Paul Myers buries his head in the sand

[Peter Nyikos]

For a considerable time in March, Paul Myers indulged in hit-and-run
tactics against me, running away when his attacks backfired
instead of facing the music, at times even proclaiming that
he was not going to deal with such and such charges, only
to attack me again on another thread as though the previous
backfire had never taken place. The hit and run tactics
reached a nadir of sorts on the thread,
"Evolution of blood clotting (Was: Amino Acids and Abiogenesis.)"
commencing the 24th of March.

Then, on March 30, he unilaterally declared a week-long
cease-fire on the thread, "Behe's last laugh (Was: Amino Acids
and Abiogenesis.)" in a post that contained several unjustified cheap shots,
and expected me to abide by it without him having acknowledged having
done anything wrong besides being angry at me and giving vent
to that anger. NO hint that he had shamelessly and hypocritically
misrepresented me again and again, nor that he had indulged in
numerous dirty debating tricks against me.

Naturally, I did not abide by the cease-fire, any more than
the Russians were willing to make a generous peace treaty
with the Germans shortly after the battle of Stalingrad.

When the cease-fire ended, Paul got in some especially deceitful
attacks and dirty debating tricks against me and Joe Potter on the
thread, "Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity". Then,
returning to the thread where he had annouced the cease-fire,
he whined about my attacks in the interim, never breathing
a hint of his own resumption of hostilities in the "...FAQ..."
thread. He even indulged in a bit of misdirection:

"Over the course of the
past week, I've noticed that you have referred to me quite frequently and
without any provocation,"

A highly dishonest attack on Joe Potter, full of "logic" as
tortuous as any you can find in Plato's _Euthydemus_, which he conducted
on that "...FAQ..." thread even before the cease-fire was over, evidently
does not count as provocation in his eyes.

His post was full of innuendo, self-righteousness, and a piece
of logic so blatantly phoney I can't believe even a mind as
warped as his could believe it for an instant: the claim that
my continued strong words about him were proof that my earlier
strong words against him had not been his fault at all.

Using this breathless piece of illogic as an excuse, he
announced he was killfiling me. This has happened so often
in Usenet: a person whose dishonesty and hypocrisy have
been exposed posts a fresh batch of same, then figuratively plugs
his ears, like a little boy who no longer wants to hear
scolding and shouts, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

This completed the act of burying his head in the sand: he had
already explicitly told me not to send him CC's of any posts
and made some pretty strong hints that my e-mail would not
be welcome either, at least not to the address from which
practically all his deceitfulness, hypocrisy and invective has
issued.

Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --

[Sherilyn]

In article <5ij60g$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> writes

>
>For a considerable time in March,

[ad hominem deleted]

>has
>issued.
>
>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --

--
Sherilyn

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

[snip]

>A highly dishonest attack on Joe Potter, full of "logic" as
>tortuous as any you can find in Plato's _Euthydemus_, which he conducted
>on that "...FAQ..." thread even before the cease-fire was over, evidently
>does not count as provocation in his eyes.

Peter, since you have been reading that thread I was wondering if you
could answer a simple question for me. I have asked this before, but
don't know if you have answered it yet. Anyway, in that thread Joe
says I attack religion. Do you agree with Joe or not? In case you
wonder, the statement in question was something like:

MS> If you want an example of "at all costs" look at the religious
wars going on right now.

Now does that seem to you like I attacked religion and blamed religion
for all wars? That was Joe's claim, one of the ones that Paul
"attacked". Now I have asked a question that can be answered with a
simple yes or no, though of course you are free to respond in any way
you please.

[snip]

Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------------

CAUCHON. And you, and not the Church, are to be the judge?

JOAN. What other judment can I judge by but my own?

_Saint Joan_ by GBS, Scene VI

[Joe Potter]

Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<33588189...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

> In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >A highly dishonest attack on Joe Potter, full of "logic" as
> >tortuous as any you can find in Plato's _Euthydemus_, which he conducted
> >on that "...FAQ..." thread even before the cease-fire was over,
evidently
> >does not count as provocation in his eyes.
>
> Peter, since you have been reading that thread I was wondering if you
> could answer a simple question for me. I have asked this before, but
> don't know if you have answered it yet. Anyway, in that thread Joe
> says I attack religion. Do you agree with Joe or not? In case you
> wonder, the statement in question was something like:
>
> MS> If you want an example of "at all costs" look at the religious
> wars going on right now.
>
> Now does that seem to you like I attacked religion and blamed religion
> for all wars? That was Joe's claim, one of the ones that Paul
> "attacked". Now I have asked a question that can be answered with a
> simple yes or no, though of course you are free to respond in any way
> you please.
>
>

You picked "religious wars" as your example of "at all costs" and I picked
the bombing of Dresden (and the a-bomb used later) as mine. Myers went off
the deed end and claimed that meant I was attacking "science."

Now, if I was attacking science then you were attacking religion in my
opinion.

But it seems that Myers won, since all he cared to do was get everyone off
topic, heck I don't even remember what the thread title was now.

By the way, why did you drop the line about "religious wars" being
examples of "at all cost" anyway?

Regards, Joe

[Matt Silberstein]

First off, with either example (and both work) the actions on this
group, and indeed any war of words, does not show "at all costs".
However, you said I was attacking religion. You then used the
following line:

JP> As I read history I discover that it was not a preacher that
JP> gave us the nuclear bomb to kill civilians --- it was, well,
JP> you know.

Paul asked if you were blaming scientists for the use of the Bomb and
the bombing of Dresden and wanted to know what you meant by "it was,
well, you know". But I don't Paul making the claim you assert.

> Now, if I was attacking science then you were attacking religion in my
>opinion.

This may be your opinion, but these seem independent to me. I don't
happen to think you were attacking science, but I do think it looks
like you were blaming scientists for the use of these weapons. It was,
IMO, clearly you intension to point out a similarity between your
arguments and what you perceived was mine.

> But it seems that Myers won, since all he cared to do was get everyone off
>topic, heck I don't even remember what the thread title was now.

It was "Re: Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity". IMO, what
turned the thread away from the subject was your reaction to my
"religious wars" term.

> By the way, why did you drop the line about "religious wars" being
>examples of "at all cost" anyway?

Do you mean "drop" as in stop using or do you mean "drop" as in use.
(Isn't the ambiguity of natural languages wonderful?) I did not *stop*
using the phrase. I used it were I thought it was appropriate. If you
want to know why I used that phrase I can tell you. (BTW, it would
have been a better idea to ask me in the first place, rather than
telling me what I meant.) I happen to think that religious wars are a
particularly grievous example of some horrible human behavior. Whether
or not there is a God, and whether or not any particular religion is
correct, the belief that you have revealed truth frequently leads
people to horrible behavior. That is not an attack on any particular
religion and it is not an attack on religion in general. It is an
observation about human nature. In particular I want to emphasize that
this is not the sum total of my opinion of religion.

[PZ Myers]

In article <335bc90e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com
(Matt Silberstein) wrote:

[deletions]

I might also add that I'd already conceded that Potter did not intend to
blame all of science. Why is he bringing it up again? Should we go through
another long and pointless dissection of the clumsy syntax in Potter's
original post? I don't think so.

[PZ Myers]

In article <01bc46dd$9a535300$3d4192cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter"
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote in article
> <myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>...
>
> <snip>

>
>
> >
> > I might also add that I'd already conceded that Potter did not intend to
> > blame all of science. Why is he bringing it up again? Should we go
> through
> > another long and pointless dissection of the clumsy syntax in Potter's
> > original post? I don't think so.
> >
>

> I did not bring it up again, I responded to the words of Matt. This is not
> allowed?

It's allowed. It's just fine. But don't go claiming that Matt and I are the
ones making a "big deal" of it, as you did in an earlier post, one of at
least 8 where you & Nyikos resurrected the topic.

[Joe Potter]

Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

<335bc90e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

They do show an "at all costs" aspect. As much as can be using only words.
And the point I made was on the death of truth.

<snip>

>
> This may be your opinion, but these seem independent to me. I don't
> happen to think you were attacking science, but I do think it looks
> like you were blaming scientists for the use of these weapons. It was,
> IMO, clearly you intension to point out a similarity between your
> arguments and what you perceived was mine.
>

And you think it was not scientists who developed this weapon? Einstien
did not write a letter to FDR to lobby for going forward with it???

> > But it seems that Myers won, since all he cared to do was get everyone
off
> >topic, heck I don't even remember what the thread title was now.
>
> It was "Re: Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity". IMO, what
> turned the thread away from the subject was your reaction to my
> "religious wars" term.
>

In my oppinion, it was you and Myers harping on this for all this time.

> > By the way, why did you drop the line about "religious wars" being
> >examples of "at all cost" anyway?
>
> Do you mean "drop" as in stop using or do you mean "drop" as in use.
> (Isn't the ambiguity of natural languages wonderful?) I did not *stop*
> using the phrase. I used it were I thought it was appropriate. If you
> want to know why I used that phrase I can tell you. (BTW, it would
> have been a better idea to ask me in the first place, rather than
> telling me what I meant.) I happen to think that religious wars are a
> particularly grievous example of some horrible human behavior. Whether
> or not there is a God, and whether or not any particular religion is
> correct, the belief that you have revealed truth frequently leads
> people to horrible behavior. That is not an attack on any particular
> religion and it is not an attack on religion in general. It is an
> observation about human nature. In particular I want to emphasize that
> this is not the sum total of my opinion of religion.
>

I happen to think that most "religious wars" are not in fact about
religion. Most are about race, power, and plunder. It is the old "let us
get them" of human nauture.

But, even so we see more civilians murdered by thier own governmnet in
this century than in all the wars. Stalin was the champ.

Regards, Joe

[Joe Potter]

PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote in article
<myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>...

<snip>

>
> I might also add that I'd already conceded that Potter did not intend to
> blame all of science. Why is he bringing it up again? Should we go
through
> another long and pointless dissection of the clumsy syntax in Potter's
> original post? I don't think so.
>

I did not bring it up again, I responded to the words of Matt. This is not
allowed?

Joe Potter

[Matt Silberstein]

And please point out how you get these assumptions about me? I would
like a direct answer to a question: do you think that scientists, as a
group, are responsible for these weapons? I had thought you were not
claiming that, but now I am not sure.

>
>
>
>> > But it seems that Myers won, since all he cared to do was get everyone
>off
>> >topic, heck I don't even remember what the thread title was now.
>>
>> It was "Re: Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity". IMO, what
>> turned the thread away from the subject was your reaction to my
>> "religious wars" term.
>>
>
> In my oppinion, it was you and Myers harping on this for all this time.

You attacked me and claimed I said something I did not. I have been
trying to get you to back up or withdraw the claim.

>
>> > By the way, why did you drop the line about "religious wars" being
>> >examples of "at all cost" anyway?
>>
>> Do you mean "drop" as in stop using or do you mean "drop" as in use.
>> (Isn't the ambiguity of natural languages wonderful?) I did not *stop*
>> using the phrase. I used it were I thought it was appropriate. If you
>> want to know why I used that phrase I can tell you. (BTW, it would
>> have been a better idea to ask me in the first place, rather than
>> telling me what I meant.) I happen to think that religious wars are a
>> particularly grievous example of some horrible human behavior. Whether
>> or not there is a God, and whether or not any particular religion is
>> correct, the belief that you have revealed truth frequently leads
>> people to horrible behavior. That is not an attack on any particular
>> religion and it is not an attack on religion in general. It is an
>> observation about human nature. In particular I want to emphasize that
>> this is not the sum total of my opinion of religion.
>>
>
>
> I happen to think that most "religious wars" are not in fact about
>religion. Most are about race, power, and plunder. It is the old "let us
>get them" of human nauture.

So religion gets absolved of the bad things done in its name, and gets
credit for the good ones.

> But, even so we see more civilians murdered by thier own governmnet in
>this century than in all the wars. Stalin was the champ.

Which has nothing to do with what I said at all. Did I pick the best
example in the world. No. Did I pick an example that presented what I
meant. Yes.

[Joe Potter]

PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com.NOSPAM> wrote in article
<myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>...

> In article <01bc46dd$9a535300$3d4192cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter"
> <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>

> It's allowed. It's just fine. But don't go claiming that Matt and I are
the
> ones making a "big deal" of it, as you did in an earlier post, one of at
> least 8 where you & Nyikos resurrected the topic.
>

I respond to those wrote write me IF I chance to see it, and when I chance
to see it. I responded to Matt when I saw it. You act as if your not
keeping the subject alive yourself, but you continue to post about it also.

regards, Joe

[Joe Potter]

Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

<33535636...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

> In talk.origins "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>

> >(jp) And you think it was not scientists who developed this weapon?

> > Einstien did not write a letter to FDR to lobby for going forward with
it???
>
> And please point out how you get these assumptions about me? I would
> like a direct answer to a question: do you think that scientists, as a
> group, are responsible for these weapons? I had thought you were not
> claiming that, but now I am not sure.
>

I took your words to mean these things. If you did not, then we have a
lack of communication.

As to who was responsible for the a-bomb, it was many, many folks. I do
know the history of the affair and can tell you that science was at the
heart of it --- it was not a couple of auto mechanics under a shade tree.

> >(jp) In my oppinion, it was you and Myers harping on this for all this

time.
>
> You attacked me and claimed I said something I did not. I have been
> trying to get you to back up or withdraw the claim.
>

I wrote you back on your "religious wars" hit. You indicated by your
words that religion causes much "at all costs" horror in the world today in
these wars --- and I told you of much horror caused by others. It was and
remains fair.

<snip>

> >(jp) I happen to think that most "religious wars" are not in fact about

> >religion. Most are about race, power, and plunder. It is the old "let us
> >get them" of human nauture.
>
> So religion gets absolved of the bad things done in its name, and gets
> credit for the good ones.
>

Not at all. If you read history you will find that wars have many, many
causes that are not as simplistic as you indicate. WWI was billed as a war
"to end all wars" but that was not the root cause, nor even a main one.

You want to label religion as *the* cause in places where it is but one of
many factors.

> >(jp) But, even so we see more civilians murdered by thier own governmnet

in
> >this century than in all the wars. Stalin was the champ.
>
> Which has nothing to do with what I said at all. Did I pick the best
> example in the world. No. Did I pick an example that presented what I
> meant. Yes.
>

Yes, you picked religion as the cause of some wars so as to label religion
as the bad guy in many conflicts. This is not a fair statement of the
facts, since these wars are about so many factors.

And in context of the thread, you seem to have wanted to attack religion
to make a debate point.

Regards, Joe

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

><33535636...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

>> In talk.origins "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>
>

[snip]

>> >(jp) In my oppinion, it was you and Myers harping on this for all this

>time.
>>
>> You attacked me and claimed I said something I did not. I have been
>> trying to get you to back up or withdraw the claim.
>>
>

> I wrote you back on your "religious wars" hit. You indicated by your
>words that religion causes much "at all costs" horror in the world today in
>these wars --- and I told you of much horror caused by others. It was and
>remains fair.

Except you have changed the story. Your original claim was that I had
blamed religion for all of the horror we see. Now you have rewritten
history (to use the standard term, rather than the form popular among
some on this newsgroup) and say I only say religion causes "much" of
the problem. That is better, but still not what I said.

>
><snip>

>> >(jp) I happen to think that most "religious wars" are not in fact about

>> >religion. Most are about race, power, and plunder. It is the old "let us
>> >get them" of human nauture.
>>
>> So religion gets absolved of the bad things done in its name, and gets
>> credit for the good ones.
>>
>

> Not at all. If you read history you will find that wars have many, many
>causes that are not as simplistic as you indicate. WWI was billed as a war
>"to end all wars" but that was not the root cause, nor even a main one.

And where did I indicate any simplistic notion of cause at all? I
actually made no statement about cause. Now two paragraphs ago you say
that "religious wars" are not "about" religion. Then you say wars have
many causes. Are you willing to concede that religion is one of the
causes of war, or do you, as I said, absolve religion of the bad
things done in its name?

> You want to label religion as *the* cause in places where it is but one of
>many factors.

Please back that statement up with a quote from me. You seem to want
to read something different into my statements than I put there. I can
accept that you have misunderstood what I said, but I would like to
see the passage where I talked about religion as "the" cause of
anything/

>> >(jp) But, even so we see more civilians murdered by thier own governmnet

>in
>> >this century than in all the wars. Stalin was the champ.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with what I said at all. Did I pick the best
>> example in the world. No. Did I pick an example that presented what I
>> meant. Yes.

> Yes, you picked religion as the cause of some wars so as to label religion

>as the bad guy in many conflicts. This is not a fair statement of the
>facts, since these wars are about so many factors.

Now you have discovered the ability to discern what my real intentions
were from my words. Please present the quote that shows why I picked
this example. This assertion of yours seems to directly contradict
statements I have made.

> And in context of the thread, you seem to have wanted to attack religion
>to make a debate point.

Your ability to read my mind, and to determine what I intend despite
my claims to the contrary, is impressive. Can you read other people's
minds or is it only me. If this is not mind reading then please back
up you claims about my intentions with some evidence.

[Peter Nyikos]

Why is Joe replying to Matt's article on this thread? At any
rate, see my analysis of something Matt wrote on
"Silberstein vs. Potter".

[Peter Nyikos]

Brought here from the thread, "Paul Myers buries his head in the sand",
on which Matt did a huge favor to Paul Myers by steering the
discussion away from the things I had written about Myers,
censoring almost all of what I had written about Myers from his
followup.

mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:

>In talk.origins "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>
>>
>>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

>><33535636...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

>>> In talk.origins "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>

>[snip]

>>> >(jp) In my oppinion, it was you and Myers harping on this for all this

>>time.
>>>
>>> You attacked me and claimed I said something I did not. I have been
>>> trying to get you to back up or withdraw the claim.

"said" is incorrect. Matt's score of 90 on this one gets dropped to
85 and will drop further with each new misrepresentation.

>> I wrote you back on your "religious wars" hit. You indicated by your
>>words that religion causes much "at all costs" horror in the world today in
>>these wars --- and I told you of much horror caused by others. It was and
>>remains fair.

>Except you have changed the story. Your original claim was that I had
>blamed religion for all of the horror we see.

This drops it to 80. He said "Matt made the implication that religion
causes all the horror we see" but that was as strong as it got.

Now you have rewritten
>history (to use the standard term, rather than the form popular among
>some on this newsgroup)

I get more specific. Usenet history is often treated
very lightly on Usenet, not like "real" history.

and say I only say religion causes "much" of
>the problem. That is better, but still not what I said.

For someone who repeatedly and flagrantly misrepresents what
I said about souls on s.b.e., you certainly are big on making
people represent you accurately.

>><snip>

>>> >(jp) I happen to think that most "religious wars" are not in fact about

>>> >religion. Most are about race, power, and plunder. It is the old "let us
>>> >get them" of human nauture.
>>>
>>> So religion gets absolved of the bad things done in its name, and gets
>>> credit for the good ones.

A highly revealing statement, IMO, telling us a lot about Matt's
true attitude towards religious people. Also weakening his
case against Potter by misrepresenting Potter as seriously
as Potter misrepresented him.

>> Not at all. If you read history you will find that wars have many, many
>>causes that are not as simplistic as you indicate. WWI was billed as a war
>>"to end all wars" but that was not the root cause, nor even a main one.

>And where did I indicate any simplistic notion of cause at all?

You used the term "religious wars" and ducked my question of
how you determine whether a war is religious. You also made
some general statements about how "the belief that you have revealed

truth frequently leads people to horrible behavior."

I

>actually made no statement about cause. Now two paragraphs ago you say
>that "religious wars" are not "about" religion.

Matt conveniently neglected to put "most" in front of "religious".

How old are you, Matt? You post like an experienced polemicist,
making me suspect you are at least thirty years old; and yet in
other respects your style is like that of a college freshman
of 18. [Also, your knowledge of science seems to be stuck
on the high school freshman level.]

Then you say wars have
>many causes. Are you willing to concede that religion is one of the

>causes of war, or do you, as I said, absolve religion of the bad
>things done in its name?

Note the unequivocal "of war", not even qualifying it with "most"
let alone "much".

I also note the "as I said", again putting Potter under suspicion
of absolving religion of the bad things done in its name.

>> You want to label religion as *the* cause in places where it is but one of
>>many factors.

>Please back that statement up with a quote from me.

The label "religious wars" speaks for itself. Of course,
cunning propagandist that you are, you ducked my question
of what makes a war religious, and here I see you sugar-coating
a provocative statement with "please" as though you had
never done any such thing.

You seem to want
>to read something different into my statements than I put there. I can
>accept that you have misunderstood what I said, but I would like to
>see the passage where I talked about religion as "the" cause of
>anything/

Sickeningly disingenuous. Besides "religious wars" there is
also the suggestive one about "revealed truth" that I quoted up there.

>>> >(jp) But, even so we see more civilians murdered by thier own governmnet

>>in
>>> >this century than in all the wars. Stalin was the champ.
>>>
>>> Which has nothing to do with what I said at all. Did I pick the best
>>> example in the world. No. Did I pick an example that presented what I
>>> meant. Yes.

>> Yes, you picked religion as the cause of some wars so as to label religion

>>as the bad guy in many conflicts. This is not a fair statement of the
>>facts, since these wars are about so many factors.

>Now you have discovered the ability to discern what my real intentions
>were from my words.

The smart money is on Matt being at least thirty years old. He
posts like a seasoned veteran of controversy.

Please present the quote that shows why I picked
>this example. This assertion of yours seems to directly contradict
>statements I have made.

Actions speak louder than words.

>> And in context of the thread, you seem to have wanted to attack religion
>>to make a debate point.

>Your ability to read my mind, and to determine what I intend despite
>my claims to the contrary, is impressive. Can you read other people's
>minds or is it only me. If this is not mind reading then please back
>up you claims about my intentions with some evidence.

The evidence is all around you in this post. Conclusive? no.
Highly suggestive? I do believe so.

[Peter Nyikos]

CC: Joe Potter, with the advice to hit Myers where he is weakest,
rather than letting Matt dictate the course of his posts. He could
begin by following up to this post and leaving in everything I
said; Myers has not killfiled him yet.

This action is appropriate because one "prediction" of mine seems
already to be coming true.

In my followup to the post where Myers announced
his killfiling me, I had asked pointedly,

"What will it be next? Will your allies censor every negative
thing I say about you in their followups to me, so you
can't see it even by accident? Or will they leave in
the negative statements and censor the reasoning behind them?"

And lo! Sherilyn [is this the name of a woman or of a drag queen or...?]
whom I have seen one *ad hominem* after another from, deleted
almost everything I wrote with the comment, "ad hominems deleted".

And Matt Silberstein deleted all except one paragraph and quickly
moved to neutralize it by launching an attack on Joe Potter
that had absolutely nothing to do with the scam I had been
attacking Paul Myers for, in connection with Joe Potter.

my...@netaxs.com.NOSPAM (PZ Myers) writes:

>In article <01bc46dd$9a535300$3d4192cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter"
><joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>> PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote in article
>> <myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I might also add that I'd already conceded that Potter did not intend to
>> > blame all of science. Why is he bringing it up again? Should we go
>> through
>> > another long and pointless dissection of the clumsy syntax in Potter's
>> > original post? I don't think so.
>> >
>>
>> I did not bring it up again, I responded to the words of Matt. This is not
>> allowed?

>It's allowed. It's just fine. But don't go claiming that Matt and I are the
>ones making a "big deal" of it, as you did in an earlier post, one of at
>least 8 where you & Nyikos resurrected the topic.

The topic I "resurrected" was Myers's scam on the subject of what
Potter was talking about when he was talking about the ng and
how truth is the casualty in it.

Myers worked a familiar scam, pretending Matt was talking about
biologists instead of the rabble of talk.origins. This rabble
does include at least one biologist--Paul Myers--and perhaps
others, but Myers skillfully worked his scam even after I called
him on it, showing a great talent for deconstructing arguments
in the process.

Matt, of course, steered the conversation away from this
disgraceful performance of Myers and into a much more
complicated and problematic area, where Matt gets to strut
his stuff as a seasoned polemicist.

[Peter Nyikos]

I've replied to Matt's latest piece of sophisticated polemic

on "Silberstein vs. Potter".

Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>I've replied to Matt's latest piece of sophisticated polemic
>on "Silberstein vs. Potter".

Where, it seems, you agree with me.

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>CC: Joe Potter, with the advice to hit Myers where he is weakest,
>rather than letting Matt dictate the course of his posts. He could
>begin by following up to this post and leaving in everything I
>said; Myers has not killfiled him yet.
>
>This action is appropriate because one "prediction" of mine seems
>already to be coming true.
>
>In my followup to the post where Myers announced
>his killfiling me, I had asked pointedly,
>
> "What will it be next? Will your allies censor every negative
> thing I say about you in their followups to me, so you
> can't see it even by accident? Or will they leave in
> the negative statements and censor the reasoning behind them?"
>
>And lo! Sherilyn [is this the name of a woman or of a drag queen or...?]

Peter (is that the name of a closet queen, cannibalistic pederast or
...?)

>whom I have seen one *ad hominem* after another from, deleted
>almost everything I wrote with the comment, "ad hominems deleted".
>
>And Matt Silberstein deleted all except one paragraph and quickly
>moved to neutralize it by launching an attack on Joe Potter
>that had absolutely nothing to do with the scam I had been
>attacking Paul Myers for, in connection with Joe Potter.

First the connection was Joe Potter. Since you seemed to claim him as
an ally I wanted to see how you agreed. Second I did snip everything
else because I did not wish to get involved in one of you lists of
wrongs done. Third I did not in any way attack Joe in that post. (I do
not think I have ever attack Joe, but I could be wrong.) I asked you
if you agreed with him and a specific claim he made. I do not see how
you construe that as an attack.

[snip]

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>Brought here from the thread, "Paul Myers buries his head in the sand",
>on which Matt did a huge favor to Paul Myers by steering the
>discussion away from the things I had written about Myers,
>censoring almost all of what I had written about Myers from his
>followup.

Censoring? You mean that I ignored a list of insults and marked the
snip. I was not aware that not including some quoted material in a
post was censoring. Anyone is still free to respond to the parts that
I did not wish to respond to.

>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>
>>In talk.origins "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
>>><33535636...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>> In talk.origins "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>[snip]
>
>>>> >(jp) In my oppinion, it was you and Myers harping on this for all this
>>>time.
>>>>
>>>> You attacked me and claimed I said something I did not. I have been
>>>> trying to get you to back up or withdraw the claim.
>
>"said" is incorrect. Matt's score of 90 on this one gets dropped to
>85 and will drop further with each new misrepresentation.

Wow, I should have use "wrote".

>>> I wrote you back on your "religious wars" hit. You indicated by your
>>>words that religion causes much "at all costs" horror in the world today in
>>>these wars --- and I told you of much horror caused by others. It was and
>>>remains fair.
>
>>Except you have changed the story. Your original claim was that I had
>>blamed religion for all of the horror we see.
>
>This drops it to 80. He said "Matt made the implication that religion
>causes all the horror we see" but that was as strong as it got.

