Hell???? Lookee Here
vang...@gmx.us
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "vang...@gmx.us"
<vang...@gmx.us>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://hopalong.weebly.com/
No.
YADBP...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
pnyikos
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:44:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
> <vangu...@gmx.us>:
It's your usual unimaginative Universalist doctrine of "all will be
saved". I much prefer the doctrine espoused by C.S. Lewis in _The
Great Divorce_: all will be saved who want to be saved, and they have
plenty of time in the hereafter to make up their minds after seeing
hell and given lots of opportunities to see what heaven is like.
Peter Nyikos
John Harshman
make the latter choice? Is it that heaven is so boring that even eternal
torment starts to look good after a while?
Boikat
"Heaven is so boring..." You've seen the video, "The Saga of Biorn"
haven't you?
Boikat
pnyikos
_The Great Divorce_. It is just a place where people are unwilling to
go of some pet vices and so they stay there. It's a rather dismal
place the way he envisions it, and they know there is another world
where people seem happier and brighter, and they even visit it from
time to time, but to become a part of it, they have to let go of their
vices.
It's a fascinating book.
My view of hell, if thers is such a place, is somewhat similar, and my
long experience with Usenet has played a role in its evolution. There
are people on Usenet who are not only habitual liars, they actually
seem proud of their craftsmanship in making up particularly convincing
and cunning lies. These are the sorts who I think might make the
choice to go on sharpening their skills at lying rather than letting
go of the whole hobby and entering heaven.
Peter Nyikos
Ron O
stupid instead of cunning, but habitual fits nicely. I wouldn't ask
for documentation unless you want to shame yourself even more. What
are you currently running from? It wouldn't take me long to put up
the documentation. Your obvious projection must get to even you if
you believe that there is such a place as hell. Who do you think that
you are fooling? Would the intelligent designer who is keeping track
of such things be fooled by your bogus antics?
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:U4qdnewdhbt...@giganews.com:
and Death")?
You get to Heaven--and guess what, you're given a work assignment! The
major difference between Heaven and Earth is that in Heaven you're
guaranteed a job you'll enjoy doing. For the rest of eternity.
"You see? Some people would think it heavenly to be a file clerk."
-- Admitting Angel, "Stairway to Heaven"
-- Steven L.
John Vreeland
--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.
Boikat
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:U4qdnewdhbt...@giganews.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > pnyikos wrote:
> > > On Sep 19, 2:26 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:44:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "vangu...@gmx.us"
> > >> <vangu...@gmx.us>:
>
> > >>> http://hopalong.weebly.com/
> > >> No.
>
> > >> YADBP...
> > >> --
>
> > > It's your usual unimaginative Universalist doctrine of "all will be
> > > saved". I much prefer the doctrine espoused by C.S. Lewis in _The
> > > Great Divorce_: all will be saved who want to be saved, and they have
> > > plenty of time in the hereafter to make up their minds after seeing
> > > hell and given lots of opportunities to see what heaven is like.
>
> > Whatever could be the natures of heaven and hell such that anyone would
> > make the latter choice? Is it that heaven is so boring that even eternal
> > torment starts to look good after a while?
>
> Remember the 1945 movie "Stairway to Heaven" (a.k.a. "A Matter of Life
> and Death")?
>
> You get to Heaven--and guess what, you're given a work assignment! The
> major difference between Heaven and Earth is that in Heaven you're
> guaranteed a job you'll enjoy doing. For the rest of eternity.
Roman orgies under the most perverted of the Ceasers look tame.
Hmmmm..... I think I'll go off and "find religion" while I got the
chance....
>
> "You see? Some people would think it heavenly to be a file clerk."
> -- Admitting Angel, "Stairway to Heaven"
>
Walter Bushell
shovel on the job. They wouldn't call being a file clerk, working for a
living.
--
Ignorance is no protection against reality. -- Paul J Gans
hersheyh
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 2:26 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:44:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> <vang...@gmx.us>:
> >>
> >>
> >>> http://hopalong.weebly.com/
> >> No.
> >>
> >> YADBP...
> >> --
> >
> > It's your usual unimaginative Universalist doctrine of "all will be
> > saved". I much prefer the doctrine espoused by C.S. Lewis in _The
> > Great Divorce_: all will be saved who want to be saved, and they have
> > plenty of time in the hereafter to make up their minds after seeing
> > hell and given lots of opportunities to see what heaven is like.
>
> Whatever could be the natures of heaven and hell such that anyone would
> make the latter choice? Is it that heaven is so boring that even eternal
> torment starts to look good after a while?
pnyikos
anything; you seem to have this insane notion that I know some things
about the Discovery Institute that i don't know and haven't seen
credible evidence for, and so everything that does not square with
your fantasyabout me is supposed to be a "lie".
Why, you even accused me of lying when I wrote,
"Ron O posts this insane comment in defiance of EVERYTHING that
appears right in front of his very eyes."
And here is the context in which I wrote it. Note how much already
appeared in front of your very eyes when you wrote the thing to which
I responded as above:
___________________ begin repost_____________
> > > > > You claimed that the ID science was "premature."
> > > > If you really think this "claim" consituted an admission that "the ID
> > > > perps" were lying, you are insane.
> > Ron O is so desperate to evade the issue, he next asks a question to
> > which THE VERY NEXT THING was an answer:
And here comes Ron O's comment that is suggestive of full-blown
psychosis:
> Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted that the ID science wasn't
> ready to teach in the public schools.
Ron O posts this insane comment in defiance of EVERYTHING that
appears right in front of his very eyes. Already two posts ago, he
was leading up to this insanity with the following question:
> > > So you are claiming that you lied about the ID science being
> > > premature?
And here is that "VERY NEXT THING" that provides the answer to this
question:
> > > > I have consistently claimed that ID science is premature to teach in
> > > > the public schools as a rival to neo-Darwinism.
> > Why would a sane person think I was retracting this based on what I
> > wrote?
Note how even THIS question did not deter Ron O from making the
insane
claim that he made above!
[...]
Nor did this deter him from his insane comment:
> > > > If you think that
> > > > this claim of mine constitutes an admission by me that "the ID perps"
> > > > had been lying about being able to teach it in that way, you are
> > > > insane.
================== end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2
Now comes some pure hokum from you:
> I wouldn't ask
> for documentation unless you want to shame yourself even more. What
> are you currently running from? It wouldn't take me long to put up
> the documentation. Your obvious projection must get to even you if
> you believe that there is such a place as hell. Who do you think that
> you are fooling? Would the intelligent designer who is keeping track
> of such things be fooled by your bogus antics?
quite good at, so you do get high marks for "cunning dishonesty," but
not nearly as high as the person I had most in mind when I wrote what
I did above.
If you choose hell over heaven, I doubt it will be for this, but
rather for your maniacal hatred of the Discovery Institute and of some
people (including me, obviously) who stubbornly refuse to go along
with your "evidence."
You may find it very hard to let go of that, even in the hereafter, if
there is such a thing.
Peter Nyikos
> Ron Okimoto
daven...@gmail.com
viewing of the pains of hell mixed with a glance at heaven's joys will convince
most obnoxious sinners to leave off hatred toward heaven and encourage
a quick embrace of God and his ways.
Actually, for a long time I've addressed the question "Who will be saved and
when?" I propose God intends to separate the sheep from the goats
at death, as hitherto. The evil ones, the goats, will be assigned to a section of hell
where their particular main hang-up or ornery trait is matched by all other
occupants of the section. Thus, every one will dwell forever with those
just like themselves. This is not only an imaginative approach to
the parameters of God's eternal salvation, it suggests that one's eternal
destination will be filled with excitement and challenge. Of coarse, living
forever with some folk might not be exactly heaven.
Ron O
> On Sep 20, 7:36 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > long experience with Usenet has played a role in its evolution. There
> > > are people on Usenet who are not only habitual liars, they actually
> > > seem proud of their craftsmanship in making up particularly convincing
> > > and cunning lies. These are the sorts who I think might make the
> > > choice to go on sharpening their skills at lying rather than letting
> > > go of the whole hobby and entering heaven.
>
> > > Peter Nyikos
>
> > "Habitual liars." Most of your lies and bogus deeds are sort of
> > stupid instead of cunning, but habitual fits nicely.
>
> You are off in la-la land. You have never shown me to have lied about
> anything; you seem to have this insane notion that I know some things
> about the Discovery Institute that i don't know and haven't seen
> credible evidence for, and so everything that does not square with
> your fantasyabout me is supposed to be a "lie".
one out to la la land.
>
> Why, you even accused me of lying when I wrote,
>
> "Ron O posts this insane comment in defiance of EVERYTHING that
> appears right in front of his very eyes."
>
> And here is the context in which I wrote it. Note how much already
> appeared in front of your very eyes when you wrote the thing to which
> I responded as above:
again so instead of face what he had done he went back to some old
posts to dig up this gem and what does it matter? What is the point?
He can't deny that he has been caught lying repeatedly, so what is he
stuck doing. Nyikos needs to go back to the Dirty debating thread and
acknowledge who the dirty debater is.
The post below looks like one that he posted in the Dirty Debating
thread, but he also started a whole new thread to try this bogus
ploy. You have to look what he is running from to understand just how
bogus the point that he is trying to make is.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f2b726f7959acf77?hl=en
There are a lot more posts in the thread.
The post referring to this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d7d238a6073b949f?hl=en
Really, compared to the points in these posts what does Nyikos think
that he is accomplishing with his argument below? He is still an
habitual liar.
Ron Okimoto
John Stockwell
Peter is many things, bright, erudite, educated.
He is also a bully, pompous, arrogant, and basically somebody you
would not really
want to share an office with, assuming that his net-persona is
anything like the real
Peter.
I believe that Peter is simply mistaken about some things. For
example, I don't think that
he can tell the difference between storytelling and science,
sometimes. I find this also is
the case with many religious people. They take stories (I am not
referring only to those
in religious scripture) too seriously.
I do not believe that Peter is necessarily a "liar" but is more likely
in the category as being
excessively deluded as to his own importance in the fabric of reality.
-John
>
> The post below looks like one that he posted in the Dirty Debating
> thread, but he also started a whole new thread to try this bogus
> ploy. You have to look what he is running from to understand just how
> bogus the point that he is trying to make is.
>
John Stockwell
complete. We do
not know whether or not there is an afterlife, but what we do know is
that what remains
of you in this world are the reactions to your actions. Therefore,
the actions you take today
shape the legacy that you leave behind. It is not whether you will be
saved in some
hypothetical afterlife, but what have you done to help save what is
here on the
earth before you died?
>
> Peter Nyikos
Kermit
wrote:
Could be worse.
Kermit
RAM
>
> snip
T Pagano
<john.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 3:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 20, 7:36 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> SNIP:
>> Note that Nyikos was getting his butt kicked and was caught lying
>> again so instead of face what he had done he went back to some old
>> posts to dig up this gem and what does it matter? What is the point?
>> He can't deny that he has been caught lying repeatedly, so what is he
>> stuck doing. Nyikos needs to go back to the Dirty debating thread and
>> acknowledge who the dirty debater is.
>
>This seems to be a pretty strong accusation calling Peter a liar.
>
>Peter is many things, bright, erudite, educated.
>
>He is also a bully, pompous, arrogant, and basically somebody you
>would not really
>want to share an office with, assuming that his net-persona is
>anything like the real
>Peter.
>
>I believe that Peter is simply mistaken about some things. For
>example, I don't think that
>he can tell the difference between storytelling and science,
>sometimes. I find this also is
>the case with many religious people. They take stories (I am not
>referring only to those
>in religious scripture) too seriously.
that empirical "science" had proved that the Earth's angular momentum
changed as a result of large scale changes on the Earth's surface.
