PLotM for October 2012

[pnyikos]

No, I did not misspell "PotM." That award has yet to be determined as
of this writing. This has to do with a different "award," though not
as different as most people posting here would like to think.

PLotM = Pathological Lying [or: Liar] of the Month.

In this post I am putting the emphasis on "Lying" because it all has
to do with one utterly ridiculous and libelous charge by J. J. O'Shea,
whose lie and subsequent repetition/stonewalling I am nominating.

It's been repeated on several threads, with minor variations in the
wording. Here is one example:

"You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you
had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eccc71dd41ca91ae?dmode=source
Message-ID: <k5c6e...@news1.newsguy.com>
For those reading this in Old Google Broups:
the three symbols immediately before the @ are qbg

The only "evidence" he has presented for this libel is a ripped-out-of-
context quote.

"My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
with an IQ of 50."

The context, however, makes it clear that I was referring to ONE
example.

_________________begin excerpts__________
> >Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
> >panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
> >possibly have suggested it to him.

=========end of 1st excerpt, begin second=============

> Your correction of me was, IIRC, the simple word "wrong!".

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are in an early
to medium stage of Alzheimer's.

My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."

> That
> was hardly conducive to understanding.

My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ
of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
irony.
======================== end of excerpts
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5

Note the repetition of the word string "My words" and the word
"understanding".

Readers are invited to explore the full context of my remark; it only
strengthens the case for awarding the PLotM to O'Shea's dismal
performance.

They are also invited to look at how I posted the above documentation
in reply to O'Shea's libel, and at how he deleted the documentation
AND his accusation, and replied with the one-liner:

" I quoted you directly and exactly. It ain't libel
when I use your own words, you lying mofo."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8e22eeccc5953fc6
Message-ID: <k5meq...@news1.newsguy.com>
[the last three symbols before the @ are 613]

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 05:50:36 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>No, I did not misspell "PotM." That award has yet to be determined as
>of this writing. This has to do with a different "award," though not
>as different as most people posting here would like to think.
>
>PLotM = Pathological Lying [or: Liar] of the Month.
>
>In this post I am putting the emphasis on "Lying" because it all has
>to do with one utterly ridiculous and libelous charge by J. J. O'Shea,
>whose lie and subsequent repetition/stonewalling I am nominating.

OK, let's examine your selected example of this
"pathological lying", along with your explanation...

>It's been repeated on several threads, with minor variations in the
>wording. Here is one example:
>
> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you
> had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane."

<snip>

>The only "evidence" he has presented for this libel is a ripped-out-of-
>context quote.
>
> "My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
> with an IQ of 50."
>
>The context, however, makes it clear that I was referring to ONE
>example.

And this fact is relevant because...?

Or are you contending that this *could* apply to only a
single person, a contention not supported by the text of
your quote?

Sorry, but *as phrased* your initial claim, whether
engendered by frustration or an accurate synopsis of your
belief, *does* support his subsequent statement, "a sane
person" being equivalent to "any sane person"; i.e., "anyone
not insane".

--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

[jillery]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:19:13 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

This looks like rockhead is polluting T.O. to get even for what he
thinks are dishonest PotM nominations. How low can he go?

[pnyikos]

On Nov 12, 1:22 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 05:50:36 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

>
> >No, I did not misspell "PotM." That award has yet to be determined as
> >of this writing.  This has to do with a different "award," though not
> >as different as most people posting here would like to think.
>
> >PLotM = Pathological Lying [or: Liar] of the Month.
>
> >In this post I am putting the emphasis on "Lying" because it all has
> >to do with one utterly ridiculous and libelous charge by J. J. O'Shea,
> >whose lie and subsequent repetition/stonewalling I am nominating.
>
> OK, let's examine your selected example of this
> "pathological lying", along with your explanation...

Yes, lets. You've barely begun the examination below.

> >It's been repeated on several threads, with minor variations in the
> >wording.  Here is one example:
>
> >  "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you
> >    had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane."

> <snip>

You snipped the url and message id. Here is the url again:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eccc71dd41ca91ae

> >The only "evidence" he has presented for this libel is a ripped-out-of-
> >context quote.
>
> > "My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
> >  with an IQ of 50."
>
> >The context, however, makes it clear that I was referring to ONE
> >example.
>
> And this fact is relevant because...?

Because it was a single incident involving a single person, whereas
O'Shea explicitly used the word "anyone" and didn't qualify what kind
of disagreement was being talked about.

In fact, there was no direct disagreement in the quoted material,
since Gans hedged his comment with "IIRC" and I treated it
accordingly. See below.

> Or are you contending that this *could* apply to only a
> single person,

Absolutely, even if you ignore the actual context.

> a contention not supported by the text of
> your quote?

Which text are you referring to? The ripped out of context text or
the full context in which it appeared?

Even in case of the out of context text, you haven't a leg to stand on
by denying that it "could" apply to only one person.

> Sorry, but *as phrased* your initial claim, whether
> engendered by frustration or an accurate synopsis of your
> belief, *does* support his subsequent statement,

Not at all: the referent for "My words" is completely missing.

And the context, which you are ignoring all through these comments of
yours, showed clearly what those words were meant to refer to. See
below.

> "a sane
> person" being equivalent to "any sane person"; i.e., "anyone
> not insane".

Yes, but only in reference to the single, less-than-one-line sentence
to which "My words" referred.

______________begin excerpts__________
> >> >Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
> >> >panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
> >> >possibly have suggested it to him.
>
> >=========end of 1st excerpt, begin second=============
>
> > > Your correction of me was, IIRC, the simple word "wrong!".
>
> >I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are in an early
> >to medium stage of Alzheimer's.

Note the first use of "My words":

> >My words were "No, you insufferable twit!  They SENT microbes."
>
> >> That
> >> was hardly conducive to understanding.

Note the second use of "My words", in the out of context quote:

> >My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ
> >of 50.  Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
> >irony.
> >======================== end of excerpts

> >fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5

>
> >Note the repetition of the word string "My words" and the word
> >"understanding".

Did you miss this last sentence, Casanova?

By the way, when I thrust the above documentation at O'Shea, I added:

Do you really think that [understanding] "No, you insufferable twit!
They SENT microbes" takes MORE than an IQ of 50 in a sane man?

It almost goes without saying that he snipped this too, when he did
his "mofo" reply. [See below.]

Will you snip it too, or at least ignore it? [OK, someone with an IQ
of 50 might need to have the word "insufferable" explained.]

> >Readers are invited to explore the full context of my remark; it only
> >strengthens the case for awarding the PLotM to O'Shea's dismal
> >performance.
>
> >They are also invited to look at how I posted the above documentation
> >in reply to O'Shea's libel, and at how he deleted the documentation
> >AND his accusation, and replied with the one-liner:
>
> >" I quoted you directly and exactly. It ain't libel
> >  when I use your own words, you lying mofo."
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8e22eeccc5953fc6

> >Message-ID: <k5meqn0...@news1.newsguy.com>

> >   [the last three symbols before the @ are 613]
>
> >Peter Nyikos

I'll say one thing for you, Casanova. You weren't afraid to reply to
my post, even though you used a figurative ten foot pole to touch it
with.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 12, 3:22�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:19:13 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:

> >On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 05:50:36 -0800 (PST), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

> ><nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

>
> >>No, I did not misspell "PotM." That award has yet to be determined as
> >>of this writing. �This has to do with a different "award," though not
> >>as different as most people posting here would like to think.

See below for a hint as to why I wrote this second sentence.

Jillery is dead wrong on this. Here is what I posted shortly
thereafter on this very subject.

_____________ excerpt from reply to Frank J___________

> Thanks. I doubt that it's good enough for POTM, but I'll never turn
> down a nomination.

Until last week, I would have said that it is a lot more deserving of
the November nomination than Camp's polemical travesty was of the
October nomination, but I've looked carefully at the criteria again:

Each month the Talk.Origins Archive selects
an article posted to the Usenet newsgroup
talk.origins that comes closest to capturing
what the newsgroup is all about. Whether that article
is written by an evolutionist or a creationist, the
Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month should
give you a taste of what it's
like to participate in talk.origins.

Robert Camp's post does exemplify dirty debating by all too many
"evolutionists." [I've said elsewhere how I dislike that word--it
makes it look like we are on some kind of par with creationists.]

There is a tremendous amount of dirty debating in talk.origins, most
of it grist for the mill of anyone advancing the thesis,

"Something is rotten in the state of talk.origins"

=========== end of excerpt
from https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d02d0b37175b4415

And, in its own way, the things documented in this PLotM nomination
*also* give people "a taste of what it's like to participate in
talk.origins," as well as coming close to "capturing what this
newsgroup is all about," as well as providing additional grist for
that mill.

And that goes many-fold for subsequent activity on all the threads
where O'Shea posted his libel. Subsequent activity on *this* thread
also is beginning to be very revealing.

