By their Fruits March 2014

[RonO]

For some reason Goggle has changed things so the old links no longer
work. It seems strange that an organization that was archiving things
would do something like that, but who knows.

You can still use Google to get the current profiles of the posters, but
a lot of the links to the old By their Fruits threads no longer work
using the new Google.

I thought that Nyikos would be the only IDiot posting, but then Kalk
came back for a bit and Dean and Brazil started posting, so ID hasn't
quite died, but you have to wonder what kind of people would still be
supporting something that even the guys that sold them the scam have
given up on. It is as if they can't figure out what the switch scam is
and can't understand why ID isn't mentioned in the switch scam. They
can't even claim that the there are new creationist scam artists selling
the swtich scam. There is no doubt that they are the same guys that
sold them the ID scam. Guys like Brazil and Kalk still go to their web
site for IDiocy. Why?

These are just the posters that want to continue to try to support
ID/creationism on this news group. Basically anyone can use Google to
get to their profiles and read as many of their posts as you want to in
order to get some idea of the state of ID/creationism. I don't make any
claims that they are representative of what is out there. They are just
the ones posting to TO.

As before if you want to get information from creationists that would
not make this list you can try:
http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/

Angelo Brazil
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Mj49j7fC4AI/UUkoPX0bJMEJ

Peter Nyikos
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Mj49j7fC4AI/tKIxK5KHoWYJ

R. Dean
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/LNSBMdxc5iA/FzkJorqmSh8J

Kalkidas
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/LNSBMdxc5iA/erXWQ0mbDNEJ

Glenn
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/LNSBMdxc5iA/-gyoVk7u4-EJ

Dale
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Bkcfq2k-ZVE/08JJQ1zRYgQJ

Seth Uttley
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/txi_BAC30K8/wAuFdKXfxPwJ

Ray
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Q6fpUBRFUjk/_l5_NbDOtgAJ

Martin (who knows?)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/20J2bOQaT6I/SG4gnZTmaEkJ

Dan Watts
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/b3ZUvNPW8oM/g2os__IwUPsJ

I only went back through a couple weeks worth of active threads and
ignored the one resurrected from last year. Martin and Dan Watts likely
don't count, but they are candidates.

The good old days when we had guys like adman posting
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Mpyctlz00DY/F2E5vRDOsiAJ

For some reason Google TO searches only go back to 2010 and Madman was
using his All seeing eye account. I recall that some of his other
accounts had already been banned. I don't know if the link is going to
work or not. I just got it from a fresh search.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:51:46 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

Ron Quixote, gloating over pyrrhic victories!

ROTFL.

[jillery]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:51:46 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>For some reason Goggle has changed things so the old links no longer
>work. It seems strange that an organization that was archiving things
>would do something like that, but who knows.
>
>You can still use Google to get the current profiles of the posters, but
>a lot of the links to the old By their Fruits threads no longer work
>using the new Google.

It's easy to support the conclusion that Googlegroups is doing their
best to make using it a very discomforting experience.

[Richard Clayton]

On 15-Mar-14 12:51, RonO wrote:

> The good old days when we had guys like adman posting
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Mpyctlz00DY/F2E5vRDOsiAJ
>
> For some reason Google TO searches only go back to 2010 and Madman was
> using his All seeing eye account. I recall that some of his other
> accounts had already been banned. I don't know if the link is going to
> work or not. I just got it from a fresh search.

Even back when Adman was a regular, we still pined for the Good Old Days
of genuinely interesting creationists who were willing to discuss the
evidence. The state of creationism has been headed straight downhill
since at least 2005 -- possibly since much earlier, but between Edwards
v. Aguillard in 1987 and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in
2005, there was at /some/ perceived value in pretending to be motivated
by science and not religion (at least in public).

But the ID proponentsists' Disastrous Defeat in Dover proved there's
simply no point in lying -- the relevant authorities don't believe it
and anyway they just couldn't stop themselves from crowing about their
sectarian goals when they thought the cameras were off. So it's back to
"Forget about evidence, do what I say or God will smite you. Also
sodomites will gay-marry your sons, your daughters will become
baby-murdering lesbian feminazis, and liberals will steal your paycheck
to give it to those lazy /urban/ people, wink wink."

Only the true Kool-Aid drinkers of the movement still think there's
actually some science to be had in intelligent design, and that's why
they keep going back to ID websites. They simply can't accept that the
movement has been lying -- not only to the public, but to the true
believers -- since day one. They deserve more pity than scorn.

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling

[jillery]

The only gloating I see above is from you. Just sayin'.

[Kalkidas]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 16:30:05 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:52:26 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:51:46 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>Ron Quixote, gloating over pyrrhic victories!
>>
>>ROTFL.
>
>
>The only gloating I see above is from you. Just sayin'.

Why, of course you do!

[jillery]

And I'm almost certain that's true even for you.

[Kalkidas]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:29:54 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:49:03 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 16:30:05 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:52:26 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:51:46 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Ron Quixote, gloating over pyrrhic victories!
>>>>
>>>>ROTFL.
>>>
>>>
>>>The only gloating I see above is from you. Just sayin'.
>>
>>Why, of course you do!
>
>
>And I'm almost certain that's true even for you.

Why, of course you are!

[RonO]

At least you can see how stupid and senseless your own statement was. I
laughed too.

Just think of how many times that you have been cremated because you
trusted the wrong people for your bogus arguments. What kept you going
back to the ID perps once you knew that they had run the bait and switch
on you and all the other IDiots?

You keep running from that simple fact, so what is your beef? Can you
find any mention of intelligent design in the switch scam? Who is
selling the switch scam? What has happened to every single legislator
or school board that has needed the ID science to teach?

That is what is so sad about IDiots. The bait and switch started to go
down over 12 years ago and has kept going down in every single instance
where the ID science is needed. The ID perps tried to run the bait and
switch on the Dover rubes (their only failure) and look what happened.
Can you explain any of the behavior of the ID perps rationally as being
honest and something that you should support?

Ever since Ohio in 2002-2003 the only IDiots left are the ignorant,
incompetent and or dishonest. There are no others. All you have to do
is put up the missing ID science and that would not be true. Since you
never have, why keep up the dishonest stupidity? You are no longer
ignorant, so what are you? You have to answer this very simple
question, if the ID science is all it is cracked up to be why did the
guys that sold it to you give up on it and start running an obfuscation
scam that does not mention that ID ever existed 2 years before ID lost
in court? What has every IDiot that needed the ID science gotten instead?

Being snooty and stupid is not an adequate response to this reality.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

You are so agreeable. That's not like you.

[RonO]

I did not want to imply that 2010 were the good old days. It is just as
far back as the google search would go. Things have likely gone down
hill since intelligent design started to make an impact in the late
1990s. Before that the goal wasn't so much to hide the arguments and
scientific creationists were still openly trying to defend their
claptrap long after it had come up empty in the courts, but it was a
more honest effort. Before intelligent design you had guys coming up
with the felt effect of gravity, moon pools on the ark, and others
grinding through the pathetic arguments for a young earth. Before the
"don't ask don't tell" ID scam, posters were more willing to try to
defend their junk.

Right now the IDiots are at the stage where the scientific creationists
were at by the late 1990's. Their bogus arguments have been publicly
refuted in federal court nearly a decade ago. It is more pathetic
because unlike the scientific creationists who put their arguments
forward to be evaluated, the ID perps ran the bait and switch and
refused to put up the intelligent design junk until some IDiot rubes
fouled them up and ID had it day in court. There is no excuse for
IDiots like there was for scientific creationism because the ID perps
themselves knew what the court decision was going to be years before
Dover. The scientific creationists could honestly claim that the courts
messed up. They put up their junk right into the first Federal court
case. The IDiots knew that the bait and switch was required and
implemented it years before in the ID perp's attempt to avoid the court
decision that they knew would be handed down. It is a no brainer that
the ID perps could have gotten the Ohio State board to teach ID anyway
that they wanted it taught, but the ran the bait and switch instead. It
doesn't take a genius to look at the current ID perp switch scam and not
understand that there isn't any intelligent design science in it, and
there hasn't been since several years before Dover and the federal court
case.

