HYPER-DARWINISM
Peter Nyikos
Howard Hershey, has long been attacking Jeffrey Schwartz's
book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
In his more unguarded moments, he shows that he is
a HYPER-Darwinian, labeling even evolutionary events
that most people would consider to be gradualistic with
the epithet, "magic". This happened, for example, on
the first of the month (Nov.), when he posted the following:
======================= begin excerpt from followup to me
> Scenario 2. A homeobox gene mutation results in loss of function
Accchh! Why not intone "magic results in a magical change". Same thing
in this case.
============================ end of excerpt
Examples of such mutations have been produced in the lab. This
has been documented, and Hershey was participating in the
discussion where implications of this fact were analyzed.
Yet so set is he against extraordinary mutations that
he simply wrote off my suggested example as you see above.
The context was this: I was posting on early human
embryonic development. The focus was the human amniotic
membrane, the inner membrane in the two-layered "bag of waters"
that is delivered at birth along with the baby, the placenta,
and the umbilical cord.
The early embryonic precursor of the placenta is known as
the trophoblast, and its inner layer, known as the cytotrophoblast,
has been featured in one of three alternative theories
as to how the amniotic membrane is first produced.
I was describing a hypothetical scenario for how the
amniotic membrane, or amnion for short, could have had
its production transferred by mutation from a different
part of the early embryo to the cytotrophoblast. Hershey
simply would have none of it, due to his HYPER-Darwinism.
Details will be given in followup to this post of Hershey
to this same thread.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
David Iain Greig
>One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
>Howard Hershey,
I would not call Howard 'one of the most popular people
in this newsgroup'. Except perhaps in relation to the
popularity of the one making the above claim.
Did you study formal rhetoric in school?
--D.
Pat James
(in message <slrn848kc...@darwin.ediacara.org>):
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
>> Howard Hershey,
>
> I would not call Howard 'one of the most popular people
> in this newsgroup'. Except perhaps in relation to the
> popularity of the one making the above claim.
I thought the Hershey entity was a sock-puppet created by The Pack(tm) to
harass and annoy Petey the Grate?
>
> Did you study formal rhetoric in school?
He's Perfect in every way. He don't need to do no stinking studying.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Peter Nyikos
so, my apologies for not listing him below.
And DIG, because of my question below, which I'd appreciate
an e-mailed reply to.
gr...@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig) writes:
>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
>>Howard Hershey,
>I would not call Howard 'one of the most popular people
>in this newsgroup'. Except perhaps in relation to the
>popularity of the one making the above claim.
People go out of their way to avoid offending him. The
only correction I recall ever seeing of him from anyone other
than me, Julie, and Joe Potter
was a gentle correction of one of his perennial
lies, the one about sequencing heme. And even that
correction, by Wade Hines, was carefully couched in
the terms of what I would probably respond to that,
rather than in terms of the truth of the matter.
In contrast, the same Wade Hines has had some real donnybrooks
with Laurence A. Moran, the only real rival of Howard Hershey
for the position of Alpha Wolf of the Pack. I also see
insults flying back and forth between Moran and Myers
from time to time. Hershey, on the other hand, seems
to be serenely exempt from such barbed clowning around.
By the way, David, while I have you on the line...
Have you ever gotten to the bottom of why NONE of my
crossposts to talk.origins and alt.astrology/alt.paranormal
have EVER been posted by the robo-moderator? I was very
careful to observe the 4-newsgroup limit in every single
one, usually keeping it down to 3.
Joseph Potter
<snip>
Hmmm.
I have noticed this also. If you are correct, then
I wonder why this is.
Perhaps he always buys the beer at the little
gathering of howlers?
Regards, Joe
Peter Nyikos
>On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:36:56 -0500, David Iain Greig wrote
>(in message <slrn848kc...@darwin.ediacara.org>):
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
>>> Howard Hershey,
>>
>> I would not call Howard 'one of the most popular people
>> in this newsgroup'. Except perhaps in relation to the
>> popularity of the one making the above claim.
>I thought the Hershey entity was a sock-puppet created by The Pack(tm) to
>harass and annoy Petey the Grate?
Not really. There really is a person named Howard Hershey,
and the hypothesis I favor is that one of the reasons for
his enormous popularity
is his willingness to let certain people post to talk.origins
using the line
From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
in their headers.
This hypothesis is based on a lot of disparate
data including the fact that he invariably (in my experience)
fails to sign his name to posts that feature on-topic
statements that appear under that header line.
If this hypothesis is correct, it would explain why everyone
(except people the Hershey institution has singled out for
adversarial status) is afraid to criticize him in any way:
some are afraid of offending someone whom they are on
good e-mail terms with, while others would simply
be criticizing themselves.
>> Did you study formal rhetoric in school?
>He's Perfect in every way. He don't need to do no stinking studying.
Ah, yes, I forgot to update a certain category of mine:
ANTI-CREATIONIST LOOSE CANNONS
These are people who post so clumsily, they seem to be more of a handicap
to the anti-creationist faction in talk.origins than an asset.
Henry Barwood "maff91" John Mazor "wf3h"
Prime Candidates: Elmer Bataitis BeckyLynn Bob Casanova
Dave Horn Pat "Splifford" James Bruce Salem
By the way, "anti-creationist" has at least as much to do with being
against creationists as it does to do with being against creationism.
NONE of the above would be among the above if they seemed
to be merely against creationism and not against creationists.
Case in point:
>--
>Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
>incredible arrogance.
>Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
>incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
howard hershey
>
> Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
[snip]
>
> >I thought the Hershey entity was a sock-puppet created by The Pack(tm) to
> >harass and annoy Petey the Grate?
>
> Not really. There really is a person named Howard Hershey,
> and the hypothesis I favor is that one of the reasons for
> his enormous popularity
> is his willingness to let certain people post to talk.origins
> using the line
>
> From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
>
> in their headers.
>
> This hypothesis is based on a lot of disparate
> data including the fact that he invariably (in my experience)
> fails to sign his name to posts that feature on-topic
> statements that appear under that header line.
>
> If this hypothesis is correct, it would explain why everyone
> (except people the Hershey institution has singled out for
> adversarial status) is afraid to criticize him in any way:
> some are afraid of offending someone whom they are on
> good e-mail terms with, while others would simply
> be criticizing themselves.
>
This hypothesis is as firmly grounded in evidence as the hypothesis that
there are Throomians responsible for our existence.
yojimbo
> book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
> another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
> by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
> conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
>
"peter", please read the following:
from http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=543240769
main comments by hershey, comments preceded with a caret are potter's)
"Absolutely. It never completely left. I have always stated that
'saltation' or large morphological change undoubtedly is important in
evolution (but it is not the end-all-be-all of evolution).
> Homeobox genes will prove to be the answer.
And homeoboxes are undoubtedly crucial for certain evolutionary changes,
being genes that often affect early development.
The problem is that Schwartz's ideas about how this happens are wrong,
wrong, wrong.
>
> Hell, read what the research is telling
> us.
I do, Joe. And, just like the research I looked at wrt Schwartz's
description of the Dlx and axoltl stories, the *real* research tells me
something quite different from what Schwartz does.
> But, unfortunately for you and your gradualist
> Pack.buds --- it will prove you are wrong on
> the "gradual" mutations idea.
The battle is NOT between gradual evolution and saltation (both take
place). Larry, Paul, and I are NOT die-hard 'gradualists'. The real
battle is between erroneous ideas of saltation and correct ideas of
saltation. It is between correct ideas of genetics and incorrect ones.
It is between correct understanding of development and incorrect ones.
It is between real and good ideas about evolution and pure fantasy. It
is between a good and accurate book of science and a terrible book of
half-baked ideas unsupported by evidence. Schwartz, alas, is on the
incorrect side in each and every case because he clearly has only a
superficial understanding of the processes he invokes."
from http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=547378397.3
"I actually gave Joe specific examples of 'saltation', including
neotonous salamanders and the symbiotic relationship leading to
chloroplasts and mitochondria, as well as eyelessness in cave animals.
That is the truth, Peter, that has conveniently gone down your memory
hole. Those examples have viable pathways to accomplish the end
result."
"Well, of the examples of saltation I gave, only the loss of eyes in
cave animals is possibly due to mutation in a homeobox gene (but these
need not be a homeobox mutation either)"
now, had someone else made the comment you did at the start of this
post, in the light of the evidence above, you would have labelled them
as "highly dishonest", told them they were telling "shame-faced lies"
and suggesting that if they had an ounce of honour or decency they would
cease posting on usenet, as they had been caught lying.
i wonder what you will do now?
you will probably propose that since hershey is (iynsho) a habitual
liar, that the above can be discounted, and that you, and only you as
sole diviner of hershey's mind, can actually comment on what he really
believes.
i caught you lying, "peter". it is all over for you on usenet.
--
"words are like leaves; and where they most abound,
much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found."
alexander pope - 'an essay on criticism'
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
yojimbo
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
> >On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:36:56 -0500, David Iain Greig wrote
> >(in message <slrn848kc...@darwin.ediacara.org>):
>
> >>> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
> >>> Howard Hershey,
> >>
> >> in this newsgroup'. Except perhaps in relation to the
> >> popularity of the one making the above claim.
>
> >harass and annoy Petey the Grate?
>
> Not really. There really is a person named Howard Hershey,
> and the hypothesis I favor is that one of the reasons for
> his enormous popularity
> is his willingness to let certain people post to talk.origins
> using the line
>
> From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
>
> in their headers.
1. why do you think that hershey is popular?
2. why do you think doing the above would make him popular?
yojimbo
Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 1 Dec 1999 10:36:46 -0500, Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>
> >CC: Joe Potter and Berd Pichulik, who MAY be another exception--if
> >so, my apologies for not listing him below.
> >
> >And DIG, because of my question below, which I'd appreciate
> >an e-mailed reply to.
> >
> >gr...@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig) writes:
> >
> >>>One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
> >>>Howard Hershey,
> >
> >>I would not call Howard 'one of the most popular people
> >>in this newsgroup'. Except perhaps in relation to the
> >>popularity of the one making the above claim.
> >
> >only correction I recall ever seeing of him from anyone other
> >than me, Julie, and Joe Potter
> >was a gentle correction of one of his perennial
> >lies, the one about sequencing heme. And even that
> >correction, by Wade Hines, was carefully couched in
> >the terms of what I would probably respond to that,
> >rather than in terms of the truth of the matter.
> >
> >In contrast, the same Wade Hines has had some real donnybrooks
> >with Laurence A. Moran, the only real rival of Howard Hershey
> >for the position of Alpha Wolf of the Pack. I also see
> >insults flying back and forth between Moran and Myers
> >from time to time. Hershey, on the other hand, seems
> >to be serenely exempt from such barbed clowning around.
> >
> <snip>
>
> Hmmm.
>
> I have noticed this also. If you are correct, then
> I wonder why this is.
>
> Perhaps he always buys the beer at the little
> gathering of howlers?
>
he doesn't.
but he puts out like a trouper.
chav...@my-deja.com
[Snip]
> >He's Perfect in every way. He don't need to do no stinking studying.
>
> Ah, yes, I forgot to update a certain category of mine:
>
> ANTI-CREATIONIST LOOSE CANNONS
>
> These are people who post so clumsily, they seem to be more of a
> handicap to the anti-creationist faction in talk.origins than an
> asset.
>
> Henry Barwood "maff91" John Mazor "wf3h"
>
> Prime Candidates: Elmer Bataitis BeckyLynn Bob Casanova
> Dave Horn Pat "Splifford" James Bruce Salem
>
> By the way, "anti-creationist" has at least as much to do with being
> against creationists as it does to do with being against creationism.
> NONE of the above would be among the above if they seemed to be
> merely against creationism and not against creationists.
If this is true, then Dave and Becky need to be removed from this silly
little list. Neither of them are "against creationists," per se. Dave
has said so many times and Becky has said she doesn't know enough about
the scientific details of the issues involved.
I'm also not clear on how Barwood or "maff" are more a detriment to the
cause against creationism. Some of Barwood's early stuff seemed
reasonable and compelling to me, while "maff" at least cites URL
references in response to some things said or claimed in the
newsgroup. It seems to me that this is not a bad thing.
Perhaps "maff" believes that the references provide the information
better than he could if he chose to summarize it. I suspect
that "maff" is on the list because he's an atheist and Nyikos has a
particular bug-a-boo about atheists.
I don't know who "John Mazor" is. I might have to research that. I'm
also not clear on why "wf3h" is on the list. His commentary isn't
always enlightening, but if that's a criteria, then Nyikos should place
himself on the list as well. "Wf3h" does respond to creationists in
what is generally a calm, if firm fashion and at least he offers some
rebuttal and uses references. These references seem to send folks like
Pagano packing (even if he only returns later to make the same
claims). No, "wf3h" isn't a detriment to "anti-creationism," either.
In fact, I can't see any reason for *any* of these people on this list
with the unfortunate exception of Pat. Sorry, Pat, but I haven't seen
too much lately indicating that there has been much factual or
evidenciary give-and-take between you and a creationist, but I
certainly could have missed something. I will check Deja.com for some
older messages under "Splifford." I just can't immediately recall
anything but given Nyikos's penchant for lists, I would imagine that I
will find that you don't belong on the list, either.
No, I think this list exists because these are people who have annoyed
*Nyikos* and he needs to get back at them in what appears to the rest
of us to be an ineffectual way.
It occurs to me, in fact, that I have not seen Nyikos actively engage
any creationist in much of any sort of debate, and I do recall Nyikos
once claiming that he could do so if not for the sorts of people he
lists above. Why those sorts of people would stop him is something
Nyikos has never explained - even though he's been asked. Yes, there
was a recent brief back-and-forth with Pagano that seemed to end
quickly. But then, all of Pagano's participation ends quickly.
Perhaps, if Nyikos is truly the even-handed, calm and intelligent
person that he claims to be, he should show us the way. Let's see
Nyikos take the information we know about Ed Conrad's claims, for
example, and instead of slandering Myers (and make no mistake, Nyikos
is committing clear slander that is actionable) and acting as a "loose
cannon" himself, let's see him analyze the material we all have
available to us and see if there's anything to Conrad's claims.
Nyikos seems to think he can do that - at least he has made a general
claim about this. But he has meticulously avoided doing it, even
though he has already been challenged (by Gans, as I recall) to do it.
Is it possible that Nyikos can get topical and *stay* topical?
Is there some way we can find out?
[Snip]
yojimbo
> book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
> another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
> by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
> conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
>
more evidence suggesting that the above is maliciously dishonest is
presented today in
http://x43.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=1&AN=555364594.1
where hershey writes:
"Remember also that I have no objection to saltational evolution nor to
the important role that homeobox genes play in development, so you don't
need to defend those ideas. My objection is entirely based on the *
mechanism* for saltational evolution that Schwartz seems to propose in
the article."
--
"words are like leaves; and where they most abound,
much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found."
alexander pope - 'an essay on criticism'
Pat James
(in message <824b2q$5gv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
> In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
>>> He's Perfect in every way. He don't need to do no stinking studying.
>>
>> Ah, yes, I forgot to update a certain category of mine:
>>
>> ANTI-CREATIONIST LOOSE CANNONS
>>
>> These are people who post so clumsily, they seem to be more of a
>> handicap to the anti-creationist faction in talk.origins than an
>> asset.
>>
>> Henry Barwood "maff91" John Mazor "wf3h"
>>
>> Prime Candidates: Elmer Bataitis BeckyLynn Bob Casanova
>> Dave Horn Pat "Splifford" James Bruce Salem
Hoo-rah! I'm back on a List! And I didn't even have to pull Petey out of the
killfile to do it! Happy days are here again! I must be getting better at
this. And I'm in good company, too; I don't know how _they_ feel, but it's an
honour to be associated with them.
I do wonder, though, how on _Earth_ Petey managed to get BeckyLynn on the
same List as Dave Horn. And ditto Salem. I can see where _I_ might be
associated with Horn, and Cassanova and Bataitis have delivered a few kicks
to the Perfect rear along the way, but _BeckyLynn_?!
>>
>> By the way, "anti-creationist" has at least as much to do with being
>> against creationists as it does to do with being against creationism.
>> NONE of the above would be among the above if they seemed to be
>> merely against creationism and not against creationists.
So not only are you Perfect, but you're a mind-reader, too, eh, Petey? In my
particular case you would be wrong. But, hey, you're Perfect. Don't let a
minor thing like being wrong stop you. You never have before.
>
> If this is true, then Dave and Becky need to be removed from this silly
> little list. Neither of them are "against creationists," per se. Dave
> has said so many times and Becky has said she doesn't know enough about
> the scientific details of the issues involved.
Just 'cause they say so is no reason for the Lord of Lists to admit error.
>
> I'm also not clear on how Barwood or "maff" are more a detriment to the
> cause against creationism. Some of Barwood's early stuff seemed
> reasonable and compelling to me, while "maff" at least cites URL
> references in response to some things said or claimed in the
> newsgroup. It seems to me that this is not a bad thing.
> Perhaps "maff" believes that the references provide the information
> better than he could if he chose to summarize it. I suspect
> that "maff" is on the list because he's an atheist and Nyikos has a
> particular bug-a-boo about atheists.
I'd go with that.
>
> I don't know who "John Mazor" is. I might have to research that. I'm
> also not clear on why "wf3h" is on the list. His commentary isn't
> always enlightening, but if that's a criteria, then Nyikos should place
> himself on the list as well. "Wf3h" does respond to creationists in
> what is generally a calm, if firm fashion and at least he offers some
> rebuttal and uses references. These references seem to send folks like
> Pagano packing (even if he only returns later to make the same
> claims). No, "wf3h" isn't a detriment to "anti-creationism," either.
Mazor and wf3h both raked Petey over the coals several times. It was great
fun watching him squirm.
>
> In fact, I can't see any reason for *any* of these people on this list
> with the unfortunate exception of Pat. Sorry, Pat, but I haven't seen
> too much lately indicating that there has been much factual or
> evidenciary give-and-take between you and a creationist, but I
> certainly could have missed something. I will check Deja.com for some
> older messages under "Splifford." I just can't immediately recall
> anything but given Nyikos's penchant for lists, I would imagine that I
> will find that you don't belong on the list, either.
I suspect that Petey doesn't like my sense of humour... especially as he has
none. Also, I know damn well that I've got no business arguing with the big
boys, like Gans and MacRae and, of course, the Hershey entity. (I suspect
that my saying something in support of said entity was why I made this
list...) I hang around here to get some laughs at creationists' expense and
to learn something. Mostly I've learned a lot of bio, some physics, that
creationists are sillier than I'd thought, and that creationism in its many
guises (ID, YEC, OEC, etc...) is more morally bankrupt than I'd imagined. I
usually leave the more intelligent creationists to the likes of MacRae and
company; I've found that I learen better when I keep my mouth shut and pay
attention. And there are a few--a very few--intelligent creationists and
fellow travellers thereof: King, Ford, and Julie Thomas to name three.
Julie's stuff was quite nice; even an hignorant injineer could follow it.
Petey, on the other hand, with the same stuff... I want Julie back. King's
not a YEC, and Ford's not strident.
Now, the bottom-feeders like Karl and Jabs, those boys were made for
lampooning. Petey doesn't seem to like it when anyone makes fun of his
homeboys; I suppose that being less than serious is a sin in his eyes. Too
bad that I don't care what he likes. If this is being a loose cannon, I plead
guilty.
>
> No, I think this list exists because these are people who have annoyed
> *Nyikos* and he needs to get back at them in what appears to the rest
> of us to be an ineffectual way.
Bingo. I, for one, once spent considerable time trying to annoy Petey enough
to get on a List. I made it, and then killfiled him... and was removed. Now
I'm back on the list again, this time to stay, I hope. (Hmm. Exactly how does
Petey's mind work, anyway? His lists are such a laughingstock that people
[i'm not the only one] try to get on them... and he maintains them anyway.
Amazing.)
>
> It occurs to me, in fact, that I have not seen Nyikos actively engage
> any creationist in much of any sort of debate, and I do recall Nyikos
> once claiming that he could do so if not for the sorts of people he
> lists above. Why those sorts of people would stop him is something
> Nyikos has never explained - even though he's been asked. Yes, there
> was a recent brief back-and-forth with Pagano that seemed to end
> quickly. But then, all of Pagano's participation ends quickly.