And he now changes "all" to "much". Neither of which is correct. IMO,
the "indicated" above is the same as the previous "made the
implication" but YMMV.

> Now you have rewritten
>>history (to use the standard term, rather than the form popular among
>>some on this newsgroup)
>
>I get more specific. Usenet history is often treated
>very lightly on Usenet, not like "real" history.
>
> and say I only say religion causes "much" of
>>the problem. That is better, but still not what I said.
>
>For someone who repeatedly and flagrantly misrepresents what
>I said about souls on s.b.e., you certainly are big on making
>people represent you accurately.

Which does not deal with this representation but rather attempts to
change the subject to Peter himself.

>>><snip>
>
>>>> >(jp) I happen to think that most "religious wars" are not in fact about
>>>> >religion. Most are about race, power, and plunder. It is the old "let us
>>>> >get them" of human nauture.
>>>>
>>>> So religion gets absolved of the bad things done in its name, and gets
>>>> credit for the good ones.
>
>A highly revealing statement, IMO, telling us a lot about Matt's
>true attitude towards religious people. Also weakening his
>case against Potter by misrepresenting Potter as seriously
>as Potter misrepresented him.

What is my view of religious people and how did I misrepresent Potter?
It seems to me that he is attempting to absolve religion of (at least
some of) the bad things done in its name. If my extension of this case
to a universal is what you mean then I withdraw it. I was trying for
an exaggeration for effect and did not write as clearly as I should
have.

>>> Not at all. If you read history you will find that wars have many, many
>>>causes that are not as simplistic as you indicate. WWI was billed as a war
>>>"to end all wars" but that was not the root cause, nor even a main one.
>
>>And where did I indicate any simplistic notion of cause at all?
>
>You used the term "religious wars" and ducked my question of
>how you determine whether a war is religious. You also made
>some general statements about how "the belief that you have revealed
>truth frequently leads people to horrible behavior."

"Religious wars" refers to the subset of the class wars that is
characterized by a relationship with religion. It says little or
nothing about cause.

Regarding the notion of "revealed truth" above I was thinking of
Manson, Jim Jones, Applewhite, etc.

> I
>>actually made no statement about cause. Now two paragraphs ago you say
>>that "religious wars" are not "about" religion.
>
>Matt conveniently neglected to put "most" in front of "religious".

Not conveniently, but possible sloppily. If that is important then I
withdraw the original and wish all to put the "most" back in. That
does not, in my view, change the point.

>How old are you, Matt? You post like an experienced polemicist,
>making me suspect you are at least thirty years old; and yet in
>other respects your style is like that of a college freshman
>of 18. [Also, your knowledge of science seems to be stuck
>on the high school freshman level.]

What can I say. I am actually a bot composed of several researchers at
Chicago. We are 15, 18, and 29. So you were close. Now can we stop
with the personal issues since they have nothing to do with the
subject.

> Then you say wars have
>>many causes. Are you willing to concede that religion is one of the
>>causes of war, or do you, as I said, absolve religion of the bad
>>things done in its name?
>
>Note the unequivocal "of war", not even qualifying it with "most"
>let alone "much".

I am sorry if this was not clear. By "war" in that sentence I meant
the class "war". I did not mean to imply in any way that I thought
that religion was a cause of all wars.

>I also note the "as I said", again putting Potter under suspicion
>of absolving religion of the bad things done in its name.

My gosh, I referred to a phrase from the same post. How dreadful.

>>> You want to label religion as *the* cause in places where it is but one of
>>>many factors.
>
>>Please back that statement up with a quote from me.
>
>The label "religious wars" speaks for itself. Of course,
>cunning propagandist that you are, you ducked my question
>of what makes a war religious, and here I see you sugar-coating
>a provocative statement with "please" as though you had
>never done any such thing.

Sorry Peter, but the adjective classify the subset. It does not imply
that it is the only factor involved.

> You seem to want
>>to read something different into my statements than I put there. I can
>>accept that you have misunderstood what I said, but I would like to
>>see the passage where I talked about religion as "the" cause of
>>anything/
>
>Sickeningly disingenuous. Besides "religious wars" there is
>also the suggestive one about "revealed truth" that I quoted up there.

Disingenuous? I have tried several times to make the same point. You
seem to assert that I want to blame war, but withdraw if countered. If
I thought religion was the (sole, single, solitary) cause of (many,
most, all, or a single) war, then I would say so. But I did not intend
that originally, I do not intend that now.

>>>> >(jp) But, even so we see more civilians murdered by thier own governmnet
>>>in
>>>> >this century than in all the wars. Stalin was the champ.
>>>>
>>>> Which has nothing to do with what I said at all. Did I pick the best
>>>> example in the world. No. Did I pick an example that presented what I
>>>> meant. Yes.
>
>>> Yes, you picked religion as the cause of some wars so as to label religion
>>>as the bad guy in many conflicts. This is not a fair statement of the
>>>facts, since these wars are about so many factors.
>
>>Now you have discovered the ability to discern what my real intentions
>>were from my words.
>
>The smart money is on Matt being at least thirty years old. He
>posts like a seasoned veteran of controversy.

Keep those votes coming in folks. We are tallying up the figures and
will release the inferred age as soon as we have all of your input.

> Please present the quote that shows why I picked
>>this example. This assertion of yours seems to directly contradict
>>statements I have made.
>
>Actions speak louder than words.

Which, btw, was the original point I tried to make. One that Joe does
not seem to agree with. Since you have just made the same claim I made
in the begriming I think we should end this whole discussion.

>>> And in context of the thread, you seem to have wanted to attack religion
>>>to make a debate point.
>
>>Your ability to read my mind, and to determine what I intend despite
>>my claims to the contrary, is impressive. Can you read other people's
>>minds or is it only me. If this is not mind reading then please back
>>up you claims about my intentions with some evidence.
>
>The evidence is all around you in this post. Conclusive? no.
>Highly suggestive? I do believe so.

And it is suggestive despite my direct statements to the contrary.

[Sherilyn]

In article <3359ee82...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein
<mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes

>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>

>>And lo! Sherilyn [is this the name of a woman or of a drag queen or...?]
>
>Peter (is that the name of a closet queen, cannibalistic pederast or
>...?)

lol! Thanks, Matt!

>
>>whom I have seen one *ad hominem* after another from, deleted
>>almost everything I wrote with the comment, "ad hominems deleted".

If I have committed the lapse of ad hominem in Peter's case or in anyone
else's case, let me apologise. The post I followed up with "ad hominem
deleted" seemed to me to consist of nothing but invective, but it's
possible that the technical content went over my fluffy feminine head.

I rendered this post as:

>For a considerable time in March,
[ad hominem deleted]
>has
>issued.
>

>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --

an act of pure butchery that, had I but known it, marked me forever as
ignorant, ingrateful and hypocritical.

Here, by way of amends, is the full post unbutchered. I restore it so
that heads much wiser than I can enjoy the benefit of Peter's erudition
and intellectual rigor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Paul Myers buries his head in the sand
Date: 10 Apr 1997 16:54:40 GMT
Organization: University of South Carolina - Columbia - Computer Science
Message-ID: <5ij60g$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>
Lines: 66

A highly dishonest attack on Joe Potter, full of "logic" as

tortuous as any you can find in Plato's _Euthydemus_, which he conducted
on that "...FAQ..." thread even before the cease-fire was over,
evidently
does not count as provocation in his eyes.

His post was full of innuendo, self-righteousness, and a piece

of logic so blatantly phoney I can't believe even a mind as
warped as his could believe it for an instant: the claim that
my continued strong words about him were proof that my earlier
strong words against him had not been his fault at all.

Using this breathless piece of illogic as an excuse, he
announced he was killfiling me. This has happened so often
in Usenet: a person whose dishonesty and hypocrisy have
been exposed posts a fresh batch of same, then figuratively plugs
his ears, like a little boy who no longer wants to hear
scolding and shouts, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

This completed the act of burying his head in the sand: he had
already explicitly told me not to send him CC's of any posts
and made some pretty strong hints that my e-mail would not
be welcome either, at least not to the address from which
practically all his deceitfulness, hypocrisy and invective has
issued.

Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --

--
Sherilyn

[Christopher C. Wood]

In article <335cf4d0...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
|> In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

|> >Brought here from the thread, "Paul Myers buries his head in the sand",
|> >on which Matt did a huge favor to Paul Myers by steering the
|> >discussion away from the things I had written about Myers,
|> >censoring almost all of what I had written about Myers from his
|> >followup.

|> Censoring? You mean that I ignored a list of insults and marked the
|> snip. I was not aware that not including some quoted material in a
|> post was censoring. Anyone is still free to respond to the parts that
|> I did not wish to respond to.

You don't get it. Anyone not thinking Nyikos's thoughts is censoring
him. Anyone contradicting his arguments is attacking him personally.
Nyikos' behavior suggests to me the antoginsts after whom the quip:
"academic feuds are so fierce because they are meanigless" was coined.

Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com

[Peter Nyikos]

mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:

>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>>CC: Joe Potter, with the advice to hit Myers where he is weakest,
>>rather than letting Matt dictate the course of his posts. He could
>>begin by following up to this post and leaving in everything I
>>said; Myers has not killfiled him yet.
>>
>>This action is appropriate because one "prediction" of mine seems
>>already to be coming true.
>>
>>In my followup to the post where Myers announced
>>his killfiling me, I had asked pointedly,
>>
>> "What will it be next? Will your allies censor every negative
>> thing I say about you in their followups to me, so you
>> can't see it even by accident? Or will they leave in
>> the negative statements and censor the reasoning behind them?"
>>

>>And lo! Sherilyn [is this the name of a woman or of a drag queen or...?]

>Peter (is that the name of a closet queen, cannibalistic pederast or
>...?)

Thanks for once again showing your true colors. "Sherilyn"
gives no clue as to what his/her identity is in any of the
posts I've seen, and I am just the opposite in that respect.

By the way, I take it that you have a politically incorrect
opinion of drag queens. Why else would you have dragged in
"cannibalistic pederasts", who are NOT a PC-protected minority
and probably aren't likely to become one any time between
now and 2020? [The ones who actually kill the objects of
their cannibalism will never, I hope, become a PC-protected
group.]

>>whom I have seen one *ad hominem* after another from, deleted
>>almost everything I wrote with the comment, "ad hominems deleted".
>>

>>And Matt Silberstein deleted all except one paragraph and quickly
>>moved to neutralize it by launching an attack on Joe Potter
>>that had absolutely nothing to do with the scam I had been
>>attacking Paul Myers for, in connection with Joe Potter.

>First the connection was Joe Potter. Since you seemed to claim him as
>an ally I wanted to see how you agreed.

I only said he was a possible ally, based on the very few
posts he has done in which he has stated agreeement with me.
Since then it seems probable that he was just registering
agreement instead of wanting to ally himself with me the
way you have allied yourself with so many of the people who have
been attacking me this year, especially the two Pauls.

Second I did snip everything
>else because I did not wish to get involved in one of you lists of
>wrongs done. Third I did not in any way attack Joe in that post.

Yes, you did. You accused him of having made two allegation about you
which, elsewhere, you tried to portray as being totally incorrect.
You even thanked me when I said that he owed you an apology if
he can't find anything better to support his claims than what
you showed me.

(I do
>not think I have ever attack Joe, but I could be wrong.) I asked you
>if you agreed with him and a specific claim he made. I do not see how
>you construe that as an attack.

Get real. A person (supposedly) accuses you of having attacked religion,
and of blaming all war on religion, and you spend over a thousand
lines to date telling him in effect to put up or shut up. And
you actually think you never attacked him?

Could it be that you are using the following "definition"?

attack, n

1. Any negative statement, no matter how justifiable or
justified, about Matt Silberstein or anyone
whom Matt wishes to portray as being the target of an
attack.

2. Any unjustifiable negative statement by Matt Silberstein or
anyone else Matt Silberstein wishes to come under this
more restrictive definition.

By the way, what do you think of Sherilyn's use of the word
"ad hominem"? Have you finally looked up the word like
I advised you to?

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins, on thread Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the sand,
nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>
>>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>

[snip]

>>>whom I have seen one *ad hominem* after another from, deleted
>>>almost everything I wrote with the comment, "ad hominems deleted".
>>>
>>>And Matt Silberstein deleted all except one paragraph and quickly
>>>moved to neutralize it by launching an attack on Joe Potter
>>>that had absolutely nothing to do with the scam I had been
>>>attacking Paul Myers for, in connection with Joe Potter.
>
>>First the connection was Joe Potter. Since you seemed to claim him as
>>an ally I wanted to see how you agreed.
>
>I only said he was a possible ally, based on the very few
>posts he has done in which he has stated agreeement with me.
>Since then it seems probable that he was just registering
>agreement instead of wanting to ally himself with me the
>way you have allied yourself with so many of the people who have
>been attacking me this year, especially the two Pauls.

I am confused about the distinctions you are making between
registering agreement and alliances. Do you really claim that I have
"secret" agreements and discussion with people on this newsgroup? That
we communicate and coordinate our "attacks" on you?

> Second I did snip everything
>>else because I did not wish to get involved in one of you lists of
>>wrongs done. Third I did not in any way attack Joe in that post.
>
>Yes, you did. You accused him of having made two allegation about you
>which, elsewhere, you tried to portray as being totally incorrect.
>You even thanked me when I said that he owed you an apology if
>he can't find anything better to support his claims than what
>you showed me.

Disagreement over definition. I do not consider claiming that Joe said
something that was not supported an attack. If I had said he was a
liar or deluded or moron (which I did not and do not so claim), that
would, IMO, be an attack. YMMV.

> (I do
>>not think I have ever attack Joe, but I could be wrong.) I asked you
>>if you agreed with him and a specific claim he made. I do not see how
>>you construe that as an attack.
>
>Get real. A person (supposedly) accuses you of having attacked religion,
>and of blaming all war on religion, and you spend over a thousand
>lines to date telling him in effect to put up or shut up. And
>you actually think you never attacked him?
>
>Could it be that you are using the following "definition"?
>
>attack, n
>
>1. Any negative statement, no matter how justifiable or
>justified, about Matt Silberstein or anyone
>whom Matt wishes to portray as being the target of an
>attack.
>
>2. Any unjustifiable negative statement by Matt Silberstein or
>anyone else Matt Silberstein wishes to come under this
>more restrictive definition.

No, I consider an attack to be a personal charge against a person. A
disagreement over what he said, what I said, and what they meant is
not an attack. For instance, I don't think that Joe attacked me
either. (I could be wrong, but if he did, I don't think it mattered
much.) His claim that I attacked religion does not, IMO, constitute an
attack on me. Perhaps it is just an issue of personal boundaries.

>By the way, what do you think of Sherilyn's use of the word
>"ad hominem"?

Are you referring to her post on 10 April responding to your seminal
post for this thread? If so, I do think it was accurate. Your post
primarily consisted of personal statements about Paul Myers.

>Have you finally looked up the word like
>I advised you to?

Sorry Peter, Didn't you see my post were I presented the definition
from my dictionary? I will e-mail it to you.

[Peter Nyikos]

Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:

>In article <3359ee82...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein

><mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes

>>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>>>And lo! Sherilyn [is this the name of a woman or of a drag queen or...?]

>>Peter (is that the name of a closet queen, cannibalistic pederast or
>>...?)

>lol! Thanks, Matt!

I take it you have a politically incorrect attitude
towards drag queens?

The reason I asked the question, by the way, is that your
posts are sufficiently unusual that I thought the probability
that you were a drag queen is significantly higher than
in the general population. You are the only woman
(if woman you are) in my over four years of Usenet
experience who called me "Peter darling". And you
did it in a public post right here in talk.origins
on the 10th of this month.

On the other hand, I have been repeatedly addressed with similar terms
of endearment by at least one male homosexual who even broadcast his
orientation in his website, as well as being made a public fisting offer
by another avowed homosexual, Keith Cochran, whom you may have
seen hanging around this
newsgroup in years past. Both these incidents occurred in
another talk* newsgroup, and in each case the people who
did these things were quite unapologetic about having done them.

FTR, I am straight, and these people did these things to
harass me.

>>>whom I have seen one *ad hominem* after another from, deleted
>>>almost everything I wrote with the comment, "ad hominems deleted".

>If I have committed the lapse of ad hominem in Peter's case or in anyone

>else's case, let me apologise.

You did. Calling me "Peter darling" when I don't know you
from Adam (or Eve) was quite a blatant ad hominem, as was the
rest of what you wrote in that post.

The post I followed up with "ad hominem
>deleted" seemed to me to consist of nothing but invective, but it's
>possible that the technical content went over my fluffy feminine head.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You said it, not I. I don't make remarks like that about people;
I have been known to use a lot of invective, as you noticed,
but such sexist across-the-board judgments are alien to me.

>I rendered this post as:

>>For a considerable time in March,
>[ad hominem deleted]
>>has
>>issued.
>>

>>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --

>an act of pure butchery that, had I but known it, marked me forever as
>ignorant, ingrateful and hypocritical.

Don't misrepresent me. Even taking that "Peter darling" liberty
with me the way you did only registered about 2.0 on my analogue of the
Richter scale. And since you made amends by reposting what you deleted
where Paul Myers has a chance of seeing it (unless he has
you killfiled too, in which case you have my sympathy)
I won't hold this newer action against you.

[howard hershey]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >In article <3359ee82...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein
> ><mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>
> >>>And lo! Sherilyn [is this the name of a woman or of a drag queen or...?]

[snip much else to which we should all turn our other cheeks]

> >If I have committed the lapse of ad hominem in Peter's case or in anyone
> >else's case, let me apologise.
>
> You did. Calling me "Peter darling" when I don't know you
> from Adam (or Eve) was quite a blatant ad hominem, as was the
> rest of what you wrote in that post.

Hmmmm. 'Peter darling' vrs. 'drag queen'. If 'Peter darling' is a
"blatant *ad hominem*", what is 'drag queen'? Clever repartee?

>
> The post I followed up with "ad hominem
> >deleted" seemed to me to consist of nothing but invective, but it's
> >possible that the technical content went over my fluffy feminine head.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You said it, not I. I don't make remarks like that about people;

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> I have been known to use a lot of invective, as you noticed,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, it has been noticed that you use a lot of unclever invective. And
I agree that you don't use remarks like "fluffy feminine head". You
prefer using "drag queen" as a way to insult a woman (for you had no
reason to think otherwise than that the poster was female).

> but such sexist across-the-board judgments are alien to me.

^^^^^
Was that a Si-based alien or a C-based alien, Peter?

(|)

[Peter Nyikos]

mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:

>In talk.origins, on thread Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the sand,
>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>>
>>>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

[Matt:]
>[snip]

Matt Silberstein's snip constitutes running away from the issue
of whether he has a politically incorrect attitude towards
drag queens, the way I use the term "running away": one follows
up to a post where an issue is raised, and deletes everything
pertaining to the issue, with no indication of ever wanting
to deal with it.

Matt invited this issue by his merciless lampooning of something
I asked about Sherilyn. My reasons for asking that question
are discussed in a separate followup I did to Sherilyn a few
minutes ago.

[Peter, talking about Sherilyn:]

>>>>whom I have seen one *ad hominem* after another from, deleted
>>>>almost everything I wrote with the comment, "ad hominems deleted".
>>>>

>>>>And Matt Silberstein deleted all except one paragraph and quickly
>>>>moved to neutralize it by launching an attack on Joe Potter
>>>>that had absolutely nothing to do with the scam I had been
>>>>attacking Paul Myers for, in connection with Joe Potter.

[Matt:]

>>>First the connection was Joe Potter. Since you seemed to claim him as
>>>an ally I wanted to see how you agreed.

[Peter:]

>>I only said he was a possible ally, based on the very few
>>posts he has done in which he has stated agreeement with me.
>>Since then it seems probable that he was just registering
>>agreement instead of wanting to ally himself with me the
>>way you have allied yourself with so many of the people who have
>>been attacking me this year, especially the two Pauls.

>I am confused about the distinctions you are making between
>registering agreement and alliances.

You actually consider the two to be synonymous????

The only reason I even considered Potter and Hughes to be *possible*
allies is that they are the first creationists in almost two
years of my talk.origins posting to register any public agreement with
me on any issue; usually creationists just avoid me like the plague.

> Do you really claim that I have
>"secret" agreements and discussion with people on this newsgroup?

Not at all. However, I do believe that you, mendacious and
cunning person that you are, figure there is no good for you
in supporting me or attacking my opponents. You have nothing
to gain from supporting me because if you did, my opponents
would repeatedly want to know my opinion of various behaviours of yours
just as you repeatedly asked me my opinion of something Potter did;
and, justice-seeking person that I am, I would not duck the question,
but would give my sincere opinion.

And you have seen how my opponents maintain a "see no evil, hear
no evil, speak no evil" attitude towards each other's rank
dishonesty and insincerity, so you figured it would not hurt
to go and do likewise where they are concerned.

And so, you are their ally, in every pragmatic Usenet sense
of the word.

[Matt:]

>> Second I did snip everything
>>>else because I did not wish to get involved in one of you lists of
>>>wrongs done. Third I did not in any way attack Joe in that post.

>>Yes, you did. You accused him of having made two allegation about you
>>which, elsewhere, you tried to portray as being totally incorrect.
>>You even thanked me when I said that he owed you an apology if
>>he can't find anything better to support his claims than what
>>you showed me.

>Disagreement over definition.

If that's all it is, then I wash my hands of this dispute, and
may you both agree on a definition.

However, I think you are being blatantly insincere here,
and so in the end I probably won't wash my hands of the dispute.

[Matt:]

>> (I do
>>>not think I have ever attack Joe, but I could be wrong.) I asked you
>>>if you agreed with him and a specific claim he made. I do not see how
>>>you construe that as an attack.

[Peter:]

>>Get real. A person (supposedly) accuses you of having attacked religion,
>>and of blaming all war on religion, and you spend over a thousand
>>lines to date telling him in effect to put up or shut up. And
>>you actually think you never attacked him?
>>
>>Could it be that you are using the following "definition"?
>>
>>attack, n
>>
>>1. Any negative statement, no matter how justifiable or
>>justified, about Matt Silberstein or anyone
>>whom Matt wishes to portray as being the target of an
>>attack.
>>
>>2. Any unjustifiable negative statement by Matt Silberstein or
>>anyone else Matt Silberstein wishes to come under this
>>more restrictive definition.

>No, I consider an attack to be a personal charge against a person.

Again, I think you are being insincere:

>[...] His claim that I attacked religion does not, IMO, constitute an
>attack on me.

His claim that you attacked religion is not a personal charge
against you? I think you are just playing fast and loose
with words.

>>By the way, what do you think of Sherilyn's use of the word
>>"ad hominem"?

>Are you referring to her post on 10 April responding to your seminal
>post for this thread? If so, I do think it was accurate. Your post
>primarily consisted of personal statements about Paul Myers.

That is not the way you used "ad hominem" before. You even
"corrected" me when I used it that way.

And Sherilyn may be surprised to learn, by your new criterion,
just how many ad hominems 'e is guilty of.

>>Have you finally looked up the word like
>>I advised you to?

>Sorry Peter, Didn't you see my post were I presented the definition
>from my dictionary? I will e-mail it to you.

Please do. I suspect you are working from a substandard dictionary.

[Peter Nyikos]

mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:

>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>>Brought here from the thread, "Paul Myers buries his head in the sand",

...where Matt seems to be conveniently forgetting already
what he did there. See below.

>>on which Matt did a huge favor to Paul Myers by steering the
>>discussion away from the things I had written about Myers,
>>censoring almost all of what I had written about Myers from his
>>followup.

>Censoring? You mean that I ignored a list of insults and marked the
>snip.

That was not a list of insults, it was an account of the highlights
of Paul Myers's behavior in his vendetta against me, which he
is continuing even after having killfiled me. The latest I've
seen was his near-libel (or maybe outright libel) that I had
defended "young-earth creationism and the Flood".

I was not aware that not including some quoted material in a
>post was censoring. Anyone is still free to respond to the parts that
>I did not wish to respond to.

Not Paul Myers, as long as he wished to be seen as killfiling me.
Your snip insured that he was not free to respond to it, at
least until Sherilyn, who had performed an even more complete
snip, restored the post in a later followup to me.

That's assuming, of course, that Paul has not also killfiled
Sherilyn. If he has, then we are no better off than before.

>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>>
>>>In talk.origins "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
>>>><33535636...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>>> In talk.origins "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>>>> >(jp) In my oppinion, it was you and Myers harping on this for all this
>>>>time.
>>>>>
>>>>> You attacked me and claimed I said something I did not.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This was Matt talking to Joe. Matt conveniently forgot this in the
thread, "Paul Myers buries his head in the sand" where I
followed up to him a short while ago.

=========================== excerpt from my followup

[Peter:]
>>Get real. A person (supposedly) accuses you of having attacked religion,
>>and of blaming all war on religion, and you spend over a thousand
>>lines to date telling him in effect to put up or shut up. And
>>you actually think you never attacked him?
>>
>>Could it be that you are using the following "definition"?
>>
>>attack, n
>>
>>1. Any negative statement, no matter how justifiable or
>>justified, about Matt Silberstein or anyone
>>whom Matt wishes to portray as being the target of an
>>attack.
>>
>>2. Any unjustifiable negative statement by Matt Silberstein or
>>anyone else Matt Silberstein wishes to come under this
>>more restrictive definition.

>No, I consider an attack to be a personal charge against a person.

Again, I think you are being insincere:

>[...] His claim that I attacked religion does not, IMO, constitute an
>attack on me.

His claim that you attacked religion is not a personal charge
against you? I think you are just playing fast and loose
with words.

============================ end of excerpt

I have been
>>>>> trying to get you to back up or withdraw the claim.

>>"said" is incorrect. Matt's score of 90 on this one gets dropped to
>>85 and will drop further with each new misrepresentation.

>Wow, I should have use "wrote".

"wrote" is incorrect. Matt's score drops to 75 since I dropped
it five points further below.

[Joe:]

>>>> I wrote you back on your "religious wars" hit. You indicated by your
>>>>words that religion causes much "at all costs" horror in the world today in
>>>>these wars --- and I told you of much horror caused by others. It was and
>>>>remains fair.

[Matt:]

>>>Except you have changed the story.

Sounds to me like a personal charge against Joe, folks.

>>> Your original claim was that I had
>>>blamed religion for all of the horror we see.

[Peter:]

>>This drops it to 80. He said "Matt made the implication that religion
>>causes all the horror we see" but that was as strong as it got.

>And he now changes "all" to "much".

Thanks for not disputing my claim that "said" and, by implication,
"wrote" was incorrect.

Neither of which is correct. IMO,
>the "indicated" above is the same as the previous "made the
>implication" but YMMV.

Mine doesn't. I concur with your interpretation on this point.

