Crackpotteries

[Daud Deden]

https://www-sciencealert-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sciencealert.com/5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencealert.com%2F5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:15:23 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> https://www-sciencealert-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sciencealert.com/5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencealert.com%2F5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong

The word "science" is misused here. Individual scientists deserve the
credit. The world of scientists was very much against Wegener, who
was thought to be a crackpot in great measure because he wasn't
a professional geologist.

Scientists were very much divided in some of the other cases.

And note that the last example had the New York Times actually adopting bad
science that was known to be bad by the specialist. It claimed that
what makes rockets work was pushing against air. Anyone who thought
hard enough about Newton's law of conservation of momentum could have
corrected them.

On 17 July 1969 - three days before the first humans landed on the Moon -
the New York Times retracted its editorial.

As [Goddard] responded to a reporter, "every vision is a joke
until the first man accomplishes it; once realised, it becomes commonplace."


It was the editorial that was the joke, and the lateness of
the retraction was another joke. It should have come much earlier,
no later than the first V-2 rocket attack on England.


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

[Oxyaena]

On 2/12/2019 9:09 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:15:23 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
>> https://www-sciencealert-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sciencealert.com/5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencealert.com%2F5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong
>
> The word "science" is misused here. Individual scientists deserve the
> credit. The world of scientists was very much against Wegener, who
> was thought to be a crackpot in great measure because he wasn't
> a professional geologist.

No, the biggest reason he was thought to be a crackpot was because he
provided no working mechanism by which continental drift could have
occurred by. Tectonics wouldn't be discovered until over three decades
after his death.

>
> Scientists were very much divided in some of the other cases.
>
> And note that the last example had the New York Times actually adopting bad
> science that was known to be bad by the specialist. It claimed that
> what makes rockets work was pushing against air. Anyone who thought
> hard enough about Newton's law of conservation of momentum could have
> corrected them.
>
> On 17 July 1969 - three days before the first humans landed on the Moon -
> the New York Times retracted its editorial.
>
> As [Goddard] responded to a reporter, "every vision is a joke
> until the first man accomplishes it; once realised, it becomes commonplace."
>
>
> It was the editorial that was the joke, and the lateness of
> the retraction was another joke. It should have come much earlier,
> no later than the first V-2 rocket attack on England.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>

--
"I'd rather be the son of two apes than be descended from a man who's
afraid to face the truth." - TH Huxley

http://oxyaena.coffeecup.com/

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 12.2.2019. 15:24, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 2/12/2019 9:09 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:15:23 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
>>> https://www-sciencealert-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sciencealert.com/5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencealert.com%2F5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong
>>>
>>
>> The word "science" is misused here. Individual scientists deserve the
>> credit. The world of scientists was very much against Wegener, who
>> was thought to be a crackpot in great measure because he wasn't
>> a professional geologist.
>
> No, the biggest reason he was thought to be a crackpot was because he
> provided no working mechanism by which continental drift could have
> occurred by. Tectonics wouldn't be discovered until over three decades
> after his death.

Absolutely.
But, this shouldn't make somebody thinking of him as a crackpot. After
all, he had the same info like all the scientists, and he was the one
who made the right conclusion, scientists made a wrong conclusion (or
had no conclusion). So, this would make science a crackpot, or, at
least, stupid. If his conclusion was the best around, then it should be
accepted, no matter if it is proved or not. You cannot prove everything
(every scientist *should* know that), and you *mustn't* stop with
contemplation just because you don't have a solid proof (simply, because
you *cannot* have a proof for everything). Otherwise, what is science? A
thing that inhibits ideas?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Oh yes, not to take anything away from Peter's idea. Science is an
elitistic sport, probably the Oxyaena's notion was just an excuse, lets
be real.

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 12.2.2019. 16:56, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

While we are at that, the conclusion that an idea is a crackpot just
because science doesn't know the mechanism, *isn't* a valid logical
idea. If this is a scientific idea, then science isn't serious. So,
instead of making everyone else look like idiots, scientists should
first take a look at themselves.

[Oxyaena]

I suddenly remember why I had you killfiled in the first place.

[erik simpson]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 6:24:39 AM UTC-8, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 2/12/2019 9:09 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:15:23 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> >> https://www-sciencealert-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sciencealert.com/5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencealert.com%2F5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong
> >
> > The word "science" is misused here. Individual scientists deserve the
> > credit. The world of scientists was very much against Wegener, who
> > was thought to be a crackpot in great measure because he wasn't
> > a professional geologist.
>
> No, the biggest reason he was thought to be a crackpot was because he
> provided no working mechanism by which continental drift could have
> occurred by. Tectonics wouldn't be discovered until over three decades
> after his death.
>

Exactly. The notion of granitic continents plowing their way through basaltic
ocean basins IS absurd. The discovery of tectonic plates resoved the difficulty.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Hm, the notion that granitic continents plowing their way through
basaltic ocean *explains* why continents fit into each other (for which
you don't have to be a scientist to notice it, you can be a 5 year old
kid, as well), and it is *the best* (if not the only one) explanation.
Neglecting this is amateurish, stupid, absurd.
A man would ask himself, what a stupid people those scientists are?
Why do they behave so foolishly?

[Oxyaena]

Peter's biases color his viewpoints of others to the point that he can't
make out fiction from reality, it has metaphorically become opaque, so
to speak, if he wasn't like this for all of his life, which is a scary
thought TBH, so I wouldn't put it past him to make such a paranoid
assertion.

[erik simpson]

Because the continents DON'T drift. The tectonic plates (which may or may not
have continents on them) are the moving parts. Granite is much lighter and
weaker than basalt, so the continents can't plow their way. They just go along
for the ride.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:19:50 AM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 2/12/2019 11:16 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > On 12.2.2019. 16:56, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 12.2.2019. 15:24, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>> On 2/12/2019 9:09 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:15:23 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>> https://www-sciencealert-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sciencealert.com/5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencealert.com%2F5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The word "science" is misused here. Individual scientists deserve the
> >>>> credit. The world of scientists was very much against Wegener, who
> >>>> was thought to be a crackpot in great measure because he wasn't
> >>>> a professional geologist.
> >>>
> >>> No, the biggest reason he was thought to be a crackpot was because he
> >>> provided no working mechanism by which continental drift could have
> >>> occurred by.

You are indulging in speculation here. I seriously doubt that this was
the MAIN reason he was called a crackpot. If it WAS, then the
mainstream geologists were ignoramuses where the wider world of
science was concerned. See the case of Newton below.

> Tectonics wouldn't be discovered until over three
> >>> decades after his death.
> >>
> >>          Absolutely.
> >>          But, this shouldn't make somebody thinking of him as a
> >> crackpot. After all, he had the same info like all the scientists, and
> >> he was the one who made the right conclusion, scientists made a wrong
> >> conclusion (or had no conclusion).

Many if not most other geologists had crackpot ideas about huge land bridges
for which there was no direct evidence. More about this later -- I have
a class to teach in less than half an hour.

> >> So, this would make science a
> >> crackpot, or, at least, stupid. If his conclusion was the best around,
> >> then it should be accepted, no matter if it is proved or not. You
> >> cannot prove everything (every scientist *should* know that), and you
> >> *mustn't* stop with contemplation just because you don't have a solid
> >> proof (simply, because you *cannot* have a proof for everything).
> >> Otherwise, what is science? A thing that inhibits ideas?
> >
> >         While we are at that, the conclusion that an idea is a crackpot
> > just because science doesn't know the mechanism, *isn't* a valid logical
> > idea. If this is a scientific idea, then science isn't serious. So,
> > instead of making everyone else look like idiots, scientists should
> > first take a look at themselves.
>
> I suddenly remember why I had you killfiled in the first place.

Then you would have killfiled Newton if you and killfiles had been
around back then, because he couldn't find any mechanism for
gravity acting at a distance.

Even now, "gravitrons" are far from a done deal.

This is my first reply to you in February here in s.b.p. You became so
rabidly antagonistic towards me, and so incorrigible,
that I have been boycotting your posts here. But when you
also beat on a morally upstanding (AFAIK) person like Mario,
I am impelled to show what an incorrigible elitist you are.


Your rabid reply to Mario where you project your biases and fantasies
onto me shows that you are just as maniacally antagonistic to me as ever.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Mario Petrinovic]

So, who is the crackpot here? Wegener, or the ones who say that
Wegener is a crackpot.
One thing that is absolutely sure in this whole story is that Wegener
*isn't* a crackpot. Whoever says that he is, this one also isn't a
crackpot, he is an idiot.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 2:48:34 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 12.2.2019. 18:49, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 8:35:53 AM UTC-8, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 12.2.2019. 17:22, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 6:24:39 AM UTC-8, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>>> On 2/12/2019 9:09 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:15:23 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
> >>>>>> https://www-sciencealert-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sciencealert.com/5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencealert.com%2F5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The word "science" is misused here. Individual scientists deserve the
> >>>>> credit. The world of scientists was very much against Wegener, who
> >>>>> was thought to be a crackpot in great measure because he wasn't
> >>>>> a professional geologist.

Now Oxyaena says, in effect, that Wegener WAS a crackpot for
a *scientific* reason that she attributes to professional geologists:

> >>>> No, the biggest reason he was thought to be a crackpot was because he
> >>>> provided no working mechanism by which continental drift could have
> >>>> occurred by.

I thoroughly refuted this sophomoric notion of Oxyaena's under
the assumption that the geologists of the day knew that mechanisms
are not a necessary condition for a scientific hypothesis being valid.

Of course, I also broached the possibility that the geologists of the
day were mostly ignorant about the basic things I pointed out
about Newton and gravity.

> >>>>Tectonics wouldn't be discovered until over three decades
> >>>> after his death.

"tectonics" is shorthand for the discovery that ocean bottom sediments
are less than 300 million years old, and the further they are from
the continental shelves, the younger they are as a (not hard and fast) rule.

The actual mechanism, crust being actively subducted in deep ocean
trenches and produced by undersea lava flows along long ridges,
may have been correctly inferred just from this discovery. But
I doubt that anyone dared to infer it until subduction was actually
observed. [By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?]


Erik now reinforces Oxyaena in a way that set off a rabid
near-dehumanization of myself by Oxyaena:

> >>> Exactly. The notion of granitic continents plowing their way through basaltic
> >>> ocean basins IS absurd.

I doubt that Erik could put together a coherent argument for this
without "plagiarizing" the work of geologists. I even doubt that
he could find a detailed proof by a geologist as to why this is
absurd.

But note this, Wegener was not claiming that this is why
continents drifted. With oceanographic geology and paleontology
still in its infancy, this was simply the best hypothesis he
could think of.

> >>> The discovery of tectonic plates resoved the difficulty.

> >>
> >> Hm, the notion that granitic continents plowing their way through
> >> basaltic ocean *explains* why continents fit into each other (for which
> >> you don't have to be a scientist to notice it, you can be a 5 year old
> >> kid, as well), and it is *the best* (if not the only one) explanation.

Unfortunately, you happen to be wrong, Mario, but that
does NOT make you a crackpot. It is Erik and Oxyaena who
are crackpots for perpetrating an utterly ridiculous and almost
dehumanized virtual image of me both here and in talk.origins.

> >> Neglecting this is amateurish, stupid, absurd.
> >> A man would ask himself, what a stupid people those scientists are?
> >> Why do they behave so foolishly?
> >
> > Because the continents DON'T drift.

And Wegener was supposed to know this on the basis of the
evidence available to him????

> > The tectonic plates (which may or may not
> > have continents on them) are the moving parts. Granite is much lighter and
> > weaker than basalt, so the continents can't plow their way.

Here Erik adds to the insinuation that Wegener WAS a crackpot.

HOWEVER, "much" is an overstatement, and Erik is ignoring the possibility
of heat built up in the boundary of continent and ocean crust
causing a softening of both. Continents have "deep roots" and
the earth gets steadily hotter as one descends.

> > They just go along
> > for the ride.
> >
>
> So, who is the crackpot here? Wegener, or the ones who say that
> Wegener is a crackpot.

The ones who built up an amazing fantasy of what the continents looked
like at various stages in the earth's history were the crackpots.
Of course, it didn't include continental drift, which was awfully
dull in comparison.

One of my favorite science books between ages 10 and 14 was
_The Earth Changes_. It had lots of pictures of prehistoric
animals, but those were actually upstaged by fantastic maps
of each period from Cambrian to Quaternary, and each epoch
from the Paleocene to the Pleistocene.

The showed huge changes from one epoch to another, incorporating
extensive land bridges on the one hand and vast seas covering
big parts of present continents on the other. One of my favorite
examples was thin strips of mountainous land in the Cambrian stretching
from Maine to Scotland - the geologists had connected the
mountains of the Caledonian revolution all the way across the
Atlantic, which was believed to be just as wide then as today!

A few years ago I tried to look up _The Earth Changes_ on Amazon,
and not a single copy was to be found, nor a description of the book.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was such an embarrassment
to professional geologists that a team of them bought up every
copy they could find, asking librarians to please let them know
if they ever wanted to get rid of their library's copy.

> One thing that is absolutely sure in this whole story is that Wegener
> *isn't* a crackpot. Whoever says that he is, this one also isn't a
> crackpot, he is an idiot.

Hear, hear!


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
University of S. Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[John Harshman]

On 2/12/19 12:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?

Depends on what you mean by "observed". What counts? Now if I recall,
subduction was inferred from the pattern of deep earthquakes in Benioff
zones, the pattern of volcanic activity on island arcs, and the fact
that the oldest oceanic crust is adjacent to ocean trenches. When this
all happened is unclear to me; I'd have to google it, but you could
probably do that.

[Mario Petrinovic]

:) .

[Mario Petrinovic]

In general, it really doesn't matter. What matter is that the thesis
has some logic in it. If it has, it will be on the right track, and
eventually it will produce some results.
But, if you don't see the logic, if you want to kill everything by
finding counter-arguments, then you really can do that. You can find
very nicely working counter-arguments for everything.
AAT is probably right, and it has nice logic in it, but some guy (Jim
Moore) found something like 500 counter-arguments against it:
http://www.aquaticape.org/
I went through the first 30 or something, and found that they are all
invalid. Very nice example.
So, if a giraffe has long legs and neck, who cares if its ears aren't
just as long? But, that's science for you, just like Jim Moore says.

[Oxyaena]

I insulted Mario because he called me a crackpot without provocation.
He's not innocent, and neither are you, you "incorrigible elitist".

>
>
> Your rabid reply to Mario where you project your biases and fantasies
> onto me shows that you are just as maniacally antagonistic to me as ever.

Where did I do that, you paranoid fuck? I didn't even *mention* you in
my reply to Mario. Clearly it is *you* who is the maniacal one here, and
not the other way around.

[Peter Nyikos]

I should have said your reply to your comrade-in-arms, Erik.

And your "paranoid fuck" only illustrates the deceit that
permeates the virtual reality that the two of you have
built around me in s.b.p. and helped to build in talk.origins.

> Clearly it is *you* who is the maniacal one here, and
> not the other way around.

Keep telling yourself that, and you will soon be needing meds,
like you needed when you posted as Thrinaxodon, and even
Harshman talked about you being "off your meds."

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

I shouldn't have to waste my time on rifraff like you and Erik.

Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

[crickets]

Figures. Peter's always been a chickenshit.

>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your rabid reply to Mario where you project your biases and fantasies
>>> onto me shows that you are just as maniacally antagonistic to me as ever.
>>
>> Where did I do that, you paranoid fuck? I didn't even *mention* you in
>> my reply to Mario.
>
> I should have said your reply to your comrade-in-arms, Erik.
>
> And your "paranoid fuck" only illustrates the deceit that
> permeates the virtual reality that the two of you have
> built around me in s.b.p. and helped to build in talk.origins.
>

What else but paranoia would lead you to assume I was insulting *you* in
my response to Mario, huh? Jesus Christ, you're so predictable.

>
>
>> Clearly it is *you* who is the maniacal one here, and
>> not the other way around.
>
> Keep telling yourself that, and you will soon be needing meds,
> like you needed when you posted as Thrinaxodon, and even
> Harshman talked about you being "off your meds."

Uh hu, keep on projecting, buddy.

>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>> University of South Carolina
>>> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>>>
>
> I shouldn't have to waste my time on rifraff like you and Erik.

I shouldn't have to waste my time with rifraff like you and Mario, you
projecting paranoiac.

>
> Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

<snip for focus>

> >>> This is my first reply to you in February here in s.b.p. You became so
> >>> rabidly antagonistic towards me, and so incorrigible,
> >>> that I have been boycotting your posts here. But when you
> >>> also beat on a morally upstanding (AFAIK) person like Mario,
> >>> I am impelled to show what an incorrigible elitist you are.
> >>
> >> I insulted Mario because he called me a crackpot without provocation.

You never documented this, so I assume you are playing a
game of "le science, c'est moi". See just before I
snipped for focus.

You aren't science. You aren't philosophy. You aren't theology.
You are a rank amateur at the first and you don't seem to
have any idea what the second and third are all about.

> >> He's not innocent, and neither are you, you "incorrigible elitist".



> [crickets]
>
> Figures. Peter's always been a chickenshit.

Oxyaena is here playing the Internet Troll role to the hilt, something
like the following:

Feed me! Feed me! The more you feed me, the more
I will feel my life has meaning -- I actually
got a full professor of mathematics to waste
his time on me, thereby setting him up for
a sneer by my bosom buddy jillery that he is neglecting his students.

> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Your rabid reply to Mario where you project your biases and fantasies
> >>> onto me shows that you are just as maniacally antagonistic to me as ever.
> >>
> >> Where did I do that, you paranoid fuck? I didn't even *mention* you in
> >> my reply to Mario.
> >
> > I should have said your reply to your comrade-in-arms, Erik.

Below, you pretend you never saw this. I simply saw your reply
directly below a post by Mario without checking to see that
it was in reply to Erik's post further up.