The Pack(tm) has secretly placed a device in Petey's computer that intercepts
all posts attempting to debate creationists in a serious way while letting
through those which defend them. This device also deletes posts before Petey
can see them, so that he can say (for instance) that he has never seen Ted
Holden post a falsehood to usenet... and this after Ted produced a few of his
gems, such as the Magic Mountains, the Giant Eagles (terahorns? whatever)
that carried humans from Mars to the Earth, the unkillable mammoths, and my
personal favourite, the P-51 That Proves That Evolution Is False.
And I _still_ say that they ain't a Pack, but are rather a Troop. Howler
Monkeys, y'know.
>
> Perhaps, if Nyikos is truly the even-handed, calm and intelligent
> person that he claims to be, he should show us the way. Let's see
> Nyikos take the information we know about Ed Conrad's claims, for
> example, and instead of slandering Myers (and make no mistake, Nyikos
> is committing clear slander that is actionable) and acting as a "loose
> cannon" himself, let's see him analyze the material we all have
> available to us and see if there's anything to Conrad's claims.
Ed was attacked by The Pack(tm) and its Net.Lackeys(tm), Net.Bootlickers(tm)
and Shills(tm). By definition this means that Ed is a good guy.
>
> Nyikos seems to think he can do that - at least he has made a general
> claim about this. But he has meticulously avoided doing it, even
> though he has already been challenged (by Gans, as I recall) to do it.
Don't hold your breath waiting.
>
> Is it possible that Nyikos can get topical and *stay* topical?
Nope.
>
> Is there some way we can find out?
Again, don't hold your breath waiting.
You're relatively new here. Ted Holden, Brice Wellington, and even Karl and
Mark Harpt (which latter two were not in the same class as Teddykins for
intelligence or Brice for kookiness) don't post any more. It's been a long
time since I've seen a Publius post. (Now there's a man with problems: a
Polish Nazi...) It's sad, really, when the Threads That Will Not Die revolve
around Petey and his lists and his enemies with a few side trips out to
actually relevant stuff like saltation, instead of the way things were in the
glory days: woodpeckers, Ye Arke, and interplanetary billards games. Fun
stuff. No more relevant, but fun. (Sniff. I miss Ted. Ted, please come back,
all is forgiven. Please. Without you, the only fun to be had in here is
making chimp jokes on Jabriol threads. Well, that and Harter's cascades, but
there's a limit to how many of those you can take.)
Mitchell Coffey
>
> >On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:36:56 -0500, David Iain Greig wrote
> >(in message <slrn848kc...@darwin.ediacara.org>):
>
> >>> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
> >>> Howard Hershey,
> >>
> >> in this newsgroup'. Except perhaps in relation to the
> >> popularity of the one making the above claim.
>
> >(tm) to harass and annoy Petey the Grate?
>
> Not really. There really is a person named Howard Hershey,
> and the hypothesis I favor is that one of the reasons for
> his enormous popularity is his willingness to let certain people post
> to talk.origins using the line
>
> From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
>
> in their headers.
>
> data including the fact that he invariably (in my experience)
> fails to sign his name to posts that feature on-topic
> statements that appear under that header line.
>
> If this hypothesis is correct, it would explain why everyone
> (except people the Hershey institution has singled out for
> adversarial status) is afraid to criticize him in any way:
> some are afraid of offending someone whom they are on
> good e-mail terms with, while others would simply
> be criticizing themselves.
"[A]fraid to criticize him in any way"? Well, I for one am willing to
criticize him - and darn the consequences!
Here it goes: Howard, I don't think your as popular as Peter Nyikos
thinks you are, and I don't care who knows it!
Take that, Howard! Now, do your worst!
Mitchell Coffey
______________________________________________________
"TO WRITE about Thomas Pynchon is to be drawn into a
quasi-cult of over-educated oddballs who hold furious
debates on the Internet and pass around artists'
impressions of how he might look, as though they were
samizdats of the Soviet era."
© The Times, London
_South African Sunday Times_, 07 June 1998
howard hershey
I don't think I am either. Is there a reason why I should I care?
> Take that, Howard! Now, do your worst!
This is just another example of blatantly dishonest lying about the
meaning of the word 'worst'. In McGrumpy's reader (German edition),
they misspell the word as 'wurst' but clearly give it the true meaning
that I *obviously* intended when I talked about choking on your worst
post yet, Herr Doktor Coff...Coff...EEEy.
I also learned the following in my extensive reading in science as seen
in McGrumpy's excellent introductory text, which you peons, ignoramuses,
and below-35 IQ simulators are obviously unable to fathom (unlike my own
modest, unassuming self, of course). Oh, it is so hard to be a giant
surrounded by midgets pecking at my legs.
"See Spot pee.
Pee, Spot, pee.
See the yellow snow, Jane.
It tastes good.
Try it, Jane, try it."
Which clearly means, making the modest extrapolation that only a genius
of my caliber (.22) can do, that dog urine does not contain urea, which
any idiot knows is colorless, but rather the mysterious yellow compound
'pee', a term which I am coining to describe the yellow liquid emitted
by dogs in the snow by the fire hydrant, which compound is obviously
produced by a mutation in a homeobox gene.
Now, as anyone with the slightest math ability knows, if we have 4 male
dogs sniffing 1 female dog, and we *expected* there to be a 1:1 ratio of
males to females, that means that, in our population of 5 dogs, we
really should have seen only 1 male (1 female * 1) instead of the 4
males we actually saw. So we have 3 males too many in our population of
5 dogs. Thus we must shoot the extras. As McGrumpy says,
"Die, Spot, die."
Bang.
"You, too, Rover."
Bang.
"Et tu, Fido."
Bang.
Note:
Any resemblance in the above between persons, living or brain-dead, is
purely co-incidental. But authors do often take their inspiration from
real life.
Zandor of Xordax
> book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
> another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
> by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
> conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
>
>
> In his more unguarded moments, he shows that he is
> a HYPER-Darwinian, labeling even evolutionary events
> that most people would consider to be gradualistic with
> the epithet, "magic". This happened, for example, on
> the first of the month (Nov.), when he posted the following:
>
> ======================= begin excerpt from followup to me
>
> > Scenario 2. A homeobox gene mutation results in loss of function
>
> Accchh! Why not intone "magic results in a magical change". Same thing
> in this case.
>
> ============================ end of excerpt
>
> Examples of such mutations have been produced in the lab.
>
I remember homeobox domains. They were one of our most brilliant designs, so
versatile, so ripe as an effector of predetermined change. Who is this
"Howard Hershey"? He sounds evil to me. The apparent similarity to HoHe
worries me. Maybe it is too late.
>
>This
> has been documented, and Hershey was participating in the
> discussion where implications of this fact were analyzed.
> Yet so set is he against extraordinary mutations that
> he simply wrote off my suggested example as you see above.
>
> The context was this: I was posting on early human
> embryonic development. The focus was the human amniotic
> membrane, the inner membrane in the two-layered "bag of waters"
> that is delivered at birth along with the baby, the placenta,
> and the umbilical cord.
>
> The early embryonic precursor of the placenta is known as
> the trophoblast, and its inner layer, known as the cytotrophoblast,
> has been featured in one of three alternative theories
> as to how the amniotic membrane is first produced.
>
You humans haven't stumbled onto the real reasons underlying these phenomena
of early development yet? It should be obvious why human embryos go through
the trouble of proceeding through a stage not far removed from fish. Hah.
Earthian technology might be less advanced than we predicted for this time
period. Perhaps a detailed discussion of directed panspermy from Throom to
Xordax to Earth by means of intergalactic starter kits shall wait for another
couple centuries.
>
> I was describing a hypothetical scenario for how the
> amniotic membrane, or amnion for short, could have had
> its production transferred by mutation from a different
> part of the early embryo to the cytotrophoblast. Hershey
> simply would have none of it, due to his HYPER-Darwinism.
>
You keep mentioning this "Darwinism". What precisely is this word supposed to
mean? Sorry, I'm using a translator and some words do not carry over.
>
> Details will be given in followup to this post of Hershey
> to this same thread.
>
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
> University of South Carolina
> Columbia, SC 29208
>
>
You seem like a very intelligent and resourceful fellow. As I stated on my
test post (which I hope made it through since I'm not up on this new
technology of rapid trasgalactic messaging), we are searching for one of our
conduit units which was sent to Earth as a means of relaying advanced
information on the facts of directed panspermy. We assume that this unit may
have malfunctioned due to heat upon entry into Earth's atomosphere. It is
very important that we find this unit before the evil rag tag fleet of
barbarian cabalists from the planet HoHe find it and exploit its capacity for
advanced topological and set theory relations in their inherent urge to
destroy everything the peaceful Xordaxian alliance has tried to accomplish
via seeding the Earth. According to our sensors, the HoHeians landed
somewhere in the place which is called "Indiana". Can you help us establish
contact with our malfunctioning conduit unit before it's too late for Earth?
The HoHeians are capable of great travesty and must not be taken lightly.
Thank you.
--
Zandor 9
Chief Biological Engineer
Earth Seeding Project
Throom City, Xordax
howard hershey
>
> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
> Howard Hershey, has long been attacking Jeffrey Schwartz's
> book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
> another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
> by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
> conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
>
> a HYPER-Darwinian, labeling even evolutionary events
> that most people would consider to be gradualistic with
> the epithet, "magic". This happened, for example, on
> the first of the month (Nov.), when he posted the following:
>
> ======================= begin excerpt from followup to me
>
> > Scenario 2. A homeobox gene mutation results in loss of function
>
> Accchh! Why not intone "magic results in a magical change". Same thing
> in this case.
>
> ============================ end of excerpt
>
> has been documented, and Hershey was participating in the
> discussion where implications of this fact were analyzed.
> Yet so set is he against extraordinary mutations that
> he simply wrote off my suggested example as you see above.
>
> The context was this: I was posting on early human
> embryonic development. The focus was the human amniotic
> membrane, the inner membrane in the two-layered "bag of waters"
> that is delivered at birth along with the baby, the placenta,
> and the umbilical cord.
>
> The early embryonic precursor of the placenta is known as
> the trophoblast, and its inner layer, known as the cytotrophoblast,
> has been featured in one of three alternative theories
> as to how the amniotic membrane is first produced.
> amniotic membrane, or amnion for short, could have had
> its production transferred by mutation from a different
> part of the early embryo to the cytotrophoblast. Hershey
> simply would have none of it, due to his HYPER-Darwinism.
What the Herr Doktor is NOT saying, but is implied above which would put
my statement in context, is that his 'scenario' requires NOT just the
loss of an original mechanism for amnion formation by a mutation of a
homeobox gene (*that* could happen, but its result would be the *death*
of the organism bearing it) but also requires the *simultaneous* and
seemingly *miraculous* formation of a brand NEW amnion formed from
entirely different tissues solely because of the obvious "need" of the
organism for an amnion and some vague New Age idea that "nature abhors a
vacuum" and would thus miraculously produce an amnion when it is needed.
That is what is silly.
Dana Tweedy
Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:01HW.B46B5ADB0...@enews.newsguy.com...
Damn!,, I didn't make the list. Pat,, what do I have to do to get inducted
into "the Pack", "supporters of the Pack" or even the Loose Cannon list?
Would mailing Pete a fruitcake for Christmas get me on the list? ( you
know,, sweets for the sweet)
Dana J. Tweedy
(will argue evolution for food)
Peter Nyikos
>Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> writes:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> >I thought the Hershey entity was a sock-puppet created by The Pack(tm) to
>> >harass and annoy Petey the Grate?
>>
>> Not really. There really is a person named Howard Hershey,
>> and the hypothesis I favor is that one of the reasons for
>> his enormous popularity
>> is his willingness to let certain people post to talk.origins
>> using the line
>>
>> From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
>>
>> in their headers.
>>
>> This hypothesis is based on a lot of disparate
>> data including the fact that he invariably (in my experience)
>> fails to sign his name to posts that feature on-topic
>> statements that appear under that header line.
Note that no direct challenge was made to this statement; instead,
we got the smart-alecky two-liner below.
>> If this hypothesis is correct, it would explain why everyone
>> (except people the Hershey institution has singled out for
>> adversarial status) is afraid to criticize him in any way:
>> some are afraid of offending someone whom they are on
>> good e-mail terms with, while others would simply
>> be criticizing themselves.
>>
>[snip]
>This hypothesis is as firmly grounded in evidence as the hypothesis that
>there are Throomians responsible for our existence.
Yes, there is a good bit of circumstantial evidence for both,
but really strong evidence has been withheld from talk.origins on both
counts; in the latter case, because there are lots of alternative
hypotheses like the Xordaxian; and in the former, by
the institution known as howard hershey, explicitly so in
the following post:
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=376356694
========================= begin relevant excerpt
> I solemnly affirm that am the same Peter Nyikos
> who is a Professor in the Department
> of Mathematics at the University of South Carolina, Columbia,
SC.
> I solemnly affirm that I have never given anyone permission
to
> post from my account to Usenet or to e-mail a letter from my
> account, and that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has
> done either thing without my permission either.
>
> Now let's see you post a similarly unambiguous comment,
"howard".
"I yam what I yam."
Popeye the Sailor Man.
>
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
> University of South Carolina
============================== end of excerpt
Note that Howard Hershey could have easily posted such a statement
if in fact people were merely putting his e-mail address in
their From: lines while posting from their own accounts. But
he did not even do that.
Anyway, to plug up that hole in my own affidavit, I hereby
solemnly affirm that I have never given anyone else permission
to post to Usenet with either the e-mail address
or the address
in their From: lines, and that, to the best of my knowledge,
no one has done either thing without my permission either.
I further solemnly affirm that, as far as I know, those
are the only two e-mail addresses I have had in my From: lines
since August 1992 (nineteen hundred ninety-two).
Pat James
(in message <3848...@news.desupernet.net>):
[snip]
>
> Damn!,, I didn't make the list. Pat,, what do I have to do to get inducted
> into "the Pack", "supporters of the Pack" or even the Loose Cannon list?
> Would mailing Pete a fruitcake for Christmas get me on the list? ( you
> know,, sweets for the sweet)
Keep trying. Mention the Hershey entity in ways that indicate that you think
that it is really just one person. Say nice things about Gans or Myers. Say
that you like Julie Thomas, but that Petey (always call him Petey) can't
explain his way out of a wet paper bag. Poke fun at his homeboys, especially
Pags and Potter. Mispeel Nykios. Be sarcastic in the presence of the Perfect
One(tm). Don't take anything he says seriously, and make sure that he knows
that you're laughing. You, too, can make a List; probably as a Shill(tm) or a
Net.Lackey(tm) at first, but with work you can move up.
chav...@my-deja.com
Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:31:16 -0500, chav...@my-deja.com wrote
> (in message <824b2q$5gv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
>
> > In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> >>> He's Perfect in every way. He don't need to do no stinking
> >>> studying.
> >>
> >> Ah, yes, I forgot to update a certain category of mine:
> >>
> >> ANTI-CREATIONIST LOOSE CANNONS
> >>
> >> These are people who post so clumsily, they seem to be more of a
> >> handicap to the anti-creationist faction in talk.origins than an
> >> asset.
> >>
> >> Henry Barwood "maff91" John Mazor "wf3h"
> >>
> >> Prime Candidates: Elmer Bataitis BeckyLynn Bob Casanova
> >> Dave Horn Pat "Splifford" James Bruce Salem
And I will get an answer to my challenges about the tendency to create
lists as well as the specifics of this list...when it suits him...
...in other words...never.
> Hoo-rah! I'm back on a List! And I didn't even have to pull Petey out
> of the killfile to do it! Happy days are here again! I must be
> getting better at this. And I'm in good company, too;
[Snip remainder]
Hello, Pat. I got your reply and it does shed some light on things.
Thanks for taking the time to write it. It does enlighten things a
little bit and I apologize if you took offense. It looks like you
didn't, but I'll make sure and apologize anyway. It's starting to look
like the participants of talk.origins, by and large, play Nyikos and
his paranoid and self-important tendencies like a classic Steinway.
He's simply too hateful and prideful to realize it. More's the pity.
Pat James
(in message <82bhol$559$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
> In article <01HW.B46B5ADB0...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:31:16 -0500, chav...@my-deja.com wrote
>> (in message <824b2q$5gv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
>>
>>> In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> [Snip]
>>>
>>>>> He's Perfect in every way. He don't need to do no stinking
>>>>> studying.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, yes, I forgot to update a certain category of mine:
>>>>
>>>> ANTI-CREATIONIST LOOSE CANNONS
>>>>
>>>> These are people who post so clumsily, they seem to be more of a
>>>> handicap to the anti-creationist faction in talk.origins than an
>>>> asset.
>>>>
>>>> Henry Barwood "maff91" John Mazor "wf3h"
>>>>
>>>> Prime Candidates: Elmer Bataitis BeckyLynn Bob Casanova
>>>> Dave Horn Pat "Splifford" James Bruce Salem
>
> And I will get an answer to my challenges about the tendency to create
> lists as well as the specifics of this list...when it suits him...
>
> ...in other words...never.
Ah-ha. You're learning about Petey, I see.
>
>> Hoo-rah! I'm back on a List! And I didn't even have to pull Petey out
>> of the killfile to do it! Happy days are here again! I must be
>> getting better at this. And I'm in good company, too;
>
> [Snip remainder]
>
> Hello, Pat. I got your reply and it does shed some light on things.
> Thanks for taking the time to write it. It does enlighten things a
> little bit and I apologize if you took offense.
No offense, man. You let me know I was on a List. I might have had to
(horrors!) unkillfile Petey to find that out otherwise.
It looks like you
> didn't, but I'll make sure and apologize anyway. It's starting to look
> like the participants of talk.origins, by and large, play Nyikos and
> his paranoid and self-important tendencies like a classic Steinway.
> He's simply too hateful and prideful to realize it. More's the pity.
Repeat after me: Petey is Perfect. Blessed is the name of Petey. All hail the
Perfect One, the Lord of the Lists, the Master of Biochemistry Even Though He
Knows Nothing Of The Subject. There is but one True List Master, and Potter
and Pagano are His Prophets. (Hey, Petey, have I made it to full Loose Cannon
status yet? Please?)
chav...@my-deja.com
Thought I'd answer a segment or three:
(Those offended by previous analysis of Nyikosian Usenet behavior are
respectfully advised to skip this article and accept my thanks.)
In article <01HW.B46B5ADB0...@enews.newsguy.com>,
Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:31:16 -0500, chav...@my-deja.com wrote
> (in message <824b2q$5gv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
>
> > In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> >>> He's Perfect in every way. He don't need to do no stinking
> >>> studying.
> >>
> >> Ah, yes, I forgot to update a certain category of mine:
> >>
> >> ANTI-CREATIONIST LOOSE CANNONS
> >>
> >> These are people who post so clumsily, they seem to be more of a
> >> handicap to the anti-creationist faction in talk.origins than an
> >> asset.
> >>
> >> Henry Barwood "maff91" John Mazor "wf3h"
Just for fun, I looked up John Mazor today.
[Snip]
> I do wonder, though, how on _Earth_ Petey managed to get BeckyLynn on
> the same List as Dave Horn.
Simple. She and Dave are close, personal friends and are building
several projects together. This has come out in discussion. I am
involved in a peripheral way and Nyikos has seen fit to attack Dave
rather vigorously (and ineffectually, as always) through us. This
shows a major preoccupation with hate that Nyikos denies even while
demonstrating.
Becky's early participation in the group was largely topical and aimed
at a couple of creationists, specifically, Pagano and a fellow who used
a pseudonym - "Jack" something. There was also a quick exchange with
Karl Crawford. Becky made an error of confusion with respect to the
anthropic principle but was otherwise correct in all other aspects in
her exchanges with Pagano. The result was that Pagano and Nyikos
trumpeted her error but ignored the substance of the issues and the
things she got right that, predictably, sent Pagano skittering away -
"whupped by a girl," as Becky later put it. Crawford also ducked out
of their discussion, and so did "Jack."
If Nyikos didn't have a stated premise to the list, i.e., that
the "loose cannons" do more damage to "anti-creationism" than they
might think, it might be that this list is composed of persons who ask
creationists specific questions that they can't answer. In checking, I
see that creationists have ducked out of conversations with each of the
persons on the list (excepting Mazor, as I shall explain in a moment)
whe specific challenges have been issued and where creationist error
(or, in some cases, dishonesty) has been shown.