Hence my remark in my first post about how the PotM and the PLoTM are
not as far apart as many people would like to think.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:36:31 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Nov 12, 1:22�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 05:50:36 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >No, I did not misspell "PotM." That award has yet to be determined as
>> >of this writing. �This has to do with a different "award," though not
>> >as different as most people posting here would like to think.
>>
>> >PLotM = Pathological Lying [or: Liar] of the Month.
>>
>> >In this post I am putting the emphasis on "Lying" because it all has
>> >to do with one utterly ridiculous and libelous charge by J. J. O'Shea,
>> >whose lie and subsequent repetition/stonewalling I am nominating.
>>
>> OK, let's examine your selected example of this
>> "pathological lying", along with your explanation...
>
>Yes, lets. You've barely begun the examination below.
>
>> >It's been repeated on several threads, with minor variations in the
>> >wording. �Here is one example:
>>
>> > �"You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you
>> > � �had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane."
>
>> <snip>
>
>You snipped the url and message id. Here is the url again:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eccc71dd41ca91ae

Irrelevant; I referred only to the quotes *you* provided.

You provided the quotes. Are you now denying their accuracy?

>And the context, which you are ignoring all through these comments of
>yours, showed clearly what those words were meant to refer to. See
>below.
>
>> "a sane
>> person" being equivalent to "any sane person"; i.e., "anyone
>> not insane".

>Yes

Thank you. That was my point, that the quotes *as you
provided them* do not support your contention.

>, but only in reference to the single, less-than-one-line sentence
>to which "My words" referred.
>
>______________begin excerpts__________
>> >> >Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
>> >> >panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
>> >> >possibly have suggested it to him.
>>
>> >=========end of 1st excerpt, begin second=============
>>
>> > > Your correction of me was, IIRC, the simple word "wrong!".
>>
>> >I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are in an early
>> >to medium stage of Alzheimer's.
>
>Note the first use of "My words":
>
>> >My words were "No, you insufferable twit! �They SENT microbes."
>>
>> >> That
>> >> was hardly conducive to understanding.
>
>Note the second use of "My words", in the out of context quote:
>
>> >My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ
>> >of 50. �Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>> >irony.
>> >======================== end of excerpts
>> >fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5
>>
>> >Note the repetition of the word string "My words" and the word
>> >"understanding".
>
>Did you miss this last sentence, Casanova?

Nope, I was only commenting on the quotes as you provided
them. Are you still missing that?

>By the way, when I thrust the above documentation at O'Shea, I added:
>
>Do you really think that [understanding] "No, you insufferable twit!
>They SENT microbes" takes MORE than an IQ of 50 in a sane man?
>
>It almost goes without saying that he snipped this too, when he did
>his "mofo" reply. [See below.]
>
>Will you snip it too, or at least ignore it? [OK, someone with an IQ
>of 50 might need to have the word "insufferable" explained.]
>
>> >Readers are invited to explore the full context of my remark; it only
>> >strengthens the case for awarding the PLotM to O'Shea's dismal
>> >performance.
>>
>> >They are also invited to look at how I posted the above documentation
>> >in reply to O'Shea's libel, and at how he deleted the documentation
>> >AND his accusation, and replied with the one-liner:
>>
>> >" I quoted you directly and exactly. It ain't libel
>> > �when I use your own words, you lying mofo."
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8e22eeccc5953fc6
>> >Message-ID: <k5meqn0...@news1.newsguy.com>
>> > � [the last three symbols before the @ are 613]
>>
>> >Peter Nyikos
>
>I'll say one thing for you, Casanova. You weren't afraid to reply to
>my post, even though you used a figurative ten foot pole to touch it
>with.

I'll usually reply to such posts. And I stated exactly what
I meant and why. Background info, while interesting, doesn't
change the fact that your selected examples don't support
your contentions.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 13, 4:02 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:36:31 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

> >On Nov 12, 1:22 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 05:50:36 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >> >No, I did not misspell "PotM." That award has yet to be determined as
> >> >of this writing.  This has to do with a different "award," though not
> >> >as different as most people posting here would like to think.
>
> >> >PLotM = Pathological Lying [or: Liar] of the Month.
>
> >> >In this post I am putting the emphasis on "Lying" because it all has
> >> >to do with one utterly ridiculous and libelous charge by J. J. O'Shea,
> >> >whose lie and subsequent repetition/stonewalling I am nominating.
>
> >> OK, let's examine your selected example of this
> >> "pathological lying", along with your explanation...
>
> >Yes, lets.  You've barely begun the examination below.
>
> >> >It's been repeated on several threads, with minor variations in the
> >> >wording.  Here is one example:
>
> >> >  "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you
> >> >    had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane."
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >You snipped the url and message id.  Here is the url again:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/eccc71dd41ca91ae
>
> Irrelevant; I referred only to the quotes *you* provided.

But you made it look like O'Shea's interpretation was defensible
below.

Don't be ridiculous. What I am doing here is showing how you are
jumping to conclusions ("does support") on the basis of miserably
inadequate evidence.

Did you REALLY think "My words" referred to every word I ever posted
in talk.origins? That's the only way you could justify O'Shea's
blanket statement up there.

Do you never criticize creationists for jumping to conclusions on the
basis of laughably inadequate evidence?

> >And the context, which you are ignoring all through these comments of
> >yours, showed clearly what those words were meant to refer to.  See
> >below.
>
> >> "a sane
> >> person" being equivalent to "any sane person"; i.e., "anyone
> >> not insane".
> >Yes
>
> Thank you. That was my point, that the quotes *as you
> provided them* do not support your contention.

You are flagrantly ignoring over half the quotes I provided.

> >, but only in reference to the single, less-than-one-line sentence
> >to which "My words" referred.
>
> >______________begin excerpts__________
> >> >> >Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
> >> >> >panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
> >> >> >possibly have suggested it to him.
>
> >> >=========end of 1st excerpt, begin second=============
>
> >> > > Your correction of me was, IIRC, the simple word "wrong!".
>
> >> >I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are in an early
> >> >to medium stage of Alzheimer's.
>
> >Note the first use of "My words":

<crickets chirping>

> >> >My words were "No, you insufferable twit!  They SENT microbes."
>
> >> >> That
> >> >> was hardly conducive to understanding.
>
> >Note the second use of "My words", in the out of context quote:

<crickets chirping>

> >> >My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ
> >> >of 50.  Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
> >> >irony.
> >> >======================== end of excerpts
> >> >fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5
>
> >> >Note the repetition of the word string "My words" and the word
> >> >"understanding".
>
> >Did you miss this last sentence, Casanova?
>
> Nope, I was only commenting on the quotes as you provided
> them. Are you still missing that?

You never commented on the above excerpts, which I provided in my very
first post. They are an integral part of my case for O'Shea having
lied.

> >By the way, when I thrust the above documentation at O'Shea, I added:
>
> >Do you really think that [understanding] "No, you insufferable twit!
> >They SENT microbes" takes MORE than an IQ of 50 in a sane man?
>
> >It almost goes without saying that he snipped this too, when he did
> >his "mofo" reply. [See below.]
>
> >Will you snip it too, or at least ignore it?   [OK, someone with an IQ
> >of 50 might need to have the word "insufferable" explained.]

I see you ignored it. Yet it is highly relevant to the PLotM
nomination.

> >> >Readers are invited to explore the full context of my remark; it only
> >> >strengthens the case for awarding the PLotM to O'Shea's dismal
> >> >performance.
>
> >> >They are also invited to look at how I posted the above documentation
> >> >in reply to O'Shea's libel, and at how he deleted the documentation
> >> >AND his accusation, and replied with the one-liner:
>
> >> >" I quoted you directly and exactly. It ain't libel
> >> >  when I use your own words, you lying mofo."
>
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8e22eeccc5953fc6
> >> >Message-ID: <k5meqn0...@news1.newsguy.com>
> >> >   [the last three symbols before the @ are 613]
>
> >> >Peter Nyikos
>
> >I'll say one thing for you, Casanova.  You weren't afraid to reply to
> >my post, even though you used a figurative ten foot pole to touch it
> >with.
>
> I'll usually reply to such posts. And I stated exactly what
> I meant and why. Background info,

What "background" info? The info is very much in the foreground.

> while interesting, doesn't
> change the fact that your selected examples don't support
> your contentions.

That is not a fact, and you are continuing to ignore the evidence of
its falsity.

What kind of game are you playing, Casanova?

Are you a closet creationist (a Loki in reverse, so to speak),
perhaps?

Be that as it may, I do have something very important to thank you
for, Casanova, and I'll tell you about it on another thread where you
ignored my words, "Documentation on request" and jabbered on as though
I had provided no information about how O'Shea and jillery are out to
discredit me by hook or crook.

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:50:36 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<70787970-94ec-43f8...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>):

<nomination for a New List, deleted>

So Peter's making his little lists again. And I get to be the first one
placed onto the very first list. I'm touched.

And, oh, Peter, you're still scum. Seeing as you touched me, I've got to go
and disinfect.

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:47:47 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

The only things in the "foreground" were your statement and
O'Shea's response to that statement:

[You]

"My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
 with an IQ of 50."

[O'Shea]

"You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with
you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be
insane."

I'm not interested in anything but those two statements;
your history with him is irrelevant to whether his
characterization of your comment was accurate. It was.

>> while interesting, doesn't
>> change the fact that your selected examples don't support
>> your contentions.
>
>That is not a fact, and you are continuing to ignore the evidence of
>its falsity.