[Matt, to Joe:]

>> Now you have rewritten
>>>history (to use the standard term, rather than the form popular among
>>>some on this newsgroup)

[Peter:]

>>I get more specific. Usenet history is often treated
>>very lightly on Usenet, not like "real" history.

[Matt:]

>> and say I only say religion causes "much" of
>>>the problem. That is better, but still not what I said.

[Peter:]

>>For someone who repeatedly and flagrantly misrepresents what
>>I said about souls on s.b.e., you certainly are big on making
>>people represent you accurately.

>Which does not deal with this representation but rather attempts to
>change the subject to Peter himself.

No, it attempts to change the topic to Matt's flagrant double
standards and possible hypocrisy.

>>>><snip>
>>
>>>>> >(jp) I happen to think that most "religious wars" are not in fact about
>>>>> >religion. Most are about race, power, and plunder. It is the old "let us
>>>>> >get them" of human nauture.

>>>>> So religion gets absolved of the bad things done in its name, and gets
>>>>> credit for the good ones.

>>A highly revealing statement, IMO, telling us a lot about Matt's
>>true attitude towards religious people. Also weakening his
>>case against Potter by misrepresenting Potter as seriously
>>as Potter misrepresented him.

>What is my view of religious people

YOU tell us, Matt, in a way that accounts for what you said about
Potter.

>and how did I misrepresent Potter?
>It seems to me that he is attempting to absolve religion of (at least
>some of) the bad things done in its name.

Even that much remains to be seen, and I note the backpedal
to "It seems to me"

If my extension of this case
>to a universal is what you mean then I withdraw it. I was trying for
>an exaggeration for effect and did not write as clearly as I should
>have.

Withdrawal accepted; your remark did not say quite as much about
your attitude towards religious people as a literal reading
of it would indicate.

>>>> Not at all. If you read history you will find that wars have many, many
>>>>causes that are not as simplistic as you indicate. WWI was billed as a war
>>>>"to end all wars" but that was not the root cause, nor even a main one.
>>
>>>And where did I indicate any simplistic notion of cause at all?
>>
>>You used the term "religious wars" and ducked my question of
>>how you determine whether a war is religious. You also made
>>some general statements about how "the belief that you have revealed
>>truth frequently leads people to horrible behavior."

>"Religious wars" refers to the subset of the class wars that is
>characterized by a relationship with religion. It says little or
>nothing about cause.

"Cause" is not a cut and dried issue. What causes the opening
shots in a war may be very different from what escalates the
war into its definitive form, WWI being a prime example.

>Regarding the notion of "revealed truth" above I was thinking of
>Manson, Jim Jones, Applewhite, etc.

None of whom had anything to do with religious wars, and yet
that was the context in which you made that statement:

============================= excerpt from followup by Joe to you

> > By the way, why did you drop the line about "religious wars" being
> >examples of "at all cost" anyway?
>
> Do you mean "drop" as in stop using or do you mean "drop" as in use.
> (Isn't the ambiguity of natural languages wonderful?) I did not *stop*
> using the phrase. I used it were I thought it was appropriate. If you
> want to know why I used that phrase I can tell you. (BTW, it would
> have been a better idea to ask me in the first place, rather than
> telling me what I meant.) I happen to think that religious wars are a
> particularly grievous example of some horrible human behavior. Whether
> or not there is a God, and whether or not any particular religion is
> correct, the belief that you have revealed truth frequently leads
> people to horrible behavior. That is not an attack on any particular
> religion and it is not an attack on religion in general. It is an
> observation about human nature. In particular I want to emphasize that
> this is not the sum total of my opinion of religion.
>

I happen to think that most "religious wars" are not in fact about
religion. Most are about race, power, and plunder. It is the old "let us
get them" of human nauture.

But, even so we see more civilians murdered by thier own governmnet in

this century than in all the wars. Stalin was the champ.

================================ end of excerpt

Actually, Mao was the champ in the sense of being the one in
command of a country with the most number of people `murdered'
for political/religious reasons. But Stalin came close.

>> I
>>>actually made no statement about cause. Now two paragraphs ago you say
>>>that "religious wars" are not "about" religion.
>>
>>Matt conveniently neglected to put "most" in front of "religious".

>Not conveniently, but possible sloppily. If that is important then I
>withdraw the original and wish all to put the "most" back in. That
>does not, in my view, change the point.

^^^^^^^^^^^

I think you are being insincere, and establishing an unenviable
pattern: you get called on a false claim, withdraw it, and then
act as though the original false claim were no big deal.

>>How old are you, Matt? You post like an experienced polemicist,
>>making me suspect you are at least thirty years old; and yet in
>>other respects your style is like that of a college freshman
>>of 18. [Also, your knowledge of science seems to be stuck
>>on the high school freshman level.]

>What can I say. I am actually a bot composed of several researchers at
>Chicago. We are 15, 18, and 29.

Your failure to give a meaningful answer is noted. By the way,
are you even located somewhere in the USA?

>> Then you say wars have
>>>many causes. Are you willing to concede that religion is one of the
>>>causes of war, or do you, as I said, absolve religion of the bad
>>>things done in its name?
>>
>>Note the unequivocal "of war", not even qualifying it with "most"
>>let alone "much".

>I am sorry if this was not clear. By "war" in that sentence I meant
>the class "war". I did not mean to imply in any way that I thought
>that religion was a cause of all wars.

>>I also note the "as I said", again putting Potter under suspicion
>>of absolving religion of the bad things done in its name.

>My gosh, I referred to a phrase from the same post. How dreadful.

Your confusing of the issue is noted.

[Joe:]

>>>> You want to label religion as *the* cause in places where it is but one of
>>>>many factors.

[...]

[Matt to Joe:]

>> You seem to want
>>>to read something different into my statements than I put there. I can
>>>accept that you have misunderstood what I said, but I would like to
>>>see the passage where I talked about religion as "the" cause of
>>>anything/
>>
>>Sickeningly disingenuous. Besides "religious wars" there is
>>also the suggestive one about "revealed truth" that I quoted up there.

>Disingenuous? I have tried several times to make the same point.

Only in this post, where you clarified the "cause" issue to some
extent. But I was referring to your earlier behavior, of course.

You
>seem to assert that I want to blame war, but withdraw if countered.

It sure seemed that way to me, except that it is only in this
post where your witdrawals assume major proportions.

If
>I thought religion was the (sole, single, solitary) cause of (many,
>most, all, or a single) war, then I would say so. But I did not intend
>that originally, I do not intend that now.

Thanks for clearing that up.

>>>>> >(jp) But, even so we see more civilians murdered by thier own governmnet
>>>>in
>>>>> >this century than in all the wars. Stalin was the champ.

[Matt:]

>>>>> Which has nothing to do with what I said at all. Did I pick the best
>>>>> example in the world. No. Did I pick an example that presented what I
>>>>> meant. Yes.

[Joe:]

>>>> Yes, you picked religion as the cause of some wars so as to label religion
>>>>as the bad guy in many conflicts. This is not a fair statement of the
>>>>facts, since these wars are about so many factors.

[Matt:]

>>>Now you have discovered the ability to discern what my real intentions
>>>were from my words.

[Peter:]

>>The smart money is on Matt being at least thirty years old. He
>>posts like a seasoned veteran of controversy.

[Matt:]

>> Please present the quote that shows why I picked
>>>this example. This assertion of yours seems to directly contradict
>>>statements I have made.

>>Actions speak louder than words.

By the way, what were those statements, and why don't your actions
nullify them?

>Which, btw, was the original point I tried to make. One that Joe does
>not seem to agree with.

Oh? On what basis do you say this?

> Since you have just made the same claim I made
>in the begriming I think we should end this whole discussion.

How sickeningly disingenouous can you get, Matt?

>>>> And in context of the thread, you seem to have wanted to attack religion
>>>>to make a debate point.
>>
>>>Your ability to read my mind, and to determine what I intend despite
>>>my claims to the contrary, is impressive. Can you read other people's
>>>minds or is it only me. If this is not mind reading then please back
>>>up you claims about my intentions with some evidence.
>>
>>The evidence is all around you in this post. Conclusive? no.
>>Highly suggestive? I do believe so.

>And it is suggestive despite my direct statements to the contrary.

As I said, actions speak louder than words. And your action,
in posting this parting shot, is highly suggestive of you
thinking that "Actions speak louder than words" is something
you use as a weapon to hit others rather than as a universally
true statement.

[Peter Nyikos]

chr...@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:

>In article <335cf4d0...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>|> In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>|> >Brought here from the thread, "Paul Myers buries his head in the sand",
>|> >on which Matt did a huge favor to Paul Myers by steering the
>|> >discussion away from the things I had written about Myers,
>|> >censoring almost all of what I had written about Myers from his
>|> >followup.

>|> Censoring? You mean that I ignored a list of insults and marked the
>|> snip. I was not aware that not including some quoted material in a
>|> post was censoring. Anyone is still free to respond to the parts that
>|> I did not wish to respond to.

>You don't get it. Anyone not thinking Nyikos's thoughts is censoring

>him. Anyone contradicting his arguments is attacking him personally.
>Nyikos' behavior suggests to me the antoginsts after whom the quip:
>"academic feuds are so fierce because they are meanigless" was coined.

>Speaking only for myself, of course.
>Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com

I doubt that Chris is speaking even for himself. I believe
he is just racking up WoodsDebatingPoints.

Let's not forget, it was the same Chris Wood who racked up
WoodsDebatingPoints of another kind earlier this year when
he crowed victory in a debate, over my having said negative personal
things about him, taking these negative but on-target things
as proof that he had won the debate.

Chris, in other words, credits himself with a WoodsDebatingPoint
whenever he insults someone, and also credits himself with
a WoodsDebatingPoint whenever someone insults him. :-)

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Silberstein vs. Potter_,
nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>
>>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

[snip]

> I was not aware that not including some quoted material in a
>>post was censoring. Anyone is still free to respond to the parts that
>>I did not wish to respond to.
>
>Not Paul Myers, as long as he wished to be seen as killfiling me.
>Your snip insured that he was not free to respond to it, at
>least until Sherilyn, who had performed an even more complete
>snip, restored the post in a later followup to me.

He is free to respond or not as he sees fit. It is not my
responsibility to ensure that he sees every insult you throw at him.
And my decision to snip those insults in not, in any way, a censoring
of your material.

>That's assuming, of course, that Paul has not also killfiled
>Sherilyn. If he has, then we are no better off than before.
>
>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>>>
>>>>In talk.origins "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
>>>>><33535636...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>>>> In talk.origins "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> >(jp) In my oppinion, it was you and Myers harping on this for all this
>>>>>time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You attacked me and claimed I said something I did not.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This was Matt talking to Joe. Matt conveniently forgot this in the
>thread, "Paul Myers buries his head in the sand" where I
>followed up to him a short while ago.

Not "conveniently", I just forgot. You are right, that was a sloppy
usage. Looking back on the thread I notice that I engages in that
usage more than once. It is incorrect and does not really reflect my
views. I will work to eliminate such constructions in the future.

[snip]

>>>"said" is incorrect. Matt's score of 90 on this one gets dropped to
>>>85 and will drop further with each new misrepresentation.
>
>>Wow, I should have use "wrote".
>
>"wrote" is incorrect. Matt's score drops to 75 since I dropped
>it five points further below.

Just drop it to 0, I am not really interested in this grading process
at all. I asked whether you agree or disagree with his position. You
refusal to answer that question in the format that I want the question
answered is noted.

>[Joe:]
>>>>> I wrote you back on your "religious wars" hit. You indicated by your
>>>>>words that religion causes much "at all costs" horror in the world today in
>>>>>these wars --- and I told you of much horror caused by others. It was and
>>>>>remains fair.
>
>[Matt:]
>>>>Except you have changed the story.
>
>Sounds to me like a personal charge against Joe, folks.

Except it is not. I am saying that he has changed the claim. I am not
saying anything about *him*.

>>>> Your original claim was that I had
>>>>blamed religion for all of the horror we see.
>
>[Peter:]
>>>This drops it to 80. He said "Matt made the implication that religion
>>>causes all the horror we see" but that was as strong as it got.
>
>>And he now changes "all" to "much".
>
>Thanks for not disputing my claim that "said" and, by implication,
>"wrote" was incorrect.

What are you looking for? Should I have said "implied"? Big deal. This
is one of several passages that supported my statements. Peter
darling, you are spending far more time defending Joe than Joe did.

[snip]

>[Peter:]
>>>For someone who repeatedly and flagrantly misrepresents what
>>>I said about souls on s.b.e., you certainly are big on making
>>>people represent you accurately.
>
>>Which does not deal with this representation but rather attempts to
>>change the subject to Peter himself.
>
>No, it attempts to change the topic to Matt's flagrant double
>standards and possible hypocrisy.

Which is still a subject change. And you still have not responded to
my numerous re-postings of you quote on souls.

>>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>> >(jp) I happen to think that most "religious wars" are not in fact about
>>>>>> >religion. Most are about race, power, and plunder. It is the old "let us
>>>>>> >get them" of human nauture.
>
>>>>>> So religion gets absolved of the bad things done in its name, and gets
>>>>>> credit for the good ones.
>
>>>A highly revealing statement, IMO, telling us a lot about Matt's
>>>true attitude towards religious people. Also weakening his
>>>case against Potter by misrepresenting Potter as seriously
>>>as Potter misrepresented him.
>
>>What is my view of religious people
>
>YOU tell us, Matt, in a way that accounts for what you said about
>Potter.

No, if my statement revealed my position then you should be able to
tell me what I revealed. Asking me for more information implies that I
did not reveal all that much.

>>and how did I misrepresent Potter?
>>It seems to me that he is attempting to absolve religion of (at least
>>some of) the bad things done in its name.
>
>Even that much remains to be seen, and I note the backpedal
>to "It seems to me"

"backpedal"? Peter darling, I am going to have to work much harder to
write in the precise manner you seem to like. I said "religion gets
absolved". I would have thought that "by you" was implied in the
sentence. I did not think that Joe's position was binding on anyone
but Joe.

[snip]

>>>You used the term "religious wars" and ducked my question of
>>>how you determine whether a war is religious. You also made
>>>some general statements about how "the belief that you have revealed
>>>truth frequently leads people to horrible behavior."
>
>>"Religious wars" refers to the subset of the class wars that is
>>characterized by a relationship with religion. It says little or
>>nothing about cause.
>
>"Cause" is not a cut and dried issue. What causes the opening
>shots in a war may be very different from what escalates the
>war into its definitive form, WWI being a prime example.

>>Regarding the notion of "revealed truth" above I was thinking of
>>Manson, Jim Jones, Applewhite, etc.
>
>None of whom had anything to do with religious wars, and yet
>that was the context in which you made that statement:

I will try to make this a clear as I can. I think the belief that you
have revealed truth leads people to horrible behavior. The above
people are examples of this as are many people involved in religious
wars. Many people on this newsgroup tell us they have revealed truth.
(Among them is Scott Wilcox, someone who strikes me as intelligent,
sensible, decent, and wrong.) One of the frequent results of this kind
of revelation is that people will commit atrocities in the name of the
revelations. Other examples of "revealed truth", IMO, are Pol Pot,
Lenin, and Luther. Revealed Truth (tm) is note the same as Religion.
However RT is the basis, IMO, for religious belief. By small 'r'
religious I am not referring to such religious issues as the proper
computer OS, best baseball team, best country, etc. This is similar
to, but different from religion as a faith based system.

[snip]

>>> I
>>>>actually made no statement about cause. Now two paragraphs ago you say
>>>>that "religious wars" are not "about" religion.
>>>
>>>Matt conveniently neglected to put "most" in front of "religious".
>
>>Not conveniently, but possible sloppily. If that is important then I
>>withdraw the original and wish all to put the "most" back in. That
>>does not, in my view, change the point.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I think you are being insincere, and establishing an unenviable
>pattern: you get called on a false claim, withdraw it, and then
>act as though the original false claim were no big deal.

Sorry if I don't defend my words to the death. (This is a hyperbole.)
I try to clarify them. I actually think about peoples' responses and
try to approach some common understanding. In the above I did not
think the correction meaningful or important.

>>>How old are you, Matt? You post like an experienced polemicist,
>>>making me suspect you are at least thirty years old; and yet in
>>>other respects your style is like that of a college freshman
>>>of 18. [Also, your knowledge of science seems to be stuck
>>>on the high school freshman level.]
>
>>What can I say. I am actually a bot composed of several researchers at
>>Chicago. We are 15, 18, and 29.
>
>Your failure to give a meaningful answer is noted. By the way,
>are you even located somewhere in the USA?

While you are busy noting my answer you should look up your notes and
realize that you have asked this previously and I refused to answer. I
gave you my reasons then, I don't see any reason to repeat myself. If
you don't understand why I won't answer then ask, but asking the same
question again, in this case, will only get a different answer.

>>> Then you say wars have
>>>>many causes. Are you willing to concede that religion is one of the
>>>>causes of war, or do you, as I said, absolve religion of the bad
>>>>things done in its name?
>>>
>>>Note the unequivocal "of war", not even qualifying it with "most"
>>>let alone "much".
>
>>I am sorry if this was not clear. By "war" in that sentence I meant
>>the class "war". I did not mean to imply in any way that I thought
>>that religion was a cause of all wars.
>
>>>I also note the "as I said", again putting Potter under suspicion
>>>of absolving religion of the bad things done in its name.
>
>>My gosh, I referred to a phrase from the same post. How dreadful.
>
>Your confusing of the issue is noted.

You sure do have a lot of notes. BTW, your refusal to answer the
question is also noted.

>[Joe:]
>>>>> You want to label religion as *the* cause in places where it is but one of
>>>>>many factors.
>
>[...]
>
>[Matt to Joe:]
>>> You seem to want
>>>>to read something different into my statements than I put there. I can
>>>>accept that you have misunderstood what I said, but I would like to
>>>>see the passage where I talked about religion as "the" cause of
>>>>anything/
>>>
>>>Sickeningly disingenuous. Besides "religious wars" there is
>>>also the suggestive one about "revealed truth" that I quoted up there.
>
>>Disingenuous? I have tried several times to make the same point.
>
>Only in this post, where you clarified the "cause" issue to some
>extent. But I was referring to your earlier behavior, of course.
>
> You
>>seem to assert that I want to blame war, but withdraw if countered.
>
>It sure seemed that way to me, except that it is only in this
>post where your witdrawals assume major proportions.
>
> If
>>I thought religion was the (sole, single, solitary) cause of (many,
>>most, all, or a single) war, then I would say so. But I did not intend
>>that originally, I do not intend that now.
>
>Thanks for clearing that up.

Which could have been cleared up if either you or Joe had asked for a
clarification. Or if Joe had not assumed a meaning that was not
supported by my comments.

[snip]

>>Which, btw, was the original point I tried to make. One that Joe does
>>not seem to agree with.
>
>Oh? On what basis do you say this?

Peter darling, did you ever bother to look up the original post
leading to this discussion?

When looking at this except remember that the context was Joe's claims
about a "war of words".

[begin inserted text]

MS> I think that any real war shows what "at all costs"
MS> means better than you claim about defenders of naturalism.

JP> Well, I think ideas are as (if not more) important that actions.

[end inserted text]

One of the issues at had was precisely the question of whether words
were more important than actions.

>> Since you have just made the same claim I made
>>in the begriming I think we should end this whole discussion.
>
>How sickeningly disingenouous can you get, Matt?

How sickeningly disingenuous do you want, Peter darling?

(BTW, I do hope that everyone realizes that Peter Darling is an
entirely different person, and one that is self-contradictory,
Spelberg to the contrary.)

[snip]

[Peter Nyikos]

mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:

>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the

>sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>>Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>In article <3359ee82...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein

>>><mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes

>>>>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>

>>>>>And lo! Sherilyn [is this the name of a woman or of a drag queen or...?]
>>

>>>>Peter (is that the name of a closet queen, cannibalistic pederast or
>>>>...?)
>>
>>>lol! Thanks, Matt!
>>

>>I take it you have a politically incorrect attitude
>>towards drag queens?

>Peter darling, I hate to inform you, but the term "drag queen" does
>not, necessarily, refer to homosexuals.

Oh, I think you love to inform me, especially since I didn't
make the mistake of thinking it necessarily refers to
homosexuals.

>>The reason I asked the question, by the way, is that your
>>posts are sufficiently unusual that I thought the probability
>>that you were a drag queen is significantly higher than
>>in the general population. You are the only woman
>>(if woman you are) in my over four years of Usenet
>>experience who called me "Peter darling". And you
>>did it in a public post right here in talk.origins
>>on the 10th of this month.
>>
>>On the other hand, I have been repeatedly addressed with similar terms
>>of endearment by at least one male homosexual who even broadcast his
>>orientation in his website, as well as being made a public fisting offer

It just now occurred to me that Howard Hershey's "turn the other
cheek" remark may have been a cute play on a colloquial use
of the word "cheek", inspired by my recounting of this incident.

>>by another avowed homosexual, Keith Cochran, whom you may have
>>seen hanging around this
>>newsgroup in years past. Both these incidents occurred in
>>another talk* newsgroup, and in each case the people who
>>did these things were quite unapologetic about having done them.

>>FTR, I am straight, and these people did these things to
>>harass me.

I suspect you called me "Peter darling" up there to
harass me, but the evidence is nowhere near as overwhelming
as it was in the case of those two hateful people.

>>>>>whom I have seen one *ad hominem* after another from, deleted
>>>>>almost everything I wrote with the comment, "ad hominems deleted".
>>

>>>If I have committed the lapse of ad hominem in Peter's case or in anyone
>>>else's case, let me apologise.
>>
>>You did. Calling me "Peter darling" when I don't know you
>>from Adam (or Eve) was quite a blatant ad hominem, as was the
>>rest of what you wrote in that post.

>I think the proper classification is "term of endearment".

That, however, applies with sarcasm in this case, I believe.
If you look at the context, it was quite similar to the
one in which you uttered the term up there.

I suppose
>technically it could be consider an ad hominem, though I don't think
>she used it to support her point.

Did you read the context? I think not.

By the way, the Concise OED doesn't begin to exhaust all the ramifications
of the term. Try looking at the Merriam-Webster definition #1 in either
the Unabridged or the Collegiate dictionary they publish. My usage here
is squarely in line with that.

Now, according to your standards, it
>is "bad" if it can't be supported.

You are being blatantly insincere, setting the stage for your next
put-down.

> I leave it to the readers to decide if Peter is a "darling" or not.

You, of course, have decided in the negative, and Sherylin has too,
from the looks of it.

>> The post I followed up with "ad hominem
>>>deleted" seemed to me to consist of nothing but invective, but it's
>>>possible that the technical content went over my fluffy feminine head.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>You said it, not I. I don't make remarks like that about people;

>>I have been known to use a lot of invective, as you noticed,

>>but such sexist across-the-board judgments are alien to me.

>I know. All you did was try to question he gender. No sex based
>judgements there.

I asked a straightforward question, and you can see above why.
Unlike Howard Hershey, you left in my justification. This, in
fact, is your usual practice, which is why your censoring
of my remarks about Paul Myers in the original post to this
thread stuck out like a sore thumb.

>>>>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>>

>>>an act of pure butchery that, had I but known it, marked me forever as
>>>ignorant, ingrateful and hypocritical.
>>
>>Don't misrepresent me. Even taking that "Peter darling" liberty
>>with me the way you did only registered about 2.0 on my analogue of the
>>Richter scale. And since you made amends by reposting what you deleted
>>where Paul Myers has a chance of seeing it (unless he has
>>you killfiled too, in which case you have my sympathy)
>>I won't hold this newer action against you.

>How Christ-like of you.

Sarcastic? I do pattern my behavior to a limited extent after Christ's
behavior, especially everything one reads in John 8. Everything.
In a limited way.

By the way, what is your attitude to Christ as depicted in the
latter half of John 8?

[PZ Myers]

In article <335e8342...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com
(Matt Silberstein) wrote:

> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Silberstein vs. Potter_,
> nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>
> >mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
> >
> >>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I was not aware that not including some quoted material in a
> >>post was censoring. Anyone is still free to respond to the parts that
> >>I did not wish to respond to.
> >
> >Not Paul Myers, as long as he wished to be seen as killfiling me.
> >Your snip insured that he was not free to respond to it, at
> >least until Sherilyn, who had performed an even more complete
> >snip, restored the post in a later followup to me.
>
> He is free to respond or not as he sees fit. It is not my
> responsibility to ensure that he sees every insult you throw at him.
> And my decision to snip those insults in not, in any way, a censoring
> of your material.

I don't see any need to respond to Peter's insults, so I certainly hope
no one feels obligated to quote him...and Peter, it's rather childish
of you to feel miffed that no one is delivering your invective to me. It's
not wanted.

>
> >That's assuming, of course, that Paul has not also killfiled
> >Sherilyn. If he has, then we are no better off than before.

On general principle, I'm very reluctant to killfile anyone -- I try
to give everyone the benefit of the doubt for a little while, at least.
It takes exceptional ignorance to convince me that someone has no
possibility of contributing anything to a discussion, and it takes
an unusual degree of bile to make me think that even if the person does
say something worthwhile, I'm going to be so appalled at the manner it
is presented that I won't want to see it.

Sherilyn hasn't met any of those requirements. Quite the opposite, actually...
she seems very rational and civil, even to Peter.

It takes an extraordinary effort to get into my killfile...hey, you could
think of it as my own little list! Unfortunately, it's not as impressive
as Peter's -- it's very, very short, with only one person on it.

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>In article <3359ee82...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein

>><mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes

>>>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>

>>>>And lo! Sherilyn [is this the name of a woman or of a drag queen or...?]
>
>>>Peter (is that the name of a closet queen, cannibalistic pederast or
>>>...?)
>
>>lol! Thanks, Matt!
>
>I take it you have a politically incorrect attitude
>towards drag queens?

Peter darling, I hate to inform you, but the term "drag queen" does
not, necessarily, refer to homosexuals.
>

>The reason I asked the question, by the way, is that your
>posts are sufficiently unusual that I thought the probability
>that you were a drag queen is significantly higher than
>in the general population. You are the only woman
>(if woman you are) in my over four years of Usenet
>experience who called me "Peter darling". And you
>did it in a public post right here in talk.origins
>on the 10th of this month.
>
>On the other hand, I have been repeatedly addressed with similar terms
>of endearment by at least one male homosexual who even broadcast his
>orientation in his website, as well as being made a public fisting offer

>by another avowed homosexual, Keith Cochran, whom you may have
>seen hanging around this
>newsgroup in years past. Both these incidents occurred in
>another talk* newsgroup, and in each case the people who
>did these things were quite unapologetic about having done them.
>
>FTR, I am straight, and these people did these things to
>harass me.
>

>>>>whom I have seen one *ad hominem* after another from, deleted
>>>>almost everything I wrote with the comment, "ad hominems deleted".
>
>>If I have committed the lapse of ad hominem in Peter's case or in anyone
>>else's case, let me apologise.
>
>You did. Calling me "Peter darling" when I don't know you
>from Adam (or Eve) was quite a blatant ad hominem, as was the
>rest of what you wrote in that post.

