OT: Another Dr. Dr. Joins Talk.origins (also sci.bio.paleontology)

[Peter Nyikos]

The all-too-well-known Dr. Dr. (Alan Kleinman) has a competitor of sorts.

Both of them are physicians. Both have doctorates in another area:
Kleinman's in engineering, "Howler Monkey" in biology. [See post below.]

Howler Monkey has two advantages over Kleinman: he has evidently
ingratiated himself with Erik Simpson and Oxyaena, both of whom
are foes of Kleinman. I expect those advantages to multiply in the coming weeks.

But Kleinman has three advantages over Howler Monkey:

(1) Kleinman dispenses his "advice" in a jocular manner. After an initial
jocularity for which he apologized, Howler Monkey has made his "advice"
sound professional on the surface. [See post below]

(2) Kleinman does not hide behind a pseudonym.

(3) Kleinman has informed us that he is licensed to practice
medicine in California. Howler Monkey twice ducked the question
of what states, if any, he is licensed to practice medicine in.


In spite of (2) and (3) I am inclined at present to believe
Howler Monkey's claims about his credentials. The following
is an abridged version of a reply I made to him in s.b.p.

On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 1:56:56 PM UTC-5, alouatta....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 6:45:20 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 3:55:32 PM UTC-5, alouatta....@gmail.com wrote:

> > > In the past I have teased you, for which I apologize. It was frivolous (I thought), but in retrospect it was a reckless act that could have turned out very badly.
> >
> > Apology accepted.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "very badly". True, I was on the verge
> > of dismissing you as a troll; I gave some hints of that in another thread
> > involving Bob Casanova. But is that what you had in mind?
> >
>
> No. You frequently express yourself in terms that can only be described as paranoid.

I doubt that you can find anything by me that is anywhere near half
as paranoid-sounding as "a reckless act that could have turned out very badly."

What's more, your "frequently" makes it sound like you water down
the word "paranoid" to where it is essentially meaningless.


> This is NOT to say that you are paranoid, but if you should, strickly hypothetically, present yourself to a mental health professional with such declarations, it would be remiss of the professional not to discuss the matter with you.

Since you are just another Dr. Dr., like Kleinman, who is also
a physician like you, your advice here carries no weight whatsoever.


> "Paranoia" is a slippery concept that is often coupled with other disorders involving various kinds of delusions. In such cases, playing into those delusions can lead to unpredictable behavior on the part of the disturbed
> individual. In the improbable event that you might present such a case, my remarks were ill-advised.

More use of seriously paranoid expressions by you. No, I don't think you
are actually paranoid, but the plausible alternatives would bother
anyone but an ethical nihilist.

Look here: unless you are foolish enough to sue me, the very worst
that could possibly happen from my end is that I boycott your
posts. However, your overbearing remarks about my present boycott
of two people strongly suggest that this prospect doesn't bother
you in the least.

So spill the beans already: what DID you have in mind when you
wrote "could have turned out very badly"?



> Be advised I am an emeritus profesor of biology, who came by my medical study through an interest in neurochemistry.

So, would you like it if I started referring to you as
"Dr. Dr. Howler Monkey?"

Or is there some OTHER reason why you are telling me this?


> My activities have always been research oriented, and in any event, I am retired from clinical practice.

I believe Dr. Dr. Kleinman also fits that description.


Peter Nyikos

[Percy Asknot]

I have noticed that you prefer to talk about people and
avoid talking about ideas. Can you express some idea we can
all discuss - without any reference to the people discussing
it?

Bill

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

You ask too much of Professor Nomathos. He would rather be a gossip.
>
> Bill

[Peter Nyikos]

Certainly, and I have done so many times. I even criticized Glenn
at least once for backing you in some ignorant comments you made
about scientific matters. I compared it to betting on the wrong horse
in a race.

One of my problems with people here is that you and Glenn
act as though my endorsement of common descent makes me
someone for you to be leery of. Kalkidas has a more mature outlook,
despite our differences where common descent is concerned.


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

[Percy Asknot]

You just did it again.

Bill

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

No, he can't.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

He always does.

[John Harshman]

I find his complete lack of self-knowledge amusing, which is probably
wrong of me.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

He has an ego the size of a gas giant. There are other things he has in
common with gas giants.

[Oxyaena]

His density knows no bounds.

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

http://oxyaena.coffeecup.com/

[Peter Nyikos]

The last clause is a canard which greatly diminishes Bill's
credibility -- and even yours takes a hit, given your palsy-walsy
reply to him below.

> >>> Can you express some idea we
> >>> can all discuss - without any reference to the people
> >>> discussing it?
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >>
> >> Certainly, and I have done so many times. I even
> >> criticized Glenn at least once for backing you in some
> >> ignorant comments you made
> >> about scientific matters. I compared it to betting on the
> >> wrong horse in a race.
> >>
> >> One of my problems with people here is that you and Glenn
> >> act as though my endorsement of common descent makes me
> >> someone for you to be leery of. Kalkidas has a more mature
> >> outlook, despite our differences where common descent is
> >> concerned.
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard
> >> disclaimer-- University of South Carolina
> >
> > You just did it again.

My talk of "endorsement of common descent" went over Bill's head,
but I don't think it went over yours, John.

> I find his complete lack of self-knowledge amusing, which is probably
> wrong of me.

I find your echoing of Dr. Dr. Howler Monkey's "apology"
a bit faint, but it's a start.

You and Bill sure make strange bedfellows, but I suppose the same
phenomenon is at work as between Orcs in _Lord of the Rings_:
once Frodo's friend Samwise made his presence felt to them,
they quickly ended their squabble.

I see you have joined your s.b.p. toadies Oxyaena and Erik
in dropping your reservations about Howler Monkey. Over in
sci.bio.paleontology, my three latest replies to him have joined
your extensive list of posts that "you didn't see because
you didn't want to see them." The following is especially
apropos; note my comment about you not having committed yourself
up to that point:

-------------------------- begin included post ------------------
On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 7:50:04 PM UTC-5, alouatta....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 2:37:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 4:40:51 PM UTC-5, alouatta....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 9:04:27 AM UTC-8, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> (deletion or repetitious material)

[restoration of essential context:]
>> > > > NOTE: I did NOT say that you are insane, I'm not that kind of doctor, but your
>> > > > remarks here tend in the direction of making that plausible.
[end of restoration]
>
> > > > Erik is here trying to make an unsupportable insult take the place
> > > > of a rebuttal of my reasoning.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, I am that sort of doctor.
> > > >
> > > > Psychology? Psychiatry? Counseling?

The answer, beyond a reasonable doubt, is "none of the above",
in the light of what you wrote next.


> > > > And if it is psychiatry, in what states are you licensed to practice it?
> >
> > No reply from you here to any of these questions. In view of your most
> > gracious apology, I will not take offense if you continue to ignore them,
> > but I'll continue to remain curious if you do.
> >
>
> I believe I have already explained my status as a physician to you.

I have no recollection of anything like that, but let that pass.

What IS important is that you have given NO evidence that you
are "that kind of doctor". Your silence above essentially
admits that you are NOT.

After all, another Dr. Dr., Alan Kleinman by name, is also a physician,
but I'm sure you know that his judgments about others' emotional etc.
proclivities are those of a rank amateur.

But he has three things in his favor that you do not: he makes
his "advice" in a jocular manner; he does not hide behind a
pseudonym; and he has informed us that he is licensed to practice
medicine in California.


<snip text on which you did not comment>


> > > By the way, I resent your use of my post to "enable" you to resume your quarrels with others.

Judging from your behavior since your apology, it appears that
"others" = Harshman, Simpson, and Oxyaena.

[The latter two seem to have welcomed you with open arms this month; Harshman
has not yet committed himself one way or the other about you, AFAIK.]

OTOH I think you would be quite happy to join me in quarrels with
JTEM, Mario, and Daud.

Fortunately, despite your seeming attempt to instigate a quarrel by
Mario against me, we remain on very friendly terms with each other.
And, while you DID join me in a quarrel with JTEM in sci.anthropology.paleo,
I don't expect to have any quarrels with Daud in the near future.


Concluded in next reply to this post, to be done soon after I see
that this one has posted.


Peter Nyikos
________________________________________ end of post archived at

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/UTgoUKgxBgAJ
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a713b7a6-eb7b-4136...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups

Judging from your past behavior, John, this whole post,
not just the one I've included, will join the mountain
of posts that "you didn't see because you didn't want to see them."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina

be one of those that you d

[John Harshman]

Good gravy, there's a next reply? After all the logorrhea already
prompted by a single sentence?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:56:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>The all-too-well-known Dr. Dr. (Alan Kleinman) has a competitor of sorts.
>
>Both of them are physicians. Both have doctorates in another area:
>Kleinman's in engineering, "Howler Monkey" in biology. [See post below.]

I do indeed see. I see you even bring up my name in posts
you make to groups I don't frequent (since it seems that
exchange didn't take place in t.o). And I see no indication
that your latest target brags about his degrees in the same
way DocDoc does. And I see you seem as paranoid and
obnoxious there as here.

You're a real piece of work.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/20/19 12:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 3/20/19 11:15 AM, Percy Asknot wrote:
> >>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-4, Bill
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>>>>> Howler Monkey has two advantages over Kleinman: he has
> >>>>>> evidently ingratiated himself with Erik Simpson and
> >>>>>> Oxyaena, both of whom are foes of Kleinman. I expect
> >>>>>> those advantages to multiply in the coming weeks.

For someone still in the proverbial role of "elephant in the room,"
Howler Monkey sure seems to be adding to the list at record speed:
Bill, Panthera Tigris Altaica, the better-known Dr. Dr.
seem to have joined the list already, John, along with yourself.

> >>>>>>>>> In the past I have teased you, for which I
> >>>>>>>>> apologize.
> >>>>>>>>> It was frivolous (I thought), but in retrospect
> >>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>> was a reckless act that could have turned out very
> >>>>>>>>> badly.

Your lack of any sense of irony about this "apology" is a source of
amusement to me, John. The following makes your TbBA about my
lack of self-knowledge look ironic in turn:

[Howler Monkey:]

> >>>>>>> You frequently express yourself in terms that can
> >>>>>>> only be described as paranoid.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I doubt that you can find anything by me that is
> >>>>>> anywhere near half as paranoid-sounding as "a reckless
> >>>>>> act that could have turned out very badly."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What's more, your "frequently" makes it sound like you
> >>>>>> water down the word "paranoid" to where it is
> >>>>>> essentially meaningless.

You did that years ago yourself, John. Remember the post where
I had hoped a laudable act had been done by Hemidactylus,
and you illogically thought it "paranoid" of me to think that he
might have done it?

> >>>>> I have noticed that you prefer to talk about people and
> >>>>> avoid talking about ideas.
> >
> > The last clause is a canard which greatly diminishes Bill's
> > credibility -- and even yours takes a hit, given your palsy-walsy
> > reply to him below.

Just curious: did you read ANYTHING above, John, or did you simply
note that Bill was making negative comments about me and decided
to express your solidarity with him on that?

> >
> >>>>> Can you express some idea we
> >>>>> can all discuss - without any reference to the people
> >>>>> discussing it?

[To Bill:

> >>>> One of my problems with people here is that you and Glenn
> >>>> act as though my endorsement of common descent makes me
> >>>> someone for you to be leery of. Kalkidas has a more mature
> >>>> outlook, despite our differences where common descent is
> >>>> concerned.

