hate the most,
first Hitler and then the Muslims. These are the two who actually
solved the problems that Christians are famous for speaking against.
Maybe the Muslims go a little overboard but they are the opposite of
liberalism. There is no way that "Brokeback Mountain" would be shown
in a Muslim country.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://heretical.com/

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
==================end of excerpt=========

Note the link to an avowedly Nazi webpage. Note the failure to
criticize Hitler in any way, while administering a little slap on the
wrist to Muslims.

Here is the url and Message-ID for a long post he did just yesterday,
full of praise for the Nazis and for Mussolini:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.socialism/msg/6e36b276b7517d57
Message-ID: <1e6lc89fcm7ip7djo...@4ax.com>

Oh, and he post lots of racist propaganda, too.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/msg/69a101221509ffb6
Message-ID: <ochqb8lnbrvcuf39a...@4ax.com>

Go ahead, check the posts out for yourself. It may make a better man
of you.

Then again, you may be so smug, so self-righteous, so self-satisfied
that everything I've written here will go like water off a duck's
back.

One thing I can promise: if you or Mitchell or even O'Shea takes
"Topaz" on, I will make it my number one priority to join in as soon
as I return in mid-January from my long holiday season posting break,
to show Topaz how even natural adversaries can unite against a common
enemy.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Having talked about "Topaz" to Gans, I show Mitchell how I handled an
un-critical response to the Topaz post from which I posted an
excerpt.

But first, I deal with a minor detail to which Mitchell still seems
oblivious.

Can't you see how illogical you are being? If I argue about what the
murder weapon was, would that be merely "parsing differences" between
that argument and being a denier that murder was committed?

While bozos like you merely play-act at being anti-Nazi, there are
real Nazis posting to Usenet who aren't being given the treatment they
deserve. Here is how I handled one of their non-critics. [...]
indicates snips where the topic was not relevant to lack of criticism
of Topaz :

Newsgroups: alt.bible, us.politics, alt.abortion
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Topaz returned, now Nyikos returns for a cameo appearance Re:
Mormons Roast for Eternity

On Nov 6, 5:48 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 5, 4:43 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What creeps me out about the mormons is how they feel they can baptize
> after death.

What creeps me out is how you can nonchalantly play footsie with a
Nazi (or, at best, a Nazi sympathizer who makes no bones about it)
while lambasting decent folk like Dino, Mosco, Osprey, and myself.

I've gone toe to toe with Topaz when even that "nazi turd" addict
Fischer wouldn't touch Topaz with a ten foot pole. Like so many
people who try to smear non-Nazis with the charge "Nazi!" he was
almost always speechless when confronted with the real thing.
[...]

> > Judeo Christians think it is the "end times" even though it has been
> > the "end times" for over two thousand years so far. They think the one
> > and only hope is for Jesus to return and straighten everything out.
> > And a big part of the plan is the destroy the world. They think wars
> > and everything being blown up is a great thing because it means Jesus
> > will return soon.

> > Marxists were murderous lowlifes but they said religion is the opium
> > of the masses. There obviously is some truth to that. Enemies often
> > have some truth in their arguments. On top of the opium there is the
> > Jewish propaganda started by Scofield.

> > Christians are great for telling what some of the problems are, such
> > as homosexual perversion, feminism etc. But to actually solve these
> > problems one should look elsewhere. Who do Christians hate the most,
> > first Hitler and then the Muslims. These are the two who actually
> > solved the problems that Christians are famous for speaking against.

No comment, elizabeth? Not even the obvious comment that plunging the
world into the bloodiest war ever is hardly a solution to anything?

Maybe you think it had the benefit of decreasing the surplus
population, eh?

> > Maybe the Muslims go a little overboard but they are the opposite of
> > liberalism. There is no way that "Brokeback Mountain" would be shown
> > in a Muslim country.

> >http://www.ihr.org/ http://heretical.com/

> >http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

NO sign of him saying anything about Hitler going overboard. You had
a beautiful chance to rip into him, and you didn't give a damn.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
================= end of quoted material

Read what I wrote to Gans here today, particularly the solemn promise
I made at the end. Interested?

Peter Nyikos

[eridanus]

If things go according to schedule, more and more people
would be in the case of singing those blues, if they would
had the force to sing. I can anticipate (I am just imagining)
people dying of starvation in the parks, vacant plots, and
ruined houses.
In some moment, the city council will have to enact some
service to get on the corpses, for the cities would began to
stink heavily with cadavers.

Eridanus

[prawnster]

On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> If things go according to schedule, more and more people
> would be in the case of singing those blues, if they would
> had the force to sing. I can anticipate (I am just imagining)
> people dying of starvation in the parks, vacant plots, and
> ruined houses.
> In some moment, the city council will have to enact some
> service to get on the corpses, for the cities would began to
> stink heavily with cadavers.
>

But look on the bright side: think how great the weather will be
without all those carbon footprints [sic] out there respirating.

[pnyikos]

On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > If things go according to schedule, more and more people
> > would be in the case of singing those blues, if they would
> > had the force to sing. I can anticipate (I am just imagining)
> > people dying of starvation in the parks, vacant plots, and
> > ruined houses.
> > In some moment, the city council will have to enact some
> > service to get on the corpses, for the cities would began to
> > stink heavily with cadavers.
>
> But look on the bright side: think how great the weather will be
> without all those carbon footprints [sic] out there respirating.

You remind me of a poster whom Mitchell Coffey accused back in July of
wanting to do away with vaccinations so that people would die. The
name escapes me at the moment, but you can see him from time to time,
posting about how we are thwarting natural selection of our own
species. And that was the point that Coffey seemed to have missed.

Speaking of Gans and Coffey, they are strangely silent about the
promise I made to Gans back on Friday, about someone who pollutes
Usenet with long posts praising Nazis and Mussolini, full of Nazi and
racist propaganda:

___________ excerpt_____________

One thing I can promise: if you or Mitchell or even O'Shea takes
"Topaz" on, I will make it my number one priority to join in as soon
as I return in mid-January from my long holiday season posting break,
to show Topaz how even natural adversaries can unite against a
common enemy.

============ end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/cf420d6eb8333af9

You can read more about "Topaz" in the linked post, which includes
links to three posts of his.

I attacked "Topaz" again on Friday after he unexpectedly posted a 738
line article that was obviously touched off by a post I did on that
thread the preceding day. Here is an url for his article:

http://groups.google.com/group/us.politics/msg/c907cc48d37baa63

And here is an url for my Friday reply:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/d264b32c901ffecb?dmode=source

He replied with a gargantuan 1791 line post, to which I probably won't
reply until some time in January. I'm very close to my long posting
break.

And now, an important offer from me to you:

It's too early to conclude anything from the silence of Gans and
Coffey, except that if you hurry, you might be able to agree to a
similar deal before they say anything about my offer to them.

I'm modifying it slightly since there is only one of you: I promise
that I will attack Topaz again some time in January, and if you agree
to join me in attacking him now, I'll alert you when I do attack him.

If you agree, it will show everyone here how even you draw the line at
pro-Nazi propaganda, and racist propaganda going well beyond merely
using racist language.

Peter Nyikos

[Ernest Major]

In message
<342638e7-067e-4c3c...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes

>On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > If things go according to schedule, more and more people
>> > would be in the case of singing those blues, if they would
>> > had the force to sing. I can anticipate (I am just imagining)
>> > people dying of starvation in the parks, vacant plots, and
>> > ruined houses.
>> > In some moment, the city council will have to enact some
>> > service to get on the corpses, for the cities would began to
>> > stink heavily with cadavers.
>>
>> But look on the bright side: think how great the weather will be
>> without all those carbon footprints [sic] out there respirating.
>
>You remind me of a poster whom Mitchell Coffey accused back in July of
>wanting to do away with vaccinations so that people would die. The
>name escapes me at the moment, but you can see him from time to time,
>posting about how we are thwarting natural selection of our own
>species. And that was the point that Coffey seemed to have missed.

I trust that you realise that we aren't thwarting natural selection of
our own species - we are only changing some of the selection pressures.
I trust that you realise that your argument from silence is weak - until
davidp actually invoked the naturalistic fallacy, rather than abusing
the golden rule, and ignoring evidence that his advocated actions do not
achieve his stated aims, Mitchell Coffey has no reason to point out that
the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy.

Do you wish to defend the position that thwarting natural selection of
our own species is a bad thing?
--
alias Ernest Major

[pnyikos]

Time for posting before my holiday break grows ever shorter, so I
reply to one little bit now and return to the rest in January.

On Dec 12, 1:22 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sept. 7, in the thread 'Legitimate Rape', Prawnster responded to a post
> by TomS:
>
> "And though I have never had to defend myself against a charge of rape,
> I've known people who have. And because of my experience I caution, any
> young man who will listen that he should never fuck a woman who seems
> very drunk or high, no matter how much she begs for a good dicking,
> because she might, upon sober reflection the next morning, decide he is
> beneath her, and then claim that she was taken advantage of and raped in
> her drug-addled state. Have that tattooed on your forehead."

Yeah, like in the case of Willie Smith -- at least, that's the way the
jury decided.

> TomS then responded to Prawnster, strongly objecting.

I can't recall what his objections were. Can you?

> To which Prawnster responded, deleting all of TomS's response, cutting
> and rewriting attributions such as to falsely show TomS as responsible
> for Prawnster's above remarks, beginning at "And because of my
> exprerience...," and ending with "Have that tattooed on your forehead."

I dont have time to look up this now. Did you make your totally
unsupported claim that none of my urls do what I claim they do, so
that YOU would be free forever after to post claims in reply to me
without urls to back them up?

Or was it just so Gans could lie his head off about a post which he
disemboweled in his reply to me?

> Prawnster then wrote, as if he were merely agreeing with Tom,
>
> "Every young man should tattoo this sage advice under his eyelids.  Just
> keep in mind: if that boozed-up chick decides the morning after that you
> weren't worthy of her pussy, you could spend the next decade-plus in
> prison, where you may be subject to legitimate rape."
>
> "So regret rape may beget legitimate rape.  Proceed with caution."
>
> To which Glenn responded:
>
> "Not every young man, just those that regard women the way you do. And
> if it were up to me, the tattoing would be mandatory, along with removal
> of gonads."

This, I recognize. If you knew how many posts I do when I am active,
you'd understand not recalling this exchange with nothing but
"prawnster racist" to go on.

> To which Prawnster responded:
>
> "I was just clipping my fingernails when inspiration struck:
>
> "'Lay a chick who's drunk, become a nigger's punk.'
>
> "Yeah, it's raw.  But it's memorable and easier to fit on the eyelids."

So far, he looks to be about as racist as wiki trix, in the long
exchange which you left in the middle of and I pursued to the end.
The upshot was, I know a lot about the fine points surrounding usage
of the n-word which you seem to be unaware of.

Can you tell me how these two stack up in comparison to each other in
general on racism? on homophobia? on anti-semitism? on misogyny?

By the way, what "prawnster" was referring to is that blacks are
represented among pimps out of proportion to their percentage of the
general population. Do you think this is worse than wiki trix's use of
the n-word to refer to blacks in general?

> After which, 3 hours later, you, Peter Nyikos, responded to Glenn's post:
>
> "Why, has he [Prawnster] raped someone?  If not, then you are
> over-reacting, if I may be permitted a gross under-statement."

And, judging from the way you are giving Glenn a free pass here, you
have little regard for the Bill of Rights where it prohibits cruel and
unusual punishment.

++++++++++++++ sarcasm on

But on Planet Coffey, cruel and unusual punishment is a minor offense
compared to asking for proof of charges against "prawnster" without
following his posts at least as faithfully as is being done on Planet
Coffey.

++++++++++++++ sarcasm off

> It's not credible, Peter, that you are unfamiliar with Prawnster's
> racism, misogyny, and views on rape, or with his habitual lying. He does
> it every day. But for more examples, for now, get your own.

Since you haven't documented a single case of lying, I think you are
bluffing. And I believe your "every day" is another one of your gross
hyperboles, especially where lying is concerned.

For someone who ripped into me for accusing O'shea of libel, when the
evidence was right in front of your face, that is a double standard
indeed.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Dec 17, 1:22 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <342638e7-067e-4c3c-a2ff-7f16e634a...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > [...]
> >> > If things go according to schedule, more and more people
> >> > would be in the case of singing those blues, if they would
> >> > had the force to sing. I can anticipate (I am just imagining)
> >> > people dying of starvation in the parks, vacant plots, and
> >> > ruined houses.
> >> > In some moment, the city council will have to enact some
> >> > service to get on the corpses, for the cities would began to
> >> > stink heavily with cadavers.
>
> >> But look on the bright side: think how great the weather will be
> >> without all those carbon footprints [sic] out there respirating.
>
> >You remind me of a poster whom Mitchell Coffey accused back in July of
> >wanting to do away with vaccinations so that people would die.  The
> >name escapes me at the moment, but you can see him from time to time,
> >posting about how we are thwarting natural selection of our own
> >species.  And that was the point that Coffey seemed to have missed.
>
> I trust that you realise that we aren't thwarting natural selection of
> our own species - we are only changing some of the selection pressures.

I was merely setting a record straight. The issue does not interest
me at this point.

> I trust that you realise that your argument from silence is weak - until
> davidp actually invoked the naturalistic fallacy, rather than abusing
> the golden rule, and ignoring evidence that his advocated actions do not
> achieve his stated aims, Mitchell Coffey has no reason to point out that
> the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy.

+++++++++++++ sarcasm on

It's a good thing Mitchell and Mitchell are on better terms than
Mitchell and I are. If it were otherwise, he would rip into Mitchell,
saying it is not credible that Mitchell missed so many of this
person's posts about the naturalistic fallacy.

He might even have some nasty words for you, the way you are defending
Mitchell.

+++++++++++++ sarcasm off

> Do you wish to defend the position that thwarting natural selection of
> our own species is a bad thing?

Perish the thought. I am a very humane person. My humanitarianism
even extends to those members of our species who are still at the
fetal stage.

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 12/17/2012 1:24 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> Time for posting before my holiday break grows ever shorter, so I
> reply to one little bit now and return to the rest in January.
>
> On Dec 12, 1:22 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sept. 7, in the thread 'Legitimate Rape', Prawnster responded to a post
>> by TomS:
>>
>> "And though I have never had to defend myself against a charge of rape,
>> I've known people who have. And because of my experience I caution, any
>> young man who will listen that he should never fuck a woman who seems
>> very drunk or high, no matter how much she begs for a good dicking,
>> because she might, upon sober reflection the next morning, decide he is
>> beneath her, and then claim that she was taken advantage of and raped in
>> her drug-addled state. Have that tattooed on your forehead."
>
> Yeah, like in the case of Willie Smith -- at least, that's the way the
> jury decided.
>
>> TomS then responded to Prawnster, strongly objecting.
>
> I can't recall what his objections were. Can you?

No, but I've already looked in up again.

Here is the whole off Tom's post, including the whole of Prawnster's post:

[Begin quote]

Tom
Sep 7, 10:03 am

On Thursday, September 6, 2012 11:28:16 PM UTC-7, prawnster wrote:
> On Thursday, September 6, 2012 6:53:18 AM UTC-7, Tom wrote:

> >>I have never had to defend myself against a charge of rape. I have
> >>absolutely no experience with that. None of my friends or
> >>acquaintances have either. How much experience do *you* have at
> >>defending yourself against charges of rape? I've suggested several
> >>times that you post the evidence for your claim that false
> >>accusations of rape are so common that they invalidate any study of
> >>rape that includes official rape reports. You've provided nothing.