I checking the exchanges between these people and the creationists they
have encountered, I haven't always been impressed (Dave *did* overdo
the "what about those cichlids, Karl," line - once a day would have
been sufficient but many times was repeated in responses to *each*
Crawford post in a given day. I can see how that would get
annoying.). But by and large, all of the persons in the list had
reasonably topical and very specific things to say about certain
creationist claims and, as I said, each has sent more than one
creationist fleeing from the discussion - if not the newsgroup.
I remember this coming up in the three-way between Nyikos, Dave, and
Wesley. Nyikos was asked many times why it was that he found the
tactics ineffectual or "obsolete," i.e., why was it useless to ask a
creationist questions he couldn't answer and why did that result in
being cited in this silly little list. I never say an answer to that.
If one can't figure out the utility of asking a creationist specific
questions about the claims that creationist might make and then having
the creationist claims countered with specifics and evidence, one
doesn't belong in discussions such as those we find in talk.origins. I
think it's a given that most of us don't expect to convince other
participants of the wrongness of their views. Those of us who are
atheists are not going to be convinced of creationism or
even "intelligent design" unless evidence for the Creator or the
designer is provided. Creationists who are confident enough to come
into newsgroups armed with little more than a minimal high school level
science education, a Bible and a copy of "The Fossils Say No!" and
challenge professional biologists, chemists, and talented amateurs are
not going to be swayed by talk of "evidence." I think our aim is to
provide a convincing case for the lurking, non-participating audience.
Frankly, I think this audience is much smaller than many of us might
think, so Nyikos's self-appointed mission to root out "Usenet con
artists" is probably more arrogant than truly useful. But in the end,
I think we realize that these debates aren't going to sway the actual
participants much either way. Science has the evidence, creationism
says that if the evidence contradicts the Bible, we are to believe the
Bible.
Ah, but I digress. Becky is on the list because she offended Nyikos.
Becky is on the list because she is honest, direct, straight-forward,
and doesn't dance around the issues too much. Becky is on the list
because he resents her (those following may recall the "Ladyfish"
exchange). Becky is on the list because she has noticed and noted
things that Nyikos cannot explain with anything even *he* thinks might
be effective (which is why he avoided most of it).
Does that answer your question? :)
> And ditto Salem. I can see where _I_ might be associated with Horn,
> and Cassanova and Bataitis have delivered a few kicks to the Perfect
> rear along the way, but _BeckyLynn_?!
The closest thing I've ever seen to a perfect rear was in the gym last
week - a lovely young thing on a stair master...
*Ahem*...I'm sorry. Where were we...oh, yes...
> >> By the way, "anti-creationist" has at least as much to do with
> >> being against creationists as it does to do with being against
> >> creationism. NONE of the above would be among the above if they
> >> seemed to be merely against creationism and not against
> >> creationists.
>
> So not only are you Perfect, but you're a mind-reader, too, eh,
> Petey?
Where have *you* been? Of course he's a mind-reader.
Oh, that's right, you have him killfiled. You shouldn't do that, Pat.
While I agree that direct discussion with Nyikos has little prospect
for mutually-satisfying results, he does write some of the funniest
stuff in Usenet - unintentionally, of course. And occasionally, it is
a good idea to watch a *true* "Usenet con artist" and poseur at work.
Usenet is a gathering place for lots of normal people who want to have
conversations with people all over the world. But it's anonymity and
pervasiveness also leaves the door open to all sorts of crackpots and
social defectives (ever hear of Steve Winter?). Nyikos provides a rare
opportunity to watch a master at work - a master of sophistry,
rhetoric, obfuscation, evasion, and deception...and a master of hate.
> In my particular case you would be wrong. But, hey, you're Perfect.
> Don't let a minor thing like being wrong stop you. You never have
> before.
Yes, telling Nyikos that he has misunderstood or misrepresented the
intent of those with whom he debates is an exercise in futility.
> > If this is true, then Dave and Becky need to be removed from this
> > silly little list. Neither of them are "against creationists," per
> > se. Dave has said so many times and Becky has said she doesn't
> > know enough about the scientific details of the issues involved.
>
> Just 'cause they say so is no reason for the Lord of Lists to admit
> error.
Granted.
> > I'm also not clear on how Barwood or "maff" are more a detriment to
> > the cause against creationism. Some of Barwood's early stuff seemed
> > reasonable and compelling to me, while "maff" at least cites URL
> > references in response to some things said or claimed in the
> > newsgroup. It seems to me that this is not a bad thing.
> > Perhaps "maff" believes that the references provide the information
> > better than he could if he chose to summarize it. I suspect
> > that "maff" is on the list because he's an atheist and Nyikos has a
> > particular bug-a-boo about atheists.
>
> I'd go with that.
It's been clear from the early readings that I did going back a couple
of years. Since Nyikos has a *particular* burr up his nether regions
with respect to Dave, it's humorous to use that example. Nyikos
referred to Dave as an atheist twice. Dave is not an atheist - he had
said so before and did so again several times during the course of
those exchanges. In reply, Nyikos did a couple of amusing things.
First of all, the two references. When John McCoy referred to Dave as
an atheist and Dave protested, Nyikos added, "he can call you an
atheist and did call you one" or words to that effect. Nyikos then
composed an incredibly insipid piece on a "take on the word 'can'" over
which I couldn't stop laughing for at least five minutes. Then Nyikos
referred to Dave as "like the typical atheist, you" in describing
Dave's apparent (but never explained) misuse of Biblical references.
Dave said he wasn't an atheist. Later, Nyikos denied calling Dave an
atheist and when presented with his direct words, Nyikos danced around
that, saying he should have said "like the typical atheist *you* *are*"
or words to that effect which, of course, didn't change the meaning at
all. Nyikos continued to evade this issue rather than issue a
retraction for his error. Later, when Dave said *again* that he wasn't
an atheist, Nyikos responded with "the jury is still out on that" or
words to that effect. In other words, it didn't matter what Dave said
about this issue with respect to his *personal* religious beliefs about
God, *Nyikos* had not yet made up his mind. That was the important
thing - the *only* thing as far as Nyikos was concerned.
What is illustrated here? Well, several things that I and others have
said about Nyikos's character. First was Nyikos's sophistry with
respect to his "take on the word 'can.'" Second was Nyikos calling
someone an atheist who said he wasn't, and then lying about it later.
Third was Nyikos's evasion when he was caught in the lie. Fourth,
Nyikos's tendency to decide the position of another person *despite*
what that person had said (repeatedly) was demonstrated rather nicely.
Fifth, your statement that Nyikos doesn't admit error (at least
generally - I have seen one or two exceptions, but they were always
qualified). Sixth, that Nyikos *does* have a particular bug-a-boo
about atheists. He isn't really here to argue the scientific issues.
He does that way to rarely for me to be convinced of that. Seventh, he
has a *particular* bug-a-boo about certain personalities and that's why
they wind up on his lists.
> > I don't know who "John Mazor" is. I might have to research that.
[Snip]
> Mazor and wf3h both raked Petey over the coals several times. It was
> great fun watching him squirm.
I looked up Mazor today. I had forgotten some of this, but it was
interesting to read it again. According to Deja.com, John has nearly
3100 articles in the archives. There are relatively few in
talk.origins. It seems that the problem in this newsgroup arose
because John challenged some of the design inferences being entered
into the group at that time (fall '97 was mostly what I read) by Julie
Thomas. Nyikos took exception and it didn't take long for the typical
fur to fly.
A couple of interesting things. First is that Nyikos claims that Dave
is the only person in this newsgroup that he has encountered who has
ever directly called Nyikos a liar (at least before I showed up, I
guess, but in fact I had noted Nyikosian dishonesty before). In the
fall of 1997, months before the first exchange between Dave and Nyikos,
John noted these dishonest tendencies. Particularly with the stupid
issue of whether or not a newsreader puts a person's name in quotes,
John pointed out that he thought Nyikos was lying. Second was a list
of specific incidents of Nyikosian hypocrisy which Nyikos never
answered but which he denied in general elsewhere, claiming that *he*
had answered those charges elsewhere. He did not. Even this is
another example of Nyikosian hypocrisy. Nyikos has thrown spitwads in
his attempts to breach the hull of the battleship of my massive
evidence against him and said that specific incidents of his hypocrisy
haven't been provided. He complains that we seem to always say that
this evidence is "predictably elsewhere." Isn't it interesting that he
used that as an excuse long before we came into the picture? *I* think
so.
But I have since looked up the contributions of John Mazor and I cannot
see justification for him to be declared a "loose cannon" except that
he probably caused Nyikos's hemorrhoids to act up a few times.
Looking up and reading Mazor's comments took a bit longer than an hour.
This message took 20 minutes to type. With that, I take my leave for
the day, but I'll look up the other names and see if there's
justification for them. I suspect that I will find the same things.
I know this got long, but it won't take any longer to read than it did
to type. Think of it as a 20-minute conversation. Have a good
weekend.
David Iain Greig
>In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>
>[Snip]
>
There is a variance of opinion on that statement. I have him
killfiled as I rather strongly disagree with your assesment of
his 'calm, polite' responses. I also know I am not alone in
this view.
--D.
yojimbo
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > The early embryonic precursor of the placenta is known as
> > the trophoblast, and its inner layer, known as the cytotrophoblast,
> > has been featured in one of three alternative theories
> > as to how the amniotic membrane is first produced.
> > I was describing a hypothetical scenario for how the
> > amniotic membrane, or amnion for short, could have had
> > its production transferred by mutation from a different
> > part of the early embryo to the cytotrophoblast. Hershey
> > simply would have none of it, due to his HYPER-Darwinism.
>
> What the Herr Doktor is NOT saying, but is implied above which would put
> my statement in context, is that his 'scenario' requires NOT just the
> loss of an original mechanism for amnion formation by a mutation of a
> homeobox gene (*that* could happen, but its result would be the *death*
> of the organism bearing it)
when this was pointed out to herr doktor by moi, he glided past the
point in a manner reminiscent of the xordaxian battlecruisers as the
routed the Xix'ncrrrrians of narg.
--
"words are like leaves; and where they most abound,
much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found."
alexander pope - 'an essay on criticism'
yojimbo
i have yet to see a "good bit" of this evidence. perhaps "peter" would
like to submit it as a faq to the archive?
to quote mandy rice-davies in the profumo trial:
"well, he would say that, wouldn't he?".
pee ess: i notice you are still posting to yousenet, despite my
providing evidence of your dishonesty. you obviously have not a shred of
decency, or something.
*Hemidactylus*
<38478F...@indiana.edu>,
howard hershey
<patj...@newsguy.com> writes:
> > >
> > > >On Tue, 30 Nov 1999
17:36:56 -0500, David Iain Greig
wrote
> > > >(in message
<slrn848kc...@darwin.ediaca
ra.org>):
> > >
> > > >> Peter Nyikos
> > > >>> One of the most popular
persons in this newsgroup,
> > > >>> Howard Hershey,
> > > >>
'one of the most popular people
> > > >> in this newsgroup'.
Except perhaps in relation to the
> > > >> popularity of the one
making the above claim.
> > >
entity was a sock-puppet created
by The Pack
> > > >(tm) to harass and annoy
Petey the Grate?
> > >
> > > Not really. There really is a person named Howard Hershey,
> > > and the hypothesis I favor
is that one of the reasons for
> > > his enormous popularity is
his willingness to let certain
people post
> > > to talk.origins using the
line
> > >
> > > From: howard hershey
<hers...@indiana.edu>
> > >
> > > in their headers.
> > >
> > > This hypothesis is based on
a lot of disparate
> > > data including the fact that he invariably (in my experience)
> > > fails to sign his name to
posts that feature on-topic
> > > statements that appear under that header line.
> > >
correct, it would explain why
everyone
> > > (except people the Hershey
institution has singled out for
> > > adversarial status) is
afraid to criticize him in any
way:
> > > some are afraid of offending someone whom they are on
> > > good e-mail terms with,
while others would simply
> > > be criticizing themselves.
> >
>
> Now, as anyone with the
slightest math ability knows, if
we have 4 male
> dogs sniffing 1 female dog, and
we *expected* there to be a 1:1
ratio of
> males to females, that means
that, in our population of 5 dogs, we
> really should have seen only 1
male (1 female * 1) instead of the 4
> males we actually saw. So we
have 3 males too many in our
population of
> 5 dogs. Thus we must shoot the
extras.
>
size of 5 dogs is plenty big to
make WAG's (pun fully intentional) from, McGrumpy should add that
this suggests a strongly male
biased sex ratio amongst dogs. No
need to shoot Spot, Rover, or
Fido.
BTW who did the first with the
homeobox urea saltation mate with? >
>As McGrumpy says,
>
> "Die, Spot, die."
> Bang.
> "You, too, Rover."
> Bang.
> "Et tu, Fido."
> Bang.
>
> Note:
> Any resemblance in the above
between persons, living or
brain-dead, is
> purely co-incidental. But
authors do often take their
inspiration from
> real life.
>
Is this nursery primer an addition to the Brothers Dimm series?
--
Scott Chase
howard hershey
I suspect you are trying to con the readers, you half-fingered idiot. I
know the difference between a population and a sample just as thoroughly
as I know the difference between a gene and an allele. They are often
used interchangeably. I also know the definition of 'peptide' and
'protein' and know that they are *NEVER* used interchangeably. ;-)
> size of 5 dogs is plenty big to
> make WAG's (pun fully intentional) from, McGrumpy should add that
> this suggests a strongly male
> biased sex ratio amongst dogs. No
> need to shoot Spot, Rover, or
> Fido.
But if you want the population^h^h^h^sample to reach the magic 1:1 sex
ratio, shooting the excess is the most efficient way.
>
> BTW who did the first with the
> homeobox urea saltation mate with?
Silly boy. With another that has the same homozygous recessive mutant
alleles. Why ask such obvious questions? Have you joined the clique
and claque that continually question my monumental genius, which I would
tout myself if I weren't so modest and humble?
> >As McGrumpy says,
> >
> > "Die, Spot, die."
> > Bang.
> > "You, too, Rover."
> > Bang.
> > "Et tu, Fido."
> > Bang.
> >
> > Note:
> > Any resemblance in the above
> between persons, living or
> brain-dead, is
> > purely co-incidental. But
> authors do often take their
> inspiration from
> > real life.
> >
> Is this nursery primer an addition to the Brothers Dimm series?
Yes.
When will you learn to post with the correct line length. Why should I
bother to answer anyone who cannot even post the correct line length?
That is a sure sign of native criminality, along with using aliases and
not signing one's posts.
Matt Silberstein
<hers...@indiana.edu>:
[snip]
|But if you want the population^h^h^h^sample to reach the magic 1:1 sex
|ratio, shooting the excess is the most efficient way.
Not necessarily. in 1998 there were 220,000 male deer in PA. 180,000
were killed in 1998. There are 240,000 this year. It seems that
shooting deer cause them to multiply.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season;
the Christians called it "Christmas" and went to church;
the Jews called it "Hanukka" and went to synagogue;
the atheists went to parties and drank.
People passing each other on the street would say
"Merry Christmas!" or "Happy Hanukka!"
or (to the atheists) "Look out for the wall!"
[Dave Barry, "Christmas Shopping: A Survivor's Guide"]
yojimbo
yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <1999113022...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
> > another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
> > by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
> > conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
> >
>
post-scriptum: for the relevance of the phrase "all over for you on
usenet", please see "peter's" posts:
http://x35.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/getdoc.xp?AN=547530572
http://x35.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/getdoc.xp?AN=541766201
--
"words are like leaves; and where they most abound,
much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found."
alexander pope - 'an essay on criticism'
yojimbo
yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <1999113022...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> > One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
> > Howard Hershey, has long been attacking Jeffrey Schwartz's
> > book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
> > another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
> > by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
> > conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
> >
>
> presented today in
>
> http://x43.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=1&AN=555364594.1
>
> where hershey writes:
>
> "Remember also that I have no objection to saltational evolution nor to
> the important role that homeobox genes play in development, so you don't
> need to defend those ideas. My objection is entirely based on the *
> mechanism* for saltational evolution that Schwartz seems to propose in
> the article."
>
>
more evidence from:
http://x32.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=547378397
(carets are nyikos; other text is hershey)
>
> Yet you fight tooth (or should I say, "complete set of continuously
> renewed teeth?) and nail against every suggestion that saltation actually
> happened.
I actually gave Joe specific examples of 'saltation', including
neotonous salamanders and the symbiotic relationship leading to
chloroplasts and mitochondria, as well as eyelessness in cave animals.
That is the truth, Peter, that has conveniently gone down your memory
hole. Those examples have viable pathways to accomplish the end result.
> I note that you had to put "saltation" into inverted
> commas to bring your last statement off.
>
> As for large morphological change, anyone who does not believe
> large morphological change has taken place in evolution is
> a creationist.
Well, actually creationists believe in large instantaneous changes that
occur outside natural law mechanisms. So does Schwartz. He just
doesn't recognize that that is what he is proposing.
*Hemidactylus*
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >
(snip)
> >
> > I suspect you are trying to con the readers, you half-fingered idiot.
>
Ouch. It hurts my feelings when someone of your caliber (.22) lashes out at
me in such a McGrumpy way.
>
> I
> know the difference between a population and a sample just as thoroughly
> as I know the difference between a gene and an allele. They are often
> used interchangeably. I also know the definition of 'peptide' and
> 'protein' and know that they are *NEVER* used interchangeably. ;-)
>
That's hard to digest, even with trypsin. I admit that my knowledge of
protein chemistry is fragmented though.
>
(snip)
>
> > Note:
> > > Any resemblance in the above
> > between persons, living or
> > brain-dead, is
> > > purely co-incidental. But
> > authors do often take their
> > inspiration from
> > > real life.
> > >
> > Is this nursery primer an addition to the Brothers Dimm series?
>
> Yes.
>
When's the book signing? And speaking of books, I notice that yu've started
reading "the book".
Will you do a primer extension (perhaps a kindergarten course on homeoboxes
in the vein of Dr. Seuss)? How 'bout the Grinch Who stole Alanine from the
Little Piggies? You could put this out before Christmas (a great stocking
stuffer). Could alanine be responsible for a half-fingered idiot oh great
ONE.
>
> When will you learn to post with the correct line length. Why should I
> bother to answer anyone who cannot even post the correct line length?
> That is a sure sign of native criminality, along with using aliases and
> not signing one's posts.
>
Aliases? That notion sounds quite *alien* to me.
>
> > --
> > Scott Chase
>
>
Uh oh. This might be taken as evidence that I've been logging into the
Hersheyplex supercomputer.
*Hemidactylus*
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In talk.origins I read this message from howard hershey
> <hers...@indiana.edu>:
>
> [snip]
>
> |ratio, shooting the excess is the most efficient way.
>
> were killed in 1998. There are 240,000 this year. It seems that
> shooting deer cause them to multiply.
>
>
chav...@my-deja.com
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >[Snip]
> >
> > No, "wf3h" isn't a detriment to "anti-creationism," either.
>
> There is a variance of opinion on that statement.
There is a variance of opinion on pretty much any statement made in
talk.origins. :)
> I have him killfiled as I rather strongly disagree with your
> assesment of his 'calm, polite' responses. I also know I am not
> alone in this view.
And I respect the view and appreciate you taking the time to express
it. However, I have not seen anything I would call emotional or a
rant. Perhaps I missed something. This is entirely possible. I don't
think he's right or effective all the time, but I *do* see frequent
articles in which specific claims by the creationists are countered and
challenges are issued which do not get answered.
Perhaps he belongs on the Nyikos list. I haven't seen the reasons. I
just see the lists.
Peter Nyikos
yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
>In article <1999113022...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
>> Howard Hershey, has long been attacking Jeffrey Schwartz's
>> book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
>> another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
>> by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
>> conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
>>
>more evidence suggesting that the above is maliciously dishonest is
>presented today in
>http://x43.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=1&AN=555364594.1
>where hershey writes:
>"Remember also that I have no objection to saltational evolution
...suitably defined to only include big changes produced by
point mutations and other minute Darwinian steps. He obviously
does not have such Catch-22 definitions as Wesley Elsberry's
in mind for "saltation".
> nor to
>the important role that homeobox genes play in development,
Didn't you maliciously spin-doctor what Joe Potter wrote
into a claim that Schwartz's critics were disparaging the
role homeobox genes play in *development*? Hershey is knocking
down a strawman with this second clause.
so you don't
>need to defend those ideas. My objection is entirely based on the *
>mechanism* for saltational evolution that Schwartz seems to propose in
>the article."