> >>> You just did it again.
> >
> > My talk of "endorsement of common descent" went over Bill's head,
> > but I don't think it went over yours, John.

Then again, you may not have read it in the first place; see above.

> >> I find his complete lack of self-knowledge amusing, which is probably
> >> wrong of me.
> >
> > I find your echoing of Dr. Dr. Howler Monkey's "apology"
> > a bit faint, but it's a start.

I've isolated the "apology" above, using unmarked snips, so you
may see it this time around.

<snip>


[Howler Monkey:]

> >>>> By the way, I resent your use of my post to "enable" you to resume your quarrels with others.
> >
> > Judging from your behavior since your apology, it appears that
> > "others" = Harshman, Simpson, and Oxyaena.
> >
> > [The latter two seem to have welcomed you with open arms this month; Harshman
> > has not yet committed himself one way or the other about you, AFAIK.]
> >
> > OTOH I think you would be quite happy to join me in quarrels with
> > JTEM, Mario, and Daud.

I think your attitude about quarrels is identical to that of Howler;
correct me if I am wrong.

> >
> > Fortunately, despite your seeming attempt to instigate a quarrel by
> > Mario against me, we remain on very friendly terms with each other.
> > And, while you DID join me in a quarrel with JTEM in sci.anthropology.paleo,
> > I don't expect to have any quarrels with Daud in the near future.
> >
> >
> > Concluded in next reply to this post, to be done soon after I see
> > that this one has posted.
>
> Good gravy, there's a next reply?

You are replying to the included post, from s.b.p., and the next reply
took place in s.b.p. before this thread began. How typical of you
to snip the information showing that it WAS an included post.

> After all the logorrhea already
> prompted by a single sentence?

Don't be daft. It was prompted by the hypothesis that Howler Monkey
is well on the way towards ingratiating himself with you, just as
as Oxyaena succeeded in doing after dropping the moniker Thrinaxodon.

Would you like to dispute that hypothesis?

Suggestion: don't try to dispute the much more likely hypothesis
that "Howler" has already ingratiated himself with your two toadies in s.b.p.,
Erik and Oxyaena. You would do much better to focus on yourself.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> The all-too-well-known Dr. Dr. (Alan Kleinman) has a competitor of sorts.
>
> Both of them are physicians. Both have doctorates in another area:
> Kleinman's in engineering, "Howler Monkey" in biology. [See post below.]
>

Nah, that's all I need to hear from you, that "Howler Monkey" has a doctorate.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:56:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >The all-too-well-known Dr. Dr. (Alan Kleinman) has a competitor of sorts.
> >
> >Both of them are physicians. Both have doctorates in another area:
> >Kleinman's in engineering, "Howler Monkey" in biology. [See post below.]
>
> I do indeed see.

John 8:41

> I see you even bring up my name in posts
> you make to groups I don't frequent (since it seems that
> exchange didn't take place in t.o).

Yup, and I did my best to make it a totally objective, value-free
mention. Are you so bashful that you don't want that kind of
publicity?

> And I see no indication
> that your latest target brags about his degrees in the same
> way DocDoc does.

I never claimed he did. You are completely ignoring what I DID
tell him about that below.

Did you even bother to look at it, or do you want to
be seen as someone who bleeds from the slightest pinprick
(metaphorically speaking)?

> And I see you seem as paranoid and
> obnoxious there as here.

I believe the smart money is on "never read any of it, except
the place my search engine took me to with `Casanova' as the keyword."
You act as though my laying bare Howler Monkey's hypocrisy wrt
"paranoid" below never existed.

>
> You're a real piece of work.

Your lack of self-knowledge is showing. But don't worry: years
ago, you ingratiated yourself with John Harshman, and he with you,
so much that you need never fear him talking about YOUR lack
of self-knowledge.

I've left in the rest of the exchange between Howler and
myself after my sign-off, on the off chance that you might,
just might, read it.


HAND.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

I snipped nothing. This is good evidence that these posts where you
reply to old quotes and embed extended quotes from old posts are
unreadable, even by you. You should stop.

>> After all the logorrhea already
>> prompted by a single sentence?
>
> Don't be daft. It was prompted by the hypothesis that Howler Monkey
> is well on the way towards ingratiating himself with you, just as
> as Oxyaena succeeded in doing after dropping the moniker Thrinaxodon.
>
> Would you like to dispute that hypothesis?

No. Any discussion would only poke your delusions of conspiracy, which I
prefer not to do.

> Suggestion: don't try to dispute the much more likely hypothesis
> that "Howler" has already ingratiated himself with your two toadies in s.b.p.,
> Erik and Oxyaena. You would do much better to focus on yourself.

This is one of your main problems, seeing the world in terms of cliques
and ingroups, most of which exclude you and are designed to persecute
you. Of course, in the process of all this you have provided extended
evidence of Bill's initial claim. Do you even realize that?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 5:00:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:56:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> > <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
> >
> > >The all-too-well-known Dr. Dr. (Alan Kleinman) has a competitor of sorts.
> > >
> > >Both of them are physicians. Both have doctorates in another area:
> > >Kleinman's in engineering, "Howler Monkey" in biology. [See post below.]
> >
> > I do indeed see.
>
> John 8:41

Correction: it's John 9:41, the last verse in that chapter.

It also applies to the following use of "I see."

> > I see you even bring up my name in posts
> > you make to groups I don't frequent (since it seems that
> > exchange didn't take place in t.o).
>
> Yup, and I did my best to make it a totally objective, value-free
> mention. Are you so bashful that you don't want that kind of
> publicity?
>

And even this use:

> > And I see no indication
> > that your latest target brags about his degrees in the same
> > way DocDoc does.
>
> I never claimed he did. You are completely ignoring what I DID
> tell him about that below.
>
> Did you even bother to look at it, or do you want to
> be seen as someone who bleeds from the slightest pinprick
> (metaphorically speaking)?
>

And this:

> > And I see you seem as paranoid and
> > obnoxious there as here.
>
> I believe the smart money is on "never read any of it, except
> the place my search engine took me to with `Casanova' as the keyword."
> You act as though my laying bare Howler Monkey's hypocrisy wrt
> "paranoid" below never existed.
>
> >
> > You're a real piece of work.
>
> Your lack of self-knowledge is showing. But don't worry: years
> ago, you ingratiated yourself with John Harshman, and he with you,
> so much that you need never fear him talking about YOUR lack
> of self-knowledge.
>
> I've left in the rest of the exchange between Howler and
> myself after my sign-off, on the off chance that you might,
> just might, read it.

Snipped this time around. I assume everyone reading this can find it.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

There's a lot of that going around these days. Perhaps it's in the
air. Just sayin'.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Glenn]

Which is it, a complete lack of self-knowledge going around, or finding that lack and being wrong about identifying it?

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:34:11 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Since you asked, whichever you have the most experience with. My
impression is you have lots of experience with both. You're welcome.

[Glenn]

I asked what you meant in reply to John. Apparently that wasn't your "perception".

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:30:40 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 5:00:03 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>> John 8:41

>Correction: it's John 9:41, the last verse in that chapter.

And you imagine I care about your opinions...why?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:55:26 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:56:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >The all-too-well-known Dr. Dr. (Alan Kleinman) has a competitor of sorts.
>> >
>> >Both of them are physicians. Both have doctorates in another area:
>> >Kleinman's in engineering, "Howler Monkey" in biology. [See post below.]
>>
>> I do indeed see.
>
>John 8:41
>
>> I see you even bring up my name in posts
>> you make to groups I don't frequent (since it seems that
>> exchange didn't take place in t.o).

>Yup, and I did my best to make it a totally objective, value-free
>mention.

Nearly everything you post is value-free, so at least you're
consistent. But I never claimed you aren't.

> Are you so bashful that you don't want that kind of
>publicity?

I don't really want or need any "publicity" at all, but I'm
sure, given your predilections, that you can't grasp that.

>> And I see no indication
>> that your latest target brags about his degrees in the same
>> way DocDoc does.

>I never claimed he did. You are completely ignoring what I DID
>tell him about that below.

No, I'm simply following the implications of your comparison
of him with DocDoc, as a "competitor of sorts", still
visible above.

>Did you even bother to look at it,

I looked at your opening sentence, which is all I needed to
see to respond as I did.

>or do you want to
>be seen as someone who bleeds from the slightest pinprick
>(metaphorically speaking)?

The irony, it *burns*!

>> And I see you seem as paranoid and
>> obnoxious there as here.

>I believe the smart money is on "never read any of it, except
>the place my search engine took me to with `Casanova' as the keyword."

I don't use search engines in Usenet; IMHO they're a waste
of time. YMMV, and apparently does.

>You act as though my laying bare Howler Monkey's hypocrisy wrt
>"paranoid" below never existed.

Let's get this straight, Peter. I have no interest in your
claims regarding HM's "hypocrisy"; the only reasons I posted
were to note your inclusion of my name in, not only a thread
I wasn't involved in, but a group I don't frequent, and to
note your characterization of HM as a "competitor of sorts"
for a well-known loon, something I haven't noted in his
posts.

>> You're a real piece of work.

>Your lack of self-knowledge is showing. But don't worry: years
>ago, you ingratiated yourself with John Harshman, and he with you,
>so much that you need never fear him talking about YOUR lack
>of self-knowledge.

Yeah, that's why he rather sharply corrected my
misconceptions regarding something (I don't remember the
exact subject) about evolutionary biology. Your lack of
knowledge of me far exceeds the self-knowledge you claim
erroneously I lack.

>I've left in the rest of the exchange between Howler and
>myself after my sign-off, on the off chance that you might,
>just might, read it.

I really don't care about your pissing and moaning; it's old
hat by now.

>HAND.

You, too.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/20/19 1:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 3/20/19 12:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 3/20/19 11:15 AM, Percy Asknot wrote:
> >>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-4, Bill
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > [Howler Monkey:]
> >>>>>>>>> You frequently express yourself in terms that can
> >>>>>>>>> only be described as paranoid.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I doubt that you can find anything by me that is
> >>>>>>>> anywhere near half as paranoid-sounding as "a reckless
> >>>>>>>> act that could have turned out very badly."
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What's more, your "frequently" makes it sound like you
> >>>>>>>> water down the word "paranoid" to where it is
> >>>>>>>> essentially meaningless.
> >
> > You did that years ago yourself, John. Remember the post where
> > I had hoped a laudable act had been done by Hemidactylus,
> > and you illogically thought it "paranoid" of me to think that he
> > might have done it?

<crickets>


<snip and cut to the chase>

> >>> Concluded in next reply to this post, to be done soon after I see
> >>> that this one has posted.
> >>
> >> Good gravy, there's a next reply?
> >
> > You are replying to the included post, from s.b.p., and the next reply
> > took place in s.b.p. before this thread began. How typical of you
> > to snip the information showing that it WAS an included post.
>
> I snipped nothing.

You are lying, and you don't even care who knows about it.

> This is good evidence that these posts where you
> reply to old quotes and embed extended quotes from old posts are
> unreadable, even by you.

Another lie, capitalizing on the preceding one.

What has happened to you, John?


> You should stop.

You took the words out of my mouth. :-)

> >> After all the logorrhea already
> >> prompted by a single sentence?
> >
> > Don't be daft. It was prompted by the hypothesis that Howler Monkey
> > is well on the way towards ingratiating himself with you, just as
> > as Oxyaena succeeded in doing after dropping the moniker Thrinaxodon.
> >
> > Would you like to dispute that hypothesis?
>
> No.