However, after a closer look at the sources we discovered that
empirical science had done no such thing. The "proof" was nothing
more than story-telling disguised in scientific language-----that is,
in a model which presumed as true that which was at issue..
>
>I do not believe that Peter is necessarily a "liar" but is more likely
>in the category as being
>excessively deluded as to his own importance in the fabric of reality.
>
>
>
>-John
This looks an awful lot like the pot calling the kettle. Must be an
epidemic.
Regards,
T Pagano
Glenn
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-mge1871b2qaja...@4ax.com...
feel the Earth move, even Dizzy.
RAM
knowledge. (I know it is redundant info; but it does seem
appropriate again) He can not be trusted to honestly debate, report
or discuss any issue.
pnyikos
> On Monday, September 19, 2011 5:44:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > pnyikos wrote:
> > > On Sep 19, 2:26 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:44:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "vang...@gmx.us"
> > >> <vang...@gmx.us>:
>
> > >>> http://hopalong.weebly.com/
> > >> No.
>
> > >> YADBP...
> > >> --
>
> > > It's your usual unimaginative Universalist doctrine of "all will be
> > > saved". I much prefer the doctrine espoused by C.S. Lewis in _The
> > > Great Divorce_: all will be saved who want to be saved, and they have
> > > plenty of time in the hereafter to make up their minds after seeing
> > > hell and given lots of opportunities to see what heaven is like.
>
> > Whatever could be the natures of heaven and hell such that anyone would
> > make the latter choice? Is it that heaven is so boring that even eternal
> > torment starts to look good after a while?
envisions it. The unpleasantness. of hell is largely self-imposed by
the inhabitants due to their own deficiencies, even more so than on
earth.
> Maybe individuals in both get a 2 week all-expenses paid vacation to the other once a year? Just to
> remind them what they are missing. But how long is a year when you got eternity?
_The Great Divorce_. But the traffic is one-way in that book: once
persons are "solid" in heaven, the only reason they would want to go
to hell is to persuade others. However, they do all their persuading
when the "ghosts" from hell are present in what to them is heaven.
Peter Nyikos
Glenn
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:57bca119-8bdd-4cc0...@o11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
John Harshman
> On Sep 21, 3:36 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, September 19, 2011 5:44:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>> On Sep 19, 2:26 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:44:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "vang...@gmx.us"
>>>>> <vang...@gmx.us>:
>>>>>> http://hopalong.weebly.com/
>>>>> No.
>>>>> YADBP...
>>>>> --
>>>> It's your usual unimaginative Universalist doctrine of "all will be
>>>> saved". I much prefer the doctrine espoused by C.S. Lewis in _The
>>>> Great Divorce_: all will be saved who want to be saved, and they have
>>>> plenty of time in the hereafter to make up their minds after seeing
>>>> hell and given lots of opportunities to see what heaven is like.
>>> Whatever could be the natures of heaven and hell such that anyone would
>>> make the latter choice? Is it that heaven is so boring that even eternal
>>> torment starts to look good after a while?
>
> There is no torment of the traditional sort in hell the way Lewis
> envisions it. The unpleasantness. of hell is largely self-imposed by
> the inhabitants due to their own deficiencies, even more so than on
> earth.
vision like Dante, or did he just make it all up?
Ron O
type of honor to have some blowhard liar like Nyikos quote mine you.
It may be even be funny, but it isn't very honorable to take advantage
of the "habitual" liar.;-)
Ron Okimoto
>
>
>
>
>
> > The post below looks like one that he posted in the Dirty Debating
> > thread, but he also started a whole new thread to try this bogus
> > ploy. You have to look what he is running from to understand just how
> > bogus the point that he is trying to make is.
>
John Stockwell
In Defence of
Peter Nyikos).
-John
>
>
>
> > snip
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by RAM
<ramat...@gmail.com>:
That's more than a bit obvious to anyone who reads anything
he posts, and to anyone who notes what he *doesn't* post
(specifically, response to questions he's uncomfortable with
or which demonstrate his errors).
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
<snip>
>...Stockwell, less than two months ago, claimed
>that empirical "science" had proved that the Earth's angular momentum
>changed as a result of large scale changes on the Earth's surface.
>However, after a closer look at the sources we discovered that
>empirical science had done no such thing. The "proof" was nothing
>more than story-telling disguised in scientific language-----that is,
>in a model which presumed as true that which was at issue..
Somehow I missed that "discovery". Cite?
Glenn
T Pagano
>> On Sep 23, 3:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 20, 7:36 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> SNIP:
>> Note that Nyikos was getting his butt kicked and was caught lying
>> again so instead of face what he had done he went back to some old
>> posts to dig up this gem and what does it matter? What is the point?
>> He can't deny that he has been caught lying repeatedly, so what is he
>> stuck doing. Nyikos needs to go back to the Dirty debating thread and
>> acknowledge who the dirty debater is.
>
>This seems to be a pretty strong accusation calling Peter a liar.
>
>Peter is many things, bright, erudite, educated.
>
>He is also a bully, pompous, arrogant, and basically somebody you
>would not really
>want to share an office with, assuming that his net-persona is
>anything like the real
>Peter.
>
>I believe that Peter is simply mistaken about some things. For
>example, I don't think that
>he can tell the difference between storytelling and science,
>sometimes. I find this also is
>the case with many religious people. They take stories (I am not
>referring only to those
>in religious scripture) too seriously.
that empirical "science" had proved that the Earth's angular momentum
changed as a result of large scale changes on the Earth's surface.
However, after a closer look at the sources we discovered that
empirical science had done no such thing. The "proof" was nothing
more than story-telling disguised in scientific language-----that is,
in a model which presumed as true that which was at issue..
>
>in the category as being
>excessively deluded as to his own importance in the fabric of reality.
>
>
>
>-John
Glenn
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:57bca119-8bdd-4cc0...@o11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:05:59 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
>
><snip>
>
>>...Stockwell, less than two months ago, claimed
>>that empirical "science" had proved that the Earth's angular momentum
>>changed as a result of large scale changes on the Earth's surface.
>>However, after a closer look at the sources we discovered that
>>empirical science had done no such thing. The "proof" was nothing
>>more than story-telling disguised in scientific language-----that is,
>>in a model which presumed as true that which was at issue..
>
>Somehow I missed that "discovery". Cite?
Thought so...
pnyikos
> On Sep 26, 11:39 am, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 11:52 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 23, 3:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 20, 7:36 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Habitual liars." Most of your lies and bogus deeds are sort of
> > > > > > stupid instead of cunning, but habitual fits nicely.
>
> > > > > You are off in la-la land. You have never shown me to have lied about
> > > > > anything;
he didn't deny or try to ameliorate anything I posted about him to
this thread.
And that was pretty damning. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb
and see how he utterly failed to confront the evidence of his own
insanity:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb
He left the evidence in at the bottom, after some hand-waving about a
few posts that I happen not to have responded to yet. And that is
because the crap they contain is nowhere near as damning of Ron O as
the insane behavior that I documented to this thread.
> > > > > you seem to have this insane notion that I know some things
> > > > > about the Discovery Institute that i don't know and haven't seen
> > > > > credible evidence for, and so everything that does not square with
> > > > > your fantasyabout me is supposed to be a "lie".
>
> > > > I think that anyone who would care to check knows that Nyikos is the
> > > > one out to la la land.
>
> > > > > Why, you even accused me of lying when I wrote,
>
> > > > > "Ron O posts this insane comment in defiance of EVERYTHING that
> > > > > appears right in front of his very eyes."
>
> > > > > And here is the context in which I wrote it. Note how much already
> > > > > appeared in front of your very eyes when you wrote the thing to which
> > > > > I responded as above:
damning evidence right below the long spiel I've described above. The
following is from that very post with that spiel:
> > > > Note that Nyikos was getting his butt kicked
documentation, nor even a factual description--or even a hint as to
what is being talked about?
[remainder of utterly phony description deleted]
> > > This seems to be a pretty strong accusation calling Peter a liar.
>
> > > Peter is many things, bright, erudite, educated.
>
> > > He is also a bully, pompous, arrogant, and basically somebody you
> > > would not really
> > > want to share an office with, assuming that his net-persona is
> > > anything like the real
> > > Peter.
that I have never in my adult life encountered anyone face to face who
behaved even one-tenth as despicably as Okimoto. And it is my good
fortune that I have never had to share an office, or even a Math
department, with someone who is as sneaky as John Stockwell.
And so, there is no need to repay people I know in the same coin with
which I repay either of these two bozos.
This is not their own coin, by the way, but as close to their own coin
as one can get and still be a just, fair, honest and responsible
person.
> > > I believe that Peter is simply mistaken about some things. For
> > > example, I don't think that
> > > he can tell the difference between storytelling and science,
> > > sometimes.
as to what concrete events (if any) he has in mind here.
> I find this also is
> > > the case with many religious people. They take stories (I am not
> > > referring only to those
> > > in religious scripture) too seriously.
>
> > > I do not believe that Peter is necessarily a "liar" but is more likely
> > > in the category as being
> > > excessively deluded as to his own importance in the fabric of reality.
think it's a safe bet that he considers himself to be a far, far more
important person than either (1) I consider myself to be or (2) he
considers me to be.
> > > -John
>
> > OOOOOOOOUUUUUWWWEEE You're listed man.
>
> I am actually defending Peter. I have defended him before (search on
> In Defence of
> Peter Nyikos).
"With defenders like these, who needs attackers?"
Don't get me wrong -- Stockwell isn't in the same league as Okimoto
when it comes to attacking me. But then, only a tiny handful of other
people are, and the others are off in the abortion newsgroups.
[Note the present tense. There is a talk.origins regular who attacked
me back in the 1990's even more dangerously than Okimoto has, but he
seems to have cleaned up his act to where he is only a minor nuisance
on rare occasions.]
Peter Nyikos
John Stockwell
concerned,
I really don't read what he writes. I am indifferent to Ron O.
>
> [Note the present tense. There is a talk.origins regular who attacked
> me back in the 1990's even more dangerously than Okimoto has, but he
> seems to have cleaned up his act to where he is only a minor nuisance
> on rare occasions.]
>
> Peter Nyikos
John Stockwell
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:52:41 -0700 (PDT), John Stockwell
>
Pagano has taken the principle that "religion makes you stupid" to a
new level.
pnyikos
> On Oct 4, 11:48嚙窮m, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 1:11 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 11:39 am, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 11:52 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 23, 3:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 20, 7:36 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > "Habitual liars." Most of your lies and bogus deeds are sort of
> > > > > > > > stupid instead of cunning, but habitual fits nicely.
>
> > > > > > > You are off in la-la land. You have never shown me to have lied about
> > > > > > > anything;
>
> > And note, folks, he didn't even make an effort on this thread. Also,
> > he didn't deny or try to ameliorate anything I posted about him to
> > this thread.
>
> > And that was pretty damning. See:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb
>
> > insanity:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb
>
> > He left the evidence in at the bottom, after some hand-waving about a
> > because the crap they contain is nowhere near as damning of Ron O as
> > the insane behavior that I documented to this thread.
>
> > > > > > > you seem to have this insane notion that I know some things
> > > > > > > about the Discovery Institute that i don't know and haven't seen
> > > > > > > credible evidence for, and so everything that does not square with
> > > > > > > your fantasyabout me is supposed to be a "lie".
