Insane "logic" from Ron O.

[pnyikos]

Ron O. has posted an utterly bizarre display of logic that follows
this format:

(1) Nyikos has admitted that the earth has a moon.

(2) Okimoto has proven that this moon is made of green cheese.

(3) Therefore, Nyikos has admitted that the earth's moon is made of
green cheese.

Obviously, the above is just for illustrative purposes, to lay out the
format. Here is how the actual display goes:

(I) Nyikos has admitted that the Discovery Institute (DI) does not
have its ID science in a form suitable for teaching in the public
schools.

(II) Okimoto has proven that the DI has claimed to have its ID science
in that very form.

(III) Therefore, Nyikos has admittted that the DI was lying about
this.

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

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

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

It is as though I had confirmed and reconfirmed my statement that the
earth has a moon, and Ron O had written, "Nyikos is trying to deny
that he admitted the earth has a moon."

The sequence (I)-(IV) can be seen in stark simplicity in my reply to
the post where Ron O posted (IV):

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2

I suspect that Ron O was so carried away by his "logic" that he
figured that by denying (III) I was trying to deny (I) as well!

What about (II), you may well ask? Well, the bulk of the time that
the (I)-(II)-(III) sequence was playing out, the sole evidence Ron O
had for the claim in (II) was the following quote from a website of
the DI:

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ron O]

SNIP:

Oh, joy another whining Nyikos thread. I have to go to work, but I
will get to this thread, but I'd just like Nyikos to reflect on how
well the Dirty debating, Scottish verdict and the misdirection ploy
threads did after he started them to whine about how unfair I was
being to poor little crybaby Nyikos. He is currently running from two
of them and the Dirty debating thread stands as a monument to Nyikos'
stupidity and dishonesty. How did you blow it in that thread? The
only thing to keep me from laughing about this for the rest of the day
is that you might be mentally incompetent. I don't want to pick on
someone that can't help themselves. You are just pathologically
incapable of admitting when you have lied or made even a stupid
mistake. You can't make this junk up. "Premature" Nyikos logic.
Nyikos may want to think about what this distraction means about how
bogus he knows the ID scam to be, and what it has to do with the
"central issue" that he claims that he wants to get back to when he
gets caught lying about everything.

What new thread is in Nyikos' whining and bogus future?

Ron Okimoto

[wiki trix]

On Sep 22, 3:39 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Ron O. has posted an utterly bizarre display of logic that follows
> this format:
>
> (1) Nyikos has admitted that the earth has a moon.
>
> (2) Okimoto has proven that this moon is made of green cheese.
>
> (3) Therefore, Nyikos has admitted that the earth's moon is made of
> green cheese.

If Nyikos has admitted that the earth has a moon, and Okimoto has
actually proven that this moon is made of green cheese, then Nyikos
*should* admit that the earth's moon is made of green cheese. Whether
Nyikos actually does admit that is an unrelated issue. For example, he
could just be an idiot.

[pnyikos]

On Sep 23, 8:18 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> SNIP:
>
> Oh, joy another whining Nyikos thread.

If you weren't so pathologically self-righteous, you would know that
by any consistent definition of "whine," you do it many times more
than I do in our exchanges.

>  I have to go to work, but I
> will get to this thread, but I'd just like Nyikos to reflect on how
> well the Dirty debating, Scottish verdict and the misdirection ploy
> threads did

They went very well, because as I pointed out, on the Scottish thread
nobody sided with you and Robert Camp actually seemed to disagree with
you on the interpretation of the ONLY documentation that you claimed
for the "bait" part of what you call "the bait and switch scam".

That alleged "bait" was that the Discovery Institute (DI)
claimed to have its ID science in a form suitable for
teaching at the the public school level.

And I have consistently maintained that the quote of which you are so
proud does not come within a country mile of proving that the DI ever
made this claim.
schools.

> He is currently running from two
> of them

Correction: I stopped posting to the Scottish thread I began because
you were nowhere to be seen by the end, while the one that Google
invented for one of my posts had you just posting one of your
interminable repetiions of baseless allegations when I left it. As
for the "Dirty debating" thread, that is the very one on which you
have behaved in the insanely illogical way I recounted in the first
post to this thread.

> and the Dirty debating thread stands as a monument to Nyikos'
> stupidity and dishonesty.

A claim with no basis in reality.

The rest of your ranting was just as divorced from reality, and since
no attempt was made to support the allegations in it, I've deleted it.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

(3) what is actually analogous to what Okimoto is claiming, so you are
just making a hypothetical exercise which really IS unrelated to the
issue on this thread.

Did you really miss this point?

Anyway, I'm taking this opportunity to post the documentation for what
I am saying in the first post. It is somewhat modified from the way
it appeared on the original thread to bring out the analogy.

_______________ begin documentation____________

Ron O makes an utterly bizarre comment below that is strongly
suggestive of his being in the grip of a full-blown psychosis. I have
deleted a great deal, leaving only things that seem relevant to the
comment.

On Sep 22, 8:05 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sep 20, 11:10 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > The Central Issue is whether the Discovery
> > Institute has claimed that it has the Intelligent Design (ID) science
> > in a form suitable for public school teachers to teach.

ANALOGUE: "whether the moon is made of green cheese"
[...]

> > I have consistently denied seeing any credible evidence of that. In
> > particular, I have contested the (very farfetched, IMO) [assertion]
> > that a certain quote implies that claim.

ANALOGUE: "I have contested the claim that Ron O's datum shows that
the moon is made of green cheese"

[...]

> > In the post to which I am replying, you will see a vile slander by Ron
> > O that has the corollary that I have been lying about this countless
> > times.

ANALOGUE OF COROLLARY: Nyikos has been lying whenever he denied that
the moon is made of green cheese.

[...]

Here is that slander, from an earlier post by Ron O:

> > > > > > >[Nyikos] admits that the ID perps
> > > > > > > have been lying about having the ID science to teach since the very
> > > > > > > beginning of the scam.

ANALOGUE: "Nyikos admits that it is a lie to say the earth does not
have a moon made of green cheese."

> > > > > > This is a particularly vile slander. I never admitted any such thing.

[...]

> > > > > You claimed that the ID science was "premature."

Analogue: "You claimed that the earth has a moon."

> > > > If you really think this "claim" consituted an admission that "the ID
> > > > perps" were lying, you are insane.

> > Ron O is so desperate to evade the issue, he next asks a question to
> > which THE VERY NEXT THING was an answer:

And here comes Ron O's comment that is suggestive of full-blown
psychosis:

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

ANALOGUE: "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted the earth has a
moon."

Ron O posts this insane comment in defiance of EVERYTHING that
appears right in front of his very eyes. Already two posts ago, he
was leading up to this insanity with the following question:

> > > So you are claiming that you lied about the ID science being
> > > premature?

ANALOGUE: "So you are claiming that you lied when you said the earth
has a moon?"

And here is that "VERY NEXT THING" that provides the answer to this
question:

> > > > I have consistently claimed that ID science is premature to teach in
> > > > the public schools as a rival to neo-Darwinism.

ANALOGUE: "I have consistently claimed that the earth has a moon."

> > Why would a sane person think I was retracting this based on what I
> > wrote?

Note how even THIS question did not deter Ron O from making the insane
claim that he made above!

[...]

Nor did this deter him from his insane comment:

> > > > If you think that
> > > > this claim of mine constitutes an admission by me that "the ID perps"
> > > > had been lying about being able to teach it in that way, you are
> > > > insane.
===================== end of demonstration based
on http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2

Peter Nyikos

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

Peter, if you want to engage in a debate with evolutionists you can
figure you will somehow end up facing the derision of individuals who
do not understand how to apply mathematical logic. The fundamental
mathematical blunder that evolutionists make is to deny the
multiplication rule of probabilities for computing the probabilities
of joint independent events. Consider what Thomas Schneider has said
on his National Cancer Institute sponsored web site at
http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/AND-multiplication-error.html
, “The multiplication rule does not apply to biological evolution.”
The multiplication rule is the reason why combination therapy works
for the treatment of HIV. The multiplication rule is the reason why
mutation and selection is stifled whenever selection pressures target
more than a single gene. Edward Tatum understood this mathematical
fact of life when he wrote the following in his 1958 Nobel Laureate
lecture:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1958/tatum-lecture.html
“In microbiology the roles of mutation and selection in evolution are
coming to be better understood through the use of bacterial cultures
of mutant strains. … The therapeutic use of massive doses of
antibiotics to reduce the numbers of bacteria which by mutation could
develop resistance, is a direct consequence of the application of
genetic concepts. Similarly, so is the increasing use of combined
antibiotic therapy, resistance to both of which would require the
simultaneous mutation of two independent characters.”2

It took 30 years and the occurrence of HIV to revive what Tatum said
more than 50 years ago. Even with the success in treating HIV with
combination therapy, Tatum’s observation are still not a part of
mainstream evolutionist teaching because of the mathematical challenge
it presents to the theory of evolution. And the end result of this
scientific and educational failure is the spread of multidrug
resistant microbes, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide
resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.

This is all a consequence of poor training of biologists in the field
of mathematics.

Alan Kleinman MD, PhD

[Lurker786]

What do you people do for a living?

[Burkhard]

They run an investment company that sells you shares for their
proposed dairy business on the moon. Huge profits, zero risk
guaranteed.

[Richard Harter]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:42:50 +0500, Lurker786 <lurk...@hidden.com>
wrote:

My understanding is that they both have tenure. They don't have to do
anything.

[Ron O]

On Sep 22, 5:39 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

First we have to go into the history behind Nyikos' bogus behavior.
He put his foot in it from the very beginning back in last Dec.
Believe it or not, Nyikos has been trying to lie about the ID scam
bait and switch for over 9 months. He was getting his butt kicked so
badly in the initial thread that he had to start a whole thread to try
to misdirect the argument. For Nyikos to claim that it was not a
misdirection ploy he would have to explain why he picked a post from a
thread that he wasn't even participating in. A post that was weeks
old by the time he first tried the misdirection ploy, and he would
have to explain what it had to do with what he was running from at the
time.

Nyikos knows that I have never not been able to back up any of my
claims. He has run from that thread because he knows what he has to
do, but it isn't worth doing because all he would find out is that he
was wrong again.

Original thread:
The original thread and a relevant post that Nyikos is still running
from back in Dec.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/092d106b63c89963?hl=en

The Misdirection thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9103f16d366f7d45?hl=en

Nyikos started his dirty debating thread to lie and run from getting
his butt kicked in other threads (There was also a thread that Pags
started where Nyikos got involved to continue to prevaricate.)

The Dirty debating thread is a particularly sordid thread for Nyikos
because it turned out that he was basing the thread on some bogus lie
that he had made up in his own mind. It was so bogus that I didn't
understand what he was talking about and we talked past each other for
several posts. When I finally realized what Nyikos was going on about
and confronted him with it he snipped and ran and when asked to
acknowledge what a boneheaded liar he was he ran away and started the
Scottish verdict thread to continue to whine and prevaricate.

Dirty Debating thread where Nyikos is confronted by his bogousity and
finds out that he is the dirty debater:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a995034f6931eba4?hl=en

Nyikos running from acknowledging his bogousity. Note the date.
Nyikos started the Scottish verdict thread the day after this post.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a9eb8898289a07f?hl=en

Scottish verdict thread started because Nyikos had to run from being
such a bogus IDiot in his Dirty Debating thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4dea96d935b7522c

In a way this thread is just an extension of the Scottish verdict
thread and the Dirty debating thread.

Why did Nyikos start this thread. Probably multiple reasons because
there are multiple posts that he is running from. Instead of facing
one of many posts that he is currently running from he went back to an
older post that he had already responded to and he picked out a minor
point to prevaricate about. It is the proverbial dust mote and beam
in the eye syndrome.

Just the most recent posts that Nyikos is running from that sparked
this current prevarication ploy. If anyone cares to check it out
there are a bunch of other posts that Nyikos has been running from.
Many related directly about this thread line of Nyikos prevarication:

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

Nyikos got the evidence about the ID perp teach ID scam that he claims
he never got multiple times. Evidence that if he is true to form he
needs to deny exists to make this current bogus ploy of his work in
his deluded mind. It doesn't matter to Nyikos that the evidence means
that he is lying. He has to lie to himself for some reason even
though he has to understsnd that reality isn't going to change and the
evidence will be there whether he runs from it or not.

So we see a sordid history of why Nyikos starts these bogus threads
and projects his own stupid and dishonest behavior onto others. He
may not be able to help himself. Projection is a sign of insanity and
Nyikos does it so often that you can't discount the possibility. He
could be just a pathological liar. In his own projection he calls it
"habitual lying" so he may be trying to be kind to himself.

This is a post where Nyikos is currently going on with this bogus
notion that starts this thread. I just take him to task and ask what
exactly his argument is. The sad thing is that he can't state his
exact argument and why he thinks that it is valid because of all the
history and information that he knows about. Essentially to make this
argument work he has to choose between two lies. He either denies
what he has claimed about the ID science being to bogus to teach in
the public schools, or he has to lie about all the evidence that the
ID perps ran the teach ID scam for years and are still running the
teach ID scam, when the ID perps do not deny doing it. He is
literally damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. So his option
is to prevaricate about the issue in any way that he thinks that he
can get away with. Really, just look at the recent posts that sparked
this thread and how Nyikos was caught lying about not getting the
evidence that the ID perps ran the teach ID scam. Why does he have to
lie about getting the evidence?

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

He can run, but he can't deny getting the evidence. Who is he
fooling. The saddest thing is that Nyikos' intelligent designer (if
he exists) would not be fooled by Nyikos' bogus behavior.

So, now we start another bogus Nyikos thread over an issue that was
settled months ago and the only reason that it is still going on is
that Nyikos has some type of pathological behavior where he can't even
admit to his stupid mistakes. Why did he start the Dirty debating
thread? Who was the dirty debater? Why start more threads when the
bogus loser is always Nyikos?

> Ron O. has posted an utterly bizarre display of logic that follows
> this format:
>
> (1) Nyikos has admitted that the earth has a moon.
>
> (2) Okimoto has proven that this moon is made of green cheese.
>
> (3) Therefore, Nyikos has admitted that the earth's moon is made of
> green cheese.
>
> Obviously, the above is just for illustrative purposes, to lay out the
> format.  Here is how the actual display goes:
>
> (I) Nyikos has admitted that the Discovery Institute (DI) does not
> have its ID science in a form suitable for teaching in the public
> schools.
>
> (II) Okimoto has proven that the DI has claimed to have its ID science
> in that very form.
>
> (III) Therefore, Nyikos has admittted that the DI was lying about
> this.

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

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

These are the current claims of the ID perps:

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

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

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

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

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

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

This is the quote that Nyikos keeps trying to prevaricate about even
though it says the same thing as the ID perps official stance on
teaching the bogus junk.

Other evidence that Nyikos has been given one of the posts that Nyikos
is currently using this thread to run from.

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

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

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

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

teach in the public schools.

>
> Had Ron O stopped here, I would have left off the word "insane" but an
> incredible performance by Ron O today justifies it.  In the face of
> multiple reiterations of the "admission" in  (I) and even a statement
> that I have consistently maintained it, plainly visible in the post to
> which he was replying, and even adjacent or practically adjacent to
>
> it, Ron O wrote:
>
> (IV) "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted that the ID science
> wasn't
> ready to teach in the public schools."

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

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

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

See my response to this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0e4bb1948dcc31d3

>
> I suspect that Ron O was so carried away by his "logic" that he
> figured that by denying (III) I was trying to deny (I) as well!
>
> What about (II), you may well ask?  Well, the bulk of the time that
> the (I)-(II)-(III) sequence was playing out, the sole evidence Ron O
> had for the claim in (II) was the following quote from a website of
> the DI:
>
> QUOTE:
> Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
>
> No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> she should have the academic freedom to do so.
> END QUOTE linked from:
>
> http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
>
> Nowhere in the website linked from there does anything else suggestive
> of (II) appear; in fact, the website goes on and on about a totally
> different recommendation, to teach about the weaknesses of current
> evolutionary theory.

Prevarication like this is all that Nyikos can do. It isn't just this
quote even though it specifically states that ID has not been banned
from the public schools. Lying about this quote is all that Nyikos
can do. You don't see the same denial about the ID perp's official
stance on teaching the junk. Why does Nyikos think that he can lie
about this quote and ignore the other evidence? Doesn't the other
evidence make any prevarication about this quote senseless?

Really, can anyone find where the ID perps deny running the teach ID
scam? Nyikos lived through TO at the time that the ID perps were
running the teach ID scam full tilt back at the turn of the century.
Where did the IDiot rubes get the idea that they could teach the bogus
junk?

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

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

This should be the same post that I linked to before:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=enKf4c1af25c978cf

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

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

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

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

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

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

I provide quotes from the links in the above post.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3b97e1564472c17d?hl=enKf4c1af25c978cf

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

What post did this come from?

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

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

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

>
> Subject: Scottish verdict on accusation of a "bait and switch scam"http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2437ba1ac91c46ef
>
> No one on that thread besides Ron O would endorse (II) and Robert Camp
> even posted a comment suggesting that he disagreed:
>
> "You are correct that there isn't much hard

> evidence as to the DI's position on teaching ID in schools."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d382ecb6f4a56ddf?dmod...

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

Nyikos quote mining Camp:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3c8d3f3f728062b8?hl=enKf4c1af25c978cf

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

>
> Now, only a few posts ago on the thread where the (I)-(IV) drama has
> played out, Ron O has posted another statement by the DI which pretty
> much amounts to the same thing the first quote did:
>
> QUOTE:
> Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
> of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
> nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
> theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
> efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
> scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
> appropriate manner.
> END QUOTE:
>
> http://www.discovery.org/a/3164
>
> I wouldn't make an issue of all this, except that Ron O has spent
> literally thousands of lines accusing me of habitual lying and even
> insanity.

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

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

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

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:42:50 +0500, Lurker786 <lurk...@hidden.com>
wrote:

Actually, these posts are from one person with multiple
personalities. Or better, you posted them yourself and are in denial.
Or most likely, you're just imagining them. Take your pills and go
back to sleep.

What? I'm just staying on-topic :)

[Ron O]

On Sep 23, 2:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 8:18 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > SNIP:
>
> > Oh, joy another whining Nyikos thread.
>
> If you weren't so pathologically self-righteous, you would know that
> by any consistent definition of "whine," you do it many times more
> than I do in our exchanges.
>

Stating facts is not really whining. Just because you are shown to be
such a bogus and dishonest pretender doesn't make the truth a
"whine." You on the other hand lie and whine. "Someone is being so
unfair to me and lying about me" would be a whine and what you do, but
just stating what you are is not a whine when it is true and applies
to what you are lying about. What about your false whining about me
to start the Dirty debating thread? That is a classic case of
whining. You were caught lying to another poster about me and ran. I
don't make this junk up because it is easy enough to put up examples
of all your bogus behavior.

Don't you wish that you could do the same for me? Why can't you do
that? Why are you stuck with petty arguments like the one you start
this thread with? What does it matter to reality? How does it
compare to your own bogus antics like starting the Dirty debating
thread based on a bogus lie? You screwed up at the very least, but
all you can think of to do is start more bogus threads. It doesn't
change the fact that the ID perps ran the bait and switch scam on all
their IDiot supporters. It doesn't change the fact that not a single
IDiot that has wanted to teach the science of intelligent design in
the public schools has had the bait and switch run on them. The ID
perps even tried to run the bait and switch on the Dover rubes, but
they already had their own lawyers that wanted to test ID in the
courts and the rest is history. That is the reality that you are
trying to lie about.

> >  I have to go to work, but I
> > will get to this thread, but I'd just like Nyikos to reflect on how
> > well the Dirty debating, Scottish verdict and the misdirection ploy
> > threads did
>
> They went very well, because as I pointed out, on the Scottish thread
> nobody sided with you and Robert Camp actually seemed to disagree with
> you on the interpretation of the ONLY documentation that you claimed
> for the "bait" part of what you call "the bait and switch scam".

Check out my links back to those threads in my previous response. It
hasn't shown up in Google yet. Nyikos bogus view of reality is only
the lies that he has to tell himself. Sad but true.

>
> That alleged "bait" was  that the Discovery Institute (DI)
> claimed to have its ID science in a form suitable for
> teaching at the the public school level.
>
> And I have consistently maintained that the quote of which you are so
> proud does not come within a country mile of proving that the DI ever
> made this claim.
> schools.

It is strange that the ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach
the bogus junk in the public schools and they have never denied
running the teach ID scam for years before starting to run the bait
and switch, so what is Nyikos missing? He can lie about it, but it is
obvious that he has gotten more than enough evidence that the bait and
switch has been going down. All he can do is lie about it.

>
> > He is currently running from two
> > of them
>
> Correction: I stopped posting to the Scottish thread I began because
> you were nowhere to be seen by the end, while the one that Google
> invented for one of my posts had you just posting one of your
> interminable repetiions of baseless allegations when I left it.  As
> for the "Dirty debating" thread, that is the very one on which you
> have behaved in the insanely illogical way I recounted in the first
> post to this thread.

Demonstrate that, that is the case for the links that I provided in my
previous posts in this thread. Repetition isn't what you claim. You
keep lying and going into denial and I have to keep reminding you of
what you are running from. Stop running and lying and you won't have
that problem.

>
> > and the Dirty debating thread stands as a monument to Nyikos'
> > stupidity and dishonesty.
>
> A claim with no basis in reality.
>
> The rest of your ranting was just as divorced from reality, and since
> no attempt was made to support the allegations in it, I've deleted it.
>
> Peter Nyikos

I provided links so Nyikos can demonstrate his case. Go for it
Nyikos, you have run from some of those posts for months. Tell us
what lie you told to Bill to whine about me. Tell us what you did
when you found out that you were lying? You could have just admitted
that you made a stupid mistake and apologized for making the false
accusation, but you snipped and ran, and then started a new bogus
thread to continue to lie and prevaricate.

Nyikos confronted by his bogus behavior:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a995034f6931eba4?hl=enKf4c1af25c978cf

Nyikos running from reality:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a9eb8898289a07f?hl=enKf4c1af25c978cf

So Nyikos explain the situation. It must be just a coincidence that
you started the Scottish verdict thread just a day after being
confronted about running from your bogus deeds.

What was that about whining? The truth hurts, but only because you
are a bogus pretender professor of mathematics with a PhD. Doesn't it
make you feel better now that you don't keep claiming your academic
status as some excuse for your bogus behavior?

It should not be lost on any lurker that this is the best any IDiot
has ever done to support the bogus ID scam. Most IDiots don't even
try. They either lie and run or prevaricate in some fashion like try
a stupid misdirection ploy and run Just ask Pags or Kalk about the
bait and switch. Pitman's tactic was to deny that the bait and switch
was necessary, and that he had the ID science to teach in the public
schools even if the ID perps were running in the switch scam that
didn't even mention that ID ever existed. He ran from those claims
for around 5 years before running away for good. Nyikos is the first
IDiot willing to try to deny that the bait and switch has been going
down and is willing to debase himself by lying about reality. I have
no other examples. One day I will likely post a thread with relevant
links just so that I can do a search and pull up this sordid affair
for any IDiot in the future that hasn't gotten the clue that ID is
just a bogus scam.

Ron Okimoto

[pnyikos]

On Sep 24, 10:58 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 8:18 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > SNIP:
>
> > > Oh, joy another whining Nyikos thread.
>
> > If you weren't so pathologically self-righteous, you would know that
> > by any consistent definition of "whine," you do it many times more
> > than I do in our exchanges.
>
> Stating facts is not really whining.

Since my post, to which you have still not posted any kind of direct
rebuttal, is very factual, you have just now shown that you are both
whining and lying:

> Just because you are shown to be
> such a bogus and dishonest pretender

I wasn't and never have been.

>doesn't make the truth a
> "whine."  You on the other hand lie and whine.  "Someone is being so
> unfair to me and lying about me" would be a whine

Lying IS unfair, and you have accused me falsely of lying hundreds of
times.

This post of yours, and the one just before it, are rewriting Usenet
history (in the Orwellan _1984_ sense) with no attempt at detailed
justification for the misrepresentations you spew all over the place.
And in the meantime, you are ignoring the strong evidence that (1) you
have indulged in pathetically fallacious "logic" and (2) you have
written something that no sane person would write with everything that
you saw laid out
in front of you. The documentation is laid out in my reply to "wiki
trix":
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/47859b3fedb6f5b3?dmode=source

And it is even more succinctly and irrefutably laid out in the
following post in direct reply to you:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb

You wrote,

"Nyikos is trying to deny that he
admitted that the ID science wasn't

ready to teach in the public schools."

Not only did I never try to deny it, I was admitting it over and over
again all around this insane clam of yours.

[drivel by Ron O. deleted]

> > >  I have to go to work, but I
> > > will get to this thread, but I'd just like Nyikos to reflect on how
> > > well the Dirty debating, Scottish verdict and the misdirection ploy
> > > threads did
>
> > They went very well, because as I pointed out, on the Scottish thread
> > nobody sided with you and Robert Camp actually seemed to disagree with
> > you on the interpretation of the ONLY documentation that you claimed
> > for the "bait" part of what you call "the bait and switch scam".
>

What is even more to the point, you could have posted some OTHER
evidence in those Scottish threads about the "bait" but you never
did. In post after post after post, the only thing you said about the
bait was that the ONE quote proved the "bait and switch scam was going
down". You kept filling your posts with uncontested stuff about the
switch [but there can ge no scam without bait] and defamatory comments
about me.

> Check out my links back to those threads in my previous response.

I stand by what I wrote. The key claim in Wikipedia was not
referenced, and Wikipedia is not always reliable, even where
references are given. I could show you a real doozy.

[...]

>
> > That alleged "bait" was  that the Discovery Institute (DI)
> > claimed to have its ID science in a form suitable for
> > teaching at the the public school level.
>
> > And I have consistently maintained that the quote of which you are so
> > proud does not come within a country mile of proving that the DI ever
> > made this claim.
> > schools.
>
> It is strange that the ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach
> the bogus junk in the public schools

I gave the "new" documentation you had for his in the first post to
this thread. It is, if anything, even more remote from being a proof
than the first one was.

> and they have never denied
> running the teach ID scam for years

Irrelevant unless you can document someone accusing them and them not
denying it in the face of the accusation. This you have not done.

For all i know, you could be the only person on earth who claims to
have proof that they claimed to have the science ready to teach in the
public schools. Can you document anyone else making that claim?

You keep making a big deal about how I was posting to t.o. in
1995-2001 as though I was supposed to have seen evidence that they
were making that "bait" claim. Yet you have not given one quote, not
one, from all of talk.origins those years which indicated they were
making it.

> before starting to run the bait
> and switch, so what is Nyikos missing?  He can lie about it, but it is
> obvious that he has gotten more than enough evidence that the bait
> and switch has been going down.  

Of a switch if there was bait, sure. Of the bait, only the pathetic
stuff of which I have already posted.

> All he can do is lie about it.

It is you who are lying, by the use of the package deal "bait and
switch".

Remainder deleted, perhaps to be replied to later. The "perhaps" is
explained in my next reply to you.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 24, 10:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

[snip gargantuan piece of almost pure drivel]

You don't seem to realize what a corner you have painted yourself
into, Ron O. I have a *prima facie* case for you being insane in the
link that was already provided in the first post to this thread, and I
have provided an even more direct link a few minutes ago along with
the quote that set this case off.