You could easily have distanced yourself from Howler Monkey,
the way Erik did for quite a while. But it appears that
the flattery of Howler Monkey is getting to you.

> Any discussion would only poke your delusions of conspiracy, which I
> prefer not to do.

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Howler Monkey imitated this
perennial "delusions of conspiracy" scam [see the very first thing I quoted above]
of yours, and was hoist with his own petard, as you can see.

You fell even more flat on your face with your completely irrational use
of the word "paranoia" -- see where you kept the crickets chirping up there.

> > Suggestion: don't try to dispute the much more likely hypothesis
> > that "Howler" has already ingratiated himself with your two toadies in s.b.p.,
> > Erik and Oxyaena. You would do much better to focus on yourself.
>
> This is one of your main problems, seeing the world in terms of cliques
> and ingroups,

The world is doing just fine, thank you. And if you think talk.origins is a
representative sample of the big outside world, then you have far more
serious delusions than you've ever (falsely) attributed to me.

I am still grateful for the way you (and Erik and Norman) helped me to
make sci.bio.paleontology a clique-and-ingroup free society for the period
April 2015 - late 2017, but first Erik and then Oxyaena and then you
made it into just another miniature talk.origins.

I stuck to our agreement for several months after it was clear that it meant nothing
to you anymore. You had told a bare-faced, utterly despicable lie about me [more
precisely: about what you believed about me], but I decided to let you back
out of it gracefully by instead attributing it to "a moderate case of Alzheimer's."

And even after you made it clear that you resented this lifeline thrown to you,
I still stuck to the letter of our agreement. The final break came when
I started inquiring about your perennial search for a job really to your liking,
and you first accused me of violating our agreement all through the post,
and then disappeared from the thread when I asked you to explain in what
way I had done that.

Oxyaena stayed behind to attack me on your behalf, but never breathed
a word about the agreement.

That was when I finally decided that it was hopeless to expect you to return
to our agreement. Since then, I've been just as hard on you in s.b.p. as I
am here in talk.origins.


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/21/19 7:44 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/20/19 1:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 3/20/19 12:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/20/19 11:15 AM, Percy Asknot wrote:
>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:

>>>>>>> [...]

>
> <snip and cut to the chase>
>
>>>>> Concluded in next reply to this post, to be done soon after I see
>>>>> that this one has posted.
>>>>
>>>> Good gravy, there's a next reply?
>>>
>>> You are replying to the included post, from s.b.p., and the next reply
>>> took place in s.b.p. before this thread began. How typical of you
>>> to snip the information showing that it WAS an included post.
>>
>> I snipped nothing.
>
> You are lying, and you don't even care who knows about it.

What John snipped was obviously garbage left by accident at the end of
Peter's post. Evidence for this was (1) it appeared after Peter's
signature; (2) it began with an "end of post" line which had no
corresponding "beginning" line; and (3) it ended in the middle of a word.

On further inspection, and based on what Peter wrote here, some of that
seemingly obvious garbage was put there intentionally by Peter. The
"beginning of" line was there, but phrased in such a way that it was far
from obvious that the "end of post" line referred to it, and the
accidental trash that ended mid-word appeared after a second signature.

Peter blames John for an apparent mistake which was caused mostly by
Peter himself with his poor communication skill. John's "I snipped
nothing" statement was literally false, but, since what he snipped had
the apparent epistemic value of nothing, it does not, IMHO, rise to the
level of a lie. Furthermore, Peter's statement, that John snipped the
information of where the included post came from, was also false. John
left in other information which told where the inclusion came from. So
Peter is lying at least as much as John is. (I must emphasize that my
use there of "lying" relies on Peter's uncharitable use of the term.)
Further yet more, the included section's origin had no relevance to
John's "Good gravy" reply, so Peter's folderol which followed is, and
has always been, pointless, unless the point is to emphasize the truth
of John's "After all the logorrhea already prompted by single sentence."


Peter will no doubt read this post as a conspiracy in which John is
supported by his loyal henchman. So I should tell you, Peter, that this
post was a joint product of myself, John, Hemidactylus, jillery,
Oxyaena, Howard Hershey, Richard Dawkins, Richard Harter, and the Queen
of England, conducted late at night in one of the EAC's secret
underground bunkers. I hope you can sleep easier knowing that.

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

[Glenn]

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/21/19 7:44 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 3/20/19 1:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 3/20/19 12:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/20/19 11:15 AM, Percy Asknot wrote:
> >>>>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> [...]
> >
> > <snip and cut to the chase>
> >
> >>>>> Concluded in next reply to this post, to be done soon after I see
> >>>>> that this one has posted.
> >>>>
> >>>> Good gravy, there's a next reply?
> >>>
> >>> You are replying to the included post, from s.b.p., and the next reply
> >>> took place in s.b.p. before this thread began. How typical of you
> >>> to snip the information showing that it WAS an included post.
> >>
> >> I snipped nothing.
> >
> > You are lying, and you don't even care who knows about it.
>
> What John snipped was obviously garbage

Thanks for playing.

snip garbage

[jillery]

That was the Queen? She looks much younger on the telly.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 12:30:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/21/19 7:44 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:50:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 3/20/19 1:40 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 3/20/19 12:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 3:00:03 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/20/19 11:15 AM, Percy Asknot wrote:
> >>>>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> [...]
> >
> > <snip and cut to the chase>
> >
> >>>>> Concluded in next reply to this post, to be done soon after I see
> >>>>> that this one has posted.

> >>>>
> >>>> Good gravy, there's a next reply?
> >>>
> >>> You are replying to the included post, from s.b.p., and the next reply
> >>> took place in s.b.p. before this thread began. How typical of you
> >>> to snip the information showing that it WAS an included post.
> >>
> >> I snipped nothing.
> >
> > You are lying, and you don't even care who knows about it.


> What John snipped was obviously

...something he did snip, and now you are confirming that "I snipped nothing."
was a lie.

> garbage left by accident at the end of
> Peter's post.

You are lying. And I'm sure John is quite happy to watch you do it.
He loves to play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" about
people who treat him in exactly the same way.

That's not a claim of conspiracy, much as you and John dearly wish it
were. The behavior is part of "All I really need to know I learned in
kindergarten." In this case, it is "If someone is nice to you, it makes
sense to be nice to him."

> Evidence for this was (1) it appeared after Peter's
> signature;
> (2) it began with an "end of post" line which had no
> corresponding "beginning" line; and (3) it ended in the middle of a word.

You are flagrantly, knowingly cherry-picking. The exact words were
"end of post archived at" immediately followed by a clickable link to the
original posting, followed by three lines for Date, Message-ID,
and Subject. These four lines have ended literally hundreds of
posts in the near-decade since my return to talk.origins.

> On further inspection, and based on what Peter wrote here,

... you lied about "garbage left by accident" and admitted that you had lied.


<snip admission and subsequent propaganda designed to whitewash John's second lie>


No surprise: you snipped that second lie.

[REPOST:]

> This is good evidence that these posts where you
> reply to old quotes and embed extended quotes from old posts are
> unreadable, even by you.

Another lie, capitalizing on the preceding one.

[END OF REPOST]

Note especially the lie, "even by you". Your whitewash gave absolutely
no hint of that detail.

> Furthermore, Peter's statement, that John snipped the
> information of where the included post came from, was also false.

You are distorting what I wrote. What I wrote was:

How typical of you to snip the information
showing that it WAS an included post.

Note especially the word "showing" in the sense of "demonstrating".
Clicking the bright blue link takes one to the original post,
so that anyone [except maybe a smart-alecky spin doctor like yourself]
can confirm for themselves that it WAS the same post that I reposted.

I can't help it if your kindred spirits, especially Ron Okimoto,
have conditioned people into assuming that links never bear out
what the linker claims they show. That's your problem, not mine.


<snip madcap farce by yourself, playing court jester to king John>


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:55:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:56:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
> >>
> >> >The all-too-well-known Dr. Dr. (Alan Kleinman) has a competitor of sorts.
> >> >
> >> >Both of them are physicians. Both have doctorates in another area:
> >> >Kleinman's in engineering, "Howler Monkey" in biology. [See post below.]
> >>
> >> I do indeed see.
> >
> >John 8:41

Correction: John 9:41, which has Jesus saying, "If you were blind, you
would have no guilt; but since you say `we see,' your guilt remains."

That's your cue to post your favorite biblical Pee Wee Hermanism,
projecting your blindness onto me without a smidgin of evidence.
[I'm being redundant: were there a smidgin of evidence, it would
lift your favorite three-worder out of the realm of a Pee Wee Hermanism.]

> >> I see you even bring up my name in posts
> >> you make to groups I don't frequent (since it seems that
> >> exchange didn't take place in t.o).
>
> >Yup, and I did my best to make it a totally objective, value-free
> >mention.
>
> Nearly everything you post is value-free,

Not in the sense I meant, you punster. As you undoubtedly know, I am one of the
biggest "goddamn moralizers" in this whole newsgroup, if not THE biggest, and is
probably the biggest reason why Harshman, Oxyaena, Panthera Tigris Altaica,
Kleinman, Bill, Mark Isaak, and yourself are all attacking me on this thread.

> so at least you're
> consistent. But I never claimed you aren't.
>
> > Are you so bashful that you don't want that kind of
> >publicity?
>
> I don't really want or need any "publicity" at all, but I'm
> sure, given your predilections, that you can't grasp that.

I can grasp that I am not here to cater to your whims,
any more than you are here to cater to mine.

I know you can grasp that, but your ideology forces you
to pretend that my mentioning you in a non-judgmental way
when you aren't around somehow makes me "a real piece of work."

IOW, you are sure of a great many things that no rational person is sure of.

Or would it be more correct to say that you LIED that you were sure
I can't grasp that? If so, that is your ideology at work again,
the ideology that forces you to artificially denigrate anyone
whom you do not like.

>
> >> And I see no indication
> >> that your latest target brags about his degrees in the same
> >> way DocDoc does.
>
> >I never claimed he did. You are completely ignoring what I DID
> >tell him about that below.
>
> No, I'm simply following the implications of your comparison
> of him with DocDoc, as a "competitor of sorts", still
> visible above.

...down your own private rabbit hole.

> >Did you even bother to look at it,
>
> I looked at your opening sentence, which is all I needed to
> see to respond as I did.

In other words, you are as prone to jumping to conclusions as a
six year old, and are proud of it.

> >or do you want to
> >be seen as someone who bleeds from the slightest pinprick
> >(metaphorically speaking)?
>
> The irony, it *burns*!

At least, you don't recycle the same old Pee Wee Hermanisms endlessly;
sometimes you come up with new ones, as here.

> >> And I see you seem as paranoid and
> >> obnoxious there as here.
>
> >I believe the smart money is on "never read any of it, except
> >the place my search engine took me to with `Casanova' as the keyword."
>
> I don't use search engines in Usenet; IMHO they're a waste
> of time. YMMV, and apparently does.
>
> >You act as though my laying bare Howler Monkey's hypocrisy wrt
> >"paranoid" below never existed.
>
> Let's get this straight, Peter. I have no interest in your
> claims regarding HM's "hypocrisy";

Are you so naive that you think I didn't know that? If you WERE
interested, it would cramp your style wrt baseless assertions of paranoia
by myself. And we can't have that now, can we?