>
> > > > > > I think that anyone who would care to check knows that Nyikos is the
> > > > > > one out to la la land.
>
> > > > > > > Why, you even accused me of lying when I wrote,
>
> > > > > > > "Ron O posts this insane comment in defiance of EVERYTHING that
> > > > > > > appears right in front of his very eyes."
>
> > > > > > > And here is the context in which I wrote it. Note how much already
> > > > > > > appeared in front of your very eyes when you wrote the thing to which
> > > > > > > I responded as above:
>
> > This was the last thing of mine to which Ron O commented, with all the
> > following is from that very post with that spiel:
>
> > > > > > Note that Nyikos was getting his butt kicked
>
> > How is anyone supposed to note something for which Ron O provides no
> > documentation, nor even a factual description--or even a hint as to
> > what is being talked about?
>
> > [remainder of utterly phony description deleted]
>
> > > > > This seems to be a pretty strong accusation calling Peter a liar.
>
> > > > > Peter is many things, bright, erudite, educated.
>
> > > > > He is also a bully, pompous, arrogant, and basically somebody you
> > > > > would not really
> > > > > want to share an office with, assuming that his net-persona is
> > > > > anything like the real
> > > > > Peter.
I take it from what Stockwell says below that he doesn't think of that
last sentence as an "attack". I wonder just what he DOES consider to
be an attack.
> > What Stockwell (intentionally?) fails to take into account here is
> > that I have never in my adult life encountered anyone face to face who
> > behaved even one-tenth as despicably as Okimoto. 嚙璀nd it is my good
> > fortune that I have never had to share an office, or even a Math
> > department, with someone who is as sneaky as John Stockwell.
>
> > And so, there is no need to repay people I know in the same coin with
> > which I repay either of these two bozos.
>
> > This is not their own coin, by the way, but as close to their own coin
> > as one can get and still be a just, fair, honest and responsible
> > person.
>
> > > > > I believe that Peter is simply mistaken about some things. For
> > > > > example, I don't think that
> > > > > he can tell the difference between storytelling and science,
> > > > > sometimes.
>
> > A typical Stockwell comment, without the slightest smidgin of a hint
> > as to what concrete events (if any) he has in mind here.
<crickets chirping>
> > > I find this also is
> > > > > the case with many religious people. They take stories (I am not
> > > > > referring only to those
> > > > > in religious scripture) too seriously.
>
> > > > > I do not believe that Peter is necessarily a "liar" but is more likely
> > > > > in the category as being
> > > > > excessively deluded as to his own importance in the fabric of reality.
>
> > Judging from what John has been saying about me all these years, I
> > think it's a safe bet that he considers himself to be a far, far more
> > important person than either (1) I consider myself to be or (2) he
> > considers me to be.
>
> > > > > -John
>
> > > > OOOOOOOOUUUUUWWWEEE You're listed man.
>
> > > I am actually defending Peter. I have defended him before (search on
> > > In Defence of
> > > Peter Nyikos).
>
> > And my reaction is, again, a minor variation on an old, old formula:
> > "With defenders like these, who needs attackers?"
>
> > Don't get me wrong -- Stockwell isn't in the same league as Okimoto
> > when it comes to attacking me. 嚙畿ut then, only a tiny handful of other
> > people are, and the others are off in the abortion newsgroups.
>
> I don't recall *ever* having attacked you, Peter.
Your "defenses" had quite a few attacks incorporated into them.
"excessively deluded" [see above] is a good example.
> As far as Okimoto is
> concerned,
> I really don't read what he writes. I am indifferent to Ron O.
Stay that way, and you will avoid a lot of inconvenience.
> > [Note the present tense. 嚙確here is a talk.origins regular who attacked
pnyikos
> On Sep 26, 11:52 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 23, 3:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 20, 7:36 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > SNIP:
> It could be some
> type of honor to have some blowhard liar like Nyikos quote mine you.
> It may be even be funny, but it isn't very honorable to take advantage
> of the "habitual" liar.;-)
>
> Ron Okimoto
mistake about that. You can already get an inkling of that here:
Subject: Insane "logic" from Ron O.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f3e2c442207abea
You can see the context of one of the insane comments below; Ron O
left it in below and slapped an unusually small amount of crud in
response to it above (and, in earlier posts, below).
There will be more documentation coming your way this week.
> > > The post below looks like one that he posted in the Dirty Debating
> > > thread, but he also started a whole new thread to try this bogus
> > > ploy. You have to look what he is running from to understand just how
> > > bogus the point that he is trying to make is.
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=e...
>
> > > There are a lot more posts in the thread.
>
> > > The post referring to this thread:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d7d238a6073b949f?hl=en
>
> > > Really, compared to the points in these posts what does Nyikos think
> > > that he is accomplishing with his argument below?
insane. I've left in the most relevant part of the quoted text
below.
Ron O's self-satisfaction is so pathologically close to self-worship
that such evidence is evidently nothing in his eyes compared to the
mountains of crud--none of it amounting to a hill of beans-- that he
has posted in retaliation for my exposing him as a liar and hypocrite.
>>> He is still an habitual liar.
>
> > > Ron Okimoto
will.
> > > > ___________________ begin repost_____________
>
> > > > > > > > > You claimed that the ID science was "premature."
> > > > > > > > If you really think this "claim" consituted an admission that "the ID
> > > > > > > > perps" were lying, you are insane.
> > > > > > Ron O is so desperate to evade the issue, he next asks a question to
> > > > > > which THE VERY NEXT THING was an answer:
>
> > > > And here comes Ron O's comment that is suggestive of full-blown
> > > > psychosis:
>
> > > > > Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted that the ID science wasn't
> > > > > ready to teach in the public schools.
>
> > > > Ron O posts this insane comment in defiance of EVERYTHING that
> > > > appears right in front of his very eyes. Already two posts ago, he
> > > > was leading up to this insanity with the following question:
>
> > > > > > > So you are claiming that you lied about the ID science being
> > > > > > > premature?
>
> > > > And here is that "VERY NEXT THING" that provides the answer to this
> > > > question:
>
> > > > > > > > I have consistently claimed that ID science is premature to teach in
> > > > > > > > the public schools as a rival to neo-Darwinism.
> > > > > > Why would a sane person think I was retracting this based on what I
> > > > > > wrote?
>
> > > > Note how even THIS question did not deter Ron O from making the
> > > > insane
> > > > claim that he made above!
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2
[two extra attribution marks appear above when compared to the
original]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Sep 26, 11:52�am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 3:18�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 23, 3:48�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 20, 7:36�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > SNIP:
> > > > > > My view of hell, if thers is such a place, is somewhat similar, and my
> > > > > > long experience with Usenet has played a role in its evolution. �There
> > > > > > are people on Usenet who are not only habitual liars, they actually
> > > > > > seem proud of their craftsmanship in making up particularly convincing
> > > > > > and cunning lies. �These are the sorts who I think might make the
> > > > > > choice to go on sharpening their skills at lying rather than letting
> > > > > > go of the whole hobby and entering heaven.
>
> > > > > > Peter Nyikos
Ron O could easily have stayed out of this thread, since I wasn't even
thinking of him when I wrote the above, but he decided to horn in with
some slander:
> > > > > "Habitual liars." �Most of your lies and bogus deeds are sort of
> > > > > stupid instead of cunning, but habitual fits nicely.
>
> > > > You are off in la-la land. �You have never shown me to have lied about
> > > > anything; you seem to have this insane notion that I know some things
> > > > about the Discovery Institute that i don't know and haven't seen
> > > > credible evidence for, and so everything that does not square with
> > > > your fantasyabout me is supposed to be a "lie".
>
> > > I think that anyone who would care to check knows that Nyikos is the
> > > one out to la la land.
This Pee Wee Hermanism is all Ron O can muster in "refutation" of what
I have written.
> > > > Why, you even accused me of lying when I wrote,
>
> > > > "Ron O posts this insane comment �in defiance of EVERYTHING that
> > > > appears right in front of his very eyes."
Ron O didn't even address the issue of this clear-cut example of a lie
by him.
> > > > And here is the context in which I wrote it. �Note how much already
> > > > appeared in front of your very eyes when you wrote the thing to which
> > > > I responded as above:
>
> > > Note that Nyikos was getting his butt kicked and was caught lying
> > > again
It is impossible to "note" any such thing, since Ron O has never been
able to prove a lie by me. Note how he didn't even ATTEMPT to show
anything like what he is saying anywhere in THIS thread. In other
threads he makes sporadic attempts, but almost all of his interminably
long drivel is Truth by Blatant Assertion.
> > >so instead of face what he had done he went back to some old
> > > posts to dig up this gem and what does it matter? �What is the point?
The point is that Ron O stuck his hate-crazed head into this thread
and slandered me (see above), so I am setting the record straight.
> > > He can't deny that he has been caught lying repeatedly,
Not onlly do I deny it, Ron O cannot prove it and isn't even trying to
prove it in this thread.
> > >so what is he
> > > stuck doing. �Nyikos needs to go back to the Dirty debating thread and
> > > acknowledge who the dirty debater is.
>
> > This seems to be a pretty strong accusation calling Peter a liar.
And utterly false.
[...]
> > I do not believe that Peter is necessarily a "liar" but is more likely
> > in the category as being
> > excessively deluded as to his own importance in the fabric of reality.
>
> > -John
>
> You are just bucking to be quote mined like Camp.
What Okimoto calls "quote mining" is me demonstrating that Camp does
NOT consider a certain quote to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt
that the Discovery Institute has "baited" the public school systems by
claiming that it has the science of Intelligent Design at such a ripe
stage that it is ready for teaching in the public schools as a rival
to the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
Okimoto keeps pretending that things Camp subsequently said about the
GOALS of the Discovery Institute somehow negated that demonstration.
This is typical of the madman that Okimoto has become: he slaps on any
old crud in response to things I say, crud having no relevance to what
I have said, and then pretends that this crud constitutes context
which has to be addressed if it is not to be considered as a
refutation of what I have written.
In this case, the crud consisted of a long spiel before Okimoto even
quoted Camp in full. The apparent intent was to get readers tired of
reading the crud so that they wouldn't read the Camp quote carefully
and see that what I demonstrated was in no way affected by the rest of
what Camp wrote.
If Okimoto replies to this post, I expect him to post more mountains
of crud alleging that I am a liar, that I have run away from his post
where he posted all that crud, and to AGAIN repost the whole Camp
quote as though that somehow negated what I demonstrated about Camp.
I also expect him to repost that quote from the DI, and call me insane
and a liar for not agreeing that the quote proves beyond a reasonable
doubt that the DI is claiming in the quote that it has the science of
Intelligent Design at such a ripe stage that it is ready for teaching
in the public schools as a rival to the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
Continued in next reply.
Peter Nyikos
Ron O
> On Sep 27, 7:20�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 26, 11:52�am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 3:18�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 23, 3:48�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 20, 7:36�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > SNIP:
>
> [picking up where I left off in previous reply:]
>
> > It could be some
> > type of honor to have some blowhard liar like Nyikos quote mine you.
> > It may be even be funny, but it isn't very honorable to take advantage
> > of the "habitual" liar.;-)
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> The habitual liar in our marathon debate is Ron Okimoto, make no
> mistake about that. �You can already get an inkling of that here:
You know who the habitual liar is or you wouldn't have put it forward
in one of your bouts of projection. It hasn't even been a marathon
debate. Just mostly you running in denial since the first post that
you ran from in December. You know it, you just have to lie to
yourself about it.
Why was it necessary to start a whole thread to run a misdirection
ploy?
Would you have to do something that bogus and dishonest if you were
not running in denial?