That *is* a fact; you're accusing him of being a
pathological liar because he accurately paraphrased your
statement, and apparently you don't like it. Get it through
your head, *only the two statements you quoted are of
concern to me on this issue*, and any prior discussion,
*unless it contains agreed-upon modifications to the words
used in those two statements*, is irrelevant. I thought I
made this clear, but apparently not.

>What kind of game are you playing, Casanova?

None; I was only drawn to this thread because of your
apparent attempt to create a new PotM-like "contest", and I
wanted to see what it was about. And when I read your logic
and realized it reached an incorrect conclusion I made my
first post in response.

>Are you a closet creationist (a Loki in reverse, so to speak),
>perhaps?

Are you a closet jerk, perhaps? Oops, wait; that would be
incorrect, since you're not in the closet.

>Be that as it may, I do have something very important to thank you
>for, Casanova, and I'll tell you about it on another thread where you
>ignored my words, "Documentation on request" and jabbered on as though
>I had provided no information about how O'Shea and jillery are out to
>discredit me by hook or crook.

Y'know, I'm past caring about your paranoia, and I have no
interest in anything else you might have to say on this
subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.

[Charles Brenner]

On Nov 14, 10:22�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:47:47 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

Substantially so, yes, but I am (to my shame) unable to resist the fun
of quibbling slightly with the paraphrase. Strictly speaking it seems
to me that the word "and" is wrong, logical would be "or": Anyone who
disagrees with PN must be a dunce OR be insane.

I comment with some trepidation as I already decided that
participating in this thread is a sign of immaturity.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:20:43 -0500, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article <j6n7a8t77qarqb5ka...@4ax.com>):

> The only things in the "foreground" were your statement and O'Shea's response

> to that statement:
>
> [You]
>
> "My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
>  with an IQ of 50."
>
> [O'Shea]
>
> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you had to have an IQ
> of less than 50 and also had to be insane."
>
> I'm not interested in anything but those two statements; your history with
> him is irrelevant to whether his characterization of your comment was
> accurate. It was.

And still is.

He tries to dance around that. He tries hard. He can't. He says that I've
libeled him _by using his own words_. I find this... fascinating.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 14, 1:22 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:47:47 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

Actually, you only referred to two quotes out of the many that I
provided right in my first post. And thereby hangs a tale, told

below.


> >> >> >The only "evidence" he has presented for this libel is a ripped-out-of-
> >> >> >context quote.
>
> >> >> > "My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
> >> >> > with an IQ of 50."
>
> >> >> >The context, however, makes it clear that I was referring to ONE
> >> >> >example.
>
> >> >> And this fact is relevant because...?
>
> >> >Because it was a single incident involving a single person, whereas
> >> >O'Shea explicitly used the word "anyone" and didn't qualify what kind
> >> >of disagreement was being talked about.

You buried your head in the sand here, and in your next comment, and
countless times later.

> >> >In fact, there was no direct disagreement in the quoted material,
> >> >since Gans hedged his comment with "IIRC" and I treated it
> >> >accordingly. See below.

> >> >> Or are you contending that this *could* apply to only a
> >> >> single person,
>
> >> >Absolutely, even if you ignore the actual context.

You made no attempt to counter this statement nor my reasoning for it.

[small snip]

> >> >Even in case of the out of context text, you haven't a leg to stand on
> >> >by denying that it "could" apply to only one person.

That is a big lapse of logic on your part, for starters.

[snip more of your head-in-the-sand burials, to get to even juicier
ones]

> >Did you REALLY think "My words" referred to every word I ever posted
> >in talk.origins?  That's the only way you could justify O'Shea's
> >blanket statement up there.

<crickets chirping>

> >Do you never criticize creationists for jumping to conclusions on the
> >basis of laughably inadequate evidence?

And for something more specific, for which they have been criticized
countless times: cherry-picking quotes.

[snip more head in the sand burials, to get to the context of O'Shea's
libels]

> >> >, but only in reference to the single, less-than-one-line sentence
> >> >to which "My words" referred.
>
> >> >______________begin excerpts__________
> >> >> >> >Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
> >> >> >> >panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
> >> >> >> >possibly have suggested it to him.
>
> >> >> >=========end of 1st excerpt, begin second=============
>
> >> >> > > Your correction of me was, IIRC, the simple word "wrong!".
>
> >> >> >I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are in an early
> >> >> >to medium stage of Alzheimer's.
>
> >> >Note the first use of "My words":
>
> ><crickets chirping>

This went like water off a duck's back where you are concerned,
Casanova.

> >> >> >My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>
> >> >> >> That
> >> >> >> was hardly conducive to understanding.
>
> >> >Note the second use of "My words", in the out of context quote:
>
> ><crickets chirping>

More water off a duck's back.

> >> >> >My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ
> >> >> >of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
> >> >> >irony.
> >> >> >======================== end of excerpts
> >> >> >fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5
>
> >> >> >Note the repetition of the word string "My words" and the word
> >> >> >"understanding".
>
> >> >Did you miss this last sentence, Casanova?
>
> >> Nope, I was only commenting on the quotes as you provided
> >> them. Are you still missing that?
>
> >You never commented on the above excerpts, which I provided in my very
> >first post. They are an integral part of my case for O'Shea having
> >lied.

I've snipped more of the same old same old, to get to the part of the
post where you seem to have given your little game away:

> [You]
>
> "My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
> with an IQ of 50."
>
> [O'Shea]
>
> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with
> you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be
> insane."

Now comes the big revelation:

> I'm not interested in anything but those two statements;
> your history with him is irrelevant to whether his
> characterization of your comment was accurate. It was.

You've been acting like the very rankest of cherry-picking
creationists.

AT BEST, you've been indulging in a sterile intellectual exercise,
illustrating the outrageous conclusions that creationists come to from
ripping quotes by Gould, etc. out of context.

> >> while interesting, doesn't
> >> change the fact that your selected examples don't support
> >> your contentions.
>
> >That is not a fact, and you are continuing to ignore the evidence of
> >its falsity.

And you went on with your broken record routine, never trying to
counteract my arguments. It's a great imitation of the very worst
creationists, if that is what it was meant to be:

> That *is* a fact; you're accusing him of being a
> pathological liar because he accurately paraphrased your
> statement, and apparently you don't like it. Get it through
> your head, *only the two statements you quoted are of
> concern to me on this issue*, and any prior discussion,
> *unless it contains agreed-upon modifications to the words
> used in those two statements*, is irrelevant. I thought I
> made this clear, but apparently not.

You've made something clear to me all right, but I've only given out
the AT BEST part here.

> >What kind of game are you playing, Casanova?
>
> None;

A statement utterly devoid of credibility. You were either indulging
in a sterile intellectual game, or something far, far worse.

> I was only drawn to this thread because of your
> apparent attempt to create a new PotM-like "contest", and I
> wanted to see what it was about. And when I read your logic
> and realized it reached an incorrect conclusion I made my
> first post in response.

More game-playing, or worse.

> >Are you a closet creationist (a Loki in reverse, so to speak),
> >perhaps?

And now readers can see, above, why I asked this question.

> Are you a closet jerk, perhaps? Oops, wait; that would be
> incorrect, since you're not in the closet.

Keep burying your head deeper in the sand. Is your torso all the way
underground by now?

[snip something to be talked about on another thread]

> Y'know, I'm past caring about your paranoia,

Nonexistent.

> and I have no
> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.

Your post might make a great entry for a "best imitation of
creationist behavior by an evolutionist" award. The only caveat is, I
don't think many creationists carry their cherry-picking to such
outrageous stonewalling extremes.

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:59:29 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<62e4e8cb-0448-4695...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>):

>> Y'know, I'm past caring about your paranoia,
>
> Nonexistent.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:j6n7a8t77qarqb5ka...@4ax.com...
snip

>
> [You]
>
> "My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
> with an IQ of 50."
>
> [O'Shea]
>
> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with
> you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be
> insane."
>
> I'm not interested in anything but those two statements;
> your history with him is irrelevant to whether his
> characterization of your comment was accurate. It was.
>

You're claiming context is irrelevant. That doesn't become true just because you aren't interested in it.
The two statements are both context dependent. And even if both refer to a specific subject, "understanding" and "disagreeing" are entirely different concepts. But Peter's quote appears to be reference to a specific comment; "my words", and not a reference to everything he has ever said. O'Shea's characterization does not make that clear, and can be interpreted to refer to everything Peter said.

[Mitchell Coffey]

There's certainly linguistic ambiguity, but did O'Shea ever claim that
Peter referred to understanding anymore than one particular thing Peter
said?

Mitchell

[Glenn]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k81vd5$oco$2...@dont-email.me...

Beats me what all O'Shea has ever claimed. The quote above is not clear, excepting as I said that understanding is not tantamount to disagreeing, which is certainly not "flat out".

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:09:49 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Charles Brenner
<challam...@gmail.com>:

>On Nov 14, 10:22 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:47:47 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

>> >On Nov 13, 4:02 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:36:31 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

<snip repetition for brevity>

>> >> >I'll say one thing for you, Casanova. You weren't afraid to reply to
>> >> >my post, even though you used a figurative ten foot pole to touch it
>> >> >with.