...as well as any mechanism not endorsed by an icon of evolutionism,
such as Gould. That, at least, is the actual practice of Howard
Hershey, as opposed to Delphic lip service such as he gives here.
I have already had my say in "Dirty debating tricks and strategies"
about how flagrantly insincere Howard Hershey is about his true
opinions.
Peter Nyikos
>On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:31:16 -0500, chav...@my-deja.com wrote
>(in message <824b2q$5gv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
>> In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>>>> He's Perfect in every way. He don't need to do no stinking studying.
>>>
>>> Ah, yes, I forgot to update a certain category of mine:
>>>
>>> ANTI-CREATIONIST LOOSE CANNONS
>>>
>>> These are people who post so clumsily, they seem to be more of a
>>> handicap to the anti-creationist faction in talk.origins than an
>>> asset.
>>>
>>> Henry Barwood "maff91" John Mazor "wf3h"
>>>
>>> Prime Candidates: Elmer Bataitis BeckyLynn Bob Casanova
>>> Dave Horn Pat "Splifford" James Bruce Salem
>Hoo-rah! I'm back on a List! And I didn't even have to pull Petey out of the
>killfile to do it! Happy days are here again! I must be getting better at
>this. And I'm in good company, too; I don't know how _they_ feel, but it's an
>honour to be associated with them.
Just goes to show how clueless you are about, e.g., "wf3h".
Have a look at the various threads in which I've been following
up to him, especially:
"Which US states have now banned Evolution?"
"Does atheism lead to nihilism?"
and
"Everyone agrees, evolution is a WILD GUESS. Re: Oklahoma Textbooks"
By the way, I very strongly disagree with that last title, including
its subordinate clause.
>I do wonder, though, how on _Earth_ Petey managed to get BeckyLynn on the
>same List as Dave Horn.
She is practically a clone of his as far as style and choice
of enemies is concerned. And "style" includes an almost
identical repertoire of dirty debating tricks. The only
difference is that BeckyLynn drags in the fact that she
is a woman into the most irrelevant and self-serving places.
> And ditto Salem. I can see where _I_ might be
>associated with Horn, and Cassanova and Bataitis have delivered a few kicks
>to the Perfect rear along the way, but _BeckyLynn_?!
Read the criteria again. You are both extremely clumsy posters.
>>> By the way, "anti-creationist" has at least as much to do with being
>>> against creationists as it does to do with being against creationism.
>>> NONE of the above would be among the above if they seemed to be
>>> merely against creationism and not against creationists.
>So not only are you Perfect, but you're a mind-reader, too, eh, Petey? In my
>particular case you would be wrong.
Typical dirty debating trick, flying in the face of your
own .sig.
>> If this is true, then Dave and Becky need to be removed from this silly
>> little list. Neither of them are "against creationists," per se. Dave
>> has said so many times
...in a way strongly reminiscent of the saying, "Some of my best
friends are Black" which is nowadays taken to be a good
indication of racism, and not because "Black" is used in place
of "African-American" either.
Has Horn ever named a single creationist posting to talk.origins
that he has nothing against? I've never seen him do it, and
in fact I've never seen him give the name of a single creationist
he does not consider to be dishonest; perhaps if he did, it would
only turn out that his definition of "creationist" encompasses
more than just YECs and OECs.
>> and Becky has said she doesn't know enough about
>> the scientific details of the issues involved.
As if that had anything to do with who and what she is against!
>Just 'cause they say so is no reason for the Lord of Lists to admit error.
They are both highly hypocritical and so is chaver09, who typed
the following:
>> I'm also not clear on how Barwood or "maff" are more a detriment to the
>> cause against creationism. Some of Barwood's early stuff seemed
>> reasonable and compelling to me,
His use of selective deletia is every
bit as dishonest and a lot more voluminous than the use of them
by Howard Hershey as documented in:
"Dirty debating tricks and strategies"
>> while "maff" at least cites URL
>> references in response to some things said or claimed in the
>> newsgroup.
Yes, and he's being laughed at as the url-bot or something like
that--he posts urls in response to certain keywords without
bothering to check how relevant they are to the actual issues
being discussed, is the impression I get.
See the thread,
"to the owner of maff91"
for the ongoing discussion.
>> It seems to me that this is not a bad thing.
>> Perhaps "maff" believes that the references provide the information
>> better than he could if he chose to summarize it. I suspect
>> that "maff" is on the list because he's an atheist and Nyikos has a
>> particular bug-a-boo about atheists.
Less than I do about anti-theists like hershey.
But more to the point, I didn't even
know maff was an atheist!
>I'd go with that.
Of course you would. If it's good enough for chaver09 it's
good enough for you, eh?
>>
>> I don't know who "John Mazor" is. I might have to research that. I'm
>> also not clear on why "wf3h" is on the list. His commentary isn't
>> always enlightening, but if that's a criteria, then Nyikos should place
>> himself on the list as well. "Wf3h" does respond to creationists in
>> what is generally a calm, if firm fashion and at least he offers some
>> rebuttal and uses references.
BWAHAAHAHAHAHHA! See above threads, where I even told wf3h
he could go crying to Uncle Chaver to get him out of one
of the many corners to which he'd painted himself.
I've mentioned Chaver several times since that post, in
the same threads, as a fan of "wf3h". Guess I should start
mentioning you too, "Splifford".
>> These references seem to send folks like
>> Pagano packing (even if he only returns later to make the same
>> claims). No, "wf3h" isn't a detriment to "anti-creationism," either.
>Mazor and wf3h both raked Petey over the coals several times. It was great
>fun watching him squirm.
I don't think you could cite an example of me "squirming" in
response to either one if your life depended on it.
>>
>> In fact, I can't see any reason for *any* of these people on this list
>> with the unfortunate exception of Pat. Sorry, Pat, but I haven't seen
>> too much lately indicating that there has been much factual or
>> evidenciary give-and-take between you and a creationist, but I
>> certainly could have missed something. I will check Deja.com for some
>> older messages under "Splifford." I just can't immediately recall
>> anything but given Nyikos's penchant for lists, I would imagine that I
>> will find that you don't belong on the list, either.
>I suspect that Petey doesn't like my sense of humour... especially as he has
>none.
Humor has been thoroughly politicized in talk.origins. People
like Dave Horn, Howard Hershey, and Wesley Elsberry have absolute
veto power over the humorousness of anything said by anyone
not in good with the dominant clique. Also they have the power
to pronounce serious, sincere points "funny" and to congratulate
their utterer on a sense of humor as a way of thoroughly
disregarding the points they make.
Remainder snipped, to be responded to later, except for
the following .sig, left in to document something I said
up there.
>Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
>incredible arrogance.
>Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
>incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Rich Daniel
> yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
[...]
>>http://x43.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=1&AN=555364594.1
>>where hershey writes:
>>"Remember also that I have no objection to saltational evolution
> ...suitably defined to only include big changes produced by
> point mutations and other minute Darwinian steps. He obviously
> does not have such Catch-22 definitions as Wesley Elsberry's
> in mind for "saltation"...
Peter, I'm baffled. Are you suggesting that saltation might proceed
by something other than the ordinary small mutations that we see
every day (not just point substitutions, but gene duplications,
polyploidy, chromosome rearrangements, etc.)?
--
Rich Daniel http://www.wright.edu/~daniel.16
Joseph Potter
>CC: Potter
>
>yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
<snip>
>
>> nor to
>>the important role that homeobox genes play in development,
>
>Didn't you maliciously spin-doctor what Joe Potter wrote
>into a claim that Schwartz's critics were disparaging the
>role homeobox genes play in *development*? Hershey is knocking
>down a strawman with this second clause.
>
Yes he was the one.
However, do not blame even a "yim*" as Howard would
have had at a straw man anyway.
-----
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
>Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>>On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:31:16 -0500, chav...@my-deja.com wrote
>>(in message <824b2q$5gv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
>
>>> In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>>
[Snip]
>
>Humor has been thoroughly politicized in talk.origins. People
>like Dave Horn, Howard Hershey, and Wesley Elsberry have absolute
>veto power over the humorousness of anything said by anyone
>not in good with the dominant clique. Also they have the power
>to pronounce serious, sincere points "funny" and to congratulate
>their utterer on a sense of humor as a way of thoroughly
>disregarding the points they make.
>
<snip>
Well said.
Sad, but true.
-----
Regards, Joe
Peter Nyikos
yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
>In article <1999113022...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> "Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
>> Howard Hershey, has long been attacking Jeffrey Schwartz's
>> book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
>> another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
>> by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
>> conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
>>
>"peter", please read the following:
Done.
>from http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=543240769
>main comments by hershey, comments preceded with a caret are potter's)
>"Absolutely. It never completely left. I have always stated that
>'saltation' or large morphological change undoubtedly is important in
>evolution (but it is not the end-all-be-all of evolution).
Note how he plays games with the word, even putting it into
quotation marks. Is "or large morphological change" supposed
to be synonymous, or what?
>> Homeobox genes will prove to be the answer.
>And homeoboxes are undoubtedly crucial for certain evolutionary changes,
>being genes that often affect early development.
Note that he doesn't say "mutations in homeoboxes"--mutations of what happens
downstream may be what he is referring to, with homeoboxes then
coordinating the changes that happen.
>The problem is that Schwartz's ideas about how this happens are wrong,
>wrong, wrong.
Howard is still looking for ways to support this
bombastic claim. A fishing expedition for one way ended in a blatant
piece of dishonesty, as documented in:
"Dirty debating tricks and strategies".
>> Hell, read what the research is telling
>> us.
>I do, Joe. And, just like the research I looked at wrt Schwartz's
>description of the Dlx and axoltl stories, the *real* research tells me
>something quite different from what Schwartz does.
The axolotl story had to do with a semantic dispute over where
"neoteny" ends and "progenesis" begins. I dealt with it at length
on the thread where Hershey tried to make a federal case of it.
Another example of trying to nickle and dime Schwartz to death.
>> But, unfortunately for you and your gradualist
>> Pack.buds --- it will prove you are wrong on
>> the "gradual" mutations idea.
>The battle is NOT between gradual evolution and saltation (both take
>place).
But nowhere does Hershey define saltation.
> Larry, Paul, and I are NOT die-hard 'gradualists'. The real
>battle is between erroneous ideas of saltation and correct ideas of
>saltation.
...which Hershey never spells out. "Joe Lurker" had him pegged
on this sort of thing long ago: he holds out the carrot of
not being opposed in principle to ID or whatever, just to
coax the opponent to run after the carrot, which he holds
out of reach all the time, all the time gleefully taunting
and jeering.
Dan Kettler has such people pegged in alt.paranormal; they
are "pseudo-skeptics": people who pretend to have open minds
on a subject but always make disparaging comments on
anything their opponent puts forth:
http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm#ps
The evidence is frequently dismissed by a claim that no
evidence has been presented and that the opponent's argument
is pure Proof by Incredulity.
>It is between correct ideas of genetics and incorrect ones.
>It is between correct understanding of development and incorrect ones.
>It is between real and good ideas about evolution and pure fantasy. It
>is between a good and accurate book of science and a terrible book of
>half-baked ideas unsupported by evidence.
...which Hershey hadn't even taken a look at, typical pseudo-skeptic
that he is. He judges the book on the basis of laughably inadequate
evidence here.
Now that he has belatedly started looking at the book, he's
been ripping one thing after another out of context and making
statements about it that fly in the face of the whole context.
But then, dishonest deletia come as second nature to him;
see that "Dirty debating..." thread again.
> Schwartz, alas, is on the
>incorrect side in each and every case because he clearly has only a
>superficial understanding of the processes he invokes."
It is Hershey who has only a superficial understanding of
where Schwartz stands and what he has written.
>from http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=547378397.3
>"I actually gave Joe specific examples of 'saltation', including
>neotonous salamanders
That could have happened gradually, as any Darwinist worth his
salt can see.
> and the symbiotic relationship leading to
>chloroplasts and mitochondria,
Hershey is so desperate to pay lip service to saltation,
he even tries to claim symbiosis is an example!
This particular symbiotic relationship is lost in the mists of eons.
We can only conjecture that it started out similarly to what
we see in *Pelomyxa* ("*Chaos chaos*") today: facultative bacterial
symbiotes in `protozoans' lacking organelles. The mitochondria and
chloroplasts could have evolved ever so slowly.
I'll give you another "symbiotic" relationship to chew on:
that between slave-raiding ants and their "slaves". There is
a very nice gradual progression from the facultative status
of *Formica sanguinea* to the total dependency of the "masters"
on their "slaves" seen in ants that have lost all castes except
queen and male, and who depend on the generosity of their hosts
for practically everything.
> as well as eyelessness in cave animals.
A single mutation in a homeobox gene probably does the trick. The reason
Hershey has no objection to this one is that it is a pure
loss of function the way his anti-Silberstein mind sees it.
>That is the truth, Peter, that has conveniently gone down your memory
>hole. Those examples have viable pathways to accomplish the end
>result."
Yes--viable pathways that need not include any saltation
at all. Hershey has NOT proposed any mechanism for them
to happen suddenly, except for:
>"Well, of the examples of saltation I gave, only the loss of eyes in
>cave animals is possibly due to mutation in a homeobox gene (but these
>need not be a homeobox mutation either)"
Playing games again--as though Schwartz had claimed that the
mutations were in the homeobox sequence itself!
>now, had someone else made the comment you did at the start of this
>post, in the light of the evidence above, you would have labelled them
>as "highly dishonest", told them they were telling "shame-faced lies"
In your self-congratulatory fantasies.
>and suggesting that if they had an ounce of honour or decency they would
>cease posting on usenet, as they had been caught lying.
I have never said anything like that about anyone,
not even a habitual liar like Paul Myers. You are twisting
something that I said beyond reason.
>i wonder what you will do now?
Relax in the conviction
that you want to claim me as your BigGameTrophy,
and aren't the least bit interested in discussion with me except
as a means to that end. And so I won't feel any twinges
of conscience when I refuse to discuss on-topic matters with you.
I only went into on-topic stuff as much
as I did above to help Joe Potter.
A fringe benefit is that it humors the likes of Hemidactylus, who claims
to be interested in the on-topic stuff and may yet return
to discussing it some day.
[deletia of dirty debating trick identified on the thread
devoted to such things]
>i caught you lying, "peter". it is all over for you on usenet.
You'd love it if that were true, wouldn't you, Jimbo?
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
Peter Nyikos
>In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> writes:
>>
>> >On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:36:56 -0500, David Iain Greig wrote
>> >(in message <slrn848kc...@darwin.ediacara.org>):
>>
>> >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> >>> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
>> >>> Howard Hershey,
>> >>
>> >> I would not call Howard 'one of the most popular people
>> >> in this newsgroup'. Except perhaps in relation to the
>> >> popularity of the one making the above claim.
>>
>> >I thought the Hershey entity was a sock-puppet created by The Pack(tm) to
>> >harass and annoy Petey the Grate?
>>
>> Not really. There really is a person named Howard Hershey,
>> and the hypothesis I favor is that one of the reasons for
>> his enormous popularity
>> is his willingness to let certain people post to talk.origins
>> using the line
>>
>> From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
>>
>> in their headers.
>1. why do you think that hershey is popular?
I gave one reason above. Can't you read?
You want others, stick around. He has lots of fans
who ought to be giving reasons: Chase, Barwood, Syvanen,
Myers, Hines, Gans,...
>2. why do you think doing the above would make him popular?
Because it allows people to post all kinds of crap without
taking responsibility for it.
That's the reason you post under an assumed name, too, isn't
it, Jimbo? If you ever got totally disgraced here, you could
simply switch monikers and posting styles, and resume posting
after a short interval.
It's not hard, after all, to switch from one highly
artificial style ("fred" for "thread" etc.) to another.
Heck, for all I know, you could be Vladmeister ("killer yeast")
or Kevin O'Brien under that heavy style-disguise. And the latter
at least has good reasons for not showing up here under his
real name, if Wade Hines is to be believed. [Not that Wade
is the only one who has reasons--they merely complement
mine nicely.]
PZ Myers
<nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
Are you *seriously* suggesting that more than one person has been
posting as Howard Hershey? I thought this was just a joke!
I also don't understand the logic of your comment. If persons X, Y, and
Z have been granted the privilege of posting under the pseudonym "Howard
Hershey", how would that make him popular with persons A, B, and C? They
would presumably be unaware of this grand favor Howard has granted to
a select few. And why would X, Y, and Z consider this to be a boon? If
somebody sent me e-mail and said I was "allowed" to post as someone else,
I would think it was just plain weird.
>
>You want others, stick around. He has lots of fans
>who ought to be giving reasons: Chase, Barwood, Syvanen,
>Myers, Hines, Gans,...
>
>>2. why do you think doing the above would make him popular?
>
>Because it allows people to post all kinds of crap without
>taking responsibility for it.
This still doesn't make sense. Why would I need to post as "Howard
Hershey" to hide from my responsibility? Why couldn't I just post as
"Waldo Wargendorfer", or whatever I felt like? This would be a mighty
miniscule favor that Howard is presumptively granting.
[snip]
--
PZ Myers
Peter Nyikos
Mitchell Coffey <cof...@my-deja.com> writes:
>In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> writes:
>>
>> >On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:36:56 -0500, David Iain Greig wrote
>> >(in message <slrn848kc...@darwin.ediacara.org>):
>>
>> >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> >>> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
>> >>> Howard Hershey,
>> >>
>> >> I would not call Howard 'one of the most popular people
>> >> in this newsgroup'. Except perhaps in relation to the
>> >> popularity of the one making the above claim.
>>
>> >I thought the Hershey entity was a sock-puppet created by The Pack
>> >(tm) to harass and annoy Petey the Grate?
>>
>> Not really. There really is a person named Howard Hershey,
>> and the hypothesis I favor is that one of the reasons for
>> his enormous popularity is his willingness to let certain people post
>> to talk.origins using the line
>>
>> From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
>>
>> in their headers.
>>
>> This hypothesis is based on a lot of disparate
>> data including the fact that he invariably (in my experience)
>> fails to sign his name to posts that feature on-topic
>> statements that appear under that header line.
>>
>> If this hypothesis is correct, it would explain why everyone
>> (except people the Hershey institution has singled out for
>> adversarial status) is afraid to criticize him in any way:
>> some are afraid of offending someone whom they are on
>> good e-mail terms with, while others would simply
>> be criticizing themselves.
>"[A]fraid to criticize him in any way"? Well, I for one am willing to
>criticize him - and darn the consequences!
>Here it goes: Howard, I don't think your as popular as Peter Nyikos
>thinks you are, and I don't care who knows it!
You call that a criticism of *Howard*?
Heck, it wasn't even done in followup to him, not that *that*
matters in this case.
>Take that, Howard! Now, do your worst!
>Mitchell Coffey
>______________________________________________________
>"TO WRITE about Thomas Pynchon is to be drawn into a
>quasi-cult of over-educated oddballs who hold furious
>debates on the Internet and pass around artists'
>impressions of how he might look, as though they were
>samizdats of the Soviet era."
Gee, sounds like the way they handle Kettler over on
alt.paranormal. :-)
> The Times, London
>_South African Sunday Times_, 07 June 1998
Hmm... I wonder what Bernd has to say about this.
A cc goes to him.
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
>Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
>> Howard Hershey, has long been attacking Jeffrey Schwartz's
>> book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
>> another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
>> by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
>> conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
>>
>> In his more unguarded moments, he shows that he is
>> a HYPER-Darwinian, labeling even evolutionary events
>> that most people would consider to be gradualistic with
>> the epithet, "magic". This happened, for example, on
>> the first of the month (Nov.), when he posted the following:
He did it again, folks, below.
>> ======================= begin excerpt from followup to me
>>
>> > Scenario 2. A homeobox gene mutation results in loss of function
>>
>> Accchh! Why not intone "magic results in a magical change". Same thing
>> in this case.
>>
>> ============================ end of excerpt
>>
>> Examples of such mutations have been produced in the lab. This
>> has been documented, and Hershey was participating in the
>> discussion where implications of this fact were analyzed.
>> Yet so set is he against extraordinary mutations that
>> he simply wrote off my suggested example as you see above.
>>
>> The context was this: I was posting on early human
>> embryonic development. The focus was the human amniotic
>> membrane, the inner membrane in the two-layered "bag of waters"
>> that is delivered at birth along with the baby, the placenta,
>> and the umbilical cord.