> > And your "paranoid fuck" only illustrates the deceit that
> > permeates the virtual reality that the two of you have
> > built around me in s.b.p. and helped to build in talk.origins.
> >
>
> What else but paranoia would lead you to assume I was insulting *you* in
> my response to Mario, huh?

See above. But you knew it was not paranoia. You knew it was an accurate
description of your dedicated pursuit of injustice, which read like this:

Peter's biases color his viewpoints of others to the point that he can't
make out fiction from reality, it has metaphorically become opaque, so
to speak, if he wasn't like this for all of his life, which is a scary
thought TBH, so I wouldn't put it past him to make such a paranoid
assertion.

> Jesus Christ, you're so predictable.

You are cementing your status as the most ruthlessly dishonest
person in both talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology.

Over in talk.origins, you took that word "ruthlessly" and
pretended only an "asswipe" would NOT think the following
words mean the same thing:

ruthless
dangerous
cunning
disingenuous

Do you also think the following are synonymous with the foregoing?

self-righteous
condescending
flippant

Because those are the seven superlatives in which DIFFERENT
dishonest hypocrites specialize in the two newsgroups.

>
> >
> >
> >> Clearly it is *you* who is the maniacal one here, and
> >> not the other way around.
> >
> > Keep telling yourself that, and you will soon be needing meds,
> > like you needed when you posted as Thrinaxodon, and even
> > Harshman talked about you being "off your meds."
>
> Uh hu, keep on projecting, buddy.

Okimoto-inspired Pee Wee Hermanism noted.

> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Peter Nyikos
> >>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> >>> University of South Carolina
> >>> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
> >>>
> >
> > I shouldn't have to waste my time on rifraff like you and Erik.
>
> I shouldn't have to waste my time with rifraff like you and Mario, you
> projecting paranoiac.

I think it is obvious that you LOVE to waste your time puking all over me.
The only reason you periodically offer a truce is that the
discomfort of me counterattacking you temporarily outweighs the pleasure
you get from puking all over me.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

Scroll up the thread, you prick.

>
> You aren't science. You aren't philosophy. You aren't theology.
> You are a rank amateur at the first and you don't seem to
> have any idea what the second and third are all about.

Only you would think so. Burkhard himself disagrees with you BTW. "I
never thought you were ignorant of philosophy." - Burkhard

>
>
>>>> He's not innocent, and neither are you, you "incorrigible elitist".
>
>
>
>> [crickets]
>>
>> Figures. Peter's always been a chickenshit.
>

[snip bloviating]

[Oxyaena]

On 2/12/2019 12:58 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:19:50 AM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 2/12/2019 11:16 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 12.2.2019. 16:56, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 12.2.2019. 15:24, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>> On 2/12/2019 9:09 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:15:23 AM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www-sciencealert-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sciencealert.com/5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong/amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencealert.com%2F5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The word "science" is misused here. Individual scientists deserve the
>>>>>> credit. The world of scientists was very much against Wegener, who
>>>>>> was thought to be a crackpot in great measure because he wasn't
>>>>>> a professional geologist.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the biggest reason he was thought to be a crackpot was because he
>>>>> provided no working mechanism by which continental drift could have
>>>>> occurred by.
>
> You are indulging in speculation here. I seriously doubt that this was
> the MAIN reason he was called a crackpot. If it WAS, then the
> mainstream geologists were ignoramuses where the wider world of
> science was concerned. See the case of Newton below.

The science Newton proposed was groundbreaking in its day, and was
backed up by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Not so much for
Wegener, whom only had seemingly circumstantial evidence to bolster his
hypothesis, so your comparison rings hollow by default.

>
>
>> Tectonics wouldn't be discovered until over three
>>>>> decades after his death.
>>>>
>>>>          Absolutely.
>>>>          But, this shouldn't make somebody thinking of him as a
>>>> crackpot. After all, he had the same info like all the scientists, and
>>>> he was the one who made the right conclusion, scientists made a wrong
>>>> conclusion (or had no conclusion).
>
> Many if not most other geologists had crackpot ideas about huge land bridges
> for which there was no direct evidence.

Like George Gaylord Simpson for instance postulating that there were
periodic intercontinental isthmuses that allowed for organisms to cross
otherwise nigh-impenetrable boundaries such as the ocean, thereby
explaining the oddities in biogeographical distribution that Wegener
noted in the first place?

> More about this later -- I have
> a class to teach in less than half an hour.

I pity your students.

[snip shrieking already dealt with]

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 13.2.2019. 0:32, Oxyaena wrote:
> I insulted Mario because he called me a crackpot without provocation.
> He's not innocent, and neither are you, you "incorrigible elitist".

Frankly, I don't remember any of this. We were talking about
crackpots, so I was talking also, probably some general stuff. I usually
look at things generally, I don't see the need to address a person
(usually).
Regarding insulting me, I didn't notice enough to remember it (I did
probably notice it at the moment, though). You can insult me how much
you want, it doesn't affect me much.
In general I am seeking for some sense. I don't see this news group as
a place where personal relationships should matter. To be honest, I am
mostly exploiting people here for various reasons. To test some thesis,
to learn something new, and things like that. When somebody posts
something which isn't in that sense, I rarely take notice of it. You
were probably saying something nonsensical. Probably I wouldn't answer
at all, but if there was some general meme in your behaving, then I
would address this meme, and deal with it.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:52:46 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/12/19 12:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?
>
> Depends on what you mean by "observed".

It's pretty obvious from the lines immediately before the
out-of context line you quoted:

The actual mechanism, crust being actively subducted in deep ocean
trenches and produced by undersea lava flows along long ridges,
may have been correctly inferred just from this discovery. But
I doubt that anyone dared to infer it until subduction was actually

observed. [By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?]


> What counts?

You can read, can't you? Direct observation of there being
crust deeper in the trench than it was before, but the trench
being no deeper than it was before, would count.

We might at some time actually have a visual record of crust disappearing
into the bottom of a trench, but I'm not that choosy. OTOH it would be
"way cool" [as the kids you once taught put it] to actually see
something like that, so much so that it's a "natural" for some
kind of award.

> Now if I recall,
> subduction was inferred from the pattern of deep earthquakes in Benioff
> zones, the pattern of volcanic activity on island arcs, and the fact
> that the oldest oceanic crust is adjacent to ocean trenches.

These are all indirect inferences, not observations of subduction,
and the last is a minor variation on what I wrote directly
before the paragraph I re-quoted up there:

"tectonics" is shorthand for the discovery that ocean bottom sediments
are less than 300 million years old, and the further they are from
the continental shelves, the younger they are as a (not hard and fast)
rule.

> When this
> all happened is unclear to me; I'd have to google it, but you could
> probably do that.

Sorry, I won't do your research for you on the indirect methods
which you "mistook" for what I meant. But since you were so
keen on them, this might count as a disappointment for you,
hence my use of the word "Sorry."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[John Harshman]

On 2/12/19 6:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:52:46 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/12/19 12:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?
>>
>> Depends on what you mean by "observed".
>
> It's pretty obvious from the lines immediately before the
> out-of context line you quoted:
>
> The actual mechanism, crust being actively subducted in deep ocean
> trenches and produced by undersea lava flows along long ridges,
> may have been correctly inferred just from this discovery. But
> I doubt that anyone dared to infer it until subduction was actually
> observed. [By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?]

If you mean actual observation, with actual eyes, in real time, then
subduction has never been observed. But I still don't know what you
mean, because that would be a really stupid meaning for you to intend,
and you don't usually seem that stupid.

>> What counts?
>
> You can read, can't you? Direct observation of there being
> crust deeper in the trench than it was before, but the trench
> being no deeper than it was before, would count.

No such thing is observed.

> We might at some time actually have a visual record of crust disappearing
> into the bottom of a trench, but I'm not that choosy. OTOH it would be
> "way cool" [as the kids you once taught put it] to actually see
> something like that, so much so that it's a "natural" for some
> kind of award.

So what do you mean? Are you in fact so stupid as to think that a) there
is direct observation of subducting crust and b) that such observation
would be needed in order to confirm plate tectonics? I find that hard to
believe, and yet that's what you seem to be saying.

>> Now if I recall,
>> subduction was inferred from the pattern of deep earthquakes in Benioff
>> zones, the pattern of volcanic activity on island arcs, and the fact
>> that the oldest oceanic crust is adjacent to ocean trenches.
>
> These are all indirect inferences, not observations of subduction,

You understand that almost all of science does not consist of "direct
observation", right? Nobody has seen an electron, or watched DNA
replication, or the evolution of whales, or all manner of other things
we know about.

> and the last is a minor variation on what I wrote directly
> before the paragraph I re-quoted up there:
>
> "tectonics" is shorthand for the discovery that ocean bottom sediments
> are less than 300 million years old, and the further they are from
> the continental shelves, the younger they are as a (not hard and fast)
> rule.

Then you should congratulate yourself on your perspicacity.

>> When this
>> all happened is unclear to me; I'd have to google it, but you could
>> probably do that.
>
> Sorry, I won't do your research for you on the indirect methods
> which you "mistook" for what I meant. But since you were so
> keen on them, this might count as a disappointment for you,
> hence my use of the word "Sorry."

Still don't know what you mean. But isn't that *your* research that I
was doing for *you*?

[Oxyaena]

On 2/12/2019 11:57 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/12/19 6:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:52:46 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 2/12/19 12:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?
>>>
>>> Depends on what you mean by "observed".
>>
>> It's pretty obvious from the lines immediately before the
>> out-of context line you quoted:
>>
>>    The actual mechanism, crust being actively subducted in deep ocean
>>    trenches and produced by undersea lava flows along long ridges,
>>    may have been correctly inferred just from this discovery. But
>>    I doubt that anyone dared to infer it until subduction was actually
>>    observed.  [By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?]
>
> If you mean actual observation, with actual eyes, in real time, then
> subduction has never been observed. But I still don't know what you
> mean, because that would be a really stupid meaning for you to intend,
> and you don't usually seem that stupid.

Key word being "usually".

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 9:37:35 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 13.2.2019. 0:32, Oxyaena wrote:

> > I insulted Mario because he called me a crackpot without provocation.
> > He's not innocent, and neither are you, you "incorrigible elitist".

That last phrase is of the childish "I know you are, but what am I?" genre.
Oxyaena is mindlessly throwing those last two words back at me
without any sign as to how they are supposed to apply to me.

> Frankly, I don't remember any of this. We were talking about
> crackpots, so I was talking also, probably some general stuff. I usually
> look at things generally, I don't see the need to address a person
> (usually).

Oxyaena was quick to reply to a post I did after this one. But no
reply has come from her to this comment of yours.

It all adds up: even if you had singled her out for the "crackpot"
designation, it would have been no worse than what she deserved after
joining Erik Simpson in implying that Wegener was a crackpot.

Not content with that, Oxyaena then insinuated that I may have endorsed
the "crackpot" hypothesis that the two of them had attributed to Wegener,
without even mentioning that it was a mere hypothesis. What's more, Oxyaena
gave libelous grounds for that "may have endorsed" [literally: "I wouldn't
put it past him"].

> Regarding insulting me, I didn't notice enough to remember it (I did
> probably notice it at the moment, though). You can insult me how much
> you want, it doesn't affect me much.
> In general I am seeking for some sense. I don't see this news group as
> a place where personal relationships should matter. To be honest, I am
> mostly exploiting people here for various reasons. To test some thesis,
> to learn something new, and things like that. When somebody posts
> something which isn't in that sense, I rarely take notice of it. You
> were probably saying something nonsensical. Probably I wouldn't answer
> at all, but if there was some general meme in your behaving, then I
> would address this meme, and deal with it.

I'd say you are wise beyond your years, were you only half
as old as you are now. :)

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

Clarifying something I had written:

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 9:32:40 AM UTC-5, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Oxyaena was quick to reply to a post I did after this one. But no
> reply has come from her to this comment of yours.

That should read:

Oxyaena was quick to reply to a post I did after you did this one. But no
reply has come from her to this post of yours.

"this one." and "this post of yours" refer to the post of Mario's
to which I was replying.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:57:42 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/12/19 6:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:52:46 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/12/19 12:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>> By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?
> >>
> >> Depends on what you mean by "observed".
> >
> > It's pretty obvious from the lines immediately before the
> > out-of context line you quoted:
> >
> > The actual mechanism, crust being actively subducted in deep ocean
> > trenches and produced by undersea lava flows along long ridges,
> > may have been correctly inferred just from this discovery. But
> > I doubt that anyone dared to infer it until subduction was actually
> > observed. [By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?]
>
> If you mean actual observation, with actual eyes, in real time, then
> subduction has never been observed. But I still don't know what you
> mean, because that would be a really stupid meaning for you to intend,
> and you don't usually seem that stupid.

Illogical looking, completely unexplained insult noted.

> >> What counts?
> >
> > You can read, can't you? Direct observation of there being
> > crust deeper in the trench than it was before, but the trench
> > being no deeper than it was before, would count.
>
> No such thing is observed.

Don't you mean, "No one has ever set up apparatus to record
such changes."?

And what makes you so sure no such thing has happened? Because
you've never seen any place where success has been reported?

Keep in mind that a complementary event -- material from deep
in the earth being expelled on the mid-oceanic Atlantic ridge --
HAS been directly observed. As has life adapted to the
unique environment of smoker chimneys, etc.

> > We might at some time actually have a visual record of crust disappearing
> > into the bottom of a trench, but I'm not that choosy. OTOH it would be
> > "way cool" [as the kids you once taught put it] to actually see
> > something like that, so much so that it's a "natural" for some
> > kind of award.


> So what do you mean?

Rhetorical question, in light of the unrelated questions you
ask next:

> Are you in fact so stupid as to think that a) there
> is direct observation of subducting crust

Gratuitously insulting, disingenuous question noted. Have you been taking
lessons in disingenousness from Erik Simpson?

> and b) that such observation
> would be needed in order to confirm plate tectonics?

No, only a hopeless idiot savant would think that and also post the
things you've forced me to repost already.

Are you trying to create the impression that I am a hopeless idiot savant?
There is far more evidence of you being one from the very words you've posted
during this latest little exchange, than the ones I have posted.

>I find that hard to
> believe, and yet that's what you seem to be saying.

This is part and parcel of the general attitude you have cultivated
since we first encountered each other after I returned to talk.origins
and s.b.p. in 2010 after about a decade of absence from both. And it is
very much in line with you acting as though you suspected me of being
an idiot savant, while carefully covering your arse.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS The reply will probably come tomorrow --
PM today is reserved for some special time with my wife,
and OTOH what you wrote next is very much in line with the above behavior.

[Oxyaena]

Once again, you demonstrate your prejudice against disabled people.
Shame on you, Peter.

>
> Are you trying to create the impression that I am a hopeless idiot savant?
> There is far more evidence of you being one from the very words you've posted
> during this latest little exchange, than the ones I have posted.
>
>
>> I find that hard to
>> believe, and yet that's what you seem to be saying.
>
> This is part and parcel of the general attitude you have cultivated
> since we first encountered each other after I returned to talk.origins
> and s.b.p. in 2010 after about a decade of absence from both. And it is
> very much in line with you acting as though you suspected me of being
> an idiot savant, while carefully covering your arse.
>
>
> Remainder deleted, to be replied to later.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
>
> PS The reply will probably come tomorrow --
> PM today is reserved for some special time with my wife,
> and OTOH what you wrote next is very much in line with the above behavior.
>

[Peter Nyikos]

As usual, Oxyaena finds it much more fun to try and stir up
a tempest in a teapot than to respond to ANYTHING that is on topic.

The following two line rant is what I was referring to at the top:

> Once again, you demonstrate your prejudice against disabled people.
> Shame on you, Peter.

The only prejudice in evidence here is Oxyaena's and Harshman's
prejudice against me.

I defy either of them to try and show otherwise. In particular,
Oxyaena has nothing to justify her "Once again," and I don't
think she can fool anyone into thinking otherwise.

Oxyaena's idea of "shame" is unique to her. She has claimed to
be greatly ashamed of some of the things she did as Thrinaxodon,
but I can't think of any apart from the following:

1) antagonizing DIG by insulting him in a post and causing
him to not only ban her from talk.origins, but to look upon her
as being far worse than most of the people he has banned from t.o.
over the years;

2) antagonizing Harshman, Simpson, and Casanova, not realizing
then what valuable, yea indispensable allies they would make for her
as "Oxyaena";

3) attempting to destroy sci.bio.paleontology with torrents of spam
posts, causing Erik Simpson to tell her that she had succeeded
far more in that direction than Ed Conrad and a number of others
had in the past.

4) neglecting to tell Erik, in her direct reply, what she
has later claimed as Oxyaena: "Most of those posts were made by Ed Conrad."


Oxyaena is hereby invited to add other things to the above list;
I don't think she can do that without incriminating her Oxyaena
persona, so to speak.


Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics

PS I've left the remainder in below, to show the rest of what
elicited Oxyaena's tempest-in-a-teapot screed.

[Oxyaena]

On 2/13/2019 11:18 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> As usual, Oxyaena finds it much more fun to try and stir up
> a tempest in a teapot than to respond to ANYTHING that is on topic.

If you don't want me to nitpick what you write, idiot, then don't write
such hateful things. God you're fucking dense.

[snip petty bullshit]

[John Harshman]

On 2/13/19 7:41 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:57:42 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/12/19 6:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:52:46 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/19 12:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>>>> By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?
>>>>
>>>> Depends on what you mean by "observed".
>>>
>>> It's pretty obvious from the lines immediately before the
>>> out-of context line you quoted:
>>>
>>> The actual mechanism, crust being actively subducted in deep ocean
>>> trenches and produced by undersea lava flows along long ridges,
>>> may have been correctly inferred just from this discovery. But
>>> I doubt that anyone dared to infer it until subduction was actually
>>> observed. [By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?]
>>
>> If you mean actual observation, with actual eyes, in real time, then
>> subduction has never been observed. But I still don't know what you
>> mean, because that would be a really stupid meaning for you to intend,
>> and you don't usually seem that stupid.
>
> Illogical looking, completely unexplained insult noted.