Remainder deleted, to be replied to next week. It's time for me
to hit the sack, and I almost never post on weekends.


TGIF.


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/22/19 7:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 12:30:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

> [snip Nyikos's pitiful attempts at damage control]

> No surprise: you snipped that second lie.
>
> [REPOST:]
>> This is good evidence that these posts where you
>> reply to old quotes and embed extended quotes from old posts are
>> unreadable, even by you.
>
> Another lie, capitalizing on the preceding one.
> [END OF REPOST]
>
> Note especially the lie, "even by you". Your whitewash gave absolutely
> no hint of that detail.

Thank you for supporting my point. Your post was confusing at best.
When I first read it, and when I read it a second time, I saw that
material after the first signature as accidental garbage. John
obviously had trouble interpreting it, too. John's "even by you" was a
plausible inference, albeit a wrong one. His point that your embedding
extended quotes makes your posts unreadable is well-established fact.

>> Furthermore, Peter's statement, that John snipped the
>> information of where the included post came from, was also false.
>
> You are distorting what I wrote. What I wrote was:
>
> How typical of you to snip the information
> showing that it WAS an included post.
>
> Note especially the word "showing" in the sense of "demonstrating".
> Clicking the bright blue link takes one to the original post,
> so that anyone [except maybe a smart-alecky spin doctor like yourself]
> can confirm for themselves that it WAS the same post that I reposted.

So we should ignore overall meaning to concentrate on an uber-legalistic
possible interpretation of one word that doesn't matter in the first
place? Face it, Peter; even with the snip, the post had information
showing (yes, showing) where the material came from. Face it, Peter; by
the standards you apply to everyone else, you are a liar.

[erik simpson]

Maybe Howler Monkey declines to diagnose mental conditions based on what he
reads in newsgroups, but if he's an actual physician, he's bound (or should be)
by professional considerations. Well, as I've said, I'm not that kind of
doctor, so I'll go right ahead. Google "narcissistic personality disorder". It
doesn't exactly fit Peter, but he's got most of the bases covered. This
outburst (in a different newsgroup from which he derived his spleen attack) is
a case in point. In SBP it looked to me like HM whupped his ass, and I guess
it really got to him.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 20:56:06 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 2:50:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 13:55:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 4:30:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:56:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>> >>
>> >> >The all-too-well-known Dr. Dr. (Alan Kleinman) has a competitor of sorts.
>> >> >
>> >> >Both of them are physicians. Both have doctorates in another area:
>> >> >Kleinman's in engineering, "Howler Monkey" in biology. [See post below.]
>> >>
>> >> I do indeed see.
>> >
>> >John 8:41
>
>Correction

Further correction:

<snip>

[Oxyaena]

On 3/22/2019 11:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip complete garbage]

>
> Not in the sense I meant, you punster. As you undoubtedly know, I am one of the
> biggest "goddamn moralizers" in this whole newsgroup, if not THE biggest,

Don't quit your day job, buddy, you have *zero* grounds to be so
arrogantly overconfident about yourself.

> and is
> probably the biggest reason why Harshman, Oxyaena, Panthera Tigris Altaica,
> Kleinman, Bill, Mark Isaak, and yourself are all attacking me on this thread.

Don't forget that YOU first started calling PTA Kleinmanesque nicknames,
and YOU demonstrated *why* Bill was right about you. It says something
when instead of responding rationally you fly off into a hate-filled
paranoid rage.


[snip psychological projection]

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 11:40:02 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/22/19 7:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 12:30:03 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

> > [snip Nyikos's pitiful attempts at damage control]

The above is part of Mark Isaak's continuing role as court jester to
absentee "King John."

What he is actually snipping is my demolition of HIS pitiful
attempts at damage control, along with John Harshman's first lie.

Mark could have tried to exonerate Harshman of his first
lie ("I snipped nothing") by claiming that Harshman really
meant "nothing relevant to my stupid mistake of thinking
that you were replying to me" -- without, of course putting
it in such unflattering terms.

But Mark takes the easy, flagrantly dishonest way below.
[Easy for him, that is: he never was good at minutiae like
thinking up a flattering way of exonerating John along the above lines.]

> > No surprise: you snipped that second lie.
> >
> > [REPOST:]
> >> This is good evidence that these posts where you
> >> reply to old quotes and embed extended quotes from old posts are
> >> unreadable, even by you.
> >
> > Another lie, capitalizing on the preceding one.
> > [END OF REPOST]
> >
> > Note especially the lie, "even by you". Your whitewash gave absolutely
> > no hint of that detail.
>
> Thank you for supporting my point.

Mark is here channeling the Black Knight of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

> Your post was confusing at best.

No evidence is supplied below, of course. Instead, we see a mass of
spin-doctoring whose purpose is to make a never-quoted post sound confusing.

> When I first read it, and when I read it a second time, I saw that
> material after the first signature as accidental garbage.

Mark is here referring to my standard way of referencing literally
hundreds of reposts to document their provenance. Here I show exactly
how that way, together with my first signature, looked:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ repost +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Peter Nyikos
________________________________________ end of post archived at

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/UTgoUKgxBgAJ
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a713b7a6-eb7b-4136...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups

++++++++++++++++++++++++++ end of repost +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> John
> obviously had trouble interpreting it, too.

John obviously lied about what he had snipped, just like Mark is doing
right here. There is no way someone familiar with my techniques
over the years could confuse careful documentation with "accidental
garbage."

> John's "even by you" was a
> plausible inference, albeit a wrong one. His point that your embedding
> extended quotes makes your posts unreadable is well-established fact.

It is a well-established perennial scam, begun by John around nine
years ago, and picked up by copycats like Mark over the years.

>
> >> Furthermore, Peter's statement, that John snipped the
> >> information of where the included post came from, was also false.
> >
> > You are distorting what I wrote. What I wrote was:
> >
> > How typical of you to snip the information
> > showing that it WAS an included post.
> >
> > Note especially the word "showing" in the sense of "demonstrating".
> > Clicking the bright blue link takes one to the original post,
> > so that anyone [except maybe a smart-alecky spin doctor like yourself]
> > can confirm for themselves that it WAS the same post that I reposted.
>
> So we should ignore overall meaning

The overall meaning is nowhere in evidence here, because Mark did not
leave in a single word of my reply to John here, except for the part
I reposted.

> to concentrate on an uber-legalistic
> possible interpretation of one word that doesn't matter in the first
> place?

It certainly does matter. Keep reading, folks, if you have made it this far.

> Face it, Peter; even with the snip, the post had information
> showing (yes, showing) where the material came from.

All that it showed was my bald claim that it had come from
sci.bio.paleontology, and my claim that it was a repost.
Since when do pathologically dishonest people like Mark Isaak
take my word for anything at face value?

Besides, Harshman has taken more and more to bottom posting
and ignoring lots of relevant stuff further up. The reply
where I nailed him on two successive lies also called attention
to that fact with "<crickets>".

To make matters more interesting, that was highly relevant to
Harshman's reiteration of another perennial scam of his,
the "paranoia/conspiracy theory" scam with which he has smeared
me for OVER nine years.

Mark's spin-doctoring talents were unequal to exonerating Harshman
of that, so he snipped the part where I nailed Harshman on it.


Instead, what we see from Mark below is a wildly wrong guess
as to what my standards are for accusations of lying:

> Face it, Peter; by
> the standards you apply to everyone else, you are a liar.

Mark is on the horns of a dilemma. If he tries to claim that
he almost never sees me documenting posts as shown above,
he thereby demonstrates that he doesn't have the foggiest
idea of what my standards for accusing people are.

On the other hand, if Mark tries to document a bunch of stuff
from me that he can cleverly spin-doctor in an attempt
to support his stupid guess as to what my standards are, he will then be
demonstrating that he follows my posts far too closely to
credibly claim that those reposted lines looked like
"accidental garbage" to him.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 2:20:03 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-4, Bill
> > wrote:
> >> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>

> >> > The all-too-well-known Dr. Dr. (Alan Kleinman) has a
> >> > competitor of sorts.
> >> >
> >> > Both of them are physicians. Both have doctorates in
> >> > another area: Kleinman's in engineering, "Howler
> >> > Monkey" in biology. [See post below.]
> >> >

> >> > Howler Monkey has two advantages over Kleinman: he has
> >> > evidently ingratiated himself with Erik Simpson and
> >> > Oxyaena, both of whom are foes of Kleinman. I expect
> >> > those advantages to multiply in the coming weeks.
> >> >
> >> > But Kleinman has three advantages over Howler Monkey:
> >> >
> >> > (1) Kleinman dispenses his "advice" in a jocular
> >> > manner. After an initial jocularity for which he
> >> > apologized, Howler Monkey has made his "advice" sound
> >> > professional on the surface. [See post below]
> >> >
> >> > (2) Kleinman does not hide behind a pseudonym.
> >> >
> >> > (3) Kleinman has informed us that he is licensed to
> >> > practice medicine in California. Howler Monkey twice
> >> > ducked the question of what states, if any, he is
> >> > licensed to practice medicine in.

Everyone else here, including Kleinman himself, is turning a
blind eye to every negative thing I wrote about Howler Monkey,
even the above mildly unfavorable comparison to Kleinman.

I've snipped the far more weighty evidence that Howler Monkey
is a cowardly hypocrite, since you seem only bent on attacking
me here, "Bill".

> >> I have noticed that you prefer to talk about people and
> >> avoid talking about ideas.

I let these two misrepresentations go unremarked before,
except for indirectly exposing the falsehood of that second
statement in reply to the following disingenuous question:

> >> Can you express some idea we
> >> can all discuss - without any reference to the people
> >> discussing it?
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > Certainly, and I have done so many times. I even
> > criticized Glenn at least once for backing you in some
> > ignorant comments you made
> > about scientific matters. I compared it to betting on the
> > wrong horse in a race.
> >
> > One of my problems with people here is that you and Glenn
> > act as though my endorsement of common descent makes me
> > someone for you to be leery of. Kalkidas has a more mature
> > outlook, despite our differences where common descent is
> > concerned.
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard
> > disclaimer-- University of South Carolina
>
> You just did it again.

Not really: I was referring to on-topic posts in threads where
I criticized your abysmal attempts to argue scientifically, and Glenn's
foolish siding with you on the issues being debated.

Anyway, I have confounded your intial misrepresentations,
in a reply to Burkhard on Friday:

_______________________ excerpt ____________________________

In assessing the relative merits of the best ID theory (mainly due to
Michael Behe) and evolutionary theory, one needs to keep two things
in mind:

1. The biochemical form of ID theory has had only one-tenth as much
time to develop as has evolutionary theory, and

2. In its present form, evolutionary theory is really microevolutionary
theory. It's as though all economic theory were about microeconomics.

And the irony is, Hemidactylus is very happy if it stays that way.


Careful-- by evolutionary theory I mean not the overwhelming evidence
(almost all of it "stamp collecting") that evolution has taken place
on a massive scale. It is extremely powerful in the case of eumetazoans,
especially vertebrates.

I mean the attempt to coherently explain HOW and WHY it took the form it did.

======================= end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/xY-_PFiVD_c/6g_ZQHUlAQAJ
Subject: Re: Sciense lernin
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 18:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7e19d2f1-06b8-47c5...@googlegroups.com>

You may discuss what I wrote either here or on the thread where
I wrote it. I made it easy for you by using an url which takes you
to the original thread.