What is really sad is you have posters that think that the political
dishonesty and subterfuge IDiocy requires for the public dishonest
political scam applies to discussions in TO and they lie about their
religious beliefs and pretend that they do not have religious interests.
Why should that be necessary in this forum? You have the time to put
up your arguments and they should stand on their own. Lying about
stupid things just lessens their credibility. Just because the guys
that sold the ID scam to the rubes do the dishonest junk should not mean
that the rubes should do the same thing.

This is the current state of the ID/creationists on TO.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 16:46:33 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 3/15/2014 2:52 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:51:46 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ron Quixote, gloating over pyrrhic victories!
>>
>> ROTFL.
>>
>
>At least you can see how stupid and senseless your own statement was. I
>laughed too.

[snip snipes]

Not having much luck destroying anyone's career, are you?

[RonO]

Looks like you still don't have any of that wonderful ID science to
share with us. How sad is that?

What is really sad is that I can't figure out what this comment is
supposed to be about. Do you know or was it just some type of random
dribble that fell out when you realized that you had no cogent comeback?

Ron Okimoto

[Richard Clayton]

Whose career is he trying to destroy?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <lg2cfc$43f$1...@dont-email.me>,
Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip><

>
> Only the true Kool-Aid drinkers of the movement still think there's
> actually some science to be had in intelligent design, and that's why
> they keep going back to ID websites. They simply can't accept that the
> movement has been lying -- not only to the public, but to the true
> believers -- since day one. They deserve more pity than scorn.

A classic case of ignorance acquired by hard work.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Richard Clayton]

On 16-Mar-14 16:03, Richard Clayton wrote:
> On 16-Mar-14 11:59, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 16:46:33 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/15/2014 2:52 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:51:46 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ron Quixote, gloating over pyrrhic victories!
>>>>
>>>> ROTFL.
>>>>
>>>
>>> At least you can see how stupid and senseless your own statement was. I
>>> laughed too.
>>
>> [snip snipes]
>>
>> Not having much luck destroying anyone's career, are you?
>
> Whose career is he trying to destroy?

No answer, Kalkidas?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:39:54 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richard Clayton
<richZIG.e....@gmail.com>:

>On 16-Mar-14 16:03, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> On 16-Mar-14 11:59, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 16:46:33 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/15/2014 2:52 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:51:46 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Quixote, gloating over pyrrhic victories!
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFL.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At least you can see how stupid and senseless your own statement was. I
>>>> laughed too.
>>>
>>> [snip snipes]
>>>
>>> Not having much luck destroying anyone's career, are you?
>>
>> Whose career is he trying to destroy?
>
>No answer, Kalkidas?

Enjoy the silence; it shows he had no one in mind, and was
merely mouthing (fingering?) gibberish. As usual.
--

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

[RonO]

Jonathan has started posting again:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/YP6KN326GqY/0jX3Cxd3DKQJ

Ron Okimoto

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:51:46 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> I thought that Nyikos would be the only IDiot posting, but then Kalk
> came back for a bit and Dean and Brazil started posting, so ID hasn't
> quite died, but you have to wonder what kind of people would still be
> supporting something that even the guys that sold them the scam have
> given up on.

I've corrected you on these misconceptions about me innumerable times,
but it appears that you are determined to carry them with you to the grave.

In fact, if there is a life after death, and it is more or less like what
C. S. Lewis depicted in _The Great Divorce_, you might even choose
hell over heaven so you can cling to all your misconceptions about me
through all eternity.

And here are some more things about which you might have
cherished misconceptions.

<snip for focus>

> Peter Nyikos
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Mj49j7fC4AI/tKIxK5KHoWYJ

Clicking on this url took me to the following post:

________________________________________________________
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 1:03:05 PM UTC-5, Steven L. wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/lnh94e4

> How would Behe explain how this structure got built?

Isn't it obvious? Intelligent design.

Peter Nyikos
=====================================end of post

Clicking on the tinyurl in the included post takes you to a
picture of a MAN-MADE STRUCTURE!!!!

And THIS is the kind of ID I believe in -- intelligent design by
beings that arose naturally, through evolution.

What kind of intelligent design do YOU believe in?

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/24/14 12:12 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:51:46 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>

>> I thought that Nyikos would be the only IDiot posting,[...]

>
> I've corrected you on these misconceptions about me innumerable times,
> but it appears that you are determined to carry them with you to the grave.

Are you ready to admit that irreducible complexity (as applied to
biology) is vacuous at best? If not, RonO has you pegged.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, March 24, 2014 8:47:11 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/24/14 12:12 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:51:46 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
> >> I thought that Nyikos would be the only IDiot posting,[...]
>
> > I've corrected you on these misconceptions about me innumerable times,
> > but it appears that you are determined to carry them with you to the grave.

> Are you ready to admit that irreducible complexity (as applied to
> biology) is vacuous at best?

It is a coherent concept, but it never was a good indicator of difficulty
of evolution in and of itself. If you weren't so incompetent at reading
posts of mine on the topic, you would know that I have been admitting this
since 1997, after seeing Keith Robison's demolition of the difficulty of
evolving irreducibly complex cascades like the part of the clotting cascade
that Behe said was irreducibly complex.

> If not, RonO has you pegged.

To make this comment of yours look rational, you had to delete most of what I
quoted from him, along with all evidence of my nailing him on the post that he
used to "document" my "IDiocy" this time around.

You are just entertaining the people who have me killfiled but are still
reading YOUR posts, aren't you?

You DO know that Burkhard is one of them, don't you? And you DO know
that he has become increasingly aggressive in drawing wild conclusions
about what little he sees preserved in the posts of people who criticize
me in a way similar to you, don't you?

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 3/24/2014 2:12 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:51:46 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>> I thought that Nyikos would be the only IDiot posting, but then Kalk
>> came back for a bit and Dean and Brazil started posting, so ID hasn't
>> quite died, but you have to wonder what kind of people would still be
>> supporting something that even the guys that sold them the scam have
>> given up on.
>
> I've corrected you on these misconceptions about me innumerable times,
> but it appears that you are determined to carry them with you to the grave.

You have lied about these matters innumerable times. Why not continue
to claim to be a church going agnostic who goes to church for the sake
of the immortal soul that he hopes goes on after he dies?

>
> In fact, if there is a life after death, and it is more or less like what
> C. S. Lewis depicted in _The Great Divorce_, you might even choose
> hell over heaven so you can cling to all your misconceptions about me
> through all eternity.

Like I said, lied. How does this fit in with your claim that you are an
agnostic. An agnostic that goes to church for the sake of his immortal
soul? Believing in an immortal soul and some god that has dominion over
it is not an agnostic belief.

The saddest thing is that I was the one that claimed that you being a
creationist didn't matter, but you were the one that made it an issue a
year later. How sad is that? You were the one that prevaricated about
the issue for months and boxed yourself into a stupid corner so that you
had to lie about being an agnostic.

>
> And here are some more things about which you might have
> cherished misconceptions.
>
> <snip for focus>
>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Mj49j7fC4AI/tKIxK5KHoWYJ
>
> Clicking on this url took me to the following post:
>
> ________________________________________________________
> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 1:03:05 PM UTC-5, Steven L. wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/lnh94e4
>
>> How would Behe explain how this structure got built?
>
> Isn't it obvious? Intelligent design.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> =====================================end of post
>
> Clicking on the tinyurl in the included post takes you to a
> picture of a MAN-MADE STRUCTURE!!!!
>
> And THIS is the kind of ID I believe in -- intelligent design by
> beings that arose naturally, through evolution.
>
> What kind of intelligent design do YOU believe in?
>
> Peter Nyikos

Why do you still have to lie about the stupidest things. Why lie about
your intelligent designer? You are the boob that has to claim that
directed panspermia is consistent with a literal reading of the Bible.
Where did your space aliens come from and where did your immortal soul
come from? Stupid lies and prevarication for years over this issue has
been one of the things that emphasizes your delusions. You can't tell
the truth about some issues to save your life.

You make this list because you were an IDiot before the term was in
common usage (before the turn of the century) and I can just go back to
your last posts to me earlier this month to demonstrate that you are
still trying to defend the IDiocy. Lying about being a creationist (the
type that matters for the ID scam) is just a stupid dishonest political
ploy that the ID perps run. It doesn't mean that all IDiots have to lie
about their religious beliefs too, or that they have to keep lying about
who or what their intelligent designer really is.