>> >> I'll usually reply to such posts. And I stated exactly what
>> >> I meant and why. Background info,

>> >What "background" info?  The info is very much in the foreground.

>> The only things in the "foreground" were your statement and
>> O'Shea's response to that statement:
>>
>> [You]
>>
>> "My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
>> with an IQ of 50."
>>
>> [O'Shea]
>>
>> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with
>> you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be
>> insane."
>>
>> I'm not interested in anything but those two statements;
>> your history with him is irrelevant to whether his
>> characterization of your comment was accurate. It was.
>
>Substantially so, yes, but I am (to my shame) unable to resist the fun
>of quibbling slightly with the paraphrase. Strictly speaking it seems
>to me that the word "and" is wrong, logical would be "or": Anyone who
>disagrees with PN must be a dunce OR be insane.

Possibly; it could be read either way, but given the "with"
conjunction I tend toward "and".

>I comment with some trepidation as I already decided that
>participating in this thread is a sign of immaturity.

HEY!

But point taken; I'm outta here.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

<snip reams of repetition>

>> ...I have no

>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.

>Your post

Missed the "no interest" part, did you?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:51:39 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<glenns...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:j6n7a8t77qarqb5ka...@4ax.com...
>snip
>>
>> [You]
>>
>> "My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
>> with an IQ of 50."
>>
>> [O'Shea]
>>
>> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with
>> you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be
>> insane."
>>
>> I'm not interested in anything but those two statements;
>> your history with him is irrelevant to whether his
>> characterization of your comment was accurate. It was.

>You're claiming context is irrelevant.

No, I'm claiming that *as formulated* the two statements are
equivalent. Which they are. And my offer to take a look at
anything posted previously in the thread which would have
modified the meanings of the words used was (AFAICT) greeted
with silence. But Peter's posts get so long-winded and
convoluted that, unless he's willing to, *briefly*,
synopsize his reasons for claiming that there's something
specific in the thread history which makes the statements
*not* equivalent I'm just not willing to continue.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:uscaa853h4lhc980d...@4ax.com...

I agree with respect to convoluted posts, but the two statements "as formulated" are not equivalent, as I explained, and are context dependent. You can not simply dismiss this and say they are equivalent.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

>
> <snip reams of repetition>
>
> >> ...I have no
> >> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
> >> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
> >> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
> >Your post
>
> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?

You made a lot of false statements in our exchange. How was I to know
that wasn't one of them?

HLVB.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 15, 12:47 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 11/14/2012 4:51 PM, Glenn wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in messagenews:j6n7a8t77qarqb5ka...@4ax.com...

Jeez, Mitchell, isn't the use to which he put the word "anyone" enough
of a clue?

"You stated, flat out, that ***anyone***

who disagreed with you had to have an
IQ of less than 50 and also had to be
insane."

[asterisks added to make the word stand out]

Anyway, I'm surprised to see you here after you said confidently on
another thread that you know what I mean by defamation. O'Shea's
bizarre statement above is one example. O'Shea has made a host of
others directed at me. Would you like to see them, and perhaps re-
assess your confident comment?

Anyway, now you know who Y is. Can you also guess who Z is? I am
referring to the following comments I made on that thread:

_________________________
Also, NOBODY but myself ever accuses anyone of lying about me (except
perhaps Martinez on rare occasions), even though I am massively lied
about by a tiny number of people. So what is a person to think when X
goes on being palsy-walsy with Y when Y is massively defaming me, and
X is a respected regular in the newsgroup?

And what is a person to think when Z (another respected regular)
actually tries to show that Y did not lie about me on a given set of
occasions? It happened yesterday.

talk.origins is very often relied upon for "truth" in the big outside
world, thanks to its many useful FAQs on evolution.
===================end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5f4d0871e49760fe

Peter Nyikos

[Charles Brenner]

On Nov 15, 10:27 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:09:49 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Charles Brenner

> <challambren...@gmail.com>:

I agree that "with" means "and" in this case. My point is merely that
de Morgan's law -- the negation of a conjunction (an "and" statement)
is a disjunction ("or" statement) of the negatives -- applies.

PN [is reported to have] said: "My words would have produced

understanding in a sane person with an IQ of 50."

Equivalently: "A person who is both sane and has IQ of [at least] 50
would agree."

That leaves the possibilities that an insane person (regardless of IQ)
might disagree, as well as that a person with IQ<50 (regardless of
sanity) might disagree.

Hence: If someone disagrees, they must be insane OR a dunce (IQ<50).
We cannot be sure that they are both.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 15, 1:37 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:51:39 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"

> <glennshel...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in messagenews:j6n7a8t77qarqb5ka...@4ax.com...

> >snip
>
> >> [You]
>
> >> "My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
> >> with an IQ of 50."
>
> >> [O'Shea]
>
> >> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with
> >> you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be
> >> insane."
>
> >> I'm not interested in anything but those two statements;
> >> your history with him is irrelevant to whether his
> >> characterization of your comment was accurate. It was.
> >You're claiming context is irrelevant.
>
> No, I'm claiming that *as formulated* the two statements are
> equivalent. Which they are.

Which they aren't, EVEN without any of the context. Charles Brenner
gave one reason, which you completely misinterpreted.

The negation of "X and Y" is "either not X or not Y"

It is NOT "not X and also not Y".

Application: the WRONG way to deny "anyone who is sane (X) and has an
IQ of 50 [or more, understood] (Y) understands it"
is the way O'Shea took, "anyone who does not understand it is both
insane (not X) and has an IQ under 50 (Not Y).

The RIGHT way is "anyone who does not understand it is either insane
or has an IQ of less than 50"

I gave another reason which Glenn gingerly backed up, right in the
post to which you are replying, adding another one of his own.

And you snipped all that from your reply, to which I am replying here.

And so, you've buried your head in the sand about these other
reasons. You're like a little kid who, after saying something
outrageous, plugs his ears so he doesn't hear the rebuttal, and keeps
on repeating what he said.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

I didn't comment on this aspect earlier because I could not be sure
that O'Shea used that incorrect "and" everywhere else.

Here is another case where he did do it, on a thread where I had not
even participated until I caught him saying something along the same
lines. When I challenged him, this was part of what he wrote:

"You've said, point-blank, that anyone who doesn't agree with you
must have an IQ of less than 50 and must be insane, so that would
be
a yes, you have exhibited that level of contempt. And you've done
it
many, many, MANY times."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c67f016de72860b6?dmode=source

It almost goes without saying that he didn't give even ONE additional
example out of the alleged "many, many, MANY times."

> I comment with some trepidation as I already decided that
> participating in this thread is a sign of immaturity.

Well, I'm glad you did it anyway, Charles. Thank you.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you something ever since Dr. Dr.
Alan Kleinman disappeared in August.

I noticed how you got Kleinman to agree that you had the better of
Harshman on a technical point. The way he phrased his agreement led
me to wonder whether he was a special kind of Loki, one who led us on
to think he was incredibly dense while he knew all along how right we
were about lots of things.

What's your take on that?

Feel free to delete my "By the way" and everything that follows if he
actually told you the truth about himself in private e-mail. I don't
want you to give away any secrets.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

Since you are replying to Bob, who has said he is/was an EE, you could
have got your point across by saying that a positive-logic AND is the
same as a negative-logic OR.

If you don't understand, I'm pretty sure Bob will 8-)

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):

> On Nov 15, 1:27ï¿œpm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>
>>>> ...I have no
>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>> Your post
>>
>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>
> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.

Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.

> How was I to know
> that wasn't one of them?
>
> HLVB.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[Glenn]

"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message news:k85f8...@news3.newsguy.com...

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> (in article
> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>

> > On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
> >>
> >> <snip reams of repetition>
> >>
> >>>> ...I have no
> >>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
> >>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
> >>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
> >>> Your post
> >>
> >> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
> >
> > You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>
> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>

I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he didn't say.

"As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.

Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could

possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ

of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended

irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5?dmode=sourceThis clearly shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed withyou had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to beinsane" is a flat out lie.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:12:49 -0500, Glenn wrote
(in article <glennsheldon-k85hu8$8sg$1...@dont-email.me>):

>
> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
> news:k85f8...@news3.newsguy.com...
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>> (in article
>> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>>
>>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>>>
>>>>>> ...I have no
>>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>>>> Your post
>>>>
>>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>>>
>>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>>
>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>>
> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he didn't
> say.

Nope.

>
> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you insufferable twit!

> They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced understanding in a sane
> person with an IQ
> of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>
irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5?dmode=

> sourceThis clearly shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was

> speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the senders.This
> isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding
> semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on misrepresenting was
> made in a specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, flat
> out, that anyone who disagreed withyou had to have an IQ of less than 50 and
> also had to beinsane" is a flat out lie.

err... nope.

BTW, Glenn, m'man... do you still need me to send you copies of the sample
ballot so that you can see that amendments 4 and 5 really did take up a page
each? You never did reply to me when I suggested that.

[Glenn]

"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message news:k85me...@news1.newsguy.com...

err, yep.