And so, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR RAY MARTINEZ, whom you have accused
of being insane, I can if I so choose ignore anything you say about
me, until one of the following occurs:

(1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that

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

For the context, see the following post along with the link provided
in it to the post where it originally appeared:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb


or

(2) You document even more clear evidence of Ray Martinez's insanity
than I have provided of yours.

Peter Nyikos

[Ron O]

On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 10:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [snip gargantuan piece of almost pure drivel]

Anyone that knows Nyikos, understands that this is just Nyikos' way of
admitting that he has to run because he is guilty. Look at the piss
ant minor point that Nyikos is going on about to start this thread and
you can understand why he has to swat at dust motes to keep ignoring
the beam in his own eye. This is just typical Nyikos lying and
precvaricating. Anyone with any sense knows from the bogus little
things that Nyikos whines about, that if he could counter something
major he would in a heartbeat. The low life loser lives on trying
pretend that someone else is worse off than he is. That is what makes
his projection so insane.

>
> You don't seem to realize what a corner you have painted yourself
> into, Ron O.  I have a *prima facie* case for you being insane in the
> link that was already provided in the first post to this thread, and I
> have provided an even more direct link a few minutes ago along with
> the quote that set this case off.

Whzt corner did you paint yourself into? What did you snip out? You
brought up the bogus point. Now you have to tell the lie that the ID
perps never ran the teach ID scam or you have to lie about what you
meant about ID being too bogus to teach in the public schools.

>
> And so, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR RAY MARTINEZ, whom you have accused
> of being insane, I can if I so choose ignore anything you say about
> me, until one of the following occurs:

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Do you even know what you are lying about now?

>
> (1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
> that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
>
> "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
>  that the ID science wasn't ready
>  to teach in the public schools."

You can deny that you are trying to do that, but stating what you are
arguing directly. You either have to lie about the ID perps running
the teach ID scam or you have to lie about your own claims about how
you understand that there was no ID science worth teaching. Go for it
and then tell us that I am not spot on. What were you trying to do
when I made that statement? You were prevaricating. Demonstrate that
you were not prevaricating about the issue.

>
> For the context, see the following post along with the link provided
> in it to the post where it originally appeared:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb

See my response to that post.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2848dc624ba00e07

>
> or
>
> (2) You document even more clear evidence of Ray Martinez's insanity
> than I have provided of yours.
>
> Peter Nyikos

When did Nyikos' lying start involving Ray? Nyikos did involve Ray in
his bogus misdirecction ploy, but that was months ago. What was the
point of starting this thread? You will have to write some type of
understandable explanation for this last point. I really do not get
what this has to do with the central issue or you lying about the ID
scam.

Ron Okimoto

[Arkalen]

(2011/09/23 7:39), pnyikos wrote:
> Ron O. has posted an utterly bizarre display of logic that follows
> this format:
>
> (1) Nyikos has admitted that the earth has a moon.
>
> (2) Okimoto has proven that this moon is made of green cheese.
>
> (3) Therefore, Nyikos has admitted that the earth's moon is made of
> green cheese.

If the two premises are true then the conclusion is also true AFAIS.
Granted, Nyikos may not *realize* that his admission implies he agrees
the moon is made of green cheese, but once made aware of Okimoto's proof
he ought to change his mind.

So while the premises are absurd, as displays of logic go it doesn't
seem invalid to me.

>
> Obviously, the above is just for illustrative purposes, to lay out the
> format. Here is how the actual display goes:
>
> (I) Nyikos has admitted that the Discovery Institute (DI) does not
> have its ID science in a form suitable for teaching in the public
> schools.
>
> (II) Okimoto has proven that the DI has claimed to have its ID science
> in that very form.
>
> (III) Therefore, Nyikos has admittted that the DI was lying about
> this.

Again, while Nyikos might not *agree* with (III) if he isn't aware of
(II) or (more relevantly in our case) disagrees with (II), if those
premises are true and agreed upon by all actors the logic doesn't seem
invalid.

So the problem wouldn't be with the logic so much as with the premises.

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

Right, so it isn't the logic you disagree with, it's the premises.
Perfectly reasonable.

[Ron O]

On Sep 26, 3:27 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 10:58 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 2:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 23, 8:18 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > SNIP:
>
> > > > Oh, joy another whining Nyikos thread.
>
> > > If you weren't so pathologically self-righteous, you would know that
> > > by any consistent definition of "whine," you do it many times more
> > > than I do in our exchanges.
>
> > Stating facts is not really whining.
>
> Since my post, to which you have still not posted any kind of direct
> rebuttal, is very factual, you have just now shown that you are both
> whining and lying:

This is a strange a peculiar lie by Nyikos. I had to go and check the
time that the posts were posted. It looks like Nyikos submitted his
two recent posts in this thread at about the same time, they show up
within minutes of each other and his response to my response (that he
is denying that I have made) shows up as being posted before this
post. So it looks like Nyikos knows that I responded to his post, but
for some reason he has to lie about it. It doesn't make sense. I
posted my response before writing this post that Nyikos is responding
to here. I even mention that I have posted the response, but it
hasn't shown up in Google yet further down in this very post, but
Nyikos snipped out that and didn't bother to change this lie. This is
getting so bad that Nyikos is either a moron or he is a pathological
liar.

This is the post that Nyikos claims was not posted. He did respond to
it, so beats me how he can make this claim.

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

Does Nyikos even know what he is arguing?

>
> > Just because you are shown to be
> > such a bogus and dishonest pretender
>
> I wasn't and never have been.

What about the lie that you start this post off with?

It was a lie, right? I can't even figure out why you would lie. You
did snip out the entire response in your bogus reply, but that doesn't
mean that I did not respond to the post. This is the type of bogus
behavior that Nyikos is consistently guilty of. If he snips out the
material then he can pretend that it was never presented. I don't
know how this works in Nyikos' warped mind, but he does it so often
that it is pathologic.

>
> >doesn't make the truth a
> > "whine."  You on the other hand lie and whine.  "Someone is being so
> > unfair to me and lying about me" would be a whine
>
> Lying IS unfair, and you have accused me falsely of lying hundreds of
> times.
>

Nyikos is lying about lying. How lame can you get? There is no doubt
that he is guilty. What is he going to do, ask for documentation?
How many times to I have to put up the documentation? How many times
can Nyikos lie about it? This is sad.

> This post of yours, and the one just before it, are rewriting Usenet
> history (in the Orwellan _1984_ sense) with no attempt at detailed
> justification for the misrepresentations you spew all over the place.
> And in the meantime, you are ignoring the strong evidence that (1) you
> have indulged in pathetically fallacious "logic" and (2) you have
> written something that no sane person would write with everything that
> you saw laid out
> in front of you.  The documentation is  laid out in my reply to "wiki

> trix":http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/47859b3fedb6f5b3?dmod...

>
> And it is even more succinctly and irrefutably laid out in the
> following post in direct reply to you:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb

Lying is still lying, no matter if you lie to Wiki trix or anyone
else. Why not address what I wrote in the post that you claim that I
didn't make?

>
> You wrote,
>
> "Nyikos is trying to deny that he
>  admitted that the ID science wasn't
>  ready to teach in the public schools."
>
> Not only did I never try to deny it, I was admitting it over and over
> again all around this insane clam of yours.

Just state exactly what your argument is here. You either lie about
the ID perps running the teach ID scam or you lie about your
admission. Go for it. Which lie are you going to go with? I have
already put up the evidence of what you have claimed about the ID
science being too bogus to teach in the public schools. You have
stated that several times and I have put up a couple of quotes in
recent posts, so state exactly why you can lie about the teach ID
scam?

>
> [drivel by Ron O. deleted]

Snip and run, but it is all true and if Nyikos could counter wild
horses couldn't stop him. Just look at how lame the point is that
Nyikos is currently trying to make and to make it viable he has to lie
about something. That is sad. If he could counter anything else he
would obviously do it instead of wallow in this mud.

>
> > > >  I have to go to work, but I
> > > > will get to this thread, but I'd just like Nyikos to reflect on how
> > > > well the Dirty debating, Scottish verdict and the misdirection ploy
> > > > threads did
>
> > > They went very well, because as I pointed out, on the Scottish thread
> > > nobody sided with you and Robert Camp actually seemed to disagree with
> > > you on the interpretation of the ONLY documentation that you claimed
> > > for the "bait" part of what you call "the bait and switch scam".
>
> What is even more to the point, you could have posted some OTHER
> evidence in those Scottish threads about the "bait" but you never
> did.  In post after post after post, the only thing you said about the
> bait was that the ONE quote proved the "bait and switch scam was going
> down".  You kept filling your posts with uncontested stuff about the
> switch [but there can ge no scam without bait] and defamatory comments
> about me.
>
> > Check out my links back to those threads in my previous response.

Check out my links. You have to go to my post because Nyikos snipped
out that part in his response. I wonder why?

>
> I stand by what I wrote.  The key claim in Wikipedia was not
> referenced, and Wikipedia is not always reliable, even where
> references are given.  I could show you a real doozy.
>
> [...]

Nyikos got caught lying again. That is the plain and simple truth.

Nyikos ran from the posts and never said anything about references
even when he snipped out the link back to the material. He is only
prevaricating about the junk, now, because he can't deny it any other
way. He lied about never getting the evidence. He has lied
consistently about this topic, and for what reason? The ID perps do
not even deny running the teach ID scam, and Nyikos knows from what
they currently have up on their web site that they are still running
the teach ID scam. He knows that the ID science isn't fit to teach,
but he can't bring himself to face reality. Denial is a lie in itself
in this case.

>
>
>
> > > That alleged "bait" was  that the Discovery Institute (DI)
> > > claimed to have its ID science in a form suitable for
> > > teaching at the the public school level.
>
> > > And I have consistently maintained that the quote of which you are so
> > > proud does not come within a country mile of proving that the DI ever
> > > made this claim.
> > > schools.
>
> > It is strange that the ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach
> > the bogus junk in the public schools
>
> I gave the "new" documentation you had for his in the first post to
> this thread.  It is, if anything, even more remote from being a proof
> than the first one was.

Gee, why didn't you say that before, now you are willing to snip and
lie about this quote too. How does that make you feel? You couldn't
bring yourself to lie about this quote for at least 4 posts where you
just snipped it out, or left it in without any denial of what it
meant. Why lie about the quote now? You are so pathetic that you
can't even stop yourself from passing your own bogus limits on how big
a lie that you can tell yourself. How sad is that?

Really, why start lying about this quote at this time when you have
had plenty of chances to lie about it before? You really can't help
yourself and have to lie. That is sad. Do you know what this means?
Just how low are you willing to go to continue this farce?

>
> > and they have never denied
> > running the teach ID scam for years
>
> Irrelevant unless you can document someone accusing them and them not
> denying it in the face of the accusation.  This you have not done.

This is the insane type of argument that Nyikos employs. He knows
that the ID perps are still running the teach ID scam, and that they
only claim that they never wanted the ID science "mandated" to be
taught, and he can go on like this. The ID perps do not deny that
they ran the teach ID scam. Just ask Pagano or Kalk. Ask any IDiot
that lived through the ID scam and supported it until Ohio in 2002 or
even Dover in 2005.

Did Johnson deny running the teach ID scam? Didn't he only blame the
ID science perps for never coming up with the science that would have
made the scam legit? Where is the denial when they should make such a
denial? Why still claim that the bogus junk can be taught in the
public schools if they want ti deny running the teach ID scam?

>
> For all i know, you could be the only person on earth who claims to
> have proof that they claimed to have the science ready to teach in the
> public schools.  Can you document anyone else making that claim?

Ask anyone around TO. You are the first IDiot that has tried to deny
that the ID perps ran the teach ID scam. They lie about the ID
science and run, they try stupid ploys and run, but you are the first
IDiot that has tried to deny that the teach ID scam has been run. It
is sort of sad that you still do it when you acknowledge above that
you read the documentation that you lied about not getting and what
was part of that documentation? What about the book that the ID perps
wrote in 1999 outlining their plan to get intelligent design into the
public school curriculum? Who did the Ohio rubes call to tell them
what ID science there was to teach?

You are just lying to yourself for some unknown reason. Do you have
any evidence that the ID perps did not run the teach ID scam since the
mid 1990's?

>
> You keep making a big deal about how I was posting to t.o. in
> 1995-2001 as though I was supposed to have seen evidence that they
> were making that "bait" claim.  Yet you have not given one quote, not
> one, from all of talk.origins those years which indicated they were
> making it.

You look up the old intelligent design posts from that time. Go for
it. It should do you good. Look for denials that they are running
the teach ID scam.

>
> > before starting to run the bait
> > and switch, so what is Nyikos missing?  He can lie about it, but it is
> > obvious that he has gotten more than enough evidence that the bait
> > and switch  has been going down.  
>
> Of a switch if there was bait, sure. Of the bait, only the pathetic
> stuff of which I have already posted.

The lies and prevarication just compound, and doesn't get any better
with repetition.

>
> > All he can do is lie about it.
>
> It is you who are lying, by the use of the package deal "bait and
> switch".
>
> Remainder deleted, perhaps to be replied to later.  The "perhaps" is
> explained in my next reply to you.
>
> Peter Nyikos

What lie about the bait and switch? Explain it in plain English. You
on the other hand have had to stoop to lying about a quote that you
couldn't bring yourself to lie about multiple times before. You
couldn't even bring yourself to snip it out and run like you do for
other things that you can't face. How sad is that. Your degeneration
has progressed and not gotten better. You did snip out that quote
from this post and lie about it. How does that realization make you
feel. You have had to go deeper into dishonesty than you were
previously willing to go. Now the limit is even lower than before.
How sad is that?

Who is the habitual liar?

Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

What about that disaster where the breathing tanks of the cattle
malfunctioned and the milk depo exploded? Isn't there still a huge glob
of milk still floating above the moon?

--
*Hemidactylus*
Darwin is daemonic

[pnyikos]

As I wrote in the post to which I am replying here, I am entitled, by
Ron O's own standards, to ignore anything I choose to ignore in future
posts by Ron O unless one of two conditions (spelled out below) are
met. However, I *do* choose to respond to certain things Ron O is
posting below.

On Sep 27, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 10:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip gargantuan piece of almost pure drivel]
>
> Anyone that knows Nyikos, understands that this is just Nyikos' way of
> admitting that he has to run because he is guilty.  

Here Ron O uses the word "admitting" in the same fallaciously
illogical way that one can see illustrated in the first post to this
thread.

NO one who really knows me thinks such things of me. Ron O does NOT
know me and neither does any other participant whom I have ever
encountered in talk.origins. What's more, from what I have seen,
ISTM the only people who "know" me from talk.origins who MIGHT think
that about me are Ron O and "jillery". And I don't think "jillery" is
sufficently unstable mentally to think it.


>Look at the pissant minor point that Nyikos is going on about to start this thread and

> you can understand why he has to swat at dust motes to keep ignoring
> the beam in his own eye.  

All this says is that Ron O is so pathologically self-righteous, he
thinks that (1) a *prima facie* case for him being insane, (2) a piece
of fallacious "logic" a bright six year old can see through and (3) a
completely unsupported slander that would completely discredit me,
were it to be true...

....are all just "motes" in his eye, while a fantasy about that he has
been embellishing ever since we encountered each other constitutes a
"beam" in my eye.


[unsupported "same song, second verse" drivel with no basis in reality
deleted here.]

>
> > You don't seem to realize what a corner you have painted yourself
> > into, Ron O. I have a *prima facie* case for you being insane in the
> > link that was already provided in the first post to this thread, and I
> > have provided an even more direct link a few minutes ago along with
> > the quote that set this case off.
>
> Whzt corner did you paint yourself into?

No corner at all. You like to think you have cornered me hundreds of
times, don't you? Yet every case is as bogus as the lunacy you
posted:

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

Not only did I never try to deny it, I was admitting it over and over

again all around this insane clam of yours, even before you made it.

The only difference is that it takes a lot of digging to refute your
claim that I have painted myself into a corner, whereas any sane adult
who looks at the context can see that there is something seriously
wrong with your claim, strongly suggestive of psychosis:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2

In another reply to this post, I will repost the most relevant
portion.

[unsupported drivel deleted here]

> > And so, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR RAY MARTINEZ, whom you have accused
> > of being insane, I can if I so choose ignore anything you say about
> > me, until one of the following occurs:
>
> What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
>
> Do you even know what you are lying about now?

Unless you are insane, you know it is no lie. Your excuse last year
for running away from a LEGITIMATE November challenge of Martinez was
that he was insane. You are still running from it, even to the extent
of gibbering elsewhere that I shot myself in the foot (or words to
that effect) by starting a thread on the topic of this irresponsible
behavior of yours.

> > (1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
> > that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
>
> > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> > that the ID science wasn't ready
> > to teach in the public schools."

>You either have to lie about the ID perps running
> the teach ID scam

Au contraire, all I have to do is to do what I did right on that
thread: keep telling the truth that I am unconvniced by the miserable
little quote that the "ID perps" [read: the Discovery Institute] are
supposedly using for the "bait" of them being ready to teach the
science of ID on the public school level. I kept doing it on the
thread where you made that insane claim (see url above).

I also told the same truth, and gave reasons for it, in my very first
post to this thread, by the way.

[ridiculous alternative by Ron O deleted; it never entered my mind to
do it]

> > For the context, see the following post along with the link provided
> > in it to the post where it originally appeared:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb
>
> See my response to that post.
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2848dc624ba00e07

Utter bilge, just like all your bilge above. In the post whose url
you are providing, you are in pathological denial of the clear
documentation I am posting there. You make no attempt to justify your
"Nyikos is trying" lunacy and simply refer the reader back to the
thread where your lunacy appeared, making all kinds of unsupported
(and unsupportable) claims about it.

> > or
>
> > (2) You document even more clear evidence of Ray Martinez's insanity
> > than I have provided of yours.

> When did Nyikos' lying start involving Ray?

Never, and I defy you to try and document otherwise.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

See below in my case. You may think it strange that I would take the
trouble to post what I've been posting on this thread, but if Ron O
were to puke all over you for thousands of lines with accusations that
you are a liar, and insane, would you not also try to discredit him?

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

[pnyikos]

On Sep 27, 8:04 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> (2011/09/23 7:39), pnyikos wrote:
> > Ron O. has posted an utterly bizarre display of logic that follows
> > this format:
>
> > (1) Nyikos has admitted that the earth has a moon.
>
> > (2) Okimoto has proven that this moon is made of green cheese.
>
> > (3) Therefore, Nyikos has admitted that the earth's moon is made of
> > green cheese.
>
> If the two premises are true then the conclusion is also true AFAIS.

Only if you use the standard "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" for
(2) AND assume that I have actually seen that proof. No such thing
ever happened in the real-life analogue outlined below. Ron O's
"proof" even fell far short of the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
standard in criminal trials.

I'd like to see you (or anyone reading this) even try to show that it
meets the standard "preponderance of evidence" in civil cases. No one
on the "Scottish" threads, not even Ron O himself, made any such
attempt.

> > Obviously, the above is just for illustrative purposes, to lay out the
> > format.  Here is how the actual display goes:
>
> > (I) Nyikos has admitted that the Discovery Institute (DI) does not
> > have its ID science in a form suitable for teaching in the public
> > schools.
>
> > (II) Okimoto has proven that the DI has claimed to have its ID science
> > in that very form.
>
> > (III) Therefore, Nyikos has admittted that the DI was lying about
> > this.
>
> Again, while Nyikos might not *agree* with (III) if he isn't aware of
> (II) or (more relevantly in our case) disagrees with (II),

I was giving Ron O the benefit of the doubt by assuming this was his
"logic", but the evidence actually tends to show otherwise.

What has actually happened is that I have consistently denied the
analogue of (II) and NO ONE has agreed with (II) besides Ron O
himself, even though there was ample opportunity on the "Scottish"
thread. I believe Ron O was so frustrated by this that he posted the
bare-faced lie that (III) had taken place:

"[Nyikos] admits that the ID perps have been lying
about having the ID science to teach since the very
beginning of the scam."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/36bf8a8bf0ae8571

Were this true, it would instantly discredit scores if not hundreds of
statements of mine that Okimoto has persistently claimed to be
deliberate lies by me, and my credibility (in the objective sense)
would be forever gone in talk.origins. That is why I labeled it a
"vile slander" in my reply.

No wonder Ron O buried it in the middle of a long paragraph in the
middle of a 226 line post full of pure fantasy. I suspect he hoped I
would never notice it, so that he could triumphantly trot it out
months later as something I am supposedly running away from.

> > To see that it follows the same format, you should know that I have
> > consistently maintained that Ron O's evidence for (II) is inadequate
> > (in fact, it is incredibly strained, IMO).  More about this below.
>
> Right, so it isn't the logic you disagree with, it's the premises.
> Perfectly reasonable.

No, one would have to use that "shadow of doubt" standard that
essentially never happens in science.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 27, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>

> > You don't seem to realize what a corner you have painted yourself
> > into, Ron O.  I have a *prima facie* case for you being insane in the
> > link that was already provided in the first post to this thread,

Now, I will actually repost the most relevant part here, so people
reading this thread don't have to look up urls to see the display,
strongly suggestive of mental illness, that I am referring to above.

[snip some things dealt with in my first reply]

> > And so, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR RAY MARTINEZ, whom you have accused
> > of being insane, I can if I so choose ignore anything you say about
> > me, until one of the following occurs:

[snip, for same reason]

> > (1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
> > that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
>
> > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> >  that the ID science wasn't ready
> >  to teach in the public schools."

This appears in context in the repost below.

>
> You can deny that you are trying to do that,

Any sane person would deny it. The repost below should make that
clear.

[snip, for same reason]

> > or
>
> > (2) You document even more clear evidence of Ray Martinez's insanity
> > than I have provided of yours.

And here is my evidence, featuring back-and-forth starting with Ron O:

___________________ begin repost_____________

> > > > > You claimed that the ID science was "premature."
>

> > > > If you really think this "claim" consituted an admission that "the ID
> > > > perps" were lying, you are insane.
>
> > Ron O is so desperate to evade the issue, he next asks a question to
> > which THE VERY NEXT THING was an answer:

And here comes Ron O's comment that is suggestive of full-blown
psychosis:

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

Ron O posts this insane comment in defiance of EVERYTHING that
appears right in front of his very eyes. Already two posts ago, he
was leading up to this insanity with the following question:

> > > So you are claiming that you lied about the ID science being
> > > premature?

And here is that "VERY NEXT THING" that provides the answer to this
question:

> > > > I have consistently claimed that ID science is premature to teach in
> > > > the public schools as a rival to neo-Darwinism.

> > Why would a sane person think I was retracting this based on what I
> > wrote?

Note how even THIS question did not deter Ron O from making the
insane claim that he made above!

[...]

Nor did this deter him from his insane comment:

> > > > If you think that
> > > > this claim of mine constitutes an admission by me that "the ID perps"
> > > > had been lying about being able to teach it in that way, you are
> > > > insane.

================== end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2

Peter Nyikos

[Arkalen]

(2011/09/28 4:07), pnyikos wrote:
> On Sep 27, 8:04 am, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> (2011/09/23 7:39), pnyikos wrote:
>>> Ron O. has posted an utterly bizarre display of logic that follows
>>> this format:
>>
>>> (1) Nyikos has admitted that the earth has a moon.
>>
>>> (2) Okimoto has proven that this moon is made of green cheese.
>>
>>> (3) Therefore, Nyikos has admitted that the earth's moon is made of
>>> green cheese.
>>
>> If the two premises are true then the conclusion is also true AFAIS.
>
> Only if you use the standard "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" for
> (2) AND assume that I have actually seen that proof.

That's what it looked like premise (II) said, but if it doesn't of course...

[pnyikos]

Again I choose to respond to some things, while ignoring what is
basically a version of the standard Ron O fantasy about me that he has
been embellishing since early December.

On Sep 27, 8:21 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 3:27 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 10:58 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 23, 2:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 23, 8:18 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > SNIP:
>
> > > > > Oh, joy another whining Nyikos thread.
>
> > > > If you weren't so pathologically self-righteous, you would know that
> > > > by any consistent definition of "whine," you do it many times more
> > > > than I do in our exchanges.
>
> > > Stating facts is not really whining.
>
> > Since my post, to which you have still not posted any kind of direct
> > rebuttal, is very factual, you have just now shown that you are both
> > whining and lying:
>
> This is a strange a peculiar lie by Nyikos.  I

It is nothing of the sort. Ron O has missed, or pretended to miss,
the meaning of the term "direct rebuttal". As usual, he thinks, or
pretends to think, that slapping on a mountain of crud in response to
what I wrote constitutes a "direct rebuttal."

These mountains of crud are part of Ron O's *modus operandi* whenever
his false or misleading claims are challenged. He apparently hopes
that no one will wade through the mountains to see that he really
isn't providing a direct rebuttal.


[crud about the following post deleted]

> This is the post that Nyikos claims was not posted.

The above is Ron O's infantile interpretation of the words "direct
rebuttal" providing the GI (Garbage In) to go with the following GO
(Garbage Out):

> He did respond to
> it, so beats me how he can make this claim.

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

> > > Just because you are shown to be
> > > such a bogus and dishonest pretender
>
> > I wasn't and never have been.
>
> What about the lie that you start this post off with?

More GO to go with the above GI.

[...]

>
> > >doesn't make the truth a
> > > "whine."  You on the other hand lie and whine.  "Someone is being so
> > > unfair to me and lying about me" would be a whine
>
> > Lying IS unfair, and you have accused me falsely of lying hundreds of
> > times.
>
> Nyikos is lying about lying.

Ron O makes no real attempt to show any lies except the bogus example
above.

> How lame can you get?  There is no doubt
> that he is guilty.  What is he going to do, ask for documentation?
> How many times to I have to put up the documentation?

Your "documentation" has always been as bogus as the "documentation"
for your insane comment,
[snip to get to comment]

> > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he
> >  admitted that the ID science wasn't
> >  ready to teach in the public schools."
>
> > Not only did I never try to deny it, I was admitting it over and over
> > again all around this insane clam of yours.

[snip something I already dealt with
in http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b89bcf3bd80bd9dc]

> > [drivel by Ron O. deleted]
>
> Snip and run, but it is all true and if Nyikos could counter wild
> horses couldn't stop him.

Only lack of time stops me, together with the suspicion that you are
just trying to intimidate the readership into never attacking you.
["See, if you snip ANYTHING of mine I will puke all over you until you
deal with it. And so you will be forever trapped with having to deal
with endless drivel of mine."]

[...]

> > > > >  I have to go to work, but I
> > > > > will get to this thread, but I'd just like Nyikos to reflect on how
> > > > > well the Dirty debating, Scottish verdict and the misdirection ploy
> > > > > threads did
>
> > > > They went very well, because as I pointed out, on the Scottish thread
> > > > nobody sided with you and Robert Camp actually seemed to disagree with
> > > > you on the interpretation of the ONLY documentation that you claimed
> > > > for the "bait" part of what you call "the bait and switch scam".
>
> > What is even more to the point, you could have posted some OTHER
> > evidence in those Scottish threads about the "bait" but you never
> > did.  In post after post after post, the only thing you said about the
> > bait was that the ONE quote proved the "bait and switch scam was going
> > down".  You kept filling your posts with uncontested stuff about the
> > switch [but there can ge no scam without bait] and defamatory comments
> > about me.