> I already explained this. It will be impossible to find data that
> false accusations of rape are common, because it demands that the
> false accuser, the "victim," confess that she was not raped. The
> "victim" has near zero incentive to do this, because then she loses
> her coveted victim status.

So your claim for the existence of "regret rape" has no evidence for it
at all. It's just another baseless claim.

> So any study of rape that includes all rape reports, including regret
> rape and incest, is pure garbage-in garbage-out -- utterly worthless.

Because you can't demonstrate that what you say is true, then anyone who
says something different must be lying? That's about the silliest
nonsense I've ever heard.

> And though I have never had to defend myself against a charge of rape,

Or at least that's what you say now...

> I've known people who have.

And you believed their excuses without evidence.

> And because of my experience I caution any young man who will listen

> that he should never fuck a woman who seems very drunk or high, no
> matter how much she begs for a good dicking, because she might, upon
> sober reflection the next morning, decide he is beneath her, and then
> claim that she was taken advantage of and raped in her drug-addled
> state.

Have that tattooed on your forehead.

> And don't worry -- juries will convict men of rape in these
> situations.

I don't worry about that because it is an extremely rare situation.

> Just get the adorable "victim" on the stand, stuff her in a pastel
> cashmere sweater, and have her shed a couple salty tears and it's
> out for the defendant. Happens all the time under the bullshittinest
> of circumstances.

Once again, you say it "happens all the time" and yet you can't find a
shred of verifiable evidence for it. Maybe it doesn't "happen all the
time" after all.

> I certainly wouldn't want a jury with anyone like you or most of
> lusernet judging me for giving the sausage to a woman who later had
> regrets about whether I was good enough for her pussy.

You certainly wouldn't if that's the best argument you can come up with,
because that's pure bullshit.

[/end quote]

>> To which Prawnster responded, deleting all of TomS's response, cutting
>> and rewriting attributions such as to falsely show TomS as responsible
>> for Prawnster's above remarks, beginning at "And because of my

>> experience...," and ending with "Have that tattooed on your forehead."

>
> I dont have time to look up this now.

Then don't respond.

> Did you make your totally
> unsupported claim that none of my urls do what I claim they do, so
> that YOU would be free forever after to post claims in reply to me
> without urls to back them up?

Now you're just lying. I responded one last time to one of your "urls"
around last July 20th. It was same as always. You didn't respond, so
your "your totally unsupported claim" is just a lie.

And since you and anyone else on T.O. is capable of using Google Search,
your "free forever" assertion above is another obvious lie. You could
have asked for the URL, though it wouldn't have saved you any time. But
want to bitch and do your usual dance.

> Or was it just so Gans could lie his head off about a post which he
> disemboweled in his reply to me?

Oh, bullshit. If you actually thought your "urls" said what you say they
do, you'd have defended the last one you suckered me into responding to.

>> Prawnster then wrote, as if he were merely agreeing with Tom,
>>
>> "Every young man should tattoo this sage advice under his eyelids. Just
>> keep in mind: if that boozed-up chick decides the morning after that you
>> weren't worthy of her pussy, you could spend the next decade-plus in
>> prison, where you may be subject to legitimate rape."
>>
>> "So regret rape may beget legitimate rape. Proceed with caution."
>>
>> To which Glenn responded:
>>
>> "Not every young man, just those that regard women the way you do. And
>> if it were up to me, the tattoing would be mandatory, along with removal
>> of gonads."
>
> This, I recognize. If you knew how many posts I do when I am active,
> you'd understand not recalling this exchange with nothing but
> "prawnster racist" to go on.

Bullshit. How often does the n-word appear in T.O.? And you could have
always asked me.

>> To which Prawnster responded:
>>
>> "I was just clipping my fingernails when inspiration struck:
>>
>> "'Lay a chick who's drunk, become a nigger's punk.'
>>
>> "Yeah, it's raw. But it's memorable and easier to fit on the eyelids."
>
> So far, he looks to be about as racist as wiki trix, in the long
> exchange which you left in the middle of and I pursued to the end.

Um, so? Why does that make it better for Prawnster, were Wiki just as
bad? This is a general sickness with you, using the alleged sins of
people you consider your enemies as if it alleviates your own sins or
those of people you want to defend. In your defenses of Matt Giwer, at
one point when it was pointed out that Giwer had lied about a fact of
the Holocaust, you responded that the lie was not any worse than the
lying your enemies do about you. You treated that has having made things
as if Giwer's lie about the Holocaust could be ignored. You responded
similarly when you called a blatantly antisemitic sig by Giwer merely
"flame bait." When it was pointed out the sig was antisemitic, you
responded that it wasn't any worse than some asshole calling you a "fag"
because he claimed you were a homophobe and the word upset you. You
acted as if that settled it, when it was irrelevant, as you were still
denying Giwer's antisemitism.

What you say is not true though, I called Wiki out first because his
usage was unnecessary, and you proceeded almost as if any use of the n-word

> The upshot was, I know a lot about the fine points surrounding usage
> of the n-word which you seem to be unaware of.

No, Peter, you are so incredibly ignorant of issues of race and
antisemitism it makes me sick. You seem quite happy with racial
stereotypes yourself, as you show below. I left the subject because
neither you or Glenn had an idea what you were talking about. What you
wrote just now is simply stupid, and in any case irrelevant to the issue
of Prawnster.

> Can you tell me how these two stack up in comparison to each other in
> general on racism? on homophobia? on anti-semitism? on misogyny?

Can you tell me why you want to change the subject? This gets back to
your narcissistic assumption that nothing happens unless you witness it.
I'm the one who brought up these issues with Wiki in that instance and
from the time he first started posting here. The fact that some of them
happened when you weren't around is besides the point.

But in any case, how would this excuse Prawnster? Prawnster is by far
the worse bigot to be seen on T.O. in a long time. His bigotry appears
in virtually every other post, yet you pretended you hadn't noticed any
racism, homophobia, or misogyny on his part; or any of his disgusting
treatment of rape, when in fact you clearly had, in the thread in question.

> By the way, what "prawnster" was referring to is that blacks are
> represented among pimps out of proportion to their percentage of the
> general population. Do you think this is worse than wiki trix's use of
> the n-word to refer to blacks in general?

Actually, it's perpetuating the old racist association of African
Americans and rape. In any case, what possible difference could it make
if he were referring to black pimps? And, if your story is accepted,
what possible excuse is it that that blacks are (you claim) represented

among pimps out of proportion to their percentage of the general

population, for Prawnster to act like all pimps are black and to drag up
other Jim Crow stereotypes?

Your attempt to get Prawnster off the hook by dragging in Wiki is moral
idiocy.

>> After which, 3 hours later, you, Peter Nyikos, responded to Glenn's post:
>>
>> "Why, has he [Prawnster] raped someone? If not, then you are
>> over-reacting, if I may be permitted a gross under-statement."
>
> And, judging from the way you are giving Glenn a free pass here, you
> have little regard for the Bill of Rights where it prohibits cruel and
> unusual punishment.

What exactly did Glenn do wrong? Glenn has been very aware of
Prawnster's problems for a long time, and has been arguably the best
person at criticizing. I have no idea what you're talking about.

And your line about the Bill of Rights is just weird.

> ++++++++++++++ sarcasm on
>
> But on Planet Coffey, cruel and unusual punishment is a minor offense
> compared to asking for proof of charges against "prawnster" without
> following his posts at least as faithfully as is being done on Planet
> Coffey.
>
> ++++++++++++++ sarcasm off

Except you're lying about having not seen Prawnster's racist, misogynist
and rape-denying posts. I've proven that by referring to the "Legitimate
Rape" thread. And you're lying about the circumstances. It is not
credible that you could have read many of Prawnster's posts without
knowing of his bigotries. And your claim was that I hadn't quoted or
shown any of Prawnster's bigotries, which was untrue, I and others had
been bringing them up for months. That you claimed not to have seen them
doesn't mean they didn't happen.

>> It's not credible, Peter, that you are unfamiliar with Prawnster's
>> racism, misogyny, and views on rape, or with his habitual lying. He does
>> it every day. But for more examples, for now, get your own.
>
> Since you haven't documented a single case of lying, I think you are
> bluffing. And I believe your "every day" is another one of your gross
> hyperboles, especially where lying is concerned.

Bluffing? You think this is about you? I didn't even address my original
remarks to you, as I recall. You just plowed in to defend Prawnster. Why
would I bluff?

A lot have of people have been saying Prawnster was a liar. No sane
person can read Prawster without knowing he's a liar.

For the last few days, even after having been corrected, Prawster has
frequently quoted in his sig Obama as having said something like "Never
let a serious crisis to go to waste." That is a lie, he didn't say it.
Knowing Prawnster I assume he's said more serious lies over the same
time period and many things he should have known were untrue. So, yeah,
lying every day is about right.

> For someone who ripped into me for accusing O'shea of libel, when the
> evidence was right in front of your face,

Actually I used your own example to show you you were wrong, and you
could only respond with an ad hominem. You need to stop misrepresenting
this.

> that is a double standard indeed.

You mean that O'Shea said that you'd said anyone who disagreed with you
was either insane or had and IQ of 50? That libel? Except that you had
said that, about one particularly stupid issue. You just claimed the way
O'Shea said it sounded like you'd applied it to everyone who disagreed
with anything you said. In fact the wording was ambiguous at most, which
you're own example proved. If one included context it just applied to
that one incident.

You just don't understand how infantile your claims of libel are. And
now you're attempting to get Prawnster off on the grounds that somehow
it's relevant that I disagreed with you on a semantic issue, my
disagreement amounting on my part to, if I recall correctly, "accessory
after the fact" to "libel."

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

Actually, what you're doing is lying, as [1] DaveP does at least
pretend to
advocate withholding vaccinations, and [2] I been perfectly aware of
DaveP's
claimed reasons for his bullshit, and have discussed those. Neither do
those reason make DaveP's claims any more reasonable.

> > I trust that you realise that your argument from silence is weak - until
> > davidp actually invoked the naturalistic fallacy, rather than abusing
> > the golden rule, and ignoring evidence that his advocated actions do not
> > achieve his stated aims, Mitchell Coffey has no reason to point out that
> > the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy.
>
> +++++++++++++ sarcasm on
>
> It's a good thing Mitchell and Mitchell are on better terms than
> Mitchell and I are. �If it were otherwise, he would rip into Mitchell,
> saying it is not credible that Mitchell missed so many of this
> person's posts about the naturalistic fallacy.
>
> He might even have some nasty words for you, the way you are defending
> Mitchell.
>
> �+++++++++++++ sarcasm off

Again, you're just lying. When did I miss this DaveP's (nonexistent)
posts
about the naturalistic fallacy? Do you mean in where he committed the
naturalistic fallacy?

Furthermore, given the depravities expressed by Pawnster in most of
his
posts, including posts you discussed when he made them, no, its is
not
credible that you haven't seen enough of them that you can claim that
I
was being unfair to Prawnster. Be that as it may, you can't claim that
I haven't discussed these issues about Prawnster just because you
claim you haven't seen them.

And talk about the pot and kettle: your constantly accusing people of
defending others, and you're always excusing your own faults, or the
faults of people you want to defend, by pointing out the alleged
faults in
others that your target has allegedly failed to point out.

> > Do you wish to defend the position that thwarting natural selection of
> > our own species is a bad thing?
>
> Perish the thought. �I am a very humane person. �My humanitarianism
> even extends to those members of our species who are still at the
> fetal stage.

And you're a multiple liar.

Mitchell Coffey

[pnyikos]

On Dec 18, 1:42�am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 1:24 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > Time for posting before my holiday break grows ever shorter, so I
> > reply to one little bit now and return to the rest in January.
>
> > On Dec 12, 1:22 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:

How...interesting.... Now that Mitchell Coffey has been given an
offer to join me in attacking a real, live, currently active Nazi,
"Topaz," who posts voluminously to Usenet, he ignores the offer and
continues his vendetta against me.

I don't know what motivates this vendetta; Coffey still hasn't
identified an attack by me on him that is one-tenth as vicious as some
of the attacks he has made on me.

And I don't know what motivates his ignoring all that I have written
about "Topaz," unless it is because all his viciousness against me for
my not having kowtowed to the general opinion of Matt Giwer was really
just a rationalization for continuing his vendetta full force, and he
really does not care all that much for denouncing and/or refuting
Nazis on Usenet.

> >> Sept. 7, in the thread 'Legitimate Rape', Prawnster responded to a post
> >> by TomS:
>
> >> "And though I have never had to defend myself against a charge of rape,
> >> I've known people who have. And because of my experience I caution, any
> >> young man who will listen that he should never fuck a woman who seems
> >> very drunk or high, no matter how much she begs for a good dicking,
> >> because she might, upon sober reflection the next morning, decide he is
> >> beneath her, and then claim that she was taken advantage of and raped in
> >> her drug-addled state. Have that tattooed on your forehead."
>
> > Yeah, like in the case of Willie Smith -- at least, that's the way the
> > jury decided.
>
> >> TomS then responded to Prawnster, strongly objecting.
>
> > I can't recall what his objections were. �Can you?
>
> No, but I've already looked in up again.
>
> Here is the whole off Tom's post, including the whole of Prawnster's post:
>
> [Begin quote]
>
> � Tom
> � Sep 7, 10:03 am
>
> On Thursday, September 6, 2012 11:28:16 PM UTC-7, prawnster wrote:
>
> �> On Thursday, September 6, 2012 6:53:18 AM UTC-7, Tom wrote:
>
> �> >>I have never had to defend myself against a charge of rape. I have
> �> >>absolutely no experience with that. None of my friends or
> �> >>acquaintances have either. How much experience do *you* have at
> �> >>defending yourself against charges of rape?

A complete red herring, this question, since the real issue is whether
false charges of rape are *rare*.

> > >> I've suggested several
> �> >>times that you post the evidence for your claim that false
> �> >>accusations of rape are so common that they invalidate any study of
> �> >>rape that includes official rape reports. You've provided nothing.
>
> �> I already explained this. �It will be impossible to find data that
> �> false accusations of rape are common, because it demands that the
> �> false accuser, the "victim," confess that she was not raped. �The
> �> "victim" has near zero incentive to do this, because then she loses
> �> her coveted victim status.
>
> So your claim for the existence of "regret rape" has no evidence for it
> at all. It's just another baseless claim.

"Baseless" is in the eye of the beholder. One thing that is true that
pregnancy due to rape that is reported to the police is less common
than pregnancy due to consensual sex. Part of the reason is that
violent rape that penetrates far enough to have a likelihood of
pregnancy is not in the majority; part is that sexual dysfunction of
the rapist is quite common. But, as anyone who has taken a course in
military justice knows, "any penetration, no matter how slight, is
sufficient to complete the act" of criminal rape.

And yet, a telephone survey that asked women whether they "feel they
have been raped" is taken at face value by abortion rights
propagandists even though it shows pregnancy due to rape to be *more*
common than that due to consensual sex. This has its psychological
side which I will only have time to go into when I return in January
from a posting break that begins tomorrow, at the latest.
>
> �> So any study of rape that includes all rape reports, including regret

> �> rape and incest, is pure garbage-in garbage-out -- utterly worthless.
>
> Because you can't demonstrate that what you say is true, then anyone who
> says something different must be lying?