>
> BTW, Glenn, m'man... do you still need me to send you copies of the sample
> ballot so that you can see that amendments 4 and 5 really did take up a page
> each? You never did reply to me when I suggested that.
>

Nope. I parsed your claim that "Amendments 4 and 5 took up entire pages of the ballot."
to mean that each amendment took up more than one page of the ballot.

But I would be interested to hear your explanation for how a legislature that makes "an exemption" for itself is somehow "ignoring their own rules".

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:13:33 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Charles Brenner

<challam...@gmail.com>:

Aha; gotcha now!

And I stand corrected; O'Shea's interpretation was
needlessly restrictive, as was my understanding of it.

So a correct interpretation of Peter's statement would be,

"You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you

had to have an IQ of less than 50 OR had to be insane."

I agree, that's *much* less pejorative... ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:16:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Yep, and a good point; familiar terminology enhances
understanding. ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:32:05 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig>:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
>(in article
><d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>

>> On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>>
>>> <snip reams of repetition>
>>>
>>>>> ...I have no
>>>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
>>>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
>>>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
>>>> Your post
>>>
>>> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>>
>> You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>
>Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.

That's OK, since I'm ignoring his posts, including the ones
with incorrect assertions such as the above.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in messagenews:k85f8...@news3.newsguy.com...

> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> > (in article

> > <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):

>
> > > On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> > >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> > >> <snip reams of repetition>
>
> > >>>> ...I have no
> > >>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
> > >>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
> > >>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
> > >>> Your post
>
> > >> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>
> > > You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>
> > Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>
> I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something he didn't say.
>
> "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
> panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
> mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
> Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
> panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
> possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you insufferable twit!  They SENT microbes.""My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ
> of 50.  Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended

> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5?dmod...clearly shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a flat out lie.


How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
It's not flat out anything. In fact, I doubt anybody would actually
believe
that Peter, or anyone else this side of a psycho ward, claimed that
anyone
who disagreed with him on anything at all was insane or an imbecile.
I
don't think there's even much ambiguity in what O'Shea wrote.

If it bothered Peter so much he could have asked O'Shea to resolve
the
ambiguity in subsequent discussions, but I assume that Peter didn't
ask
anything, but came in ranting about libel and pathological lying. Its
possible
O'Shea deliberately maintained the ambiguity to enrage Peter, in
keeping
with the school yard sensibility of the thread. I don't know.

But the bottom line here is that what O'Shea wrote is an ambiguous
paraphrase
of what Peter wrote, which people are going to resolve on the side of
assuming
Peter was referring to one issue. It was not "libel;" it was not
"pathological."
It wasn't even an insult. What Peter said about "a sane person with an
IQ of 50"
isn't even much of an insult, as whatever Peter was thinking, people
will assume
it's hyperbole. Peter's slash "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt,
and assume
you are in an early to medium stage of Alzheimer's" is nastier, even
though it's
also hyperbole, but at least it has style. There isn't anything here;
it's childish.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

Compare:

"You stated, flat out, that ***anyone***

who disagreed [on more than one subject]

with you had to have an IQ of less than 50
and also had to be insane."

With:

"You stated, flat out, that ***anyone***

who disagreed [on that one subject]

with you had to have an IQ of less than 50
and also had to be insane."

The use of the word "anyone" doesn't make make O'Shea claiming that
you'd referred to not understanding anymore than one particular thing
you'd said. He may have meant what you think he meant, but what
O'Shae wrote was in fact ambiguous on that point, and the word
"anyone" makes no difference..

See, this is what I mean: you massively quote posts, indignantly
proclaiming the quotes to be slam dunk evidence of your victimhood
and other people's depravity. But if one has the patients wade
through,
it come clear that people aren't saying what you clearly believe
they're
say. The above is a thankfully short and specific example. Yet you
clearly
think that O'Shae's use of the word "anyone" means I was misreading
him when I asked "There's certainly linguistic ambiguity, but did

O'Shea
ever claim that Peter referred to understanding anymore than one

particular thing Peter said?" That's disturbing.

> Anyway, I'm surprised to see you here after you said confidently on
> another thread that you know what I mean by defamation. O'Shea's
> bizarre statement above is one example. O'Shea has made a host of
> others directed at me. Would you like to see them, and perhaps re-
> assess your confident comment?

I'm here because I find Glenn's take on the meaning of passages
interesting. And I've shown above exactly the sort of thing you
mean by defamation. I shown that you've conjured a "libel" and
"pathological lying" out of your strange inablity to understand plain
English.

> Anyway, now you know who Y is. Can you also guess who Z is? I am
> referring to the following comments I made on that thread:
>
> _________________________
> Also, NOBODY but myself ever accuses anyone of lying about me (except
> perhaps Martinez on rare occasions), even though I am

> about by a tiny number of people. So what is a person to think when X
> goes on being palsy-walsy with Y when Y is massively defaming me, and
> X is a respected regular in the newsgroup?
>
> And what is a person to think when Z (another respected regular)
> actually tries to show that Y did not lie about me on a given set of
> occasions? It happened yesterday.
>
> talk.origins is very often relied upon for "truth" in the big outside
> world, thanks to its many useful FAQs on evolution.
> ===================end of excerpt
> fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5f4d0871e49760fe
>
> Peter Nyikos

Madre de Dios: T.O. FAQs don't include the "defamations" you call from
the
mists, and would see in Rorschach blotches.

I'm not stroking your narcisim by play your guessing game. People
argue
against you on your constant indulgence in personal issues because
you are usually wrong. You are convinced that people are in
conspiracy
against you - you actual accuse people of having an "anti-Nyikos
agenda"!
I've responded to a blissfully short example above, showing where what
you think to be clear evidence of someone inflicting sinister torment
upon
your innocent person, clearly doesn't mean what you think it means.

Rather than a conspiracy, a better fit on the data is that only you
"accuses
anyone of lying about" you because the lies only exist mostly your
head; that
when a "respected regular in the newsgroup" "goes on being palsy-
walsy
with" someone who is "massively defaming" you, it's because there is
no
defamation. People insult you; people disagree with you; people
dispute
your facts; people see behavior you don't see in yourself; people say
things
you misunderstand; people make cultural references you don't get;
people
use tropes you take literally; people reject your insistance that
everyone is
morally responsible for keeping track of and policing everything other
people
say to you. Sometime people know things you don't know; almost nobody
respects you.

Sometimes people misunderstand what you write; people misremember
what
You or they or someone else has written; people get frustrated by your
constant
self-references, nastiness, non sequiturs, reflections on personal
hobbyhorses
that interest only you, descantations on wrong done you in other
threads by
other people, and citations of evils heaped on you, long ago. Hell,
sometimes
people are just *wrong*!

But on investigation there is no defamation or libel, massive lying or
pathology.
More often as not, someone has insulted you or expresses the near-
universally
poor opinion of you. Even there, you get less sympathy than you
deserve;
consider your own constant insults and insinuations: you are not
capable of civil
discourse or of inducing it in others, you can�t enter the least
controversial topic
without it becoming a hate fest: you are the nastiest, most over-self-
regarding
poster on T.O., beyond the clear bedlamites, like Prawnster and
Nando.

Mitchell Coffey

[Glenn]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:18439131-784d-4617...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Nov 16, 5:37 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:18439131-784d-4617...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

> > > irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5?dmod...shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a flat out lie.

>
> > How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
> > on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
> > It's not flat out anything.
>
> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."

Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?

Mitchell

[Glenn]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9c4a22f1-d5b0-4585...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...

O'Shea didn't use the word misunderstand. He said Peter flat out said "anyone who disagreed with you". That implies anytime anyone disagrees with Peter they must be insane.

[Ernest Major]

In message
<9c4a22f1-d5b0-4585...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> writes

As I recall, J.J. referred to agreement, not understanding. It seems
that Professor Nyikos has a valid complaint on that point. But if
Professor Nyikos hadn't found it necessary to indulge in a gratuitous
insult the issue would never have come up. (Getting confused by the
various just so stories, especially if not paying close attention, is
quite credible.)
--
alias Ernest Major

[Glenn]

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:CGP$3MnQIt...@meden.invalid...

snip a bunch of hash generated. Something really screwed the formatting when I pasted this stuff.

[Paul J Gans]

Glenn, let me give you a reality check. I made that post without
having read the vast bulk of Peter's posts. Peter pointed out
that I was wrong. I agreed and apologized.

I have no idea why I thought he had the panspermists as microbes.
I have no idea where he gets most of his ideas.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

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

That's hard to know. But Peter commonly conflates different
things in one post. As I've just posted, I got that idea
someplace and posted it. Peter corrected me. I apologized
with faint hope that that would be the end of it. I was
wrong about that.

And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
Doesn't bother me in the least. I've known that for about
75 years. Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:k86mbm$qd1$7...@reader1.panix.com...

That is irrelevant to whether O'Shea's claim is true. Give yourself a reality check.

[Michael Siemon]

In article <k86mmk$qd1$8...@reader1.panix.com>,

possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)

[John S. Wilkins]

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

> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
> Doesn't bother me in the least. I've known that for about
> 75 years. Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.

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

[Michael Siemon]

In article <1ktpdsu.c7rxy31mnudogN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

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

> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
> > Doesn't bother me in the least. I've known that for about
> > 75 years. Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.
>
> Saucy wretch!

as they say auf Deutcsh, ganz awesom ...