Ron O had NO evidence to counter this, just a lame suggestion (not
even a claim) that evidence exists somewhere in the links.

> > > Check out my links back to those threads in my previous response.
>
> Check out my links.

[...]

> > > It is strange that the ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach
> > > the bogus junk in the public schools
>
> > I gave the "new" documentation you had for his in the first post to
> > this thread.  It is, if anything, even more remote from being a proof
> > than the first one was.
>
> Gee, why didn't you say that before,

Because it was there in the first post for all to read.

>Now you are willing to snip and

> lie about this quote too.  

This kind of insanity is getting more and more common: Okimoto acts as
though just snipping a quote and then saying something about it later
constitutes lying about it.

[snip drivel with NO attempt to show that the description of the quote
is WRONG, let alone a lie]

Continued in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Ron O gives a nice lengthy illustration of Einstein's quote about
"Insanity" below.

On Sep 27, 8:21 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 3:27 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 10:58 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

[about the Discovery Institute (DI):]

> > > and they have never denied
> > > running the teach ID scam for years
>
> > Irrelevant unless you can document someone accusing them and them not
> > denying it in the face of the accusation. This you have not done.
>
> This is the insane type of argument that Nyikos employs. He knows
> that the ID perps are still running the teach ID scam,

This is a variation on a vile slander that I told Arkalen about. I
know no such thing, inasmuch as without the bait there is no scam.
[I've lost count how many times I've told this to Ron O.]

> The ID perps do not deny that
> they ran the teach ID scam. Just ask Pagano or Kalk.

Will they document something you seem totally unable to document? See
my airtight reasoning, "Irrelevant unless..." above.

You are helpless in the face of that reasoning; you can only repeat
your pitiful claim that they never denied it.


[variations on the same pitiful claim deleted]

> > For all i know, you could be the only person on earth who claims to
> > have proof that they claimed to have the science ready to teach in the
> > public schools. Can you document anyone else making that claim?

No documentation provided, just another variation on that pitiful
claim:

> Ask anyone around TO.

[...]

> > You keep making a big deal about how I was posting to t.o. in
> > 1995-2001 as though I was supposed to have seen evidence that they
> > were making that "bait" claim. Yet you have not given one quote, not
> > one, from all of talk.origins those years which indicated they were
> > making it.

Nor can you give one now. You just keep on with the same pathetic "no
denial" bit:

> You look up the old intelligent design posts from that time. Go for
> it. It should do you good. Look for denials that they are running
> the teach ID scam.

"Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein

> > > before starting to run the bait
> > > and switch, so what is Nyikos missing? He can lie about it, but it is
> > > obvious that he has gotten more than enough evidence that the bait
> > > and switch has been going down.
>
> > Of a switch if there was bait, sure. Of the bait, only the pathetic
> > stuff of which I have already posted.
>
> The lies and prevarication just compound, and doesn't get any better
> with repetition.

No attempt even now to argue for the efficacy of those few quotes.
Just a bunch of "Garbage Out" to go with the implicit "Garbage In"
that they prove that the bait existed beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yet, just look at how tenaciously Ron O clung to his pathetic "no
denial" bit here; is this really all he has by way of persuasion?

It sure looks that way.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

> See my response to that post.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2848dc624ba00e07

>
>
>
> > or
>
> > (2) You document even more clear evidence of Ray Martinez's insanity
> > than I have provided of yours.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> When did Nyikos' lying start involving Ray?  Nyikos did involve Ray in
> his bogus misdirecction ploy, but that was months ago.  What was the
> point of starting this thread?  You will have to write some type of
> understandable explanation for this last point.  I really do not get
> what this has to do with the central issue or you lying about the ID
> scam.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Peter Nyikos accepts all the major claims of ToE, Ron. Treating him
like you do any given Creationist clearly shows your evolutionism is
no different from Dawkins. All you do is evade, distort, misrepresent,
and equivocate like any given Atheist. Your schtick, when replying to
Peter, assumes inerrancy. Peter Nyikos, an Evolutionist, proves you
are a rotten person with bad intentions every time you log on to post.

Ray (Paleyan IDist)

[Ron O]

On Sep 27, 1:46 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> As I wrote in the post to which I am replying here, I am entitled, by
> Ron O's own standards, to ignore anything I choose to ignore in future
> posts by Ron O unless one of two conditions (spelled out below) are
> met.  However, I *do* choose to respond to certain things Ron O is
> posting below.

Again, this is just Nyikos admitting that he can't deny the facts and
has to run. Just look at the type of argument that Nyikos is trying
to make in this thread. If he could counter about his real bogus
behavior he would in a heartbeat. There is no question that he is
running from reality. Just the bogus junk that he is stuck with
arguing about should tell anyone that.

Really, why start a thread like this if Nyikos wasn't getting his butt
kicked everywhere else? What is the point of this thread?

>
> On Sep 27, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 10:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > [snip gargantuan piece of almost pure drivel]
>
> > Anyone that knows Nyikos, understands that this is just Nyikos' way of
> > admitting that he has to run because he is guilty.  
>
> Here Ron O uses the word "admitting" in the same fallaciously
> illogical way that one can see illustrated in the first post to this
> thread.

There is no denial of reality. This is your way of admitting that you
are guilty. You even claim such. What about your argument where you
claim that if you have snipped out the material that, that doesn't
mean that you understand it or agree with it? Why snip it out? Why
not admit that you don't understand it, or say what you do not
understand about it? You obviously snip it out so that you can lie to
yourself that it doesn't really mean what it means.

>
> NO one who really knows me thinks such things of me.  Ron O does NOT
> know me and neither does any other participant whom I have ever
> encountered in talk.origins.  What's more, from what I have seen,
> ISTM the only people who "know" me from talk.origins  who MIGHT think
> that about me are Ron O and "jillery".  And I don't think "jillery" is
> sufficently unstable mentally to think it.

You've told me that if you snip it out that, that doesn't mean that
you understood what was written. That is just running. If you don't
understand something or you do not agree with it, why not state your
specific disagreement or say what you do not understand about it. You
are just running. In your pathetic mind this means that you can keep
lying about it.

>
> >Look at the pissant minor point that Nyikos is going on about to start this thread and
> > you can understand why he has to swat at dust motes to keep ignoring
> > the beam in his own eye.  
>
> All this says is that Ron O is so pathologically self-righteous, he
> thinks that (1) a *prima facie* case for him being insane, (2) a piece
> of fallacious "logic" a bright six year old can see through and (3) a
> completely unsupported slander that would completely discredit me,
> were it to be true...

What is the point of this thread? It isn't self-righteous to state
the obvious. You are just projecting again because what kind of
person would start a thread like this over a point as stupid as the
one that you are arguing. Compared to what you are running from what
difference does this point make? You either lie about your claims
that there is no intelligent design science worth teaching in the
public schools or you lie about the ID perps running the teach ID scam
when the ID perps do not deny doing it and they are still claiming to
be able to do it. Isn't that stupid? What is that compared to you
starting the dirty debating thread and demanding that I address your
bogus claims there when you just made up the junk and it turned out to
be you that was the dirty debater. I do not make this junk up. Just
go back to the posts that you are running from and defend your bogus
deeds.

Isn't this just more projection on your part. What twit is stupid and
self-righteous enough to start threads like this when they know for a
fact that they are guilty of much worse. Who started the dirty
debating thread when they knew that they were the jerk that started
the misdirection thread to run from a previous thread? Who started
the Scottish verdict thread knowing that they were the jerk for
starting the dirty debating thread? Who will likely start another
thread when the lies get too deep in this thread and there are too
many posts to run from?

Projection is a sign of insanity.

>
> ....are all just "motes" in his eye, while a fantasy about that he has
> been embellishing ever since we encountered each other constitutes a
> "beam" in my eye.
>
> [unsupported "same song, second verse" drivel with no basis in reality
> deleted here.]

Nyikos lying to himself again. Nyikos' reality is so bogus that he
has to pretend that everything isn't what it is. As long as he snips
it out he can tell himself that it doesn't exist.

>
>
>
> > > You don't seem to realize what a corner you have painted yourself
> > > into, Ron O. I have a *prima facie* case for you being insane in the
> > > link that was already provided in the first post to this thread, and I
> > > have provided an even more direct link a few minutes ago along with
> > > the quote that set this case off.
>
> > Whzt corner did you paint yourself into?
>
> No corner at all.  You like to think you have cornered me hundreds of
> times, don't you?  Yet every case is as bogus as the lunacy you
> posted:
>
> "Nyikos is trying to deny that he
>  admitted that the ID science wasn't
>  ready to teach in the public schools."
>
> Not only did I never try to deny it, I was admitting it over and over
> again all around this insane clam of yours, even before you made it.
>
> The only difference is that it takes a lot of digging to refute your
> claim that I have painted myself into a corner, whereas any sane adult
> who looks at the context can see that there is something seriously
> wrong with your claim, strongly suggestive of psychosis:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2

More projection on Nyikos's part it would be hilarious if it wasn't so
stupid and insane. What are you running from in the other thread?
What do you have to keep snipping out and making bogus claims about?
You don't have to dig very much to know that ID is just a scam. You
know that there isn't any ID science worth teaching and all you have
to do is go to the ID perps web site and observe them continuing to
claim that they can teach the bogus junk. What have you been trying
to deny in the Scottish verdict thread? Why did you have to lie about
never getting other evidence in the Dirty debating thread? What kind
of digging do you have to do? Shouldn't the denial be in black and
white on the ID perp's web page? What do you find there instead?

I'd put in the links, but you just snip them out and run, so go back
to the posts that you are running from and address the evidence.

>
> In another reply to this post, I will repost the most relevant
> portion.
>
> [unsupported drivel deleted here]

What is unsupported. To defend your current claim don't you have to
lie about what the ID perps have been doing? Go for it. State
exactly what your argument is. What was the statement about in
context? You have to either deny that the ID perps ran the teach ID
scam or you have to lie about your claims that it was a bogus scam
because there never was any ID science to teach. It is obvious that
the ID perps ran the teach ID scam. They are still running it. You
only have baseless denial and can't come up with any ID perp denial
that they ran the scam. All you have is them running the scam. So
what is your argument?

>
> > > And so, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR RAY MARTINEZ, whom you have accused
> > > of being insane, I can if I so choose ignore anything you say about
> > > me, until one of the following occurs:
>
> > What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
>
> > Do you even know what you are lying about now?
>
> Unless you are insane, you know it is no lie.  Your excuse last year
> for running away from a LEGITIMATE November challenge of Martinez was
> that he was insane.  You are still running from it, even to the extent
> of gibbering  elsewhere that I shot myself in the foot (or words to
> that effect) by starting a thread on the topic of this irresponsible
> behavior of yours.

Are we back to the misdirection ploy? You are the one that was
running. Go for it go back to the thread and defend your actions.
Really, put up a single example of where I could not validate any such
claim that I have made to you. Why wouldn't I be able to validate
that claim? What was the claim? You have read the Dover transcripts
so you probably know the facts, so what are you trying to claim that I
am running from? I tried and failed to get you to go back to what you
were running from. Isn't it tragic that you never hopped to it like
you told me to do when you claimed that there was not evidence of
Meyer running the bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes? Isn't it
sad that you ran from that evidence. Isn't it even sadder that when
you were confronted by the evidence when I pasted it into another post
that instead of addressing the evidence you snipped out the quote and
link that specifically stated that Meyer ran the bait and switch and
gave the Ohio rubes the switch scam instead of any ID science to
teach? Isn't it even sadder that when the material was pasted in a
again and you were called on your bogus behavior that you snipped out
the same material and lied about it again? When confronted by your
bogus actions who ran? Who could do that?

That isn't even all that you were running from. You never addressed
the material or I would have gone back and put up the evidence for my
claim, but instead you kept running and I had to keep rubbing your
face in an obvious bogus and dishonest misdirection ploy. You weren't
even participating in the thread that Ray's post came from. It was
weeks old when you tried the ploy the first time. It wasn't even
about what you were running from. You are just sad.

>
> > > (1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
> > > that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
>
> > > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> > > that the ID science wasn't ready
> > > to teach in the public schools."
> >You either have to lie about the ID perps running
> > the teach ID scam
>
> Au contraire, all I have to do is to do what I did right on that
> thread: keep telling the truth that I am unconvniced by the miserable
> little quote that   the "ID perps" [read: the Discovery Institute] are
> supposedly using for the "bait" of them being ready to teach the
> science of ID on the public school level.  I kept doing it on the
> thread where you made that insane claim (see url above).

So address the quote. Address the other material. Baseless denial
doesn't do much.

Just state where in the statement that they claim to have a scientific
theory of intelligent design to teach in the public schools that they
claim that it isn't ready to teach? You are just making that junk up,
because it is nowhere in the official statement. It is not in the
quote that I put up, nor in the rest of the statement on what can be
taught in the public schools.

If you go back to those thread all you will see is you snipping and
running and more stupid denial. Where is the evidence that the ID
perps are claiming that ID isn't ready to teach in the public schools
in the pamphlet that the Scottish verdict thread was about or in the
official statement about teaching ID at the Discovery Institute web
site?

Just go up to my response in this thread and the links back to the
threads that you have snipped out:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26?hl=en

>
> I also told the same truth, and gave reasons for it, in my very first
> post to this thread, by the way.
>
> [ridiculous alternative by Ron O deleted; it never entered my mind to
> do it]

Run. Does it matter? What was your alternative. State it directly
and then argue why you can deny reality. Go for it. Why run instead?

>
> > > For the context, see the following post along with the link provided
> > > in it to the post where it originally appeared:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb

So what is your argument? Can you defend it in the face of reality?
Go for it. Go up to this post and state exactly what your argument is
and defend it. Do not snip and go into stupid denial, but defend the
argument. What lie do you have to maintain? Isn't it stupid to deny
that the ID perps claimed to teach the bogus junk when they do not
deny doing it and they are still doing it? Why did you have to lie
about getting other evidence? Why whimper about the evidence not
being good enough when you claimed that it was never given, but it was
provided multiple times? Why is the other evidence even required when
you have the ID perp's current claims about teaching the junk in the
public schools?

> > See my response to that post.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2848dc624ba00e07
>
> Utter bilge, just like all your bilge above.  In the post whose url
> you are providing, you are in pathological denial of the clear
> documentation I am posting there.  You make no attempt to justify your
> "Nyikos is trying" lunacy and simply refer the reader back to the
> thread where your lunacy appeared, making all kinds of unsupported
> (and unsupportable) claims about it.

What documentation? What in your links supports your position? State
your argument. Can you defend it?

>
> > > or
>
> > > (2) You document even more clear evidence of Ray Martinez's insanity
> > > than I have provided of yours.
> > When did Nyikos' lying start involving Ray?
>
> Never, and I defy you to try and document otherwise.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Why bring Ray into this? What was your point?

What Nyikos snipped out:

QUOTE:

When did Nyikos' lying start involving Ray? Nyikos did involve Ray
in
his bogus misdirecction ploy, but that was months ago. What was the
point of starting this thread? You will have to write some type of
understandable explanation for this last point. I really do not get
what this has to do with the central issue or you lying about the ID
scam.

END QUOTE:

Does Nyikos even know what he writes? I guess that since he snipped
and ran that he never really had any valid point to make that included
Ray.

Ron Okimoto

[pnyikos]

On Sep 28, 7:45 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 1:46 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > As I wrote in the post to which I am replying here, I am entitled, by
> > Ron O's own standards, to ignore anything I choose to ignore in future
> > posts by Ron O unless one of two conditions (spelled out below) are
> > met.  However, I *do* choose to respond to certain things Ron O is
> > posting below.

Ron O opens with a typically grotesque misrepresentation:

> Again, this is just Nyikos admitting that he can't deny the facts and
> has to run.

Apply that formula to your own cowardly flight, close to a whole year
long by now, from Ray Martinez's post. It is that piece of cowardice,
justified by the undocumented claim that Matinez is insane, that I am
now drawing on to justify ignoring what I choose to ignore of what you
wrote.

One difference is that I am a lot more fair about it than you are.
Unlike you, I WILL respond to legitimate requests by anyone except you
to deal with anything I snipped out. And to qualify as "legitimate,"
all the requester has to do is give a brief reason for why [s]he
thinks I ought to respond, and to promise to read my rebuttal.

> Just look at the type of argument that Nyikos is trying
> to make in this thread.

"trying to"--what a laugh! You cannot counter the evidence of your
insanity. In fact, you have obligingly added to that evidence on the
thread where you first made your insane comment,

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

I spent a good part of 307 lines just showing how you are adding to
that insanity. That post, and another to that same thread just before
it, are still unanswered by you. The url from the other one goes:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/56598d6448cfb8c5

The closing paragraphs in this one are especially worth quoting:

Thanks for documenting that I posted "as a competitor..." and thus
strengthening my case for you LYING when you used the word
"nothing" when you claimed just now that I admitted that there
was "nothing worth teaching about ID in the public schools".

You went on shooting yourself in the foot, as my next reply
will make clear.

And here is the url for the next reply, where I documented how you
strengthened the evidence for you being insane:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/03ccf700cf3f87b6

[...]

> Really, why start a thread like this if Nyikos wasn't getting his butt
> kicked everywhere else?  What is the point of this thread?

More evidence of insanity, since the "everywhere else" to which you
are so bizarrely referring has been one solitary thread for the last
two or three months -- the very thread where those two thus-far-
unanswered posts of two days ago appear!!

The point of this thread is to show the readership what an insane
slanderer and hypocrite you are.
The reason I started a new thread for it was that the other thread had
degenerated into back-and-forth between us, and AFAIK no one but us
and Ernest Major had been following it.

>
>
> > On Sep 27, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 24, 10:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > [snip gargantuan piece of almost pure drivel]
>
> > > Anyone that knows Nyikos, understands that this is just Nyikos' way of
> > > admitting that he has to run because he is guilty.  
>
> > Here Ron O uses the word "admitting" in the same fallaciously
> > illogical way that one can see illustrated in the first post to this
> > thread.
>
> There is no denial of reality.  This is your way of admitting that you
> are guilty.  

A contemptible falsehood, itself suggestive of insanity.

>You even claim such.

This looks like more insanity, coupled with a failure to grasp just
why your use of "admitted" is fallaciously illogical.

> What about your argument where you
> claim that if you have snipped out the material that, that doesn't
> mean that you understand it or agree with it?

Where do you get the "understand it' part? That doesn't ring a bell
with me. I probably said something quite different.

> Why snip it out?

The 307 figure up there should give you a clue. It was one of two
posts in which I replied to a 509 line post by you, and even so, I had
to snip a bunch out.

> Why
> not admit that you don't understand it, or say what you do not
> understand about it?  You obviously snip it out so that you can lie to
> yourself that it doesn't really mean what it means.

What a deluded person you are!

Remainder of Ron O's 321 line post deleted. I think this reply of
mine still has a chance of being seen in its entirety in Google while
the other posts around it are still visible. His 321 line post didn't
make the grade.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 28, 7:45 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 1:46 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > As I wrote in the post to which I am replying here, I am entitled, by
> > Ron O's own standards, to ignore anything I choose to ignore in future
> > posts by Ron O unless one of two conditions (spelled out below) are
> > met.  However, I *do* choose to respond to certain things Ron O is
> > posting below.

> > >Look at the pissant minor point that Nyikos is going on about to start this thread and
> > > you can understand why he has to swat at dust motes to keep ignoring
> > > the beam in his own eye.  

This inspired a "lexicon entry" below.

> > All this says is that Ron O is so pathologically self-righteous, he
> > thinks that (1) a *prima facie* case for him being insane, (2) a piece
> > of fallacious "logic" a bright six year old can see through and (3) a
> > completely unsupported slander that would completely discredit me,
> > were it to be true...

[moved from far below, with a mass of bilge from Ron O intervening:]

> > ....are all just "motes" in his eye, while a fantasy about that he has
> > been embellishing ever since we encountered each other constitutes a
> > "beam" in my eye.

[Don't go away yet, folks: I will be dealing with most of that mass of
bilge below, after a brief break.]

I think it's time to start a Ron O Lexicon, begining with:

hypocrite, n.

(1) Nyikos, ignoring the mote in his eye while calling on Ron O to
remove the beam in his eye.

(2) Ron O, calling on Nyikos to remove the mote from his eye while
ignoring the Giant Sequoia in his eye.

(3) Nyikos, straining out a camel and swallowing a gnat.

(4) Ron O, straining out a gnat and swallowing a herd of camels.

Reference: The Gospel According to Matthew

> What is the point of this thread?  It isn't self-righteous to state
> the obvious.

It is increasingly obvious that you are insane, a hypocrite, and a
pathological liar. Your foes might call me "self-righteous" for
amassing evidence of that, but as you said, it isn't self-righteous to

state the obvious.

> You are just projecting again because what kind of
> person would start a thread like this over a point as stupid as the
> one that you are arguing.

See "lexicon" entry above for Ron O's own warped scale of things.
Even now, he makes no attempt to deny the gravity of (1), (2) and (3)
above, nor their validity.

> Compared to what you are running from what
> difference does this point make?  

I am not running from anything, twit. What you are talking about
below is something I have already addressed, both on this thread and
the one you falsely (and perhaps insanely) claim I am running from.
Fact is, there are right now two unaswered posts of mine at the end of
the thread you claim I am running from, documented in my previous
reply to this post.

> You either lie about your claims
> that there is no intelligent design science worth teaching in the
> public schools

Like a similar thing you wrote on that other thread, this goes beyond
what I actually said. See the quote I gave in my reply of about half
an hour ago (to this same 321 line post of yours), from that other
thread, complete with url. In it, I thanked you for posting
documentation which provides evidence that you were lying in your use
of the word "nothing."

[remainder of bogus argument, already dealt with in another reply on
this thread, deleted]

And now we see again how insignificant the UNCHALLENGED (1) (2) and
(3) above appear in the eyes of Ron O:

>What is that compared to you
> starting the dirty debating thread and demanding that I address your
> bogus claims there when you just made up the junk

False. I documented dirty debating tricks, first by one of your fans
and then by you.

> and it turned out to
> be you that was the dirty debater.

No such thing turned out.

> I do not make this junk up.

You are so vague, nobody unfamiliar with that thread can tell what the
hell you are talking about.

There is nothing unusual about this; in fact, the vast majority of
things I snip are either repetions of earlier stuff which I have
addressed, or accusations so vague that only a mentally unstable
person like you would claim about it, "If Nyikos could refute this he
would do it in a heartbeat."

> Isn't this just more projection on your part.  What twit is stupid and
> self-righteous enough to start threads like this when they know for a
> fact that they are guilty of much worse.  

I bid you adieu for the nonce, with this latest demonstration that I
was apparently quite accurate in assessing your scale of values in
that "definition" of "hypocrite".

Peter Nyikos

[Ron O]

On Sep 27, 2:12 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

It looks like Nyikos is posting like a hamster on crack. Everyone
should get a laugh out of Nyikos' claim that he was going to limit his
posts to me to (what was it?) once a week. He has broken that vow off
and on, but this is out of the ordinary even for Nyikos.

You have to understand why Nyikos started this thread. It was because
he had to run from what he had done in other threads. This is no
slanderous claim. It is just the facts. There are many posts that
Nyikos has run from over the past 9 months. Before starting this
spree he got caught lying about several things in the Dirty debating
thread, and when I reminded him that there were some responses to
Nyikos' posts that he is running from he pulled up this weird minor
point from a post that he had already responded to rather than face
the bogus things that he had done and was running from over the past
months.

These are the recent posts that sparked this current round of creating
a new thread and running.

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

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

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

Really, he got caught quote mining and lying about not getting the
evidence of the ID perps running the teach ID scam and he has to pull
out something from several posts back (really into April) to make up
some argument. It is even a stupid argument because he has to lie
about what he obviously meant by "premature" or he has to again lie
about the evidence that the ID perps ran the teach ID scam. What is
sad is that the ID perps do not deny running the teach ID scam and
they are still running the scam on their current web page. Why should
Nyikos make the denial for them? The rash of posts started once
Nyikos crossed the line and started lying about what the ID perps had
on their current web page. For months he has been silent and had just
run from acknowledging the quote. He could not bring himself to lie
about it like he does for the Scottish verdict thread quote, but once
the lies started and Nyikos crossed his own bogus barrier to what he
could stand lying about we have half a dozen posts in a couple of days
when Nyikos had claimed that he was only going to post one a week to
me. He keeps breaking that limit and it is one of the reasons why
there are so many unanswered posts by Nyikos. He has used that limit
to run from the bogus posts that he does make. Any one can just check
out the facts.

>
> > > You don't seem to realize what a corner you have painted yourself
> > > into, Ron O.  I have a *prima facie* case for you being insane in the
> > > link that was already provided in the first post to this thread,
>
> Now, I will actually repost the most relevant part here, so people
> reading this thread don't have to look up urls to see the display,
> strongly suggestive of mental illness, that I am referring to above.
>
> [snip some things dealt with in my first reply]
>
> > > And so, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR RAY MARTINEZ, whom you have accused
> > > of being insane, I can if I so choose ignore anything you say about
> > > me, until one of the following occurs:

What standards are these? Why drag Ray into this? Ray wasn't the one
that lied and got caught. Ray isn't the one that quote mined Camp and
got caught. Ray isn't the one that started all your threads to run
from your dishonest deeds. Ray isn't the one that was the dirty
debater in that thread.

>
> [snip, for same reason]
>
> > > (1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
> > > that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
>
> > > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> > >  that the ID science wasn't ready
> > >  to teach in the public schools."
>
> This appears in context in the repost below.

Not really, you have to go back further for the context. Nyikos only
takes it to the post where he manipulated the quote and snipped out
what he couldn't deal with. It comes from a post from April:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/36bf8a8bf0ae8571?hl=en+b97e1564472c17d

Anyone that reads this quote in context will understand that I am
using it the same way that I have consistently defended this
statement. Really, in this post I am taking Nyikos to task about
lying about the ID perps running the teach ID scam.

The quote comes from this paragraph that is a summary of the arguments
that I made to Nyikos' post. You can see that it comes at the end of
Nyikos' posted material if you go back to the original post and that I
put up an extensive argument about what I was claiming.

QUOTE:
This is the official download site. It is unambiguous who is
responsible for the pamphlet in question and the reason that the
pamphlet was written. Nyikos is just prevaricating about it for a
stupid reason that only Nyikos knows. He admits that the ID perps

have been lying about having the ID science to teach since the very

beginning of the scam. He tried to snip and pretend that the Johnson
quote never existed, and then lied about it when he had to finally
confront the fact that even the ring leaders of the ID scam knew that
they never had the ID science to teach. He has to lie about the
Discovery Institute ID perps ever claiming to be able to teach their
bogus science of intelligent design when even the ID perps do not
deny
that they made such a claim. They only claim that they never wanted
the bogus "premature" ID science mandated to be taught even though
they admit that they targeted legislators and school boards to get ID
taught.
END QUOTE:

It is just a fact. There is so much evidence against Nyikos' bogus
claims that he really is admitting that the ID perps scammed the rubes
by running the teach ID scam. He can't come up with any evidence that
the ID perps did not run the teach ID scam and all the evidence points
one way. He just has to lie about the evidence and pretend that his
acknowledgement that there is no ID science to teach in the public
schools isn't such a condemnation.