I think the proper classification is "term of endearment". I suppose

technically it could be consider an ad hominem, though I don't think

she used it to support her point. Now, according to your standards, it
is "bad" if it can't be supported. I leave it to the readers to decide

if Peter is a "darling" or not.

> The post I followed up with "ad hominem

>>deleted" seemed to me to consist of nothing but invective, but it's
>>possible that the technical content went over my fluffy feminine head.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You said it, not I. I don't make remarks like that about people;
>I have been known to use a lot of invective, as you noticed,
>but such sexist across-the-board judgments are alien to me.

I know. All you did was try to question he gender. No sex based
judgements there.

>>I rendered this post as:

>
>>>For a considerable time in March,
>>[ad hominem deleted]
>>>has
>>>issued.
>>>

>>>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>
>>an act of pure butchery that, had I but known it, marked me forever as
>>ignorant, ingrateful and hypocritical.
>
>Don't misrepresent me. Even taking that "Peter darling" liberty
>with me the way you did only registered about 2.0 on my analogue of the
>Richter scale. And since you made amends by reposting what you deleted
>where Paul Myers has a chance of seeing it (unless he has
>you killfiled too, in which case you have my sympathy)
>I won't hold this newer action against you.

How Christ-like of you.

Matt Silberstein

[Wade Hines]

mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:

>>>>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>>>>>And lo! Sherilyn [is this the name of a woman or of a drag queen or...?]

<<< snip >>>

>>The reason I asked the question, by the way, is that your
>>posts are sufficiently unusual that I thought the probability
>>that you were a drag queen is significantly higher than
>>in the general population. You are the only woman
>>(if woman you are) in my over four years of Usenet
>>experience who called me "Peter darling". And you
>>did it in a public post right here in talk.origins
>>on the 10th of this month.

Unclear if this represents a failure to detect humor.
Point's given at half credit.

>>>>>whom I have seen one *ad hominem* after another from, deleted
>>>>>almost everything I wrote with the comment, "ad hominems deleted".

>>>If I have committed the lapse of ad hominem in Peter's case or in anyone
>>>else's case, let me apologise.

>>You did. Calling me "Peter darling" when I don't know you
>>from Adam (or Eve) was quite a blatant ad hominem, as was the
>>rest of what you wrote in that post.

Still not clear that the humor was or wan't taken. Possibly taken
in a homophobic fear as regards deleted text about fisting and
the lack of similar endearments from women.

>>> The post I followed up with "ad hominem
>>>deleted" seemed to me to consist of nothing but invective, but it's
>>>possible that the technical content went over my fluffy feminine head.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>You said it, not I. I don't make remarks like that about people;
>>I have been known to use a lot of invective, as you noticed,
>>but such sexist across-the-board judgments are alien to me.

I'll give this points for missed humor but its a subtle issue
involving the actual lack of technical content and the demonstrated
quality of Sheryln in other posts. Perhaps too subtle for some.
I still find it extraordinarily funny.

>>>I rendered this post as:
>>
>>>>For a considerable time in March,
>>>[ad hominem deleted]
>>>>has
>>>>issued.
>>>>
>>>>Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --

>>>an act of pure butchery that, had I but known it, marked me forever as
>>>ignorant, ingrateful and hypocritical.

>>Don't misrepresent me. Even taking that "Peter darling" liberty
>>with me the way you did only registered about 2.0 on my analogue of the
>>Richter scale. And since you made amends by reposting what you deleted
>>where Paul Myers has a chance of seeing it (unless he has
>>you killfiled too, in which case you have my sympathy)
>>I won't hold this newer action against you.

Definately a double pointer. Points for Peter missing the humor in
re-exposing the the nothing but ad homenium post as such (actually
not getting it at all it seems) and additionaly points for Peter
missing the hyperbole in "forever ...".

Paul Gan's was right. These points may be too easy.
On the bright side, otherwise pointless posts, aren't anymore.

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the

sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>
>>In talk.origins, on thread Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the sand,
>>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>
>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>>>
>>>>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>
>[Matt:]
>>[snip]
>
>Matt Silberstein's snip constitutes running away from the issue
>of whether he has a politically incorrect attitude towards
>drag queens, the way I use the term "running away": one follows
>up to a post where an issue is raised, and deletes everything
>pertaining to the issue, with no indication of ever wanting
>to deal with it.

Peter darling, I really don't know how to answer such a undefined
question? Politically incorrect is such a loaded and misused term that
it has little if any meaning. If you wish to ask a question about my
views then ask that question. If I think the question is appropriate
or interesting I will answer. If not, I won't. If your use of "drag
queen" is really an issue we can discuss it. Why don't you explain
your attitudes towards homosexuals and drag queens.

>Matt invited this issue by his merciless lampooning of something
>I asked about Sherilyn. My reasons for asking that question
>are discussed in a separate followup I did to Sherilyn a few
>minutes ago.

Well did my comment show my attitude or was I lampooning you?

>[Peter, talking about Sherilyn:]
>>>>>whom I have seen one *ad hominem* after another from, deleted
>>>>>almost everything I wrote with the comment, "ad hominems deleted".
>>>>>
>>>>>And Matt Silberstein deleted all except one paragraph and quickly
>>>>>moved to neutralize it by launching an attack on Joe Potter
>>>>>that had absolutely nothing to do with the scam I had been
>>>>>attacking Paul Myers for, in connection with Joe Potter.
>
>[Matt:]
>>>>First the connection was Joe Potter. Since you seemed to claim him as
>>>>an ally I wanted to see how you agreed.
>
>[Peter:]
>>>I only said he was a possible ally, based on the very few
>>>posts he has done in which he has stated agreeement with me.
>>>Since then it seems probable that he was just registering
>>>agreement instead of wanting to ally himself with me the
>>>way you have allied yourself with so many of the people who have
>>>been attacking me this year, especially the two Pauls.
>
>>I am confused about the distinctions you are making between
>>registering agreement and alliances.
>
>You actually consider the two to be synonymous????

No. Nor did I claim so. I am confused because it seems that you
describe your action as registering agreement, but I am forming
alliances. I would like you to explain the distinction and explain
what evidence you have for you claim about me.

>The only reason I even considered Potter and Hughes to be *possible*
>allies is that they are the first creationists in almost two
>years of my talk.origins posting to register any public agreement with
>me on any issue; usually creationists just avoid me like the plague.
>
>> Do you really claim that I have
>>"secret" agreements and discussion with people on this newsgroup?
>
>Not at all. However, I do believe that you, mendacious and
>cunning person that you are, figure there is no good for you
>in supporting me or attacking my opponents.

I support or disagree with those people whose statements I support or
disagree with. I don't support you in the way you like because I
disagree with some of your statements and much of your conduct.

> You have nothing
>to gain from supporting me because if you did, my opponents
>would repeatedly want to know my opinion of various behaviours of yours
>just as you repeatedly asked me my opinion of something Potter did;
>and, justice-seeking person that I am, I would not duck the question,
>but would give my sincere opinion.

Funny thing though, you sincere opinion seemed to contain several
attacks on me along the way.

>And you have seen how my opponents maintain a "see no evil, hear
>no evil, speak no evil" attitude towards each other's rank
>dishonesty and insincerity, so you figured it would not hurt
>to go and do likewise where they are concerned.

Or just possible, I do it because I think your conduct is wrong for
the reason I claim it is wrong.

>And so, you are their ally, in every pragmatic Usenet sense
>of the word.

The words "pragmatic Usenet" seem to have no meaning in the above
sentence.

>[Matt:]
>>> Second I did snip everything
>>>>else because I did not wish to get involved in one of you lists of
>>>>wrongs done. Third I did not in any way attack Joe in that post.
>
>>>Yes, you did. You accused him of having made two allegation about you
>>>which, elsewhere, you tried to portray as being totally incorrect.
>>>You even thanked me when I said that he owed you an apology if
>>>he can't find anything better to support his claims than what
>>>you showed me.
>
>>Disagreement over definition.
>
>If that's all it is, then I wash my hands of this dispute, and
>may you both agree on a definition.

Peter, please do not snip out my material without marking the snip. In
this case you have taken my sentence completely out of context. I am
not accusing you of either stupidity or dishonesty. However, you
should be more careful in the future.

What I said was:

[begin replaced text]

>>Disagreement over definition. I do not consider claiming that Joe said
>>something that was not supported an attack. If I had said he was a
>>liar or deluded or moron (which I did not and do not so claim), that
>>would, IMO, be an attack. YMMV.

[end replaced text]

>However, I think you are being blatantly insincere here,
>and so in the end I probably won't wash my hands of the dispute.

I am not being insincere. The disagreement over definition is between
you and me, not Joe and me. We disagree over what is or is not an
attack.

>[Matt:]
>>> (I do
>>>>not think I have ever attack Joe, but I could be wrong.) I asked you
>>>>if you agreed with him and a specific claim he made. I do not see how
>>>>you construe that as an attack.
>
>[Peter:]
>>>Get real. A person (supposedly) accuses you of having attacked religion,
>>>and of blaming all war on religion, and you spend over a thousand
>>>lines to date telling him in effect to put up or shut up. And
>>>you actually think you never attacked him?
>>>
>>>Could it be that you are using the following "definition"?
>>>
>>>attack, n
>>>
>>>1. Any negative statement, no matter how justifiable or
>>>justified, about Matt Silberstein or anyone
>>>whom Matt wishes to portray as being the target of an
>>>attack.
>>>
>>>2. Any unjustifiable negative statement by Matt Silberstein or
>>>anyone else Matt Silberstein wishes to come under this
>>>more restrictive definition.
>
>>No, I consider an attack to be a personal charge against a person.
>
>Again, I think you are being insincere:

Think what you want. I suspect that I have better insight into my
motives than you do. You might look at my posts and see if I ever
accused Joe of attacking me. Or see if I ever used the word "attack"
in a manner inconsistent with my claim above.

>>[...] His claim that I attacked religion does not, IMO, constitute an
>>attack on me.
>
>His claim that you attacked religion is not a personal charge
>against you? I think you are just playing fast and loose
>with words.

No, I am being specific and hard with the words. I do not consider my
words to be me. You can attack what I say and what I claim all day
long and I will not take it as a personal attack. I do not have my ego
tied up with each and every word I use. If I am wrong I will accept
that and go on. Sorry if this is so surprising to you.

>>>By the way, what do you think of Sherilyn's use of the word
>>>"ad hominem"?
>
>>Are you referring to her post on 10 April responding to your seminal
>>post for this thread? If so, I do think it was accurate. Your post
>>primarily consisted of personal statements about Paul Myers.
>
>That is not the way you used "ad hominem" before. You even
>"corrected" me when I used it that way.

I do remember you insistence that there is a difference between a ad
hominem fallacy and ad hominem attack. And that you consider the ad
hominem a valid rhetorical technique as long as you can back it up. I
happen, in general, to disagree with you view.

>And Sherilyn may be surprised to learn, by your new criterion,
>just how many ad hominems 'e is guilty of.
>
>>>Have you finally looked up the word like
>>>I advised you to?
>
>>Sorry Peter, Didn't you see my post were I presented the definition
>>from my dictionary? I will e-mail it to you.
>
>Please do. I suspect you are working from a substandard dictionary.

This is just too funny. For those who did not see, or don't remember
the post (_Some definitions of rhetorical terms_) I used my Oxford
English Dictionary for the definitions. That is usually not considered
substandard, but YMMV.

[Mark Isaak]

In article <5iujlf$k...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>Why is Joe replying to Matt's article on this thread?

What difference does it make?
--
Mark Isaak "God offers every mind its choice between truth
isaak @ aurora.com and repose. Take which you please,--you can
never have both." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Peter Nyikos]

howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:

>Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>

>> >In article <3359ee82...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein

>> ><mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes

>> >>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>

>> >>>And lo! Sherilyn [is this the name of a woman or of a drag queen or...?]

>[snip much else to which we should all turn our other cheeks]

...including my explanation of why I asked the question.

>> >If I have committed the lapse of ad hominem in Peter's case or in anyone
>> >else's case, let me apologise.
>>
>> You did. Calling me "Peter darling" when I don't know you
>> from Adam (or Eve) was quite a blatant ad hominem, as was the
>> rest of what you wrote in that post.

>Hmmmm. 'Peter darling' vrs. 'drag queen'. If 'Peter darling' is a

>"blatant *ad hominem*", what is 'drag queen'? Clever repartee?

No. Restore the words you deleted, and find out.

Unless, of course, you want to run away from the issue of whether
YOU have a politically incorrect attitude towards drag queens.

>> The post I followed up with "ad hominem
>> >deleted" seemed to me to consist of nothing but invective, but it's
>> >possible that the technical content went over my fluffy feminine head.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> You said it, not I. I don't make remarks like that about people;

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> I have been known to use a lot of invective, as you noticed,

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Yes, it has been noticed that you use a lot of unclever invective.

It's not usually meant to be clever, although I do occasionaly
aim for cleverness, as in "Broken.Usenet.Promise" to relieve
the tension just a tad.

It's meant to be accurate, and just. Brutally just, sometimes,
as in the case of the near-libel Paul Myers pulled recently,
in a recent episode in a hot dispute between us that could
have been avoided altogether had you made some timely
remarks relating autocatalycity to cascades.

Instead, you sat idly by while Paul Myers went past the point
of no return, probably with his insincere comment that I had
"continually insulted" George Acton by not acknowledging the
many contributions he was making to the discussion, when in
fact the main "contribution" was the ignorant chanting of
the mantra "gene duplication and subsequent divergence" and
giving a whole lot of information that completely missed the
point.

If that didn't take us past the point of no return, that
point was reached no later than when Myers subsequently characterized himself
as having been "reasonable" towards me and me as having been
"insulting" and as having been utterly pigheaded in not conceding
that Acton's generalities already showed how the clotting cascade
could have evolved.

You, who were very actively participating on these threads,
could have gently corrected Paul both times, but did not.
As a result, the conflict has escalated to where it is now,
with Paul posting one misrepresentation after another, and with
me mincing no words in attacking him for those misrepresentations.

And now, on "Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity," you've
finally acknowledged the correctness of what I had been insisting
on all along, and asked me whether I am happy. Well, I'm happy
about *that* but not about this flamewar which could have been
avoided had you not played coy and even avoided naming any
specific examples of autocatalytic blood clotting factors.

If you think it is a good thing for me to have seen the depths
to which Myers can sink, then you can rest easy. Otherwise,
by your own standards, you have done talk.origins a great
disservice by your inaction.

>And
>I agree that you don't use remarks like "fluffy feminine head". You
>prefer using "drag queen" as a way to insult a woman

^^^^^^^^
Hmmm... maybe you aren't running away from the issue of whether
you have a politically incorrect attitude towards drag queens--or
are you?

(for you had no
>reason to think otherwise than that the poster was female).

Wrong. I gave my reasons, which you deleted; and don't forget too,
that drag queens sometimes give themselves female names.

[cute irrelevant bit about aliens deleted]

[Peter Nyikos]

mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:

>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
>sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>>
>>>In talk.origins, on thread Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the sand,
>>>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>
>>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>
>>[Matt:]
>>>[snip]
>>
>>Matt Silberstein's snip constitutes running away from the issue
>>of whether he has a politically incorrect attitude towards
>>drag queens, the way I use the term "running away": one follows
>>up to a post where an issue is raised, and deletes everything
>>pertaining to the issue, with no indication of ever wanting
>>to deal with it.

>Peter darling, I really don't know how to answer such a undefined
>question? Politically incorrect is such a loaded and misused term that
>it has little if any meaning.

I beg to differ. The people who set the standards for what is PC resent the
term because it pins them down all too well. But it is a very valid
term and very well used most of the time I've seen it used.

> If you wish to ask a question about my
>views then ask that question. If I think the question is appropriate
>or interesting I will answer. If not, I won't.

Spoken like a veteran of years if not decades of controversy.

If your use of "drag
>queen" is really an issue we can discuss it. Why don't you explain
>your attitudes towards homosexuals and drag queens.

You are the one who lumped drag queens with cannibalistic
pederasts, not I.

>>Matt invited this issue by his merciless lampooning of something
>>I asked about Sherilyn. My reasons for asking that question
>>are discussed in a separate followup I did to Sherilyn a few
>>minutes ago.

>Well did my comment show my attitude or was I lampooning you?

You were lampooning what I wrote, and one can hardly lampoon
something without showing one's attitude about it.

>>[Peter, talking about Sherilyn:]
>>>>>>whom I have seen one *ad hominem* after another from, deleted
>>>>>>almost everything I wrote with the comment, "ad hominems deleted".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And Matt Silberstein deleted all except one paragraph and quickly
>>>>>>moved to neutralize it by launching an attack on Joe Potter
>>>>>>that had absolutely nothing to do with the scam I had been
>>>>>>attacking Paul Myers for, in connection with Joe Potter.
>>
>>[Matt:]
>>>>>First the connection was Joe Potter. Since you seemed to claim him as
>>>>>an ally I wanted to see how you agreed.
>>
>>[Peter:]
>>>>I only said he was a possible ally, based on the very few
>>>>posts he has done in which he has stated agreeement with me.
>>>>Since then it seems probable that he was just registering
>>>>agreement instead of wanting to ally himself with me the
>>>>way you have allied yourself with so many of the people who have
>>>>been attacking me this year, especially the two Pauls.
>>
>>>I am confused about the distinctions you are making between
>>>registering agreement and alliances.
>>
>>You actually consider the two to be synonymous????

>No. Nor did I claim so. [...]

>>The only reason I even considered Potter and Hughes to be *possible*
>>allies is that they are the first creationists in almost two
>>years of my talk.origins posting to register any public agreement with
>>me on any issue; usually creationists just avoid me like the plague.

Your lack of comment on this is noted.

>>> Do you really claim that I have
>>>"secret" agreements and discussion with people on this newsgroup?
>>
>>Not at all. However, I do believe that you, mendacious and
>>cunning person that you are, figure there is no good for you
>>in supporting me or attacking my opponents.

>I support or disagree with those people whose statements I support or
>disagree with.

The one publicly, the other both publicly and privately.

> I don't support you in the way you like

I don't recall you ever supporting me on any issue. If you
have, please recall such an incident for me.

>> You have nothing
>>to gain from supporting me because if you did, my opponents
>>would repeatedly want to know my opinion of various behaviours of yours
>>just as you repeatedly asked me my opinion of something Potter did;
>>and, justice-seeking person that I am, I would not duck the question,
>>but would give my sincere opinion.

>Funny thing though, you sincere opinion seemed to contain several
>attacks on me along the way.

Indeed, and that is the way I treat ALL people who repeatedly
ask me my opinion on someone when I believe they are up
to no good. That, however, does not deter them from
doing it, because the treatment goes like water off a duck's
back and the ammunition against Potter, etc. that I provide
them with at the same time is what they were really after.

It's like a bear raiding a beehive for honey and putting up
with the stings as being all in a day's work.

>>And you have seen how my opponents maintain a "see no evil, hear
>>no evil, speak no evil" attitude towards each other's rank
>>dishonesty and insincerity, so you figured it would not hurt
>>to go and do likewise where they are concerned.

Instead of addressing this issue, you hark back to an earlier topic:

>Or just possible, I do it because I think your conduct is wrong for
>the reason I claim it is wrong.

That is not why you turn a blind eye towards those other wrongs.

>>And so, you are their ally, in every pragmatic Usenet sense
>>of the word.

>The words "pragmatic Usenet" seem to have no meaning in the above
>sentence.

Oh, they do. Usenet alliances are just that: alliances that
are played out on Usenet instead of (or at least in addition to)
behind the scenes. And pragmatically speaking, you are in
an alliance with Paul Gans, Paul Myers, and many other
fanatical anti-creationists.

>>[Matt:]
>>>> Second I did snip everything
>>>>>else because I did not wish to get involved in one of you lists of
>>>>>wrongs done. Third I did not in any way attack Joe in that post.
>>
>>>>Yes, you did. You accused him of having made two allegation about you
>>>>which, elsewhere, you tried to portray as being totally incorrect.
>>>>You even thanked me when I said that he owed you an apology if
>>>>he can't find anything better to support his claims than what
>>>>you showed me.
>>
>>>Disagreement over definition.
>>
>>If that's all it is, then I wash my hands of this dispute, and
>>may you both agree on a definition.

>Peter, please do not snip out my material without marking the snip.

I'll try and keep that in mind from here on in.

In
>this case you have taken my sentence completely out of context. [...]

It was unintentional. What you had said after that seemed to be
beside the point. Now I see its relevance.

>I am not being insincere. The disagreement over definition is between
>you and me, not Joe and me. We disagree over what is or is not an
>attack.

Sorry for misinterpreting what you said. I apologize for having
thought you blatantly insincere on this one point.

>>[Matt:]
>>>> (I do
>>>>>not think I have ever attack Joe, but I could be wrong.) I asked you
>>>>>if you agreed with him and a specific claim he made. I do not see how
>>>>>you construe that as an attack.
>>
>>[Peter:]
>>>>Get real. A person (supposedly) accuses you of having attacked religion,
>>>>and of blaming all war on religion, and you spend over a thousand
>>>>lines to date telling him in effect to put up or shut up. And
>>>>you actually think you never attacked him?
>>>>
>>>>Could it be that you are using the following "definition"?
>>>>
>>>>attack, n
>>>>
>>>>1. Any negative statement, no matter how justifiable or
>>>>justified, about Matt Silberstein or anyone
>>>>whom Matt wishes to portray as being the target of an
>>>>attack.
>>>>
>>>>2. Any unjustifiable negative statement by Matt Silberstein or
>>>>anyone else Matt Silberstein wishes to come under this
>>>>more restrictive definition.
>>
>>>No, I consider an attack to be a personal charge against a person.
>>
>>Again, I think you are being insincere:

>Think what you want. I suspect that I have better insight into my
>motives than you do.

Indeed, that's what insincerity is all about: knowing one's true
motives and opinions yet claiming publicly to have others
or acting as though one had others.

> You might look at my posts and see if I ever
>accused Joe of attacking me.

You did. Right on this thread. You said to Joe, "You attacked me".
And on "Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity" you accused Joe
of it again:

=================== begin excerpt from Silberstein post

>>Peter, I would like to see how much you and Joe agree. Do you think
>>that I attacked religion and blamed all wars on religion? That happens
>>to be one of Joe's claims, based on the following excerpt:
>
>Document the claim, please. I've been skimming your dispute
>on this other topic and can't recall Joe making such an
>unequivocal claim.

Try his post on 30 March 97 where he said:

[begin inserted text]

The mention of Dresden, by the way, was to illustrate that governments
create far more horror than the present religions do. After all, Matt
made the implication that religion causes all the horror that we see.
I look forward to your comments to him about making "pointless"
arguments.

[end inserted text]

Or his post on 4 April

[begin inserted text]

Paul, you seem determined to defend Matt's attack on religion in a
thread that had nothing to do with it in any way you can. So be it.
You do show yourself to be a zealot, however.

[end inserted text]

>
>>[begin inserted text]
>
>>JP>How could the normal group here not be confrontational? Their
>>JP> job is to defend naturalism at all costs in a war of words, and in
>>JP> war the first death is truth.
>
>>MS First, I disagree that there are people here defending naturalism
>>MS at all costs.
>
>All costs within the context of a war of words, is how I interpret
>what he said.

However that is not the point. I interpreted at "at all cost" and that
"a war of words" was the mechanism used to defend. I may have
misinterpreted him, but he could have just said so. Instead he attack
me as stated and shown above.
>
>> If you want to know what defending at all costs
>>MS means, just look at any of the religious wars going on right now.
>
>Any of them? And how do you determine whether a war is religious
>or not?

Well, as a matter of fact I think that any of them would show that a
"war of words" does not show what "at all costs" means. But that is
not what I asked you. I am asking if you agree with his attack on me
or not. You has asserted such agreement.

===================== end of included excerpt

Note the words "his attack on me". By the way, what on earth
did you mean by, "You has asserted such agreement"???

Or see if I ever used the word "attack"
>in a manner inconsistent with my claim above.

The foregoing seems to constitute such a use. If not, explain
please.

>>>[...] His claim that I attacked religion does not, IMO, constitute an
>>>attack on me.
>>
>>His claim that you attacked religion is not a personal charge
>>against you? I think you are just playing fast and loose
>>with words.

>No, I am being specific and hard with the words. I do not consider my
>words to be me.

Get real. He claimed YOU attacked religion. And you even
documented him claiming it [see above].

You can attack what I say and what I claim all day
>long and I will not take it as a personal attack.

So, if I label something you say an "outrageous falsehood"
or a "grotesque distortion", or "an appalling lapse of memory",
you will not take it as a personal attack?

I do not have my ego
>tied up with each and every word I use. If I am wrong I will accept
>that and go on. Sorry if this is so surprising to you.

Don't make me sick. I doubt that you've acknowledged even
five percent of the times you have been wrong. Or even one
percent of the time where something other than a cut-and-dried
statement of fact was concerned.

>>>>By the way, what do you think of Sherilyn's use of the word
>>>>"ad hominem"?
>>
>>>Are you referring to her post on 10 April responding to your seminal
>>>post for this thread? If so, I do think it was accurate. Your post
>>>primarily consisted of personal statements about Paul Myers.
>>
>>That is not the way you used "ad hominem" before. You even
>>"corrected" me when I used it that way.

>I do remember you insistence that there is a difference between a ad
>hominem fallacy and ad hominem attack.

Yes. And you only accepted the category "ad hominem fallacy", right?
Where is the fallacy in the things I posted?

And that you consider the ad
>hominem a valid rhetorical technique as long as you can back it up. I
>happen, in general, to disagree with you view.

And also with the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, which goes
into the matter far more deeply than any mere dictionary does.

>>And Sherilyn may be surprised to learn, by your new criterion,
>>just how many ad hominems 'e is guilty of.
>>
>>>>Have you finally looked up the word like
>>>>I advised you to?
>>
>>>Sorry Peter, Didn't you see my post were I presented the definition
>>>from my dictionary? I will e-mail it to you.
>>
>>Please do. I suspect you are working from a substandard dictionary.

Actually, you aren't working from any dictionary, you are playing
with it.

>This is just too funny. For those who did not see, or don't remember
>the post (_Some definitions of rhetorical terms_) I used my Oxford
>English Dictionary for the definitions. That is usually not considered
>substandard, but YMMV.

You used the *Compact* OED. Don't misrepresent that as the
real OED, which consists of several volumes.

The definition you gave used the word "appeal" in addition
to "argument", and that fact never seemed to register in
your mind. And it talks about appealing to personal preferences
or personal principles instead of abstract principles or
logical cogency.

An awful lot of what goes on in talk.origins falls under
that very general umbrella. In fact, whenever I invoke
abstract principles of truth, justice, and fairness,
I get sneered at and ridiculed, which seems to indicate
that those ridiculing me adhere to personal principles
rather than abstract ones.