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:k86mmk$qd1$8...@reader1.panix.com...

You won't mind if I quote you now as saying that was not hard to know?
Gans said "that was not hard to know".

> But Peter commonly conflates different
> things in one post. As I've just posted, I got that idea
> someplace and posted it. Peter corrected me. I apologized
> with faint hope that that would be the end of it. I was
> wrong about that.

And that is where your part in this ended, and where
O'Shea's began, by claiming that Peter had said

"You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you
had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane"

when in reality what Peter said to you was

"My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT
microbes. My words would have produced understanding
in a sane person with an IQ of 50".
>

Perhaps you should consider that O'Shea should have
apologized and that that would have been the end of it.

[Glenn]

"Michael Siemon" <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:mlsiemon-96B326...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...

He got his goose cooked.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:47:03 -0500, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article <i92da8hgt84m6vsjl...@4ax.com>):

You're right. My error.

>
> I agree, that's *much* less pejorative... ;-)
>

Oh, yeah.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:18:55 -0500, Glenn wrote
(in article <glennsheldon-k85tc2$hp8$1...@dont-email.me>):

Nope.

>>
>> BTW, Glenn, m'man... do you still need me to send you copies of the sample
>> ballot so that you can see that amendments 4 and 5 really did take up a
>> page
>> each? You never did reply to me when I suggested that.
>>
> Nope. I parsed your claim that "Amendments 4 and 5 took up entire pages of
> the ballot."
> to mean that each amendment took up more than one page of the ballot.

Interesting interpretation.

>
> But I would be interested to hear your explanation for how a legislature that

> makes "an exemption" for itself is somehow "ignoring their own rules".

They ignored their own rules (which applied to everyone) precisely because
they went and made an exemption for themselves. And only for themselves.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:18:08 -0500, Mitchell Coffey wrote
(in article
<18439131-784d-4617...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):

> But the bottom line here is that what O'Shea wrote is an ambiguous paraphrase

> of what Peter wrote, which people are going to resolve on the side of
> assuming Peter was referring to one issue. It was not "libel;" it was not
> "pathological."

Quite so. Peter has, in the past, said that the main reason he hasn't sued
certain people (myself included) is that he doesn't have the funds to engage
a good lawyer. He as also mumbled stuff about trying to get me banned from
t.o 'cause I hurt his little feeling. (He only has one.) He is, apparently,
under the impression that I actually give a shit. In that, as in much else,
he is hopelessly incorrect. In the meantime he flails away most amusingly.
And, as I have told him time and time again, the main reason for my presence
here is entertainment, and he provides hours of that.

[Paul J Gans]

I'm not O'Shea. I have no idea why Peter and you refer to both of
us in the same post. I replied to what Peter wrote about me. His
fixation with O'Shea is another matter.

[Paul J Gans]

I don't think so. He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?

[Paul J Gans]

Glenn, you are trying too hard. I posted the bit about
the panspermists being microbes. What Peter wrote after
that is not my responsibility. I took care of my
responsibility when I apologized.

I have no idea why you want to put the IQ business on
me or why I should apologize for O'Shea or why O'Shey
should apologize or why even you should apologize.

I just wish you (and Peter) would stop conflating me
and O'Shea. We are not twins separated at birth.

[Paul J Gans]

Not at all. Ganz is from a different clade than Gans. Do
you z the difference?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Boris Badenov showed me how to z the difference. I can't get my dog
worked up enough to follow through on squirrels and I have no experience
with moose.

[*Hemidactylus*]

It is a legend about where milk is produced:

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

It is legend dairy.

Did I just plagiarize Neil Patrick Harris?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI6xO3IGE2o

Crap. I think I did!

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:k89d06$k61$2...@reader1.panix.com...

If you feel it is all about you, you seem to have a point.

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:k89d9j$k61$4...@reader1.panix.com...

You may be Peter's twin, though.

[*Hemidactylus*]

It is about Gans as he is the Godfather of the Pack and not the lovable
"Blue" who will be missed. I feel more like Frank the Tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_School_%28film%29

Don't be Dean Gordon "Cheese" Pritchard.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:17:58 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
(in article <k89d06$k61$2...@reader1.panix.com>):

Peter loves me. He really does.

[Paul J Gans]

If you got Badenov, Moose and Squirrel cannot be far behind.
But watch out for Natasha!

[Paul J Gans]

Comments that name me by name *are* about me, idiot.

[Paul J Gans]

I don't know what he would do without the two of us. Post
on topic?

Nah.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 11/16/2012 6:37 PM, Glenn wrote:
>
> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9c4a22f1-d5b0-4585...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 16, 5:37 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:18439131-784d-4617...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

>>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5?dmod...shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a flat out lie.

>>>
>>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
>>>> It's not flat out anything.
>>>
>>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>>

>> Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
>> they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
>> do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
>>

> O'Shea didn't use the word misunderstand. He said Peter flat out said "anyone who disagreed with you". That implies anytime anyone disagrees with Peter they must be insane.

No it doesn't. It doesn't imply "anytime." I could just as well refer to
disagreeing on one issue. Since in context it is indeed a reference to
one issue, that's it's default meaning.

Furthermore, you make too much about the differences between
"misunderstand" and "disagreed." The contextual meanings are "a sane and
non-stupid person wouldn't misunderstand what Peter meant" vs. "a sane
and non-stupid person wouldn't disagree with Peter about what Peter
meant." The difference is insignificant.

Finally, the problem is close reading is it assumes close writing. Peter
is calling O'Shea a liar and pathological based on one deep parsing of
ambiguous statements.

Mitchell

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:k8av06$efi$6...@reader1.panix.com...

This is not "about" you. You are not the subject of all comments that include your name. "Joe met with his boss at Gan's Diner". Reality can bite you right in the ass, sparky.

[Mitchell Coffey]

After that one you'd better duck.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

Oh, bullshit. The context was one particular instance, so O'Shea was
referring to one particular instance. Furthermore, Paul, for instance,
apologized to Peter about misreading him on microbes. A sane person with
an IQ of 50 wouldn't expect it would have been the end of it.

Mitchell

[Glenn]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k8b1v3$ebg$1...@dont-email.me...

Total horseshit.

[Mitchell Coffey]

"Gans admits he and O'Shea are unseparated Siamese twins."

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 11/16/2012 7:39 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Glenn <glenns...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

>> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:18439131-784d-4617...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

>>>> irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5?dmod...clearly shows that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a flat out lie.

>>>
>>>
>>> How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
>>> on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
>>> It's not flat out anything.
>
>> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were "My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>

> Glenn, let me give you a reality check. I made that post without
> having read the vast bulk of Peter's posts. Peter pointed out
> that I was wrong. I agreed and apologized.
>
> I have no idea why I thought he had the panspermists as microbes.
> I have no idea where he gets most of his ideas.

Peter has all sorts of bizarre ideas. If he decided that panspermists
had to be microbes, why would anyone be surprised?

In fact, all you had to do was note that you'd been wrong. The apology
is unnecessary.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

Compelling as your analysis is, it's lacking is specifics.

The subject was one specific instance, therefore O'Shea was referring to
one specific instance.

Mitchell

[Glenn]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:k8b69r$oki$7...@dont-email.me...

partial repost from

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c67f016de72860b6?hl=en&dmode=source
Peter:
"You have alleged explicitly elsewhere that I have the same kind of
contempt for people who disagree with me that UC is manifesting here."
O'Shea:
"You've said, point-blank, that anyone who doesn't agree with you must have an
IQ of less than 50 and must be insane, so that would be a yes, you have
exhibited that level of contempt. And you've done it many, many, MANY times."


Get some more lipstick on that pig, Mitchell.

[Paul J Gans]

Goody for you. The comment I responded to was about me. Further,
you know that but continue to try to provoke. That mostly gives
information about you, not me.

[Paul J Gans]

You shipped that one out, didn't you?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:49:28 -0500, Glenn wrote
(in article <glennsheldon-k8b7ci$r8g$1...@dont-email.me>):

He's used that particular phrase once. He has, however, exhibited that level
of contempt many, many, MANY times. Why, he's done it in this very thread.

>
>
> Get some more lipstick on that pig, Mitchell.
>

[Paul J Gans]

No, we are not twins separated at birth because we
are triplets. Our missing brother is a mathematician.

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:k8b8vk$q12$1...@reader1.panix.com...

You started this, Paul. I only copied text from the relevant post to provide context for Peter's statement, not to pick on you. Try a little objectivity, it might only hurt for a little while.

[Glenn]

"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message news:k8b94...@news7.newsguy.com...

Sorry, you equated what you claim Peter said and meant to how UC behaved in that thread.

Here's another lie of yours, from the same thread, concerning the statement in question:

"I quoted you directly and exactly. It ain't libel when I use your own words,
you lying mofo."

Sorry, you neither quoted him "directly" or "exactly" or used his own words.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:59:20 -0500, Glenn wrote
(in article <glennsheldon-k8bf02$d9g$1...@dont-email.me>):

>
> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
> news:k8b94...@news7.newsguy.com...