Really, anyone just has to read the part of the post that leads up to
this quote and the summary paragraph. Nyikos didn't catch me doing
anything except exposing what a bogus prevaricator that he is.

> > You can deny that you are trying to do that,
>
> Any sane person would deny it.   The repost below should make that
> clear.
>
> [snip, for same reason]
>
> > > or
>
> > > (2) You document even more clear evidence of Ray Martinez's insanity
> > > than I have provided of yours.
>
> And here is my evidence, featuring back-and-forth starting with Ron O:
>
> ___________________ begin repost_____________
>
> > > > > > You claimed that the ID science was "premature."

This comes from my post from Aug 23 where Nyikos first pulled the
above quote out of context from the April post. I was just reminding
Nyikos of what he had previously claimed about the bogus "premature"
ID science after he put up the quote from above, and what his
admission means in the face of reality.

>
> > > > > If you really think this "claim" consituted an admission that "the ID
> > > > > perps" were lying, you are insane.
>
> > > Ron O is so desperate to evade the issue, he next asks a question to
> > > which THE VERY NEXT THING was an answer:
>
> And here comes Ron O's comment that is suggestive of full-blown
> psychosis:
>
> > Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted that the ID science wasn't
> > ready to teach in the public schools.
>
> Ron O posts this insane comment  in defiance of EVERYTHING that
> appears right in front of his very eyes.  Already two posts ago, he
> was leading up to this insanity with the following question:
>
> > > > So you are claiming that you lied about the ID science being
> > > > premature?
>
> And here is that "VERY NEXT THING" that provides the answer to this
> question:
>
> > > > >  I have consistently claimed that ID science is premature to teach in
> > > > > the public schools as a rival to neo-Darwinism.
> > > Why would a sane person think I was retracting this based on what I
> > > wrote?
>
> Note how even THIS question did not deter Ron O from making the
> insane claim that he made above!

Let us see the exchange without all of Nyikos' manipulations:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1b500f91673709eb?hl=en



START EXTENDED QUOTE:

So you are claiming that you lied about the ID science being
premature?

> I have consistently claimed that ID science is premature to teach in

> the public schools as a rival to neo-Darwinism. If you think that

> this claim of mine constitutes an admission by me that "the ID perps"
> had been lying about being able to teach it in that way, you are
> insane.

You know that they had nothing to teach, so you know that they were
and are still lying about being able to teach the lame premature ID
science. What does "Has ID been banned from the public schools?
No."
mean? So you know that they are lying about being able to teach the
junk.

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

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

Who wrote this quote? You have been lying about what this quote
means
for months.

> However, until you either retract what you wrote or admit to being
> insane, I will continue to characterize what you wrote as a vile
> slander.


Retract what? You have just admitted that you know that the ID perps
are lying about being able to teach the science of intelligent design
to public school kids. There is nothing to detract until you can
come
up with the evidence that they did not claim to be able to teach the
junk. You can't find where they deny it. You can even go to their
current web page and they don't deny it and still claim that some
poor
rube teacher can teach the junk. Really, put up where they deny that
they sold the rubes the lie that they had the ID science to teach.
You can't find such a denial because even the ID perps don't deny
what
they did. They only lie about never wanting the ID junk mandated or
required to be taught. This is not a denial that they advocated
teaching ID. It is just their way of blaming the IDiot rubes for
their own bad behavior.

You are the most pathetic academic that I have ever encountered on
TO. That is a fact. You have lied so often that you have been lying
about lying. You are now making excuses and running instead of
owning
up to your pathetic behavior. Just check out what you are running
from. I didn't make up any of it. You did it all and you know it.
You have consistently lied about what you call the central issue.
You
have tried really bogus and dishonest tricks to worm your way out of
accepting reality, and for what purpose? Lying about someone else is
your most pathetic ploy. Does it make you feel better about how
bogus
you are if you can lie to yourself about other people? Stop running
and lying and address the issues in a legitimate fashion. What you
have done so far is so pathetic that I can't imagine how anyone could
even lie to themselves that it was legitimate.
END EXTENDED QUOTE:



Don't lie about the Scottish verdict quote being the only evidence.
You got the Wedge document, you got the material that told you that
Meyer ran the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes personally, but you
snipped and ran. What did the Ohio rubes want to teach in the public
schools? Who did they call in to tell them about the wonderful ID
science that they wanted to teach? Who wrote the book about
intelligent design in the public school science curriculum? What are
you running from in the Sept 4th links above? What does all this mean
when you have admitted that the ID perps never had the ID science to
teach in the public schools?

What about the Discovery Institute's claims on their current web
site? Why do you have to lie about the fact that the ID perps are
still running the teach ID scam and they have never denied running the
teach ID scam? Why make such a stupid denial for the ID perps when
they won't make the denial themselves and there is so much evidence
that they are guilty? Don't you really need some evidence that they
did not run the teach ID scam? Ask Pagano about it or Kalk. Check
out the ID perp web site.

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

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

>

> [...]
>
> Nor did this deter him from his insane comment:
>
> > > > > If you think   that
> > > > > this  claim of mine constitutes an admission by me that "the ID perps"
> > > > > had been lying about being able to teach it in that way, you are
> > > > > insane.
>
> ================== end of excerpt
> fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2
>
>  Peter Nyikos

The frantic hamster on crack antics of Nyikos indicates who the insane
one is likely to be.

I've been busy with our R&D retreat this week, but it looks like I
have plenty of new Nyikos posts to look into this weekend. Hey,
Nyikos if you have this much time to prevaricate about this stupid
point from April why not get back to all the posts that you are
running from since December? Start with the post that made you try
the misdirection ploy and even start a whole thread to run the
misdirection ploy instead of face that post from December?

What did you do with the Meyer quote from that post twice after that?
Why did you start the Scottish verdict thread? You just happened to
start that thread when you found out that the dirty debater was you.
Who lied? Who got caught? Who had to run and start another thread to
whine? Why did you start this thread and pick this stupid point to
whine about?

Ron Okimoto

[Earle Jones]

In article
<550e9752-a8c3-463b...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

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

> On Sep 24, 5:42 am, Lurker786 <lurker...@hidden.com> wrote:
> > On 23/09/2011 6:02 PM, wiki trix wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 22, 3:39 pm, pnyikos<nyik...@bellsouth.net>  wrote:
> > >> Ron O. has posted an utterly bizarre display of logic that follows
> > >> this format:
> >
> > >> (1) Nyikos has admitted that the earth has a moon.
> >
> > >> (2) Okimoto has proven that this moon is made of green cheese.
> >
> > >> (3) Therefore, Nyikos has admitted that the earth's moon is made of
> > >> green cheese.
> >
> > > If Nyikos has admitted that the earth has a moon, and Okimoto has
> > > actually proven that this moon is made of green cheese, then Nyikos
> > > *should* admit that the earth's moon is made of green cheese. Whether
> > > Nyikos actually does admit that is an unrelated issue. For example, he
> > > could just be an idiot.
> >
> > What do you people do for a living?
>
> See below in my case. You may think it strange that I would take the
> trouble to post what I've been posting on this thread, but if Ron O
> were to puke all over you for thousands of lines with accusations that
> you are a liar, and insane, would you not also try to discredit him?

*
No, I would try to refute him, not discredit him.

earle
*

[Mitchell Coffey]

Actually, I would construct jokes around it. Then quit when I got bored.
But, then, I have a reputation to maintain.

Mitchell Coffey

[John S. Wilkins]

You have a reputation? Did you misplace it or something?

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

[Ron O]

On Sep 29, 11:58 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <550e9752-a8c3-463b-a51a-39b8016bc...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

If he could have done that he wouldn't have to keep prevaricating,
getting caught, and then squeeling like a stuck pig in threads like
this.

It is sort of laughable that Nyikos admits that he is trying to
discredit me in threads like this, when he should be addressing the
arguments, but that is Nyikos. Misdirecting the argument is normal
for him. He likely doesn't even know when he is doing it. I keep
pointing out why he starts these side threads, and it has never worked
out in his favor. He always botches it up somehow because he can only
deny the facts, he can't counter them.

In one of his recent posts that was just above the one I responded to
last night he was returning to his stupid and dishonest misdirection
ploy involving Ray. Nyikos started a whole thread to run that
misdirection ploy and it blew up in his face and he ended up running
from it. What is sad is that one of the reasons that he ran from that
thread was the simple fact that I have never not been able to support
such claims. He has made many accusations about my ability to not
support them, but every time he learns otherwise he runs. Did Meyer
run the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes? What did Nyikos do when he
got the evidence that Meyer gave the Ohio rubes the switch scam
personally instead of the ID science that they wanted to teach? He
ran. What did he do when I reposted the evidence twice? He snipped
out the relevant quote (not all the material just the part that
specifically talked about Meyer's roll) and the link to the article
and lied about the evidence. Once may have been an accident, but
doing the same dishonest deed twice and then running for good from
what he had done is obviously not an accident.

What happened when he tried to side track the issue with his claims
that Behe did not testify that ID was equivalent science as astrology
of the dark ages? First he claimed that it wasn't his testimony when
it obviously was, and then he tried to side track the issue by
focusing on my comment that Behe had repeated the claim trying to
defend it after the trial. When he got the evidence that Behe had
done just that and specifically stated astrology of the 15th century
(it came from the Discovery Institute web site) he ran. The 15th
century when they were still burning people at the stake for their
religious views well after the 15th century. What is funny is that
Nyikos with his nonstandard views about God (space alien designers and
the god of all) and his mathematical ability to understand the
heliocentric model would have been burned along with Bruno in 1600.

What did he do when he got additional evidence back in April about the
ID perps running the teach ID scam? He ran, and he even claimed this
month (almost half a year later) that I never put up that evidence.
All I had to do was put up that post and the post where I linked back
to it in one of his denials (he just snipped out the link and ran with
out commenting on the material) and another post with similar evidence
and links that he had run from. What did he do? He went back to a
post that he had alreaady responded to and used a quote of mine from
back in April and he started this thread. Nyikos has never put up an
example of my not meeting his demands for confirmation of my claims
when I ask for any such example. That is a fact. All his accusations
blow up in his face. Heck the point that he tried to make to start
this thread doesn't mean jack compared to what he is running from, and
he admits that he did it to discredit me and not the reality that he
is running from.

This is why I keep poking him when he brings up the misdirection ploy
involving Ray. Nyikos knows that I can back up the claim because he
has probably read enough of the court transcripts to understand that
it is a losing proposition, and the fact that I have never not been
able to back up such a claim. As long as he wants to look like a
dishonest fool I am happy to oblige him. It is just a stupid
misdirection ploy and was just a dodge to avoid things that Nyikos is
still running from.

It has been like that for over 9 months. Nyikos is the one that
always ends up running away. He can't even admit his stupid mistakes
like claiming that I was running from one of his posts for three whole
days (three days compared to the weeks and months that Nyikos has run
from many posts by that time) when there was no reason why I should
have known that he posted it because he had posted it to someone
else. I don't make this junk up. Nyikos has done it all and this
thread will stand as another monument to his stupidity and dishonesty.

I give a brief history with links (we are talking about 9 months of
prevarication by Nyikos) in my response to Nyikos' first post in this
thread:

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

Over 9 months and all Nyikos can think of to do is prevaricate and lie
about the ID perps at the Discovery Institute running the teach ID
scam when the ID perps do not deny doing it and they are still doing
it in their official stance on public school education on their own
web site. Nyikos never answers the question as to why he should make
such a denial for the ID perps when they do not make such a denial to
defend themselves, and they still claim to be able to teach the ID
claptrap in the public schools.

Ron Okimoto

[pnyikos]

On Sep 27, 7:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 4:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 10:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > [snip gargantuan piece of almost pure drivel]
>
> > Anyone that knows Nyikos, understands that this is just Nyikos' way of
> > admitting that he has to run because he is guilty.  Look at the piss
> > ant minor point that Nyikos is going on about to start this thread

I've made some choice comments about what Ron O refers to as a
"pissant minor" point in the post where I replied to this one of Ron
O's. They are the (1) (2) and (3) which I've posted on again today,
starting a "Ron O Lexicon" which shows what appears to be Ron O's
pathologically self-righteous take on issues like dishonesty and
hpocrisy.

[...]

> > The low life loser lives on trying
> > pretend that someone else is worse off than he is.  That is what makes
> > his projection so insane.

These words will eventually come back to haunt Ron O.

> > > You don't seem to realize what a corner you have painted yourself
> > > into, Ron O.  I have a *prima facie* case for you being insane in the
> > > link that was already provided in the first post to this thread, and I
> > > have provided an even more direct link a few minutes ago along with
> > > the quote that set this case off.

And in the first of two posts today to this thread, I gave the url for
a post where I lay bare some more evidence of Ron O's insanity.

[idiotic claim by Ron O, already dealt with, deleted]

> > > And so, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR RAY MARTINEZ, whom you have accused
> > > of being insane, I can if I so choose ignore anything you say about
> > > me, until one of the following occurs:
>
> > What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
>
> > Do you even know what you are lying about now?

Of course, I wasn't lying.

> > > (1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
> > > that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
>
> > > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> > >  that the ID science wasn't ready
> > >  to teach in the public schools."

[irrelevant, already refuted babble by Ron O deleted]

> > > For the context, see the following post along with the link provided
> > > in it to the post where it originally appeared:
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb
>
> > See my response to that post.
> > http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2848dc624ba00e07

A real head-in-the-sand response, completely ignoring the damning
evidence of his insanity.

> > > or
>
> > > (2) You document even more clear evidence of Ray Martinez's insanity
> > > than I have provided of yours.

And I don't think he will ever try to provide it. And, with him
steadily piliing up evidence of his insanity, I don't think he could
do it even if he tried.

In fact, I wonder whether he has ANY evidence that you are insane, and
is simply taking advantage of other people characterizing you as
insane.

> > > Peter Nyikos
>
> > When did Nyikos' lying start involving Ray?  Nyikos did involve Ray in
> > his bogus misdirecction ploy, but that was months ago.

There was nothing bogus about it. It showed how hypocritical Ron O is
in running his own bait and switch scam against Ray while acting as
though he disapproved of ALL bait and switch scam.

>  What was the
> > point of starting this thread?  You will have to write some type of
> > understandable explanation for this last point.

I gave a very understandable one earlier this week, and Ron O cannot
cope with it.

> > I really do not get
> > what this has to do with the central issue or you lying about the ID
> > scam.

That second issue can easily be resolved in my favor: no lying by me
of any sort. The first should have been resolved in the second half
of my very first post to this thread.

> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Peter Nyikos accepts all the major claims of ToE, Ron. Treating him
> like you do any given Creationist clearly shows your evolutionism is
> no different from Dawkins.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, Ray.

> All you do is evade, distort, misrepresent,
> and equivocate like any given Atheist.

I don't think all atheists are like that, although the ones posting to
this newsgroup may be for all i know. But for instance, John
Harshman is guilty of these things to a far less extent than Ron O,
and most of his misrepresentations could be due to honest
misunderstandings.

By the way, don't miss the reply I did to you on the thread where
Shrubber and I (completely independently, btw.) "defend Darwin". It
leads you to a facet of Harshman that you may not have been aware of
before.

> Your schtick, when replying to
> Peter, assumes inerrancy.

Yes, I think Ron O's pathological self-righteousness stems from that,
and is yet more sign of his insanity.

Here is another entry for that "Ron O Lexicon":

slander, n.

(1) False defamatory statement by anyone who should know better,
except for Ron O and his alllies.

(2) True statement that reflects badly on Ron O in the eyes of anyone
who does not share Ron O's brand of morality.

That brand of morality evidently excludes anything Ron O does from the
category of "evil", "hypocrisy," "dishonesty," "misdirection," etc.
He evidently has his own private definitiions of these things which
automatically exempt him.

> Peter Nyikos, an Evolutionist, proves you
> are a rotten person with bad intentions every time you log on to post.

Maybe, but those aren't always visible in his posts. They are in his
responses to me, of course.

> Ray (Paleyan IDist)

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 30, 12:58 am, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <550e9752-a8c3-463b-a51a-39b8016bc...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>

What's to refute? A bunch of poorly documented and undocumented
allegations about me. If you look at his documentation, you will not
see any clear evidence of my having lied about anything, nor being
hypocritical about anything.

In response to the same post of yours to which I am replying, he
posted mountains of unsupported insults (and that's ALL an
unsupported allegation really amounts to), accompanied by a single
link without even telling you which (if any) of these insults is
justified in the post whose link he is providing.

When you click on the link he provides, you merely get to a post with
lots of links, so that you have to start the process all over again.

And some of his links in that linked post are easily seen to be bogus.
Take the one accompanying his allegation that I am "quote mining"
Camp:

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

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

What you actually see in the post to which that url takes you is the
end of some back and forth between us about what Camp wrote, and then
me making an accurate statement about the rest of what Camp wrote. It
is the same Camp quote I put in my very first post to this thread,
with me explaining its significance.

Unable to directly refute what i wrote, Ron O then gives a fantasy
about what the piece I quoted from Camp does. If you actually take
the trouble to scroll down past a LONG spiel by Ron O, you will see
the quote in context and you will see that the quote does NOT support
the claim that the Discovery Institute has alleged that it has the ID
science ALREADY in a form suitable for teaching in the public schools.

And this is typical of Ron O. Time and again he gives you a link
which he alleges (or merelly suggests) will show something about me,
but you have to wade through over a hundred lines (often several
hundred) in the linked post to get to

(1) something that looks like it might support what he wrote in the
main post, if properly documented

(2) a bunch of hand-waving about something I wrote or he wrote,
claiming that it shows something related to what the link was alleged
to show. [Maybe even the same thing.]

...and I don't recall any exceptions offhand. If you can find one,
feel free to call it to my attention.

Anyway, there is an old adage, "If you fling enough mud at a wall,
some of it is bound to stick." Ron O has flung what I believe to be
over ten thousand lines of mud designed to discredit me, and some have
even claimed that he is on the winning side. The only way to really
effectively counter such massive flinging is to discredit the flinger.

Peter Nyikos

[Burkhard]

On Sep 30, 5:58 am, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <550e9752-a8c3-463b-a51a-39b8016bc...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>

Oh gods, _must_ you join the fray? It's bad enough that the children
are going on and on and on and on about this, but us adults _really_
should ignore the entire exchange!

[Mitchell Coffey]

You have it exactly right. It's a postmodern reputation.

Mitchell

[pnyikos]

You would sing a very different song if Ron O puked all over you for
thousands of lines, as described above. But Ron O, although insane by
all available evidence, is shrewd enough to know what the "right" side
of the various issues in talk.origins is. These issues include
evolution, abiogenesis, Intelligent Design (ID), and the issue of
whether Michael Behe is "full of shit."

And so it's a safe bet it will never come to blows between the two of
you, inasmuch as you are also on the "right" side of these issues.
[Well, I'm not sure about the Michael Behe one but if you have a very
different opinion about him than Ron O, you'll keep a discreet silence
about it when he is around.]

I suspect Ron O shrewdly surveyed the terrain when he joined t.o. and
decided that if he came up with a formula "ID perps running the bait
and switch scam," that would put him automatically on the "right" side
of the last two debates.

[The "bait" part is the thesis that the Discovery Institute (DI) has
claimed to have the science of Intelligent Design ALREADY in a form
suitable for teaching in the public schools. This is the part that is
in dispute between us, and Ron O has called me a liar and insane for
not agreeing with this thesis.]

The formula also puts him on the "right" side of the first two issues
in the eyes of most talk.origins posters, many of whom know very
little about the last two issues, but see what the near-consensus of
opinion here is on them ("Behe is a closet creationist, ID necessarily
involves the supernatural, putting it outside science") and just
follow the path of least resistance.


Never mind that no one in this newsgroup agrees with him that the two
quotes he featured in his first post to this thread prove the
existence of the "bait" part beyond a reasonable doubt. Never mind
that Ron O has called me a liar and insane for not agreeing with him
that they DO prove this. Never mind that nobody ever endorsed this
insane attitude of Ron O about these quotes.

He is on y'all's side in those debates and, except for the first, I'm
not. And so you feel perfectly entitled to play the "neutral" obsever
and lump me in with him as one of the "children." Who's ever going to
set you straight on that?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

A few clarifications...

On Sep 30, 12:50 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> And some of his links in that linked post are easily seen to be bogus.
> Take  the one accompanying his allegation that I am "quote mining"
> Camp:
>
> __________ begin excerpt____________
> Nyikos quote mining Camp:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3c8d3f3f728062b8?hl=e...
>
> I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so incompetent or
> pathological that they would quote mine when anyone can just go up one
> post to see how they doctored the post, but that is how Nyikos has
> been for the past 9 months.
> ==================== end of excerpt
>
> What you actually see in the post to which that url takes you is the
> end of some back and forth between us about what Camp wrote,

I should have been more specific and said "about what I quoted from
Camp":

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

> and then
> me making an accurate statement about the rest of what Camp wrote.  It
> is the same Camp quote I put in my very first post to this thread,
> with me explaining its significance.

Also, note that the back-and-forth between us [which lays out the
point in dispute pretty well] comes towards the middle of the linked
post, which runs to 247 lines.

_____________ begin excerpt from the back-and-forth_____
> > QUOTE:
> > Yeah, I don't think so. You are correct that there isn't much hard

> > evidence as to the DI's position on teaching ID in schools.

> There you have it. That quote, and a more recent statement
> paraphrasing it that Ron [has posted] are the ONLY piece[s] of
> documentation of "bait" that Ron O. has posted in attempting
> to support his allegation, repeated *ad nauseam,*
> that the DI is running a bait and switch scam.
> Even he knows that without bait, there is no bait and switch scam.

> The rest of the quote from Camp went off on a separate issue, which
> Ron O latched onto for dear life, and small wonder: he has never had a
> rational argument for his strained interpretation of the quote above,
> from the DI website.
==================== end of excerpt from
about a hundred lines down the 247 line post archived
at http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3c8d3f3f728062b8

Ron O is too lazy, or too shrewd, to quote relevant parts of most
posts unless he is sure he can spin-doctor them to suit his anti-
Nyikos and anti-DI agenda.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 29, 10:57 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2:12 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> It looks like Nyikos is posting like a hamster on crack.

Next thing you know, Ron O will claim that "It looks like Nyikos is on
crack."

How could he go wrong? He has two sure-fire formulas for parrying
demands that he prove this crazy allegation:

"If Nyikos could refute it he would do so in a heartbeat."

"This is just another misdirection ploy by Nyikos".

And he could also go into a spiel about how "nobody except that proven
liar Nyikos ever denied that Nyikos is on crack." This is the kind of
spiel you see him using over and over in the post where I quoted
Albert Einstein's words on insanity.

> Everyone
> should get a laugh out of Nyikos' claim that he was going to limit his
> posts to me to (what was it?) once a week.

I never made any such claim, so only someone who swallows this spiel
by Ron O has any reason to laugh, except AT Ron O.

What I did say already in December was that all a monomaniac like Ron
O *deserves* is one reply a week. And some weeks went by where he got
less than he deserved (zero) and sometimes a lot more, like this week
and last, because I finally have a strong case for him being insane,
and a pathological liar.

Recently I told him that I believe he only deserves one reply a month,
but also that I'd be giving him more than he deserves.

 >He has broken that vow off
> and on,

Yet more evidence of Ron O's insanity: what I actually wrote has now
morphed into a "vow" in his sick mind.

> but this is out of the ordinary even for Nyikos.

Pure GO (Garbage Out) to go with the GI (Garbage In) of the earlier
lines.

> You have to understand why Nyikos started this thread.

I've already said why, right on this thread, and it is nothing like
the self-serving fantasy that Ron O posted next, to be deleted even in
my next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 29, 10:57 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2:12 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip some things dealt with in my first reply]
>
> > > > And so, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR RAY MARTINEZ, whom you have accused
> > > > of being insane, I can if I so choose ignore anything you say about
> > > > me, until one of the following occurs:
>
> What standards are these?

The standard that you get to ignore anything by Ray on the grounds
that he is insane. You've been using it against him since November.
How does it feel to have your own standards used against you?

[snip drivel about Ray irrelevant to the above]

Here I've given you two ways you can get me to stop using your
standard against you:

> > > > (1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
> > > > that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
>
> > > > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> > > > that the ID science wasn't ready
> > > > to teach in the public schools."
>
> > This appears in context in the repost below.
>
> Not really, you have to go back further for the context. Nyikos only
> takes it to the post where he manipulated the quote

I merely cleared away mountains of rubbish surrrounding the quote that
had no relevance to it. Ron O made no attempt in reply to argue for
its relevance. In the next post in that sequence I even challenged Ron
O to repost anything he thought was relevant and to try to argue for
its relevance.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fe117f12ff7d4d6e?dmode=source

Ron O made no attempt to show the context exonerated him, and then he
only dug himself in deeper as I showed here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/03ccf700cf3f87b6?dmode=source

> and snipped out
> what he couldn't deal with.

I've dealt with that regurgitated garbage numerous times. It's the
same old quotes that I featured in the very first post to this Insane
"logic" thread, with Ron O lying that I keep running away from them.
And it included the same "Tony Pagano never denied..." crap that I
exposed in that post with the Einstein quote.

[snip drivel including bare-faced lies, to be identified as such in my
next reply]

> > > > (2) You document even more clear evidence of Ray Martinez's insanity
> > > > than I have provided of yours.
>
> > And here is my evidence, featuring back-and-forth starting with Ron O:
>
> > ___________________ begin repost_____________
>
> > > > > > > You claimed that the ID science was "premature."
>
> This comes from my post from Aug 23 where Nyikos first pulled the
> above quote out of context

The context does nothing to change the facts: you were preaching to
the choir when you wrote the above.

Of course, I knOw nothing of the sort. Ron O simply lied about what I
allegedly "know".

What does "Has ID been banned from the public schools?
> No."
> mean? So you know that they are lying about being able to teach the
> junk.
>
> QUOTE:
> Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
>
> No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> she should have the academic freedom to do so.
> END QUOTE:
>
> Who wrote this quote? You have been lying about what this quote
> means
> for months.
>

Here again, Ron O insanely implies that to disagree with him about
this quote is to lie.

> > However, until you either retract what you wrote or admit to being
> > insane, I will continue to characterize what you wrote as a vile
> > slander.
>
> Retract what? You have just admitted that you know that the ID perps
> are lying about being able to teach the science of intelligent design
> to public school kids.

Here again is that vile slander about what I allegedly "admitted".

And here is why I have called it a vile slander: it has as a
corollary, "You have been lying about what that quote means for
months."

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 29, 10:57 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2:12 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[about how to get me to stop ignoring what I want to ignore:]

> > > > (1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
> > > > that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
>
> > > > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> > > > that the ID science wasn't ready
> > > > to teach in the public schools."
>
> > This appears in context in the repost below.
>
> Not really, you have to go back further for the context.

Wrong. The relevant context is all there; the rest is either
redundant or irrelevant or lying crap that Ron O keeps using as filler
in his excruciatingly long posts, in a desperate attempt to obscure
the issues.

> It comes from a post from April:

>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/36bf8a8bf0ae8571?hl=e...

>
> Anyone that reads this quote in context will understand that I am
> using it the same way that I have consistently defended this
> statement.