>>
>> The early embryonic precursor of the placenta is known as
>> the trophoblast, and its inner layer, known as the cytotrophoblast,
>> has been featured in one of three alternative theories
>> as to how the amniotic membrane is first produced.
>> I was describing a hypothetical scenario for how the
>> amniotic membrane, or amnion for short, could have had
>> its production transferred by mutation from a different
>> part of the early embryo to the cytotrophoblast. Hershey
>> simply would have none of it, due to his HYPER-Darwinism.
>What the Herr Doktor is NOT saying, but is implied above which would put
>my statement in context, is that his 'scenario' requires NOT just the
>loss of an original mechanism for amnion formation by a mutation of a
>homeobox gene (*that* could happen, but its result would be the *death*
>of the organism bearing it) but also requires the *simultaneous* and
>seemingly *miraculous* formation of a brand NEW amnion formed from
>entirely different tissues
Ectoderm all, and yet he calls them entirely different tissues.
> solely because of the obvious "need" of the
>organism for an amnion
This is a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote.
The only thing that *might* save it from being a
piece of malicious dishonesty is that Hershey, in his usual
ignorance of proper terminology, might be confusing the amnion
(= amniotic membrane) with the amniotic cavity, something
he's done a number of times before.
After all, he is still mesmerised by the canonical example
of the chick embryo, where the amniotic cavity and the
amniotic membrane are formed in an entirely different way
than they are in humans.
Anyway, if Hershey were to bother to re-read what I wrote
in conjunction with the poetic statement I wrote below,
he would be reminded of an elementary fact of developmental
biology which refutes his garbage above.
> and some vague New Age idea that "nature abhors a
>vacuum" and would thus miraculously produce an amnion when it is needed.
I was just letting my hair down a bit, waxing poetic.
But in this newsgroup, that is a privilege reserved for
people in good with the dominant clique. As I said in
an analogous situation, Hershey wants to have all the laughs--and
he also wants to do all the hair-lettings-down in one-on-one
with me:
=============================== begin excerpt from followup to Hershey
> After all, bear-baiting is no longer an active sport and
>what is to replace it but tweaking the massive egos of the local
>arrogant pompassi.
You have a far more massive ego than I do, expecting
me to believe countless things on your say-so, despite
the fact that the only post in three year to which I've
seen you sign the name "Howard Hershey" is one in which
you called Elle "a slut".
You also got awfully uptight when I kidded you about a
statement about "all one needs to be a protein".
You reminded me of "Matthew Harrison Brady" in _Inherit the
Wind_. The stage directions actually go out of their way
to say that he is miffed at being the target of a joke
by "Henry Drummond" because "he wants to have all the laughs."
As usual, the authors got the roles mixed up: it's the
anti-creationists like you who want to have all the laughs
in talk.origins, as Arthur Biele found out from Wesley
Elsberry and me.
================================= end of excerpt
Or, as I put it in another post to this thread earlier
today:
Humor has been thoroughly politicized in talk.origins. People
like Dave Horn, Howard Hershey, and Wesley Elsberry have absolute
veto power over the humorousness of anything said by anyone
not in good with the dominant clique. Also they have the power
to pronounce serious, sincere points "funny" and to congratulate
their utterer on a sense of humor as a way of thoroughly
disregarding the points they make.
>> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>> University of South Carolina
>> Columbia, SC 29208
Peter Nyikos
>Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:01HW.B46B5ADB0...@enews.newsguy.com...
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:31:16 -0500, chav...@my-deja.com wrote
>> (in message <824b2q$5gv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
>>
>> > In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > [Snip]
>> >
>> >>> He's Perfect in every way. He don't need to do no stinking studying.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, yes, I forgot to update a certain category of mine:
>> >>
>> >> ANTI-CREATIONIST LOOSE CANNONS
>> >>
>> >> These are people who post so clumsily, they seem to be more of a
>> >> handicap to the anti-creationist faction in talk.origins than an
>> >> asset.
>> >>
>> >> Henry Barwood "maff91" John Mazor "wf3h"
>> >>
>> >> Prime Candidates: Elmer Bataitis BeckyLynn Bob Casanova
>> >> Dave Horn Pat "Splifford" James Bruce Salem
>>
>> Hoo-rah! I'm back on a List! And I didn't even have to pull Petey out of
>the
>> killfile to do it! Happy days are here again! I must be getting better at
>> this. And I'm in good company, too; I don't know how _they_ feel, but it's
>an
>> honour to be associated with them.
I wonder whether "Splifford" thought to think about whom he
is NOT associated with. The small handful up there are hardly
among the best people in t.o. by ANYONE's criteria, except
perhaps the Hornians according to the criteria of their
fellow Hornians.
>> I do wonder, though, how on _Earth_ Petey managed to get BeckyLynn on the
>> same List as Dave Horn. And ditto Salem. I can see where _I_ might be
>> associated with Horn, and Cassanova and Bataitis [...]
Answered in direct followup to "Splifford".
>Damn!,, I didn't make the list. Pat,, what do I have to do to get inducted
>into "the Pack", "supporters of the Pack" or even the Loose Cannon list?
You can read, can't you? The criteria for Loose Cannon are above.
As for the rest, why ask Pat? He is, at best, a Friend of the Pack,
and probably doesn't even know what the Pack is:
THE PACK
These are people who have distinguished themselves by numerous,
frequently dishonest attacks on Julie Thomas and utter failure
to reprimand any of the other Pack members for dishonest
utterances in the course of these attack. For some strange
reason, most of them manifest the same behavior towards people
like me and Michael Behe and Joe Potter.
FRIENDS OF THE PACK
These are people who are to the Pack as Friends of Rome were
to Rome:
The term `a friend of Rome' was a definition, not a generalisation.
It meant that the man or the state in question
submitted to Rome and henceforth would not act independently but
was unconditionally committed to Roman protection. Unlike an
`ally of Rome', who still retained some privileges and elements
of freedom, a friend of Rome was more or less a vassal.
-- _Hannibal_, by Ernle Bradford, Dorset Press, 1981, pp.29-30
ALLIES OF THE PACK
See above.
ANTI-CREATIONIST LOOSE CANNONS
These are people who post so clumsily, they seem to be more of a handicap
to the anti-creationist faction in talk.origins than an asset.
Now, if you aspire to an even more distinguished but much more
numerous company, check deja.com for the criteria for Bandar-log
membership.
>Would mailing Pete a fruitcake for Christmas get me on the list? ( you
>know,, sweets for the sweet)
Of course not. By the way, didn't you mean to write "will send
food to avoid an argument about evolution" below? :-)
>Dana J. Tweedy
>(will argue evolution for food)
Peter Nyikos
>On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:22:09 -0500, Dana Tweedy wrote
>(in message <3848...@news.desupernet.net>):
>[snip]
>>
>> Damn!,, I didn't make the list. Pat,, what do I have to do to get inducted
>> into "the Pack", "supporters of the Pack" or even the Loose Cannon list?
>> Would mailing Pete a fruitcake for Christmas get me on the list? ( you
>> know,, sweets for the sweet)
>Keep trying.
The list of "criteria" below, if sincere, only show how
deeply Pat "Splifford" James has bought into the tall
tales others like Hershey spread about me, like "Peter
puts anyone who disagrees with him on an enemies list".
> Mention the Hershey entity in ways that indicate that you think
>that it is really just one person.
Won't work.
> Say nice things about Gans or Myers.
Won't work. I still consider Brian Scott to be a friend of mine,
for example.
> Say
>that you like Julie Thomas, but that Petey (always call him Petey) can't
>explain his way out of a wet paper bag.
Combine that with a statement that I am more scientific than
Julie was, as Hershey did, and you will be a lot closer
to meeting the criteria than if you follow "Splifford"s benighted
advice.
Hershey may have thought he could flatter me by that statement,
but I saw right through him, since he had flattered Julie in
comparison to me on other occasions.
Poke fun at his homeboys, especially
>Pags and Potter. Mispeel Nykios. Be sarcastic in the presence of the Perfect
>One(tm). Don't take anything he says seriously, and make sure that he knows
>that you're laughing.
That's enough to make me take notice of you, but hardly enough
to meet any of the criteria.
Peter Nyikos
of Usenet as one big joke or else is not interested in on-topic
discussion with me except as a means to the end of nailing me.
I deleted everything from the post to which I am following up,
which was almost completely a case of yojimbo5681 following
up to his own post and just reinforcing the evidence for
the foregoing conclusion at the end.
I dealt with that earlier post a few hours ago.
Peter Nyikos
Howard Hershey. All he has to do is learn, some time in the
next two and a half years, what "delamination from the
cytotrophoblast" means.
yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
>In article <3847CC...@indiana.edu>,
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > The early embryonic precursor of the placenta is known as
>> > the trophoblast, and its inner layer, known as the cytotrophoblast,
>> > has been featured in one of three alternative theories
>> > as to how the amniotic membrane is first produced.
>> > I was describing a hypothetical scenario for how the
>> > amniotic membrane, or amnion for short, could have had
>> > its production transferred by mutation from a different
>> > part of the early embryo to the cytotrophoblast. Hershey
>> > simply would have none of it, due to his HYPER-Darwinism.
>> What the Herr Doktor is NOT saying, but is implied above which would put
>> my statement in context,
...is a work of complete fiction which Hershey borrowed from
"yojimbo5681", and is being complimented on by yojimbo5681
below.
>> is that his 'scenario' requires NOT just the
>> loss of an original mechanism for amnion formation by a mutation of a
>> homeobox gene (*that* could happen, but its result would be the *death*
>> of the organism bearing it)
>when this was pointed out to herr doktor by moi,
...I had no idea how utterly the term "delamination from the
cytotrophoblast" went over the head(s) of the person(s) posting
with
From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
in the headers in the NUMEROUS times it has been posted in
the last close-to-three years. Hershey apparently has no idea
what delamination is, because when I described it without
using the word, it utterly baffled him as it did yojimbo5681:
as the cytotrophoblast cells in the dome divide, the lower
ones come to look just like the ones that used to be formed
from the epiblast.
In this way, I was saying that the amniotic membrane had a new
way of forming, the one according to the Moore theory. I've
been repeating Moore's theory *ad infinitum*, and it looks
like Hershey has never even figured out what it says.
What's more, even if it did NOT happen that way, Hershey would
still be wrong, and so would yojimbo5681: even if the aminotic cavity
were not lined with *epitheleal* cells, a "bag of waters" very
similar to the current one could
still form as the chorionic villi are shed by the smooth
chorion [Check any good book on human embryology.].
The only difference is that the bag would be single-layered
instead of double-layered.
Only someone as profoundly ignorant of human development
as the two of you could miss out on this simple answer
to your stupid claims.
> glided past the
>point in a manner reminiscent of the xordaxian battlecruisers as the
>routed the Xix'ncrrrrians of narg.
Thanks for putting your other foot in your mouth, Jimbo. Did
it hurt when your rear end hit the floor?
Were you still under the delusion that Hershey was correct when
he wrote:
what will be the embryo called epiblast ectoderm and the remainder being
extra-embryonic ectoderm. Whether you want to consider the
extra-embryonic ectoderm to be from the cytotrophoblastic ectoderm is a
matter of irrelevant name-calling.
This statement is completely false. Hershey has never
comprehended the Moore theory, which I've repeatedly
described and pointed out as one of three rival theories
about human amniotic membrane formation.
Reference: Keith L. Moore, _The Developing Human_, 4th ed.
To see just how completely he has failed to comprehend it,
just look at the post where he did a 180 degree turn from
his "the same cells" and claimed that what I've consistently
called the Moore theory has the amniotic membrane coming
from a completely different set of cells.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Peter Nyikos
HYPER-DARWINISM
where the usual suspects display one of the dirty debating tricks
I mentioned in my first post to this new Subject: line.
yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
>In article <824dov$7a6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <1999113022...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> > One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
>> > Howard Hershey, has long been attacking Jeffrey Schwartz's
>> > book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
>> > another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
>> > by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
>> > conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
[deletia of things already dealt with]
>more evidence from:
>http://x32.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=547378397
>(carets are nyikos; other text is hershey)
Of course, now it is two `carets' for me and one for hershey.
>>
>> Yet you fight tooth (or should I say, "complete set of continuously
>> renewed teeth?) and nail against every suggestion that saltation actually
>> happened.
>I actually gave Joe specific examples of 'saltation',
[list of purported examples, already dealt with, deleted.]
>> I note that you had to put "saltation" into inverted
>> commas to bring your last statement off.
>>
>> As for large morphological change, anyone who does not believe
>> large morphological change has taken place in evolution is
>> a creationist.
>Well, actually creationists believe in large instantaneous changes that
>occur outside natural law mechanisms.
Hershey apparently missed the meaning of the phrase,
"taken place in evolution".
> So does Schwartz. He just
>doesn't recognize that that is what he is proposing.
Thanks, yojimbo5681, for documenting how Hershey has deluded himself into
thinking he knows Schwartz's mind better than Schwartz does,
without even having LOOKED at Schwartz's book.
This bit of documentation goes a long way towards convincing me
that the net.barbarian dirty debating trick which I attributed
to you in my first post to this new subject line
is just a gigantic smokescreen for the habit of you and
your kind REALLY telling everyone just what is on the minds of your
adversaries. It just took this last straw to make me recall
that this is what Hershey was doing with Julie Thomas, and to
realize that this is what he does to me all the time when
he pretends to think my Throomians are "supernatural".
Moran was also a big one for telling Julie just what was
on her mind. Julie was motivated by a fundie religion,
no doubt about that in Moran's mind.
Gans is also telling me what's on my mind, telling everyone
I am a creationist without realizing it.
It's all part of the virtual reality that people like
Mike Syvanen, John Harshman, and perhaps Brian Scott
mistake for the real thing, because these con artists
are so convincing at it.
wf...@ptd.net
>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>
i'm on peter's list...proud to be there, actually. but this falls far
short of my being characterized by one creationist (i forgot his name)
as a member of an 'evolutionist goon squad'. THAT'S my favorite!!
Jim Rogers
> yojimbo5681 continues to pile on the evidence that he either
> thinks of Usenet as one big joke or else is not interested in
> on-topic discussion with me except as a means to the end of
> nailing me.
So what about your discussion is "on topic" to talk.abortion? Why
are you cross-posting? Is it because you think of Usenet as one
big joke?
Jim
howard hershey
>
> CC: Potter
>
> yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >In article <1999113022...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > "Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> >> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
> >> Howard Hershey, has long been attacking Jeffrey Schwartz's
> >> book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
> >> another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
> >> by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
> >> conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
> >>
>
> >"peter", please read the following:
>
> Done.
>
> >from http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=543240769
> >main comments by hershey, comments preceded with a caret are potter's)
>
> >"Absolutely. It never completely left. I have always stated that
> >'saltation' or large morphological change undoubtedly is important in
> >evolution (but it is not the end-all-be-all of evolution).
>
> Note how he plays games with the word, even putting it into
> quotation marks. Is "or large morphological change" supposed
> to be synonymous, or what?
Yes. Synonymous. I know it is a vague description, but it is at least
as clear as Schwartz's definition, which is...? Come to think of it, I
don't think Schwartz gives a definition of 'saltation', any more than he
clarifies what he means by 'eye' or 'tooth'.
>
> >> Homeobox genes will prove to be the answer.
>
> >And homeoboxes are undoubtedly crucial for certain evolutionary changes,
> >being genes that often affect early development.
>
> Note that he doesn't say "mutations in homeoboxes"--mutations of what happens
> downstream may be what he is referring to, with homeoboxes then
> coordinating the changes that happen.
In this case, I meant changes in the homeobox genes themselves. But you
are quite right. Downstream genes can be equally important.
>
> >The problem is that Schwartz's ideas about how this happens are wrong,
> >wrong, wrong.
>
> Howard is still looking for ways to support this
> bombastic claim. A fishing expedition for one way ended in a blatant
> piece of dishonesty, as documented in:
>
> "Dirty debating tricks and strategies".
I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't bother reading that
thread.
>
> >> Hell, read what the research is telling
> >> us.
>
> >I do, Joe. And, just like the research I looked at wrt Schwartz's
> >description of the Dlx and axoltl stories, the *real* research tells me
> >something quite different from what Schwartz does.
>
> The axolotl story had to do with a semantic dispute over where
> "neoteny" ends and "progenesis" begins. I dealt with it at length
> on the thread where Hershey tried to make a federal case of it.
All you did was try to smear and malign Gould. You had nothing of value
to say about the contents of either article or book (Schwartz's or
Gould's) as you have not read *any* of them. Have you at least started
the article, Peter?
>
> Another example of trying to nickle and dime Schwartz to death.
It is not a question of where "neotony" ends and "progenesis" begins.
They are not part of a single process. They are quite distinct and
different means of acheiving the same end. It is as if I wrote that I
had driven between Indianapolis and Chicago on the interstate rather
than local roads and stressed repeatedly that only the interstate should
be used. And then you turned around and said that *I* had said that one
should use only local roads. Wouldn't you think that I would question
your ability to understand what I had said? The problem is a question
of understanding what is going on in the organism and reading and
reporting the literature with even minimal accuracy. Have you read both
Schwartz and Gould? Remember that Schwartz *cites* Gould, and
favorably, as the source for this information, along with other sources
40 years older. To not even *mention* a discrepancy *so* blatant (it is
the key point of Gould's chapter) is essentially unthinkable in
academia. I couldn't believe it myself. My only reasonable choices,
without accusing Schwartz of fraud, which I really am loathe to do,
involve incompetence or selective memory or blindness to anything he
doesn't want to see.
>
> >> But, unfortunately for you and your gradualist
> >> Pack.buds --- it will prove you are wrong on
> >> the "gradual" mutations idea.
>
> >The battle is NOT between gradual evolution and saltation (both take
> >place).
>
> But nowhere does Hershey define saltation.
Where does Schwartz?
>
> > Larry, Paul, and I are NOT die-hard 'gradualists'. The real
> >battle is between erroneous ideas of saltation and correct ideas of
> >saltation.
>
> ...which Hershey never spells out. "Joe Lurker" had him pegged
> on this sort of thing long ago: he holds out the carrot of
> not being opposed in principle to ID or whatever, just to
> coax the opponent to run after the carrot, which he holds
> out of reach all the time, all the time gleefully taunting
> and jeering.
I have just recently posted on ways that 'saltation' via homeobox
mutation can occur. At a molecular level. But you would probably not
consider them 'saltation' because they do not involve the instantaneous
invention of entire organs from scratch by mutations in a single gene.
They involve loss-of-function, repeated function, function in a new
place, and modified function. I do still reject the instantaneous
invention of entire new organs from scratch and regard that aspect of
Schwartz to be biological nonsense, based on a misunderstanding of genes
that are necessary and genes that are sufficient by themselves for
forming an organ. There are no known genes in the last category.
>
> Dan Kettler has such people pegged in alt.paranormal; they
> are "pseudo-skeptics": people who pretend to have open minds
> on a subject but always make disparaging comments on
> anything their opponent puts forth:
>
> http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm#ps
>
> The evidence is frequently dismissed by a claim that no
> evidence has been presented and that the opponent's argument
> is pure Proof by Incredulity.
>
> >It is between correct ideas of genetics and incorrect ones.
> >It is between correct understanding of development and incorrect ones.
> >It is between real and good ideas about evolution and pure fantasy. It
> >is between a good and accurate book of science and a terrible book of
> >half-baked ideas unsupported by evidence.
>
> ...which Hershey hadn't even taken a look at, typical pseudo-skeptic
> that he is. He judges the book on the basis of laughably inadequate
> evidence here.
Not anymore. I base it on laughably inadequate evidence in the book,
which was no more adequate in the article.
>
> Now that he has belatedly started looking at the book, he's
> been ripping one thing after another out of context and making
> statements about it that fly in the face of the whole context.
> But then, dishonest deletia come as second nature to him;
> see that "Dirty debating..." thread again.
Don't read that thread. But how would you know what the context is?
You haven't read the book yet, have you?
>
> > Schwartz, alas, is on the
> >incorrect side in each and every case because he clearly has only a
> >superficial understanding of the processes he invokes."
>
> It is Hershey who has only a superficial understanding of
> where Schwartz stands and what he has written.
>
> >from http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=547378397.3
>
> >"I actually gave Joe specific examples of 'saltation', including
> >neotonous salamanders
>
> That could have happened gradually, as any Darwinist worth his
> salt can see.
Not likely.