That wasn't an insult. It was a sort of compliment. I'm assuming you
aren't stupid, which means that the obvious interpretation of what you
said must be incorrect. But I don't then know what the correct
interpretation would be, and you won't say.

>>>> What counts?
>>>
>>> You can read, can't you? Direct observation of there being
>>> crust deeper in the trench than it was before, but the trench
>>> being no deeper than it was before, would count.
>>
>> No such thing is observed.
>
> Don't you mean, "No one has ever set up apparatus to record
> such changes."?
>
> And what makes you so sure no such thing has happened? Because
> you've never seen any place where success has been reported?
>
> Keep in mind that a complementary event -- material from deep
> in the earth being expelled on the mid-oceanic Atlantic ridge --
> HAS been directly observed. As has life adapted to the
> unique environment of smoker chimneys, etc.

Yes, plenty of opportunity to observe volcanoes in operation. But
subduction doesn't show that kind of evidence. What kind of evidence do
you think it would show?

>>> We might at some time actually have a visual record of crust disappearing
>>> into the bottom of a trench, but I'm not that choosy. OTOH it would be
>>> "way cool" [as the kids you once taught put it] to actually see
>>> something like that, so much so that it's a "natural" for some
>>> kind of award.
>
>
>> So what do you mean?
>
> Rhetorical question, in light of the unrelated questions you
> ask next:

No, it wasn't a rhetorical question. I was merely speculating on a
possible answer, which I doubt can be true. You still haven't answered
the question.

>> Are you in fact so stupid as to think that a) there
>> is direct observation of subducting crust
>
> Gratuitously insulting, disingenuous question noted. Have you been taking
> lessons in disingenousness from Erik Simpson?

So you don't think that there would be such observation? Good.

>> and b) that such observation
>> would be needed in order to confirm plate tectonics?
>
> No, only a hopeless idiot savant would think that and also post the
> things you've forced me to repost already.

Then, to repeat, I don't know what you mean. What sort of thing would
constitute evidence of subduction to you?

[paranoid speculation deleted]

[Mario Petrinovic]

Yes, lol. Some things come with age. After all, this is how it should be.
Young people are involved in building their position within society.
It is hard for me to explain to them that I am, simply put, too old for
this. After all, I am retired (within the society), this is my position,
lol.

[alouatta....@gmail.com]

Your behavior on the topic of "continental drift"/"plate tectonics" is remarkable. First you take umbrage at the suggestion [by "Oxyaena"] that Wegener was a "crackpot". Fair enough. Then you react angrily to the suggestion [by "Erik Simpson"] that one of the problems with Wegener's theory was the difficulty of seeing how continents could move with respect to the sea floor. You suggested Simpson would have the "plagiarize" geologists' arguments in order to make his point. As a mathematician, how often do you "plagiarize" scientists' arguments to buttress your positions?

You then rhapsodize about the fascination you had with a book ("The Earth Changes") and its utterly fanciful maps repesenting different periods of the Phanerozoic. Is this it, by the way? https://www.amazon.com/earth-changes-Janette-May-Lucas/dp/B00088QUOY I can see why you're reluctant to use on-line searches.

From there you pose a number of challenges [to "John Harshman"] that seem to demand reference to "direct observations" of subduction. It's difficult to see this question as any other than disingenuous unless you are an "idiot savant" and, I might add, one with very little "savance". Harshman obviously sees the loaded nature of these questions and demands clarification, which you refuse to provide. This is the behavior one expects of a troll. To be generous, if your questions are sincerely intended, you seem to be asking Harshman to do your research.

[erik simpson]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 1:56:43 PM UTC-8, alouatta....@gmail.com wrote:
<snip preceding junk>

>
> Your behavior on the topic of "continental drift"/"plate tectonics" is remarkable. First you take umbrage at the suggestion [by "Oxyaena"] that Wegener was a "crackpot". Fair enough. Then you react angrily to the suggestion [by "Erik Simpson"] that one of the problems with Wegener's theory was the difficulty of seeing how continents could move with respect to the sea floor. You suggested Simpson would have the "plagiarize" geologists' arguments in order to make his point. As a mathematician, how often do you "plagiarize" scientists' arguments to buttress your positions?
>
> You then rhapsodize about the fascination you had with a book ("The Earth Changes") and its utterly fanciful maps repesenting different periods of the Phanerozoic. Is this it, by the way? https://www.amazon.com/earth-changes-Janette-May-Lucas/dp/B00088QUOY I can see why you're reluctant to use on-line searches.
>
> From there you pose a number of challenges [to "John Harshman"] that seem to demand reference to "direct observations" of subduction. It's difficult to see this question as any other than disingenuous unless you are an "idiot savant" and, I might add, one with very little "savance". Harshman obviously sees the loaded nature of these questions and demands clarification, which you refuse to provide. This is the behavior one expects of a troll. To be generous, if your questions are sincerely intended, you seem to be asking Harshman to do your research.

Note to Peter: I do not know this man.

[Oxyaena]

That's an *excellent* synopsis of his self-righteous behavior on this
thread.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 12:03:30 PM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 2/13/2019 11:18 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > As usual, Oxyaena finds it much more fun to try and stir up
> > a tempest in a teapot than to respond to ANYTHING that is on topic.

You deleted everything by both of us except the above two lines of mine,
which were not hateful -- only an accurate description of
your behavior in the post to which I was replying.

And so, your reference to "hateful things" below is left without
anything to relate it to.

> If you don't want me to nitpick what you write,

I don't want you to make defamatory accusations against me, like
the one you snipped below. It was no mere nitpick:

Once again, you demonstrate your prejudice against disabled people.
Shame on you, Peter.

Are you such an ethical nihilist that you think prejudice against
disabled people is so insignificant that pointing it out is
a mere nitpick?

I think the answer is YES, as long as the one "pointing it out"
is YOU actually making a trumped-up charge against someone you dislike.

> idiot, then don't write
> such hateful things.

I deny that any statements I made about you or Harshman were motivated
by hate. If you are thinking about the ones I made about the way Harshman
insulted my intelligence, you are not rising to the challenge
I made, but doubling down with a broken record routine.

That challenge was:

The only prejudice in evidence here is Oxyaena's and Harshman's
prejudice against me.

I defy either of them to try and show otherwise. In particular,
Oxyaena has nothing to justify her "Once again," and I don't
think she can fool anyone into thinking otherwise.

If you are thinking of the accurate information I posted about you
which you snipped,
including four things I posted about what you did as Thrinaxodon,
then it's about time you showed proper regrets for them instead
of making people guess just WHAT about your behavior back then you
are thoroughly ashamed of -- if anything.

> God you're fucking dense.

These are just hateful words without any basis in reality,
only in a fictitious virtual reality that the rest of
your words are striving vainly to create.


You are deserving of pity, not hate, for the screwed up
modus operandi you have voluntarily chosen for yourself.
You are trapped in a Usenet persona to which you are so committed,
there seems to be no way out for you.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 2/14/2019 12:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 12:03:30 PM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 2/13/2019 11:18 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>> As usual, Oxyaena finds it much more fun to try and stir up
>>> a tempest in a teapot than to respond to ANYTHING that is on topic.
>
>
> You deleted everything by both of us except the above two lines of mine,
> which were not hateful -- only an accurate description of
> your behavior in the post to which I was replying.
>
> And so, your reference to "hateful things" below is left without
> anything to relate it to.
>
>
>> If you don't want me to nitpick what you write,
>
> I don't want you to make defamatory accusations against me, like
> the one you snipped below. It was no mere nitpick:
>
> Once again, you demonstrate your prejudice against disabled people.
> Shame on you, Peter.
>
> Are you such an ethical nihilist that you think prejudice against
> disabled people is so insignificant that pointing it out is
> a mere nitpick?

Are you such a self absorbed prick that you cannot see how insinuating
that Harshman is an idiot savant is disingenuous at best, and ableist at
worst? There's nothing defamatory about it, Professor Narcissus.

>
> I think the answer is YES, as long as the one "pointing it out"
> is YOU actually making a trumped-up charge against someone you dislike.
>
>
>> idiot, then don't write
>> such hateful things.
>
> I deny that any statements I made about you or Harshman were motivated
> by hate.

I could have a field day with this one! You have an obsession with me,
how else can one describe how I am the only poster from Usenet you
mentio to others on a regular basis, both inside of and *outside* of Usenet.

> If you are thinking about the ones I made about the way Harshman
> insulted my intelligence, you are not rising to the challenge
> I made, but doubling down with a broken record routine.



>
> That challenge was:
>
> The only prejudice in evidence here is Oxyaena's and Harshman's
> prejudice against me.
>
> I defy either of them to try and show otherwise. In particular,
> Oxyaena has nothing to justify her "Once again," and I don't
> think she can fool anyone into thinking otherwise.
>
> If you are thinking of the accurate information I posted about you
> which you snipped,

Bullshit.

> including four things I posted about what you did as Thrinaxodon,
> then it's about time you showed proper regrets for them instead
> of making people guess just WHAT about your behavior back then you
> are thoroughly ashamed of -- if anything.

Isn't the fact that I have stopped spamming and starting being
constructive proof enough, or is *anything* not enough for you?

>
>
>
>> God you're fucking dense.
>
> These are just hateful words without any basis in reality,
> only in a fictitious virtual reality that the rest of
> your words are striving vainly to create.

It's an accurate statement, and I stand by that. One need only read what
you write to see how accurate it is.

>
>
> You are deserving of pity, not hate, for the screwed up
> modus operandi you have voluntarily chosen for yourself.
> You are trapped in a Usenet persona to which you are so committed,
> there seems to be no way out for you.

I don't need your condescending "pity", it should be more the other way
around. Do you *not* realize you are engaging in psychological
projection right now?

>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Daud Deden]

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-massive-bolivian-earthquake-reveals-mountains.html

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 1:54:39 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/13/19 7:41 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:57:42 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/12/19 6:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:52:46 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 2/12/19 12:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >>>>> By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?
> >>>>
> >>>> Depends on what you mean by "observed".
> >>>
> >>> It's pretty obvious from the lines immediately before the
> >>> out-of context line you quoted:
> >>>
> >>> The actual mechanism, crust being actively subducted in deep ocean
> >>> trenches and produced by undersea lava flows along long ridges,
> >>> may have been correctly inferred just from this discovery. But
> >>> I doubt that anyone dared to infer it until subduction was actually
> >>> observed. [By the way, when and how WAS it first observed?]
> >>
> >> If you mean actual observation, with actual eyes, in real time, then
> >> subduction has never been observed. But I still don't know what you
> >> mean, because that would be a really stupid meaning for you to intend,
> >> and you don't usually seem that stupid.
> >
> > Illogical looking, completely unexplained insult noted.
>
> That wasn't an insult. It was a sort of compliment.

Your use of "actual eyes," rather than sophisticated remotely
controlled cameras, etc. that was pretty clearly intended,
is an insult to my intelligence. [Analogy: Do you think we do not
have direct observation of quasars?]

"I still don't know what you mean" is based on this strawman
of your own making, as though there were no more sensible
meaning to my words than "with actual eyes, in real time".

I say that's an insult, and I say to hell with it.

> I'm assuming you
> aren't stupid, which means that the obvious interpretation of what you
> said must be incorrect.

The "actual eyes" interpretation *might* be obvious if I were
one of the little kids you taught once upon a time. It is extremely
insulting to call that the "obvious interpretation" where someone
as sophisticated scientifically as myself is concerned.

> But I don't then know what the correct
> interpretation would be, and you won't say.

Dishonest use of "won't" rather than "don't" noted. See keyword
"apparatus" below.

> >>>> What counts?
> >>>
> >>> You can read, can't you? Direct observation of there being
> >>> crust deeper in the trench than it was before, but the trench
> >>> being no deeper than it was before, would count.
> >>
> >> No such thing is observed.
> >
> > Don't you mean, "No one has ever set up apparatus to record
> > such changes."?

Note the use of the word "apparatus." You ignored this question,
perhaps realizing that a candid answer would turn your "won't" into
an out and out lie.

> > And what makes you so sure no such thing has happened? Because
> > you've never seen any place where success has been reported?

You ducked these questions too. Why?

> > Keep in mind that a complementary event -- material from deep
> > in the earth being expelled on the mid-oceanic Atlantic ridge --
> > HAS been directly observed. As has life adapted to the
> > unique environment of smoker chimneys, etc.
>
> Yes, plenty of opportunity to observe volcanoes in operation.

I didn't mention volcanoes.

> But subduction doesn't show that kind of evidence. What kind of evidence do
> you think it would show?

You are ignoring what I wrote two paragraphs before the one to which
you are directly replying. But I'll humor you just this once and
reply to your insincere-looking question in a different way.

Why even mention volcanoes? The shifting of oceanic crust in the wake
of great earthquakes that "ring the earth like a bell" -- like the
9+ Richter earthquake in Indonesia a little over a decade ago --
is one form of almost direct evidence.

As for REALLY direct evidence --
if no one has ever set up cameras next to a fault [like the
San Andreas fault, for instance] to record the
effects of the next sizable earthquake in that area -- it's a
shame, because the jumps that occur as the plates slide past
each other would make great footage.

Is that enough of a hint for you, or are you going to "play dense"
and make me humor you again?

>
> >>> We might at some time actually have a visual record of crust disappearing
> >>> into the bottom of a trench, but I'm not that choosy. OTOH it would be
> >>> "way cool" [as the kids you once taught put it] to actually see
> >>> something like that, so much so that it's a "natural" for some
> >>> kind of award.
> >
> >
> >> So what do you mean?
> >
> > Rhetorical question, in light of the unrelated questions you
> > ask next:
>
> No, it wasn't a rhetorical question.

Yes it was: the answers are right up there, with keywords "apparatus" and
"visual record." The latter were already up there when you
asked the rhetorical question. How can "with actual eyes, in real time"
possibly count as a visual *record*?


Remainder deleted, to be replied to if I get a sufficiently
responsible reply to this post.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 1:56:43 PM UTC-8, alouatta....@gmail.com wrote:

You are responding to a troll who loves to act as though he suspected me
of being a troll.

> <snip preceding junk>

You snipped in the wrong place. I snipped some real junk by "Howler Monkey".

I get the impression that you recognize him from the time you wrote in
reply to him a few months ago, "long time no see." But I take what
you write next to mean you've never met him:

> Note to Peter: I do not know this man.

Ah, but do you agree with what he wrote in the post to which you
are replying?

Oxyaena obviously does. Care to make it a twosome?


Are you glad that "Howler Monkey" posted it?

My two questions do not necessarily have the
same answer, even though they do both have Yes answers
where Oxyaena is concerned.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 2/14/2019 3:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 1:56:43 PM UTC-8, alouatta....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> You are responding to a troll who loves to act as though he suspected me
> of being a troll.
>
>> <snip preceding junk>
>
> You snipped in the wrong place. I snipped some real junk by "Howler Monkey".

You only call it "junk" because you are too cowardly to address it.

[snip shit-stirring]

[Oxyaena]

Ego noted.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 1:06:39 PM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 2/14/2019 12:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 12:03:30 PM UTC-5, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 2/13/2019 11:18 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >>> As usual, Oxyaena finds it much more fun to try and stir up
> >>> a tempest in a teapot than to respond to ANYTHING that is on topic.

> > You deleted everything by both of us except the above two lines of mine,
> > which were not hateful -- only an accurate description of
> > your behavior in the post to which I was replying.

You didn't deny this.

> > And so, your reference to "hateful things" below is left without
> > anything to relate it to.
> >
> >
> >> If you don't want me to nitpick what you write,
> >
> > I don't want you to make defamatory accusations against me, like
> > the one you snipped below. It was no mere nitpick:
> >
> > Once again, you demonstrate your prejudice against disabled people.
> > Shame on you, Peter.
> >
> > Are you such an ethical nihilist that you think prejudice against
> > disabled people is so insignificant that pointing it out is
> > a mere nitpick?

You didn't answer this, and you are only showing how absurd
your use of "nitpick" was with your next attack on me:

> Are you such a self absorbed prick that you cannot see how insinuating
> that Harshman is an idiot savant

I didn't imply that.

To begin with, I implied that Harshman was treating me AS IF
I were an idiot savant. You are interpreting what I said next
in a way that completely ignores the fact that things are relative.

What I said next is analogous to saying, "There is more evidence
that Oxyaena is demon-possessed than there is that I am demon-possessed."

Since my assessment of the likelihood of there being demons
is about that of there being a creator/designer of our universe --
not very different from 10% -- I am NOT implying that you
are demon-possessed.

> is disingenuous at best, and ableist at
> worst?

It is Harshman who is disingenous in the way he insulted my
intelligence. And he is continuing to be disingenuous
as my reply to him about an hour ago is continuing to show.

>There's nothing defamatory about it, Professor Narcissus.

You bragged about having an IQ of at least 120, so you
should have no trouble following my reasoning above.
But you will probably use that IQ to find twisted ways
of counterattack. I wouldn't put it past you to claim
that I implied that you are demon-possessed.

[Compare this to your bizarre use of "put it past him" in reply to Erik,
quoted below.]

> > I think the answer is YES, as long as the one "pointing it out"
> > is YOU actually making a trumped-up charge against someone you dislike.
> >
> >
> >> idiot, then don't write
> >> such hateful things.
> >
> > I deny that any statements I made about you or Harshman were motivated
> > by hate.

<allegation pretending to divine my motivation for certain actions, deleted>

By the way, you never quoted any statements by me in your allegation.
Typical.

> > If you are thinking about the ones I made about the way Harshman
> > insulted my intelligence, you are not rising to the challenge
> > I made, but doubling down with a broken record routine.

This time around, you are indulging in sophistry to make it
look like you are responding to my challenge.