Will you refuse to discuss it on the grounds that I made a negative
comment about Hemidactylus in it? If so, you will be demonstrating
your own lack of interest in on-topic discussion, which you have
projected on to me.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math.

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

[Glenn]

I can only assume you refer to what you claim above "Glenn act as though my endorsement of common descent makes me someone for you to be leery of".

Frankly, that is bullshit.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:02:31 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

<snip>

>Everyone else here, including Kleinman himself, is turning a
>blind eye to every negative thing I wrote about Howler Monkey,

You *could* take a lesson from that.

But you won't.

[Mark Isaak]

Nyikos lies again. In fact, the evidence was in the very next sentence,
which Peter himself replies to. (FYI, Peter, eyewitness testimony is
evidence.)

>> When I first read it, and when I read it a second time, I saw that
>> material after the first signature as accidental garbage.
>
> Mark is here referring to my standard way of referencing literally
> hundreds of reposts to document their provenance. Here I show exactly
> how that way, together with my first signature, looked:
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ repost +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Peter Nyikos
> ________________________________________ end of post archived at
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/sdGjUKuSxZM/UTgoUKgxBgAJ
> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <a713b7a6-eb7b-4136...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Parsimony & Imagination in two newsgroups
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ end of repost +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And indeed, if you had done your usual "++++ repost +++++" /
"+++++ end of repost +++++", it would have been clearer (but still, as
always, more confusing than not reposting at all). But you instead used
a different delimiter character (_ instead of +), and you did not say
"end of [whatever you called the repost at the beginning]".

>> John
>> obviously had trouble interpreting it, too.
>
> John obviously lied about what he had snipped, just like Mark is doing
> right here.

Just like Peter lied above. Of course, the Nykosian definition of "lie"
is "anything that I think is false that is said by someone I don't like"
(with the additional wrinkle that disliking someone enough means he
thinks most of what they say is false).

[remainder snipped]

[Peter Nyikos]

No, I was referring to numerous failures by Bill to argue in a
rational way. I have plenty of examples from 2015 archived because
they are so abysmal. Would you like some documentation?

>
> Frankly, that is bullshit.

It's a suspicion which you are doing nothing to allay here. Would you
like to explain why you are leery of me?

You may begin by explaining why you absented yourself
all through Hemidactylus's virulent attack on me
in post after post for not denouncing you about something you had written.

He shoved your words into my face from a thread which I had never
seen, and where he didn't have the minimal backbone to denounce
you for having written it.

The whole incident ended badly for him, but it might still be going
on if he had not made the fatal mistake of libeling me with the
claim that I had endorsed your dig on "brain cancer."

And you might still be refraining from lifting a finger while
it is going on.


By the way, aren't YOU interested in my on-topic comments below?
I seriously doubt that Bill will ever be.


Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

No, I have documentation just above: "...and Glenn's foolish siding with you on the issues being debated". You *did* refer to me.

>
> >
> > Frankly, that is bullshit.
>
> It's a suspicion which you are doing nothing to allay here. Would you
> like to explain why you are leery of me?

I think it is not suspicion, but something else is causing you to think I am
"leery" of you. It doesn't matter to me that you try to take on multiple people at the same time. I've tried in the past to steer you away from this behavior.
I have no problem with your regard for Common Descent, and you'll not find anything that contradicts that. Certainly nothing in this thread to help you with that.

>
> You may begin by explaining why you absented yourself
> all through Hemidactylus's virulent attack on me
> in post after post for not denouncing you about something you had written.

No one need explain their absence in a thread, nor does this have any bearing on being "leery" of you or being "silly". You had your reasons for arguing with Hemi, but t.o. isn't a playground where I should come to your defense against a bully.

>
> He shoved your words into my face from a thread which I had never
> seen, and where he didn't have the minimal backbone to denounce
> you for having written it.
>
> The whole incident ended badly for him, but it might still be going
> on if he had not made the fatal mistake of libeling me with the
> claim that I had endorsed your dig on "brain cancer."
>
> And you might still be refraining from lifting a finger while
> it is going on.

Peter, I had nothing to do with your fight with Hemi. You chose to.

>
>
> By the way, aren't YOU interested in my on-topic comments below?
> I seriously doubt that Bill will ever be.

I may be interested, but not required to answer or participate. Frankly, I probably miss most of your opinions I might be interested in, since I won't drag through all your other issues and references I will not take the time to chase down, am not interested in, and in my opinion, only serve the majority here.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:20:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:02:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Everyone else here, including Kleinman himself, is turning a
> >blind eye to every negative thing I wrote about Howler Monkey,
>
> You *could* take a lesson from that.
>
> But you won't.
>
> <snip>

On the contrary, I have taken the following lesson from your
behavior: you don't give a damn whether Howler Monkey is a blatant hypocrite
on the subject of "paranoia", [1] and neither does anyone else here.

You confessed to having jumped to conclusions about him and me
after two lines, and no one else -- not even Bill or Glenn --
has taken you to task for it.

[1] Unless you are keenly interested in championing his
hypocrisy, like in your Truth by Blatant Assertion that I am paranoid.
But if so, you may be alone in this respect.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 3/25/2019 10:35 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip "Peter's pitiful attempts at damage control"]

Wow, and all this started because you felt like stirring shit over
Harshman snipping your *fucking* sig line? Peter, you're truly pathetic
in every sense of the word.

[Oxyaena]

On 3/26/2019 3:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:20:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:02:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Everyone else here, including Kleinman himself, is turning a
>>> blind eye to every negative thing I wrote about Howler Monkey,
>>
>> You *could* take a lesson from that.
>>
>> But you won't.
>>
>> <snip>
>
> On the contrary, I have taken the following lesson from your
> behavior: you don't give a damn whether Howler Monkey is a blatant hypocrite
> on the subject of "paranoia", [1] and neither does anyone else here.

Do care to explain how Howler Monkey is a hypocrite, something you've so
far failed to do, making it a case of "Truth by Blatant Assertion," in
other words you're libeling him and you know it.

>
> You confessed to having jumped to conclusions about him and me
> after two lines, and no one else -- not even Bill or Glenn --
> has taken you to task for it.

One can predict what the content of your post is going to be with
reasonable accuracy simply based off of your prior history of posting.

>
> [1] Unless you are keenly interested in championing his
> hypocrisy, like in your Truth by Blatant Assertion that I am paranoid.

You are paranoid, you see conspiracies where there are none, and think
everyone's out to get you, an aging narcissist with nothing better to do
than to troll Usenet.

[Peter Nyikos]

I never denied referring to *you*. I only denied that I was being completely
off topic.

> > >
> > > Frankly, that is bullshit.
> >
> > It's a suspicion which you are doing nothing to allay here. Would you
> > like to explain why you are leery of me?
>
> I think it is not suspicion, but something else is causing you to think I am
> "leery" of you. It doesn't matter to me that you try to take on multiple people at the same time. I've tried in the past to steer you away from this behavior.

Yes, I do tend to overdo this, although it is nice
to be able to kill two or more birds with one stone at a time.

> I have no problem with your regard for Common Descent, and you'll not find anything that contradicts that. Certainly nothing in this thread to help you with that.
> >
> > You may begin by explaining why you absented yourself
> > all through Hemidactylus's virulent attack on me
> > in post after post for not denouncing you about something you had written.
>
> No one need explain their absence in a thread, nor does this have any bearing on being "leery" of you or being "silly".

You are beginning to sound like jillery. And that is NOT a compliment,
as you know.

> You had your reasons for arguing with Hemi, but t.o. isn't a playground where I should come to your defense against a bully.

Who said anything about defense? What I had in mind was you berating
Hemi for his cowardice and hypocrisy.

For instance, since you have no qualms about sounding like jillery,
you might say, "If you have some complaints about what I wrote,
tell them to me, you coward."

And you could still say it. Last week he told JC about a "brain cancer"
question you asked, on the "Sciense lernin" thread you started.

> > He shoved your words into my face from a thread which I had never
> > seen, and where he didn't have the minimal backbone to denounce
> > you for having written it.
> >
> > The whole incident ended badly for him, but it might still be going
> > on if he had not made the fatal mistake of libeling me with the
> > claim that I had endorsed your dig on "brain cancer."
> >
> > And you might still be refraining from lifting a finger while
> > it is going on.
>
> Peter, I had nothing to do with your fight with Hemi. You chose to.

Let me remind you that the reason Hemi shoved your words into my
face is that you had called his beloved Ron Okimoto insane,
and they ridiculed you and called you insane. Then I said that there
was more evidence that Ron O is insane than for you being insane.

And you disappeared from that thread, then and there. That counts
as being "leery of me," IMHO.

BTW Hemi may be head over heels in love with Ron O. At least, it is difficult
to imagine any other reason why Hemi would go on a rampage like
that in the wake of a simple comment like that from me.

> >
> > By the way, aren't YOU interested in my on-topic comments below?
> > I seriously doubt that Bill will ever be.
>
> I may be interested, but not required to answer or participate. Frankly, I probably miss most of your opinions I might be interested in, since I won't drag through all your other issues and references I will not take the time to chase down, am not interested in, and in my opinion, only serve the majority here.

Do you *seriously* think my refusing to denounce you for what you had written
serves the majority? It bought me three months of blissful absence
from Hemi, and no one else gives me any flak over it.

And even now, Hemi [by the way, his real name is Scott Chase]
runs away every time I bring up the probable reason why:
by libeling me, he had crossed a Rubicon into *terra incognita*.
His forte is flippant innuendo, where he can always
claim, if squeezed into a corner, "I was only giving my opinion!"
His libel was too unequivocally worded to provide such an escape hatch.


Peter Nyikos

[Howler Monkey]

From his writing alone, one can reasonably deduce that Peter has unresolved issues. Exactly what those might be is essentially impossible to establish in this context. Equally impossible is any determination of *** personality disorder or any other medically recognized condition. As I've said elsewhere, I believe taunting him or leading him on could possibly lead to serious consequences and I strongly discourage engaging him in this way.

[erik simpson]

Just to compare with my perceptions, what aspect of Peter's writing do you think
indicates "unresolved issues"? (As contrasted with the impossibility of
formulating a "diagnosis"?)

[Peter Nyikos]

A prediction: Dr. Dr. Howler Monkey will never resolve any
of the three issues I mention near the end.

On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 6:20:03 PM UTC-4, Howler Monkey wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 1:20:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> > On 3/26/2019 3:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:20:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:02:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> > >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
> > >>
> > >> <snip>
> > >>
> > >>> Everyone else here, including Kleinman himself, is turning a
> > >>> blind eye to every negative thing I wrote about Howler Monkey,

And you are no exception, "Howler". You are even more cowardly
than the other Dr. Dr., Kleinman.

> > >> You *could* take a lesson from that.
> > >>
> > >> But you won't.
> > >>
> > >> <snip>
> > >
> > > On the contrary, I have taken the following lesson from your
> > > behavior: you don't give a damn whether Howler Monkey is a blatant hypocrite
> > > on the subject of "paranoia", [1] and neither does anyone else here.
> >
> > Do care to explain how Howler Monkey is a hypocrite, something you've so
> > far failed to do, making it a case of "Truth by Blatant Assertion," in
> > other words you're libeling him and you know it.