The dishonest political ploy failed nearly a decade ago. It is time to
leave it behind. The ID perps knew that ID was a failure and started
running the bait and switch on rubes like yourself years before they
lost in court. That is just the reality that you can't deal with. Even
today you can't find junk like IC in the switch scam, so what good could
it possibly be? The guys that sold the junk to you won't support it
when they need a real scientific controversy.

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/24/14 7:45 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Monday, March 24, 2014 8:47:11 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/24/14 12:12 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:51:46 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>
>>>> I thought that Nyikos would be the only IDiot posting,[...]
>>
>>> I've corrected you on these misconceptions about me innumerable times,
>>> but it appears that you are determined to carry them with you to the grave.
>
>> Are you ready to admit that irreducible complexity (as applied to
>> biology) is vacuous at best?
>
> It is a coherent concept, but it never was a good indicator of difficulty
> of evolution in and of itself.

It is not a coherent concept (it is impossible to define in practice),
and it is not merely "never a good indicator"; it is never an indicator
at all.

> If you weren't so incompetent at reading
> posts of mine on the topic, you would know that I have been admitting this
> since 1997, after seeing Keith Robison's demolition of the difficulty of
> evolving irreducibly complex cascades like the part of the clotting cascade
> that Behe said was irreducibly complex.

If *you* were not so incompetent at reading your posts, you would know
that you regularly defend IC. Just a week or two ago, you went to such
outrageous lengths, in defense of IC, as claiming that molecules never
change. I know you are not so stupid to believe that, so it must have
been a visceral emotion-driven defense, implying that you have an
emotional attachment to the validity of IC.

>> If not, RonO has you pegged.
>
> To make this comment of yours look rational, you had to delete most of what I
> quoted from him,

I deleted "but then Kalk came back ...", which is not about you or your
stand at all. Not everything in the universe is about you. You really,
really, really need to learn that someday.

> along with all evidence of my nailing him on the post that he
> used to "document" my "IDiocy" this time around.

My post made clear that I have no interest in Ron's evidence. I wanted
to hear direct evidence from the primary source, to wit, you. And I got
the evidence, in your own words above, that you are an IDiot. Thank you
for responding and clarifying.

> You are just entertaining the people who have me killfiled but are still
> reading YOUR posts, aren't you?

That is paranoia.

> You DO know that Burkhard is one of them, don't you? And you DO know
> that he has become increasingly aggressive in drawing wild conclusions
> about what little he sees preserved in the posts of people who criticize
> me in a way similar to you, don't you?

That is paranoia. Go find a shrink to play your blame games with.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:43:29 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 3/24/2014 2:12 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:51:46 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> >> I thought that Nyikos would be the only IDiot posting, but then Kalk
> >> came back for a bit and Dean and Brazil started posting, so ID hasn't
> >> quite died, but you have to wonder what kind of people would still be
> >> supporting something that even the guys that sold them the scam have
> >> given up on.

> > I've corrected you on these misconceptions about me innumerable times,
> > but it appears that you are determined to carry them with you to the grave.

> You have lied about these matters innumerable times.

I have always told the truth, so you are just illustrating what I wrote,
and adding strength to the "it appears that" qualifier.

> Why not continue
> to claim to be a church going agnostic who goes to church for the sake
> of the immortal soul that he hopes goes on after he dies?

"goes to church for the sake of..." is your fantasy, nothing more. I never
said anything remotely like it.

And so you continue to display your cherished misconceptions for all to
say.

> > In fact, if there is a life after death, and it is more or less like what
> > C. S. Lewis depicted in _The Great Divorce_, you might even choose
> > hell over heaven so you can cling to all your misconceptions about me
> > through all eternity.

> Like I said, lied.

Pure GIGO.

> How does this fit in with your claim that you are an
> agnostic.

Perfectly. You are so wedded to your misconceptions that the "if" preceding
"there is a life after death" is already gone from your short-term memory.

<snip paraphrasal of preceding misconception, with more "GO" (Garbage Out)
added>

> The saddest thing is that I was the one that claimed that you being a
> creationist didn't matter,

That's not sad, it's just an illustration of how you use an expansive
definition of the word "creationist" which is irrelevant to the central
issue of talk.origins.

> but you were the one that made it an issue a
> year later. How sad is that?

Not sad at all. What IS sad is that you claim to be a creationist by your
expansive definition and yet you've told NOTHING about the creator you
allege you believe in. And I keep asking for information about it, too.

<snip stupid misconception about my being an agnostic being a "lie">

> > And here are some more things about which you might have
> > cherished misconceptions.

And sure enough, you revealed several of them.

> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Mj49j7fC4AI/tKIxK5KHoWYJ

> > Clicking on this url took me to the following post:

> > ________________________________________________________
>
> > On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 1:03:05 PM UTC-5, Steven L. wrote:
> >> http://tinyurl.com/lnh94e4
> >> How would Behe explain how this structure got built?

> > Isn't it obvious? Intelligent design.
> > Peter Nyikos
> > =====================================end of post

> > Clicking on the tinyurl in the included post takes you to a
> > picture of a MAN-MADE STRUCTURE!!!!

> > And THIS is the kind of ID I believe in -- intelligent design by
> > beings that arose naturally, through evolution.

> > What kind of intelligent design do YOU believe in?

Naturally, you ducked this question, perhaps because you continue
not to want to say ANYTHING about the "creator" you allegedly believe in.

> Why do you still have to lie about the stupidest things. Why lie about
> your intelligent designer?

Yet another cherished misconception of yours. The intelligent designerS
[Note the PLURAL] that I am by far the most inclined to hypothesize were
a race of intelligent beings that arose by abiogenesis and evolution,
and sent microorganisms to earth ca. 3.5 gya.

> You are the boob that has to claim that
> directed panspermia is consistent with a literal reading of the Bible.

The only reason I "have" to claim it is that Ray Martinez is illogical
enough to claim that only atheists take directed panspermia seriously.

By the way, did you know that Dawkins takes it seriously? Here is
a short YouTube excerpt from an interview during which he revealed
this little tidbit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

> Where did your space aliens come from

I told you above for the umpteenth time, but you are in love with your
misconceptions about that too.

> and where did your immortal soul
> come from?

YOU are the one who believes in immortal souls, not I.

Or do you? Does YOUR "creator" have anything to do with creating
immortal souls, in your private belief?

What is the name of this mysterious "creator" of yours?

Yahweh?
Allah?
Amaterasu?
Ahura-Mazda?
Ahriman?
Brahman?
Ron Okimoto?

Don't be surprised by that last bit. If you've read Alan Watts's
_The Book [On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are]_ you know that
he believed there is only one conscious entity in the whole of reality--
and you ARE conscious, aren't you?

Also, the ending of Mark Twain's _The Mysterious Stranger_ endorses
that philosophy, with a vengeance.

<snip torrent of unsupported allegations about me lying. Boring.>

I've also snipped irrelevant crap about the "ID perps" who never had
anything to do with my own ideas of ID (explained above, beginning with
"And THIS is the kind of ID I believe in").

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/25/14 2:10 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> [snip irrelevant personalities; the "you" could apply to anyone]

>
> What IS sad is that you claim to be a creationist by your
> expansive definition and yet you've told NOTHING about the creator you
> allege you believe in.

Why would you consider that sad? Far sadder is the fact that many
people *will* expound about their god with details that they could not
possibly know. Sadder still (except perhaps in that they served as
impetus for forming this newsgroup) is when people insist that their
idea of such details must be correct.

You might as well have written, "What IS sad is that you are thoughtful
and polite on the matter."

[RonO]

On 3/25/2014 4:10 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:43:29 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 3/24/2014 2:12 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:51:46 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>>>> I thought that Nyikos would be the only IDiot posting, but then Kalk
>>>> came back for a bit and Dean and Brazil started posting, so ID hasn't
>>>> quite died, but you have to wonder what kind of people would still be
>>>> supporting something that even the guys that sold them the scam have
>>>> given up on.
>
>>> I've corrected you on these misconceptions about me innumerable times,
>>> but it appears that you are determined to carry them with you to the grave.
>
>> You have lied about these matters innumerable times.
>
> I have always told the truth, so you are just illustrating what I wrote,
> and adding strength to the "it appears that" qualifier.