>
> > and the symbiotic relationship leading to
> >chloroplasts and mitochondria,
>
> Hershey is so desperate to pay lip service to saltation,
> he even tries to claim symbiosis is an example!
>
> This particular symbiotic relationship is lost in the mists of eons.
> We can only conjecture that it started out similarly to what
> we see in *Pelomyxa* ("*Chaos chaos*") today: facultative bacterial
> symbiotes in `protozoans' lacking organelles. The mitochondria and
> chloroplasts could have evolved ever so slowly.
What do you define as saltational?
>
> I'll give you another "symbiotic" relationship to chew on:
> that between slave-raiding ants and their "slaves". There is
> a very nice gradual progression from the facultative status
> of *Formica sanguinea* to the total dependency of the "masters"
> on their "slaves" seen in ants that have lost all castes except
> queen and male, and who depend on the generosity of their hosts
> for practically everything.
>
> > as well as eyelessness in cave animals.
>
> A single mutation in a homeobox gene probably does the trick. The reason
> Hershey has no objection to this one is that it is a pure
> loss of function the way his anti-Silberstein mind sees it.
Of course. It is also large morphological change occurring rapidly.
What do you think of when you think of saltation? The magical invention
of a modern-looking complete eye in a single homeobox mutation? What,
Peter?
>
> >That is the truth, Peter, that has conveniently gone down your memory
> >hole. Those examples have viable pathways to accomplish the end
> >result."
>
> Yes--viable pathways that need not include any saltation
> at all. Hershey has NOT proposed any mechanism for them
> to happen suddenly, except for:
>
> >"Well, of the examples of saltation I gave, only the loss of eyes in
> >cave animals is possibly due to mutation in a homeobox gene (but these
> >need not be a homeobox mutation either)"
The axoltls do not involve homeobox genes. They involve genes that
produce or not the hormone thyroxin and genes for thyroxin receptors.
>
> Playing games again--as though Schwartz had claimed that the
> mutations were in the homeobox sequence itself!
Mutation in the homeobox gene, O.K.
>
> >now, had someone else made the comment you did at the start of this
> >post, in the light of the evidence above, you would have labelled them
> >as "highly dishonest", told them they were telling "shame-faced lies"
>
> In your self-congratulatory fantasies.
>
> >and suggesting that if they had an ounce of honour or decency they would
> >cease posting on usenet, as they had been caught lying.
>
> I have never said anything like that about anyone,
> not even a habitual liar like Paul Myers. You are twisting
> something that I said beyond reason.
>
> >i wonder what you will do now?
>
> Relax in the conviction
> that you want to claim me as your BigGameTrophy,
> and aren't the least bit interested in discussion with me except
> as a means to that end. And so I won't feel any twinges
> of conscience when I refuse to discuss on-topic matters with you.
Just as we can rest assured that you are still talking without having
read a damn thing that Schwartz has written, not knowing anything about
the subject matter, and are talking, as usual, out of a different
orifice than the rest of us use.
Peter Nyikos
No, it is because yojimbo5681 put talk.origins into the Newsgroups: line
of his post and I didn't bother to look up and see where my followup
to him was going. Ask HIM why he put it there.
Sorry about the intrusion, folks. I once spent a lot of time in
talk.abortion and hope to return to full-fledged participation
some day, but talk.origins keeps me busy enough as it is.
That said, I'd like to invite anyone desiring a refresher course
in very early human embryology to read this talk.origins thread.
Not a dull minute, I can almost guarantee it. Feel free to
join in--in talk.origins, please.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Peter Nyikos
>In article <1999120821...@milo.math.sc.edu>, Peter Nyikos
><nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>
>>>In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>>> Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> >On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:36:56 -0500, David Iain Greig wrote
>>>> >(in message <slrn848kc...@darwin.ediacara.org>):
>>>>
>>>> >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>>> >>> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
>>>> >>> Howard Hershey,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I would not call Howard 'one of the most popular people
>>>> >> in this newsgroup'. Except perhaps in relation to the
>>>> >> popularity of the one making the above claim.
>>>>
>>>> >I thought the Hershey entity was a sock-puppet created by The Pack(tm)
>>>> >to
>>>> >harass and annoy Petey the Grate?
>>>>
>>>> Not really. There really is a person named Howard Hershey,
>>>> and the hypothesis I favor is that one of the reasons for
>>>> his enormous popularity
>>>> is his willingness to let certain people post to talk.origins
>>>> using the line
>>>>
>>>> From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
>>>>
>>>> in their headers.
>>
>>>1. why do you think that hershey is popular?
>>
>>I gave one reason above. Can't you read?
>Are you *seriously* suggesting that more than one person has been
>posting as Howard Hershey? I thought this was just a joke!
Nope. You are one of the prime suspects, since posts with the line
From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
in the headers have pinch-hit for you in developmental biology
many times, for instance when he rescued you from
consequences of your lie that
you had posted step-by-step scenarios for the evolution of
the chorion.
>I also don't understand the logic of your comment. If persons X, Y, and
>Z have been granted the privilege of posting under the pseudonym "Howard
>Hershey", how would that make him popular with persons A, B, and C?
They might be fond of at least one of persons X, Y, and Z.
> They
>would presumably be unaware of this grand favor Howard has granted to
>a select few.
What makes you think that?
> And why would X, Y, and Z consider this to be a boon? If
>somebody sent me e-mail and said I was "allowed" to post as someone else,
>I would think it was just plain weird.
Not if you have some off-beat ideas about embryolgy that you'd
like to run up the flagpole to see if someone salutes them,
the way whoever is posting with the line
From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
in the headers is doing right on this thread.
>>
>>You want others, stick around. He has lots of fans
>>who ought to be giving reasons: Chase, Barwood, Syvanen,
>>Myers, Hines, Gans,...
>>
>>>2. why do you think doing the above would make him popular?
>>
>>Because it allows people to post all kinds of crap without
>>taking responsibility for it.
>This still doesn't make sense. Why would I need to post as "Howard
>Hershey" to hide from my responsibility?
Because word might get back to your fellow developmental biologists
about such things as you not comprehending the concept of "delamination
from the cytotrophoblast" for almost three years. While they might
feel highly indulgent about such things as the following highly
dishonest episode, this newly-revealed
inability could prove highly embarrassing to you.
================================= begin excerpt from post to which
no one has followed up, names added:
[Nyikos:]
> >And "Hemidactylus" is one of the few people with enough
> >knowledge of embryology to know what utter bilge
> >Myers was guilty of when he tried to draw conclusions
> >about how the human amnion was formed from the way
> >the mouse amnion is formed. All the way back in
> >1946 it was already known [Arey] that monkeys and guinea
> >pigs have a different way of forming it than rats do,
> >so unless Myers thinks that mice are closer to humans
> >than they are to rats, and humans are closer to mice
> >than they are to monkeys, he was posting nonsense even
> >from his POV.
> >
[Myers:]
> Let's see...you start off by saying it's utter bilge to try and draw
> any conclusions about human development from mouse development.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Nyikos:]
Note the slanderous use of "any" in the face of a highly
specific example which I amply justified. Myers failed
utterly to address the specific points I made.
All in all, a shocking display of a lack of professionalism
towards Myers's own field, developmental biology.
========================== end of included excerpt
> Why couldn't I just post as
>"Waldo Wargendorfer", or whatever I felt like?
Hershey has documentable credentials as a biologist. That is, I think,
why Scott "Hemidactylus" Chase takes him so seriously. He would be suspicious
of someone posting exclusively under a pseudonym, I should think.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
mode...@ediacara.orgasm
>In article <slrn84jhmi...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> gr...@ediacara.org wrote:
>> chav...@my-deja.com <chav...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >[Snip]
>> >
>> > No, "wf3h" isn't a detriment to "anti-creationism," either.
>>
>> There is a variance of opinion on that statement.
>
>There is a variance of opinion on pretty much any statement made in
>talk.origins. :)
>
>> I have him killfiled as I rather strongly disagree with your
>> assesment of his 'calm, polite' responses. I also know I am not
>> alone in this view.
>
>And I respect the view and appreciate you taking the time to express
>it. However, I have not seen anything I would call emotional or a
>rant.
how about "paranoid far right-wing kook"?
that seemed a bit emotional and hyperbolic:
http://www.deja.com/msgid.xp?MID=<3844a078....@news.ptd.net>
>Perhaps I missed something. This is entirely possible. I don't
>think he's right or effective all the time, but I *do* see frequent
>articles in which specific claims by the creationists are countered and
>challenges are issued which do not get answered.
Reminds me of something John Maynard Smith once said:
"The evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work
tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to
be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be
publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the
creationists."
chav...@my-deja.com
In article <1999120818...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
[Snip]
...and ignored.
See how easy?
Now *you* try.
wf...@ptd.net
>On 7 Dec 1999 09:24:04 -0500, chav...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>In article <slrn84jhmi...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
>> gr...@ediacara.org wrote:
>>> chav...@my-deja.com <chav...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>>> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >[Snip]
>>> >
>>> > No, "wf3h" isn't a detriment to "anti-creationism," either.
thanks much!!
>>>
>>> There is a variance of opinion on that statement.
>>
>>There is a variance of opinion on pretty much any statement made in
>>talk.origins. :)
>>
>>> I have him killfiled as I rather strongly disagree with your
>>> assesment of his 'calm, polite' responses. I also know I am not
>>> alone in this view.
>>
>>And I respect the view and appreciate you taking the time to express
>>it. However, I have not seen anything I would call emotional or a
>>rant.
>
>how about "paranoid far right-wing kook"?
>that seemed a bit emotional and hyperbolic:
why? let's examine the evidence
1. right wing? behe appears on such fine, objective programs as EWTN's
'the abundant life' where evolution is described as the ideology of
naziism. he is routinely quoted by far right wingers as phillip
johnson and robert bork.
2. paranoid? on august 22, 1997 here in bethlehem, pa at the cathedral
church of the nativity behe was the featured speaker at a pre service
talk. when asked why his views were not published in peer reviewed
journals, he replied that journal editors were all atheists, a point
he modified when i told him that was an offensive characterization.
sounds paranoid to me. if you go to 'answers in genesis' you'll see
the same argument made about why scientists accept evolution. that
type of paranoia is a necessary justification and rationalization for
creationists to deal with the fact the world's scientists dont accept
creationism.
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...before you invoke
'hyperbole' and lose your objectivity perhaps you'd be better asking
for evidence!!
yojimbo
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> This is a followup to a post on the thread,
>
> HYPER-DARWINISM
>
> where the usual suspects display one of the dirty debating tricks
> I mentioned in my first post to this new Subject: line.
>
failure to acknowledge:
- that you lied about hershey and saltation
- the irony of you complaining about mind reading, when you are
demonstrably doing the same to hershey
is noted.
--
would you kill him in his bed? thrust a dagger through his head?
i would not, could not, kill the king. i could not do that evil thing.
i would not wed this girl, you see. now get her to a nunnery.
- "green eggs and hamlet" - robin parry
yojimbo
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
a load of weaselling and evasion.
"peter", you lied about hershey, and you are trying to dig yourself out
by claiming, in effect, that you can truly discern hershey's motives,
where his actual written words suggest otherwise.
i leave it to readers to make their own minds up about this shameless
hypocrisy (copyright nyikos 1999)
Joseph Potter
>In article <1999120900...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> This is a followup to a post on the thread,
>>
>> HYPER-DARWINISM
>>
>> where the usual suspects display one of the dirty debating tricks
>> I mentioned in my first post to this new Subject: line.
>>
>
>failure to acknowledge:
>
>- that you lied about hershey and saltation
>
>- the irony of you complaining about mind reading, when you are
>demonstrably doing the same to hershey
>
>is noted.
>
I have seen no lie.
Care to explain your mindless accusation?
-----
Regards, Joe
Peter Nyikos
has grown so large, I've decided to adopt separate numberings for
the individual tricks and the strategies. The latter
list includes three which can either be strategies or tricks,
depending on whether they are indulged in repeatedly or
on a one-shot basis, along with one that is a pure strategy:
(S1) The ThreadDilutingKaffeeklatsch, which consists of two
or more people swapping off-topic messages back and forth
on a thread which is otherwise going the way
the swappers don't want it to go (often on-topic).
Sometimes carried to such extremes that it tempts readers
with threaded newsreaders to killfile the whole thread due
to lack of time needed to wade through it. A particularly
reprehensible form is where malicious and highly farfetched
gossip is swapped back and forth, to create the impression
that everything being claimed is common knowledge.
(S2/T6) Running away when called on to support their allegations,
or when being given a particularly devastating documentation
of their misconduct. To qualify as truly "running away," it is not enough to
just not follow up to a post or to disappear from a thread;
one must give some evidence, however indirect, that one
actually saw the post(s). An example is:
(S3/T7) making allegations whose
credibility depends on their monitoring the posts of the accused
a great deal, coupled with claims that the posts of the accused
are hardly being read any more by the accuser.
(S3/T8) Running the Jolly Roger Up the Flagpole To See If
Anyone Will Salute It. This consists of making farfetched
and demeaning personal assertions which the maker has no
intention of responsibly supporting
if challenged. [The "demeaning personal assertions" is an indispensible
component, otherwise I would not be using the term "Jolly Roger",
the name for a pirate flag.] Typically, when the accuser
is called upon to support his claim or retract, he will either
run away [see above] or change the subject or make some comment
that may superficially look like support but doesn't come
within a country mile of justifying the earlier assertion.
In any case, it is quite clear from the person's behavior
that he wants to say "nevermind," as a famous
comedian put it, but wants to save face by not saying it.
Were the pirate flag to be hoisted by someone not
in good with the dominant clique in talk.origins, he would
quite justifiably and efficiently be blown
out of the water. But when one is in good with the
dominant clique, the end result is usually a silent lowering
of the Jolly Roger, only to hoist it again on some
other issue.
Peter Nyikos
(S3/T8) Running the Jolly Roger Up the Flagpole To See If
Anyone Will Salute It.
That should be an S4/T8.
David Iain Greig
>In article <1999120919...@milo.math.sc.edu> Peter Nyikos
>|The number of identifiable dirty debating tricks and strategies
>|has grown so large, I've decided to adopt separate numberings for
>|the individual tricks and the strategies.
>
>why? I mean, why this way? A name that somewhat etymologically reflects
>the concept is, in general, easier to remember and less prone to error
>than cryptic codes. Why do I say that? There is no lack of attempts to
>employ numerical/letter codes in biological nomenclature (look up the
>subject of "biocodes" in the literature), but they have never really
>caught on, probably because they don't reflect the peculiar way the human
>mind actually operates. Perhaps it would make more sense, therefore, to
>employ some kind of binomial nomenclature with a bit of pig latin style,
>like "ThreadDilutingKaffeeklatsch stratigum" (presumably the type of the
>genus ThreadDilutingKaffeeklatsch Nyikos 1998),
>"ThreadDilutingKaffeeklatsch jollyrogerum", etc.
>
> Most importantly, if you want to be thorough, you should also go
>through some kind of typification process to fix the concepts you mean to
>encompass by your chosen terminology. URLs of relevant post(s) could
>serve as holotypes and paratypes. Really, without type examples, none of
>your concepts or terminology could be rigorously applied, and it would be
>impossible to have any good nomenclatural or systematic arguments about
>their application, which would negate half the fun of formalizing the
>terminology in the first place.
We could have a committee decide which would be the 'Golden Post'
for each epistotype. Conferences! Grants!
--D.
Andrew MacRae
|The latter
|(S3/T8) Running the Jolly Roger Up the Flagpole To See If
|Anyone Will Salute It. This consists of making farfetched
|and demeaning personal assertions which the maker has no
|intention of responsibly supporting
|if challenged. [The "demeaning personal assertions" is an indispensible
|component, otherwise I would not be using the term "Jolly Roger",
|the name for a pirate flag.] Typically, when the accuser
|is called upon to support his claim or retract, he will either
|run away [see above] or change the subject or make some comment
|that may superficially look like support but doesn't come
|within a country mile of justifying the earlier assertion.
|In any case, it is quite clear from the person's behavior
|that he wants to say "nevermind," as a famous
|comedian put it, but wants to save face by not saying it.
|
|Were the pirate flag to be hoisted by someone not
|in good with the dominant clique in talk.origins, he would
|quite justifiably and efficiently be blown
|out of the water. But when one is in good with the
|dominant clique, the end result is usually a silent lowering
|of the Jolly Roger, only to hoist it again on some
|other issue.
|
|Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
From your next article:
|Typo alert:
|
|(S3/T8) Running the Jolly Roger Up the Flagpole To See If
|Anyone Will Salute It.
|
|That should be an S4/T8.
See? Exactly what I meant by "error prone".
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Andrew MacRae
(David Iain Greig) writes:
|for each epistotype.
No, only the author of the name could attach the type to the name,
or some subsequent author who did it properly. Types aren't decided by
committee, they are decided by publication -- by the association between
the name and an actual example. Although sometimes there are various
complications (e.g., lost types, destroyed types, types that were not
distinguished from other specimens in the same batch, etc.), usually a
committee is not involved in the resolution of such issues either,
although there are some extremely rare exceptions.
A committee would mostly be necessary to define the nomenclatural
codes that would apply in the first place, and then, presuming the
principles of priority is held as #1, the committee could get to rule on
issues such as the conservation of names despite priority for the sake of
stability (another high priority). Basically, nomenclatural committees
get to decide upon and maintain the rules themselves (via emendations) and
special situations where certain of the rules are overridden for good
reasons (reasons that are themselves also part of the rules).
For example, if it was discovered years later that the concept of
"ThreadDilutingKaffeeklatsch" has an earlier name that was used in
reference to the same posting, then there would be a big problem -- 2
names, same type, and "ThreadDilutingKaffeeklatsch", even if very well
known, would not really be the appropriate name to use if honouring the
principle of priority. However, for the sake of stability (in biological
nomenclature anyway), people can apply for the conservation of "junior"
names for various reasons, the most important reason being stability. It
is used in situations where someone discovers a name published 100 years
ago is actually a senior name for the same concept as a junior name that
has been in common use for many decades. Suddenly changing the name back
to the senior, ancient, unfamiliar one could cause a real mess. There is
a big, long shopping-list of names that have been conserved to avoid such
problems. It therefore might be possible, if the committee allows it, to
conserve "ThreadDilutingKaffeeklatsch" even if the same concept and/or
types turns out to have gone by earlier names.
All of this is a bit of a moot point, given that the rules of
nomenclature have not yet been written, and the names that have been
proposed by Peter for "dirty debating tricks and strategies" have not yet
been typified with examples. There is nothing saying they have to be,
but, clearly, if one is going to go to the formality of defining and
subdividing them into subtle subcategories of some kind, then providing
the means for accurate differentiation becomes crucial to the proper
functioning of the newsgroup discussions. Typification is an obvious way
to improve the situation, otherwise nomenclatural chaos may result, and we
can't have that.
|Conferences! Grants!
Oh, yes, that goes without saying, although nomenclature isn't the
most attractive of scientific subjects. A bigger plum would be to get on
the "Dirty debating tricks and strategies nomenclatural committee" itself.
That's where the real power is, and where there is an incredible
opportunity to improve the quality of discussions around here, by erecting
a carefully-defined, consistent terminology with easily-enforcable rules
of nomenclature. That would be real progress.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
yojimbo
so myers posts something on the chorion, gets into trouble, and then
saves himself by posting as howard hershey?
i couldn't make this stuff up if i tried....
>
> Because word might get back to your fellow developmental biologists
> about such things as you not comprehending the concept of "delamination
> from the cytotrophoblast" for almost three years. While they might
> feel highly indulgent about such things as the following highly
> dishonest episode, this newly-revealed
> inability could prove highly embarrassing to you.
>
>
(nykosian mantra snipped)
i for one have written myers off as a developmental biologist and a
member of the human race based solely on this single example of
generalizing in a self-evidently careless way.
and let the record show it to be so.
>
> > Why couldn't I just post as
> >"Waldo Wargendorfer", or whatever I felt like?
>
> Hershey has documentable credentials as a biologist. That is, I think,
> why Scott "Hemidactylus" Chase takes him so seriously. He would be suspicious
> of someone posting exclusively under a pseudonym, I should think.
>
perhaps i'd better change my pseudonym to peter nyikos.
or stepney o'kir.
i like that.
yojimbo
> who ought to be giving reasons: Chase, Barwood, Syvanen,
> Myers, Hines, Gans,...
>
> >2. why do you think doing the above would make him popular?