> >
> > That challenge was:
> >
> > The only prejudice in evidence here is Oxyaena's and Harshman's
> > prejudice against me.
> >
> > I defy either of them to try and show otherwise. In particular,
> > Oxyaena has nothing to justify her "Once again," and I don't
> > think she can fool anyone into thinking otherwise.
> >
> > If you are thinking of the accurate information I posted about you
> > which you snipped,
>
> Bullshit.

You can call it names, but can you refute it?

>
> > including four things I posted about what you did as Thrinaxodon,
> > then it's about time you showed proper regrets for them instead
> > of making people guess just WHAT about your behavior back then you
> > are thoroughly ashamed of -- if anything.
>
> Isn't the fact that I have stopped spamming

Not according to jillery's broad use of the word "spamming".

> and starting being
> constructive proof enough,

"constructive"?? What a laugh! You call this poison-pen crap
constructive?

Peter's biases color his viewpoints of others to the point that he can't
make out fiction from reality, it has metaphorically become opaque, so
to speak, if he wasn't like this for all of his life, which is a scary
thought TBH, so I wouldn't put it past him to make such a paranoid
assertion.

This was in reply to Erik saying:

> Exactly. The notion of granitic continents plowing their way through basaltic
> ocean basins IS absurd. The discovery of tectonic plates resoved the difficulty.

What's paranoid about thinking that Wegener was NOT a crackpot
for taking the "plowing their way" hypothesis seriously --
without endorsing it, mind you? Did you even stop to THINK before you
posted that Harshman-abused word "paranoid"?

> or is *anything* not enough for you?

You obviously have no regrets about all the baseless attacks
you made on me as "Thrinaxodon." You wholeheartedly
indulged in baseless attacks in one reply to me after another
just this January. If you deny this, I will set up a new thread
where I go over those posts one by one, beginning with the
most flagrant one.

> >> God you're fucking dense.
> >
> > These are just hateful words without any basis in reality,
> > only in a fictitious virtual reality that the rest of
> > your words are striving vainly to create.
>
> It's an accurate statement, and I stand by that. One need only read what
> you write to see how accurate it is.

Me being "fucking dense"? If that is the case, why did you
snip out everything that would support it?

It is very hard to tell whether someone like me or you is being
dense or hypocritical or disingenuous or cowardly or dishonest
unless one looks at things in context. And you've been
snipping out context while making unsupportable claims about
what you snipped. This sub-thread is a perfect example.

> >
> >
> > You are deserving of pity, not hate, for the screwed up
> > modus operandi you have voluntarily chosen for yourself.
> > You are trapped in a Usenet persona to which you are so committed,
> > there seems to be no way out for you.
>
> I don't need your condescending "pity", it should be more the other way
> around. Do you *not* realize you are engaging in psychological
> projection right now?

You have made unjust accusations repeatedly over the years, and often
snipped evidence of your injustice with further injustice like
"[snip mindless bullshit]".

And I know I am NOT engaging in psychological projection,
your loaded question notwithstanding.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Illogical comment noted. I wonder whether Harshman thinks
it lets him off the hook.

NOTE TO READERS: Harshman does have good reason to wish
to be let off the hook; keep reading.

> >> But I don't then know what the correct
> >> interpretation would be, and you won't say.
> >
> > Dishonest use of "won't" rather than "don't" noted. See keyword
> > "apparatus" below.

Comments like these are what motivated you to post that
illogical "Ego noted" comment, aren't they.?

> >
> >>>>>> What counts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can read, can't you? Direct observation of there being
> >>>>> crust deeper in the trench than it was before, but the trench
> >>>>> being no deeper than it was before, would count.
> >>>>
> >>>> No such thing is observed.
> >>>
> >>> Don't you mean, "No one has ever set up apparatus to record
> >>> such changes."?
> >
> > Note the use of the word "apparatus." You ignored this question,
> > perhaps realizing that a candid answer would turn your "won't" into
> > an out and out lie.

This is yet more motivation for your illogical comment, isn't it?

> >
> >>> And what makes you so sure no such thing has happened? Because
> >>> you've never seen any place where success has been reported?
> >
> > You ducked these questions too. Why?

I hope Harshman doesn't think your illogical comment means
that he doesn't have to answer this question.

> >
> >>> Keep in mind that a complementary event -- material from deep
> >>> in the earth being expelled on the mid-oceanic Atlantic ridge --
> >>> HAS been directly observed. As has life adapted to the
> >>> unique environment of smoker chimneys, etc.
> >>
> >> Yes, plenty of opportunity to observe volcanoes in operation.
> >
> > I didn't mention volcanoes.
> >
> >> But subduction doesn't show that kind of evidence. What kind of evidence do
> >> you think it would show?
> >
> > You are ignoring what I wrote two paragraphs before the one to which
> > you are directly replying. But I'll humor you just this once and
> > reply to your insincere-looking question in a different way.
> >
> > Why even mention volcanoes? The shifting of oceanic crust in the wake
> > of great earthquakes that "ring the earth like a bell" -- like the
> > 9+ Richter earthquake in Indonesia a little over a decade ago --
> > is one form of almost direct evidence.
> >
> > As for REALLY direct evidence --
> > if no one has ever set up cameras next to a fault [like the
> > San Andreas fault, for instance] to record the
> > effects of the next sizable earthquake in that area -- it's a
> > shame, because the jumps that occur as the plates slide past
> > each other would make great footage.
> >
> > Is that enough of a hint for you, or are you going to "play dense"
> > and make me humor you again?

This question really got your hackles up, didn't it, Oxyaena?

> >>
> >>>>> We might at some time actually have a visual record of crust disappearing
> >>>>> into the bottom of a trench, but I'm not that choosy. OTOH it would be
> >>>>> "way cool" [as the kids you once taught put it] to actually see
> >>>>> something like that, so much so that it's a "natural" for some
> >>>>> kind of award.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> So what do you mean?
> >>>
> >>> Rhetorical question, in light of the unrelated questions you
> >>> ask next:
> >>
> >> No, it wasn't a rhetorical question.
> >
> > Yes it was: the answers are right up there, with keywords "apparatus" and
> > "visual record." The latter were already up there when you
> > asked the rhetorical question. How can "with actual eyes, in real time"
> > possibly count as a visual *record*?
> >
> >
> > Remainder deleted, to be replied to if I get a sufficiently
> > responsible reply to this post.

Are you so deluded as to think your "Ego noted" was sufficiently
responsible?

> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
> > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[usual hypocritical .sig by Oxyaena deleted]

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

I've seen his nym before, not sure where. You can imagine what you like. My
opinion is that you're making a fool of yourself here. The transparency of your
attempt to pick a fight with John is obvious, as is your surprising ignorance
of the areas of geoscience touched upon. I'll have no more to say here.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 6:07:21 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 12:45:04 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 1:56:43 PM UTC-8, alouatta....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > You are responding to a troll who loves to act as though he suspected me
> > of being a troll.
> >
> > > <snip preceding junk>
> >
> > You snipped in the wrong place. I snipped some real junk by "Howler Monkey".
> >
> > I get the impression that you recognize him from the time you wrote in
> > reply to him a few months ago, "long time no see." But I take what
> > you write next to mean you've never met him:
> >
> > > Note to Peter: I do not know this man.
> >
> > Ah, but do you agree with what he wrote in the post to which you
> > are replying?
> >
> > Oxyaena obviously does. Care to make it a twosome?
> >
> >
> > Are you glad that "Howler Monkey" posted it?
> >
> > My two questions do not necessarily have the
> > same answer, even though they do both have Yes answers
> > where Oxyaena is concerned.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> I've seen his nym before, not sure where. You can imagine what you like.

Thanks for not answering my questions. Had you given straightforward
answers, you would have made it worthwhile for me to deal with
the crap Howler Monkey spewed.

> My opinion is that you're making a fool of yourself here.

If the following is the basis of your opinion, then you are
the fool here, not I:

> The transparency of your
> attempt to pick a fight with John is obvious,

It is the transparency of John insulting my intelligence that
is obvious. Also John's cowardice in the face of questions
for which an honest answer would require an apology for the
gross falsehood, "won't explain".

Oxyaena probably saw how I had the goods on John, and so she posted that
illogical comment "Ego noted" as though that suddenly made John innocent
of all wrongdoing.

Do you even know what I'm talking about, or are you making
John-serving comments without bothering to understand
what is really going on between John and myself?

>as is your surprising ignorance
> of the areas of geoscience touched upon. I'll have no more to say here.

I'm not holding my breath. The alleged "surprising ignorance"
is probably the bizarre virtual reality Harshman's unsupportable
condescension would have created, had I not reacted forcefully.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

No, that wasn't the point at all. Cameras would have been included in
"actual". And yes, we have direct observation of quasars, by any
reasonable meaning.

> "I still don't know what you mean" is based on this strawman
> of your own making, as though there were no more sensible
> meaning to my words than "with actual eyes, in real time".

That's not even the meaning I supposed. But perhaps I now know what you
meant, and it's apparently just what I imagined. Unfortunately.

> I say that's an insult, and I say to hell with it.

!

>> I'm assuming you
>> aren't stupid, which means that the obvious interpretation of what you
>> said must be incorrect.
>
> The "actual eyes" interpretation *might* be obvious if I were
> one of the little kids you taught once upon a time. It is extremely
> insulting to call that the "obvious interpretation" where someone
> as sophisticated scientifically as myself is concerned.

Again, you are confused about what I meant. Actual eyes looking at a TV
screen of a real-time picture would count too. But that also would be a
truly naive view of evidence for subduction.

>> But I don't then know what the correct
>> interpretation would be, and you won't say.
>
> Dishonest use of "won't" rather than "don't" noted. See keyword
> "apparatus" below.

That does help. Unfortunately, it shows you to be hopelessly naive about
evidence of subduction, both what we have and what would be required.

>>>>>> What counts?
>>>>>
>>>>> You can read, can't you? Direct observation of there being
>>>>> crust deeper in the trench than it was before, but the trench
>>>>> being no deeper than it was before, would count.
>>>>
>>>> No such thing is observed.
>>>
>>> Don't you mean, "No one has ever set up apparatus to record
>>> such changes."?
>
> Note the use of the word "apparatus." You ignored this question,
> perhaps realizing that a candid answer would turn your "won't" into
> an out and out lie.
>
>
>>> And what makes you so sure no such thing has happened? Because
>>> you've never seen any place where success has been reported?
>
> You ducked these questions too. Why?

They were too silly. No such thing happened because it's not something
you could get movies of. New crust forming at mid-ocean ridges isn't
something you can get movies of either, and what you have seen isn't
that. Does the term "sheeted dikes" mean anything to you?

>>> Keep in mind that a complementary event -- material from deep
>>> in the earth being expelled on the mid-oceanic Atlantic ridge --
>>> HAS been directly observed. As has life adapted to the
>>> unique environment of smoker chimneys, etc.
>>
>> Yes, plenty of opportunity to observe volcanoes in operation.
>
> I didn't mention volcanoes.

I'm assuming you're talking about underwater eruptions of lava ("pillow
lava") because that's what you can see. If that isn't it, what are you
talking about?

>> But subduction doesn't show that kind of evidence. What kind of evidence do
>> you think it would show?
>
> You are ignoring what I wrote two paragraphs before the one to which
> you are directly replying. But I'll humor you just this once and
> reply to your insincere-looking question in a different way.
>
> Why even mention volcanoes? The shifting of oceanic crust in the wake
> of great earthquakes that "ring the earth like a bell" -- like the
> 9+ Richter earthquake in Indonesia a little over a decade ago --
> is one form of almost direct evidence.

I don't understand. What does that have to do with volcanoes? It's
unclear what you're talking about here, and what you think it's evidence of.

> As for REALLY direct evidence --
> if no one has ever set up cameras next to a fault [like the
> San Andreas fault, for instance] to record the
> effects of the next sizable earthquake in that area -- it's a
> shame, because the jumps that occur as the plates slide past
> each other would make great footage.

It would be hard to arrange such a camera, because any jumps would be
quite local and unpredictable. It's the sum of many movements in many
spots (and on many faults) that make up the actual plate motion. One can
take photos after the fact; that would be better. Good luck trying that
at the bottom of a trench.

> Is that enough of a hint for you, or are you going to "play dense"
> and make me humor you again?

Perhaps you could stop giving hints and try actually saying, clearly,
what you mean. That would expedite matters.

>>>>> We might at some time actually have a visual record of crust disappearing
>>>>> into the bottom of a trench, but I'm not that choosy. OTOH it would be
>>>>> "way cool" [as the kids you once taught put it] to actually see
>>>>> something like that, so much so that it's a "natural" for some
>>>>> kind of award.
>>>
>>>
>>>> So what do you mean?
>>>
>>> Rhetorical question, in light of the unrelated questions you
>>> ask next:
>>
>> No, it wasn't a rhetorical question.
>
> Yes it was: the answers are right up there, with keywords "apparatus" and
> "visual record." The latter were already up there when you
> asked the rhetorical question. How can "with actual eyes, in real time"
> possibly count as a visual *record*?

You were unclear. I asked for clarification. That's all. Anyway, no such
"visual record" of subduction.

[John Harshman]

On 2/14/19 3:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> It is the transparency of John insulting my intelligence that
> is obvious.

Turns out that the "insult" was justified. You really appear to know
nothing about the evidence for subduction and, freed from the bounds of
knowledge, imagined something absurd.

[Peter Nyikos]

This renders almost every condescending remark you made about
me meaningless.

> > "I still don't know what you mean" is based on this strawman
> > of your own making, as though there were no more sensible
> > meaning to my words than "with actual eyes, in real time".
>
> That's not even the meaning I supposed. But perhaps I now know what you
> meant, and it's apparently just what I imagined.

Unfortunately, you never spelled out what you imagined.
Quite the contrary: you ducked a question which would have enabled
you to clearly state what you imagined.


> Unfortunately.

You never explain this "Unfortunately." Instead you indulge in a
shell game below, substituting "evidence of subduction" for
"direct observation of subduction" and thereby creating a false
virtual reality of "naivete" about me.

>
> > I say that's an insult, and I say to hell with it.
>
> !

You continue to insult me below by falsely insinuating naivete
on my part.

> >> I'm assuming you
> >> aren't stupid, which means that the obvious interpretation of what you
> >> said must be incorrect.
> >
> > The "actual eyes" interpretation *might* be obvious if I were
> > one of the little kids you taught once upon a time. It is extremely
> > insulting to call that the "obvious interpretation" where someone
> > as sophisticated scientifically as myself is concerned.
>
> Again, you are confused about what I meant.

Why did you not SAY what you meant instead of using misleading words
like "with actual eyes"?

> Actual eyes looking at a TV
> screen of a real-time picture would count too. But that also would be a
> truly naive view of evidence for subduction.

So you think it is NOT evidence for subduction????

No, you are indulging in misleading language which tends to create the
impression that I think it is the ONLY evidence for subduction.
And you know that I think nothing of the sort.

And you keep doing it below, so my next comment will be more forceful
as a result.

> >> But I don't then know what the correct
> >> interpretation would be, and you won't say.
> >
> > Dishonest use of "won't" rather than "don't" noted. See keyword
> > "apparatus" below.
>
> That does help. Unfortunately, it shows you to be hopelessly naive about
> evidence of subduction, both what we have and what would be required.

It does nothing of the sort, and you are not describing even one
example of this alleged naivete.

You are disingenously substituting "evidence of suduction" for
"direct observation of subuction." Once this is obvious, your
entire case for naivete on my part collapses.

>
> >>>>>> What counts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can read, can't you? Direct observation of there being
> >>>>> crust deeper in the trench than it was before, but the trench
> >>>>> being no deeper than it was before, would count.
> >>>>
> >>>> No such thing is observed.
> >>>
> >>> Don't you mean, "No one has ever set up apparatus to record
> >>> such changes."?
> >
> > Note the use of the word "apparatus." You ignored this question,
> > perhaps realizing that a candid answer would turn your "won't" into
> > an out and out lie.

Unfortunately, you still haven't answered this question, preferring
to try an pick a fight with me by making unsupported accusations
of naivete.

> >
> >>> And what makes you so sure no such thing has happened? Because
> >>> you've never seen any place where success has been reported?
> >
> > You ducked these questions too. Why?
>
> They were too silly. No such thing happened because it's not something
> you could get movies of.

Let's see you try and explain why, taking into account what I wrote
about filming of slippage along e.g. the San Andreas fault.

If you can't do better than your inept attempt below,
the logical inference is that you didn't answer my
question at first because it took you several hours to dream
up this unsupported retort.


<diversion away from the theme of subduction snipped>

> >>> Keep in mind that a complementary event -- material from deep
> >>> in the earth being expelled on the mid-oceanic Atlantic ridge --
> >>> HAS been directly observed. As has life adapted to the
> >>> unique environment of smoker chimneys, etc.
> >>
> >> Yes, plenty of opportunity to observe volcanoes in operation.
> >
> > I didn't mention volcanoes.
>
> I'm assuming you're talking about underwater eruptions of lava ("pillow
> lava") because that's what you can see. If that isn't it, what are you
> talking about?

I wouldn't use the word "volcanoes" for that.

>
> >> But subduction doesn't show that kind of evidence. What kind of evidence do
> >> you think it would show?
> >
> > You are ignoring what I wrote two paragraphs before the one to which
> > you are directly replying. But I'll humor you just this once and
> > reply to your insincere-looking question in a different way.
> >
> > Why even mention volcanoes? The shifting of oceanic crust in the wake
> > of great earthquakes that "ring the earth like a bell" -- like the
> > 9+ Richter earthquake in Indonesia a little over a decade ago --
> > is one form of almost direct evidence.
>
> I don't understand. What does that have to do with volcanoes?

That's up to YOU to tell ME. Can't you even figure out why
I was asking "Why even mention volcanoes?"

>It's
> unclear what you're talking about here, and what you think it's evidence of.

What part of "shifting of oceanic crust" didn't you understand?