Delusions don't exempt you from all the lies that you have told. I
don't even know why you would lie about lying at this late date.

>
>> Why not continue
>> to claim to be a church going agnostic who goes to church for the sake
>> of the immortal soul that he hopes goes on after he dies?
>
> "goes to church for the sake of..." is your fantasy, nothing more. I never
> said anything remotely like it.
>
> And so you continue to display your cherished misconceptions for all to
> say.

Will I really have to go back and look up that post where you admitted
why you went to church? Wasn't it for the immortal soul that you
claimed that you hoped would go on after you died?

You wrote that. To deny it now is just senseless. The time to deny it
was when you made the claim, but you did not deny it then. Why deny it
now? When did you make that claim? It was over a year after you first
lied about being a creationist, and was after you started lying about
being a creationist again, and had spent months prevaricating about the
subject before claiming to be an agnostic, and then making the admission
of why you were a Catholic and went to church.

>
>
>>> In fact, if there is a life after death, and it is more or less like what
>>> C. S. Lewis depicted in _The Great Divorce_, you might even choose
>>> hell over heaven so you can cling to all your misconceptions about me
>>> through all eternity.
>
>> Like I said, lied.
>
> Pure GIGO.

Why keep lying?

>
>> How does this fit in with your claim that you are an
>> agnostic.
>
> Perfectly. You are so wedded to your misconceptions that the "if" preceding
> "there is a life after death" is already gone from your short-term memory.

Agnostics do not go to church for the sake of their immortal souls and
they do not claim that directed panspermia is consistent with a literal
reading of the Bible.

If that is too narrow you are just full of what you are usually full of.
You admit to being a church going Catholic. That is pretty far from
being an agnostic.

>
> <snip paraphrasal of preceding misconception, with more "GO" (Garbage Out)
> added>

Run. Lying about what you have snipped out doesn't mean that you aren't
lying.

>
>
>> The saddest thing is that I was the one that claimed that you being a
>> creationist didn't matter,
>
> That's not sad, it's just an illustration of how you use an expansive
> definition of the word "creationist" which is irrelevant to the central
> issue of talk.origins.

My definition is the one that matters for the ID/creationism that is
discussed on TO. Demonstrate otherwise. What is the current political
ID scam? Why do IDiots like you deny being creationists? All the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute that have admitted who their
intelligent designer is have claimed that it is the Christian God of the
Bible. That includes Meyer, Dembski and your hero Behe. So my
definition applies. If you want to discuss the science being a
creationist doesn't matter, but IDiots ran out of ID science before they
started to run the scam.

>
>> but you were the one that made it an issue a
>> year later. How sad is that?
>
> Not sad at all. What IS sad is that you claim to be a creationist by your
> expansive definition and yet you've told NOTHING about the creator you
> allege you believe in. And I keep asking for information about it, too.

You are just scum. That is the only reason that you keep bringing up my
religious beliefs, because I don't have to lie about mine like you do.
Go back and demonstrate that I did not answer your questions. Who
snipped out my answer and claimed that it wasn't good enough? Who
didn't go back to that stupid dishonest post of yours and demonstrate
that what I claimed was not true? Who ran? You.

>
> <snip stupid misconception about my being an agnostic being a "lie">

Just because you snip something out does not mean that you are not lying
when you lie about it. Your one post lying rule is stupid when you just
have to go up one post and read what you are lying about.

>
>>> And here are some more things about which you might have
>>> cherished misconceptions.
>
> And sure enough, you revealed several of them.

Point them out. Don't snip and lie.

>
>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Mj49j7fC4AI/tKIxK5KHoWYJ
>
>>> Clicking on this url took me to the following post:
>
>>> ________________________________________________________
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 1:03:05 PM UTC-5, Steven L. wrote:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/lnh94e4
>>>> How would Behe explain how this structure got built?
>
>>> Isn't it obvious? Intelligent design.
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>> =====================================end of post
>
>>> Clicking on the tinyurl in the included post takes you to a
>>> picture of a MAN-MADE STRUCTURE!!!!
>
>>> And THIS is the kind of ID I believe in -- intelligent design by
>>> beings that arose naturally, through evolution.
>
>>> What kind of intelligent design do YOU believe in?
>
> Naturally, you ducked this question, perhaps because you continue
> not to want to say ANYTHING about the "creator" you allegedly believe in.

I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer. You know that,
but you can't accept the truth.

>
>> Why do you still have to lie about the stupidest things. Why lie about
>> your intelligent designer?
>
> Yet another cherished misconception of yours. The intelligent designerS
> [Note the PLURAL] that I am by far the most inclined to hypothesize were
> a race of intelligent beings that arose by abiogenesis and evolution,
> and sent microorganisms to earth ca. 3.5 gya.

And this is consistent with a literal reading of the Bible in what way?

If these aliens could arise by abiogenesis and evolution, why claim that
they existed? What is the difference between alien life and earth life
that would require aliens?

>
>> You are the boob that has to claim that
>> directed panspermia is consistent with a literal reading of the Bible.
>
> The only reason I "have" to claim it is that Ray Martinez is illogical
> enough to claim that only atheists take directed panspermia seriously.

What type of agnostic panspermist would believe that panspermia is
consistent with a literal reading of the Bible? What kind of literal
reading could you possibly be talking about?

>
> By the way, did you know that Dawkins takes it seriously? Here is
> a short YouTube excerpt from an interview during which he revealed
> this little tidbit:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Who cares?

>
>
>> Where did your space aliens come from
>
> I told you above for the umpteenth time, but you are in love with your
> misconceptions about that too.

You obviously can't even tell yourself the truth. Face the facts your
intelligent designer is responsible for the aliens so that directed
panspermia can be consistent with your literal reading of the Bible. It
doesn't take a genius to know that you aren't telling the truth. Why
lie about your religious beliefs?

>
>> and where did your immortal soul
>> come from?
>
> YOU are the one who believes in immortal souls, not I.

So you lied about why you went to church, or you are lying now. What a
dilemma.

>
> Or do you? Does YOUR "creator" have anything to do with creating
> immortal souls, in your private belief?

Why do you have to lie about it? Who created your immortal soul?
Haven't I claimed that we probably have similar religious view, but I
don't have to lie about them like you do?

>
> What is the name of this mysterious "creator" of yours?

You don't seem to know anything about Methodists. It is well known that
they have the same God that the Catholics worship. What do you get from
being an asshole and denigrating someone else's religious beliefs
because you have to lie about your own.

I'll leave this last bit intact because it is so Nykosian in your
assoholic way.

Snip and lie what a stupid way to live.

Ron Okimoto

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:12:54 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/24/14 7:45 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Monday, March 24, 2014 8:47:11 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >> On 3/24/14 12:12 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >>>> I thought that Nyikos would be the only IDiot posting,[...]

[repost of Isaak snip]
but then Kalk

came back for a bit and Dean and Brazil started posting, so ID hasn't
quite died, but you have to wonder what kind of people would still be
supporting something that even the guys that sold them the scam have
given up on.

[end of repost]

> >>> I've corrected you on these misconceptions about me innumerable times,
> >>> but it appears that you are determined to carry them with you to the
> >>> grave.

> >> Are you ready to admit that irreducible complexity (as applied to
> >> biology) is vacuous at best?

Are you ready to admit that you tried to mislead readers below by
putting an ellipsis where Ron O soon RESUMED talking
about me, as documented above?

> > It is a coherent concept, but it never was a good indicator of difficulty
> > of evolution in and of itself.

> It is not a coherent concept (it is impossible to define in practice),

You are incompetent to judge whether it is any more hard to define in
practice than "homologous" or "species". There are gray edges around
all these expressions, but biology isn't as precise as mathematics
--it cannot be, in case you didn't know.

<snip for focus>

> >> If not, RonO has you pegged.

> > To make this comment of yours look rational, you had to delete most of what
> > I quoted from him,

> I deleted "but then Kalk came back ...", which is not about you or your
> stand at all.

Take a look at what goes into that ellipsis again, you deceitful s.o.b.