>
> Subject: Insane "logic" from Ron O.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f3e2c442207abea
My response to this post. You can see how Nyikos responded to this
response. In fact he snipped out most of the material and then lied
later about not getting a direct response to the post. You can't make
this junk up. He didn't just snip out the historical material, but
the direct response.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26
Nyikos' pathetic response:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aa7043398630a8b4
Sad, but he just snipped and ran.
Nyikos lying about not getting a direct rebuttal:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f9bdd0c040442627
QUOTE:
Since my post, to which you have still not posted any kind of direct
rebuttal, is very factual, you have just now shown that you are both
whining and lying:
END QUOTE:
Nyikos told this lie after making the pathetic snip and run response
above, so he knew about my post he just had to lie about it for some
stupid reason.
>
> You can see the context of one of the insane comments below; Ron O
> left it in below and slapped an unusually small amount of crud in
> response to it above (and, in earlier posts, below).
>
> There will be more documentation coming your way this week.
More lies and prevarication and running in denial in Nyikos' future.
The insanity defense is all Nyikos has left.
>
> > > > The post below looks like one that he posted in the Dirty Debating
> > > > thread, but he also started a whole new thread to try this bogus
> > > > ploy. �You have to look what he is running from to understand just how
> > > > bogus the point that he is trying to make is.
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=e...
>
> > > > There are a lot more posts in the thread.
>
> > > > The post referring to this thread:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d7d238a6073b949f?hl=en
>
> > > > Really, compared to the points in these posts what does Nyikos think
> > > > that he is accomplishing with his argument below?
The formatting seems to have gotten messed up and some of the links
can't be used. If anyone wants to see what the argument was they have
to go to the origial post.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2848dc624ba00e07
>
> What I am accomplishing is giving powerful evidence that Ron O. is
> insane. � I've left in the most relevant part of the quoted text
> below.
Beats me what Nyikos thinks that he is doing. He took a quote from
April out of context to try to make some lame point about it when he
had to run from getting caught lying about some stupid things in the
dirty debating thread. What is the point that he is trying to make in
this thread? Even if it were valid, what would it mean, compared to
what Nyikos is running from? Nyikos can explain that at his leisure,
and then we can discuss sanity.
>
> �Ron O's self-satisfaction is so pathologically close to self-worship
> that such evidence is evidently nothing in his eyes compared to the
> mountains of crud--none of it amounting to a hill of beans-- that he
> has posted in retaliation for my exposing him as a liar and hypocrite.
It isn't self satisfaction, it is only stating the facts. You keep
blowing it and have to run away. How well did the dirty debating
thread work out for you when you started it to run from the original
thread and the misdirection thread? What about the Scottish verdict
thread that you started to run from your bogus deeds that you
committed in the dirty debating thread? What about the Insane logic
thread that you started to run from those pesky Sept 4 posts? This is
all history and it isn't going to go away just because you want to run
in denial.
What have I lied about? You claim that I am lying in a quote that you
purposely removed from its context from inside a summary paragraph
that was summarizing an entire post. You knew what I meant by it, but
how did you portray it? Did not I then defend the quote in the same
way that I had used it in that original post? What did you do when I
found the context and quoted it to you? Didn't you snip and run? So
what did I do wrong? Explain it in your own words.
>
> >>> He is still an habitual liar.
>
> > > > Ron Okimoto
>
> Okimoto has not demonstrated a single intentional lie by me, and never
> will.
Well I just documented one responding to you above about your lie
about not getting "any kind of direct rebuttal." What about the Sept
4 posts where you got caught in the lie about the Scottish verdict
quote being the "ONLY" evidence that I gave to you? Isn't it sad that
I only had to look up a post from April that you had run from, and
another post where I had linked back to that April post, but you
snipped out the link and ran again, and the post where I put in
similar evidence that you had run from also?
One of the Sept 4 posts that Nyikos is running from:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=en
QUOTE:
> It never even OCCURRED to me that the quote of which you are so
> inordinately fond is the ONLY documentation you have for the claim
> that the DI is running a bait and switch.
It isn't the ONLY documentation. Why lie like this. You have gotten
other evidence multiple times about the ID perps selling the rubes
that they had the ID science to teach in the public schools before
the
bait and switch went down. That shouldn't even be needed because the
ID perps do not deny selling the rubes the ID scam. They only claim
that they never wanted it mandated to be taught. From the first time
that I put up this quote I claimed that it was only evidence that the
ID perps were still claiming to be able to teach the bogus ID scam
junk. I have even put up their current claims on their official web
site with the same claim.
Posts where Nyikos has gotten other documentation about the ID perps
selling the rubes that they had the ID science to teach in the public
schools:
From back in April:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4dea96d935b7522c?hl=en
This is where I link back to this post in response to one of Nyikos'
denials. Nyikos responded to this post, but snipped out the link and
response and ran.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/402dde0861d6785e?hl=e...
END QUOTE:
The material continues with an extensive quote of the relevant
material and another link to where similar evidence had been given to
Nyikos.
Not a single lie? My guess is that Nyikos is going to throw a fit
about "intentional lie"
It is obvious that Nyikos got the evidence that he claimed. Even if
he had missed the post instead of running from it, he did not miss the
link back to it because he snipped it out and ran. Not only that, but
there were other posts with similar evidence provided. He may have
the insanity defense and claim that he can't help himself, but the
lies are intentional. He even told the "ONLY" lie multiple times, so
he can't claim that it was just a slip. Not only that, but he had
been given the Wedge document, and material about the Ohio bait and
switch scam.
He has made some stupid mistakes like lying about me running from a
post for three whole days when he had posted the post to another
poster and there was no reason why I would know about it. He runs
from that lie because it makes him look bad when anyone can look back
through the threads and see that Nyikos had run from some posts for
weeks when he claimed that I had been running for three days. He made
up a lie that he told Bill that could have been a stupid mistake, but
he never apologized about it nor admitted that he had made the stupid
blunder. He just ran away and started the Scottish verdict thread to
rag on me and prevaricate about something else.
Do I have to go into your lies involving what you snip out and lie
about? What about the Meyer quote and link that you snipped out and
lied about twice before running away for good? You tried to lie about
snipping out the Scottish verdict quote and lying about it multiple
times, but I just had to put up the posts where you had done just
that. Then you claimed that you had never lied about the quote even
though you had snipped it out multiple times, but what did you write
after you snipped it out? If you had just snipped and run you might
be able to claim that you did not lie about the quote, but you didn't
just do that in those instances. Even snipping it out would have been
tragically dishonest. Get back to those posts instead of running away
if you think that you can defend your bogus actions.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
Ron O
> On Sep 27, 7:20嚙窮m, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 26, 11:52嚙窮m, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 3:18嚙緘m, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 23, 3:48嚙緘m, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 20, 7:36嚙窮m, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > SNIP:
> > > > > > > My view of hell, if thers is such a place, is somewhat similar, and my
> > > > > > > are people on Usenet who are not only habitual liars, they actually
> > > > > > > seem proud of their craftsmanship in making up particularly convincing
> > > > > > > choice to go on sharpening their skills at lying rather than letting
> > > > > > > go of the whole hobby and entering heaven.
>
> > > > > > > Peter Nyikos
>
> Ron O could easily have stayed out of this thread, since I wasn't even
> thinking of him when I wrote the above, but he decided to horn in with
> some slander:
Google seems to be corrupting this post in weird ways. It looks like
this before I hit reply.
Nyikos means that I told the truth about him. Slander is what Nyikos
does to others, but projection is a way of life for him.
>
> > > > > > "Habitual liars." 嚙瞎ost of your lies and bogus deeds are sort of
> > > > > > stupid instead of cunning, but habitual fits nicely.
>
> > > > > You are off in la-la land. 嚙磐ou have never shown me to have lied about
> > > > > anything; you seem to have this insane notion that I know some things
> > > > > about the Discovery Institute that i don't know and haven't seen
> > > > > credible evidence for, and so everything that does not square with
> > > > > your fantasyabout me is supposed to be a "lie".
>
> > > > I think that anyone who would care to check knows that Nyikos is the
> > > > one out to la la land.
>
> This Pee Wee Hermanism is all Ron O can muster in "refutation" of what
> I have written.
Who was documented to be the liar in the response to your last post
above?
>
> > > > > Why, you even accused me of lying when I wrote,
>
> > > > > "Ron O posts this insane comment 嚙箠n defiance of EVERYTHING that
> > > > > appears right in front of his very eyes."
>
> Ron O didn't even address the issue of this clear-cut example of a lie
> by him.
What am I supposed to be lying about. You may have to supply some
context. If you want to respond to this post go back up the thread
and try again. John Stockwell cut the post in half and you need the
other half to figure out what I am claiming.
>
> > > > > And here is the context in which I wrote it. 嚙瞇ote how much already
> > > > > appeared in front of your very eyes when you wrote the thing to which
> > > > > I responded as above:
>
> > > > Note that Nyikos was getting his butt kicked and was caught lying
> > > > again
I put links in after this, but Nyikos likes to manipulate posts like
this. He likely chose this post to have flashbacks so that he could
make these inane comments and make it look like he has an argument.
>
> It is impossible to "note" any such thing, since Ron O has never been
> able to prove a lie by me. 嚙瞇ote how he didn't even ATTEMPT to show
> anything like what he is saying 嚙窮nywhere in THIS thread. 嚙瘢n other
> threads he makes sporadic attempts, but almost all of his interminably
> long drivel is Truth by Blatant Assertion.
>
> > > >so instead of face what he had done he went back to some old
> > > > posts to dig up this gem and what does it matter? 嚙磕hat is the point?
>
> The point is that Ron O stuck his hate-crazed head into this thread
> and slandered me (see above), so I am setting the record straight.
Go back to the post that was linked to and set me straight instead of
running.
>
> > > > He can't deny that he has been caught lying repeatedly,
>
> Not onlly do I deny it, Ron O cannot prove it and isn't even trying to
> prove it in this thread.
Go up one response and lie again.
>
> > 嚙� 嚙�so what is he
> > > > stuck doing. 嚙瞇yikos needs to go back to the Dirty debating thread and
> > > > acknowledge who the dirty debater is.
>
> > > This seems to be a pretty strong accusation calling Peter a liar.
>
> And utterly false.
Another lie. Nyikos is racking them up fast.
This is the missing part of the post and I do address what Nyikos
quoted.
QUOTE:
The post below looks like one that he posted in the Dirty Debating
thread, but he also started a whole new thread to try this bogus
ploy. You have to look what he is running from to understand just
how
bogus the point that he is trying to make is.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f2b726f7959acf77?hl=en
There are a lot more posts in the thread.
The post referring to this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d7d238a6073b949f?hl=en
Really, compared to the points in these posts what does Nyikos think
that he is accomplishing with his argument below? He is still an
habitual liar.
Ron Okimoto
END QUOTE:
>
> [...]
>
> > > I do not believe that Peter is necessarily a "liar" but is more likely
> > > in the category as being
> > > excessively deluded as to his own importance in the fabric of reality.
>
> > > -John
>
> > You are just bucking to be quote mined like Camp.
>
> What Okimoto calls "quote mining" is me demonstrating that Camp does
> NOT consider a certain quote to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt
> that the Discovery Institute has "baited" the public school systems by
> claiming that it has the science of Intelligent Design at such a ripe
> stage that it is ready for teaching in the public schools as a rival
> to the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
What Nyikos has consistently snipped out and lied about is that he cut
off the Camp quote at the "But" statement. This is classic quote
mining. Something so dishonest that you wonder why anyone would even
try it in a forum where you can just go back to the original post and
put the material back in. When I did put the material back in Nyikos
has just snipped it out again. You can't make this junk up.