Ron O has really gone off the deep end here: what made the claim you
see above so suggestive of insanity is that it denied things in plain
sight that had NEVER appeared in any argument between us before.

>He admits that the ID perps
> have been lying about having the ID science to teach since the very
> beginning of the scam.

There is that vile slander again, the one which I talked about at the
end of my previous reply to this post.

> He tried to snip and pretend that the Johnson
> quote never existed,

The "and pretend" part is a bare-faced lie.

> and then lied about it when he had to finally
> confront the fact that even the ring leaders of the ID scam knew that
> they never had the ID science to teach.

I wonder whether Ron O is so insane that he thinks this proves that
they claimed to HAVE it in a form to teach in the public schools.

> He has to lie about the
> Discovery Institute ID perps ever claiming to be able to teach their
> bogus science of intelligent design when even the ID perps do not
> deny
> that they made such a claim.

This is that irrelevant crap that Ron O kept posting variations on
until he fit that Albert Einstein quote perfectly.

> They only claim that they never wanted
> the bogus "premature" ID science mandated to be taught even though
> they admit that they targeted legislators and school boards to get ID
> taught.
> END QUOTE:
>
> It is just a fact.

It is pure speculation by Ron O, utterly without any foundation that
he has been able to give.

> There is so much evidence against Nyikos' bogus
> claims

Perhaps Ron O is insane enough to think that the above pure
speculation needs no evidence at all, and that anyone who denies it is
lying, and insane.

> that he really is admitting that the ID perps scammed the rubes
> by running the teach ID scam.

The insane logic I exposed in the first post is going full blast here.

And all of this is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the fact that Ron O's
statement,

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

was made in such defiance of what he saw all around him, it is as
though he were staring at a bright blue sky and saying "the sky is a
dark green."

Peter Nyikos

[Ron O]

On Sep 29, 1:10 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 7:45 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 1:46 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > As I wrote in the post to which I am replying here, I am entitled, by
> > > Ron O's own standards, to ignore anything I choose to ignore in future
> > > posts by Ron O unless one of two conditions (spelled out below) are
> > > met.  However, I *do* choose to respond to certain things Ron O is
> > > posting below.
>
> Ron O opens with a typically grotesque misrepresentation:
>
> > Again, this is just Nyikos admitting that he can't deny the facts and
> > has to run.
>
> Apply that formula to your own cowardly flight, close to a whole year
> long by now, from Ray Martinez's post.  It is that piece of cowardice,
> justified by the undocumented claim that Matinez is insane, that I am
> now drawing on to justify ignoring what I choose to ignore of what you
> wrote.

This is so stupid and insane that Nyikos is past being able to be
embarassed by this stupid ploy. He knows the requirement for him to
get his response, but he'd rather run and stoop to a dishonest
misdirection ploy instead of face what he has done. It is sad that to
this day he as never addressed the material that he was running from.
The saddest thing is that Nyikos is pretending that I am running from
Ray. Most regulars know that I make it a point to not respond to
Ray's posts. Nyikos is going on about a brief time when I was trying
to get Ray to leave me alone (this was after at least two years where
I didn't respond to any of Ray's posts), as I do Ray, and both of us
had quit by the time Nyikos tried his stupid ploy weeks after the
fact. What is really stupid is that Ray did quit bothering me, and it
has been a more pleasant 9 months. I just don't like responding to
Ray because I do not like the way it makes me feel. I do not want to
beat up on anyone that can't defend themselves or make Ray's life more
miserable when he obviously has problems. I am just not that kind of
person. If I come to believe that Nyikos is in the same boat and that
he isn't just a lowlife lying scum bag I will stop responding to his
posts.

Here is Nyikos running the stupid misdirection ploy instead of face
what he is running from in another thread.

The Misdirection thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9103f16d366f7d45?hl=en

What kind of low life scum bag would try to use someone like Ray to
cover his own dishonest butt. That is so low that if Nyikos had a
shred of decency he would be ashamed.

Really, just ask the regulars why I do not respond to Ray's posts. It
isn't because I am running from any arguments. That would likely be
the last reason on the list.

>
> One difference is that I am a lot more fair about it than you are.
> Unlike you, I WILL respond to legitimate requests by anyone except you
> to deal with anything I snipped out.  And to qualify as "legitimate,"
> all the requester has to do is give a brief reason for why [s]he
> thinks I ought to respond, and to promise to read my rebuttal.

Nyikos can lie, but anyone can just go by what he snips and runs from
to understand what a liar Nyikos is. Nyikos demands responses, but
runs when he gets them. That is the bottom line with this jerk.

>
> > Just look at the type of argument that Nyikos is trying
> > to make in this thread.
>
> "trying to"--what a laugh! You cannot counter the evidence of your
> insanity. In fact, you have obligingly added to that evidence on the
> thread where you first made your insane comment,
>
>   "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
>     that the ID science wasn't ready to teach
>    in the public schools."

Nyikos seems to be responding to the post about this quote, but I
haven't checked what his bogus arguments are this time.

Suffice it to say that I track this quote back to the original post
and put the quote in its context. Nyikos has responded to this post,
and what does he do? He snipped out the context of the quote again
and lies about it and proceeds as if the material was never
presented. He even goes back to it in a third post, but still
manipulates the quote and the explanatory information. You can't make
this junk up. Nyikos is just that bogus and dishonest.

What has he been claiming about what he snips out?

>
> I spent a good part of 307 lines just showing how you are adding to
> that insanity.  That post, and another to that same thread just before
> it, are still unanswered by you.  The url from the other one goes:

Nyikos has run from some posts since December and he can make an issue
about me not responding to a post that he made Tuesday? He has been
posting like a hamster on crack for a week and I have been busy with
my life. His bogus whining and lying can wait.

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/56598d6448cfb8c5
>
> The closing paragraphs in this one are especially worth quoting:
>
>   Thanks for documenting that I posted "as a competitor..." and thus
>   strengthening my case for you LYING when you used the word
>   "nothing" when you claimed just now that I admitted that there
>    was "nothing worth teaching about ID in the public schools".
>
>    You went on shooting yourself in the foot, as my next reply
>    will make clear.

You'll probably be starting another thread after I get through with
all these posts. That will mean that you have a lot to run from
right? Nyikos wrote this after one of the two quotes that I put up
with Nyikos stating in no uncertain terms that he understood that ID
was just a bogus scam from the very beginning and that there never was
any ID science worth teaching in the public schools.

Nyikos should reread the post that he chopped up:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0e4bb1948dcc31d3?hl=en

There is a long list of Nyikos running in denial and lying about the
ID perps teach ID scam and then this:

EXTENDED QUOTE:
So, what are you trying to deny about admitting that the ID science
wasn't ready to teach in the public schools? Do I have to put up the
examples of you claiming just that? When you admit that there is
nothing worth teaching about ID in the public schools coupled with
your denial about what these quotes mean that tells anyone that you
are just prevaricating. Really, do you deny that even the ID perps
do
not deny selling the rubes the teach ID scam? Aren't they still
selling the rubes the teach ID scam? What did you snip out? What
are
you trying to deny?

Isn't this just more of your insane hair splitting nonsense that
doesn't matter at all to what you call the central issue?

Here are several examples of you claiming that you understand that
the
ID perps do not have any ID science ready to teach in the public
schools:

From April in this very thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/273322f2d072afc3?hl=en

This is directly applicable to the quotes that Nyikos snipped out.

QUOTE:
> "Premature." Who said that? Why would anyone start a thread like
> this after making such an admission

Okimoto isn't expaining what that single word refers to, so I'll
explain it instead. It denies that the ID science in such a simple AND
mature form as to make it suitable to be taught in public school as a
competitor to the neo-Darwinian explanation. Absent such a
competitive position, I agree that there is no point in teaching it in
the public schools. Hence the "Premature".
END QUOTE:

Another instance:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5944d7af17530b4b?hl=en

QUOTE:

> You claimed that the ID science was "premature."

If you really think this "claim" consituted an admission that "the ID

perps" were lying, you are insane. I have consistently claimed that

ID science is premature to teach in the public schools as a rival to
neo-Darwinism. If you think that this claim of mine constitutes an
admission by me that "the ID perps" had been lying about being able to
teach it in that way, you are insane.

END QUOTE:

So what is your beef about you claiming that the ID perps never had
the ID science to teach in the public schools? You are obviously
claiming just that. Are you claiming that they really have the ID
science to teach?

END EXTENDED QUOTE:

>
> And here is the url for the next reply, where I documented how you
> strengthened the evidence for you being insane:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/03ccf700cf3f87b6

Nyikos does this so that he can pretend that he isn't snipping out the
relevant material. If he goes back to the post that he manipulated so
badly he would see why admitting that ID was too bogus to teach means
exactly what I claim. You have to be honest to understand that, but
Nyikos can't make that leap.

>
> [...]
>
> > Really, why start a thread like this if Nyikos wasn't getting his butt
> > kicked everywhere else?  What is the point of this thread?

We are finally back to the start of my post. Of course Nyikos snipped
out what he can't deal with. Sort of sad, but only what Nyikos always
does. I wonder what I am referring to when I say "Really?"

>
> More evidence of insanity, since the "everywhere else" to which you
> are so bizarrely  referring has been one solitary thread for the last
> two or three months -- the very thread where those two thus-far-
> unanswered posts of two days ago appear!!

In all your hamster posting the last two weeks you haven't gotten back
to even the junk that sparked this frenetic posting behavior?

Are you really going to run from the Sept 4 posts?

>
> The point of this thread is to show the readership what an insane
> slanderer and hypocrite you are.
> The reason I started a new thread for it was that the other thread had
> degenerated into back-and-forth between us, and AFAIK no one but us
> and Ernest Major had been following it.

Projection is a sign of insanity. I would put money on it.

> > > On Sep 27, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 24, 10:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > [snip gargantuan piece of almost pure drivel]
>
> > > > Anyone that knows Nyikos, understands that this is just Nyikos' way of
> > > > admitting that he has to run because he is guilty.  
>
> > > Here Ron O uses the word "admitting" in the same fallaciously
> > > illogical way that one can see illustrated in the first post to this
> > > thread.
>
> > There is no denial of reality.  This is your way of admitting that you
> > are guilty.  
>
> A contemptible falsehood, itself suggestive of insanity.

Well you could addreess the material instead of running, but you have
claimed that if you snip out material it doesn't mean that you
understood it or agreed with it, so it is just a bogus way to admitt
that you are guilty. If you were not guilty you would demonstrate it,
right? What are you trying to demonstrate in this thread?

>
> >You even claim such.
>
> This looks like more insanity, coupled with a failure to grasp just
> why your use of "admitted" is fallaciously illogical.
>
> > What about your argument where you
> > claim that if you have snipped out the material that, that doesn't
> > mean that you understand it or agree with it?
>
> Where do you get the "understand it' part?  That doesn't ring a bell
> with me.  I probably said something quite different.

Geez, when did you make this claim. When I get bored I might take the
time to try to find it. What do you recall claiming? Why not state
it again?

>
> > Why snip it out?
>
> The 307 figure up there should give you a clue.  It was one of two
> posts in which I replied to a 509 line post by you, and even so, I had
> to snip a bunch out.

Well, it is all true and to the point. Demonstrate that it is not.
Go for it.

>
> > Why
> > not admit that you don't understand it, or say what you do not
> > understand about it?  You obviously snip it out so that you can lie to
> > yourself that it doesn't really mean what it means.
>
> What a deluded person you are!

No denial, but just name calling. This is Nyikos' way to lie about
something so that he can deny his denial. I really do not make this
junk up. If I claim that Nyikos just denied that he snips things out
so that he can lie about them he will just say something like "I never
denied any such thing, liar." Of course not. He just makes inane
comments and runs.

>
> Remainder of Ron O's 321 line post deleted.  I think this reply of
> mine still has a chance of being seen in its entirety in Google while
> the other posts around it are still visible.  His 321 line post didn't
> make the grade.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Poor Nyikos so much to run from and so little time to start new
threads and squeel like a pig.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Sep 29, 1:43 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 7:45 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 1:46 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > As I wrote in the post to which I am replying here, I am entitled, by
> > > Ron O's own standards, to ignore anything I choose to ignore in future
> > > posts by Ron O unless one of two conditions (spelled out below) are
> > > met.  However, I *do* choose to respond to certain things Ron O is
> > > posting below.
> > > >Look at the pissant minor point that Nyikos is going on about to start this thread and
> > > > you can understand why he has to swat at dust motes to keep ignoring
> > > > the beam in his own eye.  
>
> This inspired a "lexicon entry" below.

I am not sure, but I think that Nyikos is having flashbacks to the
post that he responded to above.

It doesn't look like my post, but it is likely that Nyikos is just not
marking his snips.

>
> > > All this says is that Ron O is so pathologically self-righteous, he
> > > thinks that (1) a *prima facie* case for him being insane, (2) a piece
> > > of fallacious "logic" a bright six year old can see through and (3) a
> > > completely unsupported slander that would completely discredit me,
> > > were it to be true...

I see where it is now. Nyikos does seem to be starting over. It is
just a fact that I have to keep several windows open just to see what
Nyikos is lying about.

The full exchange comes after Nyikos is again snipping and running
from reality.

QUOTE:

> [snip gargantuan piece of almost pure drivel]

Anyone that knows Nyikos, understands that this is just Nyikos' way
of

admitting that he has to run because he is guilty. Look at the piss

ant minor point that Nyikos is going on about to start this thread
and
you can understand why he has to swat at dust motes to keep ignoring

the beam in his own eye. This is just typical Nyikos lying and
precvaricating. Anyone with any sense knows from the bogus little
things that Nyikos whines about, that if he could counter something

major he would in a heartbeat. The low life loser lives on trying

pretend that someone else is worse off than he is. That is what
makes
his projection so insane.

END QUOTE:

All true. What is the point that Nyikos is trying to make? What does
it compare to the junk that Nyikos decided he had to start another
bogus thread instead of face?

I'd put up the links, but they are only for Nyikos and he just snips
them out and runs. They have been given in multiple other posts
anyway.

>
> [moved from far below, with a mass of  bilge from Ron O intervening:]

Again, this means that Nyikos has to run. If he could counter he
would in a heartbeat. Just try to figure out what point he is trying
make in this thread. If he has to whine about something like this,
why wouldn't he counter his bogus junk that he is running from?

>
> > > ....are all just "motes" in his eye, while a fantasy about that he has
> > > been embellishing ever since we encountered each other constitutes a
> > > "beam" in my eye.
>
> [Don't go away yet, folks: I will be dealing with most of that mass of
> bilge below, after a brief break.]

[Isn't it sad that Nyikos had to stoop to an outright lie about what
he did in the dirty debating thread? Stick around for that one if you
can stand the degeneration of a low life (I added this after I had
finished writing this post)]

>
> I think it's time to start a Ron O Lexicon, begining with:
>
> hypocrite, n.
>
> (1) Nyikos, ignoring the mote in his eye while calling on Ron O to
> remove the beam in his eye.
>
> (2) Ron O, calling on Nyikos to remove the mote from his eye while
> ignoring the Giant Sequoia in his eye.
>
> (3) Nyikos, straining out a camel and swallowing a gnat.
>
> (4) Ron O, straining out a gnat and swallowing a herd of camels.
>
> Reference: The Gospel According to Matthew

Projection is a sign of insanity. I would put money on it.

Nyikos, do you think that you are fooling your intelligent designer?

>
> > What is the point of this thread?  It isn't self-righteous to state
> > the obvious.
>
> It is increasingly obvious that you are insane, a hypocrite, and a
> pathological liar.  Your foes might call me "self-righteous" for
> amassing evidence of that, but as you said, it isn't self-righteous to
> state the obvious.

Projection is a sign of insanity. What is the point of this thread?

>
> > You are just projecting again because what kind of
> > person would start a thread like this over a point as stupid as the
> > one that you are arguing.
>
> See "lexicon" entry above for Ron O's own warped scale of things.
> Even now, he makes no attempt to deny the gravity of (1), (2) and (3)
> above, nor their validity.

Lying about the quote on the Discovery Institute web page must have
pushed Nyikos over the edge. He resisted lying about the quote for
multiple posts, but after the Sept 4 posts he had decided that he had
to go over his limit for lying. This seems to be the result.

>
> > Compared to what you are running from what
> > difference does this point make?  
>
> I am not running from anything, twit.  What you are talking about
> below is something I have already addressed, both on this thread and
> the one you falsely (and perhaps insanely) claim I am running from.
> Fact is, there are right now two unaswered posts of mine at the end of
> the thread you claim I am running from, documented in my previous
> reply to this post.

What about lying about the Discovery Institute claims about teaching
the bogus ID junk? What about the stupid and bogus reason that you
started the dirty debating thread? What about lying about not getting
the evidence that the ID perps ran the teach ID scam? You are running
aren't you? I haven't seen any responses. The best that you can do
is snip and run.

>
> > You either lie about your claims
> > that there is no intelligent design science worth teaching in the
> > public schools
>
> Like a similar thing you wrote on that other thread, this goes beyond
> what I actually said.  See the quote I gave in my reply of about half
> an  hour  ago (to this same 321 line post of yours), from that other
> thread, complete with url.  In it, I thanked you for posting
> documentation which provides evidence that you were lying in your use
> of the word "nothing."
>
> [remainder of bogus argument, already dealt with in another reply on
> this thread, deleted]

If the argument is so bogus, why not address it? I will put it back
in for you so you don't have to take the time to find it.

QUOTE:

What is the point of this thread? It isn't self-righteous to state

the obvious. You are just projecting again because what kind of
person would start a thread like this over a point as stupid as the

one that you are arguing. Compared to what you are running from what
difference does this point make? You either lie about your claims

that there is no intelligent design science worth teaching in the

public schools or you lie about the ID perps running the teach ID
scam
when the ID perps do not deny doing it and they are still claiming to

be able to do it. Isn't that stupid? What is that compared to you

starting the dirty debating thread and demanding that I address your

bogus claims there when you just made up the junk and it turned out
to

be you that was the dirty debater. I do not make this junk up. Just
go back to the posts that you are running from and defend your bogus
deeds.

END QUOTE:

>
> And now we see again how insignificant the UNCHALLENGED (1) (2) and
> (3) above appear in the eyes of Ron O:
>
> >What is that compared to you
> > starting the dirty debating thread and demanding that I address your
> > bogus claims there when you just made up the junk
>
> False.  I documented dirty debating tricks, first by one of your fans
> and then by you.

All honesty and integrity has left Nyikos. This is such a bogus lie
that I can't really figure out Nyikos' angle on it. Usually he leaves
some opening where he can deny that he is lying, but this seems to be
an outright lie.

The post where I confronted Nyikos with his bogus deed:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a995034f6931eba4?hl=en

START EXTENDED QUOTE with Nyikos indicating what he is lying about:

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

This is crazy. This is where Nyikos is claiming that I am running a
misdirection ploy? I am accusing him of leaving in the material, but
making some stupid statement that doesn’t address the material and
then running. That is one type of misdirection ploy, but anyone can
read the thread and see that it is true. That Nyikos did exactly
that. Did he address the material with his bogus verbage about not
snipping it out? Did I misrepresent what he did? No. He did not
address the material, he only made some inane comments about not
snipping it and ran. Why would anyone be proud enough of doing
something that bogus, link back to it? It didn’t occur to me that
Nyikos was claiming that I was misdirecting the argument. I just
thought that he was denying his own stupidity again.
This is my statement about what Nyikos did when he did it without all
Nyikos’ manipulations and deletions.

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

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

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

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

Nyikos snipped out his dirty deed and ran. When confronted about his
bogus behavior he just ran.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a9eb8898289a07f?hl=en

QUOTE:
So I guess you understand that you accusations of misdirection ploy
on
my part was a mutual mistake? Sort of a stupid mistake since there
was nothing that I was supposed to be running from, but I admit that
I
didn't understand what you were going on about.
END QUOTE:

It was one of those sad threads where two people talk passed each
other for multiple posts. Nyikos' claim was so bogus that I didn't
even know what he was talking about until he linked back to what he
claimed was the dirty deed, but the dirty debater turned out to be
Nyikos who had lied to Bill about me and then ran when he found out
how bogus he had been. Really, Nyikos started the Dirty debating
thread to whine about me. He demanded that I come to the thread and
counter his claims, but when I answered his first two posts in the
thread he ran and claimed in another thread that those weren't the
posts that I was supposed to have responded to. I found out that he
wanted me to respond to his second post to Bill. Why should I have to
respond to someone's second post to someone else? It turned out that
Nyikos wasn't just lying about not running the misdirection ploy (the
same one involving Ray that he is still trying to run in this thread)
but he was making false accusations about me to someone else.

>
> > and it turned out to
> > be you that was the dirty debater.
>
> No such thing turned out.

Why start lying so blatantly about this now when you have run from
reality since April? Lying about the Discovery Institute quote must
have been the straw that broke the camel's back and let the lies start
to flow more easily.

>
> > I do not make this junk up.
>
> You are so vague, nobody unfamiliar with that thread can tell what the
> hell you are talking about.

Just refute the posts and quoted material presented. You can't deny
that the same quote and links have been given to you multiple times
but you have just run.

>
> There is nothing unusual about this; in fact, the vast majority of
> things I snip are either repetions of earlier stuff which I have
> addressed, or accusations so vague that only a mentally unstable
> person like you would claim about it,  "If Nyikos could refute this he
> would do it in a heartbeat."

So refute some of it instead of play with stupid points like the one
you started this thread with. Why wouldn't you counter being the
dirty debater that lied about someone else? Why wouldn't you go back
to the posts that you are running from Sept 4? Why did you start this
thread when you got caught lying about the Discovery Institute quote
and lying about never getting the other evidence that the ID perps ran
the teach ID scam? Who wouldn't counter claims that make them out to
be a low life scum bag and are the obvious reasons why you started
this thread?

>
> > Isn't this just more projection on your part.  What twit is stupid and
> > self-righteous enough to start threads like this when they know for a
> > fact that they are guilty of much worse.  
>
> I bid you adieu for the nonce, with this latest demonstration that I
> was apparently quite accurate in assessing your scale of values in
> that "definition" of "hypocrite".
>
> Peter Nyikos

Projection is a sign of insanity. Stop running and lying and you
won't have to worry about me demonstrating what a low life scum bag
you are.

Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/30/2011 02:11 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

[snip thread diluting ringside seat banter]

> You have it exactly right. It's a postmodern reputation.

Does anyone know the record for the longest running cage match in
talk.origins history? Elsberry used to track some stats here, but I
don't know if he ever tabulated eye gouges, crotch kicks, and spit out
teeth. Plus, he no longer posts. These would be important things to know.

What round is this anyway? I left to get some refreshments and was
talking to Mike Tyson about his birds.


--
*Hemidactylus*
Darwin is daemonic

[Ron O]

It has been going on since December. Nyikos is the only IDiot that has
tried to deny that the ID perps ran the bogus teach ID scam. It is
sort of a combination of fascination with how low he is willing to go
and how an IDiot has to think in order to continue to support the
bogus ID scam. How many threads has Nyikos started to run from what
he is guilty of? He never learns that the posts still exist and that
I can just link back to them. He seems to have the idea that if he
can't see something that it doesn't really exist and he can pretend
that he can ignore it.

Even Pags, Kalk and Pitman never denied that the ID perps ran the
teach ID scam, but Nyikos wants to keep trying when the ID perps do
not deny doing it, and they are still claiming to be able to teach the
junk on their web page.

Nyikos is a special case, and it hasn't been much of a burden except
this past week to respond to the clown. He would go weeks without
posting something to me. There are over a dozen Nyikos responses in
just this thread since the 22nd and more in the Dirty debating
thread. The thread about Hell where I told him to get back to what he
was running from seemed to have sparked a lot of activity. Nyikos has
even started spouting Bible verses. It has gotten that bad for him.

If anyone knows that Nyikos has mental problems I will stop. He seems
to be just a bogus and dishonest jerk, but I could be wrong.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

How can you judge when the current thread keeps getting attached to
rrelevant and decades old posts?

FWIW and ISTM that's no accident.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I'm no referee, just a humble spectator to this gladiator battle. All I
can say is you two have irreconcilable differences and I strongly doubt
this will ever be resolved. It will just go on and on and on. You guys
are free to do so, I suppose, but at some point doesn't it just get old?
The rest of us have pretty much steered clear or are ignoring it. The
posts are so detailed and long-winded that getting beyond two paragraphs
is an exercise in futility. If it's a matter of ego or pride, I'm not
sure how many of the rest of us really care that much.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Dunno. What are the Vegas odds on this one?

[Burkhard]

I'm in fact amazed that anyone still notices it going on at a;; -
I put them both in a killfile long ago where they will stay up to
such a point in time that they start positing
something remotely interesting and/or sane again.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I might start killing the threads in my reader.

[Ron O]

On Sep 27, 4:14 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Again I choose to respond to some things, while ignoring what is
> basically a version of the standard Ron O fantasy about me that he has
> been embellishing since early December.

Anyone that wants to check will see what Nyikos runs from. This
initial statement is only required to make Nyikos feel better about
lying and running. It is sort of sad that he has to keep pretending.
How many times can someone keep lying to themselves? How many posts
like this has he posted in the last couple of days? If he could
counter he would. Just look at the point that he is trying to make in
this thread. It is so tragically stupid that why create a whole
thread to put it forward when there is so much that he is running
from?

>
> On Sep 27, 8:21 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 26, 3:27 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 10:58 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 23, 2:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 23, 8:18 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > SNIP:
>
> > > > > > Oh, joy another whining Nyikos thread.
>
> > > > > If you weren't so pathologically self-righteous, you would know that
> > > > > by any consistent definition of "whine," you do it many times more
> > > > > than I do in our exchanges.
>
> > > > Stating facts is not really whining.
>
> > > Since my post, to which you have still not posted any kind of direct
> > > rebuttal, is very factual, you have just now shown that you are both
> > > whining and lying:
>
> > This is a strange a peculiar lie by Nyikos.  I
>
> It is nothing of the sort.  Ron O has missed, or pretended to miss,
> the meaning of the term "direct rebuttal".  As usual, he thinks, or
> pretends to think, that slapping on a mountain of crud in response to
> what I wrote constitutes a "direct rebuttal."

Demonstrate that it was not a direct rebuttal? I had to lay out the
history or no one would understand what we were arguing about, but you
didn't just snip out the history. Demonstrate that it wasn't a direct
rebuttal or admit that it was a lie. I obviously had responded, and
addressed the point, so you lied. Just because you have a tendency to
snip and run doesn't mean much. Go back to the post and demonstrate
that you were not lying. Go for it. Don't just lie about it
demonstrate it. Go back to my direct responses to what you wrote and
do just that. Do you deny that the history was accurate? Demonstrate
any objections. Then go to my responses to what you wrote and
demonstrate that you aren't lying. You know that you can't do that,
so why even try to lie.

>
> These mountains of crud are part of Ron O's *modus operandi* whenever
> his false or misleading claims are challenged.  He apparently hopes
> that no one will wade through the mountains to see that he really
> isn't providing a direct rebuttal.

If you weren't guilty of so much bogus behavior there wouldn't be any
mountain of crud to run from. What a whining loser. If you could
counter nothing could stop you. Just look what you are trying to
accuse me of in this thread. Compared to what you are guilty of it
doesn't even register. What was the statement about in context? You
can't just snip something out and leave out what it was intended to
say. This whole thread is you looking for even the stupidest things
to distract yourself from your own bogus behavior. You have just
gotten caught lying again and can you admit it? No. Anyone can go to
my post and the not "direct rebuttal" to what you wrote, and see who
the liar is.