>
> > As for REALLY direct evidence --
> > if no one has ever set up cameras next to a fault [like the
> > San Andreas fault, for instance] to record the
> > effects of the next sizable earthquake in that area -- it's a
> > shame, because the jumps that occur as the plates slide past
> > each other would make great footage.
>
> It would be hard to arrange such a camera, because any jumps would be
> quite local and unpredictable.

"quite local" -- why don't you QUANTIFY that? Do you think cameras
spaced ten miles apart would miss all the slippage from MAJOR
earthquakes? It would take less than a hundred such cameras to
monitor the whole visible part of the San Andreas fault.

Your use of the singular "camera" suggests extreme naivete on
YOUR part, whereas you have yet to quote as single statement by
me that is anywhere near as naive.

> It's the sum of many movements in many
> spots (and on many faults) that make up the actual plate motion. One can
> take photos after the fact; that would be better. Good luck trying that
> at the bottom of a trench.

Are you suggesting that the Marianas Trench is actually a whole
conglomerate of parallel short trenches, and that subduction
could occur along only a few of them during a 9 point earthquake?

If so, I'd like to see some documentation for it.

> > Is that enough of a hint for you, or are you going to "play dense"
> > and make me humor you again?
>
> Perhaps you could stop giving hints and try actually saying, clearly,
> what you mean.

I did. And you've responded. Cryptically, in defiance of your
alleged desire for expediting things:

> That would expedite matters.

Perhaps you should stop accusing me of naivete and then never
identifying anything that indicates naivete.

That would make it unnecessary for Oxyaena, Simpson, and Howler
Monkey to try and make you out to be my innocent victim, as they
are doing now.

Because then we would have a mature adult conversation.

> >>>>> We might at some time actually have a visual record of crust disappearing
> >>>>> into the bottom of a trench, but I'm not that choosy. OTOH it would be
> >>>>> "way cool" [as the kids you once taught put it] to actually see
> >>>>> something like that, so much so that it's a "natural" for some
> >>>>> kind of award.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> So what do you mean?
> >>>
> >>> Rhetorical question, in light of the unrelated questions you
> >>> ask next:
> >>
> >> No, it wasn't a rhetorical question.
> >
> > Yes it was: the answers are right up there, with keywords "apparatus" and
> > "visual record." The latter were already up there when you
> > asked the rhetorical question. How can "with actual eyes, in real time"
> > possibly count as a visual *record*?

> You were unclear.

No, I was not. It was you who were unclear with the misleading
words, "with actual eyes".

> I asked for clarification.

You kept asking insulting questions instead of helpfully trying
to tell me why you think it is impossible to have direct instrumental
observation of subduction.

> That's all. Anyway, no such
> "visual record" of subduction.

...at present. But you are still dragging your feet as far as
explaining why you are thoroughly convinced that there will
never be a visual record of subduction:

"it's not something you could get movies of."

-- Harshman, way up there where Oxyaena and Simpson
and Howler Monkey can pretend they never saw it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math.

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer --
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[John Harshman]

I'm afraid you don't understand my condescending remarks.

>>> "I still don't know what you mean" is based on this strawman
>>> of your own making, as though there were no more sensible
>>> meaning to my words than "with actual eyes, in real time".
>>
>> That's not even the meaning I supposed. But perhaps I now know what you
>> meant, and it's apparently just what I imagined.
>
> Unfortunately, you never spelled out what you imagined.
> Quite the contrary: you ducked a question which would have enabled
> you to clearly state what you imagined.

Let's be clear: you are supposing that we could see subduction
happening, i.e. watch the movement of one plate under another, whether
by camera or sonar or something else real-time. That is not true.

>> Unfortunately.
>
> You never explain this "Unfortunately." Instead you indulge in a
> shell game below, substituting "evidence of subduction" for
> "direct observation of subduction" and thereby creating a false
> virtual reality of "naivete" about me.

Sorry, too convoluted for me to parse properly.

>>> I say that's an insult, and I say to hell with it.
>>
>> !
>
> You continue to insult me below by falsely insinuating naivete
> on my part.

I do not believe that insinuation to be false. I don't think you know
much about the subject and have a number of false assumptions.

>>>> I'm assuming you
>>>> aren't stupid, which means that the obvious interpretation of what you
>>>> said must be incorrect.
>>>
>>> The "actual eyes" interpretation *might* be obvious if I were
>>> one of the little kids you taught once upon a time. It is extremely
>>> insulting to call that the "obvious interpretation" where someone
>>> as sophisticated scientifically as myself is concerned.
>>
>> Again, you are confused about what I meant.
>
> Why did you not SAY what you meant instead of using misleading words
> like "with actual eyes"?

You misunderstand the import of the phrase.

>> Actual eyes looking at a TV
>> screen of a real-time picture would count too. But that also would be a
>> truly naive view of evidence for subduction.
>
> So you think it is NOT evidence for subduction????

Correct. It's not evidence because there are not, could not be such
real-time pictures showing subduction happening.

> No, you are indulging in misleading language which tends to create the
> impression that I think it is the ONLY evidence for subduction.
> And you know that I think nothing of the sort.

My misleading language creates that impression only in your mind, and
would not do so in the mind of a normal person.

> And you keep doing it below, so my next comment will be more forceful
> as a result.

If you had any self-awareness, you would realize how ridiculous that
threat sounds.

>>>> But I don't then know what the correct
>>>> interpretation would be, and you won't say.
>>>
>>> Dishonest use of "won't" rather than "don't" noted. See keyword
>>> "apparatus" below.
>>
>> That does help. Unfortunately, it shows you to be hopelessly naive about
>> evidence of subduction, both what we have and what would be required.
>
> It does nothing of the sort, and you are not describing even one
> example of this alleged naivete.
>
> You are disingenously substituting "evidence of suduction" for
> "direct observation of subuction." Once this is obvious, your
> entire case for naivete on my part collapses.

I don't intend to follow you down the rabbit hole, at least not this time.

>>>>>>>> What counts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can read, can't you? Direct observation of there being
>>>>>>> crust deeper in the trench than it was before, but the trench
>>>>>>> being no deeper than it was before, would count.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No such thing is observed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you mean, "No one has ever set up apparatus to record
>>>>> such changes."?
>>>
>>> Note the use of the word "apparatus." You ignored this question,
>>> perhaps realizing that a candid answer would turn your "won't" into
>>> an out and out lie.
>
> Unfortunately, you still haven't answered this question, preferring
> to try an pick a fight with me by making unsupported accusations
> of naivete.

Sorry, but when you get like this there's no talking to you at all.
Perhaps after you've calmed down a bit, if that ever happens.

>>>>> And what makes you so sure no such thing has happened? Because
>>>>> you've never seen any place where success has been reported?
>>>
>>> You ducked these questions too. Why?
>>
>> They were too silly. No such thing happened because it's not something
>> you could get movies of.
>
> Let's see you try and explain why, taking into account what I wrote
> about filming of slippage along e.g. the San Andreas fault.
>
> If you can't do better than your inept attempt below,
> the logical inference is that you didn't answer my
> question at first because it took you several hours to dream
> up this unsupported retort.

You use "logical inference" in an odd way that reflects your paranoia.

>>>>> Keep in mind that a complementary event -- material from deep
>>>>> in the earth being expelled on the mid-oceanic Atlantic ridge --
>>>>> HAS been directly observed. As has life adapted to the
>>>>> unique environment of smoker chimneys, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, plenty of opportunity to observe volcanoes in operation.
>>>
>>> I didn't mention volcanoes.
>>
>> I'm assuming you're talking about underwater eruptions of lava ("pillow
>> lava") because that's what you can see. If that isn't it, what are you
>> talking about?
>
> I wouldn't use the word "volcanoes" for that.

But that's what they are: underwater volcanoes.

>>>> But subduction doesn't show that kind of evidence. What kind of evidence do
>>>> you think it would show?
>>>
>>> You are ignoring what I wrote two paragraphs before the one to which
>>> you are directly replying. But I'll humor you just this once and
>>> reply to your insincere-looking question in a different way.
>>>
>>> Why even mention volcanoes? The shifting of oceanic crust in the wake
>>> of great earthquakes that "ring the earth like a bell" -- like the
>>> 9+ Richter earthquake in Indonesia a little over a decade ago --
>>> is one form of almost direct evidence.
>>
>> I don't understand. What does that have to do with volcanoes?
>
> That's up to YOU to tell ME. Can't you even figure out why
> I was asking "Why even mention volcanoes?"

No, I can't. You're the one who brought them up, though to be fair you
don't seem to know that's what you were talking about.

>> It's
>> unclear what you're talking about here, and what you think it's evidence of.
>
> What part of "shifting of oceanic crust" didn't you understand?

Well, one does wonder what shifting of oceanic crust you refer to.

>>> As for REALLY direct evidence --
>>> if no one has ever set up cameras next to a fault [like the
>>> San Andreas fault, for instance] to record the
>>> effects of the next sizable earthquake in that area -- it's a
>>> shame, because the jumps that occur as the plates slide past
>>> each other would make great footage.
>>
>> It would be hard to arrange such a camera, because any jumps would be
>> quite local and unpredictable.
>
> "quite local" -- why don't you QUANTIFY that? Do you think cameras
> spaced ten miles apart would miss all the slippage from MAJOR
> earthquakes? It would take less than a hundred such cameras to
> monitor the whole visible part of the San Andreas fault.
>
> Your use of the singular "camera" suggests extreme naivete on
> YOUR part, whereas you have yet to quote as single statement by
> me that is anywhere near as naive.

Yes, I think you have a very naive view of what the San Andreas fault
looks like, what earthquakes on it look like, and how displacement
during earthquakes is distributed in space.

>> It's the sum of many movements in many
>> spots (and on many faults) that make up the actual plate motion. One can
>> take photos after the fact; that would be better. Good luck trying that
>> at the bottom of a trench.
>
> Are you suggesting that the Marianas Trench is actually a whole
> conglomerate of parallel short trenches, and that subduction
> could occur along only a few of them during a 9 point earthquake?
>
> If so, I'd like to see some documentation for it.

I'm suggesting that you are imagining some nice, sharp line separating
the subducting plate from the upper plate, such that you could watch one
slipping under the other. That just isn't how it works. Geology is not
as simple as the cartoon pictures you have seen.

>>> Is that enough of a hint for you, or are you going to "play dense"
>>> and make me humor you again?
>>
>> Perhaps you could stop giving hints and try actually saying, clearly,
>> what you mean.
>
> I did. And you've responded. Cryptically, in defiance of your
> alleged desire for expediting things:
>
>> That would expedite matters.
>
> Perhaps you should stop accusing me of naivete and then never
> identifying anything that indicates naivete.
>
> That would make it unnecessary for Oxyaena, Simpson, and Howler
> Monkey to try and make you out to be my innocent victim, as they
> are doing now.
>
> Because then we would have a mature adult conversation.

I don't think you're capable of any such thing, certainly not with me.

I think your confusion is one of scale. You see the cartoon pictures of
smooth plate movement over hundreds of miles, and you imagine that a
close-up view would be similar at a smaller scale. But plate boundaries
are not smooth, they don't slide smoothly past each other, and they
can't be distinguished on the small scale you are looking for. For
example, the San Andreas fault is not the sharp line you imagine but a
zone some hundreds of meters wide. And it's not the only fault on the
boundary between the North American and Pacific plates. In the Bay area
alone there are a dozen or so faults along which episodic movement
occurs, over a zone tens of miles wide. All the various displacements
along short sections of all these faults contributes to what, when we
zoom out in scale, is what we call plate movement.

[Oxyaena]

I wouldn't call that "stupidity", "ignorant" is a better word. Ignorance
and stupidity are two distinct concepts.

[Oxyaena]

We also have directly observed star *and* planetary formation FYI.

>
>
>>> "I still don't know what you mean" is based on this strawman
>>> of your own making, as though there were no more sensible
>>> meaning to my words than "with actual eyes, in real time".
>>
>> That's not even the meaning I supposed. But perhaps I now know what you
>> meant, and it's apparently just what I imagined.
>
> Unfortunately, you never spelled out what you imagined.
> Quite the contrary: you ducked a question which would have enabled
> you to clearly state what you imagined.
>
>
>> Unfortunately.
>
> You never explain this "Unfortunately." Instead you indulge in a
> shell game below, substituting "evidence of subduction" for
> "direct observation of subduction" and thereby creating a false
> virtual reality of "naivete" about me.

YOU were the one who mentioned cameras in the first place, you
pathological liar.

>
>>
>>> I say that's an insult, and I say to hell with it.
>>
>> !
>
> You continue to insult me below by falsely insinuating naivete
> on my part.
>

You are *very* naive on this subject, for wasn't it *you* whom
explicitly inquired whether we have footage of subduction in the first
place?

>
>>>> I'm assuming you
>>>> aren't stupid, which means that the obvious interpretation of what you
>>>> said must be incorrect.
>>>
>>> The "actual eyes" interpretation *might* be obvious if I were
>>> one of the little kids you taught once upon a time. It is extremely
>>> insulting to call that the "obvious interpretation" where someone
>>> as sophisticated scientifically as myself is concerned.
>>
>> Again, you are confused about what I meant.
>
> Why did you not SAY what you meant instead of using misleading words
> like "with actual eyes"?

Psychological projection noted.

[snip naivety and usual mindless bullshit]

> Perhaps you should stop accusing me of naivete and then never
> identifying anything that indicates naivete.
>
> That would make it unnecessary for Oxyaena, Simpson, and Howler
> Monkey to try and make you out to be my innocent victim, as they
> are doing now.

No, what we are doing is pointing out how much of a fool you really are.

>
> Because then we would have a mature adult conversation.

As if you of all people know what a "mature adult conversation" actually
*is*.

[snip grunting]

[Peter Nyikos]

You aren't the least bit afraid of spouting such nonsense.

> >>> "I still don't know what you mean" is based on this strawman
> >>> of your own making, as though there were no more sensible
> >>> meaning to my words than "with actual eyes, in real time".
> >>
> >> That's not even the meaning I supposed. But perhaps I now know what you
> >> meant, and it's apparently just what I imagined.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you never spelled out what you imagined.
> > Quite the contrary: you ducked a question which would have enabled
> > you to clearly state what you imagined.
>
> Let's be clear: you are supposing that we could see subduction
> happening, i.e. watch the movement of one plate under another, whether
> by camera or sonar or something else real-time. That is not true.

That depends on how grandiose a meaning you attach to your
ambiguous clause following "i.e."

> >> Unfortunately.
> >
> > You never explain this "Unfortunately." Instead you indulge in a
> > shell game below, substituting "evidence of subduction" for
> > "direct observation of subduction" and thereby creating a false
> > virtual reality of "naivete" about me.
>
> Sorry, too convoluted for me to parse properly.

The meaning became clear enough later on in the post.
Watch yourself making silly comments about an imagined "threat" of mine.

> >>> I say that's an insult, and I say to hell with it.
> >>
> >> !
> >
> > You continue to insult me below by falsely insinuating naivete
> > on my part.
>
> I do not believe that insinuation to be false. I don't think you know
> much about the subject and have a number of false assumptions.

You speculate about things you have no sound evidence for, meanwhile
spouting charges of "really stupid meaning" [1] and naivete based on your speculations.

[1] Earlier, see above. You've started pulling in your horns on that one.

>
> >>>> I'm assuming you
> >>>> aren't stupid, which means that the obvious interpretation of what you
> >>>> said must be incorrect.
> >>>
> >>> The "actual eyes" interpretation *might* be obvious if I were
> >>> one of the little kids you taught once upon a time. It is extremely
> >>> insulting to call that the "obvious interpretation" where someone
> >>> as sophisticated scientifically as myself is concerned.
> >>
> >> Again, you are confused about what I meant.
> >
> > Why did you not SAY what you meant instead of using misleading words
> > like "with actual eyes"?
>
> You misunderstand the import of the phrase.

Because, unlike the myriads [ok, maybe just thousands] of the things
you and Simpson have claimed me to be unclear about in the past decade,
you were not only unclear but misleading. Your over-the-top rhetoric
about "really stupid" could have fooled a number of people.

At the very least, some trolls like Howler Monkey could have acted
as though they had been fooled. When I call such incidents
to your attention, your standard reply has you living up to your
nickname, "DontWanna HearAboutIt".

> >> Actual eyes looking at a TV
> >> screen of a real-time picture would count too. But that also would be a
> >> truly naive view of evidence for subduction.
> >
> > So you think it is NOT evidence for subduction????
>
> Correct.

You certainly have a self-serving way of dealing with hypotheticals.
But it's partly my fault for being too much in a hurry and written
"is NOT" in place of "would NOT be". And that is the reply
your misdirection actually deserved.

> It's not evidence because there are not, could not be such
> real-time pictures showing subduction happening.

Not now, not even if technology advances to where there could be
myriads [literally] of cameras trained on the places at the
bottom of the trenches where plates physically meet?

You seem to have an awfully low opinion of what human beings
are capable of.


On-topic comparison: if you had been the seasoned polemicist that you
now are at the time the NYT scoffed at Goddard, you would probably have

a. claimed that although the NYT had the reasons wrong, human beings
could not ever land on the moon and

b. claimed that Goddard was a crackpot for thinking otherwise,
and then very gradually and reluctantly given reasons that become
less and less indicative of Goddard being a crackpot, but with
each argument "justifying" the preceding one.

If your hypothetical debating opponent were to persist long enough,
a lot of earlier and more aggressive allegations of crackpottery
would have become the analogue of what Oxyaena calls "zombie threads".
A "good cop" on your side would have said on similar grounds that
nobody is interested in that kind of talk any more, while you
stood there in silent agreement.

>
> > No, you are indulging in misleading language which tends to create the
> > impression that I think it is the ONLY evidence for subduction.
> > And you know that I think nothing of the sort.
>
> My misleading language creates that impression only in your mind, and
> would not do so in the mind of a normal person.

Unfortunately, neither Oxyaena nor Howler Monkey are normal people.
And while Oxyaena is enthralled by what Howler Monkey wrote on
this thread, Erik Simpson is very pointedly distancing himself from it.