"for a bit and Dean and Brazil started posting, so ID hasn't
quite died, but you have to wonder what kind of people would still be
supporting something that even the guys that sold them the scam have
given up on."

Do you think you can fool the other readers into thinking that
"what kind of people" doesn't refer to all four of us, at least?

If so, you must have a very low opinion of the general readership
of talk.origins.

> Not everything in the universe is about you. You really,
> really, really need to learn that someday.

The only person posting to this thread who could be justifiably addressed
that way is Ron O, but you compromised your integrity for him and jillery
so much in "Turtle genome sequence and analysis" last year that you
probably can't bring yourself to ever stop playing "see no evil, hear
no evil, speak no evil" where they are concerned.

> > along with all evidence of my nailing him on the post that he
> > used to "document" my "IDiocy" this time around.

> My post made clear that I have no interest in Ron's evidence.

Of course not. You were quite willing to compromise your integrity
for him and jillery without either of them having to provide ANY evidence.
The fact that I was resolutely sticking to on-topic discussion
and totally ignoring the lot of you only made it that much easier
for you to do it.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to tomorrow.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 4:10 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:43:29 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
> >> On 3/24/2014 2:12 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >>> On Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:51:46 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> >>>> I thought that Nyikos would be the only IDiot posting, but then Kalk
> >>>> came back for a bit and Dean and Brazil started posting, so ID hasn't
> >>>> quite died, but you have to wonder what kind of people would still be
> >>>> supporting something that even the guys that sold them the scam have
> >>>> given up on.

> >>> I've corrected you on these misconceptions about me innumerable times,
> >>> but it appears that you are determined to carry them with you to the
> >>> grave.

> >> You have lied about these matters innumerable times.

> > I have always told the truth, so you are just illustrating what I wrote,
> > and adding strength to the "it appears that" qualifier.

<snip broken record routine by Ron O>

> >> Why not continue
> >> to claim to be a church going agnostic who goes to church for the sake
> >> of the immortal soul that he hopes goes on after he dies?

> > "goes to church for the sake of..." is your fantasy, nothing more. I never
> > said anything remotely like it.

> > And so you continue to display your cherished misconceptions for all to
> > say.

> Will I really have to go back and look up that post where you admitted
> why you went to church?

Go ahead. You might even discover that all I said along THOSE lines
was that as long as I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I adhere
to its rules and customs.

Hate-crazed spin-doctor that you are, you might even take this to be the
very admission you are describing above.

I've snipped a lot here. If anyone reading it besides Ron O thinks anything
in it has any merit, all they have to do is say why and I will address it.

That even includes Mark Isaak and jillery. But, although each compromised
his/her integrity for you in "Turtle genome sequence and analysis" last year,
each has shown a lack of interest in any actual arguments between us, so I
don't think they'll try.

> > What IS sad is that you claim to be a creationist by your
> > expansive definition and yet you've told NOTHING about the creator you
> > allege you believe in. And I keep asking for information about it, too.

> You are just scum. That is the only reason that you keep bringing up my
> religious beliefs, because I don't have to lie about mine like you do.

Au contraire, I believe you are lying that you believe in a creator,
other than a "creator" of injustice named Ron Okimoto. You have
shown NO sign of believing in anyone but yourself.

I have just been too polite to say that until now, but now that Isaak
has licked your boots by labeling your evasions as "polite", I say it now.

> Go back and demonstrate that I did not answer your questions. Who
> snipped out my answer and claimed that it wasn't good enough?

What answer? That you are a Methodist? Have you forgotten what I related
about a Methodist minister who said to his congregation on Easter Sunday,
"When you die, you die" and made it clear that he disbelieved in a life
after death? Have you forgotten what I wrote about the convert from
Methodism to Presbyterianism saying that he converted because the Methodist
Church was too permeated with a "God is dead" philosophy?

You were quite nonchalant about both of those facts, but claimed not to share
them. But you were as tight-lipped as ever of what you DID believe, if
anything.

<big snip, with same offer as above>

> >>> Clicking on the tinyurl in the included post takes you to a
> >>> picture of a MAN-MADE STRUCTURE!!!!

> >>> And THIS is the kind of ID I believe in -- intelligent design by
> >>> beings that arose naturally, through evolution.

> >>> What kind of intelligent design do YOU believe in?

> > Naturally, you ducked this question, perhaps because you continue
> > not to want to say ANYTHING about the "creator" you allegedly believe in.

> I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer.

What kind of God is it that creates without any intelligence? What kind
of a God is it that creates without designing anything it creates?

The God of pantheists, maybe. Can you give any other halfway plausible
answer? I cannot.

<snip, same offer as before>

> You obviously can't even tell yourself the truth. Face the facts your
> intelligent designer is responsible for the aliens so that directed
> panspermia can be consistent with your literal reading of the Bible.

How illogical can you get? The Bible says NOTHING about God creating
anything on any planet besides earth.

And I never believed that God is as described in Genesis after I turned
eight, even while I did completely believe in God up to the age of 21.
[By the way,I am 68 now.] My point ALWAYS was that Ray Martinez could
be a Biblical literalist and accept directed panspermia. If Ray Martinez
didn't exist, I don't think I would ever have broached this topic.

<snip Ron O clinging fanatically to several misconceptions>

> Haven't I claimed that we probably have similar religious view, but I
> don't have to lie about them like you do?

I don't know why you would ever claim such a ridiculous thing.

> > What is the name of this mysterious "creator" of yours?

> You don't seem to know anything about Methodists.

See above for how abysmally stupid this comment is.

> It is well known that
> they have the same God that the Catholics worship.

Not all of them, not by a long shot. See above again.

> I'll leave this last bit intact because it is so Nykosian in your
> assoholic way.

> Snip and lie what a stupid way to live.

Leave in and ignore, including the ducking of questions, is equally stupid.
Too bad for you that I don't do either one, while even a pathologically
dishonest person like yourself has to admit that you are doing the latter.

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:02:25 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>That even includes Mark Isaak and jillery.

And then there's "peter" who also acts as if manipulating others makes
him look clever. You and rnorman both need to listen to your mommies.

[RonO]

On 3/25/2014 10:02 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 3/25/2014 4:10 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:43:29 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>
>>>> On 3/24/2014 2:12 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>>>> On Saturday, March 15, 2014 12:51:46 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>>>>>> I thought that Nyikos would be the only IDiot posting, but then Kalk
>>>>>> came back for a bit and Dean and Brazil started posting, so ID hasn't
>>>>>> quite died, but you have to wonder what kind of people would still be
>>>>>> supporting something that even the guys that sold them the scam have
>>>>>> given up on.
>
>>>>> I've corrected you on these misconceptions about me innumerable times,
>>>>> but it appears that you are determined to carry them with you to the
>>>>> grave.
>
>>>> You have lied about these matters innumerable times.
>
>>> I have always told the truth, so you are just illustrating what I wrote,
>>> and adding strength to the "it appears that" qualifier.
>
> <snip broken record routine by Ron O>

Running is a way of life.

>
>>>> Why not continue
>>>> to claim to be a church going agnostic who goes to church for the sake
>>>> of the immortal soul that he hopes goes on after he dies?
>
>>> "goes to church for the sake of..." is your fantasy, nothing more. I never
>>> said anything remotely like it.
>
>>> And so you continue to display your cherished misconceptions for all to
>>> say.
>
>> Will I really have to go back and look up that post where you admitted
>> why you went to church?
>
> Go ahead. You might even discover that all I said along THOSE lines
> was that as long as I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I adhere
> to its rules and customs.

I'll look for it. What thread was it in? It was soon after you lied
about being an agnostic, but that still is a lot of ground to cover.

>
> Hate-crazed spin-doctor that you are, you might even take this to be the
> very admission you are describing above.

No spin, because there was no denial about the facts at the time. You'd
just run or lie without demonstrating anything. Why didn't you just put
up the quote and demonstrate that I was misrepresenting you at the time
or for more than a year after? That was what, 2012? Kind of late to
demand the evidence now.

>
> I've snipped a lot here. If anyone reading it besides Ron O thinks anything
> in it has any merit, all they have to do is say why and I will address it.