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

You can lie, but you can't erase the evidence from Google.

>
> [crud about the following post deleted]

Running is just a way of life for Nyikos.

Are you going to run from this post and snip out you lying about my
response and call it crud? A lot of your lies are just as stupid as
the one above. Who was the dirty debater in that thread because they
lied to Bill about something that never happened? Snip this out. The
posts exist and I can link back to them any time. Why even try to
snip and lie? Does it make you feel better about your bogus behavior?

>
> > This is the post that Nyikos claims was not posted.
>
> The above is Ron O's infantile interpretation of the words "direct
> rebuttal" providing the GI (Garbage In) to go with the following GO
> (Garbage Out):

Of course Nyikos only snipped and lied about the link, he did not
address it. Is this Nyikos' version of direct rebuttal? If it is
then I did not do a Nyikos type "direct rebuttal" I acutally
addressed what he had written without snipping it out. I guess that I
should just start snipping out the junk and claiming that it is crud
so that I can satisfy Nyikos.

Nyikos is so sad that this is all that he can think of to do.

>
> > He did respond to
> > it, so beats me how he can make this claim.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26?hl=en
> > > > Just because you are shown to be
> > > > such a bogus and dishonest pretender
>
> > > I wasn't and never have been.
>
> > What about the lie that you start this post off with?
>
> More GO to go with the above GI.
>
> [...]

Anyone that wants to take the time can open two windows, like I have
to do. Put up my post in one window and Nyikos' response in the
other. What you will find is Nyikos snipping and running (often not
even marking his snips) and manipulating a post so that you can't make
sense out of it. This is premeditated dishonesty. There is no other
words for it.

>
> > > >doesn't make the truth a
> > > > "whine."  You on the other hand lie and whine.  "Someone is being so
> > > > unfair to me and lying about me" would be a whine
>
> > > Lying IS unfair, and you have accused me falsely of lying hundreds of
> > > times.
>
> > Nyikos is lying about lying.
>
> Ron O makes no real attempt to show any lies except the bogus example
> above.

You just have to go up in this post to see how you lie about lying.
"Direct rebuttal" is going to be something that I will have to use for
some time to rub your face in your obvious lies and your own behavior
in avoiding direct rebuttals by snipping and running.]

>
> > How lame can you get?  There is no doubt
> > that he is guilty.  What is he going to do, ask for documentation?
> > How many times to I have to put up the documentation?
>
> Your "documentation" has always been as bogus as the "documentation"
> for your insane comment,
> [snip to get to comment]

Nyikos is snipping out my suggestion that he go back and address the
post that he claims that I made no direct rebuttal in.

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

> > > Not only did I never try to deny it, I was admitting it over and over
> > > again all around this insane clam of yours.
>
> [snip something I already dealt with
> inhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b89bcf3bd80bd9dc]

I will put it back in because Nyikos keeps running from it and has not
addressed it. What he needs to do is state his argument so that it is
clear what it is. He will find that he either has to keep lying about
the ID perps teach ID scam or he has to say that there is something
worth teaching when just the two quotes that I have put up indicate
that, he knows how bogus the ID science is.

QUOTE:
Just state exactly what your argument is here. You either lie about
the ID perps running the teach ID scam or you lie about your
admission. Go for it. Which lie are you going to go with? I have
already put up the evidence of what you have claimed about the ID
science being too bogus to teach in the public schools. You have
stated that several times and I have put up a couple of quotes in
recent posts, so state exactly why you can lie about the teach ID
scam?
END QUOTE:

Isn't this a sensible thing to do? Wouldn't it clarify what we are
arguing about? Nyikos knows that I put this quote back into context
in several posts. What was the context of the quote that he is
claiming is somehow a lie on my part? It comes from the middle of a
summary paragraph from a post that deeply goes into the argument that
there is no question that the ID perps ran the teach ID scam. The ID
perps do not deny doing it and they are still doing it on their
current web page. Coupled with Nyikos' admission what does that mean?

This is the same Nyikos that can claim that the ID perps are not
claiming that they have the ID science to teach in the public schools
by reading in things that aren't even mentioned in the whole pamphlet,
like "ID not being in a form ready to teach," when the ID perps claim
that ID is a scientific theory right in the quote, or claims that "not
in the public schools" When the start of the quote specifically
states that the quote is about public schools. You can't make this
junk up. This kind of prevaricator, can take a quote out of context
where most of the post is about what I claim the quote is about and
decides to pull it out of context to try to make me look bad. His own
admission for starting this thread is to make me look bad. This is
the type of person that Nyikos is, and you can see how he has
consistently done the same things over the past month by going to the
post that he claims is not a direct rebuttal and read the historical
part of the post.

This is the guy that just lied about lying about "direct rebuttal."

If anyone wants the quotes and links I will supply them. It isn't
worth pasting them in when Nyikos will just snip them out and lie
about them.

>
> > > [drivel by Ron O. deleted]
>
> > Snip and run, but it is all true and if Nyikos could counter wild
> > horses couldn't stop him.
>
> Only lack of time stops me, together with the suspicion that you are
> just trying to intimidate the readership into never attacking you.
> ["See, if you snip ANYTHING of mine I will puke all over you until you
> deal with it. And so you will be forever trapped with having to deal
> with endless drivel of mine."]

Go back and demonstrate that I made no "direct rebuttal."

Why did you start the Scottish verdict thread? Why did you start the
Misdirection thread? Why did you start the dirty debating thread, and
who was the dirty debater?

Your post will not go away just because you can snip out links back to
them and can lie your butt off about what you have done. Starting new
threads like this will not change that reality.

>
> [...]

What no direct rebuttal?

> > > > > >  I have to go to work, but I
> > > > > > will get to this thread, but I'd just like Nyikos to reflect on how
> > > > > > well the Dirty debating, Scottish verdict and the misdirection ploy
> > > > > > threads did
>
> > > > > They went very well, because as I pointed out, on the Scottish thread
> > > > > nobody sided with you and Robert Camp actually seemed to disagree with
> > > > > you on the interpretation of the ONLY documentation that you claimed
> > > > > for the "bait" part of what you call "the bait and switch scam".
>
> > > What is even more to the point, you could have posted some OTHER
> > > evidence in those Scottish threads about the "bait" but you never
> > > did.  In post after post after post, the only thing you said about the
> > > bait was that the ONE quote proved the "bait and switch scam was going
> > > down".  You kept filling your posts with uncontested stuff about the
> > > switch [but there can ge no scam without bait] and defamatory comments
> > > about me.
>
> Ron O had NO evidence to counter this, just a lame suggestion (not
> even a claim) that evidence exists somewhere in the links.

This is the post that I was talking about:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26?hl=en

This is the links to Nyikos' bogus lying about not getting the other
evidence.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=en

Nyikos knows that I just used "banned" quote as evidence that the ID
perps are still running the teach ID scam. He even made a big deal
about "still." You can't make this junk up. I gave him the Ohio
material. He got the Wedge document. He knows that the ID perps do
not deny running the scam (My guess that he hasn't been able to find
any denials on their part. If I were him that is the first thing that
I would have looked for). All he can find is the ID perps still
claiming to be able to teach the bogus junk. So I never thought that
I needed the additional evidence. I did give it to him in April (five
months ago) but he ran from it. When I linked back to it because of
his denials he snipped out the link and ran, and I have put similar
material in other posts. Anyone can go back to the link provided and
see just what Nyikos ran from and had to lie about never getting.
There is no doubt that the ID perps at the Discovery Institute ran the
teach ID scam. It is even what they are most known for. That is what
makes Nyikos' denial as crazy as it is stupid.

Nyikos is going to run from this or snip it out. Anyone want to take
bets?

No direct rebuttal of the facts in Nyikos' future.

>
> > > > Check out my links back to those threads in my previous response.
>
> > Check out my links.
>
> [...]
>
> > > > It is strange that the ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach
> > > > the bogus junk in the public schools
>
> > > I gave the "new" documentation you had for his in the first post to
> > > this thread.  It is, if anything, even more remote from being a proof
> > > than the first one was.
>
> > Gee, why didn't you say that before,
>
> Because it was there in the first post for all to read.

No, you snipped the quote out, or you left it in and didn't comment on
it, you did everything except acknowledge what it meant. You could
not bring yourself to lie about this quote until the last 2 weeks,
when you have gone bonkers and started posting like a hamster on crack
to do what? Lie about the obvious. Lie in anyway that you can think
of to justify your bogus behavior.

>
> >Now you are willing to snip and
> > lie about this quote too.  
>
> This kind of insanity is getting more and more common: Okimoto acts as
> though just snipping a quote and then saying something about it later
> constitutes lying about it.

Explain how you treated this quote since at least July. This is a
twofer. It is a July post where the quote appears (Nyikos ignores it
in subsequent posts) and it also is the post where Nyikos will quote
mine what I quote about Camp.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f7168541df802bf4?hl=enKf4c1af25c978cf

Nyikos quote mining Camp and ignoring the Discovery Institute quote in
question, but not snipping it out.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a13f11d8227783e7?hl=enKf4c1af25c978cf

The Discovery Institute quote in question:

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

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

This quote comes from the Discovery Institute's official stance on
teaching the junk in the public schools. Is there any doubt why
Nyikos dithered about lying about this quote until now?

>
> [snip drivel with NO attempt to show that the description of the quote
> is WRONG, let alone a lie]
>
> Continued in next reply.
>
> Peter Nyikos

No direct rebuttal? What a liar.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Sep 27, 4:24 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Ron O gives a nice lengthy illustration of Einstein's quote about
> "Insanity" below.

>
> On Sep 27, 8:21 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 26, 3:27 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 10:58 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>

> [about the Discovery Institute (DI):]

>
> > > > and they have never denied

> > > > running the teach ID scam for years
>
> > > Irrelevant unless you can document someone accusing them and them not
> > > denying it in the face of the accusation.  This you have not done.
>
> > This is the insane type of argument that Nyikos employs.  He knows
> > that the ID perps are still running the teach ID scam,
>
> This is a variation on a vile slander that I told Arkalen about.  I
> know no such thing, inasmuch as without the bait there is no scam.
> [I've lost count how many times I've told this to Ron O.]

Nyikos has been given the evidence repeatedly. He has lied about
getting the evidence. He has claimed that the evidence isn't good
enough, blah, blah, but he does know that the teach ID scam went down
because no matter how poor he thinks the evidence is it is so much
more than dishonest denial, and he can only lie about reality. He
passed that limit in the last couple of weeks with the Discovery
Institute quote first given to him in July. Before that I mentioned
several times that Nyikos only had to go to the Discovery Institute
web page and look what they claim about it, but I never bothered to
look it up for him. You know how Nyikos is. Look what he did when I
finally did put up the link and quote. He only started to lie about
this quote being inadequate at the start of this posting spree.
Nyikos knows that he is guilty, but is just an habitual liar.

>
> > The ID perps do not deny that
> > they ran the teach ID scam.  Just ask Pagano or Kalk.
>
> Will they document something you seem totally unable to document?  See
> my airtight reasoning, "Irrelevant unless..." above.

Go back and address the documentation that you have lied about. Go
for it. There are enough links back.

>
> You are helpless in the face of that reasoning; you can only repeat
> your pitiful claim that they never denied it.

We know who the liar and prevaricator is. Am I the one that had to
lie about never getting additional evidence? Am I the one that
couldn't bring himself to lie about the Discovery Institute's quote
for multiple posts before deciding to cross the line of your own limit
for lying? What was it that made you cross that line? Was it the
Hell thread post? Is that why you started spouting Bible verses? Can
you justify this behavior to your intelligent designer? You know that
you are guilty. If you didn't would you have to prevaricate about
reality?

>
> [variations on the same pitiful claim deleted]
>
> > > For all i know, you could be the only person on earth who claims to
> > > have proof that they claimed to have the science ready to teach in the
> > > public schools.  Can you document anyone else making that claim?
>
> No documentation provided, just another variation on that pitiful
> claim:
>
> > Ask anyone around TO.
>
> [...]

Go back to what you are running from and address the evidence. Don't
just lie about it, but make your direct rebuttal.

The ID perps do not deny running the teach ID scam. Why should you
make that denial for them? Where is the denial in the link?

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

What do you find here instead of denial. They are still running the
teach ID scam. They just claim that the do not want ID mandated to be
taught. Go for it. Make your direct rebuttal.

>
> > > You keep making a big deal about how I was posting to t.o. in
> > > 1995-2001 as though I was supposed to have seen evidence that they
> > > were making that "bait" claim.  Yet you have not given one quote, not
> > > one, from all of talk.origins those years which indicated they were
> > > making it.
>
> Nor can you give one now.  You just keep on with the same pathetic "no
> denial" bit:

Nyikos was posting when the ID perps were still claiming that ID was
their business. They have taken that claim off their web site, but
not until after they ran the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes.

>
> > You look up the old intelligent design posts from that time.  Go for
> > it.  It should do you good.  Look for denials that they are running
> > the teach ID scam.
>
>    "Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again
>   and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein

Nyikos must be insane. Lying about lying doesn't get you anywhere.

What is funny is that I put up this quote to describe Nyikos and he is
stealing my line with out saying where he got the idea. I keep saying
that projection is a sign of insanity. Projection is just a way of
life for Nyikos.

You can't make this junk up.

>

> > > > before starting to run the bait
> > > > and switch, so what is Nyikos missing?  He can lie about it, but it is
> > > > obvious that he has gotten more than enough evidence that the bait
> > > > and switch  has been going down.
>
> > > Of a switch if there was bait, sure. Of the bait, only the pathetic
> > > stuff of which I have already posted.
>
> > The lies and prevarication just compound, and doesn't get any better
> > with repetition.
>
> No attempt even now to argue for the efficacy of those few quotes.
> Just a bunch of "Garbage Out" to go with the implicit "Garbage In"
> that they prove that the bait existed beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> Yet, just look at how tenaciously Ron O clung to his pathetic "no
> denial" bit here; is this really all he has by way of persuasion?
>
> It sure looks that way.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Go back to what you are running from. I am getting tired of looking
up the links because all you do is run. You know what you are running
from, so get back to the Sept 4 posts and refute the evidence that was
provided back in April. Go to the Discovery Institute web page link
and relive how you had to lie about that material.

You are just pathetic.

Material Nyikos snipped out. Compare it to what he left in just this
last bit:

QUOTE:
> Of a switch if there was bait, sure. Of the bait, only the pathetic
> stuff of which I have already posted.

The lies and prevarication just compound, and doesn't get any better
with repetition.

> > All he can do is lie about it.

> It is you who are lying, by the use of the package deal "bait and
> switch".

> Remainder deleted, perhaps to be replied to later. The "perhaps" is
> explained in my next reply to you.
> Peter Nyikos


What lie about the bait and switch? Explain it in plain English.
You
on the other hand have had to stoop to lying about a quote that you
couldn't bring yourself to lie about multiple times before. You
couldn't even bring yourself to snip it out and run like you do for
other things that you can't face. How sad is that. Your
degeneration
has progressed and not gotten better. You did snip out that quote
from this post and lie about it. How does that realization make you
feel. You have had to go deeper into dishonesty than you were
previously willing to go. Now the limit is even lower than before.
How sad is that?

Who is the habitual liar?
END QUOTE:

So what is the lie about the bait and switch? Why run from making
such a bogus statement and snip around it to make it look like you had
an argument?

I can't really recommend it, but if you want to see how much Nyikos
has to deny you do have to open two windows, one with my post and one
with Nyikos' and look at what Nyikos has to run from. It is often
difficult to figure out how Nyikos doctors a post, but that is just
Nyikos' way.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Sep 30, 5:01 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 10:57 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 2:12 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 27, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > It looks like Nyikos is posting like a hamster on crack.
>
> Next thing you know, Ron O will claim that "It looks like Nyikos is on
> crack."
>
> How could he go wrong?  He has two sure-fire formulas for parrying
> demands that he prove this crazy allegation:
>
> "If Nyikos could refute it he would do so in a heartbeat."
>
> "This is just another misdirection ploy by Nyikos".

I got a good laugh out of the above. He couldn't stop at one try, but
had to make up several. Nyikos has to make up junk to lie about. You
can't make this junk up. Who would believe it? My guess is this fits
in the psychological profile along with projection. It may even be a
form of projection. It may tie in with his obvious degeneration over
the last couple weeks. Maybe the weekend off will settle him down.

>
> And he could also go into a spiel about how "nobody except that proven
> liar Nyikos ever denied that Nyikos is on crack."  This is the kind of
> spiel you see him using over and over in the post where I quoted
> Albert Einstein's words on insanity.

This is a laugher too because in the posts that I recently responded
to I reminded Nyikos that he got this line from me. No, you can't
make this junk up. This is projection because Nyikos knows that it
was applied to his bogus behavior.

How many strikes against this post is there and it is just beginning?

>
> > Everyone
> > should get a laugh out of Nyikos' claim that he was going to limit his
> > posts to me to (what was it?) once a week.
>
> I never made any such claim, so only someone who swallows this spiel
> by Ron O has any reason to laugh, except AT Ron O.
>
> What I did say already in December was that all a monomaniac like Ron
> O *deserves* is one reply a week.  And some weeks went by where he got
> less than he deserved (zero) and sometimes a lot more, like this week
> and last, because I finally have a strong case for him being insane,
> and a pathological liar.

I don't recall it from Dec. More likely Feb. You could go back and
find the post. Make sure that it was posted to me. You know that you
had a tendency to tell other people these things and forget to mention
it to me.

And you used it to justify running from the times you did post
multiple posts and then ran.

Anyone can go back to the threads and see the pattern. I basically
only respond to what you post to me, so it was just a dodge.

>
> Recently I told him that I believe he only deserves one reply a month,
> but also that I'd be giving him more than he deserves.

He just means that he wanted more leeway to run when he has to.
Really, I'm not the one that creates threads. My response to Nyikos'
first post in this thread has the links if anyone wants to check it
out.

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

>
>  >He has broken that vow off
>
> > and on,
>
> Yet more evidence of Ron O's insanity: what I actually wrote has now
> morphed into a "vow" in his sick mind.

You did bring it up several times as an excuse for running. I admit
that it may not have been a vow, but it was a lame excuse. If you do
not want to run from so many posts, just do not post so many and
demand responses to them. Who was the guy that claimed that I was
running from a post for three whole days, but it was your own bogus
fault because you had posted it to someone else? I believe his name
was Nyikos. Three days when Nyikos has been running from some posts
since December.

>
> > but this is out of the ordinary even for Nyikos.
>
> Pure GO (Garbage Out) to go with the GI (Garbage In) of the earlier
> lines.

More projection?

How many times have you posted 17 or 18 posts to me in less than 2
weeks? 12 just in this thread. Isn't that out of the ordinary for
you? So how can it be garbage out when it is true? What would the
number be if you posted on the weekends?

>
> > You have to understand why Nyikos started this thread.
>
> I've already said why, right on this thread, and it is nothing like
> the self-serving fantasy that Ron O posted next, to be deleted even in
> my next reply.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Running from the Dirty debating thread had nothing to do with it? Why
not expend some of this energy to stop running from those Sept 4
posts, or the August, July, June etc posts? Did running this
distraction in the same thread with all those posts that you have to
run from make you think too much about it?

This is a sad start and there are two more responses to my post. Did
you get all your projection and story telling out of the way in this
post, so that it doesn't pollute the next two?

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Sep 30, 5:14 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 10:57 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 2:12 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 27, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > [snip some things dealt with in my first reply]

Dealt with? What a laugher. At least I can start this post off with
another laugh.

>
> > > > > And so, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR RAY MARTINEZ, whom you have accused
> > > > > of being insane, I can if I so choose ignore anything you say about
> > > > > me, until one of the following occurs:
>
> > What standards are these?
>
> The standard that you get to ignore anything by Ray on the grounds
> that he is insane.  You've been using it against him since November.
> How does it feel to have your own standards used against you?
>
> [snip drivel about Ray irrelevant to the above]

It is relevant to what you are doing.

I'll just put it back in:

QUOTE:
What standards are these? Why drag Ray into this? Ray wasn't the
one
that lied and got caught. Ray isn't the one that quote mined Camp
and
got caught. Ray isn't the one that started all your threads to run
from your dishonest deeds. Ray isn't the one that was the dirty
debater in that thread.
END QUOTE:

Now Nyikos is sliding into the dark side. What kind of vile
degenerate would stoop to using someone like Ray to run from the dirty
deeds that he had done himself?

I do not think that there are very many regulars that do not know that
I think that Ray is mentally unstable. I leave Ray alone because I do
not want to contribute to his problems. He used to harass me quite a
lot, but I just let it go because I really do not want to mess up the
poor guy any more than he already is. I hadn't responded to one of
Ray's posts for around 2 years, but he kept harassing me. You caught
a few posts where I was trying to get him to stop. Wonder of wonders,
he did stop, and except for you it has been a better 9 months on TO
for me. Anyone that thinks that I run from Ray because I can't deal
with his arguments is just stupid. You have shown that level of
incompetence many times, so it doesn't surprise me here. To try to
use Ray is just vile. You should be ashamed of yourself. You should
apologize to Ray. I don't care if you apologize to me because I do
not expect one from such a low life scum bag.

>
> Here I've given you two ways you can get me to stop using your
> standard against you:
>
> > > > > (1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
> > > > > that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
>
> > > > > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> > > > > that the ID science wasn't ready
> > > > > to teach in the public schools."

The quote that was taken out of context from an April post. Nyikos go
back to that April post and compare how I use the quote and how I have
defended it since, and tell me that you did not take it out of
context. Go for it.

This is the guy that can add junk to a quote that doesn't exist in the
entire context of a whole pamphlet that a quote comes from and he
cannot understand mountains of context and a summary paragraph.

Don't ask for links because you have gotten them. You don't deserve
anything with what you just tried with Ray. You are a scum bag.

>
> > > This appears in context in the repost below.
>
> > Not really, you have to go back further for the context.  Nyikos only
> > takes it to the post where he manipulated the quote
>
> I merely cleared away mountains of rubbish surrrounding the quote that
> had no relevance to it.  Ron O made no attempt in reply to argue for
> its relevance. In the next post in that sequence I even challenged Ron
> O to repost anything he thought was relevant and to try to argue for
> its relevance.

This is just sad. Anyone can compare my post to this one and see how
Nyikos is lying about this.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fe117f12ff7d4d6e?dmod...

>
> Ron O made no attempt to show the context exonerated him, and then he
> only dug himself in deeper as I showed here:

I gave the link to the April post. I described what the post was
about, and I quoted the relevant material containing the quote in its
original context. All that was just snipped out by you and you have to
lie like this. You are sick.

I've already answered these posts so go back to that thread and deal
with them. I don't have to again.

SNIP:

The material that Nyikos snipped out:

EXTENDED QUOTE:

Not really, you have to go back further for the context. Nyikos only

takes it to the post where he manipulated the quote and snipped out
what he couldn't deal with. It comes from a post from April:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/36bf8a8bf0ae8571?hl=e...

Anyone that reads this quote in context will understand that I am
using it the same way that I have consistently defended this

statement. Really, in this post I am taking Nyikos to task about
lying about the ID perps running the teach ID scam.

The quote comes from this paragraph that is a summary of the
arguments
that I made to Nyikos' post. You can see that it comes at the end of
Nyikos' posted material if you go back to the original post and that
I
put up an extensive argument about what I was claiming.

QUOTE:
This is the official download site. It is unambiguous who is
responsible for the pamphlet in question and the reason that the
pamphlet was written. Nyikos is just prevaricating about it for a
stupid reason that only Nyikos knows. He admits that the ID perps
have been lying about having the ID science to teach since the very
beginning of the scam. He tried to snip and pretend that the Johnson
quote never existed, and then lied about it when he had to finally
confront the fact that even the ring leaders of the ID scam knew that

they never had the ID science to teach. He has to lie about the

Discovery Institute ID perps ever claiming to be able to teach their

bogus science of intelligent design when even the ID perps do not
deny that they made such a claim. They only claim that they never
wanted
the bogus "premature" ID science mandated to be taught even though
they admit that they targeted legislators and school boards to get ID
taught.
END QUOTE:

It is just a fact. There is so much evidence against Nyikos' bogus
claims that he really is admitting that the ID perps scammed the
rubes

by running the teach ID scam. He can't come up with any evidence
that

the ID perps did not run the teach ID scam and all the evidence
points
one way. He just has to lie about the evidence and pretend that his

acknowledgement that there is no ID science to teach in the public
schools isn't such a condemnation.

Really, anyone just has to read the part of the post that leads up to
this quote and the summary paragraph. Nyikos didn't catch me doing
anything except exposing what a bogus prevaricator that he is.

END EXTENDED QUOTE:

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Sep 30, 5:27 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 10:57 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 2:12 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 27, 7:26 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [about how to get me to stop ignoring what I want to ignore:]
>
> > > > > (1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
> > > > > that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
>
> > > > > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> > > > > that the ID science wasn't ready
> > > > > to teach in the public schools."
>
> > > This appears in context in the repost below.
>
> > Not really, you have to go back further for the context.
>
> Wrong.  The relevant context is all there; the rest is either
> redundant or irrelevant or lying crap that Ron O keeps using as filler
> in his excruciatingly long posts, in a desperate attempt to obscure
> the issues.

Didn't you just respond to this by snipping out the relevant material
and lying about it again?

>
> > It comes from a post from April:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/36bf8a8bf0ae8571?hl=e...
>
> > Anyone that reads this quote in context will understand that I am
> > using it the same way that I have consistently defended this
> > statement.
>
> Ron O has really gone off the deep end here: what made the claim you
> see above so suggestive of insanity is that it denied things in plain
> sight that had NEVER appeared in any argument between us before.

They obviously appeared in April. What was the main argument in that
post? You can't deny what it was because I have consistently repeated
the claims many times.

>
> >He admits that the ID perps
> > have been lying about having the ID science to teach since the very
> > beginning of the scam.

I think that Nyikos has put back part of what he snipped out of my
post, but he isn't marking his snips and I can't really tell. This
may be part of the quoted material that I quoted from the April post.
Of course he has taken it out of context again.

>
> There is that vile slander again, the one which I talked about at the
> end of my previous reply to this post.

I think that Nyikos' definition of slander is when he gets caught
lying.

>
> > He tried to snip and pretend that the Johnson
> > quote never existed,
>
> The "and pretend" part is a bare-faced lie.

You snipped it out and only left the second quote in and pretended
that the Johnson quote had never existed. Don't you remember the
bogus things that you do. That was pretty early. It might have been
January, but I can't remember and you aren't worth looking it up. You
know that you'd just lie about it again, so what is the point? Look
what you are doing here.

>
> > and then lied about it when he had to finally
> > confront the fact that even the ring leaders of the ID scam knew that
> > they never had the ID science to teach.
>
> I wonder whether Ron O is so insane that he thinks this  proves that
> they claimed to HAVE it in a form to teach in the public schools.

Where in any of the Discovery Institute material do they say that they
do not have the ID science ready to teach? It isn't in the propaganda
pamphlet, and it isn't in their official statement about teaching ID
in the public schools. So how can you just make this junk up? They
only claim to be able to teach it. They do not say that it isn't
ready to teach in the public schools. Go to the sources that you have
been given and try to support your claim.