> > And you keep doing it below, so my next comment will be more forceful
> > as a result.
>
> If you had any self-awareness, you would realize how ridiculous that
> threat sounds.

If you had any presence of mind, or even mature understanding of basic
English ["my next comment"] you would know that the next
thing I wrote was my fulfillment of the "threat".

You may wish to scroll up in Giganews, to see what the next thing
I wrote was, while I busy myself with other people for the rest
of this morning.

Then again, you may not be the least bit interested,
now that I've laid bare your ridiculous "threat" bilge.

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

PS If you've guessed that I intend to continue replying
to this silly post of yours in the afternoon, you've guessed right.

[John Harshman]

Yes. You don't understand what such cameras would see. They would see,
if anything, slippage along faults, and fairly often the starting of new
faults. It's only when we assemble all those little events into a
general pattern, over years, that we could interpret it at the progress
of subduction. Also, most of that slippage would be buried in deep-sea
sediments and so be unobservable even with a camera.

> You seem to have an awfully low opinion of what human beings
> are capable of.

Well, I observe the depths of paranoia and pettiness that you are
capable of. It's not our eventual ability to place cameras that's the
main problem. It's the nature of what they would see.

> On-topic comparison: if you had been the seasoned polemicist that you
> now are at the time the NYT scoffed at Goddard, you would probably have
>
> a. claimed that although the NYT had the reasons wrong, human beings
> could not ever land on the moon and
>
> b. claimed that Goddard was a crackpot for thinking otherwise,
> and then very gradually and reluctantly given reasons that become
> less and less indicative of Goddard being a crackpot, but with
> each argument "justifying" the preceding one.
>
> If your hypothetical debating opponent were to persist long enough,
> a lot of earlier and more aggressive allegations of crackpottery
> would have become the analogue of what Oxyaena calls "zombie threads".
> A "good cop" on your side would have said on similar grounds that
> nobody is interested in that kind of talk any more, while you
> stood there in silent agreement.

You can make up any scenario about my hypothetical reactions that you
like. Doesn't mean that it makes any sense. You are not Goddard, by any
stretch.

>>> And you keep doing it below, so my next comment will be more forceful
>>> as a result.
>>
>> If you had any self-awareness, you would realize how ridiculous that
>> threat sounds.
>
> If you had any presence of mind, or even mature understanding of basic
> English ["my next comment"] you would know that the next
> thing I wrote was my fulfillment of the "threat".

That's not the point. The point is that your threats, even if carried
out, are silly. "Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time. And I
will be even more savage."

[John Harshman]

On 2/15/19 4:03 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 2/14/2019 7:21 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/14/19 3:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> It is the transparency of John insulting my intelligence that
>>> is obvious.
>>
>> Turns out that the "insult" was justified. You really appear to know
>> nothing about the evidence for subduction and, freed from the bounds
>> of knowledge, imagined something absurd.
>
> I wouldn't call that "stupidity", "ignorant" is a better word. Ignorance
> and stupidity are two distinct concepts.
>

I suppose you're right. But it isn't just ignorance. It's
Dunning-Kruger: supposing, in your ignorance, that you know what you're
talking about.

[Oxyaena]

True, my impression has always been that Peter's always been a sufferer
of Dunning-Kruger. I stay away from topics I know I`m not qualified to
speak about, but people like Peter don't.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 2:31:36 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 13.2.2019. 15:32, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 9:37:35 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 13.2.2019. 0:32, Oxyaena wrote:
> >
> >>> I insulted Mario because he called me a crackpot without provocation.

I just realized: Oxyaena hasn't even TRIED to explain why she
killfiled you, Mario. Not in this sequence of exchanges, anyway.
She's just explaining why she insulted you -- obviously, you
were not in her killfile then, or else she used NGG instead of
"albasani," but that doesn't seem likely.

<snip for focus>

> >> Frankly, I don't remember any of this.

Do you remember ever being in her killfile? If so, did she give
a reason why she killfiled you?

> >> We were talking about
> >> crackpots, so I was talking also, probably some general stuff. I usually
> >> look at things generally, I don't see the need to address a person
> >> (usually).
> >
> > Oxyaena was quick to reply to a post I did after this one. But no
> > reply has come from her to this comment of yours.

That is still true; so, even if you are in her killfile now,
that's not a reason why she couldn't know about your denial of
remembering, since it's right here in my reply to you.

> > It all adds up: even if you had singled her out for the "crackpot"
> > designation, it would have been no worse than what she deserved after
> > joining Erik Simpson in implying that Wegener was a crackpot.

<snip for focus>

> >> Regarding insulting me, I didn't notice enough to remember it (I did
> >> probably notice it at the moment, though). You can insult me how much
> >> you want, it doesn't affect me much.
> >> In general I am seeking for some sense. I don't see this news group as
> >> a place where personal relationships should matter. To be honest, I am
> >> mostly exploiting people here for various reasons. To test some thesis,
> >> to learn something new, and things like that. When somebody posts
> >> something which isn't in that sense, I rarely take notice of it. You
> >> were probably saying something nonsensical. Probably I wouldn't answer
> >> at all, but if there was some general meme in your behaving, then I
> >> would address this meme, and deal with it.
> >
> > I'd say you are wise beyond your years, were you only half
> > as old as you are now. :)
>
> Yes, lol. Some things come with age. After all, this is how it should be.
> Young people are involved in building their position within society.
> It is hard for me to explain to them that I am, simply put, too old for
> this. After all, I am retired (within the society), this is my position,
> lol.

If you happen to know anyone half your age who is half as wise
as you and half as interested in paleontology (which includes, of course,
paleo-anthropology) do try to interest him/her in participating
in sci.bio.paleontology. It's very much in need of mature younger
participants.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:57:42 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/12/19 6:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:52:46 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

Rather than continuing to reply to your post that I started to reply
today, John, I thought I'd use the limited time available to me this evening
to finish where I left off in this earlier post.


> >> Now if I recall,
> >> subduction was inferred from the pattern of deep earthquakes in Benioff
> >> zones, the pattern of volcanic activity on island arcs, and the fact
> >> that the oldest oceanic crust is adjacent to ocean trenches.
> >
> > These are all indirect inferences, not observations of subduction,
>
> You understand that almost all of science does not consist of "direct
> observation", right? Nobody has seen an electron, or watched DNA
> replication, or the evolution of whales, or all manner of other things
> we know about.

Try telling me something I haven't known since the age of 15.
Then you would at least be interesting.


> > and the last is a minor variation on what I wrote directly
> > before the paragraph I re-quoted up there:
> >
> > "tectonics" is shorthand for the discovery that ocean bottom sediments
> > are less than 300 million years old, and the further they are from
> > the continental shelves, the younger they are as a (not hard and fast)
> > rule.
>
> Then you should congratulate yourself on your perspicacity.

You are congratulating me on a no-brainer of which I've been
aware for several decades, and which I keep reading about
periodically in diverse places.

Bo-o-o-o-ring!


> >> When this
> >> all happened is unclear to me; I'd have to google it, but you could
> >> probably do that.
> >
> > Sorry, I won't do your research for you on the indirect methods
> > which you "mistook" for what I meant. But since you were so
> > keen on them, this might count as a disappointment for you,
> > hence my use of the word "Sorry."
>
> Still don't know what you mean.

Do you even stop to think when you post this kind of bot,
or do you do it on automatic pilot? You don't even make clear
what it is you don't understand.


> But isn't that *your* research that I
> was doing for *you*?

No, see above about "no-brainer". I don't need overkill as far as evidence
for plate tectonics is concerned. Why you ever thought I wanted it --
assuming you even thought that -- is beyond me.


Peter Nyikos

Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 16.2.2019. 3:18, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 2:31:36 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 13.2.2019. 15:32, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 9:37:35 PM UTC-5, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 13.2.2019. 0:32, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I insulted Mario because he called me a crackpot without provocation.
>
> I just realized: Oxyaena hasn't even TRIED to explain why she
> killfiled you, Mario. Not in this sequence of exchanges, anyway.
> She's just explaining why she insulted you -- obviously, you
> were not in her killfile then, or else she used NGG instead of
> "albasani," but that doesn't seem likely.
>
> <snip for focus>
>
>>>> Frankly, I don't remember any of this.
>
> Do you remember ever being in her killfile? If so, did she give
> a reason why she killfiled you?

Now when you've said it, I, kind of, remember something vaguely. But
still, I am not quite sure.
I don't know. During my life I developed a kind of behavior that that
triggers responses from fools. That way I can quickly recognize who is a
fool. What's even better, I tend to trigger the response which would
make a fool happy to get rid of me (so that I don't waste my emotional
energy and my time on this, plus, that way I am 100% sure that I am
dealing with a fool). I am doing this because time is the most precious
thing to me, I simply don't have enough of time in my life, so I cannot
waste my time for no reason (waste it on fools). Since I am doing this
for whole my life, it practically became my second nature, so, I am
doing it even without thinking. And actually, since I triggered this, I
expect fools to react in a way to get rid of me, so I am not very
concerned when this actually happens. Actually, I am very pleased.
One example, you come to some news group, and start to answer your
posts. Somebody can think that I am not even capable to "express myself
correctly". So, he automatically moves away from me, no matter how much
logical is what I am actually writing. IOW, fools tend to be very
sensible on the form, but they are completely non-sensible to the
content (because content has logic in itself, which they are not capable
to understand). So, I drop them a bone on a form of non-standard form,
and voila, no more fools around me to waste my time on them.
Even better, smart people realize that it isn't my form that is
important, but the content, so they start to value me. Even better, with
this tactic pretty quickly I find myself surrounded by smart people, and
only by smart people.
Works every time, I tested the tactic numerous times, and it works
every time just like advertised.
So, yes, when I come into some news group very quickly all the fools
kill-file me, you wouldn't believe how fats it happens. So, I can do my
things in peace. I've gotten used to this a long time ago, so I don't
notice it at all. In fact, I am very happy that this is happening, I am
triggering it myself, lol.
Man, I know what I am doing, be calm about it, ;) .

Yes. Well, I did meat some pretty smart people when I was young
(smarter, or with a greater knowledge than I have), and I do see some
very smart young politicians in the world (not in Croatia, though). I
always wandered how they can be so smart, yet so young.
Regarding paleo-anthrpology, I am all by myself, I don't know anybody
in Croatia. I am just a retired train driver, who has this hobby,
nothing more. I am going out of my room once a week for 45 minutes, to
buy a lottery (because winning lottery is the only way for me to run out
of this Balkan shit-hole), and that's about it, :) .

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/14/19 3:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> [..]

> It is the transparency of John insulting my intelligence that
> is obvious.

To return to the original topic: A decent definition of a crackpot is
someone who, having made a proposal (especially but not exclusively a
scientific one), thinks that the people responding to it are insulting
his intelligence, when it is clear to most people that his reputation
for poor intelligence is entirely his own doing.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[Daud Deden]

THe topic is not crackpot, the topic is Crackpotteries.

[Peter Nyikos]

Now you have finally, belatedly, revealed that what was supposed
to be "really stupid" and "really naive" about my questions...

...namely, my never having seen the following claim about what is
observable of subduction from above the ocean floor:

> They would see,
> if anything, slippage along faults, and fairly often the starting of new
> faults. It's only when we assemble all those little events into a
> general pattern, over years, that we could interpret it at the progress
> of subduction.

Let me get this straight: subduction can only be inferred
from *lateral* slippages and the production of new faults??

Are we also supposed to think that the deep ocean trenches are
due to lateral slippages and the making of new faults?

> Also, most of that slippage would be buried in deep-sea
> sediments and so be unobservable even with a camera.

You are implying that even if cameras were trained at the
bottom of a subduction trench for millions of years,
NO camera would ever show itself being drawn towards the "sediment"
and then the visual record ending in blackness due to it having
been drawn into the sediment?

And I was "really stupid" and "really naive" for not knowing this?

>
> > You seem to have an awfully low opinion of what human beings
> > are capable of.
>
> Well, I observe the depths of paranoia and pettiness that you are
> capable of.

Dr. Dr. Kleinman style non sequitur noted. But even the Dr. Dr.
was never this abusive of anyone but Bill Rogers, in my
experience.

And those "depths" are less than the depth of pettiness
of this non sequitur. And no paranoia by me can match
the depth to which you descended at the end.


<snip of things to be dealt with in separate post>

> >>> And you keep doing it below, so my next comment will be more forceful
> >>> as a result.
> >>
> >> If you had any self-awareness, you would realize how ridiculous that
> >> threat sounds.

This was paranoia, using the word "threat" for such a statement.

You might not think of it as paranoia, but I can't think of
anything I ever wrote that is AS indicative of paranoia on
my part.

Let's see an example where you weren't crying "Wolf!" if you
disagree.

> > If you had any presence of mind, or even mature understanding of basic
> > English ["my next comment"] you would know that the next
> > thing I wrote was my fulfillment of the "threat".
>
> That's not the point. The point is that your threats, even if carried
> out, are silly. "Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time. And I
> will be even more savage."

Dishonest use of the word "taunt" noted.

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

PS the rest of your post will probably be replied to only
tomorrow. Duty calls.

[erik simpson]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 1:05:17 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> You are implying that even if cameras were trained at the
> bottom of a subduction trench for millions of years,
> NO camera would ever show itself being drawn towards the "sediment"
> and then the visual record ending in blackness due to it having
> been drawn into the sediment?

If all it would take to convince you of subduction is watching a camera
disappear into the ooze, you don't need to wait millions of years. The
subduction rate is typically on the order of centimeters/year. Of course,
the camera might be mounted on a section that is "locked", so it might be some
time before there was any detectable motion, and when the motion finally
occurred if could be very violent, accompanied by clouds of displaced ooze.
The Cascadia subduction zone may the most active, and estimates of magnitude 9
earthquake intervals are on the order of hundreds of years.

Now you can remind me that you've known this since you were 15, or thereabouts.
In which case, why are you carrying on like this?

[John Harshman]

Sorry. It's hard to tell how much you don't know. The shape of your lack
of knowledge is only slowly emerging.

> ...namely, my never having seen the following claim about what is
> observable of subduction from above the ocean floor:
>
>
>> They would see,
>> if anything, slippage along faults, and fairly often the starting of new
>> faults. It's only when we assemble all those little events into a
>> general pattern, over years, that we could interpret it at the progress
>> of subduction.
>
> Let me get this straight: subduction can only be inferred
> from *lateral* slippages and the production of new faults??
>
> Are we also supposed to think that the deep ocean trenches are
> due to lateral slippages and the making of new faults?

No. Wherever would you get that idea? The faults in question would of
course be thrust faults.

>> Also, most of that slippage would be buried in deep-sea
>> sediments and so be unobservable even with a camera.
>
> You are implying that even if cameras were trained at the
> bottom of a subduction trench for millions of years,
> NO camera would ever show itself being drawn towards the "sediment"
> and then the visual record ending in blackness due to it having
> been drawn into the sediment?

Well, it wouldn't be drawn "into the sediment". But it would be drawn
further into the trench. Most likely it would be part of the sediments
scraped off the top of the subducting plate, though. Probably wouldn't
be subducted. Now, one can observe plate movement using sensitive
detectors of position sitting on different plates, generally far from
plate boundaries. But I don't think you would call that "observing
subduction".

> And I was "really stupid" and "really naive" for not knowing this?

I never suggested that you were stupid. But yes, you are highly naive
about plate tectonics, and this is emphasized by your misplaced
confidence in your knowledge.

>>> You seem to have an awfully low opinion of what human beings
>>> are capable of.
>>
>> Well, I observe the depths of paranoia and pettiness that you are
>> capable of.
>
> Dr. Dr. Kleinman style non sequitur noted. But even the Dr. Dr.
> was never this abusive of anyone but Bill Rogers, in my
> experience.
>
> And those "depths" are less than the depth of pettiness
> of this non sequitur. And no paranoia by me can match
> the depth to which you descended at the end.

We disagree on everything you said up there.

>>>>> And you keep doing it below, so my next comment will be more forceful
>>>>> as a result.
>>>>
>>>> If you had any self-awareness, you would realize how ridiculous that
>>>> threat sounds.
>
> This was paranoia, using the word "threat" for such a statement.
>
> You might not think of it as paranoia, but I can't think of
> anything I ever wrote that is AS indicative of paranoia on
> my part.
>
> Let's see an example where you weren't crying "Wolf!" if you
> disagree.

I do not choose to go into that much off-topic nonsense.

>>> If you had any presence of mind, or even mature understanding of basic
>>> English ["my next comment"] you would know that the next
>>> thing I wrote was my fulfillment of the "threat".
>>
>> That's not the point. The point is that your threats, even if carried
>> out, are silly. "Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time. And I
>> will be even more savage."
>
> Dishonest use of the word "taunt" noted.

More evidence of your lack of any sense of humor: your ignorance of the
source of that quote.

[erik simpson]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/19/19 1:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 10:44:47 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/15/19 7:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

.....

>
> >>> If you had any presence of mind, or even mature understanding of basic
> >>> English ["my next comment"] you would know that the next
> >>> thing I wrote was my fulfillment of the "threat".
> >>
> >> That's not the point. The point is that your threats, even if carried
> >> out, are silly. "Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time. And I
> >> will be even more savage."
> >
> > Dishonest use of the word "taunt" noted.
>
> More evidence of your lack of any sense of humor: your ignorance of the
> source of that quote.

I believe he's already claimed he walked out on the movie at the Black Knight
scene, so he missed the French taunting.

[John Harshman]

I seem to recall that the taunting came first. But yes, the fact that he
walked out is an excellent demonstration that he has no sense of humor.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 6:22:46 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 1:05:17 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > You are implying that even if cameras were trained at the
> > bottom of a subduction trench for millions of years,
> > NO camera would ever show itself being drawn towards the "sediment"
> > and then the visual record ending in blackness due to it having
> > been drawn into the sediment?
>
> If all it would take to convince you of subduction is watching a camera
> disappear into the ooze,

Then you are completely missing my point, probably intentionally.