This is Nyikos Quote mining Camp. I had put up the full relevant
material, but Nyikos removed all but the first sentence literally
cutting the statement off at the point where Camp wrote "But."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a13f11d8227783e7?hl=en
QUOTE:
BINGO! The quote is NOT much hard evidence, in the words of Robert
Camp which Ron O obligingly reposts below.
> QUOTE:
> Yeah, I don't think so. You are correct that there isn't much hard
> evidence as to the DI's position on teaching ID in schools.
There you have it. That quote, and a more recent statement
paraphrasing it that Ron are the ONLY piece of documentation of
"bait" that Ron O. has posted in attempting to support his
allegation,
repeated *ad nauseam,* that the DI is running a bait and switch scam.
Even he knows that without bait, there is no bait and switch scam.
The rest of the quote from Camp went off on a separate issue, which
Ron O latched onto for dear life, and small wonder: he has never had
a
rational argument for his strained interpretation of the quote above,
from the DI website.
END QUOTE:
I left in Nyikos' obvious lie about the rest of the Camp quote that he
had deleted. Camp was agreeing with me and even indicated that ID had
been a bogus ploy from the very beginning, and that the ID perps had
run it that way on purpose.
This is the full Camp quote. Check out where Nyikos cut off what Camp
wrote in the first paragraph.
QUOTE:
Yeah, I don't think so. You are correct that there isn't much hard
evidence as to the DI's position on teaching ID in schools. But it's
not because Ron is wrong about their goals, it's because of the
methods this iteration of creationism has chosen to further their
goals.
The CIA is a useful analogue. They have a mandate regarding
international relations, just as does the Foreign Service or the
Diplomatic Corps. But unlike the latter two, the mission of the CIA
does not include leaving clues as to their activities. Their
operations are intended to be covert. After the failures of cases
like Edwards v. Aguillard it became clear to a set of creation
science
advocates that their future efforts would need to be more
"fingerprint-free" if you will. So they set about designing a movement
with the goal of diminishing the scope of and respect for evolutionary
biology
while at the same time creating room for their more, shall we say,
spiritual alternative. These goals are plainly explained in the Wedge
Document (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) that you
so blithely dismiss. This is a fingerprint they very desperately wish
had been erased.
If you think the analogy with the CIA, along with my analysis of
their motives, is overwrought all you need to do is familiarize
yourself
with the issue of "cdesign proponetsists" (http://pandasthumb.org/
archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html). And this brings us to the
subject of your thread.
END QUOTE:
You can find my full response here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3c8d3f3f728062b8?hl=en
Usually the bogus perpetrator does the dirty quote mining in a book or
article where the quoted material can't be check, but Nyikos did the
dirty deed when you just have to go up a post and see how he
manipulated the post. The way Nyikos works is that he snips out
material and pretends that it doesn't matter. He likely gets away
with it because people do not take the time to try to figure out what
he did to the post. I have to keep several windows open to determine
what Nyikos is lying about. Just read what Camp wrote. Nyikos knows
what it says in the Wedge document. He can only prevaricate about
it. What does Nyikos think that the creationists have been trying to
do all these years except get their junk into the public school
education system.
>
> Okimoto keeps pretending that things Camp subsequently said about the
> GOALS of the Discovery Institute somehow negated that demonstration.
You quote mined and got caught.
I put in the full quote so that anyone can make up their own mind.
Camp is actually agreeing with me. What do you think that the "But"
means, and the rest of the post where he links the ID scam to
creationism and indicates that it was run as a scam from the very
beginning? Before Nyikos tries to make a big deal about scam that is
my word for what the ID perps did and not Camp's. Camp's example was
a covert CIA operation. The general public would call it a scam.
>
> This is typical of the madman that Okimoto has become: he slaps on any
> old crud in response to things I say, crud having no relevance to what
> I have said, and then pretends that this crud constitutes context
> which has to be addressed if it is not to be considered as a
> refutation of what I have written.
Habitual liar. Nyikos' self description, but it is likely more
pathological than that.
>
> In this case, the crud consisted of a long spiel before Okimoto even
> quoted Camp in full. 嚙確he apparent intent was to get readers tired of
> reading the crud so that they wouldn't read the Camp quote carefully
> and see that what I demonstrated was in no way affected by the rest of
> what Camp wrote.
>
> If Okimoto replies to this post, I expect him to post more mountains
> of crud alleging that I am a liar, that I have run away from his post
> where he posted all that crud, and to 嚙璀GAIN repost the whole Camp
> quote as though that somehow negated what I demonstrated about Camp.
Poor guy. It would all be true, but I just posted the link to my old
response so that you can snip and run again.
>
> I also expect him to repost that quote from the DI, and call me insane
> and a liar for not agreeing that the quote proves beyond a reasonable
> doubt that the DI is claiming in the quote that it has the science of
> Intelligent Design at such a ripe stage that it is ready for teaching
> in the public schools as a rival to the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
>
> Continued in next reply.
>
> Peter Nyikos
I gave a link in the previous post to my response that you lied about
my never making, and the quotes that you are lying about are in the
link. Here it is again. So that you have another opportunity to lie
about it.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26?hl=en
Ron Okimoto
pnyikos
> On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 7:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 11:52 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 23, 3:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 20, 7:36 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > SNIP:
>
> > [picking up where I left off in previous reply:]
>
> > > It could be some
> > > type of honor to have some blowhard liar like Nyikos quote mine you.
> > > It may be even be funny, but it isn't very honorable to take advantage
> > > of the "habitual" liar.;-)
>
> > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > The habitual liar in our marathon debate is Ron Okimoto, make no
> > mistake about that. You can already get an inkling of that here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f3e2c442207abea
> in one of your bouts of projection.
have...." is PROOF that I know who the habitual liar is. Of course,
he is pretending here that I am the one.
I wonder if he is insane enough to think that calling my accusations
of his dishonesty and insanity (and evidence, but most of it is on
other threads, like the one linked above) "projection" is enough to
show that those accusations are false.
> It hasn't even been a marathon debate.
forth between us since December. Apparently Okimoto is so sure of
his "godlike" infallibility that he refuses even to acknowlege that
this was a "debate."
The evidence of his insanity just keeps piling up.
> Just mostly you running in denial since the first post that
> you ran from in December.
according to his satisfaction. "denial" is his code for the "according
to his satisfaction" portion.
Already back in December, he actually accused me of "running from this
thread" when I was busy discussing all kinds of things with others
right on the same thread, and was ALSO sporadically replying to his
own posts.
Back then I thought it was just a matter of unfamiliarity with the
use of the word "thread" but now I'm wondering whether Ron O is so
insanely self-centered that he considers not replying to him on his
own timetable on the same thread constitutes "running away from the
thread."
>You know it, you just have to lie to yourself about it.
evidence, and that everyone must accept the ridiculous falsehood it
contains because he is the "godlike" Ron O.
> Why was it necessary to start a whole thread to run a misdirection
> ploy?
his dishonesty and hypocrisy, and now insanity. In his pathologically
self-centered mind, all this evidence can be discounted because it
distracts from the issues HE considers paramount.
I start new threads when (1) I have fresh evidence of these "Okimoto-
trivial" traits of Ron O and
(2) the threads we are participating in have entered "garbage time,"
when almost everyone else has stopped participating, and Ron O just
keeps slapping on all kinds of silly crud while pretending that he is
refuting me.
Note how strongly (2) applies: even after I posted this latest
"misdirection ploy," I kept responding right on the ONE thread that we
had been arguing on for two solid months previously. And for those
two months, the only other participant was Ernest Major, and he has
finally abandoned that thead too.
And (1) applies too, because that fresh evidence came directly from
the same thread. What's more, Ron O kept on providing fresh
evidence of his insanity on the old thread all the way to October 1.
And I will go on responding to him on that thread when I find the time
for it, for this very reason.
> Would you have to do something that bogus and dishonest if you were
> not running in denial?
is here relying on a sickeningly self-serving piece of "logic" that
fits in perfectly with his mentally unbalanced state:
1. It is a misdirection ploy to give powerful evidence that Ron O is
insane, and a hypocrite, and a pathological liar given to documentable
slander, as long as demands of Ron O to deal with something he has
written have not yet been met.
2. Nyikos keeps giving fresh evidence of the above traits, of which
Ron O evidently is not the least bit ashamed.
3. Ron O shows no signs of EVER stopping with the mountains of claims
that he deems it necessary for me to deal with. In fact, they
multiply like rabbits.
4. Misdirection ploys are dishonest.
5. Therefore, Nyikos is dishonest.
pnyikos
> On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 27, 7:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
[picking up where I left off in previous reply:]
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f3e2c442207abea
>
> My response to this post. You can see how Nyikos responded to this
> response. In fact he snipped out most of the material and then lied
> later about not getting a direct response to the post.
word I used was "rebuttal" [see below] and it referred to the actual
CONTENTS of the post rather than to the post itself.
>You can't make this junk up.
complimenting you thereby: only someone as mentally unbalanced as Ron
O can make up the junk he makes up all the time, including the half-
truth about "direct response to the post."
>He didn't just snip out the historical material, but
> the direct response.
response" below. A genuine rebuttal it ain't.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26
[snip something I will respond to in a few minutes]
Now watch Ron O backpedal from his half-truth that I called him on up
there:
> Nyikos lying about not getting a direct rebuttal:
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f9bdd0c040442627
> QUOTE:
> Since my post, to which you have still not posted any kind of direct
> rebuttal, is very factual, you have just now shown that you are both
> whining and lying:
> END QUOTE:
>
> Nyikos told this lie after making the pathetic snip and run response
> above, so he knew about my post
of the whole post, which was Ron O's grotesque lie that I had
"admitted" something that is utterly counter to everything I have ever
posted--(III) below.
__________ begin reply to a portion of that post___________
> > (I) Nyikos has admitted that the Discovery Institute (DI) does not
> > have its ID science in a form suitable for teaching in the public
> > schools.
>
> > (II) Okimoto has proven that the DI has claimed to have its ID science
> > in that very form.
This is something I have consistently denied; in fact, the the
evidence is so poor, that Ron O has not been able to argue logically
for it --he just keeps crazily insisting that two quotes prove it so
completely that anyone who denies that they prove it is insane, and a
liar. You see him doing it at the end of this post.
> > (III) Therefore, Nyikos has admittted that the DI was lying about
> > this.
>
> It isn't so much as proving anything, but acknowledging reality.
> Nyikos did admit that ID was just a scam
This simple reiteration of Ron O's grotesque lie is just about all the
"rebuttal" that he provided for his use of the word "admitted" being
utterly inappropriate.
Were this grotesque lie true, it would instantly render hundreds of
things that I have written as pure lies. That is why I have
repeatedly labeled it a "vile slander", and because there isn't a
smidgin of truth to it.
> and that there was no ID
> science ready to teach in the public schools.
This much is true, and the above repost shows Ron O's insane
insisence that I was trying to deny THAT despite the context fairly
crying out to him that I was standing by this GENUINE admission.
> It is a no brainer that
> the ID perps ran the teach ID scam
Evidently by this Ron O means (II) above.
> for years before they ran the bait
> and switch and that they are still running the teach ID scam, they
> just claim that they never wanted ID mandated to be taught.
This "no brainer" is something for which Ron O has never been able to
muster anything but two cherry-picked, out of context quotes referred
to above, that don't even directly claim anything like what (II) says
they claim.