[Sherilyn]

In article <33577948...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein
<mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes

>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
>sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>

[megasnip]

>
>>And Sherilyn may be surprised to learn, by your new criterion,
>>just how many ad hominems 'e is guilty of.

That pronoun has caught a nasty touch of apostrophism, see a doctor
immediately.

Hmmm, most of what I post is not intended to offend. However, "ad
hominem" is used in one sense in normal debate and in another in USENET,
and it's so darned easy for a girl to get mixed up.

Of course, I'd only stoop to attacking someone on the Net if it was
consensual and we'd set up safewords in advance.

Come to think of it, I'm not that tall that I'd need to stoop.
...

>
>This is just too funny. For those who did not see, or don't remember
>the post (_Some definitions of rhetorical terms_) I used my Oxford
>English Dictionary for the definitions. That is usually not considered
>substandard, but YMMV.
>

If you ever have a spare half hour, look up the posts on Dejanews where
Judy Stein argues with me about the meaning of the word "quack". Her
reaction to my use of the two-volume Shorter Oxford (about 5 Kilogrammes
of tightly printed erudition) was, I suppose, predictable: "not in
common use in America". So I whopped her on the head with an on-line
Webster.
--
Sherilyn

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>
>>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
>>sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>
>>>Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <3359ee82...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein
>>>><mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>>>>>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>And lo! Sherilyn [is this the name of a woman or of a drag queen or...?]
>>>
>>>>>Peter (is that the name of a closet queen, cannibalistic pederast or
>>>>>...?)
>>>
>>>>lol! Thanks, Matt!
>>>
>>>I take it you have a politically incorrect attitude
>>>towards drag queens?
>
>>Peter darling, I hate to inform you, but the term "drag queen" does
>>not, necessarily, refer to homosexuals.
>
>Oh, I think you love to inform me, especially since I didn't
>make the mistake of thinking it necessarily refers to
>homosexuals.

Really? Then why do you "support" your "question" by relating a
discussion of a conversation between you and some homosexuals? I
thought you point was that the only people who had called you
"darling" were some homosexuals, so you wanted to know if Sherilyn was
one? Could you explain this a little better because you current
explanation is unclear.

[snip]

>I suspect you called me "Peter darling" up there to
>harass me, but the evidence is nowhere near as overwhelming
>as it was in the case of those two hateful people.

I would say I did it to annoy you. But the difference between annoy
and harass is one of both degree and position. So it is very
reasonable for you to perceive it as harassments.

[snip]

>>>You did. Calling me "Peter darling" when I don't know you
>>>from Adam (or Eve) was quite a blatant ad hominem, as was the
>>>rest of what you wrote in that post.
>
>>I think the proper classification is "term of endearment".
>
>That, however, applies with sarcasm in this case, I believe.
>If you look at the context, it was quite similar to the
>one in which you uttered the term up there.

Which was not an attempt to use your character to support my point.
You point is exactly the same regardless of your gender, gender
preference, age, schooling, education, knowledge, or country or
origin.

> I suppose
>>technically it could be consider an ad hominem, though I don't think
>>she used it to support her point.
>
>Did you read the context? I think not.

How did it attempt to support her point?

>
>Did you read the context? I think not.
>
>By the way, the Concise OED doesn't begin to exhaust all the ramifications
>of the term. Try looking at the Merriam-Webster definition #1 in either
>the Unabridged or the Collegiate dictionary they publish. My usage here
>is squarely in line with that.

First, it is the Compact OED, not the Concise. IIANM, the Concise does
not have all of the words from the 12 volume set, the Compact does,
just in smaller print.

Second, could you please post your definition, regardless of its
source. I have asked repeated to find out what you mean by the word. I
have looked it up in my dictionary and posted exactly what I found.
Why can't you do the same?

Third, are you willing to admit you were wrong in you assumptions
about the quality of my dictionary?

> Now, according to your standards, it
>>is "bad" if it can't be supported.
>
>You are being blatantly insincere, setting the stage for your next
>put-down.
>
>> I leave it to the readers to decide if Peter is a "darling" or not.
>
>You, of course, have decided in the negative, and Sherylin has too,
>from the looks of it.

Funny thing that. I am not too fond of the person who calls me a
"prick", a "moron", a member of the "peanut gallery", and a
"bootlicker". Does it surprise you that you have not obtained too many
friends with such language?

[snip]

>>I know. All you did was try to question he gender. No sex based
>>judgements there.
>
>I asked a straightforward question, and you can see above why.

A straightforward (was that another hidden joke?) question? Your
question was "is this the name of a woman or of a drag queen or...?"
What does the ... mean? Why would you question her gender or gender
preferences or dress preferences?

[snip]

>>How Christ-like of you.
>
>Sarcastic? I do pattern my behavior to a limited extent after Christ's
>behavior, especially everything one reads in John 8. Everything.
>In a limited way.
>
>By the way, what is your attitude to Christ as depicted in the
>latter half of John 8?

My attitude towards Christ, like my other personal positions and
information, is not of importance.

Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------------

CAUCHON. And you, and not the Church, are to be the judge?

JOAN. What other judgement can I judge by but my own?

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>
>>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
>>sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>
>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>>>
>>>>In talk.origins, on thread Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the sand,
>>>>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

[snip]

>>>[Peter:]
>>>>>I only said he was a possible ally, based on the very few
>>>>>posts he has done in which he has stated agreeement with me.
>>>>>Since then it seems probable that he was just registering
>>>>>agreement instead of wanting to ally himself with me the
>>>>>way you have allied yourself with so many of the people who have
>>>>>been attacking me this year, especially the two Pauls.
>>>
>>>>I am confused about the distinctions you are making between
>>>>registering agreement and alliances.
>>>
>>>You actually consider the two to be synonymous????
>
>>No. Nor did I claim so. [...]
>
>>>The only reason I even considered Potter and Hughes to be *possible*
>>>allies is that they are the first creationists in almost two
>>>years of my talk.origins posting to register any public agreement with
>>>me on any issue; usually creationists just avoid me like the plague.
>
>Your lack of comment on this is noted.

As is you lack of comment to my comments above. The comments
represented by the [...].

>>>> Do you really claim that I have
>>>>"secret" agreements and discussion with people on this newsgroup?
>>>
>>>Not at all. However, I do believe that you, mendacious and
>>>cunning person that you are, figure there is no good for you
>>>in supporting me or attacking my opponents.
>
>>I support or disagree with those people whose statements I support or
>>disagree with.
>
>The one publicly, the other both publicly and privately.

And your information about my private action comes from? And you claim
about my private action is? Come on Peter darling, are you saying that
am conspiring in private to deal with you or not. Your refusal to
answer this in a clear manner acceptable to me is noted. (My I am
getting a lot of notes. I wonder what I can do with them.)

>> I don't support you in the way you like
>
>I don't recall you ever supporting me on any issue. If you
>have, please recall such an incident for me.

No interest in bothering to look that up. But do you think that you
could mark you snips. I don't see the purpose in cutting the sentence
above in two.

>
>>>[Matt:]
>>>>> Second I did snip everything
>>>>>>else because I did not wish to get involved in one of you lists of
>>>>>>wrongs done. Third I did not in any way attack Joe in that post.
>>>
>>>>>Yes, you did. You accused him of having made two allegation about you
>>>>>which, elsewhere, you tried to portray as being totally incorrect.
>>>>>You even thanked me when I said that he owed you an apology if
>>>>>he can't find anything better to support his claims than what
>>>>>you showed me.
>>>
>>>>Disagreement over definition.
>>>
>>>If that's all it is, then I wash my hands of this dispute, and
>>>may you both agree on a definition.
>
>>Peter, please do not snip out my material without marking the snip.
>
>I'll try and keep that in mind from here on in.

Good because, IIANM, that is considered a deceptive tactic.

> In
>>this case you have taken my sentence completely out of context. [...]
>
>It was unintentional. What you had said after that seemed to be
>beside the point. Now I see its relevance.
>
>>I am not being insincere. The disagreement over definition is between
>>you and me, not Joe and me. We disagree over what is or is not an
>>attack.
>
>Sorry for misinterpreting what you said. I apologize for having
>thought you blatantly insincere on this one point.

Thank you for that. Peter, if you did not jump to conclusions about
people's character we might be able to spend more time discussing
issues and less in these side tracks.

[snip]

>> You might look at my posts and see if I ever
>>accused Joe of attacking me.
>
>You did. Right on this thread. You said to Joe, "You attacked me".
>And on "Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity" you accused Joe
>of it again:

You are right. That was sloppy usage on my part. I should not have
said that and withdraw it. In fact, I will send an e-mail to Joe
telling him.

[snip]

>Note the words "his attack on me". By the way, what on earth
>did you mean by, "You has asserted such agreement"???

I don't really remember and do not think it worthwhile to look up. I
probably meant something about your claim Joe's support or something.
If it was not worth pursuing the first time, it is not worthwhile now.

[snip]

>> You can attack what I say and what I claim all day
>>long and I will not take it as a personal attack.
>
>So, if I label something you say an "outrageous falsehood"
>or a "grotesque distortion", or "an appalling lapse of memory",
>you will not take it as a personal attack?

First, the adjectives in the above make these difficult cases. Second,
"falsehood" implies knowledge that the statement is false, "incorrect"
does not. "distortion" also implies intent. It is very possible to
word things so they feel like attacks, but are defendable as
non-attacks. That is why I prefer to say "that is incorrect" or "that
is not supported by observation" or other such constructs.

> I do not have my ego
>>tied up with each and every word I use. If I am wrong I will accept
>>that and go on. Sorry if this is so surprising to you.
>
>Don't make me sick. I doubt that you've acknowledged even
>five percent of the times you have been wrong. Or even one
>percent of the time where something other than a cut-and-dried
>statement of fact was concerned.

Sorry if this bothers you. (I really am sorry, but probably not in the
way that first reads.) Fact is I readily accept correction and
withdraw statements if I was unclear or mis-wrote or was just wrong. I
do this enough that you have used such acceptance as a critique of my
behavior.

>>>>>By the way, what do you think of Sherilyn's use of the word
>>>>>"ad hominem"?
>>>
>>>>Are you referring to her post on 10 April responding to your seminal
>>>>post for this thread? If so, I do think it was accurate. Your post
>>>>primarily consisted of personal statements about Paul Myers.
>>>
>>>That is not the way you used "ad hominem" before. You even
>>>"corrected" me when I used it that way.
>
>>I do remember you insistence that there is a difference between a ad
>>hominem fallacy and ad hominem attack.
>
>Yes. And you only accepted the category "ad hominem fallacy", right?
>Where is the fallacy in the things I posted?

Sorry, but no. I was under the impression that you only disagree with
the "fallacy" kind. I try to avoid all ad hominems.

[snip]

>>>>>Have you finally looked up the word like
>>>>>I advised you to?
>>>
>>>>Sorry Peter, Didn't you see my post were I presented the definition
>>>>from my dictionary? I will e-mail it to you.
>>>
>>>Please do. I suspect you are working from a substandard dictionary.
>
>Actually, you aren't working from any dictionary, you are playing
>with it.

So, rather than admit your suspicions were wrong, you just change your
assertion.

>>This is just too funny. For those who did not see, or don't remember
>>the post (_Some definitions of rhetorical terms_) I used my Oxford
>>English Dictionary for the definitions. That is usually not considered
>>substandard, but YMMV.
>
>You used the *Compact* OED. Don't misrepresent that as the
>real OED, which consists of several volumes.

Peter darling, do some research. The Compact OED has all of the text
of the regular OED, just in smaller print. It is not the same as the
Concise OED. But even if I did use the Concise edition I don't think
you could support your claim of substandard.

>The definition you gave used the word "appeal" in addition
>to "argument", and that fact never seemed to register in
>your mind. And it talks about appealing to personal preferences
>or personal principles instead of abstract principles or
>logical cogency.

No, it says "appeal" founded on, no "appeal" to.

>An awful lot of what goes on in talk.origins falls under
>that very general umbrella. In fact, whenever I invoke
>abstract principles of truth, justice, and fairness,
>I get sneered at and ridiculed, which seems to indicate
>that those ridiculing me adhere to personal principles
>rather than abstract ones.

People object to your moral claims because they don't see you
exercising those morals, not because they disagree with "abstract"
morals. BTW, did you mean "absolute" rather than "abstract"? "abstract
does not seem to contrast with "personal".

Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------------

CAUCHON. And you, and not the Church, are to be the judge?

JOAN. What other judgement can I judge by but my own?

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the

sand_, Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <33577948...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein

><mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes

>>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
>>sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>

>[megasnip]

>>
>>>And Sherilyn may be surprised to learn, by your new criterion,
>>>just how many ad hominems 'e is guilty of.
>

>That pronoun has caught a nasty touch of apostrophism, see a doctor
>immediately.

Isn't apostrophism a theological problem?

>
>Hmmm, most of what I post is not intended to offend. However, "ad
>hominem" is used in one sense in normal debate and in another in USENET,
>and it's so darned easy for a girl to get mixed up.

As my mother would say to me, don't worry your pretty little head
about it.

>Of course, I'd only stoop to attacking someone on the Net if it was
>consensual and we'd set up safewords in advance.

My kind of fellow.

>Come to think of it, I'm not that tall that I'd need to stoop.

Well, maybe not.

Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------------

CAUCHON. And you, and not the Church, are to be the judge?

JOAN. What other judgement can I judge by but my own?

[Matt Silberstein]

Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------------

CAUCHON. And you, and not the Church, are to be the judge?

JOAN. What other judgement can I judge by but my own?

[Sherilyn]

In article <336115a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein
<mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes

>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
>sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>

...

>>You used the *Compact* OED. Don't misrepresent that as the
>>real OED, which consists of several volumes.

I may be wrong here, but I'm guessing that the Compact OED is the one
that contains the text of the OED in a compact typeface, and comes with
a reading glass. It can be obtained, often from a book club, for a
fraction of the price of the "real" OED.
--
Sherilyn

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the

sand_, Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <336115a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein

><mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes

>>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
>>sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>

>...

>>>You used the *Compact* OED. Don't misrepresent that as the
>>>real OED, which consists of several volumes.
>

>I may be wrong here, but I'm guessing that the Compact OED is the one
>that contains the text of the OED in a compact typeface, and comes with
>a reading glass. It can be obtained, often from a book club, for a
>fraction of the price of the "real" OED.

You are right. In this post Peter darling calls it by its right name,
but uses the wrong referent. In another post he changes the name to
the Concise OED, which is both the wrong name and the wrong referent.
And either way, Peter darling will be hard pressed to support his
suspicion that I have a substandard dictionary.

[gac...@softdisk.com]

In article <M2Hk57CD...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,

Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> an act of pure butchery that, had I but known it, marked me forever as
> ignorant, ingrateful and hypocritical.
>

I'm afraid it's much worse than you know. In the Bible Belt, of which
Sourth Carolina is a virtual buckle, butch females are regarded as an
abomination unto the Lord. It might be acceptable if you can tone it
down to just being outdoorsy and sublimate into one of the horsy sports.
Now if that was a misspelling with a "i" intended where you mis-
takenly put a "u", no problem. Difficult women are a regional tradition,
from the iconic Miss Scahlett to the heroines of Tennesee Williams.
Only in a Southern hotel bar could I have overheard a fellow ordering
"something tall, frigid and full of gin", prompting a distinguished-
looking drunk to turn to him and say "suh, you ah speakin' of the woman
Ah love".
--George Acton

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Peter Nyikos]

Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes:

>In article <33577948...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein

><mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes

>>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
>>sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>

>[megasnip]

>>
>>>And Sherilyn may be surprised to learn, by your new criterion,
>>>just how many ad hominems 'e is guilty of.

>That pronoun has caught a nasty touch of apostrophism, see a doctor
>immediately.

No problem. 'e is just my contraction for (s)he.

By the way, if you don't want to tell me what your gender is,
that's perfectly all right with me. I asked the question just
in case you or someone else felt a desire to let me know
what the answer is.

Since nobody seems to want to do that, I'm withdrawing
the question. Of course, if you decide to answer anyway,
I'll certainly be careful to remember the answer if I see it.

>Hmmm, most of what I post is not intended to offend. However, "ad
>hominem" is used in one sense in normal debate and in another in USENET,
>and it's so darned easy for a girl to get mixed up.

Also for a person who goes by the moniker of Sherilyn, who
may be too old to be safely called a "girl" by the likes
of me, not to mention that still-unresolved...

>Of course, I'd only stoop to attacking someone on the Net if it was
>consensual and we'd set up safewords in advance.

Of course.

>Come to think of it, I'm not that tall that I'd need to stoop.

"She stoops to conquer" is not a term that applies to you,
even if the hints people have been giving me about your
gender were not meant to mislead.

:-) [Added for the humor-impaired.]

>If you ever have a spare half hour, look up the posts on Dejanews where
>Judy Stein argues with me about the meaning of the word "quack". Her
>reaction to my use of the two-volume Shorter Oxford (about 5 Kilogrammes
>of tightly printed erudition) was, I suppose, predictable: "not in
>common use in America". So I whopped her on the head with an on-line
>Webster.

I say, good show!

[Peter Nyikos]

gac...@softdisk.com writes:

>In article <M2Hk57CD...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
> Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> an act of pure butchery that, had I but known it, marked me forever as
>> ignorant, ingrateful and hypocritical.
>>
>I'm afraid it's much worse than you know. In the Bible Belt, of which
>Sourth Carolina is a virtual buckle, butch females are regarded as an
>abomination unto the Lord.

I wouldn't know about that. I'm a transplanted northerner who
knows the difference between orientation and behavior, and I haven't
run into any Southerners who have confused the two in
my presence.

George Acton, on the other hand, may well be confused
about the distinction.

It might be acceptable if you can tone it
>down to just being outdoorsy and sublimate into one of the horsy sports.

I doubt that George Acton knows what the hell he is talking about
at this point.

> Now if that was a misspelling with a "i" intended where you mis-
>takenly put a "u", no problem. Difficult women are a regional tradition,
>from the iconic Miss Scahlett to the heroines of Tennesee Williams.

Ah, so that's where George gets his information about Southeners--
Hollywood and a New Yorker named "Tennessee". :-)

>Only in a Southern hotel bar could I have overheard a fellow ordering
>"something tall, frigid and full of gin", prompting a distinguished-
>looking drunk to turn to him and say "suh, you ah speakin' of the woman
>Ah love".
> --George Acton

That story sounds as phoney as a 3.3333 dollar bill.

[Joe Potter]

Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

<335e8342...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Silberstein vs. Potter_,
> nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>
> >mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:

<snip>

(Matt??)

> >>>>Except you have changed the story.
> >
> >Sounds to me like a personal charge against Joe, folks.
>
> Except it is not. I am saying that he has changed the claim. I am not
> saying anything about *him*.
>

I seem to have missed this little missive by you. Would you tell me what
you meant by my having changed some story???

>
> What are you looking for? Should I have said "implied"? Big deal. This
> is one of several passages that supported my statements. Peter
> darling, you are spending far more time defending Joe than Joe did.
>

I missed several posts on this topic, but even so I do not see any need to
"defend" myself since I simply told you what I thought. Do *you* see
anything I was in error over??

Regards, Joe

[Joe Potter]

Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

<336115a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >
<snip>

.
> >
> >Don't make me sick. I doubt that you've acknowledged even
> >five percent of the times you have been wrong. Or even one
> >percent of the time where something other than a cut-and-dried
> >statement of fact was concerned.
> >

Matt, was this comment directed toward me? I am having trouble following
these extra long articles with many nested quotes.

Regards, Joe

[Joe Potter]

Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

<336215dc...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
> sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> You might look at my posts and see if I ever
> accused Joe of attacking me.
>
> >You did. Right on this thread. You said to Joe, "You attacked me".
> >And on "Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity" you accused Joe
> >of it again:
>
> You are right. That was sloppy usage on my part. I should not have
> said that and withdraw it. In fact, I will send an e-mail to Joe
> telling him.
>

Thank you. It is big of you to do so.

Regards, Joe

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the

sand_, "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

><336115a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>> >
><snip>

>
>.
>> >
>> >Don't make me sick. I doubt that you've acknowledged even
>> >five percent of the times you have been wrong. Or even one
>> >percent of the time where something other than a cut-and-dried
>> >statement of fact was concerned.
>> >
>

> Matt, was this comment directed toward me? I am having trouble following
>these extra long articles with many nested quotes.
>

I wouldn't know, I did not write it.

Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------------

CAUCHON. And you, and not the Church, are to be the judge?

JOAN. What other judgment can I judge by but my own?

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Silberstein vs. Potter_, "Joe Potter"
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

><335e8342...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

>> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Silberstein vs. Potter_,
>> nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>
>> >mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>
>

><snip>
>
>(Matt??)

>> >>>>Except you have changed the story.
>> >
>> >Sounds to me like a personal charge against Joe, folks.
>>
>> Except it is not. I am saying that he has changed the claim. I am not
>> saying anything about *him*.
>>
>

> I seem to have missed this little missive by you. Would you tell me what
>you meant by my having changed some story???
>
>
>
>>

>> What are you looking for? Should I have said "implied"? Big deal. This
>> is one of several passages that supported my statements. Peter
>> darling, you are spending far more time defending Joe than Joe did.
>>
>

> I missed several posts on this topic, but even so I do not see any need to
>"defend" myself since I simply told you what I thought. Do *you* see
>anything I was in error over??

You did not "defend" yourself because you did not need to. Your
"error" was in misinterpreting me comments and insisting on your
interpretation over mine. No more and no less.

Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------------

CAUCHON. And you, and not the Church, are to be the judge?

JOAN. What other judgment can I judge by but my own?

[jeff wiel]

Richard Harter (c...@tiac.net) wrote:
: mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:

: >In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:

: >>100 points on that other issue. But only 80 if you claim Matt's
: >>claim was unfair. See below.

: >Peter, who gets the points here? And what was the other issue?

: You're looking for points in a Peter posting?

There's always the point on the top of his head.

: Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
: URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
: I'm a primatologist specializing in homo sapiens.
: Their lack of true intelligence simplifies my studies.

[Joe Potter]

Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

<33630749...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the

> sand_, "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

> ><336115a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >> >
> ><snip>

> >
> >.
> >> >
> >> >Don't make me sick. I doubt that you've acknowledged even
> >> >five percent of the times you have been wrong. Or even one
> >> >percent of the time where something other than a cut-and-dried
> >> >statement of fact was concerned.
> >> >
> >

> > Matt, was this comment directed toward me? I am having trouble
following
> >these extra long articles with many nested quotes.
> >
>
> I wouldn't know, I did not write it.
>
>

Which proves I'm having trouble following these long articles. :-)

Regards, Joe

[Peter Nyikos]

Myers continues his vendetta against me, this time not even
leaving anything negative by me about him in the post to
make it even *look* like he is the innocent party. Only those
readers who take Myers's unsupported word for things are likely
to be taken in.

By the way...just wondering...has anyone ever confirmed Paul's story of
how he treated Ed Conrad when Ed visited him? Has Ed denied Paul's
version of what happened between them from the very beginning?

my...@netaxs.com.NOSPAM (PZ Myers) writes:

>In article <335e8342...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com
>(Matt Silberstein) wrote:

>> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Silberstein vs. Potter_,
>> nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>
>> >mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>> >

>> >>In talk.origins nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>

>> [snip]
>>
>> > I was not aware that not including some quoted material in a
>> >>post was censoring. Anyone is still free to respond to the parts that
>> >>I did not wish to respond to.

>> >Not Paul Myers, as long as he wished to be seen as killfiling me.
>> >Your snip insured that he was not free to respond to it, at
>> >least until Sherilyn, who had performed an even more complete
>> >snip, restored the post in a later followup to me.

Matt displays his stupefying capacity for illogic:

>> He is free to respond or not as he sees fit.

[deletia of irrelevant smokescreen by Matt to distract attention from
his illogic]

>I don't see any need to respond to Peter's insults,

Of course, those were not insults that were censored. It was
an unvarnished account of Paul's hypocritical and deceitful
behavior.

so I certainly hope
>no one feels obligated to quote him...and Peter, it's rather childish
>of you to feel miffed that no one is delivering your invective to me.

The so-called "invective" was done to set straight a record that
Paul has shamelessly distorted.

> It's not wanted.

Of course not. Paul wants people to believe his myth about what
happened between us and does not want them to be reminded of
the truth.

>>
>> >That's assuming, of course, that Paul has not also killfiled
>> >Sherilyn. If he has, then we are no better off than before.

>On general principle, I'm very reluctant to killfile anyone -- I try
>to give everyone the benefit of the doubt for a little while, at least.

Correction: Paul wants everyone to give HIM the benefit of the doubt
and will stay on good terms with those who do--assuming there IS any
doubt for Paul to be given the benefit of.

>It takes exceptional ignorance to convince me that someone has no
>possibility of contributing anything to a discussion,

Perhaps. I wonder if this is meant to refer to Ed Conrad, and I
wonder whether Paul really tried to reason with Ed or whether he
just gave Ed the same spiel he gave me, about how so many "biologists"
had already told Ed he is wrong that Ed is totally unreasonable not
to believe them.

Note, in Ed's case this could conceivably be true, but in my case,
the so-called biologists were dead wrong, as Howard Hershey has
belatedly confirmed on "Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity".

and it takes
>an unusual degree of bile to make me think that even if the person does
>say something worthwhile, I'm going to be so appalled at the manner it
>is presented that I won't want to see it.

Being told that one is dishonest when one IS dishonest qualifies
as being an "unusual degree of bile" in Myers's scheme of things.

>Sherilyn hasn't met any of those requirements. Quite the opposite, actually...
>she seems very rational and civil, even to Peter.

Calling me "Peter darling" when one doesn't know me from Adam and
is in the process of delivering a scolding is not my idea of
"very rational and civil", but your mileage may vary.

>It takes an extraordinary effort to get into my killfile...

Indeed, it takes an extraordinary effort to keep up with Myers's
misrepresentations and other deceitful actions.

hey, you could
>think of it as my own little list! Unfortunately, it's not as impressive
>as Peter's -- it's very, very short, with only one person on it.

He even got that wrong. The only list I've posted on which Myers
is to be found is a list in which he is the only member--the only
person who has ever been a member. It takes a unique set of traits
to be a Black Page, and so far only Myers has made the grade in
my estimation.

Qualifications posted on request.

[PZ Myers]

In article <01bc4c14$eed7aca0$404192cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter"
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <336115a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> > >
> <snip>
>
> .
> > >

> > >Don't make me sick. I doubt that you've acknowledged even
> > >five percent of the times you have been wrong. Or even one
> > >percent of the time where something other than a cut-and-dried
> > >statement of fact was concerned.
> > >
>

> Matt, was this comment directed toward me? I am having trouble
following
> these extra long articles with many nested quotes.

Uh-oh -- once upon a time I complained to Nyikos that ALL of his discussions
degenerated into these unreadable strings of deeply nested quotes which
were incredibly confusing to read. He didn't like it. Don't even bother
complaining, it's just "standard quoting practice".