> Sorry, you equated what you claim Peter said and meant to how UC behaved in
> that thread.
>
> Here's another lie of yours, from the same thread, concerning the statement
> in question:
>
> "I quoted you directly and exactly. It ain't libel when I use your own words,

> you lying mofo."
>
> Sorry, you neither quoted him "directly" or "exactly" or used his own words.
>

"My words would have produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ of

50." That's an exact quote of his words. It's not my fault if his own words
damn him.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 13:25:27 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
(in article <k8b96n$q12$3...@reader1.panix.com>):

Now that's a deadly insult.

[Paul J Gans]

Yes, but he'll feel it more than we will.

[Paul J Gans]

When did any discussion about Peter become your private preserve.
I'd never cleared the air about what Peter regards as a significant
sin on my part. I used this thread to do it. So what? You
might have ignored it on your O'Shea crusade.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:46:25 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
(in article <k8bhf1$66a$2...@reader1.panix.com>):

That's the best kind.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:45:05 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
(in article <k8bhch$66a$1...@reader1.panix.com>):

Glenn is just being Glenn. IOW, small fry.

[Mitchell Coffey]

He gave that as one of many examples. Again, O'Shea was referring to one
specific instance.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

How is that not true? He gave one example of how Peter treated one
person, and stated that Peter did similar many times, which is true.

> Here's another lie of yours, from the same thread, concerning the statement in question:
>
> "I quoted you directly and exactly. It ain't libel when I use your own words,
> you lying mofo."
>
> Sorry, you neither quoted him "directly" or "exactly" or used his own words.

Right, he paraphrased Peter accurately, rather than quoting him directly
and exactly. Peter should see a lawyer and take O'Shea for all he's worth.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Nov 18, 1:27 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 11/17/2012 8:18 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:

> >> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>> In article <k86mmk$qd...@reader1.panix.com>,

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

You liked that joke? Lot more where that came from. I got a armada of
them!

Mitchell

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:45:55 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
<mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 18, 1:27�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

[...]

>> >>>> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
>> >>>> Doesn't bother me in the least. �I've known that for about
>> >>>> 75 years. �Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.
>>
>> >>> possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)
>>
>> >> I don't think so. �He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?
>> >His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.
>>
>> You shipped that one out, didn't you?
>
>You liked that joke? Lot more where that came from. I got a armada of
>them!

So what's armada with you?

[Paul J Gans]

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

>> >>>> That's hard to know. ?But Peter commonly conflates different
>> >>>> things in one post. ?As I've just posted, I got that idea
>> >>>> someplace and posted it. ?Peter corrected me. ?I apologized
>> >>>> with faint hope that that would be the end of it. ?I was

>> >>>> wrong about that.
>>
>> >>>> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.

>> >>>> Doesn't bother me in the least. ?I've known that for about
>> >>>> 75 years. ?Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.

>>
>> >>> possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)
>>

>> >> I don't think so. ?He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?

>> >His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.
>>
>> You shipped that one out, didn't you?

>You liked that joke? Lot more where that came from. I got a armada of
>them!

Gee, I hope not.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <lnmka85044dhbr6qf...@4ax.com>,

Reminds me of when Bullwinkle went to college, What's Armada U.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <lnmka85044dhbr6qf...@4ax.com>,
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:45:55 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
>> <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> >On Nov 18, 1:27?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> >>>> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.

>> >> >>>> Doesn't bother me in the least. ?I've known that for about
>> >> >>>> 75 years. ?Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.

>> >>
>> >> >>> possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)
>> >>

>> >> >> I don't think so. ?He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?

>> >> >His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.
>> >>
>> >> You shipped that one out, didn't you?
>> >
>> >You liked that joke? Lot more where that came from. I got a armada of
>> >them!
>>
>>
>> So what's armada with you?

>Reminds me of when Bullwinkle went to college, What's Armada U.

Google "Golden Hind". Compare to Sir Francis Drake above.
Cower in fear because he has an armada of them. I certainly
am.

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 02:08:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <lnmka85044dhbr6qf...@4ax.com>,
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:45:55 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
>>> <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Nov 18, 1:27?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> >> >>>> And by the way, the English translation of "Gans" is goose.
>>> >> >>>> Doesn't bother me in the least. ?I've known that for about
>>> >> >>>> 75 years. ?Didn't seem to bother the von Gans family either.
>>> >>
>>> >> >>> possibly relatives of Sir Francis Drake? :-)
>>> >>
>>> >> >> I don't think so. ?He was the original Ugly Duckling, wasn't he?
>>> >> >His face was ugly, for sure. But his hind was golden.
>>> >>
>>> >> You shipped that one out, didn't you?
>>> >
>>> >You liked that joke? Lot more where that came from. I got a armada of
>>> >them!
>>>
>>>
>>> So what's armada with you?
>
>>Reminds me of when Bullwinkle went to college, What's Armada U.
>
>Google "Golden Hind". Compare to Sir Francis Drake above.
>Cower in fear because he has an armada of them. I certainly
>am.

There are few things worse (hi again Walter) than the insinuation
someone missed a great pun by another who missed a pun that
acknowleded the first pun.

...not even an unexpected bite of bakers chocolate.

[Paul J Gans]

I did not deign to respond to that one... ;-)

[pnyikos]

On Nov 16, 8:32 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> (in article
> <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >> <snip reams of repetition>
>
> >>>> ...I have no
> >>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
> >>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
> >>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
> >>> Your post
>
> >> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>
> > You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>
> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.

Wrong, simpleton. YOU are trying to mind-read me. I was just being
optimistic about Casanova changing his mind. And he DID change his
mind about something he said to Brenner "I'm outta here."


> >  How was I to know
> > that wasn't one of them?

And indeed, "I'm outta here" was another one.


As a result of staying longer, he has shackled himself to your libel,
almost as much as you have shackled yourself to Ron O's lie,
"admitting to having a sadistic streak."

You keep strengthening the chain that binds you to Ron O with each new
emulation of his stonewalling in the wake of that lie.

And so, the closing salutation I gave Bob applies to you too:

> > HLVB.
>
Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:52:36 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<815f9a3d-eb90-4836...@g14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>):

>> Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>
> Wrong, simpleton. YOU are trying to mind-read me.

And there you are again. Admit it, Peter, you wish you knew how to quit me.

[pnyikos]

On Nov 16, 5:12 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 3:57 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 12:47 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchelldotcof...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 11/14/2012 4:51 PM, Glenn wrote:
>
> > > > "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in messagenews:j6n7a8t77qarqb5ka...@4ax.com...
> > > > snip
>
> > > >> [You]

>
> > > >> "My words would have produced understanding in a sane person
> > > >> with an IQ of 50."
>

> > > >> [O'Shea]

>
> > > >> "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with
> > > >> you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be

> > > >> insane."
>
> > > >> I'm not interested in anything but those two statements;
> > > >> your history with him is irrelevant to whether his
> > > >> characterization of your comment was accurate. It was.
>
> > > > You're claiming context is irrelevant. That doesn't become true just because you aren't interested in it.
> > > > The two statements are both context dependent. And even if both refer to a specific subject, "understanding" and "disagreeing" are entirely different concepts. But Peter's quote appears to be reference to a specific comment; "my words", and not a reference to everything he has ever said. O'Shea's characterization does not make that clear, and can be interpreted to refer to everything Peter said.
>
> > > There's certainly linguistic ambiguity, but did O'Shea ever claim that
> > > Peter referred to understanding anymore than one particular thing Peter
> > > said?
>
> > Jeez, Mitchell, isn't the use to which he put the word "anyone" enough
> > of a clue?
>
> >    "You stated, flat out, that ***anyone***

> >      who disagreed with you had to have an
> >      IQ of less than 50 and also had to be

> >      insane."
> > [asterisks added to make the word stand out]
>
> Compare:

With the above? Sure: the following is a huge amelioration of the
above.

>    "You stated, flat out, that ***anyone***
>      who disagreed [on more than one subject]

>      with you had to have an IQ of less than 50

>      and also had to be insane."
>
> With:

And now comes yet another huge amelioration:

>    "You stated, flat out, that ***anyone***
>      who disagreed [on that one subject]

>      with you had to have an IQ of less than 50

>      and also had to be insane."
>
> The use of the word "anyone" doesn't make make O'Shea claiming that
> you'd referred to not understanding anymore than one particular thing
> you'd said.

That is some real spin-doctoring on your part, Mitchell. Much better
is:

The use of the word "anyone" doesn't make O'Shea claim that
you'd referred to disagreeing with anything less than anything
you've ever said in talk.origins.

"anyone who disagrees with you" is a blanket statement with no
exceptions implied. More about this below.

> He may have meant what you think he meant, but what
> O'Shae wrote was in fact ambiguous on that point, and the word
> "anyone" makes no difference..

So you allege. But the fact that you completely disregarded the most
natural and straightforward interpretation ruins all pretense at
freedom of bias in what you say next:

> See, this is what I mean: you massively quote posts, indignantly
> proclaiming the quotes to be slam dunk evidence of your victimhood
> and other people's depravity.

I've done that to Ron O, and no one else since December 2010, not even
O'Shea so far. This is relevant to something I say about December 2010
below.