> he just had to lie about it for some
> stupid reason.
accusation is actually evidence for his claim in (III) above.
Remainder deleted, to be replied to later if necessary.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
little bit of context added:
> > Subject: Insane "logic" from Ron O.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f3e2c442207abea
>
> My response to this post.
I dealt with the above rewriting of Usenet history, including a bit of
specific detail, in reply to Earle Jones:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/da899450da6efdaf
And I will continue dealing with it in detail as time permits,
including the direct response I gave in the reply of some minutes
ago. A direct reply comes below to yet another piece of insane
"logic" by Ron O in that rewriting of Usenet history.
So far from being pathetic, it opened a new phase in our marathon
debate, and is worth quoting in full because Ron O has acted in post
after post as if he did not to know how his treatment of Ray Martinez
had anything to do "with the price of eggs in China," as he colorfully
put it the first time around.
_____________ begin included post__________
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Insane "logic" from Ron O.
On Sep 24, 10:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
[snip gargantuan piece of almost pure drivel]
You don't seem to realize what a corner you have painted yourself
into, Ron O. I have a *prima facie* case for you being insane in the
link that was already provided in the first post to this thread, and I
have provided an even more direct link a few minutes ago along with
the quote that set this case off.
And so, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS FOR RAY MARTINEZ, whom you have accused
of being insane, I can if I so choose ignore anything you say about
me, until one of the following occurs:
(1) You give a satisfactory explanation of how you came to be making
that claim, so stongly suggestive of insanity, that
"Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted
that the ID science wasn't ready
For the context, see the following post along with the link provided
in it to the post where it originally appeared:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb
or
(2) You document even more clear evidence of Ray Martinez's insanity
than I have provided of yours.
Peter Nyikos
================= end of post archived
at http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aa7043398630a8b4
> Sad, but he just snipped and ran.
applies to his treatment of Martinez. But I am past caring about
whether he realizes it or not. The policy is in force, and I am only
addressing those things of Ron O's that I choose to address.
Ron O, pathologically self-righteous and self-centered person that he
is, hasn't even tried to meet condition (2), and his attempts to meet
condition (1) have been so pathetic that an average 8 year old could
see right through them.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Oct 10, 11:07�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> I deal with something I snipped out from my previous reply, with a
> little bit of context added:
>
> > > Subject: Insane "logic" from Ron O.
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f3e2c442207abea
>
> > My response to this post. �
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26
>
> I dealt with the above rewriting of Usenet history, including a bit of
> specific detail, �in reply to Earle Jones:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/da899450da6efdaf
>
> And I will continue dealing with it in detail as time permits,
> including the direct response I gave in the reply of some minutes
> ago. �A direct reply comes below to yet another piece of insane
> "logic" by Ron O in that rewriting of Usenet history.
I snipped that "direct reply to yet another..." out because it was
making the post too long. I then posted it in direct reply to the
post whose url Ron O gave above:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/af78317b2f7e9f8c
Peter Nyikos
Ron O
> On Oct 10, 11:07�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 27, 7:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 11:52 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 23, 3:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 20, 7:36 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > > SNIP:
>
> > > [picking up where I left off in previous reply:]
>
> > > > It could be some
> > > > type of honor to have some blowhard liar like Nyikos quote mine you.
> > > > It may be even be funny, but it isn't very honorable to take advantage
> > > > of the "habitual" liar.;-)
>
> > > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > > The habitual liar in our marathon debate is Ron Okimoto, make no
> > > mistake about that. You can already get an inkling of that here:
>
> Subject: Insane "logic" from Ron O.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f3e2c442207abea
This is getting lame. This is my response to this post and all Nyikos
did is snip and run and then later lie that I did not make a rebuttal
to his post. I don't know why Nyikos constantly wants to get his face
rubbed in his bogus and dishonest behavior.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26
Nyikos lying even though you can check out this post and see that he
had already snipped and run from my rebuttal.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f9bdd0c040442627
QUOTE:
Since my post, to which you have still not posted any kind of direct
rebuttal, is very factual, you have just now shown that you are both
whining and lying:
END QUOTE:
Nyikos going back and trying to rebut the rebuttal that he claims was
not made. He did it by snipping out most of the rebuttal part of the
post and not just the historical part to keep lying about the issues.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/af78317b2f7e9f8c
My response to this pathetic snip job.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04b1a972cd519762
Nyikos is the one that wants to keep having flashbacks to his bogus
deeds.
>
> > You know who the habitual liar is or you wouldn't have put it forward
> > in one of your bouts of projection.
>
> I wonder if Ron O is insane enough to think that "you wouldn't
> have...." is PROOF that I know who the habitual liar is. �Of course,
> he is pretending here that I am the one.
Projection is a way of life for Nyikos. It is a sign of insanity.
Just watch how he writes about other people and then go back to what
he has been caught doing himself. Try to figure out what is so bad
about what Nyikos is going on about in the Insane "logic" thread when
Nyikos had to reach back to April to pull a quote of mine out of
context from the middle of a summary paragraph at the end of his post,
and compare it to what Nyikos has been running from for the past 9
months.
>
> I wonder if he is insane enough to think that calling my accusations
> of his dishonesty and insanity (and evidence, but most of it is on
> other threads, like the one linked above) "projection" is enough to
> show that those accusations are false.
This is the same guy that just got caught lying about lying. You
can't make this junk up.
It is sort of sad that, that was in the post that Nyikos is supposed
to be responding to here. We will see how Nyikos does.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04cf1b1303482a10?hl=en
Anyone interested has to keep two or more windows open to determine
what Nyikos is lying about and how he is manipulating the post. I
have to do that.
>
> >�It hasn't even been a marathon debate.
>
> There have been well over a myriad (ten thousand) lines of back and
> forth between us since December. �Apparently Okimoto is so sure of
> his �"godlike" infallibility that he refuses even to acknowlege that
> this was a "debate."
Snipping and running, starting new bogus threads to run from your
bogus behavior and empty denial do not make much of a debate.
I do give a brief history in the post that I have already linked to at
the start of this post.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26
Nyikos can try to contest the facts at his leisure.
>
> The evidence of his insanity just keeps piling up.
Projection is a sign of insanity.
>
> >�Just mostly you running in denial since the first post that
> > you ran from in December. �
>
> "ran from" is Ron O's code for not replying on his timetable and
> according to his satisfaction. "denial" is his code for the "according
> to his satisfaction" portion.
If anyone wants to go to the threads linked to in the history portion
of the post they will see that Nyikos has been the runner. I
basically only respond to his posts, so if he doesn't want to run from
his bogus behavior he should just stop posting, or posting to other
posters and lying about me. How did that lie you told Bill in the
dirty debating thread work out for you, Nyikos? Who was the dirty
debater in that thread? Who ran from his bogus behavior and started
the Scottish verdict thread? Running is a way of life for Nyikos.
>
> Already back in December, he actually accused me of "running from this
> thread" when I was busy discussing all kinds of things with others
> right on the same thread, and was ALSO sporadically replying to his
> own posts.
Nyikos can't deny that he ran from the post in question. He was
linked back to it several times. Part of the material in the post was
requoted in multiple posts, but as sad as it may seem Nyikos snipped
out the relevant parts of the quote and lied about it twice. The same
relevant material twice before running for good from any attempts to
get him to acknowledge that bogus deed. Dishonest snipping and lying
could have been an accident the first time, but twice, snipping out
the same material and leaving the same part, will tell anyone why
Nyikos had to run from the original post.
>
> �Back then I thought it was just a matter of unfamiliarity with the
> use of the word "thread" but now I'm wondering whether Ron O is so
> insanely self-centered that he considers not replying to him on his
> own timetable on the same thread constitutes "running away from the
> thread."
Lie but do you really believe that yourself? In the end it is only
between you and your intelligent designer, and you know how bogus you
are.
Projection is a sign of insanity.
I have no time table. Nyikos can try to come up with one. I have the
patience of Job compared to Nyikos. Nyikos claimed that I was running
from a post of his for three whole days when he had been running from
some posts for weeks (possibly months) by that time. Nyikos' time
table was three days. Not only that, but the boob had posted the post
to someone else and there was no reason why I should have known about
it to respond to it. Can Nyikos say what my timetable is? I just
keep reminding him that there are these posts back to December that
need his attention. Instead of multiplying threads why not go back
and address them?
>
> >You know it, you just have to lie to yourself about it.
>
> Perhaps Ron O is insane enough to think that the above needs no
> evidence, and �that everyone must accept the ridiculous falsehood it
> contains because he is the "godlike" Ron O.
Check out the links and posts for evidence. Evidence is something
that Nyikos lacks. Projection is a sign of insanity.
I have to go to work, but I will be back. I have to give Nyikos more
to run from.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
>
> > On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 27, 7:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 11:52 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 23, 3:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 20, 7:36 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > > SNIP:
to continue where I left off.
>
> > Why was it necessary to start a whole thread to run a misdirection
> > ploy?
>
> "Misdirection ploy" is the way Ron O tries to label every evidece of
> his dishonesty and hypocrisy, and now insanity. �In his pathologically
> self-centered mind, all this evidence can be discounted because it
> distracts from the issues HE considers paramount.
This is my first response to the misdirection thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9103f16d366f7d45?hl=en
Nyikos started the dirty debating thread to run from this thread and
the original thread. How did the dirty debating thread work out for
Nyikos? He was found to be the dirty debater and started the scottish
verdict thread to run from that fiasco. He got caught lying about a
bunch of stuff and sarted the lame Insane Logic thread to run from
that. Misdirection ia about all Nyikos can think up besides snipping
and lying.
Who started a whole thread to run a bogus misdirection ploy? His name
is Nyikos.
>
> I start new threads when (1) I have fresh evidence of these "Okimoto-
> trivial" traits of Ron O and
> (2) the threads we are participating in have entered "garbage time,"
> when almost everyone else has stopped participating, and Ron O just
> keeps slapping on all kinds of silly crud while pretending that he is
> refuting me.
What fresh evidence? You had to go back to an April post and take a
quote out of context to come up with the lame argument you based the
Insane logic thread on. Lying is just a way of life for Nyikos. What
was the basis of the Scottish verdict thread? Wasn't it the quote
that you had gotten caught snipping and lying about twice before you
started to prevaricate about the quote in anyway that you thought that
you could get away with? What did you do in the Dirty debating
thread? You manufactured a lie about me and made bogus claims about
an old post and what happened when you linked to the post and I
finally realized what you were talking about? All I had to do was put
up the material without all your manipulation and it was clear that
the dirty debater was you. You snipped and ran. When confronted by
your bogousity you started the scottish verdict thread. Weren't you
caught running the same misdirection ploy in the original thread
before you started the misdirection thread to pull the trigger on the
bogus ploy again? What was new about any of the junk in those
threads?
You are such a liar, that who do you think that you are fooling? Not
yourself, obviously because you know what you did.
>
> Note how strongly (2) applies: even after I posted this latest
> "misdirection ploy," I kept responding right on the ONE thread that we
> had been arguing on for two solid months previously. �And for those
> two months, the only other participant was Ernest Major, and he has
> finally abandoned that thead too.
Nyikos ran and he knows it. Fancy foot work is still running. He
could go back and demonstrate that he isn't running instead of
starting new threads.
Beats me what point he is trying to make here. Running is just
running. You either deal with the junk that you are responsible for
or you run away. Nyikos has chosen to run. So often that
prevaricating about it is senseless.
>
> And (1) applies too, because that fresh evidence came directly from
> the same thread. �What's more, Ron O kept � on providing fresh
> evidence of his insanity on the old thread all the way to October 1.