Everyone should know about your one post rule by now. If you are caught
lying, but the evidence is not in the post that you are lying in it
doesn't count as lying. That is why you are so assiduous about snipping
things out. You will even snip out junk from the middle of quoted
material in order to prevaricate about an issue. Your own claim is that
if you snip it out, you are not responsible for knowing what you snipped
out or understanding what you snipped out. Snipping out the same
material from the middle of a quote twice should be evidence enough that
you understand what you are snipping out, but you have your stupid
delusions about it. You have even snipped out everything that I wrote
from multiple places in the post, leaving your junk in, in a response to
me not long ago, and then pretended to respond to the post. That is
just how sad you are.

>
> That even includes Mark Isaak and jillery. But, although each compromised
> his/her integrity for you in "Turtle genome sequence and analysis" last year,
> each has shown a lack of interest in any actual arguments between us, so I
> don't think they'll try.

My guess is that more than two others are onto you. You should tell
more people why you snip the junk and everyone would understand.

>
>>> What IS sad is that you claim to be a creationist by your
>>> expansive definition and yet you've told NOTHING about the creator you
>>> allege you believe in. And I keep asking for information about it, too.
>
>> You are just scum. That is the only reason that you keep bringing up my
>> religious beliefs, because I don't have to lie about mine like you do.
>
> Au contraire, I believe you are lying that you believe in a creator,
> other than a "creator" of injustice named Ron Okimoto. You have
> shown NO sign of believing in anyone but yourself.
>
> I have just been too polite to say that until now, but now that Isaak
> has licked your boots by labeling your evasions as "polite", I say it now.

I think everyone knows who the liar is. Your bogus attempts to
denigrate someone else's religious beliefs is just sad.

>
>> Go back and demonstrate that I did not answer your questions. Who
>> snipped out my answer and claimed that it wasn't good enough?
>
> What answer? That you are a Methodist? Have you forgotten what I related
> about a Methodist minister who said to his congregation on Easter Sunday,
> "When you die, you die" and made it clear that he disbelieved in a life
> after death? Have you forgotten what I wrote about the convert from
> Methodism to Presbyterianism saying that he converted because the Methodist
> Church was too permeated with a "God is dead" philosophy?

The answer that you removed most of and then claimed that it wasn't good
enough. You know the posts that you ran from and never demonstrated
that you had not done exactly what I said.

This is what makes you so sad and degenerate as an asshole. You only
brought up the story to denigrate my religious beliefs. There was no
other reason. Why shouldn't I have just said that I had never heard of
that belief in the Methodist church, but there are a lot of different
beliefs.

You are still running from your claims about your Methodist quote
manipulation. Why don't you go back and demonstrate that you did not do
what I claimed. All you have to do to demonstrate that I am lying would
be to put up your post and my original post and compare what is left of
my explanation with the original that I wrote. That should have been
easy, but all we get are stories that probably were just made up by you
for your own degenerate purposes. Like I've said before. There is no
evidence that your story above even happened with that minister. Why
should the story be useful for anything except demonstrating what an ass
you are for repeating it?

>
> You were quite nonchalant about both of those facts, but claimed not to share
> them. But you were as tight-lipped as ever of what you DID believe, if
> anything.

Stating the truth and the reality of the situation is nonchalant.
Should I lie like you to make it more exciting?

>
> <big snip, with same offer as above>

My offer has always stood. Demonstrate what you claim. Everyone knows
that you would in a heartbeat if you could, but you always run.

What thread was your Catholic admission in? I will have trouble finding
it because you posted the claim to someone else.

Why lie about it now? Shouldn't you have lied about it as soon as
possible? You could have tried to correct my misconception back then.

>
>>>>> Clicking on the tinyurl in the included post takes you to a
>>>>> picture of a MAN-MADE STRUCTURE!!!!
>
>>>>> And THIS is the kind of ID I believe in -- intelligent design by
>>>>> beings that arose naturally, through evolution.
>
>>>>> What kind of intelligent design do YOU believe in?
>
>>> Naturally, you ducked this question, perhaps because you continue
>>> not to want to say ANYTHING about the "creator" you allegedly believe in.
>
>> I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer.
>
> What kind of God is it that creates without any intelligence? What kind
> of a God is it that creates without designing anything it creates?
>
> The God of pantheists, maybe. Can you give any other halfway plausible
> answer? I cannot.

Beats me where these conclusions come from. Last time I checked the
Methodists had the same God as Catholics. Do you know how or why God
creates? I do not claim any such knowledge.

>
> <snip, same offer as before>
>
>
>> You obviously can't even tell yourself the truth. Face the facts your
>> intelligent designer is responsible for the aliens so that directed
>> panspermia can be consistent with your literal reading of the Bible.
>
> How illogical can you get? The Bible says NOTHING about God creating
> anything on any planet besides earth.

How illogical was it to claim that directed panspermia was consistent
with a literal reading of the Bible? You are the one that made the
claim. This is not a claim that an agnostic would make when trying to
defend their belief in directed panspermia.

>
> And I never believed that God is as described in Genesis after I turned
> eight, even while I did completely believe in God up to the age of 21.
> [By the way,I am 68 now.] My point ALWAYS was that Ray Martinez could
> be a Biblical literalist and accept directed panspermia. If Ray Martinez
> didn't exist, I don't think I would ever have broached this topic.

How many times do I have to say that we might have similar religious
beliefs except that I don't lie about mine. There are a lot of things
in the Bible that I don't take as fact or true descriptions of the
nature of God. So what? That is acceptable in the Methodist church. I
asked before I was baptized.

I don't recall Ray being mentioned when you made the claim. You were
trying to organize some kind of directed panspermia refernce.

>
> <snip Ron O clinging fanatically to several misconceptions>

Run, it is what you do best.

>
>> Haven't I claimed that we probably have similar religious view, but I
>> don't have to lie about them like you do?
>
> I don't know why you would ever claim such a ridiculous thing.

What about your junk above? Don't you understand what you write?

>
>
>>> What is the name of this mysterious "creator" of yours?
>
>> You don't seem to know anything about Methodists.
>
> See above for how abysmally stupid this comment is.

I don't see anything above that would counter my statement.

>
>> It is well known that
>> they have the same God that the Catholics worship.
>
> Not all of them, not by a long shot. See above again.

Is your stupid story true? Do you know that it really happened? I have
never heard of such a belief in the Methodist Church, can you put up
evidence that there is such a belief? So how can you use your stupid
story to make such a claim. Do the Methodists worship the Christian
God? Yes or no. We even have some churches with Trinity in the name.

>
>> I'll leave this last bit intact because it is so Nykosian in your
>> assoholic way.
>
>> Snip and lie what a stupid way to live.
>
> Leave in and ignore, including the ducking of questions, is equally stupid.
> Too bad for you that I don't do either one, while even a pathologically
> dishonest person like yourself has to admit that you are doing the latter.

You know better. That is what makes you so sad and degenerate. You are
only doing this stupid junk to hurt someone else because you feel the
need to lie about the stupidest things.

Any questions of import that I am ducking? Point them out and give your
reasons. It should be a hoot. You can also explain how your lie about
ID perps can possibly be true when you are a known Behe disciple from
when you returned to TO, and you have been defending the IC claptrap up
to just a couple weeks ago.

As far as challenges: when are you going to inform me that you have
delivered your third knock down and tell me where this post is and why
it is a knock down? You didn't even tell Hemi what post the knock down
was supposed to be in. You just claimed to have delivered it. What
kind of cowardly asshole would do something like that after almost two
years of threatening to deliver the knock downs?

You have to know by now that you are the one that keeps pestering me.
How sad was the whole knock down fiasco? That was you, and how has it
ended up?

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/25/14 7:14 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:12:54 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/24/14 7:45 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 24, 2014 8:47:11 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 3/24/14 12:12 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>>>>> I thought that Nyikos would be the only IDiot posting,[...]
> [repost of Isaak snip]
> but then Kalk
> came back for a bit and Dean and Brazil started posting, so ID hasn't
> quite died, but you have to wonder what kind of people would still be
> supporting something that even the guys that sold them the scam have
> given up on.
> [end of repost]
>
>>>>> I've corrected you on these misconceptions about me innumerable times,
>>>>> but it appears that you are determined to carry them with you to the
>>>>> grave.
>
>>>> Are you ready to admit that irreducible complexity (as applied to
>>>> biology) is vacuous at best?
>
> Are you ready to admit that you tried to mislead readers below by
> putting an ellipsis where Ron O soon RESUMED talking
> about me, as documented above?