Like Bob, Oxyaena is jumping to libelous conclusions without ever having
read the relevant part from the reply to you, Howler Monkey, with anything
resembling human comprehension.

You wrote:
In the past I have teased you, for which I apologize.
It was frivolous (I thought), but in retrospect
it was a reckless act that could have turned out very badly.

In response, I inquired as to why you thought it "could have turned
out very badly". Your answer began:

You frequently express yourself in terms that can only be
described as paranoid.

To which I replied, in part:

I doubt that you can find anything by me that is anywhere near
half as paranoid-sounding as "a reckless act that could have
turned out very badly.

I posted this in s.b.p. and you never replied. I reposted this in
my OP here and you haven't replied.

You have never been able to find a single statement by me that
qualifies, have you?

You never provided one, not in sci.bio.paleontology and not here.
The obvious conclusion is that you cannot find any such statement
by myself.

IOW, you are hoist with your own "paranoid-sounding" petard.

> >
> > >
> > > You confessed to having jumped to conclusions about him and me
> > > after two lines, and no one else -- not even Bill or Glenn --
> > > has taken you to task for it.
> >
> > One can predict what the content of your post is going to be with
> > reasonable accuracy simply based off of your prior history of posting.

Oxyaena obviously couldn't have predicted those lines I've quoted.
The most logical conclusion is that she never saw them, but
decided in advance that they would never show you being hoist
with your own petard.

Here, however, is a prediction of mine: you will never tell her
that she is deluding herself. And THAT, unlike Oxyaena's false
claim, IS based off YOUR prior history of posting.

> > >
> > > [1] Unless you are keenly interested in championing his
> > > hypocrisy, like in your Truth by Blatant Assertion that I am paranoid.
> >
> > You are paranoid, you see conspiracies where there are none, and think
> > everyone's out to get you, an aging narcissist with nothing better to do
> > than to troll Usenet.

A far better clue to narcissism is the self-satisfied notion that one can
predict what the rest of my OP would be like from the first two lines.
But since you are a mere physician, like Dr. Dr. Kleinman, you won't
dare comment on this.

>
> From his writing alone, one can reasonably deduce that Peter has unresolved issues.

Yes, one of them is

Issue 1: what, if any, statements of mine you had in
mind as sounding "paranoid."

Issue 2: do you think being a physician lends any more
credibility to what you say next than it would lend
Dr. Dr. Kleinman if he were to blather about "possibly...serious consequences"?

> Exactly what those might be is essentially impossible to establish in this context. Equally impossible is any determination of *** personality disorder or any other medically recognized condition. As I've said elsewhere, I believe taunting him or leading him on could possibly lead to serious consequences and I strongly discourage engaging him in this way.

Unresolved Issue Number 3: what "possibly ... serious consequences," if any,
do you have in mind?

You have already eliminated my writing you off as a troll being one
of them. I dismissed ALL other possibilities as follows, in both
t.o. and s.b.p.:

Look here: unless you are foolish enough to sue me, the very worst
that could possibly happen from my end is that I boycott your
posts. However, your overbearing remarks about my present boycott
of two people strongly suggest that this prospect doesn't bother
you in the least.

So spill the beans already: what DID you have in mind when you
wrote "could have turned out very badly"?

You will never spill them, will you?


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 3/26/2019 6:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip rhetorical crotch-sniffing]

>
> And even now, Hemi [by the way, his real name is Scott Chase]

No other reason to doxx him than to be a douche? I dig it.

[snip hyper-ventilating]

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

You didn't include your normal sig here, I wonder why.

[Howler Monkey]

This "contribution" has gone well beyond the point where reasonable conversation can be continued.

[Howler Monkey]

The tendency of his replies to be 'oblique', in the sense that they seem to address his perception (meaning) of the material he is replying to, rather than the material itself. Some exmples of this can be seen in this post:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/0zFuROg-mzA/qRgbK1glBgAJ

There is confusion in that post where he loses track of whom he is addressing, but his quoted exchanges with me show the effect quite clearly. Something is causing this distortion, and that is the "issue" to which I refer.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Hmmm...in a relatively recent post: Message-Id:
<jrGdnYHjT9reBuvB...@giganews.com>

I had said:
“Ok maybe I misunderstood you back last summer. I was having a bad month
dealing with a sick dog, pondering past personal losses, and was a bit
sensitive in the nerves. I think the misunderstanding was mutual. *Sorry*
for that.”

I also provided a message ID for a post way back when where I did confront
Glenn: Message-Id: <AO-dnfuTY8BkfNjG...@giganews.com>

“Glenn <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
These brain damaged maniacs are really easy to spot.

My reply:
Have you officially run away from your sick ass bullshit about me having
brain cancer?
You’re a real class act.”

And way back when I provided an analysis of part of our mutual
misunderstanding: Message-Id:
<fOydnbKEEYgth_zG...@giganews.com>
[start post]
“*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
[snip to quote of Glenn by jillery]
<pgjb91$j21$1...@dont-email.me>
**********************************************
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:22:40 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
And it appears your brain cancer prevents you from seeing what the article
is suggesting.

**********************************************
HTH but I doubt it.

You:
I see. Glenn is insulting Hemidactylus by blaming something over which
Hemidactylus would have no control, were it to exist, rather than blaming
Hemidactylus himself for overlooking something.

Me:
Your lack of common human decency is showing in how you nonchalantly brush
by the glaring fact that Glenn was saying I have a *tragic* affliction of
brain cancer. You *actually* reduced it to the blithe “something over which
Hemidactylus would have no control” as if Glenn was showing compassion in a
sick (and thankfully wrong) hypothetical. I now can’t say if Glenn or you
are the most depraved on this one. You might have topped him.

Me reflecting afterward:
Please note where I said “thankfully wrong”.
Peter truncated this in “Feigned indignation by Hemidactylus WAS: Re: I'm
back” to me saying: “Your lack of common human decency is showing in how
you nonchalantly brush by the glaring fact that Glenn was saying I have a
*tragic* affliction of brain cancer.”

And then he says: “The word "tragic" appears above for the first time. DO
you have brain cancer, by the way? This is the first hint I have that Glenn
wasn't just making that up.” And he soon adds: “And your ham act (of which
the first few lines appear in the repost) was a fallacious *argumentum ad
misericordiam* which gave no further hint as to whether you, yourself, have
brain cancer.”

No further hint? In the part you overlooked (???) I said “(and thankfully
wrong)”.

I had clearly stated the hypothetical you utilized apparently to diminish
the effect of Glenn’s brain cancer statement was thankfully wrong. If you
would have started off condemning Glenn’s statement without all the
unwarranted hypothetical talk there would be no issue between us on that
matter.”

But you ratcheted it up further in “Re: Potential answers to the Fermi
Paradox” with: “You behaved like an *agent provocateur* by sticking the
word "*tragic*" into your ham act, despite it not having been used by
Glenn. I wouldn't have asked you if you hadn't implied that there was
something tragic involved.”

Would it be justified to accuse someone who said “thankfully wrong” about
having brain cancer of acting as an agent provocateur?
[end post]


Which I don’t recall you replying. I took an extended break (far more than
3 months) from you to detoxify. Again sorry for my part in the
misunderstanding.

I notice the paleontology group has slowed quite a bit. I thought that was
a hobby of yours. From what I could glean as a bystander the tone of that
group was descending fast as has this one. Why can’t you pursue your
interest in paleontology more and try being less of a grumpy cat.

I know you don’t like clicking on links, but it’s adorable:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grumpy_Cat_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg

And didn’t you reply to me on a thread about the absence of Richard Norman
in a positive manner?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> A prediction: Dr. Dr. Howler Monkey will never resolve any
> of the three issues I mention near the end.
>
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 6:20:03 PM UTC-4, Howler Monkey wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 1:20:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> > > On 3/26/2019 3:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:20:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:02:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> > > >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
> > > >>
> > > >> <snip>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Everyone else here, including Kleinman himself, is turning a
> > > >>> blind eye to every negative thing I wrote about Howler Monkey,
>
> And you are no exception, "Howler". You are even more cowardly
> than the other Dr. Dr., Kleinman.

And just how cowardly is that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_QtxgrEP1Y

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/26/19 5:14 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [...]

> Issue 1: what, if any, statements of mine you had in
> mind as sounding "paranoid."
>
> Issue 2: do you think being a physician lends any more
> credibility to what you say next than it would lend
> Dr. Dr. Kleinman if he were to blather about "possibly...serious consequences"?

Dr. Kleinman once posted a lengthy paragraph or two on the subject
(IIRC) of sepsis, and what he wrote there showed education, experience,
and, yes, credibility. He is clearly a crackpot in some areas, but his
medical license does stand for something.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 10:05:03 PM UTC-7, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/26/19 5:14 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > [...]
> > Issue 1: what, if any, statements of mine you had in
> > mind as sounding "paranoid."
> >
> > Issue 2: do you think being a physician lends any more
> > credibility to what you say next than it would lend
> > Dr. Dr. Kleinman if he were to blather about "possibly...serious consequences"?
>
> Dr. Kleinman once posted a lengthy paragraph or two on the subject
> (IIRC) of sepsis, and what he wrote there showed education, experience,
> and, yes, credibility. He is clearly a crackpot in some areas, but his
> medical license does stand for something.

And the agents which cause sepsis are subject to the principles of evolution. Therefore if you want to be more effective at treating sepsis, you had better understand how evolution works and evolution works in a mathematically predictable pattern. Don't expect to get that mathematics from Professor Nomathos.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:55:57 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:20:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:02:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Everyone else here, including Kleinman himself, is turning a
>> >blind eye to every negative thing I wrote about Howler Monkey,
>>
>> You *could* take a lesson from that.
>>
>> But you won't.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>On the contrary, I have taken the following lesson from your
>behavior: you don't give a damn whether Howler Monkey is a blatant hypocrite
>on the subject of "paranoia", [1] and neither does anyone else here.

Yep, missed the lesson, as predicted. No surprise; it's a
bit more subtle that you're used to dealing with. Try
thinking about *why* people might be, in your words,
"turning a blind eye" to your foaming assertions.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 8:45:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:55:57 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:20:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:02:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >Everyone else here, including Kleinman himself, is turning a
> >> >blind eye to every negative thing I wrote about Howler Monkey,
> >>
> >> You *could* take a lesson from that.
> >>
> >> But you won't.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >On the contrary, I have taken the following lesson from your
> >behavior: you don't give a damn whether Howler Monkey is a blatant hypocrite
> >on the subject of "paranoia", [1] and neither does anyone else here.
>
> Yep, missed the lesson, as predicted. No surprise; it's a
> bit more subtle that you're used to dealing with. Try
> thinking about *why* people might be, in your words,
> "turning a blind eye" to your foaming assertions.
> --

Now there's a real lesson.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 9:45:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > A prediction: Dr. Dr. Howler Monkey will never resolve any
> > of the three issues I mention near the end.

Looks like this prediction will hold true for a very long
time to come: Dr. Dr. Howler Monkey has thrown in the towel,
evidently unable to resolve any of the issues without losing a lot
of face in the eyes of Casanova, Harshman, jillery,
Oxyaena, Panthera Tigris Altaica, and Simpson.

I left out Mark Isaak, because he doesn't show any inclination
to cozy up to Howler Monkey; quite the contrary. He seems to be hoarding all
his cozying up on this thread for Harshman.

That is, unless you count his reply to me as cozying up to you,
Dr. Dr. Kleinman. But I don't count it that way.