>
> Because it allows people to post all kinds of crap without
> taking responsibility for it.
>
> it, Jimbo? If you ever got totally disgraced here, you could
> simply switch monikers and posting styles, and resume posting
> after a short interval.
an interesting thort.
firstly, you assume that my name is not yojimbo.
""...Certain lexographical canaille, one egregious and notorious
specimen particularly, enraged at my complete success in defeating and
frustrating their impudent impertinent and presumptuous nosings and
pryings into what doesn't concern them, and actuated, no doubt, by the
mean malice of the base-born for their betters, have thought, as they
would say, to take it out of me by suggesting that my name isn't really
my name. "
- kaikhosru shapurji sorabji.
secondly, you have appear not to have read my thorts on the ideological
wish for anonymity on usenet.
it seems that you spend a goodly amount of time in this froup attacking
other peepl, rather than their arguments.
one reason for anonymity is it reduces the amount of extraneous noise
that someone like you can generate.
you can't make comments about my children, or say i work at a first/
second/third-rate university, or mention my divorce, or whatever.
you just have to deal with my arguments.
no wonder that pisses you off.
yojimbo
>
> I have never said anything like that about anyone,
> not even a habitual liar like Paul Myers. You are twisting
> something that I said beyond reason.
i never said you _said_ that. i merely conjectured that you might. like
you conjectured that myers is a scientific fraud.
> >i wonder what you will do now?
>
> Relax in the conviction
> that you want to claim me as your BigGameTrophy,
ooo! another nykosianportmanteau. how very lovely.
i wonder what a nyikos big game trophy would look like.
one is reminded of john parlabane's suicide note in "the rebel angels"
where he wills his asshole to his former alma mater, with the proviso
that it is stretched out on a steel frame, such that every year the
chair of philosophy can blow through it, emitting a loud fruity tone.
> and aren't the least bit interested in discussion with me except
> as a means to that end.
there is still a juicily on topic set of challenges to you in the
throomian fred which you have yet to pick up. i believe i e-mailed them
to you too.
> And so I won't feel any twinges
> of conscience when I refuse to discuss on-topic matters with you.
well, we have moved on from you refusing to discuss on topic stuff with
me because of my pseudonym to refusing to discuss on topic stuff with me
because you find the tome of my posts hostile.
that's progress, although it makes you look like an idiot.
> I only went into on-topic stuff as much
> as I did above to help Joe Potter.
trust me, he needs it.
>
> >i caught you lying, "peter". it is all over for you on usenet.
>
> You'd love it if that were true, wouldn't you, Jimbo?
>
not really. i merely live my life according to the wisdom of the book of
solomon, in particular the bit about inheriting the wind.
which gets back to the asshole trophy above.
pz myers
<yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <1999120905...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>so myers posts something on the chorion, gets into trouble, and then
>saves himself by posting as howard hershey?
>
>i couldn't make this stuff up if i tried....
I agree. It's a very weird distortion of reality. Especially since
I thought I was the one rescuing Howard from his egregious errors!
Of course, it's not really clear who I am, after all.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Because word might get back to your fellow developmental biologists
>> about such things as you not comprehending the concept of "delamination
>> from the cytotrophoblast" for almost three years. While they might
>> feel highly indulgent about such things as the following highly
>> dishonest episode, this newly-revealed
>> inability could prove highly embarrassing to you.
>>
>>
>
>(nykosian mantra snipped)
>
>i for one have written myers off as a developmental biologist and a
>member of the human race based solely on this single example of
>generalizing in a self-evidently careless way.
I presume the snipped nonsense was the usual -- my abbreviated summary
of one of his rants?
It's very peculiar how he expresses outrage at so few words in that
post. I presume the rest must have hit right on the mark.
>
>and let the record show it to be so.
Yes. Also let the record show that I have never, ever solemnly sworn
to be a human being. If I am asked whether I am a human being, I shall
refuse to answer.
Let all make of that as they will.
>
>
>>
>> > Why couldn't I just post as
>> >"Waldo Wargendorfer", or whatever I felt like?
>>
>> Hershey has documentable credentials as a biologist. That is, I think,
>> why Scott "Hemidactylus" Chase takes him so seriously. He would be
>> suspicious
>> of someone posting exclusively under a pseudonym, I should think.
More weirdness. I thought Nyikos was denying that Howard had any
credentials, or was downplaying them? And I thought my posting pseudonym
had some credentials, too? This is just too confusing.
>>
>
>perhaps i'd better change my pseudonym to peter nyikos.
Now there is an idea. Maybe we should ALL start posting as Nyikos.
Ken Cox
> However, for the sake of stability (in biological
> nomenclature anyway), people can apply for the conservation of "junior"
> names for various reasons, the most important reason being stability.
I feel mild outrage that _Brontosaurus_ didn't survive.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
howard hershey
myers <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <82pdbb$pku$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, yojimbo
><yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <1999120905...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>>so myers posts something on the chorion, gets into trouble, and then
>>saves himself by posting as howard hershey?
>>
>>i couldn't make this stuff up if i tried....
>
>I agree. It's a very weird distortion of reality. Especially since
>I thought I was the one rescuing Howard from his egregious errors!
>
>Of course, it's not really clear who I am, after all.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Because word might get back to your fellow developmental biologists
>>> about such things as you not comprehending the concept of "delamination
>>> from the cytotrophoblast" for almost three years. While they might
>>> feel highly indulgent about such things as the following highly
>>> dishonest episode, this newly-revealed
>>> inability could prove highly embarrassing to you.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>(nykosian mantra snipped)
>>
>>i for one have written myers off as a developmental biologist and a
>>member of the human race based solely on this single example of
>>generalizing in a self-evidently careless way.
>
>I presume the snipped nonsense was the usual -- my abbreviated summary
>of one of his rants?
>
>It's very peculiar how he expresses outrage at so few words in that
>post. I presume the rest must have hit right on the mark.
>
>>
>>and let the record show it to be so.
>
>Yes. Also let the record show that I have never, ever solemnly sworn
>to be a human being. If I am asked whether I am a human being, I shall
>refuse to answer.
>
>Let all make of that as they will.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > Why couldn't I just post as
>>> >"Waldo Wargendorfer", or whatever I felt like?
>>>
>>> Hershey has documentable credentials as a biologist. That is, I think,
>>> why Scott "Hemidactylus" Chase takes him so seriously. He would be
>>> suspicious
>>> of someone posting exclusively under a pseudonym, I should think.
>
>More weirdness. I thought Nyikos was denying that Howard had any
>credentials, or was downplaying them? And I thought my posting pseudonym
>had some credentials, too? This is just too confusing.
>
>>>
>>
>>perhaps i'd better change my pseudonym to peter nyikos.
>
>Now there is an idea. Maybe we should ALL start posting as Nyikos.
>
>>
>>or stepney o'kir.
>>
>>i like that.
>
Yikes! I wonder who posted that.
Dana Tweedy
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:1999120822...@milo.math.sc.edu...
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> writes:
>
>
> >Would mailing Pete a fruitcake for Christmas get me on the list? ( you
> >know,, sweets for the sweet)
>
> food to avoid an argument about evolution" below? :-)
Nope Pete,, I was calling you a fruitcake, in a kind of round about way. I
would be proud to be on any of the lists you make,,,,, I would consider it
a badge of honor.
>
>
> >Dana J. Tweedy
> >(will argue evolution for food)
David Iain Greig
may I nominate,
satirical post of the year.
--D.
Andrew MacRae <mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca> wrote:
>In article <slrn8504rh...@darwin.ediacara.org> gr...@ediacara.org
>(David Iain Greig) writes:
>|Andrew MacRae <mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca> wrote:
>|>In article <1999120919...@milo.math.sc.edu> Peter Nyikos
>|><nyi...@math.sc.edu> writes:
--D.
yojimbo
Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 9 Dec 1999 13:15:36 -0500, yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1999120900...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> >> This is a followup to a post on the thread,
> >>
> >> HYPER-DARWINISM
> >>
> >> where the usual suspects display one of the dirty debating tricks
> >> I mentioned in my first post to this new Subject: line.
> >>
> >
> >failure to acknowledge:
> >
> >- that you lied about hershey and saltation
> >
> >- the irony of you complaining about mind reading, when you are
> >demonstrably doing the same to hershey
> >
> >is noted.
> >
>
> I have seen no lie.
>
> Care to explain your mindless accusation?
>
remove your head from the dark and smelly place where it is obviously
lodged, and _read my follow-ups to the first message in this fred_.
if you're going to blunder into a fred, at least try to stay on the
ball.
otherwise you're about as much use as a one-legged man at an ass-kicking
contest.
yojimbo
Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 9 Dec 1999 13:15:36 -0500, yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1999120900...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> >> This is a followup to a post on the thread,
> >>
> >> HYPER-DARWINISM
> >>
> >> where the usual suspects display one of the dirty debating tricks
> >> I mentioned in my first post to this new Subject: line.
> >>
> >
> >failure to acknowledge:
> >
> >- that you lied about hershey and saltation
> >
> >- the irony of you complaining about mind reading, when you are
> >demonstrably doing the same to hershey
> >
> >is noted.
> >
>
> I have seen no lie.
>
> Care to explain your mindless accusation?
>
on reflection, your post above is doubly fuck-witted, as hershey
explained to _you_ in some of his posts answering _yours_ that he was
not against saltation per se, and quoted examples _to you_ to support
this.
so your claim to not see a lie is baffling, or at least would be
baffling to someone who hadn't already realized that your brain cells
must die lonely.
Cheezits
[big list of lists deleted]
> Now, if you aspire to an even more distinguished but much more
> numerous company, check deja.com for the criteria for Bandar-log
> membership.
Good grief!!! Again with the lists! Four years later, and he's still at
it. Some things never change.
Sue (updating killfile)
--
----- Spammers can go here: http://www.cauce.org -----
You wouldn't know what morality was if it walked up and bit
your ass. - Ted Holden
Pat James
(in message <Pine.SUN.3.95.991210...@unix3.netaxs.com>):
> On 8 Dec 1999, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [big list of lists deleted]
>> Now, if you aspire to an even more distinguished but much more
>> numerous company, check deja.com for the criteria for Bandar-log
>> membership.
>
> Good grief!!! Again with the lists! Four years later, and he's still at
> it. Some things never change.
>
> Sue (updating killfile)
>
The Lord of Lists(tm) will never change. Why should he? He's Perfect. Just
ask him. He has never, and will never, made a mistake in his life. Just ask
him.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Joseph Potter
>In article <95tv4sggb395vcmqo...@4ax.com>,
> Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On 9 Dec 1999 13:15:36 -0500, yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1999120900...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> >> This is a followup to a post on the thread,
>> >>
>> >> HYPER-DARWINISM
>> >>
>> >> where the usual suspects display one of the dirty debating tricks
>> >> I mentioned in my first post to this new Subject: line.
>> >>
>> >
>> >failure to acknowledge:
>> >
>> >- that you lied about hershey and saltation
>> >
>> >- the irony of you complaining about mind reading, when you are
>> >demonstrably doing the same to hershey
>> >
>> >is noted.
>> >
>>
>> I have seen no lie.
>>
>> Care to explain your mindless accusation?
>>
>
>on reflection, your post above is doubly fuck-witted, [...]
<snip>
I repeat --- please show me exactly where a "lie" is and
document.
-----
Regards, Joe
Joseph Potter
>In article <95tv4sggb395vcmqo...@4ax.com>,
> Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On 9 Dec 1999 13:15:36 -0500, yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1999120900...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> >> This is a followup to a post on the thread,
>> >>
>> >> HYPER-DARWINISM
>> >>
>> >> where the usual suspects display one of the dirty debating tricks
>> >> I mentioned in my first post to this new Subject: line.
>> >>
>> >
>> >failure to acknowledge:
>> >
>> >- that you lied about hershey and saltation
>> >
>> >- the irony of you complaining about mind reading, when you are
>> >demonstrably doing the same to hershey
>> >
>> >is noted.
>> >
>>
>> I have seen no lie.
>>
>> Care to explain your mindless accusation?
>>
>
> remove your head from [...]
< rest of personal attack deleted>
I repeat --- I have seen no lie.
What lie? Please document.
-----
Regards, Joe
Louann Miller
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> That's the reason you post under an assumed name, too, isn't
>> it, Jimbo? If you ever got totally disgraced here, you could
>> simply switch monikers and posting styles, and resume posting
>> after a short interval.
>
>an interesting thort.
>
>firstly, you assume that my name is not yojimbo.
Speak the truth, I too assume that your name is not yojimbo. Much as
if somebody posted as Clark Kent or Jack Dawson; there's no physical
law preventing that from being a real name, but the
famous-fictional-character connection tilts the presumption towards a
handle or alias in most people's minds.
I don't assume malice on that basis, though; I've been around long
enough that the tradition of using handles seems natural to me. I've
used them myself, including (not here but in the old BBS days)
occasionally using a handle that would deliberately obfuscate my sex.
I think our Pete is mistaken, though, about the ease of switching
identities on line. Handles certainly swap out easily, but changing
posting styles is like changing your walk. Ask an actor how easy that
one is. If Peter had a better grasp of this concept, I think he
wouldn't be pushing his we-are-all-Howard-Hershey theory so strongly.
I've seen people try to change aliases online and rebuild their
reputations as someone else. If anyone's succeeded at it, it's because
they changed newsgroups entirely and/or stayed away from their pet
topics. Most of the time, it fails so badly it's laughable. Style is a
giveaway, and also obsessing on the same subjects in the same ways
(strangely similar to that other guy who disappeared from the
newsgroup just before new handle appeared). Spotting Matt G*w*r's
handle of the week was a regular sport in another newsgroup for a
while. And of course, the various incarnations of Karl Crawford.
If I tried to pass myself off as a newcomer, I'd soon give it away by
one-liners and humor-by-footnote and allusions to science fiction and
behaving like Miss Manners toward the newbies. Changing style in the
long term is just too hard. I can only think offhand of one science
fiction writer* who's done it recently, and he's a bloody showoff.
By the same token, if Peter Nyikos disappeared from our screens and
someone else appeared with an enemies list, a tendency toward posting
5,000 lines per day on a single subject, and a fixation on heme, I
don't think we'd be very delayed in connecting A to B. To pass as a
different person on line, you or Pete or anyone else would have to
*behave* like a different person.
Louann
-----
* see what I mean?
Martin Smith
howard hershey <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>In article <hersheyh-C25DFE...@netnews.netaxs.com>, pz
>myers <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article <82pdbb$pku$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, yojimbo
>><yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<snip>
Please do *not* feed the paranoids.
Martin Smith
howard hershey
>
> In article <hersheyh-C25DFE...@netnews.netaxs.com>, pz
> myers <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
Oooops. I forgot the change the site name. There. This is better.
Now the conspiracy can get back to flying our black helicopters and
using the dots on the back of road signs to help us take over.
>
> >In article <82pdbb$pku$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, yojimbo
> ><yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <1999120905...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> >>> PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> writes:
[snip]
> >>>
> >>> >Are you *seriously* suggesting that more than one person has been
> >>> >posting as Howard Hershey? I thought this was just a joke!
> >>>
[snip]
> >>
> >>so myers posts something on the chorion, gets into trouble, and then
> >>saves himself by posting as howard hershey?
> >>
> >>i couldn't make this stuff up if i tried....
> >
[snip]
> >>
> >>perhaps i'd better change my pseudonym to peter nyikos.
> >
> >Now there is an idea. Maybe we should ALL start posting as Nyikos.
> >
> >>
> >>or stepney o'kir.
> >>
> >>i like that.
> >
>
> Yikes! I wonder who posted that.
Remember. The conspiracy is everywhere. And nowhere. At the same
time.
PZ Myers
(Martin Smith) wrote:
>In article <myers-9026E1....@netnews.netaxs.com>,
>howard hershey <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>In article <hersheyh-C25DFE...@netnews.netaxs.com>, pz
>>myers <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <82pdbb$pku$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, yojimbo
>>><yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Please do *not* feed the paranoids.
You are no fun at all.
--
PZ Myers (with yet another different header!)
yojimbo
howard hershey <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> In article <hersheyh-C25DFE...@netnews.netaxs.com>, pz
> myers <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <82pdbb$pku$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, yojimbo
> ><yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> >>> PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>> >>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> >>> >>>> Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> writes:
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:36:56 -0500, David Iain Greig wrote
> >>> >>>> >(in message <slrn848kc...@darwin.ediacara.org>):
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >>> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
> >>> >>>> >>> Howard Hershey,
> >>> >>>> >>
> >>> >>>> >> I would not call Howard 'one of the most popular people
> >>> >>>> >> in this newsgroup'. Except perhaps in relation to the
> >>> >>>> >> popularity of the one making the above claim.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> >I thought the Hershey entity was a sock-puppet created by The
> >>> >>>> >Pack(tm)
> >>> >>>> >to
> >>> >>>> >harass and annoy Petey the Grate?
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Not really. There really is a person named Howard Hershey,
> >>> >>>> and the hypothesis I favor is that one of the reasons for
> >>> >>>> his enormous popularity
> >>> >>>> is his willingness to let certain people post to talk.origins
> >>> >>>> using the line
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> in their headers.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>1. why do you think that hershey is popular?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>I gave one reason above. Can't you read?
> >>>
> >>> >posting as Howard Hershey? I thought this was just a joke!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu>
> >>>
> >>> in the headers have pinch-hit for you in developmental biology
> >>> many times, for instance when he rescued you from
> >>> consequences of your lie that
> >>> you had posted step-by-step scenarios for the evolution of
> >>> the chorion.
> >>
> >>saves himself by posting as howard hershey?
> >>
> >>i couldn't make this stuff up if i tried....
> >
> >
> >Now there is an idea. Maybe we should ALL start posting as Nyikos.
> >
> >>
> >>or stepney o'kir.
> >>
> >>i like that.
> >
>
> Yikes! I wonder who posted that.
>
rotfl.
i propose that _everyone_ in the froup changes their posting name to
"peter nyikos".
it would have the same effect as my "poster 1", "poster 2" designations.
discussions could proceed on the basis of the arguments at hand, not on
the basis of dredged up and delusional ideas of dishonest and
dirtydebatingtricks.
of course, certain "peter nyikos"'s might reveal themselves by their
posting styles.
but we could try and resolve that by all posting in the _style_ of peter
nyikos too. we could even compile a list of words and phrases.
how's about that for a new year's resolution?.....
yojimbo
Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 9 Dec 1999 22:54:37 -0500, yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <95tv4sggb395vcmqo...@4ax.com>,
> > Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <1999120900...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> >> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> >> >> This is a followup to a post on the thread,
> >> >>
> >> >> HYPER-DARWINISM
> >> >>
> >> >> where the usual suspects display one of the dirty debating tricks
> >> >> I mentioned in my first post to this new Subject: line.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >failure to acknowledge:
> >> >
> >> >- that you lied about hershey and saltation
> >> >
> >> >- the irony of you complaining about mind reading, when you are
> >> >demonstrably doing the same to hershey
> >> >
> >> >is noted.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I have seen no lie.
> >>
> >> Care to explain your mindless accusation?
> >>
> >
> > remove your head from [...]
> < rest of personal attack deleted>
>
> I repeat --- I have seen no lie.
>
> What lie? Please document.
>
http://x29.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=12&AN=555383369.1
Joseph Potter
wrote:
I "clicked" on the link and got Deja.com home page or some such.
No proof.
Try again?
-----
Regards, Joe
Felipe
yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:82rjo6$bhd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <myers-9026E1....@netnews.netaxs.com>,
> howard hershey <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> > In article <hersheyh-C25DFE...@netnews.netaxs.com>, pz
> > myers <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <82pdbb$pku$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, yojimbo
> > ><yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>In article <1999120905...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> > >>> PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> writes:
> > >>>
> > >>> >In article <1999120821...@milo.math.sc.edu>, Peter Nyikos
> > >>> ><nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> >>yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>>In article <1999120115...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > >>> >>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> > >>> >>>> Pat James <patj...@newsguy.com> writes:
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> >On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:36:56 -0500, David Iain Greig wrote
> > >>> >>>> >(in message <slrn848kc...@darwin.ediacara.org>):
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> > >>> >>>> >>> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
> > >>> >>>> >>> Howard Hershey,
> > >>> >>>> >>
> >
> > Yikes! I wonder who posted that.
> >
>
> rotfl.
>
> i propose that _everyone_ in the froup changes their posting name to
> "peter nyikos".