>
> > He has to lie about the
> > Discovery Institute ID perps ever claiming to be able to teach their
> > bogus science of intelligent design when even the ID perps do not
> > deny
> > that they made such a claim.
>
> This is that irrelevant crap that Ron O kept posting variations on
> until he fit that Albert Einstein quote perfectly.

Nyikos' bogus denial fits Einstein's quote even better. What a
loser. Projection is a sign of insanity.

>
> > They only claim that they never wanted
> > the bogus "premature" ID science mandated to be taught even though
> > they admit that they targeted legislators and school boards to get ID
> > taught.
> > END QUOTE:
>
> > It is just a fact.
>
> It is pure speculation by Ron O, utterly without any foundation that
> he has been able to give.

Go to the Discovery Institute's web site and read their official
stance on teaching ID in the public school and point out where they
are saying that ID isn't ready to teach in the public schools when
they only claim that it can be taught. They do say "voluntarily" and
not required, but you know that is just a scam to cover how bogus the
teach ID scam still is because you know that they have nothing worth
teaching. It doesn't matter whether it is required or not, you first
have to have the science to teach.

>
> > There is so much evidence against Nyikos' bogus
> > claims
>
> Perhaps Ron O is insane enough to think that the above pure
> speculation needs no evidence at all, and that anyone who denies it is
> lying, and insane.

What evidence did you claim was not given to you, but had been given
to you in April? What evidence was linked back to, but you just
snipped and ran? Wasn't part of that evidence a book written by the
ID perps about teaching intelligent design in the public school
curriculum published in 1999. This would be around three years before
they started to run the bait and switch scam on any rube stupid enough
to have believed them. How can you run and lie about the evidence for
so many months and expect to be taken seriously?

>
> > that he really is admitting that the ID perps scammed the rubes
> > by running the teach ID scam.
>
> The insane logic I exposed in the first post is going full blast here.
>
> And all of this is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the fact that Ron O's
> statement,

I think that you are just vile. Insanity would be your only defense.

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

Here we are back to the out of context quote.

>
> was made in such defiance of what he saw all around him, it is as
> though he were staring at a bright blue sky and saying "the sky is a
> dark green."
>
> Peter Nyikos

Projection is a sign of insanity. It may be Nyikos' only legitimate
defense after this series of posts.

The rest seems to be a repeat of what he just covered without the
Nyikos snipage or response.

Anyone can just go up to my post that Nyikos was responding to to see
it with out snippage.

Ron Okimoto

SNIP:

[Ron O]

I'd agree with that. I don't read much of any of Nyikos' other posts,
and I don't expect anyone to read this junk.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

> athttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3c8d3f3f728062b8

>
>  Ron O is too lazy, or too shrewd, to quote relevant parts of most
> posts unless he is sure he can spin-doctor them to suit his anti-
> Nyikos and anti-DI agenda.
>
> Peter Nyikos

This short post is just typical of Nyikos' bogus lying and
prevarication. Just look how he doctors what I wrote about him quote
mining camp. He even snips out the relevant material again and leaves
only the quote mine and lies about me not quoting the relevant
material. What did he snip out?

Just go back and see how Nyikos has doctored the post in the link that
Nyikos didn't bother to snip out.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3c8d3f3f728062b8?hl=e

Not only has he removed the relevant material from Camp's quote, but
he is claiming that I did not quote the relevant parts when I quoted
the whole thing. He has to snip out the relevant parts because Camp
is agreeing with me that ID was a scam from the very beginning. Not
only that but he indicates that the bogus ID perps ran it that way on
purpose. Not only that but post Nyikos is responding to is a post
that links back to the post where I am linking back to is where I
requote the material after Nyikos gets caught snipping it out and
lying about quote mining. Nyikos has already responded to me quoting
the relevant material and he has done it by snipping out the relevant
material, so I put it back in from where I had already quoted it. You
can't make this junk up. What happened when Nyikos got the relevant
quoted material plus the link back to the original post? He knows
what he did, but he has to lie about it to anyone that he thinks will
listen for some pathetic reason that only Nyikos knows.

Relevant material QUOTED again:
This is what Nyikos snipped out. Just taking this series of posts
(the last few) would tell anyone what a bogus liar and pretender
Nyikos is. Nyikos is the most dishonest academic that I have ever

encountered on TO. That is a fact.

Quoting quoted material:
Starting with Camp's quote:

QUOTE:
Yeah, I don't think so. You are correct that there isn't much hard

evidence as to the DI's position on teaching ID in schools. But it's
not because Ron is wrong about their goals, it's because of the
methods this iteration of creationism has chosen to further their
goals.

The CIA is a useful analogue. They have a mandate regarding
international relations, just as does the Foreign Service or the
Diplomatic Corps. But unlike the latter two, the mission of the CIA
does not include leaving clues as to their activities. Their
operations are intended to be covert. After the failures of cases
like Edwards v. Aguillard it became clear to a set of creation
science
advocates that their future efforts would need to be more
"fingerprint-free" if you will. So they set about designing a movement
with the goal of diminishing the scope of and respect for evolutionary
biology
while at the same time creating room for their more, shall we say,
spiritual alternative. These goals are plainly explained in the Wedge
Document (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) that you
so blithely dismiss. This is a fingerprint they very desperately wish
had been erased.

If you think the analogy with the CIA, along with my analysis of
their motives, is overwrought all you need to do is familiarize
yourself
with the issue of "cdesign proponetsists" (http://pandasthumb.org/
archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html). And this brings us to the
subject of your thread.
END QUOTE:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d382ecb6f4a56ddf?hl=en

It isn't just that they covered their tracks, it is because they have
never denied what they tried to do. They never say that they never
wanted to teach ID in the public schools. Anyone can still go to
their official web site and see that they do not deny selling the
rubes that they had the ID science to teach in the public schools.
After around a year of running the bait and switch their explanation
came out about never wanting ID "mandated" to be taught. They admit
that they targeted school boards and legislators to get ID taught, so
what did they expect the creationist rubes to do? Nyikos has just
run from that evidence. He asked for evidence and I gave it, and
what
did he do?
END quoting quoted material:

Nyikos is doing this same thing in the post that he is trying to
correct for some stupid reason. He should have put the full Camp
quote back in so that anyone could see who was the bogus liar. Why
even try to lie like this. Nyikos should go back to the posts that he
is running from instead of post this kind of dishonestly doctored crap
to other posters.

The reason that Nyikos has to quote mine is simple. Camp employed a
standard rhetorical device. He put up the negative and then destroyed
it. He is obviously agreeing with me and not Nyikos, and claims that
ID was a scam from the beginning. You can't make this junk up. It is
a standard bogus ploy of the creationists to just quote the negative
argument and forget the rest. Nyikos is a special case in that most
of the dishonest cretins that try this ploy do it in books or articles
where the original quote is not readily available to check. Nyikos
has done it when the requoted Camp quote is in the post that he is
responding to. He just snips it out and pretends that it was never
given.

Go for it Nyikos. Snip out the quoted material again and then a
couple post later see if you can bring yourself to lie that the
relevant material was not quoted. What a liar and pretender.

Ron Okimoto

[pnyikos]

On Oct 1, 10:50 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/2011 10:27 AM, Ron O wrote:

> > On Oct 1, 8:12 am, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 09/30/2011 02:11 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
> >> [snip thread diluting ringside seat banter]
>
> >>> You have it exactly right. It's a postmodern reputation.
>
> >> Does anyone know the record for the longest running cage match in
> >> talk.origins history? Elsberry used to track some stats here, but I
> >> don't know if he ever tabulated eye gouges, crotch kicks, and spit out
> >> teeth. Plus, he no longer posts. These would be important things to know.
>
> >> What round is this anyway? I left to get some refreshments and was
> >> talking to Mike Tyson about his birds.

I haven't been keeping track, but this drawn-out battle is now at
about the point where the Oscar Bonavena - Muhammad Ali was in the
15th round shortly before Ali delivered the second of three
knockdowns which resulted in the referee stopping the fight--the first
time Bonavena had ever been stopped.

The first "knockdown" of Ron O came in the first post to this thread.
Since then, Ron O has been behaving like a punch-drunk boxer who never
knew what hit him. He keeps trying to relive what he sees as the
glory of the earlier rounds.

Bonavena had a few things to brag about in the first 14 rounds, one of
which was that he performed the amazing feat of making Ali look
clumsy. That's because, as one commentator wrote, Bonavena fights so
clumsily that he makes *anyone* fighting him look clumsy. [Don't get
me wrong--I'm not comparing myself to Ali, I'm comparing myself to
"*anyone*".]

I am very short on spare time this week, but I think I can administer
the second knockdown some time this week.

[idiocy by Ron O deleted, leaving the one sensible thing he posted
in:]

> > He would go weeks without
> > posting something to me.  

True, and that's partly because, as I told him shortly after we
encountered each other in December, a monomaniac like him deserves no
more than one reply a week [now I think it's more like one a month].
But on the whole, I've given him more than he deserves even by the
first standard.

[more idiocy by Ron O deleted]

> I'm no referee, just a humble spectator to this gladiator battle.

Of course, I don't expect anyone to try and play referee and ever stop
*this* fight. But after the third knockdown, I will reply to almost
nothing Ron O posts in reply to me, unless he meets one of the two
conditions I have already laid down: he either supports his insane
comment about what I was trying to do [it's (IV) in the first post to
this thread] or he finds something Ray Martinez posted that is even
more symptomatic of insanity.

After all, I would be applying the same standards to him, personally,
that he has been applying to Martinez: his grounds for ignoring
Martinez is that Martinez is allegedly insane.

>All I
> can say is you two have irreconcilable differences and I strongly doubt
> this will ever be resolved. It will just go on and on and on.

It will soon be resolved to my satisfaction. See above.

[...]

> If it's a matter of ego or pride, I'm not
> sure how many of the rest of us really care that much.

It's a matter of reputation. Ron O has slandered me innumerable
times, and can be counted on to slander me every time he posts one of
his periodic status reports of where a long list of creationists,
and I, stand.

I don't recall anyone sneering at his lists the way they sneer at
mine. I take that as an enormous compliment -- to me. It shows that
the sneerers know better than to tangle with an unjust and dishonest
man.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

As I said to Hemidactylus, Ron O is behaving like a punch-drunk boxer,
never knowing what hit him, after I hit him with stark evidence of his
own insanity. Watch the way he even now acts like he is oblivious to
the significance of something I wrote in the very first post to this
thread.

[In case y'all are wondering: what you'll see below is NOT the second
knockdown I mentioned to Hemidactylus; it merely sets Ron O up for the
second knockdown.]

On Sep 28, 7:45 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in:

> On Sep 27, 1:46 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > As I wrote in the post to which I am replying here, I am entitled, by
> > Ron O's own standards, to ignore anything I choose to ignore in future
> > posts by Ron O unless one of two conditions (spelled out below) are
> > met.

[huge snip to get to the point:]

> > > > And so, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR RAY MARTINEZ, whom you have accused
> > > > of being insane, I can if I so choose ignore anything you say about
> > > > me, until one of the following occurs:

> > > > (1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
> > > > that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
>
> > > > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> > > > that the ID science wasn't ready

> > > > to teach in the public schools."

--http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2

Watch now how Ron O launches into a bit of fallacious logic that I
"predicted" right in my first post to this thread:

"I suspect that Ron O was so carried away by his "logic" that
he figured that by denying (III) I was trying to deny (I) as well!"
--http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d319bac1c0c85623

The gist of (I) and (III) can be seen in (1) and (3) below.

> > >You either have to lie about the ID perps running
> > > the teach ID scam
>
> > Au contraire, all I have to do is to do what I did right on that
> > thread: keep telling the truth that I am unconvniced by the miserable
> > little quote that   the "ID perps" [read: the Discovery Institute] are
> > supposedly using for the "bait" of them being ready to teach the
> > science of ID on the public school level.  I kept doing it on the
> > thread where you made that insane claim (see url above).

The "url above" that I mentioned just now is
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2

> So address the quote.

This has been done innumerable times, including all through the
"Scottish verdict" thread, especially the first post, and also in the
first post to this thread. [see url above] Ron O is here just trying
to deflect attention from the corner into which he has painted
himself.

[snip rest of punch-drunk irrelevant challenge]

> > I also told the same truth, and gave reasons for it, in my very first
> > post to this thread, by the way.
>
> > [ridiculous alternative by Ron O deleted; it never entered my mind to
> > do it]
>
> Run.  Does it matter?  What was your alternative.

YOU wrote the alternative, as I clearly indicated above. It is the
alternative on which your entire fallacious case for your insane
quote rests: denial by me of (1) below:

(1) The Discovery Instituted (DI) does not have its own concept of ID
science in a form ready to teach in the public schools as a rival to
the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

(2) PREMISE: The DI has claimed, and is still claiming, to have the ID
science ready in the above form, and the oft-talked about quote PROVES
that.

(3) Therefore, the DI has been lying about its readiness to teach,
etc.

Denying (1) is something that no sane person would do after being
presented with mountains of evidence you've given me for it. That
evidence includes a powerful quote by Phillip Johnson that I have
wholeheartedly endorsed ever since I was able to find the time to read
it in context.

You kept on heaping up the evidence for (1) all through the months
we've been debating this issue, and you even gave a ridiculous spiel
early on about how you lopped off both my arms and both my legs by
providing me with evidence for (1) in the way people like Meyer
behaved after the Dover fiasco. [A fiasco of the Dover board, NOT of
the DI as far as I know.]

What made your spiel, and all subsequent spiels along the same lines
[though not as hilariously graphic] is that I never contested
anything you wrote by way of support for (1) except by asking for more
detailed documentation from time to time.

All through the Scottish verdict thread and parallel threads, you kept
harping on (1) over and over while occasionally saying that I had
[originally] snipped the Johnson quote and then slanderously claiming
that I had lied about it. [And you never lifted a finger to lend
additional credence to (2).]

I suppose your sick brain interprets every snip as a sign that I am
running from reality; in this case, I was just biding my time until I
could thoroughly investigate the Johnson quote.

But getting back to the fallaciousness of your reasoning: you seem to
think you have a godlike knowledge of (2) that makes even the huge
mountains of evidence you've amassed for (1) look like a molehill in
comparison.

And so your sick brain has been interpreting a denial of (3) coupled
with a dogged insistence that I accept (1) as a sign that I, in fact,
am trying to deny (1) because your "godlike powers" tell you that only
an insane person would disbelieve (2), and you are not ready to accept
the conclusion that I am THAT insane.

> State it directly
> and then argue why you can deny reality.  Go for it.  Why run instead?

It appears that Ron O is even now challenging me to argue why I can
deny that (2) is even more woven into in the fabric of reality than
(1). That is the ONLY way he can escape the conclusion that the
following is the raving of a madman:

> > > > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> > > > that the ID science wasn't ready

> > > > to teach in the public schools."

--documented, with the relevant context provided,
in: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2

Peter Nyikos

[Ron O]

On Oct 4, 2:01 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> As I said to Hemidactylus, Ron O is behaving like a punch-drunk boxer,
> never knowing what hit him, after I hit him with stark evidence of his
> own insanity.  Watch the way he even now acts like he is oblivious to
> the significance of something I wrote in the very first post to this
> thread.

I've been tryiing to recall if Nyikos ever had a valid argument. He
has run from so many things that I can't recall anything like he is
trying to do in this thread ever working out for him. He always ends
up running away. With that type of record I think everyone should
understand who the liar is. If he was only punch-drunk he might have
some type of excuse. He wouldn't get punch-drunk from running unless
he he hit a wall or tripped over his own feet doing it. Nyikos really
hasn't done much of anything except run since April, and he has been
running from some posts since December. That has to be sad in anyones
book.

>
> [In case y'all are wondering: what you'll see below is NOT the second
> knockdown I mentioned to Hemidactylus; it merely sets Ron O up for the
> second knockdown.]

Nyikos likes to lie to other posters about me. Ask him what happened
when he did it with Bill in the Dirty debating thread.

>
> On Sep 28, 7:45 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in:
>
> > On Sep 27, 1:46 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > As I wrote in the post to which I am replying here, I am entitled, by
> > > Ron O's own standards, to ignore anything I choose to ignore in future
> > > posts by Ron O unless one of two conditions (spelled out below) are
> > > met.
>
> [huge snip to get to the point:]

What is sad about this snip is that Nyikos is snipping back to the
bogus post where he snipped just about everything out of my initial
response. You have to go back to that post to see what Nyikos is
running from and try to figure out how this fits in.

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

This post has a brief history as well as taking care of Nyikos' bogus
argument in this thread, but as usual Nyikos snipped and ran from
everything. You just can't make up this junk. He even claimed that I
hadn't made a direct response to his thread, when he had just snipped
it out. Sort of sad, but that is Nyikos. You have to understand that
in Nyikos' warped world if he snips something out he is free to lie
about it and pretend that it never existed.

Anyone just has to go to Nyikos' response and see what he did to the
post.

>
> > > > > And so, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR RAY MARTINEZ, whom you have accused
> > > > > of being insane, I can if I so choose ignore anything you say about
> > > > > me, until one of the following occurs:
> > > > > (1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
> > > > > that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
>
> > > > > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> > > > > that the ID science wasn't ready
> > > > > to teach in the public schools."

This is Nyikos suffering flash backs to his initial bogus response. I
don't recommend it, but anyone that wants to try to figure out what is
going on has to have multiple windows open so that they can try to
figure out how Nyikos is manipulating a post.

>
>  --http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2

This is a link back to the Dirty debating thread and is several posts
down from where Nyikos initially posted the out of context quote that
he used to start this thread. You won't find the context by trying to
go up the thread. Nyikos wouldn't give the link and i had to finally
do a google search to find where he got the quote. It came from an
April post.

This is the link to where I track down the quote and put it back into
context.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/cf0f7261f715ae70?hl=en

Now I am going to repost the relevant part of this post because Nyikos
claims that I only provide links and I do not repost the relevant
material. It doesn't matter Nyikos just snips and runs anyway. I
have put the Nyikos out of context quote in {{ }} because it may be
hard to find it in the middle of the paragraph that Nyikos snipped it
out of.

EXTENDED QUOTE:
Not really, you have to go back further for the context. Nyikos only
takes it to the post where he manipulated the quote and snipped out

what he couldn't deal with. It comes from a post from April:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/36bf8a8bf0ae8571?hl=e...

Anyone that reads this quote in context will understand that I am
using it the same way that I have consistently defended this

statement. Really, in this post I am taking Nyikos to task about
lying about the ID perps running the teach ID scam.
The quote comes from this paragraph that is a summary of the
arguments
that I made to Nyikos' post. You can see that it comes at the end of
Nyikos' posted material if you go back to the original post and that
I
put up an extensive argument about what I was claiming.

QUOTE:
This is the official download site. It is unambiguous who is
responsible for the pamphlet in question and the reason that the
pamphlet was written. Nyikos is just prevaricating about it for a

stupid reason that only Nyikos knows. {{He admits that the ID perps

have been lying about having the ID science to teach since the very

beginning of the scam.}} He tried to snip and pretend that the
Johnson
quote never existed, and then lied about it when he had to finally

confront the fact that even the ring leaders of the ID scam knew that

they never had the ID science to teach. He has to lie about the

Discovery Institute ID perps ever claiming to be able to teach their
bogus science of intelligent design when even the ID perps do not

deny that they made such a claim. They only claim that they never

wanted
the bogus "premature" ID science mandated to be taught even though
they admit that they targeted legislators and school boards to get ID
taught.
END QUOTE:

It is just a fact. There is so much evidence against Nyikos' bogus
claims that he really is admitting that the ID perps scammed the
rubes

by running the teach ID scam. He can't come up with any evidence
that
the ID perps did not run the teach ID scam and all the evidence
points
one way. He just has to lie about the evidence and pretend that his
acknowledgement that there is no ID science to teach in the public
schools isn't such a condemnation.

Really, anyone just has to read the part of the post that leads up to
this quote and the summary paragraph. Nyikos didn't catch me doing
anything except exposing what a bogus prevaricator that he is.
END EXTENDED QUOTE:

>

> Watch now how Ron O launches into a bit of fallacious logic that I
> "predicted" right in my first post to this thread:
>
>   "I suspect that Ron O was so carried away by his "logic" that
>    he figured that by denying (III) I was trying to deny (I) as well!"
>  --http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d319bac1c0c85623

Nyikos is linking to a post he made to someone else, but I don't know
where this quote comes from because it isn't in the post that he is
linking to and it isn't in the post that he is responding to. If
anyone knows what he is trying to say here let me know.

>
> The gist of (I) and (III) can be seen in (1) and (3) below.

>
> > > >You either have to lie about the ID perps running
> > > > the teach ID scam

Who do you think that you are fooling by snipping out the "or" part of
this statement?

>
> > > Au contraire, all I have to do is to do what I did right on that
> > > thread: keep telling the truth that I am unconvniced by the miserable
> > > little quote that the "ID perps" [read: the Discovery Institute] are
> > > supposedly using for the "bait" of them being ready to teach the
> > > science of ID on the public school level. I kept doing it on the
> > > thread where you made that insane claim (see url above).
>
> The "url above" that I mentioned just now ishttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2

See my response to this post:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/26e79e51eeb4f2c7

>
> > So address the quote.
>
> This has been done innumerable times, including all through the
> "Scottish verdict"  thread, especially the first post, and also in the
> first post to this thread.  [see url above]  Ron O is here just trying
> to deflect attention from the corner into which he has painted
> himself.

Actually I meant the quote that you just started lying about, but it
doesn't matter. The two quotes say the same thing. You can't deny
that, you can only lie about it. You dithered about lying about the
second quote for multiple posts. What was it, at least, 4 posts where
you either snipped out the quote without comment or left it in without
relevant comment. You know what you did, but you started lying about
this quote and you started your hamster on crack posting episode. The
lie was likely the straw that broke the liars back.

Here are the quotes from the Sept 24 post Nyikos should have responded
to, but he snipped out the material and ran. He later claimed that I
had not made a direct response. Lying is just a way of life for
Nyikos. I posted it before Nyikos started to lie about this quote
too.

EXTENDED QUOTE:

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

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

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

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

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

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

This is the quote that Nyikos keeps trying to prevaricate about even
though it says the same thing as the ID perps official stance on
teaching the bogus junk.
END EXTENDED QUOTE:

You can tell that I wasn't talking about the Scottish verdict quote
from the material that Nyikos snipped out. I will just put it back.

QUOTE:
So address the quote. Address the other material. Baseless denial
doesn't do much.

Just state where in the statement that they claim to have a
scientific
theory of intelligent design to teach in the public schools that they
claim that it isn't ready to teach? You are just making that junk
up,
because it is nowhere in the official statement. It is not in the
quote that I put up, nor in the rest of the statement on what can be
taught in the public schools.

If you go back to those thread all you will see is you snipping and
running and more stupid denial. Where is the evidence that the ID
perps are claiming that ID isn't ready to teach in the public schools
in the pamphlet that the Scottish verdict thread was about or in the
official statement about teaching ID at the Discovery Institute web
site?

Just go up to my response in this thread and the links back to the
threads that you have snipped out:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26?hl=en
END QUOTE:

You can't make this junk up.

>

> [snip rest of punch-drunk irrelevant challenge]

The tragic fact is that Nyikos will take any opportunity to try and
make up junk that I am supposed to have done. He obviously would not
pass up any chance to demonstrate that I was actually wrong about
something. This just means that Nyikos has to snip and run again.

>
> > > I also told the same truth, and gave reasons for it, in my very first
> > > post to this thread, by the way.
>
> > > [ridiculous alternative by Ron O deleted; it never entered my mind to
> > > do it]
>
> > Run. Does it matter? What was your alternative.
>
> YOU wrote the alternative, as I clearly indicated above.  It is the
> alternative  on which your  entire fallacious case for your insane
> quote rests: denial by me of (1) below:
>
> (1) The Discovery Instituted (DI) does not have its own concept of ID
> science in a form ready to teach in the public schools as a rival to
> the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
>
> (2) PREMISE: The DI has claimed, and is still claiming, to have the ID
> science ready in the above form, and the oft-talked about quote PROVES
> that.

It isn't a premise. The ID perps are still running the teach ID scam,
and they do not deny doing it. Address the quote that you have
started to lie about to support your notion of a PREMISE.

>
> (3) Therefore, the DI has been lying about its readiness to teach,
> etc.

They are still claiming to be able to teach the junk. No one that I
know of has claimed that they did not want to teach the junk before

they started to run the bait and switch scam on any rube stupid enough

to have believed them about having any ID science worth teaching.

Nyikos has had 9 months to come up with any evidence that the ID perps
did not run the teach ID scam, or that they have denied running the
teach ID scam. It is one of the things that they are most known for
doing.

>
>  Denying (1) is something that no sane person would do after being
> presented with mountains of evidence you've given me for it.  That
> evidence includes a powerful quote by Phillip Johnson that I have
> wholeheartedly endorsed ever since I was able to find the time to read
> it in context.

Nyikos is trying to pretend that he didn't snip out the Johnson quote
and lie about it. You can't make this junk up. The next thing that
you know he will be making his stupid claim that if he snips something
out that does not mean that he understands it or disagrees with it.
He runs from anything that goes against the current argument that he
is trying to make. What is Johnson known for doing? What was he
giving up teaching in the public schools? What has he not supported
doing since making the statement under discussion. Nyikos even
claimed that Johnson was old as some lame excuse to dismiss the quote
that he made in 2006. He is still alive and he hasn't supported the
teach ID scam since making this statement that I know of.

>
> You kept on heaping up the evidence for (1)  all through the months
> we've been debating this issue, and you even gave a ridiculous spiel
> early on about how you lopped off both my arms and both my legs by
> providing me with evidence for (1) in the way people like Meyer
> behaved after the Dover fiasco. [A fiasco of the Dover board, NOT of
> the DI as far as I know.]

You have been armless since December when you ran from your first
post. You specifically requested the documentation, but when I gave
it you ran. When I requoted it in another post you snipped out the
relevant quote about Meyer running the bait and switch on the Ohio
rubes and ran. When I confronted you about your bogus deed, you
snipped out the same relevant material only leaving in the same part
of the quote that you had the previous time and lied about it again.
When confronted by what you had done you ran for good. Doing the
creative quote manipulation once may have been an accident, but doing
the same bogus thing twice was so dishonest that how you can stand
yourself is something that I have wondered for months. You have been
bogus since December and you know that for a fact.

Go back to the Sept 4 posts that you started this thread to run from.

You are just pathetic.

>
> What made your spiel, and all subsequent spiels along the same lines
> [though not as hilariously graphic] is that  I never  contested
> anything you wrote by way of support for (1) except by asking for more
> detailed documentation from time to time.

You have consistently run and you know it. You only make the
documentation request to make it look like you might have an argument,
but you end up running or lying about the documentation. Go back to
the Sept 4 post and demonstrate otherwise.

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

After that there are posts back to December that you can gleefully
refute at your leisure. What a liar.

>
> All through the Scottish verdict thread and parallel threads, you kept
> harping on (1) over and over while occasionally saying that I had
> [originally] snipped the Johnson quote and then slanderously claiming
> that I had lied about it.  [And you never lifted a finger to lend
> additional credence to (2).]