>
> Regards, Joe

You're back! You vanished just as we were asking a really pithy, important
question, and you'll have to pardon me for getting the impression that you
were ducking out of it.

The big question: define "naturalism". You seemed to have somehow decided
that it's bad, that biology uses it but not chemistry or physics, and most
importantly, that it is wrong and therefore evolution is invalid. Please
try to address these problems.

--
Paul Z. Myers
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/

[Joe Potter]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article
<5jbll5$b...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...

<snip>

>
> He even got that wrong. The only list I've posted on which Myers
> is to be found is a list in which he is the only member--the only
> person who has ever been a member. It takes a unique set of traits
> to be a Black Page, and so far only Myers has made the grade in
> my estimation.
>
> Qualifications posted on request.
>
> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>

Please post the qualifications to be a "Black Page." Thanks in advance.

Regards, Joe

[Jonathan Stone]

In article <01bc4c5a$fb8e35e0$634192cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article
> <5jbll5$b...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...

> Please post the qualifications to be a "Black Page." Thanks in advance.

You'd really have to ask Peter, but since no reply has yet been forthcoming:

``Black Knight''-hood is awarded by Peter Nyikos to those Usenet
participants who are deemed to be as impervious to the facts as the
"Black Knight" in ``Monty Python and the Holy Grail".

On the off-chance you haven't seen it, the Black Knight challenges
King Arthur and is defeated. Even when an arm is lopped off, the
Black Knight dismisses it as ``just a flesh wound''. Even when both
arms are chopped off, the Black Knight screams that ``the Black Knight
never loses'', and charges and head-butts Arthur.

Eventually the Black Knight is left limbless and threatens to bite
Arthur's kneecaps off. As Arthur rides [sic] away, the Black says
``OK, then, we'll call it a draw?''.

I hope that goes some way towards clearing up the referent.

The ``Black Page'' award is a new one on me. It seems a reasonable
inference that by ``Black Page'', Peter Niykos is referring to either
an apperentice Black Knight, or a toady to an acknowledged Black
Knight (or both). Purely from temporal association with the
"Drag-Queen" subthread, it seems not unreasonable to conjecture that
perhaps a component of homophobic insult may also be implied. Note
that this is purely conjecture on my part. (Quotation of part of this
paragraph without also quoting this disclaimer will speak for itself.)

Again, you'll really have to get the straight dope from Peter Nyikos.

[ABiele7000]

Paul Z. Myers writes:

Joe Potter writes:

>
>> Regards, Joe

>You're back! You vanished just as we were asking a really pithy,
important
>question, and you'll have to pardon me for getting the impression that
you
>were ducking out of it.

>The big question: define "naturalism". You seemed to have somehow decided
>that it's bad, that biology uses it but not chemistry or physics, and
most
>importantly, that it is wrong and therefore evolution is invalid. Please
>try to address these problems.

>--
>Paul Z. Myers
>http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/

Naturalism is the belief system that the natural *material" world is all
there is and that there is no supernatural or spiritual world.

The above described unproved and 'religiously held' belief has its
corollaries:
1. There can't be any supernatural creation or Creator.
2. That scientific laws can explain all phenomenon.

It is easy to understand why I, and probably Joe Potter, reject
naturalism.

Naturalism should not be confused with "natural law". Natural Laws
are self evident laws of the world we live in. In science, Natural
Laws are basically descriptive - mathematical relationships between
masses/energies in their operational form (repeatable and observable).
Thus much scientific progress has been made in physics, chemistry,
biology, and the other operational sciences due to the discovery
of "natural laws", and not at all due to the dogma of naturalism.

Art Biele

[Joe Potter]

Jonathan Stone <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote in article
<5jchvn$5le$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...

> In article <01bc4c5a$fb8e35e0$634192cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter"
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article
> > <5jbll5$b...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...
>
> > Please post the qualifications to be a "Black Page." Thanks in
advance.
>
> You'd really have to ask Peter, but since no reply has yet been
forthcoming:
>
> ``Black Knight''-hood is awarded by Peter Nyikos to those Usenet
> participants who are deemed to be as impervious to the facts as the
> "Black Knight" in ``Monty Python and the Holy Grail".
>

<snip>

I have seen the movie several times, but thanks for your words.

>
> The ``Black Page'' award is a new one on me. It seems a reasonable
> inference that by ``Black Page'', Peter Niykos is referring to
either
> an apperentice Black Knight, or a toady to an acknowledged Black
> Knight (or both). Purely from temporal association with the
> "Drag-Queen" subthread, it seems not unreasonable to conjecture
that
> perhaps a component of homophobic insult may also be implied. Note
> that this is purely conjecture on my part. (Quotation of part of
this
> paragraph without also quoting this disclaimer will speak for
itself.)
>

I have seen no homophobic insults, implied or not, from Peter
Niykos. I have not read every word he ever wrote of course.

Regards, Joe

[Joe Potter]

PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com.NOSPAM> wrote in article
<myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>...

> You're back! You vanished just as we were asking a really pithy,
important
> question, and you'll have to pardon me for getting the impression
that you
> were ducking out of it.
>

My problem is that I am forced to deal with real life a lot, and
only get to work with this ng once a week or so. By the time a week
goes by, it seems thousands of articles have been posted and my
MicroSoft news reader does very little to help me find those threads
were people have talked to me or about me.

I am working on getting a better news reader to help with this
problem, do you have any suggestions? I am close to choosing Agent. I
did upgrade my modem to a US Robotics 56K to speed the work and allow
more time. That 1.4 old one was slow!

>
> The big question: define "naturalism". You seemed to have somehow
decided
> that it's bad, that biology uses it but not chemistry or physics,
and most
> importantly, that it is wrong and therefore evolution is invalid.
Please
> try to address these problems.
>

I have been talking with Matt S. for a while on topics related to
this, we were unfortunately sidetracked over some other issues.

This time I am trying to make sure I understand his position before
I start. In that thread, I hope to discuss naturalism (methodological
naturalism) with him (and others) at length. I hope you join in.

Regards, Joe

[Wade Hines]

abiel...@aol.com (ABiele7000) writes:

>Naturalism is the belief system that the natural *material" world is all
>there is and that there is no supernatural or spiritual world.

>The above described unproved and 'religiously held' belief has its
>corollaries:
> 1. There can't be any supernatural creation or Creator.
> 2. That scientific laws can explain all phenomenon.

>It is easy to understand why I, and probably Joe Potter, reject
>naturalism.

Please contrast my definition of science which then states that
science attempts to produce naturalistic explainations for observed
phenomina with whatever one would get with a science that didn't
avoid invoking supernatural explainations.

I also wonder if you object as strongly to naturalistic physics
or naturalistic chemistry as I'm supposing you object to naturalistic
biology.

Is there a problem in defining the orbits of planets, age of universe
and the wave/partical duality of matter in a naturalistic manner
working just from what can be observed and tested?

Is there a problem in understanding the rules of chemistry, who bonds
to whom under what conditions (and governed by physics) in a purely
mathematical and observational level without any supernatural special
excemptions invoked for diffucult to understand phenomina?

And what is wrong with using the same principles of science to observe
the biological world and see in it the manificastations of chemistry,
the history of evolution and the mechanisms of chemistry and evolution
rather than supernatural explainations.

Having spent some time working to understand chemistry and biology
I am rather perplexed at where anyone would put a supernatural
entity to work. It doesn't appear required.

Now on the other hand, you may not be very concerned with the
workings of things, many folks don't open the hood of their own
cars and wouldn't take the cover off their computer, and you may
be only concerned with a spiratual nature of the universe to which
I can only say, enjoy.

The difficulty I have is when those who don't open the car hood
start explaining where the car is going by invoking some imagined
parts under the hood. If this is too obscure, I don't find any
cause for anyone to disagree with a spiratual outlook on life or
the universe, just with false spirituralism that pretends it is
supported by some non spiritual elements, like for instance, biology.

>Naturalism should not be confused with "natural law". Natural Laws
>are self evident laws of the world we live in. In science, Natural
>Laws are basically descriptive - mathematical relationships between
>masses/energies in their operational form (repeatable and observable).
>Thus much scientific progress has been made in physics, chemistry,
>biology, and the other operational sciences due to the discovery
>of "natural laws", and not at all due to the dogma of naturalism.

Now I know you didn't say it, but other have invoked a bit of
whishywashy gibberish about "repeatable and observable" and made
two profound errors.

Firstly, many misconnote observable with "seen by a human eye"
which is really a poor notion of observable and not what science
means by an observation. A fossile, dated and placed in the context
of other dated fossiles is for instance a grand observation though
nobody saw the critter live or die. Sequences of biopolymers are
observations but the best you'll ever come to observing one is to
look at an image produced by a scanning tunneling electron microscope
and then how is that so different from bands on a gel, peaks in
a mass spectrum or letters on a comptuer screen?

The second problem is with the term repeatable which some have
suggested means, because the big bang can't be repeated, you can't
address it with science, and again, that abuses the concept of
repeatable.

Now Mr. Biele did not make such a claim and I of course apologize
for any misapplied insinuation that he partakes of such rubbish.

[Matt Silberstein]

In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the

sand_, abiel...@aol.com (ABiele7000) wrote:

>
>Naturalism is the belief system that the natural *material" world is all
>there is and that there is no supernatural or spiritual world.
>
>The above described unproved and 'religiously held' belief has its
>corollaries:
> 1. There can't be any supernatural creation or Creator.
> 2. That scientific laws can explain all phenomenon.
>
>It is easy to understand why I, and probably Joe Potter, reject
>naturalism.

Hey, but that definition I reject naturalism and I suspect that most
t.o regulars and most scientists would do the same. The "rules" you
describe are not the rules of science, they are not the assumptions of
science.

>Naturalism should not be confused with "natural law". Natural Laws
>are self evident laws of the world we live in.

"Self-evident"? Are the rules of quantum chronodynamics self-evident?

>In science, Natural
>Laws are basically descriptive - mathematical relationships between
>masses/energies in their operational form (repeatable and observable).
>Thus much scientific progress has been made in physics, chemistry,
>biology, and the other operational sciences due to the discovery
>of "natural laws", and not at all due to the dogma of naturalism.

And it is this kind of natural law rules that operate in evolutionary
science.

[Peter Nyikos]

"Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article
><5jbll5$b...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...

[About Paul Myers:]

>> He even got that wrong. The only list I've posted on which Myers
>> is to be found is a list in which he is the only member--the only
>> person who has ever been a member. It takes a unique set of traits
>> to be a Black Page, and so far only Myers has made the grade in
>> my estimation.
>>
>> Qualifications posted on request.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>>

> Please post the qualifications to be a "Black Page." Thanks in advance.

Well, first I should put in the qualifications to be a Black Knight,
since the ones for Black Page-hood build on them. And before I
do even that, here are some choice words from a post by one
Stephen Coulson here last year, which lead nicely into the
descriptions:

"Psychopaths have poor language skills in that they tend to say self
contradictory things without noticing, nor do they seem to notice self
contradiction in things they hear or read. They are also amazingly nonplussed
when confronted by an untruth that they have uttered, instead simply
continuing on as though nothing happened instead of addressing the issue."

A very nice description of some of the more extreme behavior typical of:

THE BLACK KNIGHTS

Black Knights are are people who, when faced with clear evidence of having
issued falsehoods or self-contradiction, will plow right ahead, issuing
streams of taunts designed to make people believe that THEY have won the
argument, and, in many instances, not even bother to try to show that they
did NOT lose the argument.

The name is taken from the "Black Knight" of "Monty Python" fame, who
kept taunting the main characters in the "Holy Grail" film for being
cowards afraid to fight him and weaklings unable to fight him successfully,
even after they had cut off both his arms and both his legs.

[SC again:]
"This trait can
often fool people into thinking that they have not, in fact, made any such
rebuttal or, at least, a rebuttal of any import. This unshakability is often
misconstrued as correctness and people are often drawn to psychopaths for the
assurance that they can exude."

A perfect description of all five former t.o. Black Knights.
For a while the only t.o. people on this list had all left t.o. AFAIK,
until this past week a new person qualified for the list:

George Acton

George also exhibits the characteristics mentioned by SC, which
is probably why Paul Myers was drawn to him. Which brings me
to a new (only about a month old), one-man category:

THE BLACK PAGE CONCEPT

A Black Page might be termed "a Black Knight by proxy": too cowardly/shrewd
to go into regular Black Knight routines when caught in falsehood or
self-contradiction, a Black Page instead generally runs away and acts as though
he had never issued them. On the other hand, a Black Page DOES isssue
streams of taunts designed to make people believe his ALLIES
have won argument after argument, and, in many instances, does not
bother to try to show that his allies did not lose the argument.

[Note the lack of "when caught..." qualifying clause in the last
sentence. All that is needed is for the allies not to have
come close to actually winning the argument and yet be depicted
by the Black Page as having won hands down. A prime example
was Paul Myers accusing me of "continually insulting" George
Acton by not acknowledging all the supposedly valuable contributions
George had made to an argument, whereas George was not contributing
anything relevant to the argument, as Howard Hershey has belatedly
acknowledged.]

The only person ever designated a Black Page by me
[or anyone else to my knowledge] is Paul Myers.

CAUTION: A certain person who once posted to talk.origins, after being put
on the Black Knight list, countered by claiming that I belonged and even put
this in his .sig for a while. Like everyone else who tried
to pull that stunt, he flagrantly ignored the qualifying clause,
"when faced with clear evidence of..." Not to be confused with
"being faced with blatant unsupported assertions of...", even though
Paul Myers loves to confuse the two things.

[Peter Nyikos]

jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) writes:

>In article <01bc4c5a$fb8e35e0$634192cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article
>> <5jbll5$b...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...

>> Please post the qualifications to be a "Black Page." Thanks in advance.

>You'd really have to ask Peter, but since no reply has yet been forthcoming:

Joe posted it on Saturday, and I don't do much weekend posting.

>``Black Knight''-hood is awarded by Peter Nyikos to those Usenet
>participants who are deemed to be as impervious to the facts as the
>"Black Knight" in ``Monty Python and the Holy Grail".

Better would be, "impervious to the facts in the same way",
because it is the supplemental taunting that really sets
a Black Knight apart from the usual impervious person:

>On the off-chance you haven't seen it, the Black Knight challenges
>King Arthur and is defeated. Even when an arm is lopped off, the
>Black Knight dismisses it as ``just a flesh wound''. Even when both
>arms are chopped off, the Black Knight screams that ``the Black Knight
>never loses'', and charges and head-butts Arthur.

That's only part of it. Didn't he also call them "yellow" for
supposedly being afraid to fight him?

>Eventually the Black Knight is left limbless and threatens to bite
>Arthur's kneecaps off. As Arthur rides [sic] away, the Black says
>``OK, then, we'll call it a draw?''.

>I hope that goes some way towards clearing up the referent.

>The ``Black Page'' award is a new one on me. It seems a reasonable

>inference that by ``Black Page'', Peter Niykos is referring to either
>an apperentice Black Knight, or a toady to an acknowledged Black
>Knight (or both).

Well, Paul Myers comes close on both counts, although the formal
qualifications, posted just a few minutes ago, don't require either.

Myers was actually made a Black Page before George Acton, the
person to whom he is a toady, was `elevated' to Black Knight
rank.

Myers may indeed be in training to be a Black Knight, but I haven't
seen him stand on his own two feet often enough. Without that,
it isn't very relevant to lop his feet off, figuratively
speaking.

Purely from temporal association with the
>"Drag-Queen" subthread, it seems not unreasonable to conjecture that
>perhaps a component of homophobic insult may also be implied.

Since there was no homophobia involved in that thread either,
except perhaps on the part of Matt Silberstein in his association
of drag queens with cannibalistic pederasts,
I don't know how you arrive at this speculation.

Note
>that this is purely conjecture on my part. (Quotation of part of this
>paragraph without also quoting this disclaimer will speak for itself.)

Perish the thought. ;-)

>Again, you'll really have to get the straight dope from Peter Nyikos.

Posted just a few minutes ago.

[Peter Nyikos]

Matt is either an archetypal word-twister or else he is suffering
from some sort of mental malady where the meanings of words
are concerned. Just look at what's transpiring below:

mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:

>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Silberstein vs. Potter_, "Joe Potter"
><joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

>><335e8342...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

>>> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Silberstein vs. Potter_,
>>> nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>>
>>> >mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:

>>(Matt??)
>>> >>>>Except you have changed the story.

[Peter:]

>>> >Sounds to me like a personal charge against Joe, folks.

Note the shift from "story" [as in, "a likely story!"] to
the more equivocation-friendly word "claim" in what
Matt says next. But that's nothing compared to the
incredibly strained distinction he is drawing:

[Matt:]

>>> Except it is not. I am saying that he has changed the claim. I am not
>>> saying anything about *him*.

Matt has been making such tortuous distinctions for a couple of days
now. I still haven't figured out what the rationale is, and I'm
wondering whether he has either.

Matt has shrunk the domain of applicability of the words "attack"
and "personal charge" radically, while at the same time
allowing the words "defense" and "insult" to mushroom radically
in applicability. In this post, however, he seems to be
taking some steps to whittle down "defense"--but it is not
at all clear just how he proposes to go about doing it.

>>
>> I seem to have missed this little missive by you. Would you tell me what
>>you meant by my having changed some story???

>>> What are you looking for? Should I have said "implied"?

It only took Matt three posts and 10 deducted points to figure
that one out. Yes, he should have written "implied" in
place of "said" in the following sentence which Matt
addressed to Joe:

"You attacked me and claimed I said something I did not."

When confronted with this statement, Matt took the unusual
[for him] step of acknowledging that he had misused the
word "attack" (according to his own highly shrunken criteria
for what constitutes an attack, probably reverse engineered
to enable him to claim that he had not attacked Joe Potter.)

And now he tries to make light of the fact that he had
written "said" instead of "implied" in the thing he'd said to Joe:

>>> Big deal. This
>>> is one of several passages that supported my statements.

Next, note the balooning of the word "defending" to include setting the
record straight on what happened and deducting 10 points for
Matt's rewrite of Usenet history:

>>>Peter
>>> darling, you are spending far more time defending Joe than Joe did.

Where "insult" is concerned, I wonder whether Matt considers
his blatantly sarcastic and intentionally highly irritating "Peter darling"
to be an insult. He HAS used the word "insult" to describe virtually any
negative comment, no matter how factual, I make, especially where
Paul Myers is concerned. By the same standards, he has insulted
Joe Potter many, many times.

But back to the rest of Matt's pregnant comment: it would
seem from what Matt says to Joe below that Joe spent NO
time defending himself at all:

>>
>> I missed several posts on this topic, but even so I do not see any need to
>>"defend" myself since I simply told you what I thought. Do *you* see
>>anything I was in error over??

>You did not "defend" yourself because you did not need to.

Looks like the word "defend" is going to come in for some
hard times at the hands of lexicographical authoritarian
Matt Silberstein. I'm supposedly spending lots of time
defending Joe, whereas Joe supposedly never spent any time defending
himself.

I'm not going to try and figure this one out, especially
since I suspect Matt is making up the rules as he is
going along, and probably hasn't tried to harmonize
them with each other yet.

Your
>"error" was in misinterpreting me comments and insisting on your
>interpretation over mine. No more and no less.

Note the quotation marks around the word "error". Is Matt
going to come up with his own private definition for this
word too?

[howard hershey]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >> [snip, including irrelevant cites]

>
> Note, in Ed's case this could conceivably be true, but in my case,
> the so-called biologists were dead wrong, as Howard Hershey has
> belatedly confirmed on "Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity".
>

Please present evidence of this rather interesting claim. I feel like
you are pulling an Ed Conrad on this one (you and Ed have an awful lot
in common: the same style of argumentation, the same charming net
persona, the same level of knowledge of the material, the same concern
for supporting evidence to support one's wild speculations, the same
reverential approach to your respective masters - although Behe does
clearly beat out Ted in the quality department). Peter Nyikos is merely
Ed Conrad with a PhD.

You know, Peter, despite the fact that, by your own words, your own
mother never called you 'Peter darling', I firmly believe that your
mother must have been as close as we mere mortals come to being a
saint. Indeed, unless you tell me that she was merely human and
abandonded you or spent years in an asylum or jail for attempted
infanticide, I am quite convinced that she must be among the most
saintly of women. Mother Theresa is no competition, for Mother Theresa
didn't have the day-to-day stresses that your mother must have faced.
Your mother must have near superhuman tolerance and patience, and
clearly is as well-deserving of future sainthood as the better known
Mother Theresa. And Peter is married! What are the odds of two such
saintly women in the same population! The odds must be in the same
range as the odds of forming a single specific sequence of 100 amino
acids into a particular peptide by chance alone! Either Peter is lucky
beyond belief, his off-net persona is 180 degrees from his on-net
persona, or he had best learn to sleep with one eye open and lock up all
the sharp instruments in the house at night.
[Please note that I have *not* insulted either your mother or your wife
in the above paragraph. Far from it. I praise them, and not
extravagently so, for they are, indeed, saintly women IMHO. And the
evidence for their goodness is available for all to see.]

As to the specific point made, BTW, all I did was point out that if, as
*you* posited, there is a lack of autointeraction between two proteins,
you won't get long regulatory cascades by duplication and divergence.
If you do get autointeraction, you can easily generate long regulatory
cascades via duplication and divergence. In what way is this wrong? I
have always stated that autointeraction (why do you *think* the
biologists here talked about the fact that the intermediates in the
clotting cascade are serine proteases) makes the process of evolving a
long chain easy and lack of same makes the process difficult or
impossible - one must rule out secondary loss of autointeraction, of
course). But that does not mean that evolutionarily related processess
accomplished by duplication and divergence are impossible for
non-autointeracting proteins. You just get a different type of result
than a long regulatory cascade.

There! I have officially (but only after being called a "false
witness", a "below-35-IQ-simulator", and several other examples of
Nyikos 'witicisms') retaliated by venting what I call 'direct flammage'
toward Peter (that he is simply 'Ed Conrad with a PhD'). Excuse me. I
rarely make such directly insulting statements (and being compared to Ed
Conrad is an insult). But the accuracy of the description of Peter as
'Ed Conrad with a PhD' resides in the details. I also have vented what
I call 'indirect flammage', which I much prefer. Peter may, of course,
contradict me by pointing out that neither his wife nor his mother are
deserving of such sainthood, but I will respectfully, yet firmly,
disagree with such derogatory and belittling comments about them. ;-)

[Paul J. Gans]

Sherilyn (sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: In article <33577948...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein
: <mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes
: >In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the

: >sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
: >
: [megasnip]
: >
: >>And Sherilyn may be surprised to learn, by your new criterion,
: >>just how many ad hominems 'e is guilty of.
:
: That pronoun has caught a nasty touch of apostrophism, see a doctor
: immediately.

:
: Hmmm, most of what I post is not intended to offend. However, "ad
: hominem" is used in one sense in normal debate and in another in USENET,

: and it's so darned easy for a girl to get mixed up.

:
: Of course, I'd only stoop to attacking someone on the Net if it was
: consensual and we'd set up safewords in advance.
:
: Come to think of it, I'm not that tall that I'd need to stoop.
: ...
: >
: >This is just too funny. For those who did not see, or don't remember
: >the post (_Some definitions of rhetorical terms_) I used my Oxford
: >English Dictionary for the definitions. That is usually not considered
: >substandard, but YMMV.
: >
: If you ever have a spare half hour, look up the posts on Dejanews where

: Judy Stein argues with me about the meaning of the word "quack". Her
: reaction to my use of the two-volume Shorter Oxford (about 5 Kilogrammes
: of tightly printed erudition) was, I suppose, predictable: "not in
: common use in America". So I whopped her on the head with an on-line
: Webster.

Hey, I've got the two-volume Oxford. There was once a time
when I could even read it withouth the magnifying glass...

But I live in New York, often not considered to be part of
America. :-)

------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

[Chris Heiny]

In article <335b0e29...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the

>sand_, Sherilyn <sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <33577948...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein
>><mat...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>>>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
>>>sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>>
>>[megasnip]
>>>
>>>>And Sherilyn may be surprised to learn, by your new criterion,
>>>>just how many ad hominems 'e is guilty of.
>>
>>That pronoun has caught a nasty touch of apostrophism, see a doctor
>>immediately.
>

>Isn't apostrophism a theological problem?

No it is a real theory, one that Godless Linguists are afraid of and
thus trying to hush-up to keep their cushy jobs as proofreaders and
typesetters. From the start of our public education we are INDOCTRINATED
in our public schools with Godless Linguistics and Orthographic Spelling!

For years heathen Linguists have attempted to explain away the sudden
appearance of things like colons and doublequotes within the written
record, even going so far as to cobble up the Theory of Equilibrated
Punctuation to explain why things like ( and [ always have a matching
) or ]. They claim the semi-colon is a "transitional form" between a
comma and a colon (renaming the colon as a "full-colon" to emphasize this
so-called theory) when they really know it is simply a period and a comma
doing it missionary style (Linguists are so sexually repressed). But has
any one of them ever seen a lower case 'l' mutate into an upper case
'P'? No, of course not - what could would a half formed 'P' be? Or
worse, what about "V" mutating into "W" - half a W looks like a backwards
N, no one would be able to read that and it would die out immediately.
Even if it did make the jump all at once, where would the readers to
read it come from, huh? And what about writers: "Whups - look at this
new letter that just happened!" No, it's just too silly for anyone
with an open mind to believe.

I mean, they can't even explain why the period is always at the >end<
of the sentence, and not in the middle somewhere (talk about missing
transitionals!) - they always claim that they can produce such a
sentence in the lab, but has such a one ever been seen in a scientific
journal? Ha!

Apostrophism is the ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION for the typographical
record as we know it. While it's too complicated to explain here,
let me assure you that Top Scientists have verified Apostrophism
by hurling basketballs into racks of linotype. And yet the so-called
'peer-reviewed' journals have not published any of their papers!

We here at the Institute for Catastrophic 'Riting have the answers!
We know where the letters go when you make a contraction like "can't"
from "cannot" (there's another missing transitional from you - anyone
ever see a "can'ot" or a "cann't"? Of cours'not). Read our
newsgroup alt.apostrophism for the real, uncensored story (which you
certainly won't get if the robomoderation of t.o passes preventing us
from spamming the TRUTH over all of Usenet).

Remember, Splifferd the @ says: A Mind Is A Terrble Thing To Baste -
It Takes Forever And The Oven Is Always Hard To Clean Afterwards.

--
Christopher Heiny Professor of Bizarre Theories
University of Ediacara Offther-Hocking Chair of Lunar Influences
ch...@eso.mc.xerox.com

For Ed Conrad: I am >NOT< a full-fledged professor of earth
sciences at Michigan Technological University
- - - - - - - - -
"You are lying, Ted!"
Shrieked Mrs Anomalocaris,
"Liar,
liar!
LIAR!
You are a liar, Ted!
You were mating with that _nathorsti_ tramp again,
Weren't you, Ted? Liar!"
And then she threw the platter of trilobites at him.
'Song of Anomalocaris - The Soap Opera'
Season 246, Episode 118a: Edward and Agnes Divorce

[PZ Myers]

In article <01bc4eb2$cec08540$654892cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter"
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Peter, Thanks for the Black Knight definition, it is most amusing.