No accusations of lying by "prawnster" appear in this post.

>�That's about the silliest

> nonsense I've ever heard.

Did he actually hear it, or is he counting his "you are lying"
chickens before they are hatched? Pathetic, if the latter is true.


> �> And though I have never had to defend myself against a charge of rape,

>
> Or at least that's what you say now...

Look who is insinuating lies now.

> �> I've known people who have.

>
> And you believed their excuses without evidence.

No justification for this charge provided. But then, with Village
Elders like Coffey having demonized prawnster, TomS is perfectly safe
in making baseless allegations, even if this isn't one of them.


> �> And because of my experience I caution any young man who will listen

> �> that he should never fuck a woman who seems very drunk or high, no
> �> matter how much she begs for a good dicking, because she might, upon
> �> sober reflection the next morning, decide he is beneath her, and then
> �> claim that she was taken advantage of and raped in her drug-addled
> �> state.
>
> Have that tattooed on your forehead.

"Strongly objecting"-- I believe this is an example, as were a number
of other seemingly baseless claims that I have already commented on.

> �> And don't worry -- juries will convict men of rape in these

> �> situations.
>
> I don't worry about that because it is an extremely rare situation.

Actually, taking advantage of a drunk or drugged victim in this way is
Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct according to South Carolina, a
felony punishable by up to ten years in prison.


> �> Just get the adorable "victim" on the stand, stuff her in a pastel

> �> cashmere sweater, and have her shed a couple salty tears and it's
> �> out for the defendant. �Happens all the time under the bullshittinest
> �> of circumstances.

I'll believe THAT when I hear of an actual example. I believe it is
safe to assume that prawnster provided none.

> Once again, you say it "happens all the time" and yet you can't find a
> shred of verifiable evidence for it. �Maybe it doesn't "happen all the
> time" after all.

Here, finally, TomS is on solid ground.

> �> I certainly wouldn't want a jury with anyone like you or most of

> �> lusernet judging me for giving the sausage to a woman who later had
> �> regrets about whether I was good enough for her pussy.

The means is simple: abstinence. Somehow I think prawnster is
unlikely to take that course.

> You certainly wouldn't if that's the best argument you can come up with,
> because that's pure bullshit.
>
> [/end quote]
>
> >> To which Prawnster responded, deleting all of TomS's response, cutting
> >> and rewriting attributions such as to falsely show TomS as responsible
> >> for Prawnster's above remarks, beginning at "And because of my
> >> experience...," and ending with "Have that tattooed on your forehead."
>
> > I dont have time to look up this now.
>
> Then don't respond.

I won't, except to note that you did not look it up either; or if you
did, you are playing your usual game of "cards held so close to your
chest, their backs might as well be tattooed there."

> �> Did you make your totally

> > unsupported claim that none of my urls do what I claim they do, so
> > that YOU would be free forever after to post claims in reply to me
> > without urls to back them up?
>
> Now you're just lying.

Nope. I've never lied on Usenet, and don't intend to start now. One
thing is sure, I've never seen you support that claim.

I responded one last time to one of your "urls"
> around last July 20th. It was same as always. You didn't respond,

That was pretty close to when I left for a math conference, and then
almost immediately went to New Zealand and Australia for three weeks,
never looking at Usenet the whole time. So I may well have missed
that post.

Perhaps I will have the time to look it up between now and my January
return. I think it is a pretty safe bet you won't do it.

At least this charge of lying was linked to a possibly identifiable
specific event. The allegation below was not--par for the course for
a bluffer like you.

[huge snip of things to be dealt with in January]

> No, Peter, you are so incredibly ignorant of issues of race and

> antisemitism it makes me sick. .

What a transparent bluff! One would think you never read my replies
to you and Gans that had to do with "Topaz".

Interesting how he has completely fallen silent in the wake of my
offer.

[another huge snip to get to the following unsupported, and
unsupportable charge]

> Except you're lying about having not seen Prawnster's racist, misogynist
> and rape-denying posts. I've proven that by referring to the "Legitimate
> Rape" thread.

One has to make a claim like that to be guilty of lying about it. An
obvious fact which you are overlooking, unless you think you can
successfully spin-doctor certain other claims dishonestly to make it
look like this obvious fact does not apply to me.

[another huge snip to get to the following piece of obfuscation]

> A lot have of people have been saying Prawnster was a liar. No sane
> person can read Prawster without knowing he's a liar.

Use of the incredibly ambiguous word "read" [how much? 0.1% 1%?
2%? 10%? 50%?] noted.

Remaining continuation of Coffey vendetta deleted, to be dealt with in
January.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Dec 18, 11:45 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Dec 17, 1:54 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 1:22 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > In message
> > > <342638e7-067e-4c3c-a2ff-7f16e634a...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
>
> > > >On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > [...]
> > > >> > If things go according to schedule, more and more people
> > > >> > would be in the case of singing those blues, if they would
> > > >> > had the force to sing. I can anticipate (I am just imagining)
> > > >> > people dying of starvation in the parks, vacant plots, and
> > > >> > ruined houses.
> > > >> > In some moment, the city council will have to enact some
> > > >> > service to get on the corpses, for the cities would began to
> > > >> > stink heavily with cadavers.
>
> > > >> But look on the bright side: think how great the weather will be
> > > >> without all those carbon footprints [sic] out there respirating.
>
> > > >You remind me of a poster whom Mitchell Coffey accused back in July of
> > > >wanting to do away with vaccinations so that people would die.

It was the qualifying clause "so that people would die" that I was
criticizing here, not the rest of it. DaveP's deep motivation, in
other words.

> > > > The
> > > >name escapes me at the moment, but you can see him from time to time,
> > > >posting about how we are thwarting natural selection of our own
> > > >species. And that was the point that Coffey seemed to have missed.

Alternative motivation, you see.

By the way, after I posted this, I got to wondering whether I had
forgotten the true source, and the person I should have identified
thus was Mark Isaak. Looks like I wasn't wrong after all.

> > > I trust that you realise that we aren't thwarting natural selection of
> > > our own species - we are only changing some of the selection pressures.
>
> > I was merely setting a record straight. The issue does not interest
> > me at this point.
>
> Actually, what you're doing is lying, as [1] DaveP does at least
> pretend to
> advocate withholding vaccinations,

If you think I denied that, your reading comprehension leaves a great
deal to be desired.

> and [2] I been perfectly aware of
> DaveP's
> claimed reasons for his bullshit, and have discussed those. Neither do
>  those reason make DaveP's claims any more reasonable.

If you think I denied that, your reading comprehension leaves a great
deal to be desired.

If all your accusations of lying are this bogus, I shudder to think of
what would happen if you were so "suicidal" as to attack one of your
fellow Village Elders half as hard as you've attacked me to date.

The resulting flamewar could easily dwarf even the worst that has ever
happened in talk.abortion.

>
>
>
>
> > > I trust that you realise that your argument from silence is weak - until
> > > davidp actually invoked the naturalistic fallacy, rather than abusing
> > > the golden rule, and ignoring evidence that his advocated actions do not
> > > achieve his stated aims, Mitchell Coffey has no reason to point out that
> > > the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy.
>
> > +++++++++++++ sarcasm on
>
> > It's a good thing Mitchell and Mitchell are on better terms than
> > Mitchell and I are. If it were otherwise, he would rip into Mitchell,
> > saying it is not credible that Mitchell missed so many of this
> > person's posts about the naturalistic fallacy.
>
> > He might even have some nasty words for you, the way you are defending
> > Mitchell.
>
> > +++++++++++++ sarcasm off
>
> Again, you're just lying. When did I miss this DaveP's (nonexistent)
> posts
> about the naturalistic fallacy? Do you mean in where he committed the
> naturalistic fallacy?

The latter. I was careless in my word choice.

> Furthermore, given the depravities expressed by Pawnster in most of
> his
> posts, including posts you discussed when he made them, no,  its is
> not
> credible that you haven't seen enough of them that you can claim that
> I
> was being unfair to Prawnster.

This is what I call pejorativism: rather than discussing issues on a
case by case basis, you act as though once a person has been exposed
as a piece of shit, it is impossible to be unfair to him except by
being lenient.

And why are you talking about Prawnster all of a sudden? Is DaveP a
sock puppet of his?

[snip]

> > > Do you wish to defend the position that thwarting natural selection of
> > > our own species is a bad thing?
>
> > Perish the thought. I am a very humane person. My humanitarianism
> > even extends to those members of our species who are still at the
> > fetal stage.
>
> And you're a multiple liar.

You have yet to produce a credible instance of even one lie by me.

Peter Nyikos

[Ernest Major]

In message
<236bf407-bae4-471e...@z8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes

>On Dec 18, 11:45�am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 1:54 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Dec 17, 1:22 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > In message
>> > > <342638e7-067e-4c3c-a2ff-7f16e634a...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
>>
>> > > >On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > [...]
>> > > >> > If things go according to schedule, more and more people
>> > > >> > would be in the case of singing those blues, if they would
>> > > >> > had the force to sing. I can anticipate (I am just imagining)
>> > > >> > people dying of starvation in the parks, vacant plots, and
>> > > >> > ruined houses.
>> > > >> > In some moment, the city council will have to enact some
>> > > >> > service to get on the corpses, for the cities would began to
>> > > >> > stink heavily with cadavers.
>>
>> > > >> But look on the bright side: think how great the weather will be
>> > > >> without all those carbon footprints [sic] out there respirating.
>>
>> > > >You remind me of a poster whom Mitchell Coffey accused back in July of
>> > > >wanting to do away with vaccinations so that people would die.
>
>It was the qualifying clause "so that people would die" that I was
>criticizing here, not the rest of it. DaveP's deep motivation, in
>other words.

DaveP has repeatedly explicitly stated that his motivation is to reduce
the population - that is "so that people would die". He justifies this
by abuse of the golden rule - he argues reducing the population means
that subsequent generations have more resources available.

He has studiously ignored the fact that his proposed actions do not
achieve his stated end - increasing infant mortality results in an
increased birth rate and an increased population - so there is some
doubt as to what his real motivation is. It is possible that he is
insincere and trolling.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/18/12 5:27 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> [snip]

>>>>> The
>>>>> name escapes me at the moment, but you can see him from time to time,
>>>>> posting about how we are thwarting natural selection of our own
>>>>> species. And that was the point that Coffey seemed to have missed.
>
> Alternative motivation, you see.
>
> By the way, after I posted this, I got to wondering whether I had
> forgotten the true source, and the person I should have identified
> thus was Mark Isaak. Looks like I wasn't wrong after all.

If you are saying that I have been posting that humans are thwarting the
natural selection of humans, you are seriously deluded. I don't write
on the subject much, but when I do, I note that humans are still subject
to selection pressures natural and man-made.

--
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

[pnyikos]

On Dec 19, 10:57 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 12/18/12 5:27 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > [snip]

Partially restored, beginning with words addressed to prawnster:

________________ begin restoration_____________

>>> > > > >You remind me of a poster whom Mitchell Coffey accused back in July
>>> > > > >of wanting to do away with vaccinations so that people would die.

>> It was the qualifying clause "so that people would die" that I was
>> criticizing here, not the rest of it. DaveP's deep motivation, in
>> other words.

================= end of restoration

> >>>>>   The
> >>>>> name escapes me at the moment, but you can see him from time to time,
> >>>>> posting about how we are thwarting natural selection of our own
> >>>>> species. And that was the point that Coffey seemed to have missed.

"Coffey" should read "Isaak". See below.

> > Alternative motivation, you see.
>
> > By the way, after I posted this, I got to wondering whether I had
> > forgotten the true source, and the person I should have identified
> > thus was Mark Isaak.  Looks like I wasn't wrong after all.

Actually, I *was* wrong and it *was* you, Mark Isaak.

Thanks for joining in this discussion and helping to set the record
straight, Mark.

> If you are saying that I have been posting that humans are thwarting the
> natural selection of humans, you are seriously deluded.

It is DaveP who has suggested that, and nothing I've written suggests
otherwise.

And now, here is what transpired between you and me on this topic in
July:

On Jul 17, 11:34 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

> On 7/16/12 3:55 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> > On Jul 13, 11:52 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On 7/13/12 1:16 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Jul 13, 2:40 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> >>> wrote:

> >>>> Furthermore, I believe accusations of
> >>>> lying detract from other more serious and more demonstrable antisocial
> >>>> behavior common in this group, from incessant picking on people rather
> >>>> than their arguments,
> >>>> to calling for mass murder.

> >>> Huh? What are you talking about?

> >> Symasu has spoken in favor of purges of those who disagree with him (I
> >> don't remember the details; I have had him killfiled for quite a while),

> > What kind of purges? Are you sure he meant literal killings?

> You never take my word on anything I say,

Bullshit. I took your word when you said you were not of Jewish
extraction, and for many other things as well.

> so there is no point in my
> answering. Go look for yourself.

A simple "Yes" would have sufficed. Then I could have confronted him
with your claim about him.

And since you give no clue as to his exact words, nor provide an url,
I will assume you are afraid to say either "Yes" or "No." and will not
waste my time with confronting him.

> >> and davidp wants to stop vaccinations in order to make more people die.

> > Is the part beginning with "in order to" editorializing by you?

> No. Again, look for yourself.
============ end of excerpts

I looked, and as far as I could tell, you were wrong about DaveP's
motivations, Mark, and what I wrote at the beginning of this post was
correct.

I wonder whether my suspicions of distortion of Syamsu's wishes were
also correct.

If you want to pursue this issue, Mark, you'll have to wait until mid-
January for the answer. Today is the last day of posting before my
annual posting break for the holidays.

But I'll check up on this thread and others upon my return. So reply
at whatever time is most convenient for you.

Peter Nyikos

[Paul J Gans]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>On 12/18/12 5:27 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> name escapes me at the moment, but you can see him from time to time,
>>>>>> posting about how we are thwarting natural selection of our own
>>>>>> species. And that was the point that Coffey seemed to have missed.
>>
>> Alternative motivation, you see.
>>
>> By the way, after I posted this, I got to wondering whether I had
>> forgotten the true source, and the person I should have identified
>> thus was Mark Isaak. Looks like I wasn't wrong after all.

>If you are saying that I have been posting that humans are thwarting the
>natural selection of humans, you are seriously deluded. I don't write
>on the subject much, but when I do, I note that humans are still subject
>to selection pressures natural and man-made.

You are so right. Folks who decide that human actions lie
outside nature are privileging humans above all other life
as if we were somehow special and exempt from nature.

We are not the only species (far from it) which has modified
its environment to suit itself.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/19/12 12:37 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Dec 19, 10:57 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 12/18/12 5:27 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>
> Partially restored, beginning with words addressed to prawnster:

Restored, hell. It is practically unreadable now.

> ________________ begin restoration_____________
>>>>>>>> You remind me of a poster whom Mitchell Coffey accused back in July
>>>>> > > >of wanting to do away with vaccinations so that people would die.
>
>>> It was the qualifying clause "so that people would die" that I was
>>> criticizing here, not the rest of it. DaveP's deep motivation, in
>>> other words.
> ================= end of restoration
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> name escapes me at the moment, but you can see him from time to time,
>>>>>>> posting about how we are thwarting natural selection of our own
>>>>>>> species. And that was the point that Coffey seemed to have missed.
>
> "Coffey" should read "Isaak". See below.
>
>>> Alternative motivation, you see.
>>
>>> By the way, after I posted this, I got to wondering whether I had
>>> forgotten the true source, and the person I should have identified
>>> thus was Mark Isaak. Looks like I wasn't wrong after all.
>
> Actually, I *was* wrong and it *was* you, Mark Isaak.