It's only got to do with John Harshman having repeatedly and
gratuitously insulted me by claiming that I've made
"really stupid" and "really naive" comments, and dragging out
this sub-thread long enough to get in as many insults
as possible before beginning to explain what they are really
all about.

But you are such a blindly loyal net.sideckick of John's
that you've been known to lie that "it is obvious that"
I am "trying to pick a fight" with him for complaining about
this kind of treatment.

And even now, he is so unclear that I was
impelled to ask the above question. You snipped the
evidence for that, again out of blind loyalty to him.

> you don't need to wait millions of years. The
> subduction rate is typically on the order of centimeters/year. Of course,
> the camera might be mounted on a section that is "locked", so it might be some
> time before there was any detectable motion, and when the motion finally
> occurred if could be very violent, accompanied by clouds of displaced ooze.
> The Cascadia subduction zone may the most active, and estimates of magnitude 9
> earthquake intervals are on the order of hundreds of years.


> Now you can remind me that you've known this since you were 15, or thereabouts.
> In which case, why are you carrying on like this?

You have shown how appropriate it is for me to characterize you thus:

The most disingenuously dishonest regular in t.o. and s.b.p.

This is quite different from Oxyaena's status:

The most ruthlessly dishonest regular in t.o. and s.b.p.

Oxyaena acted in conformity to this status by calling me
an "asswipe" for claiming that these two statuses are
NOT the same, along with the statuses where
"cunningly" and "dangerously" are substituted after "most".

I also have three other superlatives in mind, each of which
is exemplified by a different person:

self-righteously flippantly condescendingly

I should add that all seven people have all these seven "powers"
to a greater or lesser extent, which may ameliorate the degree of
dishonesty of Oxyaena in the aforementioned attack.


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

How so? You regularly remind readers that "I've known that since I was 12 (or
15, your latest claim). Yet you ask questions that if that were true, you
would already know the answers to. What do you think the difference is
between disingenuous and dishonest? Is English your second language? What word
would you use to described such questions? "Self-righteous, flippant, condescending" apply to others as well. Can you imagine where you stand?

[Peter Nyikos]

Only about a few select things, you insincere jerk.

> Yet you ask questions that if that were true, you
> would already know the answers to.

Conspicuous failure to identify such alleged questions noted.

> What do you think the difference is
> between disingenuous and dishonest?

One can be dishonest without being disingenuous.
As if you didn't know.

> Is English your second language?

Your preceding question suggests that English only became
your language of choice well into adulthood -- if ever.

Full disclosure: English IS my second language,
but it superseded Hungarian as my language
of choice by the time I was 8 years old.

> What word
> would you use to described such questions? "Self-righteous, flippant, condescending" apply to others as well. Can you imagine where you stand?

Your chaotic questions reveal that all these years,
you were projecting your inability to be clear onto me,
with your perennial scam which Robert Camp, Mark Isaak,
and Hemidactylus did their incompetent "best" to exonerate you from.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

Inability to answer question noted.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>


--
"Step back and smell the ashes." - Unknown

http://oxyaena.coffeecup.com/

[erik simpson]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 11:46:53 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:

.....

> Full disclosure: English IS my second language,
> but it superseded Hungarian as my language
> of choice by the time I was 8 years old.
>

Maybe it would be better if you posted in Hungarian. You wouldn't suffer nearly
as much abuse that you must respond to and you'd have more time for serious
comments.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> Your chaotic questions reveal that all these years,
> you were projecting your inability to be clear onto me,
> with your perennial scam which Robert Camp, Mark Isaak,
> and Hemidactylus did their incompetent "best" to exonerate you from.
>

Why am I now at least twice being referred to in a sci. group of which I am
not a participant? Does this place have a charter? A moderator? No? Is it
some frontier town?

[erik simpson]

I believe there's a charter, but there ain't no sheriff. The frontier town is
a perceptive simile. You should know that Peter is an "open-borders" guy. I
can't recall how and when you "exonerated" me, but thanks. I understand he
bad-mouths people all the time in fora I'm unaware of. He's constantly trying
to recruit allies (even Glenn), but it doesn't seem to work, for some reason.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 11:39:54 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 6:29:10 PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > Your chaotic questions reveal that all these years,
> > > you were projecting your inability to be clear onto me,
> > > with your perennial scam which Robert Camp, Mark Isaak,
> > > and Hemidactylus did their incompetent "best" to exonerate you from.
> > >
> > Why am I now at least twice being referred to in a sci. group of which I am
> > not a participant? Does this place have a charter? A moderator? No? Is it
> > some frontier town?


> I believe there's a charter, but there ain't no sheriff.

But this WAS a civilized place for over two glorious years (April 2015
until late in 2017) until you decided that turning it back into a
frontier town would be more fun than continuing to uphold civilized ways.

> The frontier town is
> a perceptive simile.

It's a rare newsgroup that isn't like that nowadays. The exceptions
have mostly been killed by boredom AFAIK, including the moderated
sci.bio.evolution.


When I started in 1992 in Usenet, I soon saw that talk.abortion
had been taken over by outlaws. When I joined talk.origins in 1995,
I saw that it too was dominated by outlaws. I mean in the sense
that habitual liars pretty much had their way with the place,
and few people had the gumption to stand up to them and
"tell it like it is." They are even scarcer now.

For years I wistfully hoped that some posse would come riding into
talk.abortion and round up the outlaws. By the time I came to
talk.origins I had realized no such thing would ever happen, anywhere.

> You should know that Peter is an "open-borders" guy. I
> can't recall how and when you "exonerated" me, but thanks.

Hemi tried hard, but he only wound up damaging his credibility
since he tried not just to exonerate you but Camp. My guess
is that as soon as you saw Camp blast away at me, you figured
that left you off the hook, so you stopped even lurking. That
would account for your inability recall anything that
happened after that.

Anyway, Hemidactylus should be glad that I let you know how
he went out of his way to do the sort of thing that wins
all kinds of brownie points in talk.origins.

I mean, who besides me is up in arms about dishonesty and hypocrisy
over there? Even Glenn seems far more interested in who is sympathetic
towards creationism and who is not.

> I understand he
> bad-mouths people all the time in fora I'm unaware of.

You understand wrong. You are aware of sci.anthropology.paleo and
that is the only "foreign" place where I mentioned you, and I think it was
only once.

John Harshman got mentioned for several posts in January over there,
but he's the only person like that.

I browbeat JTEM over there for having disappeared just as he had
Harshman on the ropes, having made Harshman look like a troll
and himself like he was feeding the troll. My parting shot was something
one of Hannibal's generals told him once:

You know how to win battles, but you don't know how to follow them up.

But that's all you'll get about him out of me, unless he returns
to sci.bio.paleontology. If you are curious, you can find it all
out easily anyway.

> He's constantly trying
> to recruit allies (even Glenn), but it doesn't seem to work, for some reason.

"constantly" is a bare faced lie, probably told to make Hemidactylus feel
good after the shellacking I gave him today. I don't think you can name
a single such action before this week.

If you are thinking of Mario, I am trying to become a good friend of his.
I respect his unwillingness to get tangled up in the personal conflicts
that swirl around him.

But true friendship is something I think you will never understand.
I suspect you have become fond of making
common cause with unscrupulous people like Oxyaena and Hemidactylus
and Harshman [although John is not quite as copiously unscrupulous
as the three of you] due to your life being devoid of true friendship.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 2/26/19 6:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> John Harshman got mentioned for several posts in January over there,
> but he's the only person like that.

Out of that whole psychotic screed, this stood out. Would it be too
self-centered of me to ask what you're talking about?

[erik simpson]

Thanks for clearing everything up, I guess.

[Peter Nyikos]

There is no disgrace for not knowing what, if anything, is wrong with
my cautious words which have been subjected to shower after shower
of insults by you:

Direct observation of there being
crust deeper in the trench than it was before, but the trench
being no deeper than it was before, would count.

We might at some time actually have a visual record of crust
disappearing into the bottom of a trench, but I'm not that choosy.
OTOH it would be "way cool" [as the kids you once taught put it]
to actually see something like that, so much so that it's a "natural"
for some kind of award.

> > ...namely, my never having seen the following claim about what is
> > observable of subduction from above the ocean floor:
> >
> >
> >> They would see,
> >> if anything, slippage along faults, and fairly often the starting of new
> >> faults. It's only when we assemble all those little events into a
> >> general pattern, over years, that we could interpret it at the progress
> >> of subduction.
> >
> > Let me get this straight: subduction can only be inferred
> > from *lateral* slippages and the production of new faults??

Failure to address this question, noted. By "lateral" I meant
what geologists call "strike-slip."

> > Are we also supposed to think that the deep ocean trenches are
> > due to lateral slippages and the making of new faults?
>
> No. Wherever would you get that idea?

From the words you wrote, which seem to deny any dip-slip component
to what we would see.

> The faults in question would of
> course be thrust faults.

Why "of course"? Thrust faults are low-angle (less than 30 degrees
from the horizontal). Do you have any documentation that the
faults associated with deep sea trenches are low-angle?

One thing is certain: they are reverse faults in which the
dip-slip component of the net slip vector is greater than
the strike-slip component. So I cannot understand why you
wrote what you did about what cameras could witness.

> >> Also, most of that slippage would be buried in deep-sea
> >> sediments and so be unobservable even with a camera.

This seems to make no sense. If a huge sheet of paper
slips slightly across a table and a little bit of it
sticks over the edge enough to "disappear" from one's
perspective, that would hardly justify the claim that most
of the slippage had not been observed.

> > You are implying that even if cameras were trained at the
> > bottom of a subduction trench for millions of years,
> > NO camera would ever show itself being drawn towards the "sediment"
> > and then the visual record ending in blackness due to it having
> > been drawn into the sediment?
>
> Well, it wouldn't be drawn "into the sediment". But it would be drawn
> further into the trench.

You seem to be contradicting the claim that such movement "into the
trench" cannot be accompanied by a record of crust disappearing

into the trench.

> Most likely it would be part of the sediments
> scraped off the top of the subducting plate, though.

Your lack of clarity is getting worse and worse. Sounds like
you are calling a camera "part of the sediments."

> Probably wouldn't be subducted.

Huge backpedal from "really stupid", and "really naive," noted.

> Now, one can observe plate movement using sensitive
> detectors of position sitting on different plates, generally far from
> plate boundaries. But I don't think you would call that "observing
> subduction".
>
> > And I was "really stupid" and "really naive" for not knowing this?
>
> I never suggested that you were stupid. But yes, you are highly naive
> about plate tectonics, and this is emphasized by your misplaced
> confidence in your knowledge.

Perhaps you are more guilty than I am, now that you have
VERY BELATEDLY gotten specific enough about what you think
is wrong with what I wrote. Your earlier hints
were too vague for me to even request documentation.

You've turned this sub-thread into a farce by heaping insult
upon insult in each successive post while holding back
on what is behind these insults.


<snip additional gratuitous insults by yourself on a wide range of off-topic "issues">

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 12:29:58 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/19/19 8:30 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/19/19 1:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 10:44:47 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 2/15/19 7:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> > .....
> >>
> >>>>> If you had any presence of mind, or even mature understanding of basic
> >>>>> English ["my next comment"] you would know that the next
> >>>>> thing I wrote was my fulfillment of the "threat".
> >>>>
> >>>> That's not the point. The point is that your threats, even if carried
> >>>> out, are silly. "Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time. And I
> >>>> will be even more savage."
> >>>
> >>> Dishonest use of the word "taunt" noted.
> >>
> >> More evidence of your lack of any sense of humor: your ignorance of the
> >> source of that quote.

Truly bizarre, this implication that not knowing the source of
a quote is evidence of a lack of humor.

> > I believe he's already claimed he walked out on the movie at the Black Knight
> > scene, so he missed the French taunting.

That movie was one of less than half a dozen that I've walked
out on in my whole life. Another was "Cabaret". As I've commented
before, there is something very wrong with a movie in which
the only person with a (tragically misguided) sense of purpose
and direction in life is a Hitler Jugend singing
"The future belongs to me."

You, John, seem to have very little sense of purpose or direction,
so you may have thoroughly enjoyed every minute of "Cabaret."
The same applies *a* *fortiori* to Erik.

> >
> I seem to recall that the taunting came first. But yes, the fact that he
> walked out is an excellent demonstration that he has no sense of humor.

You are giving away the fact that this "no sense of humor" is
a generic insult with only illogic behind it.

I've told you that the reason I walked out is that I had never
seen a human being indulge in behavior even remotely like
that of the Black Knight.

I've seen and experienced a great deal of evil and bizarre
behavior in my life, but up until about a decade AFTER I
saw that movie, nothing remotely like it had ever come to
my attention.

It was only after a year or so of experience in talk.abortion
that I found out, to my amazement, that this scene is a brilliant
satire on a kind of person that is all too common there, and
in talk.origins, and elsewhere on the internet.

So now, of course I see the humor in it.


Did you grow up surrounded by Black Knight types, John?
If so, it's no surprise that you are comfortable hobnobbing
with Black Knights Oxyaena and Erik here: they are known
quantities to you. [I should add that your style is different.]
Also with a number of other Black Knights in talk.origins.


Did people who had a robust sense of justice and fair play
give you a wide berth? That would explain why you can never
warm to me.


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

Is there someone else up there we could talk to?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 10:20:30 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/26/19 6:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > John Harshman got mentioned for several posts in January over there,
> > but he's the only person like that.
>
> Out of that whole psychotic screed,

Your characterization of a narration of some game-changing
events as "psychotic" is a deeply troubling symptom of your
current state of mind, whatever it is. Far be it from me to
attempt to categorize it.

> this stood out. Would it be too
> self-centered of me to ask what you're talking about?

No, only disingenuous: you snipped the description
that immediately followed:

I browbeat JTEM over there for having disappeared just as he had
Harshman on the ropes, having made Harshman look like a troll
and himself like he was feeding the troll. My parting shot was
something one of Hannibal's generals told him once:

You know how to win battles, but you don't
know how to follow them up.

It should be obvious that this referred to JTEM's only long
stay in s.b.p. You and he had a long running game of "chicken"
about sperm selection in hominids, in which you kept up
a near-broken-record routine like some troll.

I even commented explicitly on that as the drama unfolded,
and about how JTEM "fed the troll" with repeated ABSOLUTELY STANDARD
exhortations to stop wanting to be spoon-fed and "do your own
research" and other comments to that effect.

You must have realized that such exhortations are
so common that they are fully accepted by onlookers
unless there is something clearly insincere in them.

You yourself say "Google is your friend" quite often,
and I've never known you to be insincere in THAT respect.

And yet you stubbornly held out for many repetitions
of this drama, until you finally asked JTEM a question
that you had carefully avoided asking. Can you remember
what it was?


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 2:10:36 PM UTC-5, Daud Deden wrote:

>
> https://phys.org/news/2019-02-massive-bolivian-earthquake-reveals-mountains.html

Daud, I'm sorry it took me so long to reply to this post.
You really should have let us know about the sensational findings
it records.

It only takes a minute to post this much:

"They find that Earth's deep layers are just as complicated as what we observe at the surface," said seismologist Christine Houser, an assistant professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology who was not involved in this research. "To find 2-mile (1-3 km) elevation changes on a boundary that is over 400 miles (660 km) deep using waves that travel through the entire Earth and back is an inspiring feat. ... Their findings suggest that as earthquakes occur and seismic instruments become more sophisticated and expand into new areas, we will continue to detect new small-scale signals which reveal new properties of Earth's layers."


But what makes it especially relevant to this thread is the following
information about the hidden consequences of subduction.


Scientists have long debated the fate of the slabs of sea floor that get pushed into the mantle at subduction zones, the collisions happening found all around the Pacific Ocean and elsewhere around the world. Wu and Irving suggest that remnants of these slabs may now be just above or just below the 660-km boundary.

"It's easy to assume, given we can only detect seismic waves traveling through the Earth in its current state, that seismologists can't help understand how Earth's interior has changed over the past 4.5 billion years," said Irving. "What's exciting about these results is that they give us new information to understand the fate of ancient tectonic plates which have descended into the mantle, and where ancient mantle material might still reside."


Great catch, Daud. Keep up the good work!

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

Univ. of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

On 2/27/2019 2:24 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip screeching]

>
>
> Did people who had a robust sense of justice and fair play
> give you a wide berth? That would explain why you can never
> warm to me.
>

"Robust sense of justice and fair play" my ass. This is rich coming from
the guy who repeatedly libeled me over calling Wegener a crackpot, even
when called out on it.

[John Harshman]

No insults, just observations. And of course there's no disgrace in
ignorance. The disgrace is in thinking you know better.

> Direct observation of there being
> crust deeper in the trench than it was before, but the trench
> being no deeper than it was before, would count.
>
> We might at some time actually have a visual record of crust
> disappearing into the bottom of a trench, but I'm not that choosy.
> OTOH it would be "way cool" [as the kids you once taught put it]
> to actually see something like that, so much so that it's a "natural"
> for some kind of award.

This implies a sharp line between plates of the sort you see in the
cartoon diagrams of plate tectonics explanations. In reality, there is
nothing you could call a line. Now of course there is more or less
direct observation of plate movement, generally by tracking the
distances between widely separated points on different plates.

>>> ...namely, my never having seen the following claim about what is
>>> observable of subduction from above the ocean floor:
>>>
>>>
>>>> They would see,
>>>> if anything, slippage along faults, and fairly often the starting of new
>>>> faults. It's only when we assemble all those little events into a
>>>> general pattern, over years, that we could interpret it at the progress
>>>> of subduction.
>>>
>>> Let me get this straight: subduction can only be inferred
>>> from *lateral* slippages and the production of new faults??
>
> Failure to address this question, noted. By "lateral" I meant
> what geologists call "strike-slip."

The response to the next sentence was also intended as a response to
that one.