>
>
>
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article

> <5jfrds$4...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...
>
> > Well, first I should put in the qualifications to be a Black

> Knight,
> > since the ones for Black Page-hood build on them. And before I
> > do even that, here are some choice words from a post by one
> > Stephen Coulson here last year, which lead nicely into the
> > descriptions:
> >
> > "Psychopaths have poor language skills in that they tend to say
> self
> > contradictory things without noticing, nor do they seem to notice
> self
> > contradiction in things they hear or read. They are also amazingly
> nonplussed
> > when confronted by an untruth that they have uttered, instead
> simply
> > continuing on as though nothing happened instead of addressing the
> issue."
> >
>

> I am more worried about those who write "untruth" on purpose and
> know it. We used to call this being a liar. The problem then is how
> can one tell if the party who tells an untruth is deluded (thinks it
> is true in spite of the facts) or is lying.
>
>
> <snip>

>
>
>
> > CAUTION: A certain person who once posted to talk.origins, after
> being put
> > on the Black Knight list, countered by claiming that I belonged and
> even put
> > this in his .sig for a while. Like everyone else who tried
> > to pull that stunt, he flagrantly ignored the qualifying clause,
> > "when faced with clear evidence of..." Not to be confused with
> > "being faced with blatant unsupported assertions of...", even
> though
> > Paul Myers loves to confuse the two things.
> >
> >
>

> I am glad you pointed this out. Unsupported assertions fly fast and
> furious on this ng.

That's right -- stuff like vague claims that "naturalism" means evolution is
wrong. That's an assertion that's about as unsupported as they get!

[Chris Ho-Stuart]

howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > >> [snip, including irrelevant cites]
> >
> >
> > Note, in Ed's case this could conceivably be true, but in my case,
> > the so-called biologists were dead wrong, as Howard Hershey has
> > belatedly confirmed on "Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity".
>
> Please present evidence of this rather interesting claim.

I also would like to know what Peter is speaking of here; it seems
quite at odds with what I have seen of the discussion.

Please people; don't do this. This kind of intensly personal invective
is revolting. If you think someone is being dense, say so. But leave
family OUT of it. The paragraph above is merely stupid. It is insult
for the sake of trying to be mean and hurtful, and nothing else.

> As to the specific point made, BTW, all I did was point out that if, as
> *you* posited, there is a lack of autointeraction between two proteins,
> you won't get long regulatory cascades by duplication and divergence.
> If you do get autointeraction, you can easily generate long regulatory
> cascades via duplication and divergence. In what way is this wrong? I
> have always stated that autointeraction (why do you *think* the
> biologists here talked about the fact that the intermediates in the
> clotting cascade are serine proteases) makes the process of evolving a
> long chain easy and lack of same makes the process difficult or
> impossible - one must rule out secondary loss of autointeraction, of
> course). But that does not mean that evolutionarily related processess
> accomplished by duplication and divergence are impossible for
> non-autointeracting proteins. You just get a different type of result
> than a long regulatory cascade.

Quite so.

> There! I have officially (but only after being called a "false
> witness", a "below-35-IQ-simulator", and several other examples of
> Nyikos 'witicisms') retaliated by venting what I call 'direct flammage'
> toward Peter (that he is simply 'Ed Conrad with a PhD'). Excuse me. I
> rarely make such directly insulting statements (and being compared to Ed
> Conrad is an insult). But the accuracy of the description of Peter as
> 'Ed Conrad with a PhD' resides in the details. I also have vented what
> I call 'indirect flammage', which I much prefer. Peter may, of course,
> contradict me by pointing out that neither his wife nor his mother are
> deserving of such sainthood, but I will respectfully, yet firmly,
> disagree with such derogatory and belittling comments about them. ;-)

Smiley noted, and ignored. I agree that you have been provoked, and
that it is unusual for you to vent in this way. Regardless; you have
actually managed to drive the level to new lows and that is a pity.

In this post, I am, in a way, breaking a promise made earlier to stay
out of comments on conduct unless directly involved myself. However,
the reason I made that promise was because I have had harsh words for
Prof. Nyikos in the past; and so sought to calm the waters somewhat.

We are presently having a CVF on a proposal that (I suspect) will help
signal to noise here a lot. I also think individual self-moderation in
this group is particularly important.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart

[John Wilkins]

In article <19970420124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
abiel...@aol.com (ABiele7000) wrote:

| Paul Z. Myers writes:
|
| Joe Potter writes:
|
| >
| >> Regards, Joe
|

| >You're back! You vanished just as we were asking a really pithy,
| important
| >question, and you'll have to pardon me for getting the impression that
| you
| >were ducking out of it.
|

| >The big question: define "naturalism". You seemed to have somehow decided
| >that it's bad, that biology uses it but not chemistry or physics, and
| most
| >importantly, that it is wrong and therefore evolution is invalid. Please
| >try to address these problems.
|

| >--
| >Paul Z. Myers
| >http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
|

| Naturalism is the belief system that the natural *material" world is all
| there is and that there is no supernatural or spiritual world.

No, this is wrong. Naturalism is the view that a certain kind of knowledge
about the natural world must rely on evidence about the natural world and
nothing else in order to be, or to approach being, objective.

Necessarily, inferences made on the basis of natural phenomena and evidence
cannot permit extension into the supernatural. Such inferences are, by
definition, not natural inferences. Therefore, inferences of that kind are
not restricted by the rules of natural evidence, and almost any conclusion
can be licensed from them.

This does not exclude the possibility of supernatural entities. I'll say it
again: naturalistic inference is limited in what it includes *and* what it
excludes. It cannot exclude anything beyond its sphere of competence.

|
| The above described unproved and 'religiously held' belief has its
| corollaries:
| 1. There can't be any supernatural creation or Creator.
| 2. That scientific laws can explain all phenomenon.
|
| It is easy to understand why I, and probably Joe Potter, reject
| naturalism.
|

| Naturalism should not be confused with "natural law". Natural Laws

| are self evident laws of the world we live in. In science, Natural

| Laws are basically descriptive - mathematical relationships between
| masses/energies in their operational form (repeatable and observable).
| Thus much scientific progress has been made in physics, chemistry,
| biology, and the other operational sciences due to the discovery
| of "natural laws", and not at all due to the dogma of naturalism.

You are quite right that natural law and naturalism are distinct matters.
However, natural law conceptions of the scientific era (I am distinguishing
that from conceptions of the medieval period - see the book by D'Entreves
on _Natural Law_ about that for an introduction) are explanatory, not
descriptive. They describe causal relationships. Operationalism of the sort
Bridgeman proposed in the 50s has been pretty well abandoned as a
characterisation of scientific law.

--
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research [Remove .UNSPAM from header address]
<http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins><mailto:wil...@wehi.edu.au>
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed. - Capote

[Matt Silberstein]

On 23 Apr 1997 00:21:33 GMT, "Joe Potter"
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

[snip]

>Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article
><5jfrds$4...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...
>

[snip]

>> Paul Myers loves to confuse the two things.

>I am glad you pointed this out. Unsupported assertions fly fast and
>furious on this ng.

Joe, I suggest that you read Paul's posts and make your own judgements
about him rather than relying on another person's views.

Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------------

Words you will never hear your spouse say to the police:

"I didn't know it was loaded."

[Joe Potter]

Peter, Thanks for the Black Knight definition, it is most amusing.

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article
<5jfrds$4...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...

> Well, first I should put in the qualifications to be a Black

<snip>

> Paul Myers loves to confuse the two things.
>
>

I am glad you pointed this out. Unsupported assertions fly fast and
furious on this ng.

Regards, Joe

[John Wilkins]

This deserves to be part of the t.o site, somewhere; perhaps even in the
humor section...

In article <1997Apr22.1...@news.wrc.xerox.com>,
ch...@eso.mc.xerox.com wrote:

--

[Christopher C. Wood]

In article <19970420124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, abiel...@aol.com (ABiele7000) writes:
|> Paul Z. Myers writes:

[ to Joe Potter ]

|> >You're back! You vanished just as we were asking a really pithy,
|> >important question, and you'll have to pardon me for getting the
|> >impression that you were ducking out of it.

|> >The big question: define "naturalism". You seemed to have somehow
|> >decided that it's bad, that biology uses it but not chemistry or
|> >physics, and most importantly, that it is wrong and therefore
|> >evolution is invalid. Please try to address these problems.
|> >--
|> >Paul Z. Myers

|> Naturalism is the belief system that the natural *material" world

|> is all there is and that there is no supernatural or spiritual
|> world.

What is a "supernatural" or "spiritual" world? How would we tell that
these realms exist? What effect would such realms have on the
"natural *material* world"? Would these effects be repeatable?

All you have done is replace one undefined term with another.

|> The above described unproved and 'religiously held' belief has its
|> corollaries:
|> 1. There can't be any supernatural creation or Creator.
|> 2. That scientific laws can explain all phenomenon.

|> It is easy to understand why I, and probably Joe Potter, reject
|> naturalism.

You are arguing against a strawman. You are starting with the
assertion "there is a supernatural Creator", and getting no further
than disagreeing with its converse.

|> Naturalism should not be confused with "natural law". Natural Laws
|> are self evident laws of the world we live in. In science, Natural
|> Laws are basically descriptive - mathematical relationships between
|> masses/energies in their operational form (repeatable and observable).
|> Thus much scientific progress has been made in physics, chemistry,
|> biology, and the other operational sciences due to the discovery
|> of "natural laws", and not at all due to the dogma of naturalism.

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think
it means.

You could help us all by using the phrase "Art Beile's Naturalism"
where you mean "the notion that a supernatural creator cannot exist".

|> Art Biele

Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com

[Christopher C. Wood]

In article <01bc4eb2$cec08540$654892cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

|> Peter, Thanks for the Black Knight definition, it is most amusing.

|> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article
|> <5jfrds$4...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...

|> > Well, first I should put in the qualifications to be a Black
|> > Knight, since the ones for Black Page-hood build on them. And
|> > before I do even that, here are some choice words from a post by
|> > one Stephen Coulson here last year, which lead nicely into the
|> > descriptions:

|> > "Psychopaths have poor language skills in that they tend to say
|> > self contradictory things without noticing, nor do they seem to
|> > notice self contradiction in things they hear or read. They are
|> > also amazingly nonplussed when confronted by an untruth that they
|> > have uttered, instead simply continuing on as though nothing
|> > happened instead of addressing the issue."

An apt description of Peter N.

|> I am more worried about those who write "untruth" on purpose and
|> know it.

An apt description of Duane T. Gish.

|> We used to call this being a liar. The problem then is how can one
|> tell if the party who tells an untruth is deluded (thinks it is
|> true in spite of the facts) or is lying.

|> > CAUTION: A certain person who once posted to talk.origins, after

|> > being put on the Black Knight list, countered by claiming that I
|> > belonged and even put this in his .sig for a while. Like
|> > everyone else who tried to pull that stunt, he flagrantly ignored
|> > the qualifying clause, "when faced with clear evidence of..."

Except Peter uses this phrase to mean "when Peter says..."

|> > Not to be confused with "being faced with blatant unsupported
|> > assertions of...", even though Paul Myers loves to confuse the
|> > two things.

|> I am glad you pointed this out. Unsupported assertions fly fast and
|> furious on this ng.

Yup.

|> Regards, Joe

[Christopher Carrell]

In article <5jl7o5$g...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com> chr...@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:
>In article <19970420124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, abiel...@aol.com (ABiele7000) writes:
>|> Paul Z. Myers writes:
>
>[ to Joe Potter ]
>
>|> >You're back! You vanished just as we were asking a really pithy,
>|> >important question, and you'll have to pardon me for getting the
>|> >impression that you were ducking out of it.
>
>|> >The big question: define "naturalism". You seemed to have somehow
>|> >decided that it's bad, that biology uses it but not chemistry or
>|> >physics, and most importantly, that it is wrong and therefore
>|> >evolution is invalid. Please try to address these problems.
>|> >--
>|> >Paul Z. Myers
>
>|> Naturalism is the belief system that the natural *material" world
>|> is all there is and that there is no supernatural or spiritual
>|> world.
>
>What is a "supernatural" or "spiritual" world? How would we tell that
>these realms exist? What effect would such realms have on the
>"natural *material* world"? Would these effects be repeatable?
>
>All you have done is replace one undefined term with another.

Well, the issue has been clarified at least a little for me. The definition of
naturalism given above is _not_ what I mean by "naturalism" or "science".
When I think of naturalism, I think of what's testable. If it's not
testable, it's...not testable. Nonexistence is a big leap of logic from
that point.

Again untestable != nonexistent

Chris

[Peter Nyikos]

hi...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes:

>abiel...@aol.com (ABiele7000) writes:

>>Naturalism is the belief system that the natural *material" world is all
>>there is and that there is no supernatural or spiritual world.

>>The above described unproved and 'religiously held' belief has its

>>corollaries:
>> 1. There can't be any supernatural creation or Creator.
>> 2. That scientific laws can explain all phenomenon.

>>It is easy to understand why I, and probably Joe Potter, reject
>>naturalism.

>Please contrast my definition of science which then states that

>science attempts to produce naturalistic explainations for observed
>phenomina with whatever one would get with a science that didn't
>avoid invoking supernatural explainations.

A good definition if one sticks to it. Unfortunately a lot
of people then go into some such `syllogism cascade' as the
following:

======================== begin cascade

Supernatural accounts of phenomena are not testable by the usual methods of
science.

Explanations not testable by the usual methods of science are
unscientific.

Therefore, accounts invoking the supernatural are unscientific.

Unscientific theories are obscurantist and not to be taken
seriously.

Accounts invoking the supernatural are unscientific.

Therefore, accounts invoking the supernatural are obscurantist
and are not to be taken seriously.

========================== end cascade

The foregoing series of `syllogisms' seems to be behind a lot
of what I read on talk.origins. Howard Hershey, to whom
I was responding, when I first posted the cascade, was
saying the following about me:

"and Peter has not read the scientific literature"

I've read an enormous amount of scientific literature in
the 41 years since I turned 10. Read most of Colbert's
_Evolution of the Vertebrates_ at age 12 and a good
bit of the book of which it was mostly a synopsis,
Romer's _Vertebrate Paleontology_. Also I've read and re-read
J. L. B. Smiths _The Search Beneath the Sea_ many times over
the years, getting new insights into human nature (including
that of scientists) each time.

For those not in the know, Smith was the original describer
of the coelacanth *Latimeria chalumnae* and initiated an extensive
search for more specimens, which bore fruit after fourteen
frustrating years.

AFAIK you can count the number of regulars in this ng who are
really familiar with vertebrate paleontology on the fingers
of one hand, and I am one of them.

Hershey probably is not one of them, yet today I caught him
claiming I have only a vague idea of evolution. In my original
reply to him, I thought he was just referring to the
blood clotting mechanism, but that remark makes me wonder
whether he is under the delusion that I am not familiar
with the scientific literature on ANY on-topic subject.

But now, back to Wade Hines:

>I also wonder if you object as strongly to naturalistic physics
>or naturalistic chemistry as I'm supposing you object to naturalistic
>biology.

I'll let Joe speak for himself on this one. I have no problem
with naturalistic physics except when one of its practitioners
says our universe is "mediocre" and the event of a whole
universe popping into existence out of nothing is in no
need of explanation because such things are part of a "law"
[read: theory that says these things happen all the time
and lets it go at that without providing evidence.]

Saying our universe is "mediocre" is even worse than calling
someone "a mediocre athlete" just because she is not expected to win
an Olympic gold medal. What it does is simply ignore all universes
that are significantly less favorable to the evolution of intelligent
species than ours is.

>Is there a problem in defining the orbits of planets, age of universe
>and the wave/partical duality of matter in a naturalistic manner
>working just from what can be observed and tested?

None whatever where I am concerned.

>Is there a problem in understanding the rules of chemistry, who bonds
>to whom under what conditions (and governed by physics) in a purely
>mathematical and observational level without any supernatural special
>excemptions invoked for diffucult to understand phenomina?

No, but Wade has this quaint notion that once the chemical bond
problems are solved, abiogenesis is explained without having
to solve probabilistic problems like those acknowledged
by even the atheistic Dawkins in _The Blind Watchmaker_,
brought out by his METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL analogy
[which Behe trumped--and that probably accounts in part
for why Wade Hines and others loathe Behe, for observing
that Dawkins had posed the problem brilliantly but had
cheated on the answer].

>And what is wrong with using the same principles of science to observe
>the biological world and see in it the manificastations of chemistry,

Wade seems to exemplify the word "monomaniac". Next thing you
know, he'll be telling people that knitting caftans and sweaters
is a cinch once you know the chemistry behind the fibers used.

No need to actually learn the moves--it's all in the chemistry
of the fibers. :-)

>the history of evolution

I doubt that Hines knows the first thing about the history
of evolution of organisms. I've never seen him get into
a discussion of paleontology. I on the other hand have
put in a good bit of time here and also in sci.bio.paleontology
and sci.bio.evolution and even in sci.bio.systematics discussing
the history of evolution of organisms, including the minutiae
of how likely it is that Archeopteryx is a DIRECT ANCESTOR
of birds rather than just a sister species of a direct
ancestor.

Clue: the Berlin specimen was not nearly as well preserved
as it is usually cracked up to be. The all-important
skull bones, absolutely essential to a realistic assessment
of how close Archie is to direct ancestor status, need to
be supplemented by bones from the Eichstatt specimen and
even from the London specimen which usually suffers from
comparison with the Berlin specimen.

and the mechanisms of chemistry and evolution
>rather than supernatural explainations.

Still harping on chemistry. Next thing you know, he'll subject
the Berlin specimen to chemical analysis and tell you all
the definitive answer to the burning "direct ancestor"
problem. :-)

>Having spent some time working to understand chemistry and biology
>I am rather perplexed at where anyone would put a supernatural
>entity to work. It doesn't appear required.

Hines is in the tradition of Yuri Gagarin who said, "I looked outside
my space capsule and didn't see God out there." Or words
to that effect.

More to the point: Howard Hershey once played "good cop"
to these kind of "bad cop" routines when he said he had
much more respect for a god that had nothing to do with
actively designing and making the universe. Much more
dignified, he claimed, just to have God be there in the
immutable laws, so to speak. After seeing his "Cry for
the trees shuffled off their mortal coil" tirade, though,
a real agenda behind these declarations seems to
rear its ugly head.

>Now on the other hand, you may not be very concerned with the
>workings of things, many folks don't open the hood of their own
>cars and wouldn't take the cover off their computer, and you may
>be only concerned with a spiratual nature of the universe to which
>I can only say, enjoy.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, because if Wade spoke his mind, he'd be accusing you
of living in a fool's paradise, IMO. All his past posting
behavior points strongly to that conclusion.

>The difficulty I have is when those who don't open the car hood
>start explaining where the car is going by invoking some imagined
>parts under the hood.

That's only where his difficulty starts. It continues with
him sneering at people like me who have probably looked
more under the whole-organism hood than he has, catching
me on some obscure piece of jargon like "suppressor codon"
[which turned out to be a gaffe of Keith Robison anyway]
and then posting hate-filled lines alleging that I am
insulting the intelligence of people here when I can't
even figure out what Robison had meant to say.

If this is too obscure, I don't find any
>cause for anyone to disagree with a spiratual outlook on life or
>the universe,

Nor with people who believe in the tooth fairy and the
Easter bunny but don't try to force their beliefs on others.

just with false spirituralism that pretends it is
>supported by some non spiritual elements, like for instance, biology.

Yeah, if someone actually tried to argue that fairies
exist, like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle of all people,
Wade Hines would not have kind words for him. [The author
of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries was taken in for a long
time by faked photographs.]

>>Naturalism should not be confused with "natural law". Natural Laws
>>are self evident laws of the world we live in. In science, Natural
>>Laws are basically descriptive - mathematical relationships between
>>masses/energies in their operational form (repeatable and observable).
>>Thus much scientific progress has been made in physics, chemistry,
>>biology, and the other operational sciences due to the discovery
>>of "natural laws", and not at all due to the dogma of naturalism.

>Now I know you didn't say it, but other have invoked a bit of

>whishywashy gibberish about "repeatable and observable" and made
>two profound errors.

>Firstly, many misconnote observable with "seen by a human eye"
>which is really a poor notion of observable and not what science
>means by an observation. A fossile, dated and placed in the context
>of other dated fossiles is for instance a grand observation though
>nobody saw the critter live or die. Sequences of biopolymers are
>observations but the best you'll ever come to observing one is to
>look at an image produced by a scanning tunneling electron microscope
>and then how is that so different from bands on a gel, peaks in
>a mass spectrum or letters on a comptuer screen?

>The second problem is with the term repeatable which some have
>suggested means, because the big bang can't be repeated, you can't
>address it with science, and again, that abuses the concept of
>repeatable.

On the contrary: May 1996 issue of _Discover_ had a big article
on one Russian born physicist who claimed that our universe
is mediocre and needs no explanation precisely because the
big bang is HIGHLY repeatable. And many scientists apparently
take his theory very seriously indeed.

>Now Mr. Biele did not make such a claim and I of course apologize
>for any misapplied insinuation that he partakes of such rubbish.

Well said, for once.

Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --

Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208

[Peter Nyikos]

"Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

><336215dc...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...

>> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the
>> sand_, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote:
>>

><snip>

>>
>> You might look at my posts and see if I ever
>> accused Joe of attacking me.
>>
>> >You did. Right on this thread. You said to Joe, "You attacked me".
>> >And on "Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity" you accused Joe
>> >of it again:
>>
>> You are right. That was sloppy usage on my part. I should not have
>> said that and withdraw it. In fact, I will send an e-mail to Joe
>> telling him.
>>

Matt was trying to be consistent in his singular use of the
word "attack". To see how singular, see "Silberstein vs. Potter".

> Thank you. It is big of you to do so.

I thought so too at first, but now I think his behavior was
similar to that of Saddam Hussein making enormous concessions
to Iran in the midst of the Gulf war. "The Great Satan" USA
made even the fanatical Islamic fundamentalists look good
to him.

> Regards, Joe

Don't get me wrong, Joe. I'm not sure you are a fundamentalist
and I certainly have no reason to believe that you are fanatical
about it if you are.

There are, however, some people, like CC Wood who has posted
to this thread, who talk as though they thought I was something
approximating a Great Satan.

By the way, I did a followup to Wade Hines right now that
I think you might be interested in. I changed the Subject: line
to "Abiele and naturalism (Was: Paul Myers buries his head in the sand)".

[Peter Nyikos]

mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:

>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the

>sand_, "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>
>>
>>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

>><336115a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>>> >
>><snip>
>>
>>.
>>> >
>>> >Don't make me sick. I doubt that you've acknowledged even
>>> >five percent of the times you have been wrong. Or even one
>>> >percent of the time where something other than a cut-and-dried
>>> >statement of fact was concerned.

This was directed at Matt by me.

>>
>> Matt, was this comment directed toward me? I am having trouble following
>>these extra long articles with many nested quotes.

>I wouldn't know, I did not write it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Matt definitely does seem to be trying for Simulated Amnesiac of
the Month, folks. He not only followed up to the post, leaving
my words in, as Joe
has documented, he even went into a spiel about how really
sorry he is to see that I have this perception of him.

[Peter Nyikos]

chr...@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:

>In article <01bc4eb2$cec08540$654892cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>|> Peter, Thanks for the Black Knight definition, it is most amusing.

>|> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article
>|> <5jfrds$4...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...

>|> > Well, first I should put in the qualifications to be a Black
>|> > Knight, since the ones for Black Page-hood build on them. And
>|> > before I do even that, here are some choice words from a post by
>|> > one Stephen Coulson here last year, which lead nicely into the
>|> > descriptions:

>|> > "Psychopaths have poor language skills in that they tend to say
>|> > self contradictory things without noticing, nor do they seem to
>|> > notice self contradiction in things they hear or read. They are
>|> > also amazingly nonplussed when confronted by an untruth that they
>|> > have uttered, instead simply continuing on as though nothing
>|> > happened instead of addressing the issue."

>An apt description of Peter N.

The usual C C Wood unsupported flame. But then, we've learned
to expect such things of C C Wood.

>|> I am more worried about those who write "untruth" on purpose and
>|> know it.

>An apt description of Duane T. Gish.

Also of Paul Myers, George Acton, and C C Wood, by all the
available evidence. Small sample below.

>|> We used to call this being a liar. The problem then is how can one
>|> tell if the party who tells an untruth is deluded (thinks it is
>|> true in spite of the facts) or is lying.

Yes, that's why I used to post such awards as "Simulated
Pathological Liar of the Month," the word "Simulated"
being there because it is theoretically impossible
to PROVE whether the person is deluded or lying.

>|> > CAUTION: A certain person who once posted to talk.origins, after
>|> > being put on the Black Knight list, countered by claiming that I
>|> > belonged and even put this in his .sig for a while. Like
>|> > everyone else who tried to pull that stunt, he flagrantly ignored
>|> > the qualifying clause, "when faced with clear evidence of..."

>Except Peter uses this phrase to mean "when Peter says..."

Wood is projecting big-time here. I use the phrase to mean
things like: "When Howard Hershey, who has an anti-Behe agenda,
and can be expected NOT to say such things unless they were true,
says:

This makes no sense. You have already stated that H' is *not*
autocatalytic, so how can H" be involved in the 'activation' of H'?

as applied to people like George Acton repeating the "gene
duplication and subsequent divergence" mantra as an
explanation for long cascades and DENYING that autocatalycity
has anything to do with it. And then this same George Acton
runs away from the thread where these words were spoken,
and starts issuing streams of taunts like his tall tale
about me not believing someone telling me what the time is.

>|> > Not to be confused with "being faced with blatant unsupported
>|> > assertions of...", even though Paul Myers loves to confuse the
>|> > two things.

>|> I am glad you pointed this out. Unsupported assertions fly fast and
>|> furious on this ng.

>Yup.

And Chris Wood has added some of his own right to this post.
But even those pale into insignificance alonside the following
unsupported assertions, posted to the thread,

"Brett Vicker Admits His FAQ/Archive is Biased and Misleading!"

| What bothered me the most about him is the way he goes from initially
| dismissing a general point (such as the one I made about Behe not
| taking into account gene duplication and subsequent diversion when
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note Chris repeating the mantra and even misspelling "divergence".

| discussing the evolution of irreducibly complex systems,

This, by the way, is absolutely false, and indicates that Wood
never read the clotting chapter by Behe.

| complete with
| heaping derision on those who offered such a position, to accepting
| the position,

Not as stated by Wood, Myers, and Acton.

| without ever acknowledging that the initial position
| originally had merit and its dismissal was premature, or retracting
| the derision heaped on the poster.
|
| For that, Peter, you are the worst sort of close-minded, snobbish
| hypocrit. Your ego is a festering pustule on the backside of
| acedemia, swollen and threatening to burst, spreading your foul,
| infectious intolerance and narrow-mindedness.