What was me? I never said that humans have been thwarting human
evolution, which (along with your apparent claim that I said it) was the
*only* thing I have responded to in this subthread. That you need to
bring in everything below is just plain insane.

> Thanks for joining in this discussion and helping to set the record
> straight, Mark.
>
>> If you are saying that I have been posting that humans are thwarting the
>> natural selection of humans, you are seriously deluded.
>
> It is DaveP who has suggested that, and nothing I've written suggests
> otherwise.

It was you who brought in my name. I have mostly refrained from calling
you a liar, but that "nothing I've written" bit can only be a baldfaced lie.

Great! Knock yourself out! Suspicion is one area where you are nonpareil.

> If you want to pursue this issue, Mark, you'll have to wait until mid-
> January for the answer. Today is the last day of posting before my
> annual posting break for the holidays.

Likewise, weather permitting.

[Michael Siemon]

In article <katsg3$65h$1...@dont-email.me>,
Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

Folks may (or may not! :-)) want to read the stuff below to see the
context of my remarks. But what is clear to me (this has been percolating
for a while, but the latest stuff is pretty obvious) is that Peter has
some kind of _severe_ problem communicating with other people. It may be
an autism-spectrum issue [_lots_ of such folks (and I am a borderline
example) wind up in math], or could even be some kind of paranoia.

But it has become blindingly obvious that Peter simply _cannot_ (even if
he wants to?) interact with others in a way that enables dialog or any
form of two-way conversation. One either _agrees_ to his totally
incoherent garbage, or becomes a random figure in his ongoing litany of
complaint.

To the best of my recollection, he has NEVER posted a coherent argument
for ANYTHING he advocates on this froup. He has _fragments_ of such
embedded in long, incoherent screeds, but never is there any simple
exposition with data and discursive attempts at persuasion. Just isolated
(and usually wildly incoherent and improbable) claims of bizarre nature.
And unsubstantiated assertions of specific "probabilites" for "events"
that have no plausible foundation for ANY kind of probabilistic estimate.

He may be "functional" (to some degree) in a highly constrained academic
context, but I really do wonder about his ability to function outside
that.

I don't know if Peter will read this (if he does, I'm sure I'll pop up
as a strawman in later posts). But if so -- "Peter: _please_, I beg you,
go to your school's support services and get some help."

[Mitchell Coffey]

Except DaveP says his motivation is to let people die to radically
reduce the population - "so that people would die." Google is your friend.

>>>>> The
>>>>> name escapes me at the moment, but you can see him from time to time,
>>>>> posting about how we are thwarting natural selection of our own
>>>>> species. And that was the point that Coffey seemed to have missed.
>
> Alternative motivation, you see.

Except his claimed motivation was "so that people would die."

> By the way, after I posted this, I got to wondering whether I had
> forgotten the true source, and the person I should have identified
> thus was Mark Isaak. Looks like I wasn't wrong after all.

You're still misrepresenting DaveP's claimed motivation.

>>>> I trust that you realise that we aren't thwarting natural selection of
>>>> our own species - we are only changing some of the selection pressures.
>>
>>> I was merely setting a record straight. The issue does not interest
>>> me at this point.
>>
>> Actually, what you're doing is lying, as [1] DaveP does at least
>> pretend to advocate withholding vaccinations,
>
> If you think I denied that, your reading comprehension leaves a great
> deal to be desired.
>
>> and [2] I been perfectly aware of
>> DaveP's
>> claimed reasons for his bullshit, and have discussed those. Neither do
>> those reason make DaveP's claims any more reasonable.
>
> If you think I denied that, your reading comprehension leaves a great
> deal to be desired.

Except I can quote what you wrote at the top of the page: "It was the

qualifying clause "so that people would die" that I was criticizing

here." You claimed Mark got DaveP's motivation wrong. In other words, I
right on my point [2] above, and you're still lying about it.

> If all your accusations of lying are this bogus, I shudder to think of
> what would happen if you were so "suicidal" as to attack one of your
> fellow Village Elders half as hard as you've attacked me to date.
>
> The resulting flamewar could easily dwarf even the worst that has ever
> happened in talk.abortion.

Except that you're lying. Go check in Google. He wanted to deny people
vaccinations and other medical and humanitarian services so that they
would die and reduce the population. This is not just Mark interpreting
DaveP's motivations, as you are. You've had two post cycle to go and
check your statement, see that you're wrong, and correct yourself.
You've chosen not to. You're a liar.

>>>> I trust that you realise that your argument from silence is weak - until
>>>> davidp actually invoked the naturalistic fallacy, rather than abusing
>>>> the golden rule, and ignoring evidence that his advocated actions do not
>>>> achieve his stated aims, Mitchell Coffey has no reason to point out that
>>>> the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy.
>>
>>> +++++++++++++ sarcasm on
>>
>>> It's a good thing Mitchell and Mitchell are on better terms than
>>> Mitchell and I are. If it were otherwise, he would rip into Mitchell,
>>> saying it is not credible that Mitchell missed so many of this
>>> person's posts about the naturalistic fallacy.
>>
>>> He might even have some nasty words for you, the way you are defending
>>> Mitchell.
>>
>>> +++++++++++++ sarcasm off
>>
>> Again, you're just lying. When did I miss this DaveP's (nonexistent)
>> posts
>> about the naturalistic fallacy? Do you mean in where he committed the
>> naturalistic fallacy?
>
> The latter. I was careless in my word choice.

Oh, you mean, you criticized Mark for saying DaveP's motivation was "so
that people would die," even though DaveP's consistently says it's his
motivation"? You think Mark should be criticized for not invoking the
motivation you infer? What, do you think Mark doesn't know what the
natrualistic fallacy is?

>> Furthermore, given the depravities expressed by Pawnster in most of
>> his
>> posts, including posts you discussed when he made them, no, its is
>> not
>> credible that you haven't seen enough of them that you can claim that
>> I
>> was being unfair to Prawnster.
>
> This is what I call pejorativism: rather than discussing issues on a
> case by case basis, you act as though once a person has been exposed
> as a piece of shit, it is impossible to be unfair to him except by
> being lenient.

Jesus you're stupid. The statement about Prawnster reflects the apparent
fact that your "sarcasm" above appeared to criticizing me for attacking
your for kissing up to the hateful bigot Prawnster, who's posts more
often or not reflect one of his bigotries, but you claim miraculously to
have missed them.

In any case, so you do pejorativism all the time, then, particularly
when you bring someone up for no reason except to insult him or her.

> And why are you talking about Prawnster all of a sudden? Is DaveP a
> sock puppet of his?

You immoral hypocrite! Suddenly injecting third parties into post,
sometimes someone uninvolved in the thread, sometimes people you argued
with in another newsgroup years before, is one of your signatures. And
your the idiot who often introduces these third parties in for no other
reason than to insult them.

> [snip]
>
>
>>>> Do you wish to defend the position that thwarting natural selection of
>>>> our own species is a bad thing?
>>
>>> Perish the thought. I am a very humane person. My humanitarianism
>>> even extends to those members of our species who are still at the
>>> fetal stage.
>>
>> And you're a multiple liar.
>
> You have yet to produce a credible instance of even one lie by me.
>

I produced many. Your persistent lie about Mark getting DaveP's
motivation wrong. Your post last July we've discussed. Your claim that I
haven't given a fair trial to Pawnster, because you claim I haven't
produced evidence against him, when we've been discussing his behavior
on T.O. for a year. Your claim you hadn't seen Prawnster's racism,
misogyny, etc. Your racist argument in defense of Prawnster's even more
racist, n-word, post, somehow denying the undeniable: that what
Prawnster had written was racist. Your ongoing claims against evidence
that Paul and I didn't give the Nazi Giwer a "fair trial." Your claim
that Paul had produced a enemies list. Then there are the frequent cases
where you demonstrate a cognitive defect suggesting you don't know
you're lying.

I think most people who frequent this newsgroup could add to this list.

Mitchell Coffey

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:34:37 -0500, Mitchell Coffey
<mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/18/2012 8:27 PM, pnyikos wrote:

[...]

>> You have yet to produce a credible instance of even one lie by me.
>>
>
>I produced many. Your persistent lie about Mark getting DaveP's
>motivation wrong. Your post last July we've discussed. Your claim that I
>haven't given a fair trial to Pawnster, because you claim I haven't
>produced evidence against him, when we've been discussing his behavior
>on T.O. for a year. Your claim you hadn't seen Prawnster's racism,
>misogyny, etc. Your racist argument in defense of Prawnster's even more
>racist, n-word, post, somehow denying the undeniable: that what
>Prawnster had written was racist. Your ongoing claims against evidence
>that Paul and I didn't give the Nazi Giwer a "fair trial." Your claim
>that Paul had produced a enemies list. Then there are the frequent cases
>where you demonstrate a cognitive defect suggesting you don't know
>you're lying.
>
>I think most people who frequent this newsgroup could add to this list.

Yeppers. There is nothing that Rockhead complains about others, that
he doesn't do himself ten times over. And his complaints that I know
about are based on so little reality, they are equivalent to Greek
myths. He is a legend in his own mind.

[Ernest Major]

In message <katsg3$65h$1...@dont-email.me>, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> writes

>>>> By the way, after I posted this, I got to wondering whether I had
>>>> forgotten the true source, and the person I should have identified
>>>> thus was Mark Isaak. Looks like I wasn't wrong after all.
>>
>> Actually, I *was* wrong and it *was* you, Mark Isaak.
>
>What was me? I never said that humans have been thwarting human
>evolution, which (along with your apparent claim that I said it) was
>the *only* thing I have responded to in this subthread. That you need
>to bring in everything below is just plain insane.

I think that Peter was accusing you of having said that DavidP wanted to
withhold vaccinations so that people would die. Peter further claims
that people (presumably including you) are overlooking (the possibility
that) DavidP wishes to withhold vaccinations in order to stop thwarting
natural selection, in spite of DavidP's repeated (and misguided) appeals
to the golden rule in support of his position.

Peter denies wishing to support the position "thwarting natural
selection of our own species is a bad thing", but he keeps implicitly
supporting it by arguing that DavidP holding that position would make
criticisms made of DavidP less valid.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message
<mlsiemon-A20D87...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> writes

>In article <katsg3$65h$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
>Folks may (or may not! :-)) want to read the stuff below to see the
>context of my remarks. But what is clear to me (this has been percolating
>for a while, but the latest stuff is pretty obvious) is that Peter has
>some kind of _severe_ problem communicating with other people. It may be
>an autism-spectrum issue [_lots_ of such folks (and I am a borderline
>example) wind up in math], or could even be some kind of paranoia.

Lawyers for the Asperger's Anti-Defamation League will be contacting you
shortly :-)

Peter's not easy to model, but I don't think that Asperger's Syndrome
(Autism-Spectrum Disorder) is plausible.

I suggest that Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is a contributing factor.

>
>But it has become blindingly obvious that Peter simply _cannot_ (even if
>he wants to?) interact with others in a way that enables dialog or any
>form of two-way conversation. One either _agrees_ to his totally
>incoherent garbage, or becomes a random figure in his ongoing litany of
>complaint.
>
>To the best of my recollection, he has NEVER posted a coherent argument
>for ANYTHING he advocates on this froup. He has _fragments_ of such
>embedded in long, incoherent screeds, but never is there any simple
>exposition with data and discursive attempts at persuasion. Just isolated
>(and usually wildly incoherent and improbable) claims of bizarre nature.
>And unsubstantiated assertions of specific "probabilites" for "events"
>that have no plausible foundation for ANY kind of probabilistic estimate.
>
>He may be "functional" (to some degree) in a highly constrained academic
>context, but I really do wonder about his ability to function outside
>that.
>
>I don't know if Peter will read this (if he does, I'm sure I'll pop up
>as a strawman in later posts). But if so -- "Peter: _please_, I beg you,
>go to your school's support services and get some help."
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/20/12 5:06 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> In message
> <mlsiemon-A20D87...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
> Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> writes
>> In article <katsg3$65h$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>>
>> Folks may (or may not! :-)) want to read the stuff below to see the
>> context of my remarks. But what is clear to me (this has been percolating
>> for a while, but the latest stuff is pretty obvious) is that Peter has
>> some kind of _severe_ problem communicating with other people. It may be
>> an autism-spectrum issue [_lots_ of such folks (and I am a borderline
>> example) wind up in math], or could even be some kind of paranoia.
>
> Lawyers for the Asperger's Anti-Defamation League will be contacting you
> shortly :-)
>
> Peter's not easy to model, but I don't think that Asperger's Syndrome
> (Autism-Spectrum Disorder) is plausible.

In fact, I think Asperger's is the diametric opposite of Peter's
mindset. Autism-spectrum disorders imply lack of social involvement.
Peter's focus, with the exception of two or three of his own interests,
is on what people say about other people. He has a mania for social
involvement. What people say about anything else is of no interest to
him. Perhaps that explains some of his other curious behavior, such as
being unfamiliar with DavidP's posts. They were not talking about other
people, so, to Peter, what they said essentially did not exist.

>> [...]

[jillery]

So how does the analysis above square with his comments in another
relatively recent topic, one that he likes to bring up at odd and
irrelevant occasions, "How transitional fossils are determined". He
jumped into that topic only after it had crashed through the GG
thousand-post barrier. He explicitly refused to read any of the
previous posts, but still chose to ally himself to UC against the
"dozens of yahoos" opposing UC and UC's brand of insane and abusive
posts. This is when he mentioned me specifically as one of those who
continually slanders him in talk.abortion, to which I have never
posted directly.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Dec 18, 8:27 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 11:45 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 1:54 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 17, 1:22 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > In message
> > > > <342638e7-067e-4c3c-a2ff-7f16e634a...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> writes
>
> > > > >On Dec 14, 8:39 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > > > >You remind me of a poster whom Mitchell Coffey accused back in July of
> > > > >wanting to do away with vaccinations so that people would die.

[snip]

> > > > >  The
> > > > >name escapes me at the moment, but you can see him from time to time,
> > > > >posting about how we are thwarting natural selection of our own
> > > > >species. And that was the point that Coffey seemed to have missed.

[snip]

Note: in the text you didn't quote following "Coffey seemed to have
missed," you went on a long screed attacking Paul and me, utterly
unrelated to Pawnster or the issue Prawnster was discussing - which,
though you've snipped the context, was global warming.

> > Furthermore, given the depravities expressed by Pawnster in most of
> > his
> > posts, including posts you discussed when he made them, no,  its is
> > not
> > credible that you haven't seen enough of them that you can claim that
> > I
> > was being unfair to Prawnster.
>
> This is what I call pejorativism: rather than discussing issues on a
> case by case basis, you act as though once a person has been exposed
> as a piece of shit, it is impossible to be unfair to him except by
> being lenient.
>
> And why are you talking about Prawnster all of a sudden?  Is DaveP a
> sock puppet of his?
[snip]

I forgot to note on my last reply, that this entire new subject is the
result of you talking about Paul and me all of a sudden. You injected
a completely unrelated pejorative screed against me, then Paul and me
of us, into a discussion of global warming. And now, in that same
subthread you created, you are attacking me because you mistakenly
think I was doing the same thing as you did in creating this
subthread. You are the hypocritical, unself-aware, self-involved,
nasty and dishonest.