> > On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 6:20:03 PM UTC-4, Howler Monkey wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 1:20:03 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> > > > On 3/26/2019 3:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 2:20:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > > > >> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:02:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> > > > >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <snip>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Everyone else here, including Kleinman himself, is turning a
> > > > >>> blind eye to every negative thing I wrote about Howler Monkey,
> >
> > And you are no exception, "Howler". You are even more cowardly
> > than the other Dr. Dr., Kleinman.

> And just how cowardly is that?

You keep running away from on-topic questions and challenges,
using corny jokes to keep everyone -- correction: yourself -- entertained.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_QtxgrEP1Y

Sorry, I do not link on videos unless some hint is given
as to the contents, and some estimate is given as to running time.

Unlike you, I have a job, and a very demanding one at that.
Also I live with a family, and sometimes the others go on
excursions, leaving me to feed and otherwise take care of our pet rabbits.

And here, I show myself to be far better at assessing prior histories than
Oxyaena was. She couldn't even clear a 1-millimeter high bar
with her baseless taunt, while both predictions of mine are golden.

> > > > >
> > > > > [1] Unless you are keenly interested in championing his
> > > > > hypocrisy, like in your Truth by Blatant Assertion that I am paranoid.
> > > >
> > > > You are paranoid, you see conspiracies where there are none, and think
> > > > everyone's out to get you, an aging narcissist with nothing better to do
> > > > than to troll Usenet.
> >
> > A far better clue to narcissism is the self-satisfied notion that one can
> > predict what the rest of my OP would be like from the first two lines.
> > But since you are a mere physician, like Dr. Dr. Kleinman, you won't
> > dare comment on this.

I forgot about this prediction. The score is 3 out of 3.

> > >
> > > From his writing alone, one can reasonably deduce that Peter has unresolved issues.
> >
> > Yes, one of them is
> >
> > Issue 1: what, if any, statements of mine you had in
> > mind as sounding "paranoid."
> >
> > Issue 2: do you think being a physician lends any more
> > credibility to what you say next than it would lend
> > Dr. Dr. Kleinman if he were to blather about "possibly...serious consequences"?
> >
> > > Exactly what those might be is essentially impossible to establish in this context. Equally impossible is any determination of *** personality disorder or any other medically recognized condition. As I've said elsewhere, I believe taunting him or leading him on could possibly lead to serious consequences and I strongly discourage engaging him in this way.

> >
> > Unresolved Issue Number 3: what "possibly ... serious consequences," if any,
> > do you have in mind?
> >
> > You have already eliminated my writing you off as a troll being one
> > of them. I dismissed ALL other possibilities as follows, in both
> > t.o. and s.b.p.:
> >
> > Look here: unless you are foolish enough to sue me, the very worst
> > that could possibly happen from my end is that I boycott your
> > posts. However, your overbearing remarks about my present boycott
> > of two people strongly suggest that this prospect doesn't bother
> > you in the least.
> >
> > So spill the beans already: what DID you have in mind when you
> > wrote "could have turned out very badly"?
> >
> > You will never spill them, will you?
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

That last one doesn't count, because it is just frosting on the
cake of Issue Number Three. Final score, then: 3 for 3.


Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/28/19 2:03 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 9:45:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> A prediction: Dr. Dr. Howler Monkey will never resolve any
>>> of the three issues I mention near the end.
>
> Looks like this prediction will hold true for a very long
> time to come: Dr. Dr. Howler Monkey has thrown in the towel,
> evidently unable to resolve any of the issues without losing a lot
> of face in the eyes of Casanova, Harshman, jillery,
> Oxyaena, Panthera Tigris Altaica, and Simpson.

Dr. Howler Monkey was acting in *your* interest.

I have commented little on this thread because there is no point. You
will not listen to me. And I will grant that I am hardly the best
person to comment on your mental health.

I will, however, make two general comments:

The best authority for whether a person has a mental illness is often
not that person. The best authorities are that person's family, close
friends, and long-term coworkers. Heed them, even if you do not like
what they are saying.

If lots of people are independently saying the same thing about you, the
common factor is you.

[*Hemidactylus*]

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

>
> Unlike you, I have a job, and a very demanding one at that.
> Also I live with a family, and sometimes the others go on
> excursions, leaving me to feed and otherwise take care of our pet rabbits.
>

Awww! That’s actually cute and sweet. I’ve had pet rabbits and guinea pigs
as cohabitants. They get along, though rabbits seem to be more clueful and
one got jealous if I gave too much attention to the guinea pig. Have you
had the pleasure of a rabbit playing catch me if you can and hide and seek
knowing your inability to get close enough to catch them? Or chew all the
numbered buttons off your remote control?

[jillery]

That's a pretty smart rabbit, that it could tell which buttons were
numbered.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[*Hemidactylus*]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 19:45:47 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Unlike you, I have a job, and a very demanding one at that.
>>> Also I live with a family, and sometimes the others go on
>>> excursions, leaving me to feed and otherwise take care of our pet rabbits.
>>>
>> Awww! That’s actually cute and sweet. I’ve had pet rabbits and guinea pigs
>> as cohabitants. They get along, though rabbits seem to be more clueful and
>> one got jealous if I gave too much attention to the guinea pig. Have you
>> had the pleasure of a rabbit playing catch me if you can and hide and seek
>> knowing your inability to get close enough to catch them? Or chew all the
>> numbered buttons off your remote control?
>
>
> That's a pretty smart rabbit, that it could tell which buttons were
> numbered.
>

I doubt the rabbit cared. I just couldn’t figure how to change channels. I
should have just said I gave up on the chase, fell asleep, woke up with
rabbit sleeping next to me and a functionally useless remote control. Fun
times.

[jillery]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 20:05:12 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 19:45:47 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Unlike you, I have a job, and a very demanding one at that.
>>>> Also I live with a family, and sometimes the others go on
>>>> excursions, leaving me to feed and otherwise take care of our pet rabbits.
>>>>

>>> Awww! That?s actually cute and sweet. I?ve had pet rabbits and guinea pigs

>>> as cohabitants. They get along, though rabbits seem to be more clueful and
>>> one got jealous if I gave too much attention to the guinea pig. Have you
>>> had the pleasure of a rabbit playing catch me if you can and hide and seek
>>> knowing your inability to get close enough to catch them? Or chew all the
>>> numbered buttons off your remote control?
>>
>>
>> That's a pretty smart rabbit, that it could tell which buttons were
>> numbered.
>>
>I doubt the rabbit cared.

Perhaps if you provided some fava beans with a nice chianti...

>I just couldn’t figure how to change channels. I
>should have just said I gave up on the chase, fell asleep, woke up with
>rabbit sleeping next to me and a functionally useless remote control. Fun
>times.

That would have destroyed a great straight line.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 14:03:12 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 9:45:03 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > A prediction: Dr. Dr. Howler Monkey will never resolve any
>> > of the three issues I mention near the end.

>Looks like this prediction will hold true for a very long
>time to come: Dr. Dr. Howler Monkey has thrown in the towel,
>evidently unable to resolve any of the issues without losing a lot
>of face in the eyes of Casanova, Harshman, jillery,
>Oxyaena, Panthera Tigris Altaica, and Simpson.

Your "prediction" will hold true as long as no one cares
what you say.

BTW, "throwing in the towel" is not synonymous with "walking
away in disgust" or "giving up the task as hopeless". Just
sayin'...

[*Hemidactylus*]

Dexter <n...@home.org> wrote:

> *Hemidactylus*,talk.origins wrote:
>
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 19:45:47 -0500, Hemidactylus

> ______________________________________________
>
> I had a pet rabbit for about 2 days way back when I was
> about ten years old. It was cute and snuggled in the bed
> with me, and shit in the bed. Thus, had a pet rabbit only
> for about 2 days.
>
> Much later a friend of mine had a pet rabbit that chewed
> through his speaker wires. The rabbit died when he (she?
> Who knew?) chewed through an extension cord.
>
> The very idea of rabbits as pets just baffles me.
>
> Maybe it's the myth of the Easter Bunny?
>
Nobody ever reflects on the real truth (TM) about rabbits. They don’t chew
the cud.

“You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud.
However, of those that chew the cud or that have a divided hoof you may not
eat the camel, the rabbit or the hyrax. Although they chew the cud, they do
not have a divided hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.”
Deuteronomy 14:6-7 -
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Deuteronomy%2014:6-7&version=NIV

They eat their poop!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecotrope

https://youtu.be/pwLn_His9Yw

Real truth (TMI) about rabbits from an enthusiast:

https://youtu.be/E1JumFqE0vc

A hare demonstrates:

https://youtu.be/MFBw2zRxrNc

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:00:18 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

>Dexter <n...@home.org> wrote:
>> *Hemidactylus*,talk.origins wrote:
>>
>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 19:45:47 -0500, Hemidactylus
>>>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike you, I have a job, and a very demanding one at
>>> that. >>> Also I live with a family, and sometimes the
>>> others go on >>> excursions, leaving me to feed and
>>> otherwise take care of our pet rabbits. >>>

>>>>> Awww! That?s actually cute and sweet. I?ve had pet

True. I suspect the author may have conflated "cud" with
"crud". Assuming, of course, that as King James apparently
assumed, the author wrote in English...

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecotrope
>
>https://youtu.be/pwLn_His9Yw
>
>Real truth (TMI) about rabbits from an enthusiast:
>
>https://youtu.be/E1JumFqE0vc
>
>A hare demonstrates:
>
>https://youtu.be/MFBw2zRxrNc
>

[Peter Nyikos]

I never saw it before you reposted it here:

> I had said:
> "Ok maybe I misunderstood you back last summer. I was having a bad month
> dealing with a sick dog, pondering past personal losses, and was a bit
> sensitive in the nerves. I think the misunderstanding was mutual. *Sorry*
> for that."

There was no misunderstanding on my part, and you aren't even trying
to show that anything up above your words, said to Glenn, could
possibly have been due to a misunderstanding.

> I also provided a message ID for a post way back when where I did confront
> Glenn: Message-Id: <AO-dnfuTY8BkfNjG...@giganews.com>

After you had libeled me with agreeing with Glenn, right?

> Glenn <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> [snip]
> These brain damaged maniacs are really easy to spot.
>
> My reply:
> Have you officially run away from your sick ass bullshit about me having
> brain cancer?
> You're a real class act."

That's nothing compared to the venomous invective you hurled at
me for not denouncing Glenn. It seems like a kid gloves treatment
compared to what you quote yourself saying to me below.

It was the height of hypocrisy, flaming me for that while having been
playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" for several years about
attacks on me by people with clout in talk.origins. They include Harshman,
jillery, Mark Isaak, Oxyaena, Casanova, Robert Camp and Erik Simpson.

You even compromised your integrity for Robert Camp, who in turn had severely
damaged his credibility by attacking me for blowing the whistle
on a perennial scam by Erik Simpson -- whom you ALSO "defended" in
the same post.

> And way back when I provided an analysis of part of our mutual
> misunderstanding:

There's no true analysis below, just a completely clueless self-incrimination,
showing just how complete YOUR misunderstanding is of what went on between us.