For this performance, and others like it in the past, C C Wood
joins George Acton among

THE BLACK KNIGHTS

Black Knights are are people who, when faced with clear evidence of having
issued falsehoods or self-contradiction, will plow right ahead, issuing
streams of taunts designed to make people believe that THEY have won the
argument, and, in many instances, not even bother to try to show that they
did NOT lose the argument.

The name is taken from the "Black Knight" of "Monty Python" fame, who
kept taunting the main characters in the "Holy Grail" film for being
cowards afraid to fight him and weaklings unable to fight him successfully,
even after they had cut off both his arms and both his legs.

For a while the only t.o. people on this list had all left t.o. AFAIK,
until in less than two weeks two new people qualified:

George Acton C C Wood

>Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com

Welcome to the lists, Sir Wood. [or "Sir Chris" if you prefer]

[Peter Nyikos]

howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> writes:

>Peter Nyikos wrote:

>> >> [snip, including irrelevant cites]

>>
>> Note, in Ed's case this could conceivably be true, but in my case,
>> the so-called biologists were dead wrong, as Howard Hershey has
>> belatedly confirmed on "Towards a real FAQ on irreducible complexity".
>>
>Please present evidence of this rather interesting claim.

It's all around you, especially in Paul Myers and George Acton's
Black Page-Black Knight performance on the thread,
"Behe's last laugh (Was: Amino Acids and Abiogenesis.)" where
they laugh at me for not believing their claim as to what exact time
it was when they waved a leaky "gene duplication and subsequent divergence"
hourglass at me. Neither ever had a clue as to the role of
autocatalycity in this explanation, and Acton repeatedly
and steadfastly denied it, for instance with:

Autocatalicity has nothing to do with Behe's theory that the
clotting system is "designed".
<8588800...@dejanews.com>

...and I could show you other statements lots more explicitly
clueless than even that. And now he has buried his head in the
sand over your words,

This makes no sense. You have already stated that H' is *not*
autocatalytic, so how can H" be involved in the 'activation' of H'?

Also look at C C Wood on the thread,

"Brett Vicker Admits His FAQ/Archive is Biased and Misleading!"

lying his head off about what transpired between you and
me wrt those words of yours, and about what he and others
had done, repeating the Myers-Acton `hourglass' mantra without showing
he has a clue EVEN NOW about the relevance of autocatalicity.

Do I need to document more?

I feel like
>you are pulling an Ed Conrad on this one (you and Ed have an awful lot
>in common: the same style of argumentation,

Incredible. All the posts I saw from Conrad made no effort
to be anywhere near as responsive as I am in any of the
posts where I sign my full address at the end. I must
have looked at an incredibly biased sample, eh?

the same charming net
>persona, the same level of knowledge of the material,

You're trolling, aren't you?

Have you ever tried to figure out what the lifestyle of
Chalicotherium and Astrapotherium were?

Have you ever tried to figure out what my allusions
to METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL were about? Did you
even bother to ASK?

the same concern
>for supporting evidence to support one's wild speculations,

No less concern than you have shown for yours. Like
your speculation that genetic drift-analogues give
10 different anticodoned-tRNA coding for different
amino acids rather than 5 identically anti-codoned
tRNA coding for different aminos and a mixed bag
of 5 others.

You think, "We're here, aren't we?" proves that natural
selection HAD to favor the first, don't you?

the same
>reverential approach to your respective masters

When did Conrad admit Ted was wrong about anything?

You're just bulshitting for the fun of it, aren't you?

Or did Paul Myers ghost-write this post for you?

Peter Nyikos is merely
>Ed Conrad with a PhD.

As is Howard Hershey, by those standards. Care to prove otherwise
by coming to Wade Hines's rescue in the following:

=============================== begin excerpt from post to
"Abiele and naturalism (Was: Paul Myers buries his head in the sand)"

>the history of evolution

====================== end of excerpt

Of course, you may respond on the original thread if you
prefer. I posted the above earlier today.

>You know, Peter, despite the fact that, by your own words, your own
>mother never called you 'Peter darling',

She called me many similar terms of endearment, many times,
but in Hungarian.

I firmly believe that your
>mother must have been as close as we mere mortals come to being a
>saint.

Paul Myers put you up to this, didn't he? :-)

My mother never gave me any reason to dislike her. Myers
gave me many reasons to despise him. You give me many
more reasons to dislike you than my mother gave me in
the 51 10/12 years since I was conceived. I would never dream
of speaking to my mother, or indeed to any fundamentally
honest person, the way I speak to many people in talk.origins.

Your attitude makes sense only if you are a profoundly subjective
person who treats people not according to how good they are,
but how nice they are to YOU and the people YOU care about,
no matter how dishonest they may be. You are a lot like
the Vikings in that respect.

[additional tall tales about what Howard Hershey allegedly
believes about my mother and wife, deleted. I never
praised Myers's kids of wife to him, just went on the working hypothesis they
were far more responsible and honest than he is--just because it is almost
impossible not to be vastly more responsible and honest than
Myers--I'd say about 90% of all people alive today fit into
that category, but I may be underestimating.]

>As to the specific point made, BTW, all I did was point out that if, as
>*you* posited, there is a lack of autointeraction between two proteins,
>you won't get long regulatory cascades by duplication and divergence.

Something Myers and Acton were absolutely clueless about, and
C C Wood too. Yet they puked all over me for not believing
in their barren `explanations'.

[additional explanations that should be directed at the three
aforementioned bozos, deleted]

[another manic clown act about my mother, my wife, and me, deleted]

Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --

[Sherilyn]

In article <5jj2op$jbj$1...@news.nyu.edu>, "Paul J. Gans"
<ga...@scholar.nyu.edu> writes
>
>Sherilyn (sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>:

>: >
>: If you ever have a spare half hour, look up the posts on Dejanews where
>: Judy Stein argues with me about the meaning of the word "quack". Her
>: reaction to my use of the two-volume Shorter Oxford (about 5 Kilogrammes
>: of tightly printed erudition) was, I suppose, predictable: "not in
>: common use in America". So I whopped her on the head with an on-line
>: Webster.
>
>Hey, I've got the two-volume Oxford. There was once a time
>when I could even read it withouth the magnifying glass...
>
>But I live in New York, often not considered to be part of
>America. :-)
>

Be afraid. Be very afraid. So does Judy Stein. :)
--
Sherilyn

[A...@home.com]

John Wilkins wrote:
>
> In article <19970420124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

> abiel...@aol.com (ABiele7000) wrote:
>
> | Paul Z. Myers writes:
> |
> | Joe Potter writes:
> |
> | >
> | >> Regards, Joe
> |

> | >You're back! You vanished just as we were asking a really pithy,
> | important
> | >question, and you'll have to pardon me for getting the impression that
> | you
> | >were ducking out of it.
> |
> | >The big question: define "naturalism". You seemed to have somehow decided
> | >that it's bad, that biology uses it but not chemistry or physics, and
> | most
> | >importantly, that it is wrong and therefore evolution is invalid. Please
> | >try to address these problems.
> |
> | >--
> | >Paul Z. Myers

> | >http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/

> |
> | Naturalism is the belief system that the natural *material" world is all
> | there is and that there is no supernatural or spiritual world.
>

> No, this is wrong. Naturalism is the view that a certain kind of knowledge
> about the natural world must rely on evidence about the natural world and
> nothing else in order to be, or to approach being, objective.

Which certain kind of knowledge are you referring to?

Take this for what you think its worth:

Definition for Naturalism from database web1913
(web1913)

Naturalism \Nat"u*ral*ism\, n. [Cf. F. naturalisme.] 1. A state of
nature; conformity to nature.

2. (Metaph.) The doctrine of those who deny a supernatural agency in the
miracles and revelations
recorded in the Bible, and in spiritual influences; also, any system of
philosophy which refers the
phenomena of nature to a blind force or forces acting necessarily or
according to fixed laws,
excluding origination or direction by one intelligent will.

> Necessarily, inferences made on the basis of natural phenomena and evidence
> cannot permit extension into the supernatural. Such inferences are, by
> definition, not natural inferences. Therefore, inferences of that kind are
> not restricted by the rules of natural evidence, and almost any conclusion
> can be licensed from them.
>
> This does not exclude the possibility of supernatural entities. I'll say it
> again: naturalistic inference is limited in what it includes *and* what it
> excludes. It cannot exclude anything beyond its sphere of competence.

You seem to be equating naturalistic inference with naturalism, as if
they are interchangeable. Care to comment on that a little more, please?

And how is this different from methodological naturalism (I don't see a
difference)?

[Daneel]

In article <335F6FBC...@home.com>,
A...@home.com wrote:
[...]

> > | Naturalism is the belief system that the natural *material" world is all
> > | there is and that there is no supernatural or spiritual world.
> >
> > No, this is wrong. Naturalism is the view that a certain kind of knowledge
> > about the natural world must rely on evidence about the natural world and
> > nothing else in order to be, or to approach being, objective.
>
> Which certain kind of knowledge are you referring to?

The one in focus of someone.; I suppose he better had written "any kind of
knowledge about the natural world".

> Take this for what you think its worth:
>
> Definition for Naturalism from database web1913
> (web1913)
>
> Naturalism \Nat"u*ral*ism\, n. [Cf. F. naturalisme.] 1. A state of
> nature; conformity to nature.
>
> 2. (Metaph.) The doctrine of those who deny a supernatural agency in the
> miracles and revelations
> recorded in the Bible, and in spiritual influences; also, any system of
> philosophy which refers the
> phenomena of nature to a blind force or forces acting necessarily or
> according to fixed laws,
> excluding origination or direction by one intelligent will.

[...]

I don't know web1913; but it seems pretty biased in the direction
of Christianity.

I mean when it says that naturalists *deny* a supernatural agency;
when it equates the supernatural agency with the one behind the
"miralces and revelations in the Bible"; when it implies monotheism
with "by one intelligent will". BTW, is the 1913 the year it was
edited?...

Bye

Daneel [#323] (ust...@cs.elte.hu)
******************************************************************
"Radio has no future." _Lord Kelvin
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." _Lord Kelvin
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." _Lord Kelvin

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Christopher C. Wood]

In article <5jm4j4$n...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

|> Also look at C C Wood on the thread,
|> "Brett Vicker Admits His FAQ/Archive is Biased and Misleading!"
|> lying his head off about what transpired between you and
|> me wrt those words of yours, and about what he and others
|> had done, repeating the Myers-Acton `hourglass' mantra without showing
|> he has a clue EVEN NOW about the relevance of autocatalicity.

|> Do I need to document more?

Yes, Peter, you do. Demonstrate where I was "lying my head off", or
retract this claim.

[Joe Potter]

Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

<3361a4ac...@nntp.netcruiser>...

>
> On 23 Apr 1997 00:21:33 GMT, "Joe Potter"
> <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>

> >Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article
> ><5jfrds$4...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...
> >

> [snip]

>
> >> Paul Myers loves to confuse the two things.
>
> >I am glad you pointed this out. Unsupported assertions fly fast
and
> >furious on this ng.
>

> Joe, I suggest that you read Paul's posts and make your own
judgements
> about him rather than relying on another person's views.
>
>

It is curious that you inferred that I was writing about PM in these
words. I was writing of the overall situation on this ng.

On the other hand, Paul has written me a few times over the past
several weeks and I do not find him to be conducive to reasoned
discourse. This is just one man's opinion.

Regards, Joe

[Joe Potter]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article

<5jlghn$e...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...

> "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>
>
> >Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

> ><336215dc...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >> In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in
the

I am not sure I know what a "fundamentalist" is. I do believe in
God, but oddly I was an evolutionist at the very time that I was
active in church. I saw the debate as between proven science and the
"allegories" of the Bible.

It was Gould and Eldredge that got me "off the reservation." Till
then I assumed that the fossil record was absolute proof of Darwin
gradualism. I thought we had a "fact" of evolution. This in no way
means that I think that Gould or Eldredge are not "good
evolutionists," it is just that they finally told the truth about
some of the difficulties in ToE.

I have moved (slowly) over the years to design.

I hope this clears up your question.

<snip>

Regards, Joe

[Joe Potter]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article

<5jld3e$c...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...

> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes:
>
> >In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the

> >sand_, "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

> >><336115a2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >>> >
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>.
> >>> >
> >>> >Don't make me sick. I doubt that you've acknowledged even
> >>> >five percent of the times you have been wrong. Or even one
> >>> >percent of the time where something other than a cut-and-dried
> >>> >statement of fact was concerned.
>
> This was directed at Matt by me.
> >>
> >> Matt, was this comment directed toward me? I am having trouble
following
> >>these extra long articles with many nested quotes.
>
>
> >I wouldn't know, I did not write it.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Matt definitely does seem to be trying for Simulated Amnesiac of
> the Month, folks. He not only followed up to the post, leaving
> my words in, as Joe
> has documented, he even went into a spiel about how really
> sorry he is to see that I have this perception of him.
>

> Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
>
>

Hmmmm. It is odd that he did not tell me that you wrote it to him,
but he was honest in saying he did not write it. Maybe he just had no
comment to make.

Regards, Joe

[PZ Myers]

In article <01bc5183$5279a240$834892cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter"
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article

> <3361a4ac...@nntp.netcruiser>...
> >
> > On 23 Apr 1997 00:21:33 GMT, "Joe Potter"
> > <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >

> > >Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article

> > ><5jfrds$4...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>...
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> Paul Myers loves to confuse the two things.
> >
> > >I am glad you pointed this out. Unsupported assertions fly fast
> and
> > >furious on this ng.
> >
> > Joe, I suggest that you read Paul's posts and make your own
> judgements
> > about him rather than relying on another person's views.
> >
> >
>
> It is curious that you inferred that I was writing about PM in these
> words. I was writing of the overall situation on this ng.

And I find that you have a distressing tendency to pretend that you never
made claims that are obvious in your posts. Look at the material quoted
above: Nyikos makes his usual insult, specifying me by name; you reply,
"I am glad you pointed this out"; and then in the reply to Matt you
disingenuously express surprise that he "inferred" that you were writing
about me.

Who were you writing about? The "overall situation"? Does that mean we
should entirely ignore the context of ALL of your comments, because your
replies never have any bearing on the message to which you are replying?

>
> On the other hand, Paul has written me a few times over the past
> several weeks and I do not find him to be conducive to reasoned
> discourse. This is just one man's opinion.

Oh, and I think that "man's opinion" is founded in ignorance and bias,
and relies all too much on denial, subterfuge, obfuscation, and misleading
vagueness.

What? You think I insulted you? No, I was talking about some other guy...
I am following your example and maintaining complete deniability.

[David Jensen]

On 26 Apr 1997 14:42:53 GMT, in talk.origins
"Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

....

> It was Gould and Eldredge that got me "off the reservation." Till
>then I assumed that the fossil record was absolute proof of Darwin
>gradualism. I thought we had a "fact" of evolution. This in no way
>means that I think that Gould or Eldredge are not "good
>evolutionists," it is just that they finally told the truth about
>some of the difficulties in ToE.

Too bad, you seem to have misunderstood Gould and Eldredge. They are
proposing a particular way that we can expect to continue to find
fossils, lots of stability with periods of great change. That is what we
have found and may continue to find. How does this evidence support
design?

> I have moved (slowly) over the years to design.

The problem with design is: no evidence that supports design and opposes
evolution. Most "theories" of design appear to be God of the Gaps in
secular dress.

....
========================================================
The talk.origins faqs are at http://www.talkorigins.org/

[wf...@enter.netxx]

On 26 Apr 1997 14:42:53 GMT, "Joe Potter"
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>> It was Gould and Eldredge that got me "off the reservation." Till
>then I assumed that the fossil record was absolute proof of Darwin
>gradualism. I thought we had a "fact" of evolution. This in no way
>means that I think that Gould or Eldredge are not "good
>evolutionists," it is just that they finally told the truth about
>some of the difficulties in ToE.
>

so because your original understanding of science was incomplete and
scientists filled in the details, this convinced you that superstition
was valid and science was not.

yep, sounds creationist to me.

delete the xx from my email address to reply

[Joe Potter]

PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com.NOSPAM> wrote in article
<myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>...

<snip>

>
> Oh, and I think that "man's opinion" is founded in ignorance and
bias,
> and relies all too much on denial, subterfuge, obfuscation, and
misleading
> vagueness.
>
> What? You think I insulted you? No, I was talking about some other
guy...
> I am following your example and maintaining complete deniability.
>

No, I do not feel insulted. I got a big grin from you proving my
point for me. It appears you never care to discuss a ng topic, rather
you just like to insult and attack.

Whatever floats your boat.

Regards, Joe

[Joe Potter]

David Jensen <dje...@madison.tds.net> wrote in article
<33682ea8...@news.tds.net>...

> On 26 Apr 1997 14:42:53 GMT, in talk.origins
> "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> ....
>

> > It was Gould and Eldredge that got me "off the reservation." Till
> >then I assumed that the fossil record was absolute proof of Darwin
> >gradualism. I thought we had a "fact" of evolution. This in no way
> >means that I think that Gould or Eldredge are not "good
> >evolutionists," it is just that they finally told the truth about
> >some of the difficulties in ToE.
>

> Too bad, you seem to have misunderstood Gould and Eldredge. They
are
> proposing a particular way that we can expect to continue to find
> fossils, lots of stability with periods of great change. That is
what we
> have found and may continue to find. How does this evidence support
> design?
>

Eldredge & Co. never wrote anything that said "design" to me, that
came later. What they did do was show that Darwin gradualism (modern
synthesis) was not based on the hard evidence that I had been taught
in college. Hence, I started looking at other aspects of the
"evidence."

Scientists that risked career and reputation by proposing saltation
or alien seeding showed that some were desperate to find a way to
explain the evidence --- and gradualism was not doing the job.

> > I have moved (slowly) over the years to design.
>
> The problem with design is: no evidence that supports design and
opposes
> evolution. Most "theories" of design appear to be God of the Gaps
in
> secular dress.
>

This last just shows you view the evidence though the lens of
naturalism that demands that design could not be part of the answer.

The "god of the gaps" charge is just a strawman argument. If we
posit design in the first of life, then we have design possible
throughout --- not just in gaps.

Regards, Joe

[Joe Potter]

wf...@enter.netxx wrote in article <336245dc...@news.enter.net>...
>
> On 26 Apr 1997 14:42:53 GMT, "Joe Potter"

> <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> It was Gould and Eldredge that got me "off the reservation." Till
> >then I assumed that the fossil record was absolute proof of Darwin
> >gradualism. I thought we had a "fact" of evolution. This in no way
> >means that I think that Gould or Eldredge are not "good
> >evolutionists," it is just that they finally told the truth about
> >some of the difficulties in ToE.
> >

> so because your original understanding of science was incomplete and
> scientists filled in the details, this convinced you that superstition
> was valid and science was not.
>
> yep, sounds creationist to me.
>

I was willing to examine the facts. You write as if you are not --- sounds as
if you are dogmatic to me.

Regards, Joe

[PZ Myers]

In article <01bc51b9$673d4700$c54192cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter"
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Gee, Mr. Potter, my sincere apologies for drifting so far off the topic.
Let's see...the thread is titled "Silberstein vs. Potter". Hmmm. Not much
scientific content there. I guess I wasn't addressing that point at all, but
then, neither were you.

Well, I guess I might have been on topic in my reply to your initial comment.
Too bad you saw fit to delete it -- I guess since you've so thoroughly
demonstrated your inability to interpret written English, you wanted to make
sure I didn't throw your original comments back at you. To remind you, your
initial comment was a denial that you'd made a snide comment about me,
followed by the statement that you didn't consider my opinion worthwhile.

So, the thread is basically an ad hominem confrontation (was this started
by Nyikos? It sounds like his kind of discussion). You chose to make
disparaging comments about me. I replied in kind.

Once again, you are completely wrong -- I was perfectly on topic in this
particular thread!

Now, if you want to tell me what relevant issue in origins you were oh-so-
thoughtfully discussing, I would be happy to chime in with a rational
opinion. Or better yet, since you certainly seem unwilling to bring up
anything of interest, perhaps we should just let the thread die.

[PZ Myers]

In article <01bc51bb$4d460560$c54192cf@mycomputer>, "Joe Potter"
<joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> David Jensen <dje...@madison.tds.net> wrote in article
> <33682ea8...@news.tds.net>...
> > On 26 Apr 1997 14:42:53 GMT, in talk.origins
> > "Joe Potter" <joe.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > ....
> >

> > > It was Gould and Eldredge that got me "off the reservation." Till
> > >then I assumed that the fossil record was absolute proof of Darwin
> > >gradualism. I thought we had a "fact" of evolution. This in no way
> > >means that I think that Gould or Eldredge are not "good
> > >evolutionists," it is just that they finally told the truth about
> > >some of the difficulties in ToE.
> >

> > Too bad, you seem to have misunderstood Gould and Eldredge. They
> are
> > proposing a particular way that we can expect to continue to find
> > fossils, lots of stability with periods of great change. That is
> what we
> > have found and may continue to find. How does this evidence support
> > design?
> >
>
> Eldredge & Co. never wrote anything that said "design" to me, that
> came later. What they did do was show that Darwin gradualism (modern
> synthesis) was not based on the hard evidence that I had been taught
> in college. Hence, I started looking at other aspects of the
> "evidence."

No. Gould and Eldredge did NOT invalidate any of the existing evidence.
They did not even surprise anyone by pointing out the many bits and pieces
that are currently missing -- that's been no secret. What they did was
point out and re-emphasize facts of which even Darwin was well aware. Among
these facts were concepts in the theory, such as that there can be just
as much selection for stasis as change, and details of the fossil record,
such as the observation that the representation of many species in the
fossil record will reflect rapid transitions that are a result of both
geography and time.

They did not say anything that would cause anyone with any understanding of
biology to doubt evolution -- it's not as if they jumped up and said
they had proof everything we'd ever learned was wrong. Instead, they jumped
up with an enlightening interpretation of the existing evidence that both
strengthened the theory and provided interesting new avenues of study, both
signs of a good contribution. (Initially, I think there was a rather extreme
exaltation of saltation over gradualism that turned off some people to
Gould and Eldredge, and also provided fodder for the booberati to suggest
that evolution was in trouble...but I think moderation now prevails)

>
> Scientists that risked career and reputation by proposing saltation
> or alien seeding showed that some were desperate to find a way to
> explain the evidence --- and gradualism was not doing the job.

What scientists risked career and reputation? Hoyle or Crick? Neither of
those guys faces any risk at all.

Strict gradualism does not do the job, agreed. Evolution does not proceed
like clockwork, it proceeds in fits and starts. However, the existing theories
do a good job of explaining the situation, as far as they go; there are
admittedly many gaps and incomplete explanations. We are making progress
*within the existing theoretical framework*, though -- there are certainly
no major contradictions within that framework that demand that we throw it
out (at least, not yet). On what grounds do you pluck the arbitrary
answer of "design" out of thin air? What answers does it provide that are
inconceivable in evolutionary theory? How can you justify supporting a
theory of "design" which has no evidence at all propping it up, over a
theory that bears an astounding quantity of solid evidence? So far, the
only arguments I've seen are to point at gaps in evolutionary theory and
say "Poof! An alien seeding would explain that situation right now!"

That's the lazy way out. It has no explanatory power, no testability,
and no integration with the existing body of knowledge -- by the definition
of the naturalistic method you yourself posted earlier today, it is simply
bad science.

>
>
> > > I have moved (slowly) over the years to design.
> >
> > The problem with design is: no evidence that supports design and
> opposes
> > evolution. Most "theories" of design appear to be God of the Gaps
> in
> > secular dress.
> >
>
> This last just shows you view the evidence though the lens of
> naturalism that demands that design could not be part of the answer.

No, science (what you seem to be calling naturalism) does NOT demand that
design is wrong. Give us evidence, and design will have to be accommodated.
You haven't presented any evidence at all, except to say that you have
doubts about evolution. Unfortunately, your doubts about one theory cannot
be used to support another arbitrary theory.

>
> The "god of the gaps" charge is just a strawman argument. If we
> posit design in the first of life, then we have design possible
> throughout --- not just in gaps.

That's fine. But "posit" is the key word here. If I posit that god created the
first life, then god could have been responsible for all the rest. If I posit
aliens did it, then aliens might have done all the rest. If I posit that
magic pixies did it, then maybe magic pixies have been responsible for all
of evolutionary history.

It's not enough to simply say "X is a possibility". You have to dig up
real evidence in support of X. That hasn't been done for your "design"
theory. Again, pointing at a gray area of evolutionary theory no more supports
your "design" theory than it does my idea that magic pixies conjured up
the universe.

Get specific: show us the incontrovertible signature of a designer.

[Joe Potter]

PZ Myers <my...@netaxs.com.NOSPAM> wrote in article
<myers-ya02408000...@netnews.netaxs.com>...

>>
JP> No, I do not feel insulted. I got a big grin from you proving my
JP> point for me. It appears you never care to discuss a ng topic, rather
JP> you just like to insult and attack.
>>
JP> Whatever floats your boat.

>
>
> Gee, Mr. Potter, my sincere apologies for drifting so far off the topic.
> Let's see...the thread is titled "Silberstein vs. Potter". Hmmm. Not much
> scientific content there. I guess I wasn't addressing that point at all, but
> then, neither were you.
>

I have no idea who gave this thread the title. In fact I missed at least the
first week to 10 days of the thread.

If you really do care to discuss a topic of origins (mentioned in the ng's
name) then why do we not stop this silly stuff and confine ourselves to the
thread on naturalism?

>
> Well, I guess I might have been on topic in my reply to your initial comment.
> Too bad you saw fit to delete it -- I guess since you've so thoroughly
> demonstrated your inability to interpret written English, you wanted to make

> sure I didn't throw your original comments back at you. ...
>

Ah, another personal attack! Two (or more?) in one day! Congratulations.

I must say, you are a real wonder.

>
> To remind you, your
> initial comment was a denial that you'd made a snide comment about me,
> followed by the statement that you didn't consider my opinion worthwhile.
>

You inferred I made a comment about you. But you are correct that I think you
have shown little that is worthwhile in the way of debate on topics relating to
this ng.

I will say that your last post in the thread on naturalism shows some promise,
maybe you will show that you can debate topics without attack on the person, we
will see.

>
> So, the thread is basically an ad hominem confrontation (was this started
> by Nyikos? It sounds like his kind of discussion). You chose to make
> disparaging comments about me. I replied in kind.
>

You chose to interpret my remarks in your own fashion, but you are correct
that I increasingly find that words by Peter about you may be on the mark.

I hope I am wrong. I hope you can add something to the overall debate in a
civilized manner. We will see.

Regards, Joe