>>> Are we also supposed to think that the deep ocean trenches are
>>> due to lateral slippages and the making of new faults?
>>
>> No. Wherever would you get that idea?
>
> From the words you wrote, which seem to deny any dip-slip component
> to what we would see.

That was your misunderstanding.

>> The faults in question would of
>> course be thrust faults.
>
> Why "of course"? Thrust faults are low-angle (less than 30 degrees
> from the horizontal). Do you have any documentation that the
> faults associated with deep sea trenches are low-angle?

This is something you could presumably look up yourself. But it turns
out not to be easy to find a clear description online. You might try a
plate tectonics text. Anyway, Wikipedia has this under "Thrust Fault":

"Thrusts and duplexes are also found in accretionary wedges in the ocean
trench margin of subduction zones, where oceanic sediments are scraped
off the subducted plate and accumulate. Here, the accretionary wedge
must thicken by up to 200% and this is achieved by stacking thrust fault
upon thrust fault in a melange of disrupted rock, often with chaotic
folding. Here, ramp flat geometries are not usually observed because the
compressional force is at a steep angle to the sedimentary layering."

> One thing is certain: they are reverse faults in which the
> dip-slip component of the net slip vector is greater than
> the strike-slip component. So I cannot understand why you
> wrote what you did about what cameras could witness.

I will accept that you misunderstood. No need to harp on it.

>>>> Also, most of that slippage would be buried in deep-sea
>>>> sediments and so be unobservable even with a camera.
>
> This seems to make no sense. If a huge sheet of paper
> slips slightly across a table and a little bit of it
> sticks over the edge enough to "disappear" from one's
> perspective, that would hardly justify the claim that most
> of the slippage had not been observed.

That's a weird analogy. What I mean is that the faults along with the
subduction occurs do not reach the surface of the sediments and so would
not be seen by cameras. Nor would the sediment close to the fault be
carried along. It would pile up in the trench, through there would be
faults in the sediment, but not the same as those in the underlying
crust, accompanying this.

>>> You are implying that even if cameras were trained at the
>>> bottom of a subduction trench for millions of years,
>>> NO camera would ever show itself being drawn towards the "sediment"
>>> and then the visual record ending in blackness due to it having
>>> been drawn into the sediment?
>>
>> Well, it wouldn't be drawn "into the sediment". But it would be drawn
>> further into the trench.
>
> You seem to be contradicting the claim that such movement "into the
> trench" cannot be accompanied by a record of crust disappearing
> into the trench.

Well, it wouldn't be seen disappearing, but one might see movement in
the direction of the trench. Still, I'm not sure I would call that real
evidence of subduction. Seismic imaging of the descending plate, as well
as the pattern of deep earthquakes, is generally considered the best
evidence.

>> Most likely it would be part of the sediments
>> scraped off the top of the subducting plate, though.
>
> Your lack of clarity is getting worse and worse. Sounds like
> you are calling a camera "part of the sediments."

Sure. It's an object on the surface of the sediment. Part of the
sediments. How is that unclear?

>> Probably wouldn't be subducted.
>
> Huge backpedal from "really stupid", and "really naive," noted.

You have a lot of trouble reading. No backpedal.

>> Now, one can observe plate movement using sensitive
>> detectors of position sitting on different plates, generally far from
>> plate boundaries. But I don't think you would call that "observing
>> subduction".
>>
>>> And I was "really stupid" and "really naive" for not knowing this?
>>
>> I never suggested that you were stupid. But yes, you are highly naive
>> about plate tectonics, and this is emphasized by your misplaced
>> confidence in your knowledge.
>
> Perhaps you are more guilty than I am,

Or perhaps not.

> now that you have
> VERY BELATEDLY gotten specific enough about what you think
> is wrong with what I wrote. Your earlier hints
> were too vague for me to even request documentation.
>
> You've turned this sub-thread into a farce by heaping insult
> upon insult in each successive post while holding back
> on what is behind these insults.

No insults were intended, and I don't think any were delivered either.

[John Harshman]

On 2/27/19 11:24 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 12:29:58 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/19/19 8:30 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/19/19 1:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 10:44:47 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/15/19 7:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>
>>> .....
>>>>
>>>>>>> If you had any presence of mind, or even mature understanding of basic
>>>>>>> English ["my next comment"] you would know that the next
>>>>>>> thing I wrote was my fulfillment of the "threat".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not the point. The point is that your threats, even if carried
>>>>>> out, are silly. "Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time. And I
>>>>>> will be even more savage."
>>>>>
>>>>> Dishonest use of the word "taunt" noted.
>>>>
>>>> More evidence of your lack of any sense of humor: your ignorance of the
>>>> source of that quote.
>
> Truly bizarre, this implication that not knowing the source of
> a quote is evidence of a lack of humor.

No problem. You provide plenty of additional evidence below. But don't
worry; nobody expects you to see it, and all the rest of us already
know. Be assured, though, that anyone reading this will find what
follows here very amusing, though also a bit pathetic.

[John Harshman]

On 2/27/19 11:49 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 10:20:30 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/26/19 6:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> John Harshman got mentioned for several posts in January over there,
>>> but he's the only person like that.
>>
>> Out of that whole psychotic screed,
>
> Your characterization of a narration of some game-changing
> events as "psychotic" is a deeply troubling symptom of your
> current state of mind, whatever it is. Far be it from me to
> attempt to categorize it.

This is unique in my experience: Peter Nyikos at a loss for adjectives.

>> this stood out. Would it be too
>> self-centered of me to ask what you're talking about?
>
> No, only disingenuous: you snipped the description
> that immediately followed:
>
> I browbeat JTEM over there for having disappeared just as he had
> Harshman on the ropes, having made Harshman look like a troll
> and himself like he was feeding the troll. My parting shot was
> something one of Hannibal's generals told him once:
>
> You know how to win battles, but you don't
> know how to follow them up.

Is that all? I thought it might be something more interesting.

I'll just snip all the rest of your gross misunderstanding of what happened.

[Peter Nyikos]

The time has suddenly become ripe for me to revive
this old thread.

By that standard, your phony spiel on the "Pachystrutio..."
thread about alleged insults by me was a complete waste of time,
because every "insult" about which you complained was actually an observation.


However, in this matter of subduction, you have failed to show that
your allegations were observations up to here. Let's see whether you finally did that below.
[Scrolling up after finishing everything I wrote below: the answer is a resounding NO.]

> And of course there's no disgrace in
> ignorance. The disgrace is in thinking you know better.
>
> > Direct observation of there being
> > crust deeper in the trench than it was before, but the trench
> > being no deeper than it was before, would count.
> >
> > We might at some time actually have a visual record of crust
> > disappearing into the bottom of a trench, but I'm not that choosy.
> > OTOH it would be "way cool" [as the kids you once taught put it]
> > to actually see something like that, so much so that it's a "natural"
> > for some kind of award.
>
> This implies a sharp line between plates of the sort you see in the
> cartoon diagrams of plate tectonics explanations.

I made no such implication, and do not subscribe to one.

> In reality, there is
> nothing you could call a line. Now of course there is more or less
> direct observation of plate movement, generally by tracking the
> distances between widely separated points on different plates.
>
> >>> ...namely, my never having seen the following claim about what is
> >>> observable of subduction from above the ocean floor:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> They would see,
> >>>> if anything, slippage along faults, and fairly often the starting of new
> >>>> faults. It's only when we assemble all those little events into a
> >>>> general pattern, over years, that we could interpret it at the progress
> >>>> of subduction.
> >>>
> >>> Let me get this straight: subduction can only be inferred
> >>> from *lateral* slippages and the production of new faults??
> >
> > Failure to address this question, noted. By "lateral" I meant
> > what geologists call "strike-slip."
>
> The response to the next sentence was also intended as a response to
> that one.

Noncommittal.

> >>> Are we also supposed to think that the deep ocean trenches are
> >>> due to lateral slippages and the making of new faults?
> >>
> >> No. Wherever would you get that idea?
> >
> > From the words you wrote, which seem to deny any dip-slip component
> > to what we would see.
>
> That was your misunderstanding.

You make no effort to correct this alleged "misunderstanding."

> >> The faults in question would of
> >> course be thrust faults.
> >
> > Why "of course"? Thrust faults are low-angle (less than 30 degrees
> > from the horizontal). Do you have any documentation that the
> > faults associated with deep sea trenches are low-angle?
>
> This is something you could presumably look up yourself. But it turns
> out not to be easy to find a clear description online.

So much for your "Of course".

>You might try a
> plate tectonics text. Anyway, Wikipedia has this under "Thrust Fault":
>
> "Thrusts and duplexes are also found in accretionary wedges in the ocean
> trench margin of subduction zones, where oceanic sediments are scraped
> off the subducted plate and accumulate. Here, the accretionary wedge
> must thicken by up to 200% and this is achieved by stacking thrust fault
> upon thrust fault in a melange of disrupted rock, often with chaotic
> folding. Here, ramp flat geometries are not usually observed because the
> compressional force is at a steep angle to the sedimentary layering."

Not very helpful. Didn't you notice the word "margin"
in the beginning sentence?
Naturally, one would expect smaller angles there than
away from the margins.

> > One thing is certain: they are reverse faults in which the
> > dip-slip component of the net slip vector is greater than
> > the strike-slip component. So I cannot understand why you
> > wrote what you did about what cameras could witness.
>
> I will accept that you misunderstood. No need to harp on it.

I will accept that you are discombobulated by the technical,
but still elementary geological terms and information that I have been using,
and are trying to beat a retreat while pretending to still be on top of the situation.

> >>>> Also, most of that slippage would be buried in deep-sea
> >>>> sediments and so be unobservable even with a camera.
> >
> > This seems to make no sense. If a huge sheet of paper
> > slips slightly across a table and a little bit of it
> > sticks over the edge enough to "disappear" from one's
> > perspective, that would hardly justify the claim that most
> > of the slippage had not been observed.
>
> That's a weird analogy. What I mean is that the faults along with the
> subduction occurs do not reach the surface of the sediments and so would
> not be seen by cameras.

Finally, you reveal what you could have revealed many posts earlier.
Evidently you enjoyed hurling <ahem> observations at me so much, you
decided to prolong the pleasure.

But you are hamstrung by a lack of imagination. There need be no
direct observation of sediment disappearing into the trench.


One could rig up cameras at various distances from the
bottom of the trench,
and have the ones further away be trained on the closer ones, but
with the trench in the background. Then the ones further away could
confirm progress of the closer ones to the bottom of the trench.

The big newsworthy event would come when a camera disappeared into the sediment,
and the footage [or whatever the right word is in this digital age]
from the near camera would suddenly show blank darkness, while the other
cameras monitoring it would confirm the disappearance, perhaps directly.

> Nor would the sediment close to the fault be
> carried along. It would pile up in the trench, through there would be
> faults in the sediment, but not the same as those in the underlying
> crust, accompanying this.

This seems inconsistent with what you wrote below,
earlier.

>
> >>> You are implying that even if cameras were trained at the
> >>> bottom of a subduction trench for millions of years,
> >>> NO camera would ever show itself being drawn towards the "sediment"
> >>> and then the visual record ending in blackness due to it having
> >>> been drawn into the sediment?
> >>
> >> Well, it wouldn't be drawn "into the sediment". But it would be drawn
> >> further into the trench.
> >
> > You seem to be contradicting the claim that such movement "into the
> > trench" cannot be accompanied by a record of crust disappearing
> > into the trench.
>
> Well, it wouldn't be seen disappearing,

I'd like to see you refute the scenario that I've posted
this time around, and which contradicts what you are saying here.

> but one might see movement in
> the direction of the trench. Still, I'm not sure I would call that real
> evidence of subduction.

Nor would I. You are knocking down a straw man here.

> Seismic imaging of the descending plate, as well
> as the pattern of deep earthquakes, is generally considered the best
> evidence.

Why are you changing the subject like this?

Are you giving up trying to show that your disparaging terms were "observations" and not simple insults?

> >> Most likely it would be part of the sediments
> >> scraped off the top of the subducting plate, though.
> >
> > Your lack of clarity is getting worse and worse. Sounds like
> > you are calling a camera "part of the sediments."
>
> Sure. It's an object on the surface of the sediment.

The bedrock could have been exposed for hundreds of yards
prior to the installation of cameras
into the dips and grooves of the bedrock, with only the picture-taking part exposed.

> Part of the
> sediments. How is that unclear?
>
> >> Probably wouldn't be subducted.
> >
> > Huge backpedal from "really stupid", and "really naive," noted.
>
> You have a lot of trouble reading.

Baloney.

> No backpedal.

Yes it is, because you have a lot of trouble justifying the word "observations."


I see no reason to comment on the irrelevant comments you
make below, after my virtual .sig.
Irrelevant to justifying the word "observations," that is.

But if you differ on that, feel free to make some comments below my virtual .sig.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math.

U. of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer --
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[John Harshman]

On 7/24/19 9:11 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> The time has suddenly become ripe for me to revive
> this old thread.

Why?

[Peter Nyikos]

Because your claim about "observations" that you made back
then has caused your entire bogus spiel this week in the Pachystruthio thread to be intensely hypocritical. As I told Daud Deden there today on that thread.

Here is how I put it in the post to which you are replying here:

______________________ excerpt from post _______________

> > There is no disgrace for not knowing what, if anything, is wrong with
> > my cautious words which have been subjected to shower after shower
> > of insults by you:

> No insults, just observations.

By that standard, your phony spiel on the "Pachystrutio..."
thread about alleged insults by me was a complete waste of time,
because every "insult" about which you complained was actually
an observation.

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


Peter Nyikos

[Daud Deden]

Peter told me about other's behavior?

Irrelevant?

[erik simpson]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 1:08:46 PM UTC-7, Daud Deden wrote:
> Peter told me about other's behavior?
>
> Irrelevant?

Very. I believe Peter's becoming unmoored.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 4:08:46 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:

> Peter told me about other's behavior?

Yes. Here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/d01G3uH4xBM/NfQZwprBBQAJ
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a332a19a-c308-42fa...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Pachytstruthio, giant bird from Pleistocene Europe


> Irrelevant?

No, I wrote plenty of on-topic comments in reply to your question
about the function of the pachy- prefix before launching into
just how your "merry teaparty" comment was inapplicable to me, but
may have fit Harshman and Oxyaena very well. Right now Harshman is
having a merry time writing "Ratio: 0" in reply to searing indictments
of himself and his loyal ally Oxyaena. His other loyal s.b.p. ally is erik simpson.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 7:21:39 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/14/19 3:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > It is the transparency of John insulting my intelligence that
> > is obvious.
>
> Turns out that the "insult" was justified.

Utterly false, as I've demonstrated this week, on this thread.

What "turns out" is that you were bluffing with a "Nothing" hand.
You dragged out the argument as long as possible while
posting insult after insult like the one you posted.

Earlier this week, I showed how your insult was
not only unjustified, but unjustifiable beyond
a reasonable doubt.


> You really appear to know
> nothing about the evidence for subduction

This was a Kleinman-style insult, obviously delivered with great pleasure.
I know plenty about the evidence for subduction, but I did not talk about
it up to the point where you posted this travesty, because
your main denigration of me had to do with
the alleged impossibility of *direct* *observation* of
subduction.


> and, freed from the bounds of
> knowledge, imagined something absurd.

You are really showing your true colors here. You love to insult me
in highly provocative ways,
but when unflattering truths are told about you or your allies, you suddenly
pretend not to like insults and only to like on-topic discussion.

I say "pretend" because you have been very careful not to spell out
this pretense, but only to nag and browbeat me for being off topic.
You are the most blatant exemplar of "do as I say, not as I do" in BOTH s.b.p.
and talk.origins. It's all part of your control freak nature.

On one occasion, when you wanted desperately to take the heat off Oxyaena,
you even pleaded, "I beg of you..." to induce me to get on topic.

And so, I understated the case on the thread about Pachystruthio.
Oxyaena is not just a groupie of yours. She is indispensable to you in s.b.p.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Here we see, two posts after the one I replied to a few minutes ago,
just how much Harshman enjoys insulting me when one of his
indispensable allies
is there to lend encouragement.

The reply to which I am referring was with a changed Subject: line,
so it might not be visible close to this one on some people's newsreaders:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/Jbunj0MWiJY/0wcXfEhPDwAJ
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 12:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ad8e1c61-fcfa-4cb2...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Harshman hypocrisy wrt insults WAS:Re: Crackpotteries





On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 10:45:50 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/15/19 4:03 AM, Oxyaena wrote:

> > On 2/14/2019 7:21 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/14/19 3:35 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> It is the transparency of John insulting my intelligence that
> >>> is obvious.
> >>

> >> Turns out that the "insult" was justified. You really appear to know
> >> nothing about the evidence for subduction and, freed from the bounds

> >> of knowledge, imagined something absurd.
> >

> > I wouldn't call that "stupidity", "ignorant" is a better word. Ignorance
> > and stupidity are two distinct concepts.
> >
> I suppose you're right. But it isn't just ignorance. It's
> Dunning-Kruger: supposing, in your ignorance, that you know what you're
> talking about.

Here you were lying, and loving it, Harshman. As I wrote in
the post I
linked up there:

You love to insult me in highly provocative ways, but

when unflattering truths are told about you, you suddenly

pretend not to like insults and only to like on-topic
discussion.

Here is an unflattering truth I wrote a few lines further down:

[Daud Deden]

Peter, I just don't have time or ability to get involved in such dramatics. I'm just trying to understand nature & evolution, especially in regards to Homo sapien species.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, July 26, 2019 at 8:37:27 PM UTC-4, Daud Deden wrote:

> Peter, I just don't have time or ability to get involved in such dramatics. I'm just trying to understand nature & evolution, especially in regards to Homo sapien species.

Fine, but you did ask about the prefix -pachy and I told
you where to find my take on it.

Did you see what I wrote in reply to Mario on the thread about
the strength of sabertooth teeth? I hope you will find that interesting.
It's about the use of fire and stone tools by very early humans.


Peter Nyikos