No, unless you are Dean or Brazil. The "what kind of people" sentence
refers to an unspecified subset, which may or may not include you.
Earlier I thought you were not part of that subset, but now I gather,
from your persistence on this matter, that you do, in fact,
self-identify with the people who support the scam of Intelligent
Design. Good to know.

>>> It is a coherent concept, but it never was a good indicator of difficulty
>>> of evolution in and of itself.
>
>> It is not a coherent concept (it is impossible to define in practice),
>
> You are incompetent to judge whether it is any more hard to define in
> practice than "homologous" or "species". There are gray edges around
> all these expressions, but biology isn't as precise as mathematics
> --it cannot be, in case you didn't know.

You are deluding yourself. Everything in biology that is irreducibly
complex is simultaneously reducible. IC refers not to anything in
biology, but to a way of looking at some things, a way which interests
only creationists who support the scam of Intelligent Design. The
uselessness of the concept is well attested by its disuse.

And if you don't like being called a creationist, then stop behaving
like one.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

Manipulating? To what might this refer?

If you think I'm trying to manipulate either of you into saying you
agree (or disagree) with anything RonO wrote, you are dead wrong.
I only mentioned the two of you to convince people that I was absolutely
serious about dealing with Ron O's bilge if ANYONE but him said [s]he
agreed with any of it and explained why.

Otherwise, people might assume I was just doing a Colonel Saito type
statement with hidden exceptions, as in "Naturally, when I said all
officers will work, I didn't mean to include YOU, the commanding officer."

Or does "manipulating" refer to something entirely different?

Could it refer to the way I have capitalized
on John Harshman painting himself into a corner? You know,
by first asking him whether he'd mind if I posted his defense
of Prothero to a blog where Prothero sympathizers are still
in the majority, and then as he squirmed and tried to bluff
his way out of that one, by doing a variation on something
Mark Isaak and Robert Camp and Harshman keep reccomending I do?

Or does it refer to me "manipulating" Shrubber into using a crass
psychological "diagnosis" in an effort to discredit what I did,
and then revealing that his "diagnosis" was more appropriately applied to
Harshman himself? :-)

Or does it refer to me "manipulating" Shrubber into posting some bilge
about what "Sane and moral people" don't do, and then revealing that
he was making a mountain out of a molehill by the standards of none
other than John Harshman himself? :-)

Well, I do take credit for making sure the paint doesn't dry around
Harshman, although I don't think "manipulation" is quite the right
word for it.

But I can't take credit for the way Shrubber got paint all over himself
through trying to rescue Harshman from that corner.
That was his choice, and I think he is beginning to regret his choice
from the way he lamely claimed it was crazy of you to read that
exchange.

That last bit is an allusion to:

Subject: Fossils, it never ends.
Message-ID: <1d206180-b74c-45a7...@googlegroups.com>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/ucYI-0Ts2V0/Q4mo11GdHjU\
J

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:07:16 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:26:30 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:02:25 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> >That even includes Mark Isaak and jillery.
>
>> And then there's "peter" who also acts as if manipulating others makes
>> him look clever. You and rnorman both need to listen to your mommies.
>
>Manipulating? To what might this refer?

Mark Isaak and Jillery have no point in your post.


<snip "peter's self-serving rationalizations>

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:12:54 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/24/14 7:45 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

Short on time for this second reply to Isaak's post, I just reply to a
little bit and leave the rest for another day.

[about irreducible complexity (IC):

> > It is a coherent concept, but it never was a good indicator of difficulty
> > of evolution in and of itself.

Note the word, "difficulty." Never "impossibility."

> It is not a coherent concept (it is impossible to define in practice),

Dealt with in first reply; your counter was completely evasive and
bootlicking of RonO and his delusions. The counter-counter will
follow in due course.

> and it is not merely "never a good indicator"; it is never an indicator
> at all.

Even Matt Silberstein knew better; he understood my point about how
IC gives "more bang for the buck" even though he (correctly) claimed
that the extra bang didn't put a big damper in evolutionary theory,
even where 35 extra bangs like in the bacterial flagellum were concerned.

But you are such a political animal, you can't be expected to remember
incidents like these from ca. 1997, and you probably couldn't comprehend
them even if you did witness them.

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/26/14 1:32 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:12:54 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/24/14 7:45 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> Short on time for this second reply to Isaak's post, I just reply to a
> little bit and leave the rest for another day.
>
> [about irreducible complexity (IC):
>>> It is a coherent concept, but it never was a good indicator of difficulty
>>> of evolution in and of itself.
>
> Note the word, "difficulty." Never "impossibility."

Why? It makes no difference.

> [snip pointless prose. What follows is pointless, too, but at least
> readers are warned.]

>
> But you are such a political animal, you can't be expected to remember
> incidents like these from ca. 1997, and you probably couldn't comprehend
> them even if you did witness them.

I would think a political animal would be expected to remember and
comprehend whatever it is you're talking about. I, on the other hand,
don't give a damn.

[RonO]

This seems to be the post where Nyikos makes his first claim about being
an agnostic. It is my response to the post so there is some background
to it. I let the post stand intact because it was so Nykosian, and
wanted to preserve a copy. Nyikos had already deleted one of his posts
in his series of denials. This wasn't the first time he had sunk low
enough to spew his racist bull pucky, and his more recent antics on TO
should have people expecting just about anything out of him.

It was the culmination of a standard Nyikos show. After about a year
where the issue of Nyikos being a creationist did not matter, Nyikos
made it an issue again. Did his usual post manipulations to try to make
his denials. Claimed that he would address the issue that he had
deleted, but failed in typical Nykosian fashion. I asked him about this
failure in another thread, where I also indicated that he should address
the issue where it was an issue and not in some other thread to some
other poster as he has a tendency to do. Nyikos denied having the
problem and then claimed that I was wrong because he had addressed the
issue, but he addressed the issue to another poster and not to me in
another thread. So after a couple months we come back to the thread
that this link comes from and Nyikos decides to post multiple posts,
none of which address the issue he claimed that he would address and
started weeks of prevarication ending up with this post.

So now I have the period of time that I have to look for the Nykosian
quote that Nyikos is demanding. It would help if he would remind me
what thread it is in.

Hey Nyikos:
When are you going to inform me that you have delivered your third knock
down. Tell me what the knock down is and what post to find it in. It
has been about a year since you told Hemi that you had delivered the
knock down, but you have never told me. I'm looking for for your soul
quote, so how are you coming along? I'm probably looking for one of
your June 2012 posts.

This is my response to Nyikos' agnostic post.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/avf9ye9cUE0/g5DWpPoAKW8J

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

SNIP:

This is only for Nyikos.

Well I've just spent a couple hours of looking through Nyikos and my
posts from June and July 2012 listed in Google profiles and came up
empty. Google doesn't list all the posts a poster posts that month.
Beats me how to look up others. I even looked around the threads that
those posts were in.

Even Nyikos admits that he wrote the post, but I just can't find where
he describes being a Catholic and going to church for the sake of his
immortal soul that he hopes will go on after he dies. If he had made
the admission in the thread that he was lying about the issue in there
wouldn't be a problem.

I recall that he made the admission within a couple of weeks of posting
his lies about being and agnostic, but I can't seem to find the post.

If Nyikos has some suggestions for a search he can put them forward?

How is your effort to tell me that you have delivered your third knock
down coming? It has been a year, so you should have had enough time to
figure out what the knock down was supposed to be by now.

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/29/14 8:06 AM, RonO wrote:
> SNIP:
>
> This is only for Nyikos.
>
> Well I've just spent a couple hours of looking through Nyikos and my
> posts from June and July 2012 listed in Google profiles and came up
> empty. Google doesn't list all the posts a poster posts that month.
> Beats me how to look up others. I even looked around the threads that
> those posts were in.
>
> Even Nyikos admits that he wrote the post, but I just can't find where
> he describes being a Catholic and going to church for the sake of his
> immortal soul that he hopes will go on after he dies. If he had made
> the admission in the thread that he was lying about the issue in there
> wouldn't be a problem.

