OT: Partial Moratorium On Replies to Oxyaena

[Peter Nyikos]

Beginning as of the appearance of this post, and for the rest of this week,
I will only reply to on-topic statements [1] by Oxyaena that are devoid of
denigratory personal comments.

[1]i.e., in paleontology and systematics, the latter for the convenience
of Harshman -- giganews does not support sci.bio.systematics.

This is more tricky than it sounds. Just where does one draw the line at
documentably false on-topic statements that give a highly distorted
picture of my competence?

An OP by Oxyaena to which I've just now replied starts off with
just such a comment and then milks it for all it's worth. I'd
have to treat this post very differently than I actually
did in the post linked here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/iaxkl46YBdk/iXIBbxDnCQAJ
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 18:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <23446104-10b3-4866...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Were pterosaurs bipedal?

I'm not sure I could have corrected that false comment and stayed within
the description of the policy that I gave. [2] And so, this moratorium will
be reassessed at the beginning of each week, with a decision to either
continue it or discontinue it for that week.

[2] On the other hand, off-topic derogatory personal
remarks will be snipped without marking the snip.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 8/20/2018 10:22 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Beginning as of the appearance of this post, and for the rest of this week,
> I will only reply to on-topic statements [1] by Oxyaena that are devoid of
> denigratory personal comments.

So by your logic I should reply to nothing of yours then, huh?

>
> [1]i.e., in paleontology and systematics, the latter for the convenience
> of Harshman -- giganews does not support sci.bio.systematics.
>
> This is more tricky than it sounds. Just where does one draw the line at
> documentably false on-topic statements that give a highly distorted
> picture of my competence?

The lack of self-awareness in this post literally radiates off of it.

>


--
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you
please." - Mark Twain

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 10:22:45 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Beginning as of the appearance of this post, and for the rest of this week,
> I will only reply to on-topic statements [1] by Oxyaena that are devoid of
> denigratory personal comments.
>
> [1]i.e., in paleontology and systematics, the latter for the convenience
> of Harshman -- giganews does not support sci.bio.systematics.

This week, I've modified this policy by omitting the "on-topic"
qualifier but keeping the rest. Oxyaena has shown concern about
Harshman's feelings and I've felt it necessary to provide some
comments so that everyone has a clear picture of what the issues
are here.

The following stays in place:

>
> On the other hand, off-topic derogatory personal
> remarks will be snipped without marking the snip.

Last week, and also this week, I also avoided making derogatory remarks
about Oxyaena. That is now an official part of my policy for the rest of
this week.

It makes sense -- by not making any, I minimize the amount of
derogatory comments I get and hence the amount of the unmarked
snips I make.

I've also been making another unofficial addition to my policy
of last week and will be making it official in my next post to
this thread.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

Perhaps I should start following the same policy in regards to you in
sbp, where you have yet to restrict the amount of filth that comes out
of your mouth.

[Peter Nyikos]

We ARE in s.b.p. You haven't started following it yet -- I had to
cut you off in mid-sentence to keep hewing to my policy. But I
hope you will start soon.


Anyway, I am making all of the above official until the end
of NEXT week, when the next re-evaluation comes around. I'm
doing the same for the following policy. I've also followed it
this week and last, but now I am making it official.

It is that even when I reply to posts that were done before
the first moratorium went into effect, I follow both of the
above policies: no derogatory stuff about you from me, and
snipping all derogatory stuff from you without marking the snip.

An extreme example of me doing that was a reply to a post you'd
made back on August 13, which was before I even thought about a
moratorium:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/RNINuDOndSM/UB6XdrnYDAAJ
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <cd883b32-8f87-4f7c...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Pterosaur dietary hypotheses

I snipped out everything from the long post to which I was
replying, except for:

> Do the words "self-reflection" mean
> anything to you?

I took your words literally, gave an emphatic affirmative
answer, and proceeded to illustrate the concept.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

I meant talk.origins.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:44:05 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:

> I meant talk.origins.

It WOULD be nice if you followed my sbp policy in talk.origins.

But unlike you, I would have to prepare the ground very carefully
if I were to do it. There are several people over there who would be
glad to cover for you if you were to do it immediately; I have none.

However, I suggest you try following my policy here for a while before
taking any steps in that direction in talk.origins.

Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

I *have* been following this policy here, notice that the sole amount of
replies to you from me were on-topic ones.

[Peter Nyikos]

Except on this thread.

Moreover, you are referring to my initial policy, whose "on-topic"
clause was made obsolete by my Aug 29 and Aug 30 statements of my revised
policy, still in effect here in s.b.p. until the end of this week.

Do please take time to read that policy. Your first reply to Erik Simpson
on the "Where's Erik?" thread clearly was not in conformity to you
following THAT policy wrt me.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

That's because I wasn't talking to you, and you discuss me all the time
without regards to this policy, both here and in t.o.