> And I will go on responding to him on that thread when I find the time
> for it, for this very reason.
Nyikos has lost me here. What thread are you talking about? Is it
the dirty debating thread? Who was the dirty debater and who ran from
that? What you are continuing to respond to is what you claimed was
the central issue, but why did you start the dirty debating thread and
why did you run from that? Wasn't going back to what you were running
from before, misdirecting from what you had been caught doing, just as
much as starting the scottish verdict thread was to run from your
bogus behavior? Just admit it. Who was the dirty debater in that
thread? Who got caught in the lie about dirty debating? Who made the
whole thing up? Who had to change the subject from dirty debating
back to what you had been running from before?
>
> > Would you have to do something that bogus and dishonest if you were
> > not running in denial?
>
> There is nothing "bogus and dishonest" in starting new threads. �Ron O
> is here relying on a sickeningly self-serving piece of "logic" that
> fits in perfectly with his mentally unbalanced state:
Go back and address the posts that you had to run from when you
started those thread and then make the same claim.
>
> 1. It is a misdirection ploy to give powerful evidence that Ron O is
> insane, and a hypocrite, and a pathological liar given to documentable
> slander, as long as demands of Ron O to deal with something he has
> written have not yet been met.
Projection is a sign of insanity.
>
> 2. Nyikos keeps giving fresh evidence of the above traits, of which
> Ron O evidently is not the least bit ashamed.
I just have to put up what you are guilty of and the links and what do
you do?
Explain the fresh evidence when you were just caught lying in the
response that you are supposed to be responding to with this post.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04cf1b1303482a10?hl=en
Anyone that wants to make sense out of what Nyikos is supposed to be
responding to has to keep at least two windows open. Just open the
post above and try to figure out how Nyikos is responding to it.
>
> 3. Ron O shows no signs of EVER stopping with the mountains of claims
> that he deems it necessary for me to deal with. �In fact, they
> multiply like rabbits.
Nyikos keeps requesting documentation, but when he gets it he usually
lies about it or does some other bogus deed and has to run from more
lies and bogousity.
The claims are piling up because Nyikos can't stop lying. He is
pathologically incapable of admitting to even his stupidest mistakes.
Why run from doing something as stupid as claiming that I was running
from a post for three whole days when he had posted it to someone else
and there was no reason for me to know about the post? Who screwed up
and started the dirty debating thread based upon a lie that you had
just made up in your own mind? Then you have all the times that you
have been given the evidence that you request and have done bogus and
dishonest things with the evidence. Why did you quote mine Camp
instead of just taking your lumps and admitting that you had been
mistaken about what he had said? The lies just compound because for
some reason you can't tell the truth when it involves you
prevaricating or outright lying.
>
> 4. �Misdirection ploys are dishonest.
>
> 5. �Therefore, Nyikos is dishonest.
That is so far from being the only reason that you are dishonest that
just stating something like this is a lie in itself.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> On Oct 10, 11:07�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Sep 27, 7:20 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [picking up where I left off in previous reply:]
>
> > > Subject: Insane "logic" from Ron O.
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f3e2c442207abea
>
> > My response to this post. �You can see how Nyikos responded to this
> > response. �In fact he snipped out most of the material and then lied
> > later about not getting a direct response to the post. �
>
> "direct response to the post" is a typical Okimoto half-truth: the
> word I used was "rebuttal" [see below] and it referred to the actual
> CONTENTS of the post rather than to the post itself.
Demonstrate that I did not make a rebuttal. You just tried to rebut
my rebuttal,but you snipped out most of the rebuttal and did not
address it. Demonstrate that the part that you snipped out was not a
direct rebuttal.
>
> >You can't make this junk up. �
>
> By "you" Ron O evidently means you, the reader, and he is
> complimenting you thereby: only someone as mentally unbalanced as Ron
> O can make up the junk he makes up all the time, including the half-
> truth about "direct response to the post."
It is an expression meaning that no one is likely to believe that
Nyikos can be as bogus as he actually is.
Projection is a sign of insanity.
>
> >He didn't just snip out the historical material, but
> > the direct response.
>
> You will see a response to the most relevant part of that "direct
> response" below. �A genuine rebuttal it ain't.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26
So where is the evidence that I did not make a direct rebuttal. Did I
not address everything that you wrote? Demonstrate that this is not a
fact. You can't just make these claims. Anyone can look at what you
snipped out of your lame rebuttal to my non rebuttal and see that you
didn't even respond to most of the material responding to what you
wrote.
Nyikos lame rebuttal to my rebuttal.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/af78317b2f7e9f8c?hl=en
My response to his lame response:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04b1a972cd519762?hl=en
Anyone that wants to evaluate the situation will have to open my
original rebuttal to determine what Nyikos is not addressing.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26?hl=en
It is just a fact that to determine what Nyikos is lying about you
have to have several windows open and look at the posts side by side.
This is just Nyikos reliving his lame rebuttal of the rebuttal. What
did Nyikos leave out? Nyikos is prevaricating about just one
paragraph when I responded to his whole post, and all of his
bogousity.
I will just put in the rebuttal portion of that post to demonstrate
just how bogus Nyikos is. My guess is that he believes no one will
bother to check. Lying to make yourself happy is about the stupidest
reason to lie. Your integrity is basically all you have. If you know
that you are the liar and prevaricator what good does it to if you can
score points off the ignorant?
EXTENDED QUOTE:
It isn't so much as proving anything, but acknowledging reality.
Nyikos did admit that ID was just a scam and that there was no ID
science ready to teach in the public schools. It is a no brainer
that
the ID perps ran the teach ID scam for years before they ran the bait
and switch and that they are still running the teach ID scam, they
just claim that they never wanted ID mandated to be taught. Those
are
facts that Nyikos can't deny, well, he has tried to lie about it for
months, but that is Nyikos. Really, no one not even the ID perps
deny
that they ran the teach ID scam. Nyikos has never put up a denial by
the ID perps because they are still claiming to be able to teach the
bogus junk in the public schools.
So Nyikos has acknowledged that the ID perps were lying about having
the ID science to teach in the public schools. That lie is the main
reason that they have had to run a stupid bait and switch scam on
their own IDiot support base. If they had the ID science ready to
teach, why would they only give the rubes a switch scam that doesn't
even mention that ID ever existed. Where is the scientific theory of
intelligent design that they claim to have when they need the ID
science to teach?
These are the current claims of the ID perps:
QUOTE:
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
appropriate manner.
END QUOTE:
http://www.discovery.org/a/3164
The above quote is from the ID perps official stance on teaching the
junk in the public schools. Nyikos keeps snipping out this quote and
denying what it says, but he can't bring himself to specifically
address this quote for some reason. It is as if Nyikos has some
limit
to the lies that he thinks that he can get away with.
QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
and it should not be banned from schools. If a
science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
she should have the academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:
http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
This is the quote that Nyikos keeps trying to prevaricate about even
though it says the same thing as the ID perps official stance on
teaching the bogus junk.
Other evidence that Nyikos has been given one of the posts that
Nyikos
is currently using this thread to run from.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=en&
He has gotten other evidence over the months such as the Wedge
document, and material about the Ohio bait and switch scam. The ID
perps do not deny selling the IDiot rubes the teach ID scam, so why
should Nyikos make the denial for them? Heck, they are still telling
the rubes that they can teach the junk.
> To see that it follows the same format, you should know that I have
> consistently maintained that Ron O's evidence for (II) is inadequate
> (in fact, it is incredibly strained, IMO). More about this below.
Inadequate means that he has snipped and run from the evidence, just
run from the evidence, lied about the evidence in any way that he
could, but the evidence still exists and he has to lie or go into his
hair splitting nonsense to deny something that even the ID scam
artists do not deny doing. That is how sad Nyikos is. What did I
tell you about having to choose between two lies. Right now, Nyikos
is lying about not understanding the teach ID scam. He is not
denying
that he has admitted that there was no legitimate ID science ready to
teach in the public schools.
> Had Ron O stopped here, I would have left off the word "insane" but an
> incredible performance by Ron O today justifies it. In the face of
> multiple reiterations of the "admission" in (I) and even a statement
> that I have consistently maintained it, plainly visible in the post to
> which he was replying, and even adjacent or practically adjacent to
> it, Ron O wrote:
> (IV) "Nyikos is trying to deny that he admitted that the ID science
> wasn't
> ready to teach in the public schools."
Again no denial that he has claimed that there is no ID science ready
to teach. Only this prevarication about that admission. Note that
the blatant lie about not getting the evidence is gone from these
prevarications because anyone can look up how Nyikos got caught in
such lies in the links that I provided. So what exactly is Nyikos
trying to accomplish with this line of argument? He doesn't say. He
only prevaricates.
Nyikos admits that the ID science that the ID perps were peddling was
too bogus to teach in the public schools. Even though he does not
state that specifically, that seems to be what he wants people to
understand even if he can't bring himself to state it again. He only
prevaricates about not being convinced by the evidence that the ID
perps ran the teach ID scam.
> It is as though I had confirmed and reconfirmed my statement that the
> earth has a moon, and Ron O had written, "Nyikos is trying to deny
> that he admitted the earth has a moon."
> The sequence (I)-(IV) can be seen in stark simplicity in my reply to
> the post where Ron O posted (IV):
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/512af948c102fdd2
See my response to this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0e4bb1948dcc31d3
> I suspect that Ron O was so carried away by his "logic" that he
> figured that by denying (III) I was trying to deny (I) as well!
> What about (II), you may well ask? Well, the bulk of the time that
> the (I)-(II)-(III) sequence was playing out, the sole evidence Ron O
> had for the claim in (II) was the following quote from a website of
> the DI:
> QUOTE:
> Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?
> No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
> Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
> constitutional to discuss in science classrooms
> and it should not be banned from schools. If a
> science teacher wants to voluntarily discuss ID,
> she should have the academic freedom to do so.
> END QUOTE linked from:
> http://www.discovery.org/a/4299
> Nowhere in the website linked from there does anything else suggestive
> of (II) appear; in fact, the website goes on and on about a totally
> different recommendation, to teach about the weaknesses of current
> evolutionary theory.
Prevarication like this is all that Nyikos can do. It isn't just
this
quote even though it specifically states that ID has not been banned
from the public schools. Lying about this quote is all that Nyikos
can do. You don't see the same denial about the ID perp's official
stance on teaching the junk. Why does Nyikos think that he can lie
about this quote and ignore the other evidence? Doesn't the other
evidence make any prevarication about this quote senseless?
Really, can anyone find where the ID perps deny running the teach ID
scam? Nyikos lived through TO at the time that the ID perps were
running the teach ID scam full tilt back at the turn of the century.
Where did the IDiot rubes get the idea that they could teach the
bogus
junk?
> This was the ONLY piece of evidence Ron O had for (II) for the longest
> time, and I started a thread to show this evidence to the general
> readership and get their comments on it:
Nyikos lies again. I didn't think that he would, but he must be
getting desperate. What is one of the reasons why you had to dig up
this lame point? What post is Nyikos running from where he comes up
with this very lie and then gets the links and evidence given back in
April, linked back to, but snipped out by Nyikos and given at least
once again. This is such a lame lie, but it is all Nyikos can think
of to do.
This should be the same post that I linked to before:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=e...
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/402dde0861d6785e?hl=e...
END QUOTE:
I provide quotes from the links in the above post.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3b97e1564472c17d?hl=e...