> Message-Id:
> <fOydnbKEEYgth_zG...@giganews.com>
> [start post]
> "*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> [snip to quote of Glenn by jillery]
> <pgjb91$j21$1...@dont-email.me>
> **********************************************
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:22:40 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> And it appears your brain cancer prevents you from seeing what the article
> is suggesting.
>
> **********************************************
> HTH but I doubt it.
>
> You:
> I see. Glenn is insulting Hemidactylus by blaming something over which
> Hemidactylus would have no control, were it to exist, rather than blaming
> Hemidactylus himself for overlooking something.

You, who love to drop names of philosophers, psychologists,
etc. at the drop of a hat [think 500 hats and Bartholomew in a classic
Dr. Seuss book] couldn't bear to see me use the kind of talk
that is ubiquitous in Rogerian therapy. It's the most objective
and noncommittal kind of response imaginable, but you saw red:

> Me:
> Your lack of common human decency is showing in how you nonchalantly brush
> by the glaring fact that Glenn was saying I have a *tragic* affliction of
> brain cancer.

Do you think Carl Rogers, who founded Rogerian therapy, was lacking
in common human decency?

> You *actually* reduced it to the blithe "something over which
> Hemidactylus would have no control" as if Glenn was showing compassion in a
> sick (and thankfully wrong) hypothetical.

"as if" is your sick hatred of me coming out, helped along
by your spin-doctoring use of the word "blithe".

> I now can't say if Glenn or you
> are the most depraved on this one. You might have topped him.

If there is any depravity here, it is in the way you misrepresent
what I wrote, and in your grotesquely hypocritical expectation of my doing
something unprecedented in your own behavior.


Suppose I *had* denounced Glenn, what would you have done? would you
finally have done what you hadn't done on the thread where Glenn
actually leveled his insult at you? Would your message have been
something like the following?

See, even Peter Nyikos has turned on you, after having
said you seemed to be less insane than Ron O! You are now
left without a friend in talk.origins except the hapless Bill.
I think I'll show your inhuman attack, as well as Peter's
denunciation of it, to Bill, and then we will see whether
you and Bill ever support each other again.

You are never comfortable with odds of less than 10 to 1 in
your favor, and odds of 10 to 2 are already enough to make
you indulge in "divide and conquer" tactics. They go way
back to the 1990's, when I caught you attacking Joe Potter
for agreeing with me about something, and accusing him
of "sucking up to" me, or words to that effect.

You really need to do something about that siege mentality of yours.


I've snipped the rest of what you wrote, but will deal with it
if you keep on misrepresenting my behavior back then.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

If you weren't such an implacable foe of mine, I'd be glad
to answer your questions and to wax long about our rabbits.

But you have behaved in an insufferably two-faced, forked-tongue
way right on this thread, and have yet to reply to the following
demonstration of your insufferable self-rightousness and hypocrisy:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/0zFuROg-mzA/29w6YtKBCAAJ
Subject: Re: OT: Another Dr. Dr. Joins Talk.origins (also sci.bio.paleontology)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:32:16 -0700 (PDT
Message-ID: <a1c7526b-0b82-40fb...@googlegroups.com>

Now go make pets of the creatures you find under rocks and inside
rotten logs.


Peter Nyikos

PS If you can get a reasonable person [that excludes anyone
who took your ball here and ran with it] to show an appreciation
of what we wrote about rabbits, I'll gladly wax long
and heartily about ours. I'll even answer all your questions
in a conversation with him/her. I'll even do it for Burkhard,
although he seems to be getting rather unreasonable of late.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 8:50:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Unlike you, I have a job, and a very demanding one at that.
>>> Also I live with a family, and sometimes the others go on
>>> excursions, leaving me to feed and otherwise take care of our pet rabbits.
>>>
>> Awww! That's actually cute and sweet. I've had pet rabbits and guinea pigs
>> as cohabitants. They get along, though rabbits seem to be more clueful and
>> one got jealous if I gave too much attention to the guinea pig. Have you
>> had the pleasure of a rabbit playing catch me if you can and hide and seek
>> knowing your inability to get close enough to catch them? Or chew all the
>> numbered buttons off your remote control?
>
> If you weren't such an implacable foe of mine, I'd be glad
> to answer your questions and to wax long about our rabbits.
>

Unplacable foe is your interpretation not mine.

>
> But you have behaved in an insufferably two-faced, forked-tongue
> way right on this thread, and have yet to reply to the following
> demonstration of your insufferable self-rightousness and hypocrisy:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/0zFuROg-mzA/29w6YtKBCAAJ
> Subject: Re: OT: Another Dr. Dr. Joins Talk.origins (also sci.bio.paleontology)
> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:32:16 -0700 (PDT
> Message-ID: <a1c7526b-0b82-40fb...@googlegroups.com>
>

And you didn’t address where I had said “(and thankfully wrong)”.

> Now go make pets of the creatures you find under rocks and inside
> rotten logs.
>

Why?

>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS If you can get a reasonable person [that excludes anyone
> who took your ball here and ran with it] to show an appreciation
> of what we wrote about rabbits, I'll gladly wax long
> and heartily about ours. I'll even answer all your questions
> in a conversation with him/her. I'll even do it for Burkhard,
> although he seems to be getting rather unreasonable of late.
>

Ok I guess.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 8:50:02 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> Unlike you, I have a job, and a very demanding one at that.
> >>> Also I live with a family, and sometimes the others go on
> >>> excursions, leaving me to feed and otherwise take care of our pet rabbits.
> >>>
> >> Awww! That's actually cute and sweet. I've had pet rabbits and guinea pigs
> >> as cohabitants. They get along, though rabbits seem to be more clueful and
> >> one got jealous if I gave too much attention to the guinea pig. Have you
> >> had the pleasure of a rabbit playing catch me if you can and hide and seek
> >> knowing your inability to get close enough to catch them? Or chew all the
> >> numbered buttons off your remote control?
> >
> > If you weren't such an implacable foe of mine, I'd be glad
> > to answer your questions and to wax long about our rabbits.
> >
> Unplacable foe is your interpretation not mine.

Of course not. Your self-righteousness rivals that of Mark Isaak.

And the two of you are probably blissfully unaware of being self-righteous
at all, since in your formative years you almost certainly came
to think of self-righteousness as endemic to right-wingers and
people with deep religious faith [not the bogus stuff that Ron Okimoto
used to peddle]. Also, like so many others who infest talk.origins,
the three of you (I include Ron O) sometimes confuse righteousness with
self-righteousness.

And you go on being self-righteous below.

> > But you have behaved in an insufferably two-faced, forked-tongue
> > way right on this thread, and have yet to reply to the following
> > demonstration of your insufferable self-rightousness and hypocrisy:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/0zFuROg-mzA/29w6YtKBCAAJ
> > Subject: Re: OT: Another Dr. Dr. Joins Talk.origins (also sci.bio.paleontology)
> > Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:32:16 -0700 (PDT
> > Message-ID: <a1c7526b-0b82-40fb...@googlegroups.com>
> >
> And you didn't address where I had said "(and thankfully wrong)".

You nitpick on a minor detail while ignoring the most
venomous outpouring of hate that I have ever had directed
at me in talk.origins. What's more, your outpouring
was all based on a carefully objective statement
in which I covered that "thankfully wrong" base.

You are so steeped in blind hatred against me that you blissfully
glossed over that feature.

>
> > Now go make pets of the creatures you find under rocks and inside
> > rotten logs.
> >
> Why?

They are more in tune to your snake-in-the-grass behavior than
any fluffy bunnies could possibly be.

> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> > PS If you can get a reasonable person [that excludes anyone
> > who took your ball here and ran with it] to show an appreciation
> > of what we wrote about rabbits, I'll gladly wax long
> > and heartily about ours. I'll even answer all your questions
> > in a conversation with him/her. I'll even do it for Burkhard,
> > although he seems to be getting rather unreasonable of late.
> >
> Ok I guess.

Actually, I hope you succeed. I like talking about our pets
to the right kind of audience.


Peter Nyikos

[czeba...@gmail.com]

The time I spent reading through this thread would have been completely wasted if not for the nice scotch whisky (Pinchbottle) I've been sipping while listening to Slayer ("God Hates Us All").
Sometimes it's good to be one's own anesthesiologist...

gregwrld

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/3/19 1:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> [...]

>>> Now go make pets of the creatures you find under rocks and inside
>>> rotten logs.
>>>
>> Why?
>
> They are more in tune to your snake-in-the-grass behavior than
> any fluffy bunnies could possibly be.

http://www.openculture.com/2019/03/killer-rabbits-in-medieval-manuscripts-why-so-many-drawings-in-the-margins-depict-bunnies-going-bad.html

[jillery]

As a poster to this topic, I freely accept my share, however small, of
the blame for contributing to you pickling your liver. I can only
hope that you consider the source of the OP as well as its contents;
two strikes against a meaningful discussion right from the start.

My impression is Hemidactylus' numerically gifted rabbit is the
topic's high point so far.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:
> On 4/3/19 1:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Now go make pets of the creatures you find under rocks and inside
>>>> rotten logs.
>>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> They are more in tune to your snake-in-the-grass behavior than
>> any fluffy bunnies could possibly be.
>
> http://www.openculture.com/2019/03/killer-rabbits-in-medieval-manuscripts-why-so-many-drawings-in-the-margins-depict-bunnies-going-bad.html
>

There’s the creepy rabbit in Donnie Darko.

https://youtu.be/3S89DDszDgA

[*Hemidactylus*]

Slayer is akin to riding in an elevator listening to Lawrence Welk with the
bubble machine compared to Meshuggah. That’s actually a good thing. I love
Seasons in the Abyss. But my time is better spent on Tool (Disposition,
Reflection, Triad).

[Oxyaena]

On 4/3/2019 4:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip psychological projection]

>> And you didn't address where I had said "(and thankfully wrong)".
>
> You nitpick on a minor detail while ignoring the most
> venomous outpouring of hate that I have ever had directed
> at me in talk.origins. What's more, your outpouring
> was all based on a carefully objective statement
> in which I covered that "thankfully wrong" base.

Yet it's *not* somehow hatred when you directed it at others, such as
me. "Low-IQ Simulation" harassment, anyone?

>
> You are so steeped in blind hatred against me that you blissfully
> glossed over that feature.

Your utter lack of self-awareness is unparalleled anywhere else in the
universe.

>
>
>>
>>> Now go make pets of the creatures you find under rocks and inside
>>> rotten logs.
>>>
>> Why?
>
> They are more in tune to your snake-in-the-grass behavior than
> any fluffy bunnies could possibly be.

Compulsory insult noted. And rabbits are *very* aware of predators, no
rabbit would enter within a million light years of you.



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

https://peradectes.wordpress.com/

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Hemidactylus said: Slayer is akin riding in an elevator...compared to Meshuggah...etc.

I like Tool but prefer Dillinger Escape Plan for brainy metal. Mastodon and Slipnot are more my speed for newer rock. Must be getting old...

gregwrld

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Jillery: Your contributions are certainly not the issue in this thread. You're fine by me. It's not even the nittery of Drdr and his stooge Glenn.
It's the endless, pointless digressions of one contributor which suffocate even his own threads.

gregwrld

[jillery]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:29:30 -0700 (PDT), czeba...@gmail.com wrote:

>Jillery: Your contributions are certainly not the issue in this thread. You're fine by me. It's not even the nittery of Drdr and his stooge Glenn.
> It's the endless, pointless digressions of one contributor which suffocate even his own threads.

He would have too much time on his hands if he didn't post all those
pointless digressions, and then he might become dangerous.