--
"A wizard did it." - Ancient proverb

[Peter Nyikos]

I see you still haven't read those posts I told you to read
(see above). The following is from the Aug 29 post:

Last week, and also this week, I also avoided making derogatory remarks
about Oxyaena. That is now an official part of my policy for the rest of
this week.

Then in the Aug 30 post, I extended it and the other parts of
my policy to the end of this week. You might construe the
things I told Mario as being derogatory, but they are plain
relation of objective facts, easily checked.

Accusations of Dunning-Krueger effect, like you did to Mario
and Deden, are matters of opinion and are too subjective
to be refuted or verified. Contrast the purely factual
comments by me that followed that accusation of yours. I am not a professinal
psychologist and do not claim to know what kind of behavior
falls under that rubric.

> and you discuss me all the time
> without regards to this policy,

Oh? can you name a single example here in s.b.p. that
clearly violates that policy? Preferably one before today.

Note, my policy applies ONLY to you and ONLY to
sci.bio.paleontology.

> both here and in t.o.

I've made it quite clear in my Aug 31 post to this thread
-- text still preserved above! --
that the policy only applies to sci.bio.paleontology.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 9/6/2018 6:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:


>
>> and you discuss me all the time
>> without regards to this policy,
>
> Oh? can you name a single example here in s.b.p. that
> clearly violates that policy? Preferably one before today.
>

Is that an implicit admission that what you wrote yesterday was contrary
to you not saying anything derogatory about me on sbp? Why else say
"preferably one before today."

[Peter Nyikos]

Oxyaena never gave such an exaple, not even one on Sept. 6 when this
was posted.

Since then, I made only one deviation from the policy. When Oxyaena
said "You're pathetic," I impersonally described what
she had been saying just before that. I wrote words
to the following effect:

What is really pathetic is when a person asks
a loaded question and then answers it without
waiting around for an answer from the one questioned.

I had thought to inaugurate a slight revision of my policy,
but decided the revision would be difficult to express
concisely, so I have reverted to the policy I talked
about above.

That policy, however, will be modified *after* I reply to Oxyaena's
only reply to my challenge.

> Note, my policy applies ONLY to you and ONLY to
> sci.bio.paleontology.
>
>
> > both here and in t.o.
>
> I've made it quite clear in my Aug 31 post to this thread
> -- text still preserved above! --
> that the policy only applies to sci.bio.paleontology.

I made that comment in case Oxyaena was talking about
things I did in talk.origins.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:10:01 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/6/2018 6:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>
> >
> >> and you discuss me all the time
> >> without regards to this policy,
> >
> > Oh? can you name a single example here in s.b.p. that
> > clearly violates that policy? Preferably one before today.
> >
>
> Is that an implicit admission that what you wrote yesterday was contrary
> to you not saying anything derogatory about me on sbp?

Of course not. The "Preferably" was in reaction to your
"all the time."

> Why else say
> "preferably one before today."

If your IQ is as high as you claimed (ca. 120)
in talk.origins, how is it that you couldn't think
of any other reason?


Be that as it may, your failure to identify a single example
either "yesterday" (which meant Sept. 7, in reaction to
my saying "...today" on the 6th) or earlier strongly suggests that you
were bluffing with what you wrote.

You have flamed me repeatedly this month, sometimes in direct
reply to me, and so you have long abandoned your earlier
"promise" to follow suit. And this weekend, you wrote misrepresentations
"behind my back" to John Harshman on a thread I to which hadn't posted
until Monday. These were specific, seemingly factual claims that
I know you can't document.


And so Phase 3 of my policy begins today and lasts until the
end of September, at which point I will re-evaluate it.

I will continue to follow the policy I made clear
on the post I did a few minutes ago, with the following exception:
any time you misrepresent me to a third party in s.b.p., I reserve
the right to correct what you wrote, either:

(1) in reply to the third party if he leaves your misrepresentation(s)
uncorrected in reply to you,

(2) or in reply to you if he does not. In the latter case I might
let the third party know that the correction was made.


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

It isn't necessary or welcome for you to dredge up this kind of material from
almost a month ago. Whatever standard of behavior you currently espouse, I
hope this isn't representative of it.

[Peter Nyikos]

Oxyaena has had almost a month to dredge up an example of what
she claimed I had done. Is this realization unwelcome in your mind?

> Whatever standard of behavior you currently espouse, I
> hope this isn't representative of it.

Whereas the behavior by Oxyaena is perfectly acceptable in your
mind, including the making of charges of me doing something "all
the time" without being able to give a single example of it.

You continue to give yourself away, and you obviously don't
care one whit that you do.

Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:53:29 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:47:13 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 7:28:12 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:10:01 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> > > > On 9/6/2018 6:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

<snip irrelevance>

Why not get on topic with a response to John's question of where the mysterious
data set you sent him came from?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 8:32:41 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:53:29 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:47:13 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 7:28:12 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:10:01 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> > > > > On 9/6/2018 6:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> <snip irrelevance>

By your criteria for "irrelevance," everything you write below
is irrelevant.

> Why not get on topic

"Do as I say, not as I do."

> with a response to John's question of where the mysterious
> data set you sent him came from?

I told him already that it was provided by a correspondent who
does cladistics, and I told Oxyaena that if John wants to
know where the source for every single character, then the
correspondent should charge him for the work it takes to
track all that down.

John hasn't seen fit to respond to that. Why don't you bug
him if you are so all-fired anxious to know the answer yourself?


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 9/27/18 4:07 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 8:32:41 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:53:29 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:47:13 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 7:28:12 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:10:01 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/6/2018 6:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>> <snip irrelevance>
>
> By your criteria for "irrelevance," everything you write below
> is irrelevant.
>
>
>> Why not get on topic
>
> "Do as I say, not as I do."
>
>
>> with a response to John's question of where the mysterious
>> data set you sent him came from?
>
> I told him already that it was provided by a correspondent who
> does cladistics, and I told Oxyaena that if John wants to
> know where the source for every single character, then the
> correspondent should charge him for the work it takes to
> track all that down.

I haven't seen this post.

> John hasn't seen fit to respond to that. Why don't you bug
> him if you are so all-fired anxious to know the answer yourself?

I haven't responded because I don't see it.

[Oxyaena]

Why would I care about a month-old shitfest that should be left
untouched, but being the jackass you are you just had to bring this dead
thread up, because you love flame wars.

>
>> Whatever standard of behavior you currently espouse, I
>> hope this isn't representative of it.
>
> Whereas the behavior by Oxyaena is perfectly acceptable in your
> mind, including the making of charges of me doing something "all
> the time" without being able to give a single example of it.

Look at your first response to Mario on the "Penguins, kangaroo" thread,
douche bag.

[Peter Nyikos]

Because you never touched it when it was current, except to
interrogate me. As documented above.


And, given your reaction to a post where I put my modified policy
into play, I see that I also need to add:

(3) If then you contest my reply in either (1) or (2), I might reply
further until

(a) the issue is resolved or

(b) you quit or

(c) you stop addressing my answers in a meaningful way.

>
> >
> >> Whatever standard of behavior you currently espouse, I
> >> hope this isn't representative of it.
> >
> > Whereas the behavior by Oxyaena is perfectly acceptable in your
> > mind, including the making of charges of me doing something "all
> > the time" without being able to give a single example of it.
>
> Look at your first response to Mario on the "Penguins, kangaroo" thread,

Ah. So you couldn't even meet the "preferably" criterion after
almost a whole month. And here you'd been saying "all the time."

I first looked at my second response, and I see myself telling Mario about
the relevant "all the time" here:

Here in sci.bio.paleontology, I've followed a policy of
snipping out abuse from Oxyaena without even marking the snip,
and then replying in a non-insulting way, for the last 2+1/2 weeks.
It seems to be working out pretty well. It would NOT work in
talk.origins without a great deal of preparation,
because Oxyaena has lots of support there from kindred spirits.

Here I was informing Mario about my policy. Note that I say nothing
whatsoever about how frequently or how infrequently I had to follow it.

As for the FIRST post to that thread, here is what I posted to *this*
thread on my partial moratorium, on the same day, Sept 6, where you
made this "all the time" accusation:

Last week, and also this week, I also avoided making derogatory remarks
about Oxyaena. That is now an official part of my policy for the rest of
this week.

You might construe the
things I told Mario as being derogatory, but they are plain
relation of objective facts, easily checked.

...like the above.

The continuation was very objective also:

Accusations of Dunning-Krueger effect, like you did to Mario
and Deden, are matters of opinion and are too subjective
to be refuted or verified. Contrast the purely factual
comments by me that followed that accusation of yours.

I am not a professional psychologist and do not claim

to know what kind of behavior falls under that rubric.

I had said to Erik:

> > You continue to give yourself away, and you obviously don't
> > care one whit that you do.

But I do believe Erik appreciates the way you waited until he
got in his licks, before you gave this long-delayed "example".


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:21:34 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/27/18 4:07 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 8:32:41 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 3:53:29 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:47:13 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 7:28:12 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:10:01 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/6/2018 6:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip irrelevance>
> >
> > By your criteria for "irrelevance," everything you write below
> > is irrelevant.
> >
> >
> >> Why not get on topic
> >
> > "Do as I say, not as I do."
> >
> >
> >> with a response to John's question of where the mysterious
> >> data set you sent him came from?
> >
> > I told him already that it was provided by a correspondent who
> > does cladistics, and I told Oxyaena that if John wants to
> > know where the source for every single character, then the
> > correspondent should charge him for the work it takes to
> > track all that down.
>
> I haven't seen this post.