Mitchell Coffey

[pnyikos]

On Dec 12 2012, 1:22 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 6:22 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 2:29 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 3:02:11 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.
>
> > My, my, my!  Looks like you were off base on all these points, except
> > perhaps for prawnster being antisemitic, or whatever makes him the
> > closest equivalent to Giwer here.

Coffey is so deep in "virtual witch-hunt" mode that he completely
ignored the words "Looks like," which refer specifically to the long
post, most of which Coffey reposted below.

> On what basis are you claiming I was off base on all those points? You
> post no evidence.

It is you who failed to post evidence that I "went slobbering around"
and that I tested Giwer because Paul disapproved of him. NO sign of
Paul doing ANYTHING or having done anything wrt Giwer [as opposed to
wrt myself] appears in the post below.

But then, this is perfectly in line with what Jean Bodin said
centuries ago, "Not one witch in a million would be accused or
punished, if the procedure were governed by ordinary rules."

> Are you actually claiming, despite the evidence of
> Google that you didn't test a notorious Holocaust denier to see
> if he was really antisemitic?


The claim that he was a Holocaust denier, as opposed to a mere
Holocaust *skeptic*, was not supported on the almost 300 line thread
where my testing of Giwer was done. Nor was the claim that he was a
Nazi or even a pro-Nazi.

You yourself grudgingly admitted that I believed the charge of
antisemitism before the thread was over.


> Or are you merely denying that it was because Paul
> didn't like Giwer, despite what is suggested by the context?

the "despite" clause is completely unsupported by your repost.

> You didn't
> do this for moral reasons, from context this is clear. I was going to
> drop it, but now you're just lying about a very important issue.

The charge of "lying" is not supported by the repost either.

[snip]

> >> No, he did admit eventually that M.G. was antisemitic. I don't know if he
> >> ever recognized that M.G. was a Nazi sympathizer.

How can I recognize something for which no evidence was provided on
that whole 294 post thread where I was allegedly "slobbering"?

> > And what was Gans supposed to be right about?  I don't see him taking
> > a stand below, unlike "Gryphon".

[snip unsupported claims about what Gans had been right about]

And here is that repost:

>> Peter Nyikos
>
> >> May 19 2001, 5:30 am
> >> "Paul J. Gans" <g...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> writes:
>
> >>> Gryphon801 <gryphon...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> It is particularly unamusing to those whose family members and friends were
> >>>> murdered by the Nazis in cold blood.  Yet DSH defends Giwer.  Why?
> >>> Has he?
>
> >> He denies having done it, and I haven't even seen him
> >> question the claim that Giwer is a Nazi, though I also
> >> haven't seen him claim that Giwer is a Nazi.
>
> >> Even Pat James, who resembles Gryphon in many respects, puts in
> >> a good word for Hines in the post I append below and denies the charge
> >> Gryphon makes.
>
> >>>   That's too bad.  I've just explained to some folks over
> >>> on talk.origins that even Hines had more sense.
>
> >> You have?  Then perhaps I should also let the folks over
> >> in talk.origins know that I've never seen anyone except
> >> Matt Giwer defend Matt Giwer.  So I've added talk.origins
> >> as well as soc.history.ancient and sci.econ.
>
> >>>   I'll likely have
> >>> to post a correction there now, if someone will send me the post.
> >>>     ---- Paul J. Gans
>
> >> The only kinds of posts Gans is likely to be sent are
> >> posts like the following, where I correct the canard
> >> that I am defending "the Nazi Giwer."
>
> >> Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
> >> Subject: Re: Slavery and technology in Roman Empire (Re: damn Romans!)
> >> References: <9e0qed$8b...@bob.news.rcn.net> <20010517133510.26043.00000...@ng-bk1.aol.com>
> >> User-Agent: G2/1.0
>
> >> <01HW.B7298BCF001BD9E10ADFA...@enews.newsguy.com>
>
> >> Pat James <patja...@newsguy.com> writes:
> >>> On Thu, 17 May 2001 12:35:10 -0500, Gryphon801 wrote
> >>> (in message <20010517133510.26043.00000...@ng-bk1.aol.com>):
> >>>> If DSH is defending Matt Giwer there is no depth to which he might not sink.
> >>>> The account by D. D. Guttenplan of the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial in London
> >>>> contains much evidence, and refers to much more, about the "delousing
> >>>> facilities" at Auscwitz and elsewhere.  There is none so blind as one who
> >>>> will not see.
> >>> I hate to do this, but... I gotta say something nice about Hiney. (I'll wash
> >>> my hands afterwards, don't worry.) Hiney is not the one defending der
> >>> sturmbanfuhrer; Petey is.
>
> >> I am not the one either; Giwer is.
>
> >> I am merely pointing out that Giwer's dogged insistence
> >> on the lack of evidence of the Holocaust being what
> >> it is generally believed to be, is not (in and of itself)
> >> convincing evidence that he is a Nazi or even a Nazi
> >> sympathizer.
>
> >> He might do the same if he were a Palestinian sympathizer,
> >> like the famous British actress Vanessa Redgrave.  He might
> >> be jealous of the way the Israelis play on the sympathies of
> >> the West via accounts of the Holocaust, and frustrated
> >> by the lack of accounts of similar magnitude of atrocities against
> >> the Palestinians.  Who has even *tried* to show otherwise?
> >> [snip]
============== end of repost

There was NO attempt by you here to counter the last two paragraphs
above. And you post no evidence wrt the following issue:

> > By the way, has ANY of you been able to figure out whether Giwer was a
> > denier of the Holocaust or merely a denier of gas chambers being used
> > at Auschwitz?
>
> Of course I know the answer to that.

If so, you are following Jean Bodin's extraordinary rules to the
letter:

"Not one witch in a million would be accused or punished, if the
procedure were governed by ordinary rules."

> > It shouldn't be up to ME to dig up the evidence.  You bozos are the
> > ones who have been ragging on me with undocumented allegations.
>
> > Peter Nyikos

> I guess you are so morally depraved and ignorant of history that you
> think the quote above don't document the allegations.

I guess you are so wedded to Jean Bodin's way of thinking that the
repost above DOES "document" the allegations in your witch-hunter
mind.

Peter Nyikos
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
The demonologists who absorbed the Malleus were highly cultured men,
such as the Protestant Jean Bodin, "the Aristotle of the 16th
century," and his contemporary, the Jesuit classicist Martin del Rio.
Those theoreticians pounded home the principle of the *crimen
exceptum*: Because witchcraft was so vile an offense, accused witches
had no legal rights. "Not one witch in a million would be accused or
punished," Bodin boasted, "if the procedure were governed by ordinary
rules." Anyone who defended accused witches or denied their crimes
deserved the same punishment as witches, Bodin wrote.
--http://catholicexchange.com/who-burned-the-witches/

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:19:30 -0500, Mitchell Coffey wrote
(in article
<13d6a00f-9564-4843...@fn10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>):

> On Dec 11, 12:07ï¿œpm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 10:24ï¿œam, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:02:11 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
>>> (in article <k9o983$2r...@reader1.panix.com>):
>>
>>>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:26:46 PM UTC-5, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 5, 11:50???am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 5, 6:30?am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>>

>>>>>>>>> hypothesis. ?When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>>
>>>>>>>>> called a consensus. ~ prawnfarmster
>>
>>>>>>>>> Because when one scientist proves an unaccepted assertion, it is
>>
>>>>>>>>> called a theory. ?It takes just one. ?But when ten thousand dudes
>>>>>>>>> with
>>
>>>>>>>>> "Dr." in front of their names who don't practice medicine stroke
>>>>>>>>> their
>>
>>>>>>>>> second, third, and fourth chins and declare an unproven assertion a
>>
>>>>>>>>> theory, they're engaging in:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Appeal to numbers.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority (themselves, LOL).
>>
>>>>>>>>> Begging the question.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Autogladhandery.
>>
>>>>>>>>> So, everybody, say it loud, say it proud:

>>
>>>>>>>>> "When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
>>

>>>>>>>>> hypothesis. ?When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
>>
>>>>>>>>> called a consensus." ~ prawnenfunkenhamster
>>
>>>>>>>> Your personality disorder is showing.
>>
>>>>>> RAM would have done better, pun-wise, to write this at the end of the
>>>>>> post where prawnster linked RAID-3 with gayness. ï¿œIMHO.
>>
>>>>> Prawnster links every thing with gayness that he doesn't link with his
>>>>> racism and/or every wingnut cliche.
>>
>>>>>>> He has a personality? ???What an idea!
>>
>>>>>> He has a much more varied one than your benefactee O'Shea, by all
>>>>>> evidence available to me.
>>
>> Funny how no one, not even you, O'Shea, tried to contradict this
>> statement.
>>
>>>>>> And he seems to take life more seriously than you do, even though he
>>>>>> gets it wrong a great deal of the time.
>>
>>>>>> But then, you get it wrong a great deal of the time too, and O'Shea
>>>>>> even more so.
>>
>> And nobody denied this one, either.
>
> It's true: not to deny in every possible case is to agree.
>
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> [snip stuff I dealt with in reply to Mitchell]

>>
>>>>> I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust
>>>>> denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul
>>>>> disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since
>>>>> Giw*er.
>>

>> And now we are treated to a simulation of a good-cop-bad-cop routine:
>>
>>>> My guess is that Peter does not remember.
>>
>>> of course hge remembers. He remembers _everything_, going back over a
>>> decade.
>>
>> I say "simulation" because otherwise you will slobber all over your
>> keyboard with "paranoid" and "conspiracy".
>
> You don't get that neither is being the good-cop, both are insulting
> you, albeit mildly by T.O. standards.
>
>>>> ï¿œFor my part I don't recall that Peter ever admitted that I was right.
>>
>>> I suspect that the answer to that is 'no'. Of course, if I'm in error about
>>> this I'm certain that Peter can provide a cite with a correction.
>>
>> And if I did, you would ignore it and continue your rant about how I
>> 'supported' Giw*er, wouldn't you?
>
> Good answer, Peter, except didn't you just imply that failure to deny
> implies agreement?
>
> And the gratuitous rant about you and Giw*er is mine, not O'Shea's.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
>
>

And he failed to provide a cite on the point in question, while trying (and
failing) to change the subject.

The man has _no_ shame. None at all.

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

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:45:36 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
(in article <ka7v0g$it9$4...@reader1.panix.com>):

>> Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it

Liar.

>>: when someone is the
>> target of unsupported accusations, I do try to find out what the truth
>> is. And I saw unsupported accusations against Giwer, just as I see
>> unsupported accusations galore about prawnster from Mitchell in the
>> paragraph on which you, J.J., have put your stamp of approval.
>
> Peter, you are shameful.

That's well-demonstrated.

[pnyikos]

On Jan 25, 12:40 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:45:36 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote

> (in article <ka7v0g$it...@reader1.panix.com>):

>
> >> Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it
>

[crap by O'Shea flushed]

You're Pat James, aren't you?

Message-ID: <gbetg...@news1.newsguy.com>
From: Patrick James <patja...@newsguy.com>
Subject: Re: What (not) to write...
NNTP-Posting-Host:
p24d1bfbfff000000769df267dbbd463bd62ed218d3dcfd75.newsdawg.com
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:37:17 -0400


Message-ID: <gbeti...@news1.newsguy.com>
From: J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig>
Subject: Re: What (not) to write...
NNTP-Posting-Host:
p24d1bfbfff000000769df267dbbd463bd62ed218d3dcfd75.newsdawg.com
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:38:16 -0400

Note the coincidence of NNTP posting hosts.

It was your idiotic comments about being able to tell identities from
headers that inspired me to go ahead with the evidence for why I think
the answer to my first question is Yes. There is a good bit of
evidence in the two Paths, too, but you can look it up yourself.

I didn't have to search far for the two posts, because of an amazing
coincidence. "Pat James" hadn't posted under that e-mail address in
eleven MONTHS, and this was the last post he ever did on Usenet under
that name and that e-mail address.

So when I looked at his Google profile, I naturally clicked on that
solitary, isolated post of Sep 2008.

And, lo and behold, there "the two of" you "were", right in the same
thread. It's a long thread, but the "Pat James" post was sandwiched
in between two "J. J. O'Shea" posts, the first coming two minutes
earlier.

Which is appropriate, because the "Pat James" post is a 2-liner, while
the second "J.J. O'Shea" post is essentially a one-liner.

Is your real name Patrick James?

Or is it J. J. O'Shea?

Or is it different from either of these?

Peter Nyikos

[Paul J Gans]

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

Are you D. Spencer Hines? You make demands just like he did.

[jillery]

Is rockhead going on about other people's nyms again? The way he
over-reacts about that pointless point, I wouldn't be surprised if he
thought it was one of the mortal sins mentioned in the Bible.

And then he wonders why he's called rockhead.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Yeah, but what really fills Peter with fear is people whose name
confuses him about their gender. It victimizes him by reminding him of
the time a gay guy in Talk.Abortion tried to coerce him into allowing
him to fist him.

Mitchell

[jillery]

Your story is so bizarre, I am left not knowing how to reply.

[pnyikos]

On Jan 29, 6:14 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jan 25, 12:40?pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:45:36 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
> >> (in article <ka7v0g$it...@reader1.panix.com>):
>
> >> >> Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it
>
> >[crap by O'Shea flushed]
> >You're Pat James, aren't you?

> >Message-ID: <gbetgs41...@news1.newsguy.com>

> >From: Patrick James <patja...@newsguy.com>
> >Subject: Re: What (not) to write...
> >NNTP-Posting-Host:
> >p24d1bfbfff000000769df267dbbd463bd62ed218d3dcfd75.newsdawg.com
> >Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:37:17 -0400

> >Message-ID: <gbetio51...@news1.newsguy.com>

That's your pathological self-centeredness talking.

Almost everyone makes demands for documentation from time to time of
sundry people.

By the way, do you know the answer to the last three questions I asked.

[pnyikos]

On Jan 30, 1:47 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[snip bizarre fantasy about certain long past events]

If I were you, Coffey, I'd worry about the damning evidence of Coffey
looniness in this Jan 22 post, which I predicted you'd never reply to
directly [understood: without making keegan-magnitude deletia of its
contents]:

__________ begin repost from this thread__________

On Dec 12 2012, 1:22 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 6:22 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 2:29 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 3:02:11 PM UTC-5, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >>>> I remember when you went slobbering around testing a notorious Holocaust denier (Matt Giw*er) to see if he was really antisemitic because Paul disapproved of him. Prawnster is the closest equivalent on T.O. since Giw*er.
>

=========== end of repost

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 1/30/2013 3:20 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Jan 30, 1:47 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

[Your response-avoidance delitia, snipped.]

>
> If I were you, Coffey, I'd worry about the damning evidence of Coffey
> looniness in this Jan 22 post, which I predicted you'd never reply to
> directly [understood: without making keegan-magnitude deletia of its
> contents]:

Note your own massive delitia.

[snip]

I already responded to that post several days ago. Who the fuck is
"Keegan"? Hence-forth if you make any other reference to your own issues
in other newsgroups I'll stop responding at that point.