> But if one has the patients wade
> through,

Does anyone have the patience to wade through more than 0.1% of the
dealings between me and Ron O? Do even YOU have it?

> it come clear that people aren't saying what you clearly believe
> they're
> say. The above is a thankfully short and specific example.

I doubt that you can name even a single one that has been subjected to
one-tenth the amount of analysis that this "thankfully short and
specific example" has been subjected to.

>Yet you clearly
> think that O'Shae's use of the word "anyone" means I was misreading
> him when I asked  "There's certainly linguistic ambiguity, but did
> O'Shea
> ever claim that  Peter referred to understanding anymore than one
> particular thing Peter said?" That's disturbing.

Only to a biased observer. "anyone who disagrees with you" includes
people from all walks of life, interested in a limitless variety of
things, and having all possible perspectives on anything I might say.

> > Anyway, I'm surprised to see you here after you said confidently on
> > another thread that you know what I mean by defamation.  O'Shea's
> > bizarre statement above is one example.  O'Shea has made a host of
> > others directed at me.  Would you like to see them, and perhaps re-
> > assess your confident comment?
>
> I'm here because I find Glenn's take on the meaning of passages
> interesting. And I've shown above exactly the sort of thing you
> mean by defamation. I shown that you've conjured a "libel" and
> "pathological lying" out of your strange inablity to understand plain
> English.

It may seem that way to you; I have no idea of what strange upbringing
you might have had to so radically affect your idea of what is "plain
English."

So let's take a simpler example: a ridiculously false claim which has
been repeated dozens of times at the ends (except for the .sig) of
replies by O'Shea to posts of mine, with insignificant and immaterial
variations in the wording.

______ excerpt_____________________

> Peter Nyikos

still the single most dishonest creationist currently posting on t.o.
============ end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ae9b00634e94d9d9
Message-ID: <k4cvq...@news6.newsguy.com>

Would you back me up if I replied to this with, "Mitchell Coffey
believes that nobody in talk.origins, not even you, takes literally
what you said here?"

If that isn't too tough for you, here is a tougher one: what if I said
"seriously" instead of "literally"?

>
> > Anyway, now you know who Y is.  Can you also guess who Z is?  I am
> > referring to the following comments I made on that thread:
>
> > _________________________
> > Also, NOBODY but myself ever accuses anyone of lying about me (except
> > perhaps Martinez on rare occasions), even though I am
> > about by a tiny number of people.  So what is a person to think when X
> > goes on being palsy-walsy with Y when Y is massively defaming me, and
> > X is a respected regular in the newsgroup?
>
> > And what is a person to think when Z (another respected regular)
> > actually tries to show that Y did not lie about me on a given set of
> > occasions?  It happened yesterday.
>
> > talk.origins is very often relied upon for "truth" in the big outside
> > world, thanks to its many useful FAQs on evolution.
> > ===================end of excerpt
> > fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5f4d0871e49760fe
>
> > Peter Nyikos

> Madre de Dios: T.O. FAQs don't include the "defamations" you call from
> the
> mists, and would see in Rorschach blotches.

Ah, but some of those FAQs were written by real low-lifes. What is a
person to think when, curious to see what kinds of everyday dealings
with others the author had, follows some talk.origins threads and sees
derogatory claims galore by the FAQ author, attested to by a number of
other people on the same thread?

> I'm not stroking your narcisim by play your guessing game.

Instead, you stroked O'Shea's narcissism by playing a guessing game of
your own. And the available evidence strongly suggests that O'Shea is
far more narcissistic than I am, difficult though it may be for
someone with your biases against me to believe.

How far back do those biases go? I told you on another thread that
any biases I might have only go back to December 2010.

[snip highly biased tongue-lashing by you, to get to a demonstrably
false statement]

> you are not capable of civil
> discourse or of inducing it in others,

Not only have I conducted unblemished civil discourse with lots of
t.o. regulars, I have even treat people who attack me courteously if I
believe they are sincere. Such was the case with Arkalen on two
separate occasions. I have been unfailingly civil with her.


> you can�t enter the least
> controversial topic
> without it becoming a hate fest:

Also demonstrably false.


>you are the nastiest, most over-self-
> regarding
> poster on T.O., beyond the clear bedlamites, like Prawnster  and
> Nando.

You are completely ignorant of what Ron O is really like, then. AFAIK
nobody but I gives a damn which of us is telling the truth; but if you
were to count up the sheer number of accusations of lying, being a
scumbag, etc. that have gone between us, you'd find it's Ron O, no
contest.

And if you think I am self-regarding, you haven't seen how Ron O acts
when I've caught him in lies.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Nov 16, 6:57 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <9c4a22f1-d5b0-4585-81b5-19cc3154f...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>,
> Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> writes

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 16, 5:37 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> "Mitchell Coffey" <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>messagenews:18439131-784d-4617...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroup
> >>s.com...
> >> > On Nov 16, 9:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> >> > > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in
> >> > >messagenews:k85f8...@news3.newsguy.com...
> >> > > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:25 -0500, pnyikos wrote
> >> > > > (in article

> >> > > > <d71b41d0-2f45-4e2b-b69a-43a84a7da...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >> > > > > On Nov 15, 1:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> > > > >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:59:29 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> > > > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> > > > >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >> > > > >> <snip reams of repetition>
>
> >> > > > >>>> ...I have no
> >> > > > >>>> interest in anything else you might have to say on this
> >> > > > >>>> subject (or probably any other, given your level of denial
> >> > > > >>>> on this one). So enjoy yourself, and HANL.
> >> > > > >>> Your post
>
> >> > > > >> Missed the "no interest" part, did you?
>
> >> > > > > You made a lot of false statements in our exchange.
>

> >> > > > Ah. Peter's doing his little mind-reading trick again.
>

> >> > > I'll put the mind reading to rest. You accused Peter of something
> >> > >he didn't say.
>
> >> > > "As I told the turkey, er, goose [English translation of Gans], the
> >> > > panspermists SENT microbes. They were multicellular [to put it
> >> > > mildly] intelligent beings like ourselves.
> >> > > Gans made up that ridiculous notion about microbes being the
> >> > > panspermists off the top of his head. NOTHING I ever wrote could
> >> > > possibly have suggested it to him.""My words were "No, you

> >> > >insufferable twit! They SENT microbes.""My words would have

> >> > >produced understanding in a sane person with an IQ

> >> > > of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full of unintended
>

> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>irony."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/062af0395eefdab5?dmod...that Peter meant that anyone could understand he was speaking of microbes being sent, not that microbes were the senders.This isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding semantics,and the quote in question you have insisted on misrepresenting was made in a specific context, not a general claim.Your claim "You stated, flat out, that anyone who disagreed with you had to have an IQ of less than 50 and also had to be insane" is a flat out lie.

>
> >> > How? It's ambiguous. It could mean "anyone who disagreed with you"
> >> > on anything, or "anyone who disagreed with you" on the issue at hand.
> >> > It's not flat out anything.
>
> >> Oh crap. Understanding does not equate to agreeing. Do you think any
> >>sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand "they sent
> >>microbes" to mean "they were microbes"? Peter's own words, in the same
> >>post as the original quote, and immediately preceding that quote, were
> >>"My words were "No, you insufferable twit! They SENT microbes."
>
> >Of course a sane person with an IQ over 50 could misunderstand it, if
> >they didn't read closely. But what has Paul's misunderstanding got to
> >do with Peter's complaint about what O'Shea's wrote?
>

> As I recall, J.J. referred to agreement, not understanding. It seems
> that Professor Nyikos has a valid complaint on that point. But if
> Professor Nyikos hadn't found it necessary to indulge in a gratuitous
> insult

Which gratuitous insult would that be? The only actual insult was
"No, you insufferable twit!"

The bit about "sane" and "IQ over 50" was a purely illustrative
statement in the wake of Paul's incorrect "IIRC" recollection that I
had merely said "Wrong". Rather than wait for confirmation, Paul waded
in with a remark about how unhelpful that one-word reply was.

My comment was not directed at Paul at all, but only was meant to
counter the claim of "unhelpful." Note, I had given Paul the benefit
of the doubt and assumed he was really working off a false
recollection.

Contrary to Mitchell's highly biased tongue-lashing, I did NOT assume
Paul had deliberately misrepresented what I'd said, in order to
falsely accuse me of being unhelpful.

> the issue would never have come up. (Getting confused by the
> various just so stories, especially if not paying close attention, is
> quite credible.)

I'd like to see what "just so stories" this cryptic comment alludes
to.

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:17:16 -0500, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<403211a3-47ba-4c8a...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):

>
>> you are the nastiest, most over-self-
>> regarding
>> poster on T.O., beyond the clear bedlamites, like Prawnster  and
>> Nando.

That's obvious.

>
> You are completely ignorant of what Ron O is really like, then.

Oh, we know. We merely don't agree with you.

> AFAIK nobody
> but I gives a damn which of us is telling the truth;

Oh, we know that, too. And it ain't you.

> but if you were to count
> up the sheer number of accusations of lying, being a scumbag, etc. that have
> gone between us, you'd find it's Ron O, no contest.

Well... you _are_ a lying scumbag. The truth hurts, don't it?