Actually I was more gentle, saying that my correspondent might
want to charge you for the information if it took him
a lot of work to produce it. Of course, I will leave that up to him.

> > John hasn't seen fit to respond to that. Why don't you bug
> > him if you are so all-fired anxious to know the answer yourself?
>
> I haven't responded because I don't see it.

Haven't you checked your e-mail at john.harshman "at" gmail.com?
I sent it there yesterday, at 10:57 am Eastern Daylight Time.

Last Friday, as I told you earlier this week, I sent it to
jharshman "at" pacbell.net at 5:54 pm EDT.

Are you having the same trouble with your .net address as
I'm having with mine? Recently mine inaugurated an enhanced
security system which forces me to jump through hoops that
I haven't even identified yet. If you want to send e-mail to me,
use my departmental address, nyikos "at" math.sc.edu

Could it be that all e-mail from that address of mine is automatically
deleted by your "overenthusiastic" e-mail servers at both of
your addresses?

My math.sc.edu is also overenthusiastic about that,
and now it has made it even more onerous to find those deleted
e-mails before they expire, by putting them in two different
places, one of which is a real pain to comb through -- the more
recent one, of course.

While science mostly progresses forward, bureaucracy mostly
progresses backwards.

We got another example of that on a grand scale
when the SC Governor was indirectly responsible for a whole
week of my university canceling classes on account of
Hurricane Florence.

By the time it reached here the following weekend, it was
just a disorganized tropical depression. I don't think any
winds even got as high as a strong breeze on the Beaufort scale,
and we got less than 3 inches of rain.

Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

[snip mindless bullshit]

You're pathetic.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 3:06:43 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> [snip
>
> You're

Not much to say here, just that I'm hewing to my policy while
Oxyaena long ago abandoned efforts to follow suit.

I await Harshman's reply to what I wrote to him on this thread,
about e-mail problems. I hope it will be more helpful
than the post to which I am replying here.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

I still haven't seen this post, and what Erik is talking about is a new
thread I started recently, to which you have not responded.

>>> John hasn't seen fit to respond to that. Why don't you bug
>>> him if you are so all-fired anxious to know the answer yourself?
>>
>> I haven't responded because I don't see it.
>
> Haven't you checked your e-mail at john.harshman "at" gmail.com?
> I sent it there yesterday, at 10:57 am Eastern Daylight Time.

I have the file, but all the email says is "I hope you get it this time".

> Last Friday, as I told you earlier this week, I sent it to
> jharshman "at" pacbell.net at 5:54 pm EDT.
>
> Are you having the same trouble with your .net address as
> I'm having with mine?

No. I just no longer have access to that address.

[Oxyaena]

[snip]

I`m officially ignoring this subthread, because it's a waste of
bandwidth, which Peter excels at wasting.

[Oxyaena]

John recently posted that he just received the data set, and what he
received was a total pile of shit, completely useless for an analysis,
the data set had more taxa than characters, and therefore my prediction
was (unsurprisingly) correct, the analysis will be a botched job and the
resulting cladogram will have to be thrown out.

Get a better source.

>
>
>>> John hasn't seen fit to respond to that. Why don't you bug
>>> him if you are so all-fired anxious to know the answer yourself?
>>
>> I haven't responded because I don't see it.
>
> Haven't you checked your e-mail at john.harshman "at" gmail.com?
> I sent it there yesterday, at 10:57 am Eastern Daylight Time.
>
> Last Friday, as I told you earlier this week, I sent it to
> jharshman "at" pacbell.net at 5:54 pm EDT.
>
> Are you having the same trouble with your .net address as
> I'm having with mine? Recently mine inaugurated an enhanced
> security system which forces me to jump through hoops that
> I haven't even identified yet. If you want to send e-mail to me,
> use my departmental address, nyikos "at" math.sc.edu

Then get another email address.

>
> Could it be that all e-mail from that address of mine is automatically
> deleted by your "overenthusiastic" e-mail servers at both of
> your addresses?
>
> My math.sc.edu is also overenthusiastic about that,
> and now it has made it even more onerous to find those deleted
> e-mails before they expire, by putting them in two different
> places, one of which is a real pain to comb through -- the more
> recent one, of course.
>
> While science mostly progresses forward, bureaucracy mostly
> progresses backwards.
>
> We got another example of that on a grand scale
> when the SC Governor was indirectly responsible for a whole
> week of my university canceling classes on account of
> Hurricane Florence.

Here in Ohio (yes, I've stated I`m from Ohio before) we got some rains
and a few thunderstorms, but we weren't hit by the remnants of Florence,
although *some* of Ohio did, but they were southeast of us.