You're case that Matt Giwer is being victimized is based on your
insistence that Giwer's statements such as the following, including many
more like it, is neither Holocaust denial nor pro-Nazi:

(Note that you have specifically denied that this particular article is
pro-Nazi or contains much evidence that Giwer is a Holocaust denier.)

From: http://giwersworld.org/holo/fascism.html -

"Italy had maintained its stability under Mussolini by outlawing
other parties and in particular the Communist Party of Italy, CPI.
However, in Italy they did continue to work against Mussolini which was
well known, holding illegal political meetings and the like. The Nazis
prevented that by putting them into camps. Again, that they happened to
be primarily Jewish had nothing to do with them being Jewish, only
communist.

"Today that sounds improper to say the least. However, at the
time, these communists made no secret about attempting to take over
Germany by peaceful means if possible and violent means if necessary.
Sending them to camps was no different from rounding up members of known
terrorist organizations and sending them to camps; improper in the US at
the moment but then we have had no openly avowed violent and widespread
political party to deal with as yet.

"And keep in mind that in 1942 the US sent American citizens of
Japanese descent to camps for no reason other than their being of
Japanese descent. Not that they had sympathies for Japan, not that they
planned to use violence, but for no other reason than being of Japanese
descent. One grants that may have been the lowest point in our country's
history but it does not make the German camps any worse.

"If you have gone over the party platform you can see a mix of
reasonable planks but that several are open to abuse. Although most are
out of line with our form of democracy none of them are particularly out
of line with the circumstances in Germany at the time. Even those
unacceptable as marxist or contrary to our Bill of Rights existed in our
democratic allies and even exist in the US, such as the Marxist land
reform in Hawaii upheld by the Supreme Court some years ago.

"While the Nazis were working to restore both the ecomony of
Germany and territorial Germany itself, the CPSU were were working to
promote revolutions in other countries including Germany. Germany having
used camps to shut off the clearest danger of revolution was preparing
for war with the Soviet Union. This is not a secret and both countries
knew a war was coming and both countries were planning for it.

"In the course of reunifying Germany other European nations
protrayed this as expansion. But there was one group that protrayed
Hitler and the Nazis as evil from the moment they took power and that is
the World Jewish Congress. Hitler was immediately referred to as a
murderer even though there was no evidence he was any more of a murderer
than any of the other political parties in Germany at the time.

"It was well known that government jobs and prestigious positions
were sold all through the 1920s; either through contributions to the
parties in power for government jobs or the hiring authorities in
universities or flat out bribery to anyone who could hire to an official
position. A license in a profession required a bribe. It was a wide open
and a corrupt system that had descended upon Germany as a result of post
WW I conditions.

"No one has ever made a secret of this corruption nor that Jews
came into those jobs in the 1920s. In the 1920s German Jews went from
the craftsman and artisan class to the social elite.

"What has not been commonly done is to put the two events
together. Jews may have been qualified, outstandingly qualified, but
they would not have gotten the jobs without the bribes. That was a fact
of German life.

"That they were unlikely to be qualified for the jobs should be
obvious. Of course one can point to their scientists but science is
based upon verifiable merit. Positions in the humanities, those which
are supposed to preserve the country's culture, are not positions of
verifiable merit.

"Thus the sudden growth in the number of Jews in those university
positions that were supposed to preserve the German culture were a
serious cause for concern. It would be no different than an identifiable
group in US universities downplaying American culture to the benefit of
other cultures. Some say that is happening.

"And in fact Jews did have the majority of those positions.
Therefore, facts being facts, they had not earned those positions but
had bribed their way into them. The Nazis moved to set that situation to
rights by setting racial quotas for the jobs and eliminating bribery as
a means of getting them. Yes, jews suffered the most. But also they, as
a group, had paid the most bribes to get those jobs.

"This was unacceptable to the World Jewish Congress. They quickly
called a meeting in Belgium and called for a worldwide boycott of
Germany until those who had bribed their way into those jobs were given
them back. Sort of like demanding that a politician stay bought.

"In response the Nazis organized a ONE DAY boycott of jewish
merchants in Germany. It did in fact last one day. The jewish boycott
was never lifted.

"To get around this boycott the Zionists worked out of barter
system with Germany which worked such that Germany received to actual
increase in hard currency. They successfully defended this method before
the World Jewish Congress and continued to receive trade in kind in
exchange for German agricultural equipment.

"In retrospect the Jewish boycott does not appear to have been
particularly effective but it was unclear at the time just what would
happen. One of the things that may have mitigated the effect is the
nationalization of the wholesale market. German jews did have control of
a major share of that market so the boycott lost its support on the
German side.

"But as to the strength of the German reaction, the year was
1933. Germany had been in dire economic straights since the end of WW I.
In 1933 it was also the depth of the worldwide Depression. Things had
gone from bad to worse and the WJC was attempting to pile on top of that.

"Personally I have met jews who continue to boycott German
products but not one of them has been aware that the boycott started in
1933. But it is clear that the Nazis were not about to reinstate those
who had benefitted from the corruption of the 1920s to relieve the
boycott. Pardon me, but no nation should reward corruption regardless of
the duress.

"Later those laws were expanded to include all jews, such being
the slippery slope of the drastic solution they chose. In hindsight of
course the proper course of action should have been to prosecute all
parties to such corruption. However, such could have been said of the
solutions the US tried in the middle of the Depression. Responses were
not so much well considered but desparate.

"Official corruption was rather rare inside Nazi Germany and was
severely punished particularly when Nazis were corrupt. On one hand it
was unnecessary as one had to be a party member to work for the
government and to be a party member one had to contribute a fraction of
one's income to the party. Thus the party had a steady source of income
directly from the public treasury. (This is the same way the CPSU
financed itself.)

"Any corruption within the government would be by a party member
thus permitting two forms of punishment, civil meaning prison and fines
and party meaning loss of employment. Of course corruption came back at
the highest levels when the abuse of absolute power started but that is
hardly more than human nature.

"But clearly the confrontation that was shaping up was expected
to be between Russia and Germany.

[...]

"The World Jewish Congress was setting up Germany as the bad guy
in the confrontation because of Germany's means of dealing with german
jews who had participating in over 15 years of corruption. But also
given the broad base of Jews in the Soviet Communist Party there was a
chance of a major future payoff from the Soviet Union as well as
punishing Germany.

[...]

"In the process of this lack of loyalty the Germans escalated
their response and ultimately all full blooded jews and most half jews
and some quarter jews found themselves in camps just as did Japanese
Americans but for no reason. Of course the full, half and quarter were
by genetics as the jewish rules were all or nothing. Rather consider the
earlier response of other countries to the Zionist movement, german jews
by their wanting to leave were considered fundamentally disloyal.

"The WJC, which started calling Hitler and the Nazis traitors as
early as 1933, did not cease its propaganda because of the war, in fact
it redoubled the efforts. Stories of ill treatment in the camps were
circulated but it was not until late 1943 that stories of extermination
began to circulate. It is to be noted that stories of ill treatment
within the camps was never independently verified. We have only end of
war conditions that were ever discovered.

"The idea that such a thing was actually happening, particularly
in places where there were regular communication and transfers and the
like for years without such word, is difficult to explain unless it was
WJC propaganda. It is like the same camps existed in two different
realities.

"On one hand the camp would have an extensive underground that
maintained contact with the outside world that did not report such
things and on the other hand that same camp could only report
exterminations from a very few of the hundreds of escapees.

"On one hand we had camps where there were hundreds of regular
escapes without extermination reports and on the other those same camps
where a few people who can never prove having been there with absolute
horror stories.

"On one hand we have all of those underground contacts with
England and suddenly from Switzerland comes reports of extermination.

"It is clear that certain stories were being advertised outside
of the common and normal channels of communication with the people in
the camps. It is a situation that can only be explained as a propaganda
effort.

"Be that as it may, lets look at the post war confrontation at
the Nuremberg trials. All of the extermination claims were generated by
the communists from the Soviet Union abetted by jews from there and
eastern Europe whose political affiliation was not investigated but most
likely communist. The only exception to this was the US claiming to have
found a gas chamber in Germany proper but within ten years this claim
was dropped.

"The claimed extermination methods were all over the map and
gassing was not even in the majority. Electrocution, suffocation,
steaming, burning alive, shooting, hammers, axes, scythes, everything
but golf clubs were indicted as the means of mass extermination. The
story was nothing like it is today.

"So here we have the primarily jewish CPSU abetted by other jews
claiming their defeated political and military enemy was exterminating
jews just as the war propaganda would have it. In fact, it was now on
record that the propaganda started about Hitler in 1933 that he was a
murderer was now being made a matter of court record.

[spip]

"The trials were simply an extension of the war between the jews
and the Nazis that the jews had started in 1933 and that can be traced
back to the treason of getting the US into WW I. The communists, being
primarily jews, were part of the conspiracy.

"That is a serious claim and certainly needs be substantiated.
The greatest reason to be suspiscious is also the most likely evidence
for it. The Soviets permitted no investigator from any other country to
examine the camps where the gassings, steaming, scythings and all the
rest were supposed to have occurred.

"Not one investigator from the US, France or England or any other
country was allowed to examine the claimed extermination camps. It is
difficult to even think of a claim to mass extermination that also
prohibits anyone else from looking at the evidence. Here we are with the
real crime of the century and no one is permitted to confirm and it and
the Soviets decline to offer any physical evidence of it having happened.

"Until the Soviet Union opened up recently it was not possible to
go much further. Since then more information has come to light, in
particular aerial photos of these extermination camps. They are most
enlightening.

"For example, the Soviets claimed in court that Treblinka had
been used to kill over a million people and then dismantled so that not
a trace was left. They have released aerial photos of it from the time
after it was supposed to have been dismantled. It is still there with
the same five small buildings and no sign of an mass graves as the time
it was supposed to have been in full scale operation.

"Babi Yar is another famous case of mass extermination. But again
aerial photos show no signs of any mass grave nor any sign that the
vegetation had been disturbed in the least immediately after it was all
supposed to have occured.

"In other words, two of the major sites of mass extermination
that were claimed by the Soviets show no signs of any such thing. It is
clear the Soviets had no interest in presenting these photos at the
trial as they would have contradicted the stories of the witneses.

"Another example are the US photos of Birkenau which were
available but not released to the court by the US for the trials. A
summary is easy to give, they support none of the claims there were any
gas chambers there. There are four crematoria flanking some 100 (one
hundred) barracks. They are as close to the barracks as the barracks are
to each other.

"There is an impression spread that Birkenau was a small camp far
from Auschwitz that was chosen for being out of the way for the mass
exterminations. Even a cursory look at the aerial photos of Auschwitz
and Birkenau shows that Birnenau is at least as big as Auschwitz if not
bigger. And far from being remote, they were separated by a distance on
the order of the length of the camps themselves.

" The pictures were taken at the height of the supposed gassing
but they are not in operation. There is no indication of any mass
burning pits or mass graves. There is nothing that supports any of the
stories that were presented at Nuremberg.

"Rather than anomolies these are the norm for the gassing
stories. They are clearly an extention of the long war of propaganda
between jews and communists on one hand and the Nazis on the other.

"And today we live in a world where this part of the story is not
permitted to be told. The long war against Germany by the jews and
communists that culminates in mass extermination exists as gospels
without physical evidence and differs in no way from the anti-Hitler,
anti-Nazi propaganda that started in 1933 when they were first called
murderers.

[...]

[snip]

Note again that you claim to have read this article by Giwer, and have
denied that it shows much evidence of Holocaust denial or that Giwer is
pro-Nazi.

Apparently you consider it "looniness" for me to claim that the above
post - where Giwer defends, minimizes, lies about, blames on Jews,
commits false-equivalence between Nazis and other political movements
and between Nazi Germany and other countries, simply ignores, says were
unfortunate but necessary, or treats as positive acts, the actions of
the Third Reich, including the worse of them - is evidence that Matt
Giwer is pro-Nazi.

Meanwhile, in Giwer's essay he:

1. Says Nazi death-camps were "no worse" than U.S. WWII Japanese
interment camps (where few if any died, and none deliberately murdered).

2. Claims that, while our interned Japanese were innocent (as they
were), Jews in German death camps were there for a "reason."

3. Claims that Jews in German death camps were not in them for being
Jews, but for being Communists; it just happened to be that (he
asserted) most Communists were Jews.

4. Flatly states, by name, that extermination did *not* take place in
every single of the most notorious Nazi death camps - that is,
specifically denies that most of the murders in the Holocaust took place.

5. Implies that none of the rest of the Holocaust took place, either.

6. Goes beyond implication and flatly states that the whole of the
Holocaust is Jewish and Communist propaganda.

7. Flatly states that there is no "physical evidence" for the Holocaust.

8. To sum up, flatly states that "The long war against Germany by the
jews and communists that culminates in mass extermination exists as
gospels without physical evidence and differs in no way from the
anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi propaganda that started in 1933 when they were
first called murderers.>

You likewise call it "looniness" for me to say that Giwer's essay
contains much evidence that Giwer is a Holocaust denier.

Not only do you call it looniness on my part, you consider Giwer as
being victimized when I and other point out that he is pro-Nazi and a
Holocaust denier. You also imply that Giwer is being excluded from T.O.
because of false accusations. That is a lie.


Mitchell Coffey

[Paul J Gans]

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

>On Jan 29, 6:14?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jan 25, 12:40?pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:45:36 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
>> >> (in article <ka7v0g$it...@reader1.panix.com>):
>>
>> >> >> Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it
>>
>> >[crap by O'Shea flushed]
>> >You're Pat James, aren't you?
>> >Message-ID: <gbetgs41...@news1.newsguy.com>
>> >From: Patrick James <patja...@newsguy.com>
>> >Subject: Re: What (not) to write...
>> >NNTP-Posting-Host:
>> >p24d1bfbfff000000769df267dbbd463bd62ed218d3dcfd75.newsdawg.com
>> >Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:37:17 -0400
>> >Message-ID: <gbetio51...@news1.newsguy.com>
>> >From: J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig>
>> >Subject: Re: What (not) to write...
>> >NNTP-Posting-Host:
>> >p24d1bfbfff000000769df267dbbd463bd62ed218d3dcfd75.newsdawg.com
>> >Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:38:16 -0400
>> >Note the coincidence of NNTP posting hosts.
>> >It was your idiotic comments about being able to tell identities from
>> >headers that inspired me to go ahead with the evidence for why I think

>> >the answer to my first question is Yes. ?There is a good bit of

>> >evidence in the two Paths, too, but you can look it up yourself.
>> >I didn't have to search far for the two posts, because of an amazing

>> >coincidence. ? "Pat James" hadn't posted under that e-mail address in

>> >eleven MONTHS, and this was the last post he ever did on Usenet under
>> >that name and that e-mail address.
>> >So when I looked at his Google profile, I naturally clicked on that
>> >solitary, isolated post of Sep 2008.
>> >And, lo and behold, there "the two of" you "were", right in the same

>> >thread. ?It's a long thread, but the "Pat James" post was sandwiched

>> >in between two "J. J. O'Shea" posts, the first coming two minutes
>> >earlier.
>> >Which is appropriate, because the "Pat James" post is a 2-liner, while
>> >the second "J.J. O'Shea" post is essentially a one-liner.
>> >Is your real name Patrick James?
>> >Or is it J. J. O'Shea?
>> >Or is it different from either of these?
>>

>> Are you D. Spencer Hines? ?You make demands just like he did.
>>
>> --
>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans

>That's your pathological self-centeredness talking.