>
C'mon, joy, we can't all be Peter Nyikos, much tho' we may wish.
-- Peter Nyikos
standard exclaimer
Richard Harter
<jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 10 Dec 1999 14:23:27 -0500, yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <otu15sc98ib9l1m79...@4ax.com>,
>> Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On 9 Dec 1999 22:54:37 -0500, yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <95tv4sggb395vcmqo...@4ax.com>,
>>> > Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> >> On 9 Dec 1999 13:15:36 -0500, yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >In article <1999120900...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>>> >> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>> >> >> This is a followup to a post on the thread,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> HYPER-DARWINISM
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> where the usual suspects display one of the dirty debating tricks
>>> >> >> I mentioned in my first post to this new Subject: line.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >failure to acknowledge:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >- that you lied about hershey and saltation
>>> >> >
>>> >> >- the irony of you complaining about mind reading, when you are
>>> >> >demonstrably doing the same to hershey
>>> >> >
>>> >> >is noted.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> I have seen no lie.
>>> >>
>>> >> Care to explain your mindless accusation?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > remove your head from [...]
>>> < rest of personal attack deleted>
>>>
>>> I repeat --- I have seen no lie.
>>>
>>> What lie? Please document.
>>>
>>
>>http://x29.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=12&AN=555383369.1
>>
>
>
>I "clicked" on the link and got Deja.com home page or some such.
>
>No proof.
>
>Try again?
That's odd; I had no problem bringing up the page. For your
convenience I append a transcript of that page. My apologies
for the formatting; the cut and paste from netscape to free
agent was not wysiwyg.
BEGIN EXCERPT
>> Forum: talk.origins
Help | Feedback
>> Thread: HYPER-DARWINISM
>> Message 51 of 77
Subject:
Re: HYPER-DARWINISM
Date:
12/01/1999
Author:
yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com>
Posting History Member Profile
In article <1999113022...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
> Howard Hershey, has long been attacking Jeffrey Schwartz's
> book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
> another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
> by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
> conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
>
"peter", please read the following:
from http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=543240769
main comments by hershey, comments preceded with a caret are
potter's)
"Absolutely. It never completely left. I have always stated that
'saltation' or
large morphological change undoubtedly is important in evolution
(but it is
not the end-all-be-all of evolution).
> Homeobox genes will prove to be the answer.
And homeoboxes are undoubtedly crucial for certain evolutionary
changes,
being genes that often affect early development.
The problem is that Schwartz's ideas about how this happens are
wrong,
wrong, wrong.
>
> Hell, read what the research is telling
> us.
I do, Joe. And, just like the research I looked at wrt Schwartz's
description of
the Dlx and axoltl stories, the *real* research tells me something
quite
different from what Schwartz does.
> But, unfortunately for you and your gradualist
> Pack.buds --- it will prove you are wrong on
> the "gradual" mutations idea.
The battle is NOT between gradual evolution and saltation (both
take
place). Larry, Paul, and I are NOT die-hard 'gradualists'. The
real battle is
between erroneous ideas of saltation and correct ideas of
saltation. It is
between correct ideas of genetics and incorrect ones. It is between
correct
understanding of development and incorrect ones. It is between real
and
good ideas about evolution and pure fantasy. It is between a good
and
accurate book of science and a terrible book of half-baked ideas
unsupported by evidence. Schwartz, alas, is on the incorrect side
in each
and every case because he clearly has only a superficial
understanding of
the processes he invokes."
from http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=547378397.3
"I actually gave Joe specific examples of 'saltation', including
neotonous
salamanders and the symbiotic relationship leading to
chloroplasts and mitochondria, as well as eyelessness in cave
animals.
That is the truth, Peter, that has conveniently gone down your
memory hole.
Those examples have viable pathways to accomplish the end result."
"Well, of the examples of saltation I gave, only the loss of eyes
in cave
animals is possibly due to mutation in a homeobox gene (but these
need
not be a homeobox mutation either)"
now, had someone else made the comment you did at the start of this
post,
in the light of the evidence above, you would have labelled them as
"highly
dishonest", told them they were telling "shame-faced lies" and
suggesting
that if they had an ounce of honour or decency they would cease
posting on
usenet, as they had been caught lying.
i wonder what you will do now?
you will probably propose that since hershey is (iynsho) a habitual
liar, that
the above can be discounted, and that you, and only you as sole
diviner of
hershey's mind, can actually comment on what he really believes.
i caught you lying, "peter". it is all over for you on usenet.
END EXCERPT
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
I have been waging relentless war on reality;
So far reality is ahead, 0 to -1.
Ken Cox
> Please do *not* feed the paranoids.
Paranoids are autotrophs -- quite capable of manufacturing
everything they need to feed their fantasies.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>http://x29.deja.com/[ST_rn=md]/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=12&AN=555383369.1
> I "clicked" on the link and got Deja.com home page or some such.
> No proof.
> Try again?
Your browser/newsreader/whatever may have trouble with URLs with
the [] characters; mine certainly does. How much of the above
text was marked as a link? After it failed, did you try cutting
and pasting the entire line into the browser?
Try http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=555383369 if you can't get
it to work by cut-and-paste, as Deja only needs the article number
(AN) for retrieval.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Chris Lyman
> > I have never said anything like that about anyone,
> > not even a habitual liar like Paul Myers. You are
> > twisting something that I said beyond reason.
> i never said you _said_ that. i merely conjectured that
> you might. like you conjectured that myers is a scientific
> fraud.
> > >i wonder what you will do now?
> > Relax in the conviction
> > that you want to claim me as your BigGameTrophy,
> ooo! another nykosianportmanteau. how very lovely.
> i wonder what a nyikos big game trophy would look like.
Not that big. Don't be too disappointed.
Perfesser! What sorry fate brought you back to the Augean Stables???
--
Chris Lyman - send mail to chris-dot-lyman-atsign-plink-dot-com
"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood."
-- Marie Curie
howard hershey
>
> In article <95tv4sggb395vcmqo...@4ax.com>,
> Joseph Potter <jm.p...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > On 9 Dec 1999 13:15:36 -0500, yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <1999120900...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> > >> This is a followup to a post on the thread,
> > >>
> > >> HYPER-DARWINISM
> > >>
> >
>
> on reflection, your post above is doubly fuck-witted, as hershey
> explained to _you_ in some of his posts answering _yours_ that he was
> not against saltation per se, and quoted examples _to you_ to support
> this.
To be fair, I think Peter has a different vision of 'saltation' than I
do. I include and describe large sudden morphological changes or
initial events which have potential rational explanations. Peter
considers those to be examples of HYPER-DARWINISM. Peter is only
interested in those proposed examples of saltation that don't and can't
have rational explanations.
>
[snip]
Peter Nyikos
yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
>In article <1999120821...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>a load of weaselling and evasion.
Can't deal with it directly, I see.
>"peter", you lied about hershey, and you are trying to dig yourself out
>by claiming, in effect, that you can truly discern hershey's motives,
>where his actual written words suggest otherwise.
Hershey hasn't even explicitly DEFINED what HE means by "saltation"; he
even ducked the question, right on this thread, of what his
definition was. But if I take his use of "synonymous"
the way Syvanen insisted it ought to be
taken, he implicitly defined it into meaninglessness.
======================= begin excerpt from Syvanen post
> >someone said:
> >> >Just a reminder. *Genes* are neither 'recessive' nor
'dominant'.
>
> >PN replied:
> >> They are if the word "gene" is used synonymously with
"allele",
> >> as it often still is.
>
> Note that I do NOT claim that "allele" is used synonymously
> with "gene", since I have never seen it used that way.
>
Is this Nykosian logic. You defend an earlier statement
by saying it is correct IFF "the word "gene" is used
synonymously with "allele"," but now say that you don't mean
it. Does that logically mean you are retracting the first or
showing that if you stay with an infinite loop all statements
remain true.
===================================== end of excerpt
Evidently Syvanen believes "synonymous" should mean "the two are
fully interchangeable" where technical terms are concerned, even
in the face of the two contrasting statements he is addressing.
When I tried to explain otherwise in followup to the post where
the above appeared, he said:
You brought this confusion on yourself, don't blame me
if you sound like an ignoramus when it comes to genetics.
I don't think he'll retract this in this thread, even though
it means leaving his esteemed ally Hershey in the lurch.
>i leave it to readers to make their own minds up about this shameless
>hypocrisy (copyright nyikos 1999)
I leave it up to readers to make up their own minds about whether
yojimbo5681 is contradicting himself by claiming he is letting
readers make up their minds about something he says is shameless
hypocrisy.
I also leave it up to readers to make up their minds whether
yojimbo5681 is completely dissembling about his attitudes the
way Hershey evidently did, as documented on the thread,
"Dirty debating tricks and strategies".
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
Peter Nyikos
yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
>In article <1999120821...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
============================= begin restoration, highlighting added
>>yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
{...}
>>>now, had someone else made the comment you did at the start of this
>>>post, in the light of the evidence above, you would have labelled them
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>as "highly dishonest", told them they were telling "shame-faced lies"
>>In your self-congratulatory fantasies.
>>>and suggesting that if they had an ounce of honour or decency they would
>>>cease posting on usenet, as they had been caught lying.
====================== end restoration
>> I have never said anything like that about anyone,
>> not even a habitual liar like Paul Myers. You are twisting
>> something that I said beyond reason.
>i never said you _said_ that. i merely conjectured that you might.
You falsely claimed I would. Thanks for admitting you
were indulging in utterly baseless speculation.
> like
>you conjectured that myers is a scientific fraud.
I made no such conjectures. You are twisting things again,
indulging in the dirty debating trick:
(T3) The One Shade of Gray Meltdown, in which all kinds
of disparate things are lumped together as though they
were the same. For example, the mentioning of a possibility
gets painted as though it were an implication that the
possibility is the only correct one, or even as an outright
assertion to that effect.
I mentioned possibilities about the notorious thin section,
and you call it a conjecture.
>> >i wonder what you will do now?
>>
>> Relax in the conviction
>> that you want to claim me as your BigGameTrophy,
[ribald response by yojimbo5681 deleted]
>> and aren't the least bit interested in discussion with me except
>> as a means to that end.
Your last two crossposts on this thread, one of which is
this one, only deepen that conviction.
[...]
>> And so I won't feel any twinges
>> of conscience when I refuse to discuss on-topic matters with you.
Note, I said *when*; I will continue to discuss them in
posts that are free of dirty debating tricks. This one to which
I am replying obviously does not qualify.
This makes your next statement misleading at best:
>well, we have moved on from you refusing to discuss on topic stuff with
>me because of my pseudonym to refusing to discuss on topic stuff with me
>because you find the tome of my posts hostile.
That was the reason for the policy all along. The only reason I worded my
policy the way I did is to keep from replying to you if you
start posting under new pseudonyms.
>> >i caught you lying, "peter". it is all over for you on usenet.
>>
>> You'd love it if that were true, wouldn't you, Jimbo?
>>
>not really. i merely live my life according to the wisdom of the book of
>solomon, in particular the bit about inheriting the wind.
You won't trouble your own house, only the houses of other
people, eh?
Or do you trouble your own house, in hopes of inheriting
the kind of wind you allude to now:
>which gets back to the asshole trophy above.
Then go trouble Mike Syvanen, even though he belongs to your
net.house, and tell him to retract what he wrote about
"synonymous".
Peter Nyikos
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:
>Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> CC: Potter
>>
>> yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>
>> >In article <1999113022...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
>> > "Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>> >> One of the most popular persons in this newsgroup,
>> >> Howard Hershey, has long been attacking Jeffrey Schwartz's
>> >> book, _Sudden Origins..._, giving one flimsy excuse after
>> >> another for his antipathy, but the reason should be obvious
>> >> by now: he loathes anything that challenges his deep-felt
>> >> conviction that evolution proceeds by minute Darwinian steps.
>> >>
>>
>> >"peter", please read the following:
>>
>> Done.
>>
>> >from http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=543240769
>> >main comments by hershey, comments preceded with a caret are potter's)
>>
>> >"Absolutely. It never completely left. I have always stated that
>> >'saltation' or large morphological change undoubtedly is important in
>> >evolution (but it is not the end-all-be-all of evolution).
>>
>> Note how he plays games with the word, even putting it into
>> quotation marks. Is "or large morphological change" supposed
>> to be synonymous, or what?
>Yes. Synonymous.
In other words, according to Mike Syvanen's use of the word
"synonymous", you have told us your definition of "saltation"
is "large morphological change". For documentation of Syvanen's
usage, see the followup I did to yojimbo5681 on this thread
less than an hour ago.
If so, then you regard the big morphological change between
*Hyracotherium* and *Equus* to be an example of saltation,
no matter how teeny the individual evolutionary steps may
have been. No wonder you are not opposed to the idea of
saltation--your idea.
[...]
>> >The problem is that Schwartz's ideas about how this happens are wrong,
>> >wrong, wrong.
>> Howard is still looking for ways to support this
>> bombastic claim. A fishing expedition for one way ended in a blatant
>> piece of dishonesty, as documented in:
>>
>> "Dirty debating tricks and strategies".
>I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn't bother reading that
>thread.
It had to do with your shameless dissimulation about the term
"dominant by default" which you tried to pin on Schwartz; when
that fishing expedition failed, you cut bait, er, baited me
with the patently insincere claim that you are upset about such coinings
of informal phrases, twice deleting what I wrote about Myers's
informal and highly misleading coining of "the mammal" as a
synonym ;-)
for "the human embryonic disk."
>> >> Hell, read what the research is telling
>> >> us.
>>
>> >I do, Joe. And, just like the research I looked at wrt Schwartz's
>> >description of the Dlx and axoltl stories, the *real* research tells me
>> >something quite different from what Schwartz does.
>>
>> The axolotl story had to do with a semantic dispute over where
>> "neoteny" ends and "progenesis" begins. I dealt with it at length
>> on the thread where Hershey tried to make a federal case of it.
>All you did was try to smear and malign Gould.
Nice to see how my mild little critique of your revered icon
pulled your chain. And I wasn't even trying.
[...]
The snip included on-topic things which I will be glad to discuss
with someone who signs his/her real name to the bottom of
the article.
>> Now that he has belatedly started looking at the book, he's
>> been ripping one thing after another out of context and making
>> statements about it that fly in the face of the whole context.
Hershey did not deny this.
>> But then, dishonest deletia come as second nature to him;
>> see that "Dirty debating..." thread again.
[...]
The snip included on-topic things which I will be glad to discuss
with someone who signs his/her real name to the bottom of
the article.
[about endosymbionts:]
>> We can only conjecture that it started out similarly to what
>> we see in *Pelomyxa* ("*Chaos chaos*") today: facultative bacterial
>> symbiotes in `protozoans' lacking organelles. The mitochondria and
>> chloroplasts could have evolved ever so slowly.
>What do you define as saltational?
I'll update the definition I already gave elsewhere if you
admit that you did not have any concept of "saltation" in
mind when you claimed to be open to the idea that saltation
has occurred.
>> I'll give you another "symbiotic" relationship to chew on:
>> that between slave-raiding ants and their "slaves". There is
>> a very nice gradual progression from the facultative status
>> of *Formica sanguinea* to the total dependency of the "masters"
>> on their "slaves" seen in ants that have lost all castes except
>> queen and male, and who depend on the generosity of their hosts
>> for practically everything.
>>
>> > as well as eyelessness in cave animals.
>>
>> A single mutation in a homeobox gene probably does the trick. The reason
>> Hershey has no objection to this one is that it is a pure
>> loss of function the way his anti-Silberstein mind sees it.
>Of course. It is also large morphological change occurring rapidly.
...by the teensy hyper-Darwinian step of a single point mutation.
[...]
The snip included on-topic things which I will be glad to discuss
with someone who signs his/her real name to the bottom of
the article.
>> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>> University of South Carolina
Peter Nyikos
>Okay, friends and neighbors, this is how it's done:
>In article <1999120818...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>[Snip]
>...and ignored.
>See how easy?
>Now *you* try.
And don't emulate the numerous long epistles that chaver09
wrote about me these last few months. Chaver is like Myers, who
killfiles and unkillfiles me periodically; chaver09 either
ignores me or is obsessed with me, by turns.
Peter Nyikos
>On 9 Dec 1999 18:11:49 -0500, yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>> That's the reason you post under an assumed name, too, isn't
>>> it, Jimbo? If you ever got totally disgraced here, you could
>>> simply switch monikers and posting styles, and resume posting
>>> after a short interval.
>>
>>an interesting thort.
>>
>>firstly, you assume that my name is not yojimbo.
>Speak the truth, I too assume that your name is not yojimbo. Much as
>if somebody posted as Clark Kent or Jack Dawson; there's no physical
>law preventing that from being a real name, but the
>famous-fictional-character connection tilts the presumption towards a
>handle or alias in most people's minds.
>I don't assume malice on that basis, though; I've been around long
>enough that the tradition of using handles seems natural to me. I've
>used them myself, including (not here but in the old BBS days)
>occasionally using a handle that would deliberately obfuscate my sex.
>I think our Pete is mistaken, though, about the ease of switching
>identities on line. Handles certainly swap out easily, but changing
>posting styles is like changing your walk.
Changing from the highly idiosyncratic style of yojimbo5681
is a snap: just start capitalizing things normally and
leave out the deliberate misspellings like "fred" for "thread",
"geen" for "gene", etc. He even added a new one, "thort"
for "thought", perhaps to make his style even more heavily
idiosyncratic.
Ask an actor how easy that
>one is. If Peter had a better grasp of this concept, I think he
>wouldn't be pushing his we-are-all-Howard-Hershey theory so strongly.
>I've seen people try to change aliases online and rebuild their
>reputations as someone else. If anyone's succeeded at it, it's because
>they changed newsgroups entirely and/or stayed away from their pet
>topics. Most of the time, it fails so badly it's laughable. Style is a
>giveaway, and also obsessing on the same subjects in the same ways
>(strangely similar to that other guy who disappeared from the
>newsgroup just before new handle appeared). Spotting Matt G*w*r's
>handle of the week was a regular sport in another newsgroup for a
>while. And of course, the various incarnations of Karl Crawford.
>If I tried to pass myself off as a newcomer, I'd soon give it away by
>one-liners and humor-by-footnote and allusions to science fiction and
>behaving like Miss Manners toward the newbies.
I think you underestimate yourself.
> Changing style in the
>long term is just too hard. I can only think offhand of one science
>fiction writer* who's done it recently, and he's a bloody showoff.
>By the same token, if Peter Nyikos disappeared from our screens and
>someone else appeared with an enemies list, a tendency toward posting
>5,000 lines per day on a single subject, and a fixation on heme,
Then he would be quite unlike me, except for the concentration
on one thread part, which can easily be modified.
> I
>don't think we'd be very delayed in connecting A to B. To pass as a
>different person on line, you or Pete or anyone else would have to
>*behave* like a different person.
>Louann
>-----
>* see what I mean?
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
chav...@my-deja.com
In article <1999121117...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
> chav...@my-deja.com writes:
[Snip Nyikos misrepresentation, projection, and rewriting of Usenet
history...]
...and ignored.
See how easy?
Okay, everybody practice at least once this week.
yojimbo
>
> yojimbo <yojim...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >In article <1999120821...@milo.math.sc.edu>,
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:
>
> >a load of weaselling and evasion.
>
> Can't deal with it directly, I see.
i have done, and unlike some peepl, like to save readers having to wade
through regurgiposts.
> >"peter", you lied about hershey, and you are trying to dig yourself out
> >by claiming, in effect, that you can truly discern hershey's motives,
> >where his actual written words suggest otherwise.
>
> Hershey hasn't even explicitly DEFINED what HE means by "saltation"; he
> even ducked the question, right on this thread, of what his
> definition was. But if I take his use of "synonymous"
> the way Syvanen insisted it ought to be
> taken, he implicitly defined it into meaninglessness.
>
well this just gets better and better.
one has to ask how you square the above with your proposition that
hershey deeply loathes saltation.
(that's not a direct quote, "peter", before you burst your chalfonts in
indignation).
are we to assume that his attitude to saltation is similar to the
supreme court judge's attitude to pornography?
he doesn't know what it is, but he deeply loathes it when he sees it?
--
would you kill him in his bed? thrust a dagger through his head?
i would not, could not, kill the king. i could not do that evil thing.
i would not wed this girl, you see. now get her to a nunnery.
- "green eggs and hamlet" - robin parry