MY QUOTED material:
Nyikos QUOTE:
> QUOTE:> >> >I keep urging Okimoto to add more evidence than this single quote,
> > >> >especially to show that the DI was already saying it had the theory in
> > >> >a ready form BEFORE the Dover fiasco, but he cannot seem to find
> > >> >anything to supplement the following flimsy evidence for the Central
> > >> >Issue:
> END OF QUOTE
END Nyikos QUOTE:
What post did this come from?
I have just provided the links to the documentation that you claim
was never given, and it turns out that it was first provided in
April,
but Nyikos has just run from it or snipped out links back to it
without
acknowledging that it has been provided multiple times. I recall
three times, but I could only find two in my search.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/75f4c1af25c978cf?hl=en
So Nyikos do not lie about this issue again. Address the evidence
that you have been given and stop lying about it.
END MY QUOTED Material:
> Subject: Scottish verdict on accusation of a "bait and switch scam"http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2437ba1ac91c46ef
> No one on that thread besides Ron O would endorse (II) and Robert Camp
> even posted a comment suggesting that he disagreed:
> "You are correct that there isn't much hard
> evidence as to the DI's position on teaching ID in schools."http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d382ecb6f4a56ddf?dmod...
The sad thing is that Nyikos is currently running from his bogus
deeds
involving this quote. It is a classic case of quote mining. In a
standard rhetorical device Camp put up the negative argument and then
destroyed it. Nyikos has to just put up the negative argument and
snip out the rest of the quote in order to claim that Camp supported
his position when Camp actually claimed that ID was a scam from the
very beginning and that the ID perps purposely ran it that way. You
can't make this junk up. In Nyikos you have met someone bogus enough
to do such a stupid and dishonest manipulation of a quote. I can't
recall another creationist cretin that tried such a bogus and
dishonest ploy. It is stupid in that all anyone has to do is to go
up
one post and see how Nyikos manipulated the quote to understand how
bogus he is. Usually the creationist cretin does the dirty deed in a
book or article where the source can't be checked out immediately.
Nyikos quote mining Camp:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3c8d3f3f728062b8?hl=e...
I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so incompetent or
pathological that they would quote mine when anyone can just go up
one
post to see how they doctored the post, but that is how Nyikos has
been for the past 9 months.
> Now, only a few posts ago on the thread where the (I)-(IV) drama has
> played out, Ron O has posted another statement by the DI which pretty
> much amounts to the same thing the first quote did:
> QUOTE:
> Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching
> of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is
> nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific
> theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes
> efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the
> scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically
> appropriate manner.
> END QUOTE:
> http://www.discovery.org/a/3164
> I wouldn't make an issue of all this, except that Ron O has spent
> literally thousands of lines accusing me of habitual lying and even
> insanity.
As I said above this just means that Nyikos has come to his limit
about lying about a quote and can't figure out a way to manipulate
the
quote or prevaricate about it that meets with his limit for lying.
He
knows that this quote means, but has to lie to himself about it, but
in this case can't bring himself to openly lie about it in a public
post. Considering how bogus Nyikos has been over the last 9 months
this should tell anyone that Nyikos understands what this quote
means.
The ID perps are still selling the IDiot rubes that they have the
science of ID to teach in the public schools. They have run the bait
and switch on every single IDiot rube that has popped up and claimed
to want to teach the bogus ID science since Ohio in 2002. Not a
single IDiot rube has ever gotten the ID science to teach from the
scam artists in the last 9 years. The only IDiots left that support
the bogus ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest, and
Nyikos is all three rolled into one. The ID perps sell the rubes one
thing and only give them the booby prize. That is the classic bait
and switch scam, and Nyikos has been lying about it for months.
Starting new threads like this will not change reality, and does not
make all the posts that Nyikos is running from go away.
Ron Okimoto
END EXTENDED QUOTE:
You really can't make this junk up. No direct rebuttal to Nyikos'
post?
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
See my response to this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/04b1a972cd519762
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> On Oct 10, 11:07�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> I deal with something I snipped out from my previous reply, with a
> little bit of context added:
>
> > > Subject: Insane "logic" from Ron O.
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f3e2c442207abea
>
> > My response to this post. �
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a176126322b4cc26
>
> I dealt with the above rewriting of Usenet history, including a bit of
> specific detail, �in reply to Earle Jones:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/da899450da6efdaf
Excuse me, but shouldn't you deal with my posts by responding to my
posts. What good is it to make your responses to other posters?
This post is you lying about quote mining Camp. I had put up all of
what Camp wrote and you snipped the quoted material in the first
paragraph at the "But" statement. It was so bogus that all you can do
is lie about it.
How is your linked to post relevant at this point in my post? Your
quote mining Camp comes later in the post. Where you are starting is
you denying that I made a direct rebuttal.
Just go back to my most recent response to see how lame your rebuttal
was.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2308ffd295fa1f40
It isn't much of a rebuttal when you snip and run from nearly all of
it.
>
> And I will continue dealing with it in detail as time permits,
> including the direct response I gave in the reply of some minutes
> ago. �A direct reply comes below to yet another piece of insane
> "logic" by Ron O in that rewriting of Usenet history.
What have you dealt with. Just more lies and prevarication is all
that I can see in what you have done.
>
> > Nyikos' pathetic response:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aa7043398630a8b4
>
> So far from being pathetic, it opened a new phase in our marathon
> debate, and is worth quoting in full because Ron O has acted in post
> after post as if he did not to know how his treatment of Ray Martinez
> had anything to do "with the price of eggs in China," as he colorfully
> put it the first time around.
If this isn't pathetic what is?
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/aa7043398630a8b4
>
> > Sad, but he just snipped and ran.
>
> What is sad is Ron O's failure to realize that the word "hypocrite"
> applies to his treatment of Martinez. �But I am past caring about
> whether he realizes it or not. �The policy is in force, and I am only
> addressing those things of Ron O's that I choose to address.
Repeating some of the material that was rebutted is no rebuttal. What
a moron. If anyone doesn't know it Nyikos quoted his entire
response. I don't think that he left anything out. "Pathetic" was an
understatement.
Here is my response to Nyikos' pathetic stupidity.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0ae9cac7736f2904
I don't have to respond to the bogus junk again.
>
> Ron O, pathologically self-righteous and self-centered person that he
> is, hasn't even tried to meet condition (2), and his attempts to meet
> condition (1) have been so pathetic that an average 8 year old could
> see right through them.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Projection is a way of life for Nyikos. How sad can anyone be?
Ron Okimoto
John Stockwell
> On Oct 4, 5:24 pm, JohnStockwell<john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 11:48 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 27, 1:11 pm, JohnStockwell<john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 11:39 am, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > On Sep 25, 3:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 23, 3:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 20, 7:36 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > "Habitual liars." Most of your lies and bogus deeds are sort of
> > > > > > > > > stupid instead of cunning, but habitual fits nicely.
>
> > > > > > > > You are off in la-la land. You have never shown me to have lied about
> > > > > > > > anything;
>
> > > And note, folks, he didn't even make an effort on this thread. Also,
> > > he didn't deny or try to ameliorate anything I posted about him to
> > > this thread.
>
> > > And that was pretty damning. See:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb
>
> > > insanity:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4ec87a9931650cdb
>
> > > He left the evidence in at the bottom, after some hand-waving about a
> > > because the crap they contain is nowhere near as damning of Ron O as
> > > the insane behavior that I documented to this thread.
>
> > > > > > > > you seem to have this insane notion that I know some things
> > > > > > > > about the Discovery Institute that i don't know and haven't seen
> > > > > > > > credible evidence for, and so everything that does not square with
> > > > > > > > your fantasyabout me is supposed to be a "lie".
>
> > > > > > > I think that anyone who would care to check knows that Nyikos is the
> > > > > > > one out to la la land.
>
> > > > > > > > Why, you even accused me of lying when I wrote,
>
> > > > > > > > "Ron O posts this insane comment in defiance of EVERYTHING that
> > > > > > > > appears right in front of his very eyes."
>
> > > > > > > > And here is the context in which I wrote it. Note how much already
> > > > > > > > appeared in front of your very eyes when you wrote the thing to which
> > > > > > > > I responded as above:
>
> > > This was the last thing of mine to which Ron O commented, with all the
> > > following is from that very post with that spiel:
>
> > > > > > > Note that Nyikos was getting his butt kicked
>
> > > How is anyone supposed to note something for which Ron O provides no
> > > documentation, nor even a factual description--or even a hint as to
> > > what is being talked about?
>
> > > [remainder of utterly phony description deleted]
>
> > > > > > This seems to be a pretty strong accusation calling Peter a liar.
>
> > > > > > Peter is many things, bright, erudite, educated.
>
> > > > > > He is also a bully, pompous, arrogant, and basically somebody you
> > > > > > would not really
> > > > > > want to share an office with, assuming that his net-persona is
> > > > > > anything like the real
> > > > > > Peter.
>
> last sentence as an "attack". �I wonder just what he DOES consider to
> be an attack.
No, I don't see anything particularly attackish about what I wrote.
You act as
though this is the first time anybody has pointed out the obvious
quirks in your net
personality. Of course, I only know your net persona. I don't know
the real Peter,
who might be a loveable teddy bear for all we know.
-John
>
>
>
> > > WhatStockwell(intentionally?) fails to take into account here is
> > > that I have never in my adult life encountered anyone face to face who
> > > behaved even one-tenth as despicably as Okimoto. And it is my good
> > > fortune that I have never had to share an office, or even a Math
> > > department, with someone who is as sneaky as JohnStockwell.
>
> > > And so, there is no need to repay people I know in the same coin with
> > > which I repay either of these two bozos.
>
> > > This is not their own coin, by the way, but as close to their own coin
> > > as one can get and still be a just, fair, honest and responsible
> > > person.
>
> > > > > > I believe that Peter is simply mistaken about some things. For
> > > > > > example, I don't think that
> > > > > > he can tell the difference between storytelling and science,
> > > > > > sometimes.
>
> > > A typicalStockwellcomment, without the slightest smidgin of a hint
> > > as to what concrete events (if any) he has in mind here.
>
> <crickets chirping>
>
>
>
> > > > I find this also is
> > > > > > the case with many religious people. They take stories (I am not
> > > > > > referring only to those
> > > > > > in religious scripture) too seriously.
>
> > > > > > I do not believe that Peter is necessarily a "liar" but is more likely
> > > > > > in the category as being
> > > > > > excessively deluded as to his own importance in the fabric of reality.
>
> > > Judging from what John has been saying about me all these years, I
> > > think it's a safe bet that he considers himself to be a far, far more
> > > important person than either (1) I consider myself to be or (2) he
> > > considers me to be.
>
> > > > > > -John
>
> > > > > OOOOOOOOUUUUUWWWEEE You're listed man.
>
> > > > I am actually defending Peter. I have defended him before (search on
> > > > In Defence of
> > > > Peter Nyikos).
>
> > > And my reaction is, again, a minor variation on an old, old formula:
> > > "With defenders like these, who needs attackers?"
>
> > > Don't get me wrong --Stockwellisn't in the same league as Okimoto
> > > when it comes to attacking me. But then, only a tiny handful of other
> > > people are, and the others are off in the abortion newsgroups.
>
> > I don't recall *ever* having attacked you, Peter.
>
> Your "defenses" had quite a few attacks incorporated into them.
> "excessively deluded" [see above] is a good example.
>
> > As far as Okimoto is
> > concerned,
> > I really don't read what he writes. I am indifferent to Ron O.
>
> Stay that way, and you will avoid a lot of inconvenience.
>
> > > [Note the present tense. There is a talk.origins regular who attacked