>Almost everyone makes demands for documentation from time to time of
>sundry people.

>By the way, do you know the answer to the last three questions I asked.

Your ducking my question is noted.

[Paul J Gans]

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Jan 30, 1:47?am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>

>wrote:

>[snip bizarre fantasy about certain long past events]

>If I were you, Coffey, I'd worry about the damning evidence of Coffey
>looniness in this Jan 22 post, which I predicted you'd never reply to
>directly [understood: without making keegan-magnitude deletia of its
>contents]:

keegan-magnitude deletion made in honor of Peter's keegan-magnitude
deletion of Mitch's "fantasy" about long past events.

The fact that my keegan-magnitude deletion of Peter's work
included many references to certain long past events is hereby
declared to be quite besides the point.

Peter, you are funny.

[pnyikos]

On Jan 30, 5:06 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jan 30, 1:47?am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >[snip bizarre fantasy about certain long past events]
> >If I were you, Coffey,  I'd worry about the damning evidence of Coffey
> >looniness in this Jan 22 post, which I predicted you'd never reply to
> >directly [understood: without making keegan-magnitude deletia of its
> >contents]:
>
> keegan-magnitude deletion made in honor of Peter's keegan-magnitude
> deletion of Mitch's "fantasy" about long past events.

And fantasy it certainly was.

> The fact that my keegan-magnitude deletion of Peter's work
> included many references to certain long past events is hereby
> declared to be quite besides the point.

You want people to think you are being satirical here, aren't you:?

> Peter, you are funny.

Yup, sure looks that way. But in fact, it was Coffey who dragged
those events into this thread, and you jumped in wholeheartedly with:

One of the reason why rats like him are still around is the
inability of folks like you to get up off your ass and check
it out yourself. People DIE because of people like Giwer.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4e6dc35cba52a261?dmode=source

But when I told you the following, you ran away:

Matt Giwer is long gone, his last Usenet post under that name was in
2008. Meanwhile, there are *certified* Nazis posting to Usenet
*right* *now,* like "Topaz," whom I fought against during the year
before I returned to talk.origins.
...
One thing I can promise: if you or Mitchell or even O'Shea takes
"Topaz" on, I will make it my number one priority to join in as soon
as I return in mid-January from my long holiday season posting break,
to show Topaz how even natural adversaries can unite against a common
enemy.
=======end of excerpts

You've been posting puff pieces on the thread where I called you "QJ",
but Coffey has jumped in with both feet and worked the opposite side
of the street from your "People DIE.." screed.

Each of you is an expert in prostituting his integrity in this way.

>    --- Paul J. Gans

PS When I said that neither letter in my designation was an initial of
the person denoted, I was only thinking about first and last names.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

No, and unless you are ultra-hyper-super paranoid, the following
should set all doubts about that to rest:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/036c53288e1bffd2

I say a lot of juicy things about Hines there, and since you are doing
a lot of posting on that thread, you can safely comment on them there
without ever admitting that you [horrors!] clicked on a link of mine.

> >> --
> >> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans
> >That's your pathological self-centeredness talking.

And in lots of different ways, too.

> >Almost everyone makes demands for documentation from time to time of
> >sundry people.

> >By the way, do you know the answer to the last three questions I asked?

[Last line fixed so that you can see it was a question.]

> Your ducking my question is noted.
>
> --
>    --- Paul J. Gans

I assumed it was rhetorical, or worse.

Your turn: my question, now sporting a question mark, remains
unanswered.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Jan 30, 4:46 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 1/30/2013 3:20 PM, pnyikos wrote:> On Jan 30, 1:47 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> [Your response-avoidance delitia, snipped.]

I'll tell you the truth behind your bizarre fantasy about me, if you
are interested and are willing to let "jillery" see my account;
jillery is on record as saying your story is bizarre, and deserves to
see WHY it is bizarre.

> > If I were you, Coffey,  I'd worry about the damning evidence of Coffey
> > looniness in this Jan 22 post, which I predicted you'd never reply to
> > directly [understood: without making keegan-magnitude deletia of its
> > contents]:
>
> Note your own massive delitia.

Are you talking about the piddly little bits that Gans and jillery and
you wrote?

> [snip]
>
> I already responded to that post several days ago.

On this thread? I saw no sign of that, still don't.

> Who the fuck is
> "Keegan"?

Ha! Ha! Ha! You claimed that talk.abortion is full of loonies, and
you never even heard of the chief loony?

His posting habits in reply to me are very similar to those of O'Shea.

Both your style and your substance are hauntingly similar to those of
Ray Fischer, by the way, while Gans is a remarkably close counterpart
to Chris "Spartakus" Lyman [with a dash of Galen Hekhuis thrown in
where zany mean-spirited joking is concerned].

Gans and "Spartakus" are by far the most cunningly dishonest people I
have ever encountered in my life. And they are quite close to each
other as far as cunning goes, but I give the nod to Lyman.

"Spartakus", Fischer, and Keegan are three of the four people most
responsible for turning talk.abortion into the hellhole that it is.
If enough responsible people were to leave talk.origins, the three of
you, with the help of three other people I have in mind, could easily
turn this newsgroup into a similar hellhole.

> Hence-forth if you make any other reference to your own issues
> in other newsgroups I'll stop responding at that point.

You are making transparent excuses because you are afraid of
confronting the truth about you -- and that's just about the worst
kind of cowardice there is.

> You're case that Matt Giwer is being victimized is based on your
> insistence that Giwer's statements such as the following, including many
> more like it, is neither Holocaust denial nor pro-Nazi:

> (Note that you have specifically denied that this particular article is
> pro-Nazi or contains much evidence that Giwer is a Holocaust denier.)

"specifically" is a bare-faced lie. I never read this article [at
least not since over 11 years ago] before I made those statements.

Can you document my ever [even back in 2001] saying I had read it? I
don't think so.

Anyway, what you've posted below can be matched and even exceeded by
what Topaz keeps posting all the time, and you have ignored a long
post that I did on this thread about him, and spurned my offer to join
you in attacking Topaz.

So it seems you are to obvious pro-Nazis what Ray Martinez is to
obvious atheists: you'd much rather attack me than attack pro-Nazis,
just as Ray would much rather attack Pagano and Kalkidas [sp?] and me
on the ridiculous grounds that we are atheists because we believe in
speciation [and in my case, common descent].

Peter Nyikos

> circulated but it was not until late 1943 ...
>
> read more »

[Paul J Gans]

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

>On Jan 30, 5:06?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>One of the reason why rats like him are still around is the
>inability of folks like you to get up off your ass and check
>it out yourself. People DIE because of people like Giwer.

>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4e6dc35cba52a261?dmode=source

>But when I told you the following, you ran away:

>Matt Giwer is long gone, his last Usenet post under that name was in
>2008.

Matt Giwer is NOT gone. And he's not alone.

>Meanwhile, there are *certified* Nazis posting to Usenet
>*right* *now,* like "Topaz," whom I fought against during the year
>before I returned to talk.origins.
>...
>One thing I can promise: if you or Mitchell or even O'Shea takes
>"Topaz" on, I will make it my number one priority to join in as soon
>as I return in mid-January from my long holiday season posting break,
>to show Topaz how even natural adversaries can unite against a common
>enemy.
>=======end of excerpts

>You've been posting puff pieces on the thread where I called you "QJ",
>but Coffey has jumped in with both feet and worked the opposite side
>of the street from your "People DIE.." screed.

Peter, you are ranting. What has any of this to do with Giwer?
There are many others like him, some in major positions around
the world. You were unwilling to even check the references
given to you.

I don't know "Topaz", but if he is as bad as you say he is,
then he's really bad.

>Each of you is an expert in prostituting his integrity in this way.

Why? Because we disagree with you? Because you live inside your
own shell and have often to be dragged kicking and screaming
to the truth?

>PS When I said that neither letter in my designation was an initial of
>the person denoted, I was only thinking about first and last names.

Would it shock you to know that I don't give a damn? You take
yourself way too seriously. Nobody much cares about your analogies,
theories, or what have you. You are generally ignorant about
interstellar transport, ignorant about the current state of
research in self-assembly of various molecules, ignorant about
biochemistry in the large, the evolution of this planet over deep
time, and way too sure of your own abilities to guess probabilities.

And no, I am NOT going to give you examples. Spend an hour a
day reading Nature, Science, and a few other general journals.
Discover the leading journals in various fields and scan there
tables of contents for interesting things. Do this for a year
or two and then post.

Prostituting my integrity indeed. I did that with my first
response to a posting of yours years ago.

[Mitchell Coffey]

You call *this* "juicy?":

[quote]

"D. Spencer Hines [...] was almost as abrasive towards me privately,
from time to time, as he was with Gans in public. During part of that
time, I was in e-mail back-and-forth with one of his adversaries (and
mine, but we were polite to each other in e-mail) and when i told Hines
about it, he railed at me and accused me of 'playing footsie' with that
adversary.

"I nicknamed him "Suspicia" because of that unfounded suspicion."

[/quote]

There's nothing particularly negative, and nothing at all juicy about
David there. Even good friends often get considerably more negative.
Particularly good friends.

The only things "juicy" we know about David come from the time back in
the eighties when he spent a month of reserve duty in the same unit of
Naval Intelligence as I as a civilian. And that's just that he was only
marginally less suggestive of borderline personality disorder under
TS/SCI conditions as he was latter on Usenet. I do have one really
bizarre with-Hines-in-a-bar-after-hours story, though.

Even if Paul wasn't aware that I knew Hines from the Navy I'm certain
neither he nor anyone else has seriously suspected you and Hines were
one and the same.

I assume Paul was trying to make certain points. And points were made,
whether these were the ones Paul wanted to make or not.

[1] You evidently found it intrusive, or at least irritating, to have
demands made against you.

[2] You evidently found it insulting to have it suggested that you're
someone else.

[3] You had a perfectly innocent reason for not responding to Paul's demand.

>>>> --
>>>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans
>>> That's your pathological self-centeredness talking.
>
> And in lots of different ways, too.

This is hilarious. Seriously, Peter, on a per-word basis possibly a
majority of your posting is about you and your personal issues, you
constantly inject into posts non-sequiturs of interest to you only,
often about long-ago events in other newsgroups, and references to long
ago enemies of your in those newsgroups. You respond to posts in
discussion you're otherwise uninvolved in for the sole purpose of
insulting third parties, also uninvolved in the thread. You expect
people to have an extraordinary familiarity with your posts, present and
past. You attack people's morals for not having coming to your defense
in threads their not involved in.

You're the only educated person I've run into who routinely uses tu
quoque as if it were a logically valid argument. You seriously accuse
people of having an "anti-Nykios agenda." Etc.

Paul is a Tibetan monk compared to you.

>>> Almost everyone makes demands for documentation from time to time of
>>> sundry people.
>>> By the way, do you know the answer to the last three questions I asked?
>
> [Last line fixed so that you can see it was a question.]
>
>> Your ducking my question is noted.
>>
>> --
>> --- Paul J. Gans
>
> I assumed it was rhetorical, or worse.

A reasonable assumption, yet *you* make a practice of nagging people and
making bizarre assumptions of dark motive when people don't bother to
respond to your frequent demands. For Paul's possible purpose, see above.

> Your turn: my question, now sporting a question mark, remains
> unanswered.

There's no reason to expect Paul to answer that; based on your
responses, there's no reason for O'Shea or James to respond either.

As for me, your header information may mean something, but the two
posters seem to write in different voices.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 1/30/2013 3:03 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 01:47:12 -0500, Mitchell Coffey
> <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/29/2013 9:08 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:14:18 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 25, 12:40?pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:45:36 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
>>>>>> (in article <ka7v0g$it...@reader1.panix.com>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [crap by O'Shea flushed]
>>>>
>>>>> You're Pat James, aren't you?

[snip]

>>>>> Is your real name Patrick James?
>>>>
>>>>> Or is it J. J. O'Shea?
>>>>
>>>>> Or is it different from either of these?
>>>>
>>>> Are you D. Spencer Hines? You make demands just like he did.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is rockhead going on about other people's nyms again? The way he
>>> over-reacts about that pointless point, I wouldn't be surprised if he
>>> thought it was one of the mortal sins mentioned in the Bible.
>>>
>>> And then he wonders why he's called rockhead.
>>
>> Yeah, but what really fills Peter with fear is people whose name
>> confuses him about their gender. It victimizes him by reminding him of
>> the time a gay guy in Talk.Abortion tried to coerce him into allowing
>> him to fist him.
>
>
> Your story is so bizarre, I am left not knowing how to reply.

There is no way you could reply without, um, background knowledge. I was
going to let it be, but Peter has called what I wrote above "fantasy,"
and your justified declaration that my story was "bizarre" as support.
So what can a man do?

It does seem that I confused two significant narratives from Peter's
Usenet deep time. In respect for Peter's reputation, I'll expound some
evidence regarding "Peter and the Fisting Offer," leaving the more
quotidian "Peter and the Transgendered Woman who Called Him 'Sweety'"
for another day, digestion permitted.

I apologize to you in advance, you'll never look at life the same:


From:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion.inequity/msg/bf509a67dc3503b0?hl=en&dmode=source

Re: Papa Jack Uphold Truce
Author: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu>
Date: 1997/06/27
Forum: talk.abortion
[...]

Peter Nyikos:

"When I mentioned that I often have large and painful piles
in connection with Keith Cochran's fisting offer to me,
all I got from Chris's allies was a lot of catcalls
about how gross it is for me to post about them, and
a stupid fantasy by Lyman ally Scott Safier about how
"King PHoney" loves to expound on his piles."

[...]

*** *** ***

From:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/433b8ad615a51fd9?hl=en&dmode=source

Re: Behe's Black Box: A review
Author: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.SC.EDU>
Date: 1997/09/11
Forum: talk.origins
[...]

Bruce Salem:

>Because they are God's Creations, when biology clearly shows that
>many features are imperfect and kludgy. I hope that Peter doesn't have
>hemmaroids, to wit!

Peter Nyikos:

"I do. I even mentioned them to Keith "Justified and Ancient" Cochran
[whose posts once polluted talk.origins as well as talk.abortion]
after he offered to ransom an unborn baby from abortion if I would
submit to being fisted by him. His allies, who consitituted
the dominant clique in that newsgroup, and who probably gloated
over each and every fisting offer he made, and had only words
of approval for them if they commented at all, went into paroxysms
over how "tasteless" it was for me to mention the fact that
I have hemorrhoids in public.

"That was in talk.abortion. The dominant clique in this
newsgroup is marginally better--but only marginally."

[...]

*** *** ***

From:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/696de3543f17f0ef?hl=en&dmode=source

Re: Directed Panspermy
Author: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
Date: 1997/11/06
Forum: talk.origins
[...]


Matt Silberstein:

>No. There is plenty of disagreement that does not lead to one party
>calling the other kook. Kook seems to be taking on a rather specific
>meaning wrt the internet. As I see it, there is some reasonable
>disagreement on the kook status of some of the professors who post to
>this newsgroup.

Peter Nyikos:

"Silberstein, as usual, plays a double game here: innuendo to
the effect that insults like 'kook' can be justified, with
the backdrop of him paying absolutely no attention to whether
my insults of him or Myers or Hershey are justifiable--the relevant
fact is that they are insults made by me, and therefore to be
countered by harassing comments like 'Peter sweetheart' when he
knows they remind me of Keith Cochran's fisting offers."