Demonstrate that you did not lie about it. Go for it. You put up the
link and we can all check it out. Of course I will be prepared to put
up the actual series of events if you decide to do something stupid
and dishonest. Go for it.

>
> I suppose your sick brain interprets every snip as a sign that I am
> running from reality; in this case, I was just biding my time until I
> could thoroughly investigate the Johnson quote.

I wonder why you didn't say that? Why just snip it out and then claim
that what I quoted didn't say what I claimed when it obviously did in
the part that you snipped out? My recollection is that you had
multiple posts to check out the Johnson quote before you manipulated
the material and lied about what I had originally quoted. Really, you
just ignored it at first, but what did you eventually end up doing?

>
> But getting back to the fallaciousness of your reasoning: you seem to
> think you have a godlike knowledge of (2) that makes even the huge
> mountains of evidence you've amassed for (1) look like a molehill in
> comparison.

I am just certain that you lie a lot and that you are lying and
prevaricating in anyway that you can to deny reality. That is just a
fact. Explain why you dithered about lying about the official
Discovery Institute stance on teaching ID in the public schools. What
forced you to start lying about the quote? You are just
pathologically incapable of admitting that you are wrong. You can't
even admit your stupid mistakes. The lies just multiply for the
simple reason that once you are caught lying you have to keep lying
about it and about anything that would indicate that you had lied
about what you are lying about. Just demonstrate that you have
admitted to your stupid mistakes. What lie did you tell Bill in the
dirty debating thread? Did you appologize for lying about me to
another poster? Did you acknowledge that you had been wrong about
it. Isn't it sad that it was just some bogus lie that you had made up
in your own mind? I don't make this junk up. You have been guilty of
all of it since you started posting to TO again back in December. You
have just gotten worse if anything.

>
> And so your sick brain has been interpreting  a denial of (3) coupled
> with a dogged insistence that I accept (1) as a sign that I, in fact,
> am trying to deny (1) because your "godlike powers" tell you that only
> an insane person would disbelieve (2), and you are not ready to accept
> the conclusion that I am THAT insane.

Projection is a sign of insanity. You won't see Nyikos counter any of
the examples given of his bogus behavior. You will just see him
accusing others of what he is guilty of.

>
> > State it directly
> > and then argue why you can deny reality. Go for it. Why run instead?
>
> It appears that  Ron O is even now challenging me to argue why I can
> deny that (2) is even more woven into in the fabric of reality than
> (1).  That is the ONLY way he can escape the conclusion that the
> following is the raving of a madman:

The ID perps are still claiming to be able to teach the bogus ID
junk. Why lie? Just go back to their official statement about it and
try to deny it. Take the whole written statement (I give you the
link) and try to find where they claim that ID isn't ready to teach.
They only claim to be able to teach the junk. What a bone headed
liar. You have even had to lie about never getting additional
evidence. You had gotten the Wedge document and the Ohio junk. The
additional evidence that you lied about not getting was given to you
in April and you just ran from it. When I linked back to the
additional evidence you snipped out the link and ran again, and I have
posted similar material in other posts. So what excuse do you have?

>
> > > > > "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
> > > > > that the ID science wasn't ready
> > > > > to teach in the public schools."
>
>  --documented, with the relevant context provided,
> in:  http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2
>
> Peter Nyikos

Nyikos starts a whole thread to do nothing except make me look bad and
he does it by taking a quote out of context and pretending that he
caught me lying.

You can't make this junk up.

Someone that likes Chinese puzzles should put my post and Nyikos'
response to it side by side and try to figure out what he did to my
post. I can't even figure out one part in the middle, and I have 8
windows open for this post.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

On Oct 4, 10:11�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 10:50�am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/01/2011 10:27 AM, Ron O wrote:
> > > On Oct 1, 8:12 am, *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> �wrote:
> > >> On 09/30/2011 02:11 PM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
> > >> [snip thread diluting ringside seat banter]
>
> > >>> You have it exactly right. It's a postmodern reputation.
>
> > >> Does anyone know the record for the longest running cage match in
> > >> talk.origins history? Elsberry used to track some stats here, but I
> > >> don't know if he ever tabulated eye gouges, crotch kicks, and spit out
> > >> teeth. Plus, he no longer posts. These would be important things to know.
>
> > >> What round is this anyway? I left to get some refreshments and was
> > >> talking to Mike Tyson about his birds.
>
> I haven't been keeping track, but this drawn-out battle is now at
> about the point where the Oscar Bonavena - Muhammad Ali was in the
> 15th round shortly before �Ali delivered the second of three
> knockdowns which resulted in the referee stopping the fight--the first
> time Bonavena had ever been stopped.

Hemidactylus:
Sorry about Nyikos' behavior. You should just tune this out because
all that I am doing is deflating a bogus blowhard.

Back to Nyikos:
Projection is a sign of insanity. Isn't running away a technical
knock out in boxing? Beats me, I don't follow boxing, but running
sounds like something that would be a technical knock out. You should
put "no mas no mas" where ever you snip something out and run. What
should that mean to Nyikos? What will it mean when he snips out most
of the material in my responses in this thread and runs even when he
does answer a post?

>
> The first "knockdown" of Ron O came in the first post to this thread.
> Since then, Ron O has been behaving like a punch-drunk boxer who never
> knew what hit him. �He keeps trying to relive what he sees as the
> glory of the earlier rounds.

How could it be a knockdown when you are basing your whole argument on
a quote that you took out of context and inflated beyond any
reasonable usage to claim that I was lying?

See my response to your post and determine who punch drunk one is.

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

>
> Bonavena had a few things to brag about in the first 14 rounds, one of
> which was that he performed the amazing feat of making Ali look
> clumsy. �That's because, as one commentator wrote, Bonavena fights so
> clumsily that he makes *anyone* fighting him look clumsy. [Don't get
> me wrong--I'm not comparing myself to Ali, I'm comparing myself to
> "*anyone*".]

The funny thing about this story is that Nyikos is admitting that he
is a bogus blowhard that got caught lying about a lot of stupid things
for stupid reasons. That behavior made him look bogus and
incompetent. The only reason that he had to lie is that he is
pathologically incapable of admitting a mistake. The lies just
compound with that attitude. Who claimed that I was running from a
post for three whole days when he had posted it to someone else and
there was no reason that I should have known the post existed? Who is
incapable of admitting to something as stupid as that, and then would
claim that he was an academic professor of mathematics and had no
reason to lie about anything? Just because your motive is stupid
doesn't mean that you don't have one.

This is as close to an admission that the material that I posted in my
response is all true. Nyikos' problem is that anyone can use the
links to check it out if they want and determine the facts for
themselves. That is what makes snipping and lying about the material
so bogus because it doesn't change reality, but it makes Nyikos feel
better for a while until the next lies are needed to cover his
previous lies etc.

>
> I am very short on spare time this week, but I think I can administer
> the second knockdown some time this week.
>
> [idiocy by Ron O deleted, leaving the one sensible thing he posted
> in:]

No mas, no mas.

Anyone can check out Nyikos' initial post in this thread and try to
figure out what the beef is and if it was worth a whole thread to
itself and then go back up to what Nyikos is snipping out and
determine that if Nyikos could counter he would, but since he can't he
has to run.

>
> > >�He would go weeks without

> > > posting something to me. �
>
> True, and that's partly because, as I told him shortly after we
> encountered each other in December, a monomaniac like him deserves no
> more than one reply a week [now I think it's more like one a month].
> But on the whole, I've given him more than he deserves even by the
> first standard.

I recall that you didn't make the statement until you blew it by
starting the misdirection thread in Feb. You could put up the link to
the post. Who asked for a link to the post where you got the quote
that you are basing your current bogus argument on? I never got the
link and had to use google to trace the quote back to April. What
does the quote mean in context?

>
> [more idiocy by Ron O deleted]

Another TKO?

>
> > I'm no referee, just a humble spectator to this gladiator battle.
>
> Of course, I don't expect anyone to try and play referee and ever stop
> *this* fight. �But after the third knockdown, I will reply to almost
> nothing Ron O posts in reply to me, unless he meets one of the two
> conditions I have already laid down: he either supports his insane
> comment about what I was trying to do [it's (IV) in the first post to
> this thread] or he finds something Ray Martinez posted that is even
> more symptomatic of insanity.

No referee is needed because in the end it is only yourself that you
have to answer to (possibly, that intelligent designer). Nyikos is
the most bogus academic that I have ever met on TO. That is a fact.
Posters that know me, know that I do not say things like that
lightly. Nyikos can't tell the truth if it means that he has been
wrong about something, especially if it is something that he has
prevaricated about. 9 months of it, and he can't help himself. He is
even more bogus than that because when he gets caught in a lie he has
to project his bad behavior onto someone else and try nasty and
vindictive things like start threads like this. Somewhere in this
mess of posts Nyikos admits that he did it to make me look bad, but
who is the smuck? He gets caught lying in some Sept 4 posts and he
starts this thread. He gets caught lying in the dirty debating thread
and he starts the Scottish verdict thread. He has to run from some
posts in the original thread and he starts the misdirection thread.
I'm not the one that does bogus things like that.

>
> After all, I would be applying the same standards to him, personally,
> that he has been applying to Martinez: his grounds for ignoring
> Martinez is that Martinez is allegedly insane.

To use someone like Ray is just vile. You should stop before you do
something really stupid and messed up that a sane person would
regret. Taking advantage of people is sad whenever someone does it,
but it gets sadder depending on the victim.

>
> >All I
> > can say is you two have irreconcilable differences and I strongly doubt
> > this will ever be resolved. It will just go on and on and on.
>
> It will soon be resolved to my satisfaction. �See above.

This is almost maniacal in itself. When has Nyikos made good on any
promise like this? Who was the dirty debater in that thread? What
was the Scottish verdict? It is almost funny, but Nyikos is likely
serious. Considering the wet noodle that this thread is what could he
possibly have in mind?

>
> [...]
>
> > If it's a matter of ego or pride, I'm not
> > sure how many of the rest of us really care that much.
>
> It's a matter of reputation. �Ron O has slandered me innumerable
> times, and can be counted on to slander me every time he posts one of
> his periodic status reports of �where �a long list of creationists,
> and I, stand.

In Nyikos speak he means that I told the truth and he has to lie about
it. Slander is what he does. Projection is a sign of insanity.

>
> I don't recall anyone sneering at his lists the way they sneer at
> mine. �I take that as an enormous compliment -- to me. �It shows that
> the sneerers know better than to tangle with an unjust and dishonest
> man.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Nyikos is right. It is time for another by their fruits thread. I
usually try to put one out ever 4 months and it is over due.

The continuing thread is sort of a service. Anyone that wants to can
use Google to look up other posts by the creationists. I use it so
that I can just use a key word search and bring up the threads and
find the poster that I am thinking of. In fact I try to pick a
representative post at random, and if the post is too stupid I look
for another just so I don't look like I am stacking the deck. You
made the list last time, and I specifically singled you out.

What does it tell you when you are the only IDiot that has tried to
claim that the ID perps did not run the teach ID scam? You may have
been ignorant, but what happened when you found out that you had been
wrong? This long series of posts where you have to lie about reality
and post vindictive and slanderous material and lie about other
posters, for what? Just because you were wrong about a stupid detail
like the ID perps running the bait and switch scam on their own
creationist support base. You know that the ID perps are still
claiming to be able to teach the scientific theory of intelligent
design, and the bait and switch went down on Bachmann and the Texas
IDiots just in the last 9 months that you have been posting. So where
does that leave your bogus denials? Has any creationist rube ever
gotten the scientific theory of intelligent design that the ID perps
are still claiming to be able to teach in the public schools?

Why did you dither about the Discovery Institute quote for all those
posts and then finally decide that you had to lie about it too? I am
not forcing you to lie. You are doing that on your own. Projecting
your bad behavior onto others isn't the answer. What kind of fruit
are you? This is the Biblical sense. I am not trying to make fun of
you. Adman went nuts when he figured out what the title of the thread
meant. So what kind of fruit have you been and what does that tell
you about the bogus ID scam? What kind of fruit does the ID scam
produce? You started spouting Bible verses to try to defend yourself,
so do you know that one?

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

It is sort of weird reading the junk that Nyikos posts to other
posters (this is the second such post that I have read today). I
guess that I shouldn't be surprised considering the bogus junk he got
caught feeding Bill, but I do not often read Nyikos' other posts
unless I stumble over them.

What makes this response so funny is that Burkard is justifiably
taking a pot shot at both Nyikos and myself and all Nyikos can do is
berate him for being on my side. You can't make this junk up.

>
> You would sing a very different song if  Ron O puked all over you for
> thousands of lines, as described above.  But Ron O, although insane by
> all available evidence, is shrewd enough to know what the "right" side
> of the various issues in talk.origins is.  These issues include
> evolution, abiogenesis, Intelligent Design (ID), and the issue of
> whether Michael Behe is "full of shit."

The reason that you look so bad is because my side is the right side
of the issue and you took up with the bogus scam artists and got
covered in their shit. That wasn't my fault. Who is still claiming
to be able to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design in the
public schools on their current web site?

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

>
> And so it's a safe bet it will never come to blows between the two of
> you, inasmuch as you are also on the "right" side of these issues.
> [Well, I'm not sure about the Michael Behe one but if you have a very
> different opinion about him than Ron O, you'll keep a discreet silence
> about it when he is around.]

People don't have to agree or disagree with you all the time for you
to be right or wrong. Lying to yourself like you do just puts you on
the wrong side of things more often than not. When Bill was being
stupid I took him to task for it. You just took advantage of his
ignorance to get him involved in something that he likely didn't want
to get involved with.

>
> I suspect Ron O shrewdly surveyed the terrain when he joined t.o. and
> decided that if he came up with a formula "ID perps running the bait
> and switch scam," that would put him automatically on the "right" side
> of the last two debates.

Nyikos likes to make up these stories for some reason. His own
bogousity is a story in itself so why is there this need to make up
junk? I just have to stick to what he does. Who was the dirty
debater in that thread that Nyikos started? Who started this thread
to run from those pesky Sept 4 posts.

>
> [The "bait" part is the thesis that the Discovery Institute (DI) has
> claimed to have the science of Intelligent Design ALREADY in a form
> suitable for teaching in the public schools.  This is the part that is
> in dispute between us, and Ron O has called me a liar and insane for
> not agreeing with this thesis.]

They are still claiming it, and anyone just has to go to the link to
their web site and see for themselves. They are most known for
running the teach ID scam, no one has denied it before you. They only
started to claim that they never wanted ID "mandated" to be taught.
What does that tell you?

>
> The formula also puts him on the "right" side of  the first two issues
> in the eyes of most talk.origins posters, many of whom know very
> little about the last two issues, but see what the near-consensus of
> opinion here is on them ("Behe is a closet creationist, ID necessarily
> involves the supernatural, putting it outside science") and just
> follow the path of least resistance.

Behe is a creationist. He isn't YEC unless he is lying about that,
but he is definitely a creationist. What makes Behe bogus is not that
he is a creationist, but what he does because he is one.

>
> Never mind that no one in this newsgroup agrees with him that the two
> quotes he featured in his first post to this thread prove the
> existence of the "bait" part beyond a reasonable doubt.  Never mind
> that Ron O has called me a liar and insane for not agreeing with him
> that they DO prove this.  Never mind that nobody ever endorsed this
> insane attitude of Ron O about these quotes.

The facts won't change by lying about them. What is your
interpretation of the quotes and what the ID perps want to teach in
the public schools. Go for it. Take the two quotes and demonstrate
that they do not say what I claim. You can look for all the context
that you want in the propaganda pamphlet or the official statement and
what do you get? If you add context then you better find somewhere
where they are actually saying that. Even then it wouldn't matter
because the point of the propaganda pamphlet and the official
statement is to scam the rubes, so even if they admit that ID is bogus
somewhere you know what they are doing in the quoted material. If
they weren't trying to scam the rubes the qualifiers would be in the
propaganda and bogus official statement, and not hidden somewhere
else.

Projection is a sign of insanity. Nyikos had to quote mine Camp to
pretend that someone would agree with him, but I recall a couple of
posters that claimed that you seemed to be the one that was missing
something or that they could not figure out where your interpretation
was coming from. One might have even been Burkard. Who did you snip
out the "Has ID been banned from the public schools? No." part of
that quote in your response? You were trying to claim that the quote
didn't mean what I claimed. You were claiming "not in the public
schools." and it was right in the part of the quote that you had
removed.

>
> He is on y'all's side in those debates and, except for the first, I'm
> not.  And so you feel perfectly entitled to play the "neutral" obsever
> and lump me in with him as one of the "children."  Who's ever going to
> set you straight on that?
>
> Peter Nyikos

Nyikos the lying martyr. I don't think that, that would count as a
noble deed, or anything that you would want to brag about.

Ron Okimoto

[pnyikos]

On another thread, Ron O has been bragging about how I "ran away"
from this post of his. Now I begin one of several installments where
I deal with the contents.

On Sep 24, 10:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> Nyikos did admit that ID was just a scam

This is a vile slander, which I dealt with it on another thread less
than an hour ago.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5c41765e84feb957

> and that there was no ID
> science ready to teach in the public schools. It is a no brainer that
> the ID perps ran the teach ID scam for years before they ran the bait
> and switch and that they are still running the teach ID scam, they
> just claim that they never wanted ID mandated to be taught. Those are
> facts that Nyikos can't deny, well, he has tried to lie about it for
> months, but that is Nyikos.

The above torrent of allegations was also dealt with in that post on
that other thread. Now we come to a little bit of the sequel:


> Really, no one not even the ID perps deny
> that they ran the teach ID scam. Nyikos has never put up a denial by
> the ID perps

Here is an excerpt from a post to this thread that directly rebuts
that:

_____________ begin excerpt______________

> > Irrelevant unless you can document someone accusing them and them not
> > denying it in the face of the accusation. This you have not done.

> This is the insane type of argument that Nyikos employs. He knows
> that the ID perps are still running the teach ID scam,

This is a variation on a vile slander that I told Arkalen about. I
know no such thing, inasmuch as without the bait there is no scam.
[I've lost count how many times I've told this to Ron O.]

> The ID perps do not deny that
> they ran the teach ID scam. Just ask Pagano or Kalk.

Will they document something you seem totally unable to document? See
my airtight reasoning, "Irrelevant unless..." above.

You are helpless in the face of that reasoning; you can only repeat
your pitiful claim that they never denied it.

[variations on the same pitiful claim deleted]

> > For all i know, you could be the only person on earth who claims to
> > have proof that they claimed to have the science ready to teach in the
> > public schools. Can you document anyone else making that claim?

No documentation provided, just another variation on that pitiful
claim:

> Ask anyone around TO.

================== end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/40fb8e75b7385999

> because they are still claiming to be able to teach the
> bogus junk in the public schools.

Note how this does NOT address my "For all I know" comment in the
excerpt above. Ron O. has never addressed it.

And all he can muster for what follows the "because" are two cherry-
picked, out of context quotes that do NOT explicitly make the claim
that Ron O attrributes to them.

> So Nyikos has acknowledged that the ID perps were lying about having
> the ID science to teach in the public schools.

This is and always was a vile slander. What's more, that "So", as
though he had proven his case right in the parts you have seen, and a
bit more that you can see by going to the url above, is more strong
evidence of Ron O's insanity.

Peter Nyikos

[Ron O]

On Oct 11, 12:21 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On another thread, Ron O has been bragging  about how I "ran away"
> from this post of his.  Now I begin one of several installments where
> I deal with the contents.

You did snip and run and then you compounded that bogus deed by lying
about the post claiming that I had not made a direct rebuttal, and now
you are going to try to rebut the rebuttal that you claimed that I did
not make? Why start off with bogus prevarication?

>
> On Sep 24, 10:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Nyikos did admit that ID was just a scam
>
> This is a vile slander, which  I dealt with it on another thread less
> than an hour ago.

Nyikos knows what I mean by this because he knows that he took the
quote out of context from an April post so that he could run from some
pesky Sept 4 posts. You can't make this junk up. He had to reach
back to April to find something to try to lie about. I'll let Nyikos
tell his side of what the context is. Go for it Nyikos. Demonstrate
that you aren't blowing this line of argument out of all proportion
just because you got caught in a real bogus lie about the "ONLY"
evidence. What a liar. Projection is a sign of insanity and we both
know who is producing the vile slander. Just go back to the post
where I put in the context of the quote and try not to run away and
give your explanation of it.

While you are at it you might want to address those Sept 4 posts that
you started this thread to run away from.

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5c41765e84feb957

You can't make this junk up. Nyikos is prevaricating about me
interchangably using response and rebuttal in order to do what? Deny
that He lied about me making a rebuttal when he is now trying to rebut
the rebuttal that he claimed that I did not make? This is almost too
sad for words.

>
> > and that there was no ID
> > science ready to teach in the public schools.  It is a no brainer that
> > the ID perps ran the teach ID scam for years before they ran the bait
> > and switch and that they are still running the teach ID scam, they
> > just claim that they never wanted ID mandated to be taught.  Those are
> > facts that Nyikos can't deny, well, he has tried to lie about it for
> > months, but that is Nyikos.
>
> The above torrent of allegations was also dealt with in that post on
> that other thread.  Now we come to a little bit of the sequel:

Nyikos can only run. Reality is what it is. The ID perps are still
claiming to be able to teach the bogus ID claptrap. Nyikos knows this
for a fact. That is what makes his denial so stupid. If Nyikos
doesn't know it, why would he refuse to comment on the ID perps
official statement for at least 4 posts where he left the material in
and refused to acknowledge it. He even started to snip it out with
out comment, but he never denied what it said. He just snipped it out
of the post that he is rebutting. You really can't make this junk up.

It is just a fact that even the ID perps that ran the teach ID scam do
not deny that they did it. Anyone can go to their official statement
on the issue and all you will see is them continuing to claim that
they can still teach the scientific theory of intelligent design, when
Nyikos has admitted that there never was any scientific theory of
intelligent design worth teaching in the public schools.

Part of what Nyikos snipped out:

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

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

END QUOTING:

Anyone, even Nyikos can go to this link and find the ID perps
continuing to claim that they have the scientific theory to teach in
the public schools. There is no denial only a continuation of the
scam.

>
> >  Really, no one not even the ID perps deny
> > that they ran the teach ID scam.  Nyikos has never put up a denial by
> > the ID perps
>
> Here is an excerpt from a post to this thread that directly rebuts
> that:
>
> _____________ begin excerpt______________
>

Excerpt from where? This isn't part of the post that you are
rebutting.

> > > Irrelevant unless you can document someone accusing them and them not
> > > denying it in the face of the accusation.  This you have not done.
> > This is the insane type of argument that Nyikos employs.  He knows
> > that the ID perps are still running the teach ID scam,
>
> This is a variation on a vile slander that I told Arkalen about.  I
> know no such thing, inasmuch as without the bait there is no scam.
> [I've lost count how many times I've told this to Ron O.]
>
> > The ID perps do not deny that
> > they ran the teach ID scam.  Just ask Pagano or Kalk.
>
> Will they document something you seem totally unable to document?  See
> my airtight reasoning, "Irrelevant unless..." above.

Nyikos is lying here because he got the documentation. Just because
he wants to lie about it, doesn't mean much. It exists and the words
won't change on the web site until the ID perps decide to change the
scam that they are running.

>
> You are helpless in the face of that reasoning; you can only repeat
> your pitiful claim that they never denied it.
>
> [variations on the same pitiful claim deleted]

No, you have been given proof that they are still claiming to be able
to teach the bogus junk. Don't snip and run and don't just run in
denial, but address the official Discovery Institute statement about
teaching the ID scam junk that you have claimed is not ready to
teach. What about the other evidence that you lied about never
getting? Go back to the Sept 4 posts and address what you are running
from.

The links are in the post that you are supposed to be rebutting here.

>
> > > For all i know, you could be the only person on earth who claims to
> > > have proof that they claimed to have the science ready to teach in the
> > > public schools.  Can you document anyone else making that claim?
>
> No documentation provided, just another variation on that pitiful
> claim:

You've gotten so much documentation that why should I keep putting it
up when all you do is run and lie about it later?

Address the Discovery Institute web site. Address the evidence that
you claim that you never got. Why did you have to start this thread?
What posts were you running from this time?

>
> > Ask anyone around TO.
>
> ================== end of excerpt
> fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/40fb8e75b7385999

Well, Heck, his this where this is coming from. Why not get back
there and respond to my response to this post.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b997e81b9e7da108

Why should I have to respond to it again?

>
> > because they are still claiming to be able to teach the
> > bogus junk in the public schools.
>
> Note how this does NOT address my "For all I know" comment in the
> excerpt above.  Ron O. has never addressed it.

You just denied it, where did you demonstrate that it isn't the case?

Go to the Discovery Institute link and try to claim that the ID perps
are not still claiming to teach the scientific theory of intelligent
design, that you know doesn't exist. Do the ID perps have a real
scientific theory such as the theory of biological evolution to teach
in the public schools?

>
> And all he can muster for what follows the "because" are two cherry-
> picked, out of context quotes that do NOT explicitly make the claim
> that Ron O attrributes to them.

Demonstrate that they are out of context. You on the other hand did
cherry pick a qoute out of the middle of a summary paragraph at the
end of an extended post. Demonstrate that you have that much context
on your side in this instance.

I will quote the whole official statement to make it easier for you,
and it contains the quote that you have just lied about me taking out
of context.

QUOTE:
What does the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture
recommend for science education curriculum?

As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort
to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or
state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about
intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and
open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within
the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present
time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it
accurately and objectively.

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to
increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that
evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and
they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its
unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a
scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred
dogma that can't be questioned.

Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide
students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-
Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an
alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common
ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.

Seven states (Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina and Texas) have science standards that require learning
about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.
Additionally, Louisiana has a statewide law that protects the rights
of teachers “to help students understand, analyze, critique, and
review scientific theories in an objective manner,” specifically
naming evolution as an example. Texas’s science standards require
that students “analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations
… including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those
scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking.” Texas
also requires students to “analyze and evaluate” core evolutionary
claims including “common ancestry,” “natural selection,” “mutation,”
and the formation of “long complex molecules having information such
as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.”

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

The U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard strongly affirmed the
individual teacher’s right to academic freedom. It also recognized
that, while the statute requiring the teaching of creationism in that
case was unconstitutional, “…teaching a variety of scientific theories
about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done
with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of
science instruction.”
END QUOTE:

You can't deny what you know, now, right? Well Nyikos can snip and
lie or run away, but no one is fooled by that lame tactic. Is your
Intelligent designer so incompetent that he is fooled by such
behavior?

>
> > So Nyikos has acknowledged that the ID perps were lying about having
> > the ID science to teach in the public schools.
>
> This is and always was a vile slander.  What's more, that "So", as
> though he had proven his case right in the parts you have seen, and a
> bit more that you can see by going to the url above, is more strong
> evidence of Ron O's insanity.
>
> Peter Nyikos

What Nyikos does is vile slander. The truth may hurt someone as
dishonest ans Nyikos, but the truth is not slander.

The sad thing is that Nyikos didn't even rebut my rebuttal. He just
snipped most of it out and ran again.

Just check out what Nyikos is running from:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26?

He even snipped out the quotes that he claims were taken out of
context and the links where anyone could go see the context and
determine who the liar is.

Ron Okimoto