[...]

*** *** ***

From:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f2dd2ea8d3ce91ac?hl=en&dmode=source

From: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
Subject: Fallout from `Behe visits Columbia'
Date: 1999/02/12
Message-ID: <1999021219...@milo.Math.Sc.Edu>#1/1
Newsgroups: talk.origins

[posted and e-mailed]

o...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>In talk.origins grov...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>In article <79ruh5$...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>> "wade" <wad...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> I don't think you people understand what Peter has been saying.
>>> He has an uncomfortable association between fisting and people
>>> calling him darling.

Peter Nyikos:

"Only on Usenet. The fisting offer took place on Usenet as
did Sherilyn's solecism. However, in Sherilyn's case I've
gotten accustomed to it."

[...]

*** *** ***

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/90cdd103ffd2cbbb?hl=en&dmode=source

Fallout from `Behe visits Columbia'
Author: Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
Date: 1999/02/08
Forum: talk.origins
[...]


Matt Silberstein:

> I do wish Peter wouldn't continue to insist that the endearment
> 'darling' was used 'against' him by me. At the time, its previous
> history as perhaps the most fearsome weapon of warfare ever mustered
> against a mathematics professor was completely unknown to me.

Peter Nyikos:

"Of course, as I explained, it was only a reminder of one rather
heinious method of warfare used against me and against various
pro-lifers by Keith 'Justified and Ancient' Cochran.

"Fortunately, I neutralized this weapon of Keith's, which was
a most potent weapon against pro-lifers, and his fans went
absolutely ballistic against me. If you think the denunciations
I get from time to time about my tactics here in talk.origins
are something, you should see the volcanic eruption that greeted
a certain post of mine in talk.abortion. I think 90% of the
force of that eruption is directly traceable to the fact that
the ones participating in it were appalled by the fact that Keith
would never again be able to convincingly make fisting offers
to pro-lifers.

"Deja News just misses going back far enough, but I'll be glad
to give details over e-mail to sincerely interested parties."

[...]

*** *** ***


Mitchell

[jillery]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 14:05:31 -0500, Mitchell Coffey

I need to wash out my eyes with acid.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:18:15 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<fd8b95ae-c64d-4a27...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>):

Ah... Peter, you _do_ know that everyone, and I say again, EVERYONE, who
posts from Newsguy has posts sent out by the Newsdawg?

Now, if _I_ were going to accuse me of being Pat James, I'd note that it has
been stated quite clearly, on multiple occasions, that one of the 'J's in 'JJ
O'Shea' stands for 'James'.

I'd note that we both use Hogwasher, which is a rather uncommon newsreader.

We both use Newguy (but you figured that out...)

We both think that you're a lying piece of shit (but then that just means
that we've seen you in action)

And we both think that you're insane, not least because of your
creationist-level fantasies about directed panspermia.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:14:18 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
(in article <ke9l4a$ead$2...@reader1.panix.com>):

Pogeybait Hines is much more sensible than Peter ever was.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:29:51 -0500, Mitchell Coffey wrote
(in article
<9e506020-7dfd-4b9f...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):

>>>> Paul's involvement had nothing to do with it: when someone is the

>>>> target of unsupported accusations, I do try to find out what the truth
>>>> is. And I saw unsupported accusations against Giwer, just as I see
>>>> unsupported accusations galore about prawnster from Mitchell in the
>>>> paragraph on which you, J.J., have put your stamp of approval.
>

> In fact, you're lying now.

Of course he's lying. It's what he does best.

> Paul and I and others have giving a more than fair
> among of documented support for accusations against Giwer, and I know for a
> fact and can document that you know we supported those accusations. I the
> same documentation also shows that you have read and rejected that evidence
> (which you claim doesn't exist), consisting of statements by Giwer that
> anyone with a moral sense would recognize as vicious antisemitism, Nazi
> apologetic and Holocaust denial. What you're doing here is worse than lying,
> and worse than attacking the morals of people despite knowing they are
> telling the truth.
>
> That you have not seen my support for accusations wrt to Prawnster does not
> mean that I haven't given support for them. In fact, I have, over many
> months, and so have others. But it strains reason that anyone with a moral
> sense who had read many of Prawnster's post, as you have, was unaware of
> Prawnster's racism, misogyny, endless homophobia, and repellant views on
> rape. You had claimed you hadn't see any of this, except one example of his
> homophobia. I have since in this thread shown that you almost certainly had
> seen posts where he exhibited these bigotries, including one in which he
> malevolently used the n-word.
>
>>>> As I said to Mitchell just now:
>>
>>>> Yup. Is the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" alien to your
>>>> way of thinking? How about "Everyone's entitled to a fair trial"?
>
> This is obviously lying because you've seen my evidence.

He's _replied_ to posts where you lay out the evidence. And he could look it
up himself. He is being willfully blind... just as he is with respect to his
directed panspermia OEC bullshit.

> I've quoted one part
> of a post in this thread, and evidence was what all that business 11 years
> ago was about.
>
>> Did anyone make a direct response to these questions?
>
> I have no idea. I'm not even sure which questions you mean. Since you're so
> obviously promoting a lie, that I've not provided evidence against Giwer, I'm

> not interested in some game about who answered which questions.

Playing word games is what he's second best at.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:17:54 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<fdfed0be-980f-4777...@4g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>):

>> I am not dealing with prawnster here. ï¿œI have no idea why you
>> think I should. ï¿œI am dealing with Matt Giwer and your
>> semi-psychotic inability to come to grips with that.
>
> I've come to grips in the way that the subject deserves.

Liar.

> Matt Giwer is long
> gone, his last Usenet post under that name was in 2008.

Liar. He was posting in soc.hist.what-if up to last year. September, I
believe, but I'm not sure and really can't be arsed to look it up.

> Meanwhile, there are
> *certified* Nazis posting to Usenet
> *right* *now,* like "Topaz," whom I fought against during the year before I
> returned to talk.origins.

I don't believe you.

[Paul J Gans]

Well, THAT will set him off... ;-)

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 14:36:54 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
(in article <keme8m$lk5$5...@reader1.panix.com>):

He's predictable that way.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Feb 2, 5:17�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 14:05:31 -0500, Mitchell Coffey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 1/30/2013 3:03 AM, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 01:47:12 -0500, Mitchell Coffey
> >> <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 1/29/2013 9:08 PM, jillery wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:14:18 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >>>> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/90cdd103ffd2cbbb?hl=e...

Sorry.

Mitchell

[pnyikos]

It's been a long time since I last looked in on this thread, in which
Coffey declared war on me for daring to say some negative things about
Gans and O'Shea in connection with a (pointless? I think not) joke by
Gans.

The declaration of war has resulted in a huge number of false
accusations of Coffey against me.

Long after it began, Coffey let drop the fact that he is a Jew, or
that Gans is a Jew, or that both of them are Jews. [I forget which.]
Naturally, he acted as though this were something I had known all
along.

I had never suspected it--after all, both are very far from the
morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition, with its commandment, "Thou
Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".

Their corresponding commandment seems to be "Thou shalt not bear
witness, whether true or false, against Gans and Coffey and those who
are in good with them."

And there is another like unto it: "It is perfectly acceptable for
Gans and Coffey and those in good with them to bear false witness
against those in violation of the previous commandment."

On Feb 1, 7:28�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I do believe Gans secretly deems it juicy, and would use it as prime
evidence of my "betrayal" of Hines should he ever return to these two
newsgroups, t.o. and soc.history.medieval.

How much do YOU know about what went on in soc.history.medieval
between the two of us, vs. Gans and his many friends and allies?
[There is a difference: Friend of Gans is like Friend of Rome in
ancient times; ditto with "Ally."]

> [quote]
>
> "D. Spencer Hines [...] was almost as abrasive towards me privately,
> from time to time, as he was with Gans in public. �During part of that
> time, I was in e-mail back-and-forth with one of his adversaries (and
> mine, but we were polite to each other in e-mail) and when i told Hines
> about it, he railed at me and accused me of 'playing footsie' with that
> adversary.
>
> "I nicknamed him "Suspicia" because of that unfounded suspicion."
>
> [/quote]
>
> There's nothing particularly negative, and nothing at all juicy about
> David there.

Gans has yet to weigh in on this one. Like y'all's ally James, he
avoided the tough issues on what remains thus far of the thread.

> Even good friends often get considerably more negative.
> Particularly good friends.

Not in talk.origins, they don't. Not unless you count jillery and
Harshman to be good friends of each other, or Ray Martinez to be good
friends with Pagano, or Kaldidas, or...

[The list of people he gets negative with is awfully long, so I named
only the two most likely to be his friends, if he has any at all.]

> The only things "juicy" we know about David come from the time back in
> the eighties when he spent a month of reserve duty in the same unit of
> Naval Intelligence as I as a civilian. And that's just that he was only
> marginally less suggestive of borderline personality disorder under
> TS/SCI conditions as he was latter on Usenet.

That would make him considerably less suggestive of one than your
behavior has made you since you declared war on me.

> I do have one really
> bizarre with-Hines-in-a-bar-after-hours story, though.

Fire away. I'm always in a mood for a good story.

> Even if Paul wasn't aware that I knew Hines from the Navy I'm certain
> neither he nor anyone else has seriously suspected you and Hines were
> one and the same.

It was crystal clear Gans was just trying to make a nuisance of
himself by that particular piece of clowning.

> I assume Paul was trying to make certain points.

Like the ones you have clammed up about, the ones behind the joke
about prawnster's personality?

> And points were made,
> whether these were the ones Paul wanted to make or not.
>
> [1] You evidently found it intrusive, or at least irritating, to have
> demands made against you.

That depends on the nature of the demands.

> [2] You evidently found it insulting to have it suggested that you're
> someone else.

Wrong. I was just playing "straight man" to make a point. One that
blows a certain accusation of "paranoia" by Harshman sky-high.
Keywords: Hemidactylus, defended, donkey, salt, sponges.

And that was what I was doing in reply to Gans's "personality joke,"
but your thinking is too hidebound for you to have realized this.

> [3] You had a perfectly innocent reason for not responding to Paul's demand.

Since when is a question a demand?

Anyway, as I said to him, I took it to be a rhetorical question, or
worse.

Continued in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 1, 7:28�pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2/1/2013 2:47 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> > On Jan 30, 5:00 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> On Jan 29, 6:14?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:


> >>>> Are you D. Spencer Hines? ?You make demands just like he did.

> >>>> --
> >>>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans
> >>> That's your pathological self-centeredness talking.
>
> > And in lots of different ways, too.
>
> This is hilarious.

No it is not. You only treat a very superficial form of self-
centeredness below. Gans manifests his in many different ways, too
complicated to explain about now; but if you are curious, I can
elaborate.

> Seriously, Peter, on a per-word basis possibly a
> majority of your posting is about you and your personal issues,

Wrong. it is about despicable scoundrels like you "unMagnificent
Seven" and how y'all's morality is completely at odds with the Judeo-
Christian morality of the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false
witness against thy neighbor."

The "unMagnificent Seven" are: Casanova, Coffey, Gans, Isaak, jillery,
O'Shea, and Ron Okimoto.


The only reason you self-righteous jerks, and Harshman too, talk of
it as though it were about me is that the reason I KNOW y'all are
dishonest, irresponsible hypocrites, is through y'all's attacks on me.

The last person I know of to whom such dirty debating did NOT apply
was Joe Potter. When he doggedly defended me, it was clear to
everyone that his attacks on my attackers were not "about him and his
personal issues."

But that subjected him to the despicable accusation of "sucking up to"
me. One of the people who joined in on this was someone who seems to
have cleaned up his act considerably in the meantime.

You on the other hand have accused me of "sucking up to" prawnster.

> you
> constantly inject into posts non-sequiturs of interest to you only,

"Le talk.origins, c'est moi"

> often about long-ago events in other newsgroups,

...which shed a bright light on the behavior of many here, especially
the "unMagnificent Seven". Here are some of them, and close
counterparts in talk.abortion:

Paul Gans Chris "Spartakus" Lyman
J. J. O'Shea james g. keegan, jr.
Mitchell Coffey Ray Fischer
jillery Gwen Bennet [earlier: Nora
"Pandora" Peal]
Ron O "W.T.S."

The first four on the right were among the ones responsible for
talk.abortion being the hellhole that it is today. Two others that
complete the list of "most responsible" were Patrick "The Chief
Instigator" Humphrey and "elizabeth".

It was "elizabeth" who left in a pro-Nazi comment by "Topaz".

I showed you how I berated her for that. The sequel was very
interesting.

She posted the Coffeyesque demand "Prove it." ["it' being the fact
that "Topaz" is pro-Nazi].

When I did that, keegan deleted the proof and accused me of having
failed to prove it.

keegan is quite capable of doing this over and over again, and IMHO
the only reason this behavior is not a staple in talk.origins is that
the "unMagnificent Seven" are counterbalanced by many reasonable
regulars and a great many halfway reasonable regulars here.

But then, that was the case in talk.abortion too, only about a decade
before it became the hellhole it is today.

> and references to long
> ago enemies of your in those newsgroups.

The only long ago enemy up there is in brackets, creep.

And IIRC the only other ones were Keith "Justified and Ancient"
Cochran, who also posted to talk.origins from time to time back then,
and his brother Mark.

And I compared Mark *favorably* to you in the matter of pregnancies
due to rape.

> You respond to posts in
> discussion you're otherwise uninvolved in for the sole purpose of
> insulting third parties, also uninvolved in the thread.

Harshman thought I was uninvolved when he made that claim about me,
but I showed him wrong.

Correction: instead of "that claim" put "a claim about a concrete
incident, as opposed to hiding behind generalities"

Can you make the latter kind of claim, and back it up?

>You expect
> people to have an extraordinary familiarity with your posts, present and
> past.

Correction: I *inform* people about my past posts, and correct them
when they PRETEND to be familiar with them, but in reality are not.

> You attack people's morals for not having coming to your defense
> in threads their not involved in.

I'll chalk up this ignorant comment of yours to reading moral
condemnation into simple statements of fact.

Got any *concrete* examples? I'd be amazed if you do.

> You're the only educated person I've run into who routinely uses tu
> quoque as if it were a logically valid argument.

I'd like to see a real example, as opposed to me simply making an
assertion without documenting it on the spot.

It is Ron O who does this incessantly, by saying things like
"Projection is a way of life with you" and then proceeding to draw
asinine conclusions.

Even "Ollie" couldn't cure him of this blatant Pee Wee Hermanism and
subsequent GIGO.

> You seriously accuse
> people of having an "anti-Nykios agenda." Etc.

"people" is a subset of the unMagnificent Seven.

> Paul is a Tibetan monk compared to you.

He is full of dirty tactics, one of which is to hide behind the
general readership of talk.origins with words like "people," just like
you have done now.

It is the intellectual inbreeding of you Village Elders through 15+
years that prevents you from seeing how his self-centeredness, self-
righteousness, and self-importance permeate his posts. You take it as
perfectly normal behavior, and you indulge in a lot of it too.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 17:01:20 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<ddc934c8-5ad4-4bf8...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):

> It's been a long time since I last looked in on this thread, in which Coffey
> declared war on me for daring to say some negative things about Gans and
> O'Shea in connection with a (pointless? I think not) joke by Gans.

And you're lying again, as usual...