> [...]

Ron, I think you err in assuming that a person's views must be
consistent. They need not be; the human mind is much more complicated
than that, and especially on issues as complex as religion, one person's
views can cover several parts of the map. I have no trouble believing
that the mathematician in Nyikos is agnostic, while his emotional side
is devout Catholic. Any conflict between the two views he easily
reconciles simply by not looking at it.

[RonO]

On 3/29/2014 10:32 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 3/29/14 8:06 AM, RonO wrote:
>> SNIP:
>>
>> This is only for Nyikos.
>>
>> Well I've just spent a couple hours of looking through Nyikos and my
>> posts from June and July 2012 listed in Google profiles and came up
>> empty. Google doesn't list all the posts a poster posts that month.
>> Beats me how to look up others. I even looked around the threads that
>> those posts were in.
>>
>> Even Nyikos admits that he wrote the post, but I just can't find where
>> he describes being a Catholic and going to church for the sake of his
>> immortal soul that he hopes will go on after he dies. If he had made
>> the admission in the thread that he was lying about the issue in there
>> wouldn't be a problem.
>> [...]
>
> Ron, I think you err in assuming that a person's views must be
> consistent. They need not be; the human mind is much more complicated
> than that, and especially on issues as complex as religion, one person's
> views can cover several parts of the map. I have no trouble believing
> that the mathematician in Nyikos is agnostic, while his emotional side
> is devout Catholic. Any conflict between the two views he easily
> reconciles simply by not looking at it.
>

I have no doubt that Nyikos is delusional about this subject, and that
he has some weird definitions of lying so that he can never lie, but
those are the issues that he wants to bark about and be shown just how
delusional he is for whatever reasons that he has.

An honest person does not prevaricate about being a creationist for over
a year while dodging exactly what type of creationist they are. There
is no doubt why he kept deleting and running from issues about the
creator of his immortal soul for all that time. He likely is a devout
Catholic, that is why he finally admitted why he went to church for the
sake of the immortal soul that he hoped would go on after he died. That
is pretty far from an agnostic belief. You have someone that can't even
admit to himself why he is a Behe disciple and has to try to support the
ID scam. You have someone that can argue for directed panspermia as if
there were some scientific support for the issue and then come out with
the claim that directed panspermia is consistent with a literal reading
of the Bible. He should have stuck to the science, but history is history.

There is always the insanity defense. Is that an excuse for his
dishonest and degenerate behavior? Possibly, but he obviously does his
bogus junk with intent, and he has to have enough on the ball to
understand, at least, that when he is doing it. He obviously knows
enough to run when his bogus ploys blow up in his face. He has some
weird notion about how bad it is to run away so he has to come back and
pester me ever couple of months. In between times he is someone else's
problem.

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

> dishonest and degenerate behavior? [...]

Holding contradictory ideas simultaneously is not insane. In fact, it
is normal, although most people have enough self-awareness not to keep
the same contradictory ideas for a lifetime.

Holding contradictory ideas also muddies the definition of lying. Is it
lying if only part of you believes you are telling the truth? Besides,
I think the lying charge only detracts from Nyikos's other incessant
anti-social behavior. In fact (and I recognize I should better follow
this advice myself), his degenerate behavior does not need pointing out.
Everybody sees it but him, and he has make it abundantly clear that he
will forever refuse to look at himself.

[RonO]

In legal terms Nyikos probably would not be allowed the insanity defense
because he has enough on the ball to know abject failure and run. It
just does not stop him from repeating the same junk months or years
later as if he did not run from reality before.

Ron Okimoto

[Paul J Gans]

A corrolary to this is that many of us feel sorry for him. I know
that's difficult to swallow because many of us also are irritable.
But it is nevertheless true.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Dai monie]

10/10/2012 : https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1RZi4mdYXgI/zvrE4NuMXegJ
On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 21:39:19 UTC+2, pnyikos wrote:
> I did hide the fact that I was a Roman Catholic in those days, because
>
> I was posting heavily to the abortion newsgroups and had an uphill
>
> battle as it was without being saddled with the terrible stereotypes
>
> that abortion rights fanatics have about Roman Catholics who aren't
>
> zealots about abortion rights at least up to viability.

That's the best I can come up with right now.

[RonO]

Thank you, but this is not it. I recall that it was within a couple of
weeks of his lie about being agnostic, but I could be misremembering.
Google doesn't list all the posts a poster put up in the one month
windows of a poster's activity list. Nyikos might recall what thread he
posted it in. I haven't been able to find it going through his June and
July posts that are listed.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Why are you asking others to wade through "peter's" posts? They might
suffer brain damage from exposure to all that toxic sludge.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:06:31 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> SNIP:
>

> ... I've just spent *a couple hours* of looking through Nyikos and my

> posts from June and July 2012

Yesterday I spent a couple of hours in my garage. Woodworking has become a hobby in the last couple of years. I don't have a great deal of free time, but when I have a spare few hours I often spend it making dust; after a few months, a piece of furniture sometimes results.

Yesterday's work was not without its frustrations; mitered corners are tricky beasts for a person whose skills and tool complement are modest. But that's part of the allure, I think. Puzzling out how to do things, especially with limitations, is good mental exercise; the better kind. There's no lack of stress in our lives these days; it's good to have an outlet.

By any reasonable standard, this hobby is inefficient. A couple of hours here, a few hours there - occasionally most of a day - adds up to many more hours than would otherwise buy pre-made furniture. But months and years afterward, I remember the work with pleasure, and I can scarcely pass a piece I have made without glancing at it for a second or two. And each new project expands my skill palette a little. My current project employs stopped dadoes and routing curved shapes to a shop-made template; techniques that even a few months ago seemed out of reach.

My "couple of hours" yesterday were spent tweaking, measuring, frowning, puzzling and re-tweaking my mitering setup. Now that it's late enough in the morning for power saw noise, I'm going back out to make the actual joints.

I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy it, even if it turns out that I still need a couple more hours of "lessons learned".

[Robert Carnegie]

I agree; categorising Peter Nyikos's religious position
is not directly related to the purposes of talk.origins.

It probably varies over time and space anyway. Agnostic,
Roman Catholic, agnostic Roman Catholic, used to be
agnostic but he isn't so sure now - I could claim any
of these as easily as he can. Perhaps not as truthfully.

A fool can ask a question that a wise man can't answer.
So, don't try to answer.

[eridanus]

What I cannot understand is why he is keeping on with his "delusional
disorder" that other people is sort of attacking him, or lying about
him, or distorting his "great theory" of the "directed panespermia".

He seems permanently offended or sort of harassed. And do not let
people forget he exists, so he hijacks any thread whatever to advertise
his lamentable state and how bad he feels at the mistreatment here.

Eri


mania

[eridanus]

In general we are not kind to each other. Rather we work on the principle
that demeaning whatever any other people says enhances our self-esteem.
We rarely see anyone flattering other people. Perhaps this is due that
other people most often say something we do not share, and that would be
the main reason to rejected. It is like a thought that is not inventoried
in our brain, either is wrong or a trifle.
Eri

[jillery]

Speak for yourself. I do not work on that principle, but it doesn't
surprise me that you do.

[RonO]

I didn't ask for it. He volunteered the information and I acknowledged
his attempt. My posts in this side thread were labeled for Nyikos only,
so I didn't expect anyone elses input.

I just stated what I had done to look for the post, but I had come up
empty. If Nyikos has some other suggestion about finding it, I am sure
that he will put in his 2 cents.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

I wasn't really blaming you for anything.

[Dai monie]

I'm not sure what your point was, but I think it is a neat hobby!

On a sidenote, I did not really evaluate that many of Peter's posts. I was just messing around with google searches, trying a few tricks.

[Greg Guarino]

Your "sidenote" suggests that maybe you did get the point.

I was comparing, um, "hobbies". Mine, although not without its
frustrations, is challenging, good for my mental health and gives me a
sense of pride afterward, not to mention the occasional useful product.

Here's the most recent (completed) one:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdguarino/11785251994/in/set-72157640288372444

I doubt that spending a "couple hours" documenting the failings of my
adversary would be nearly as pleasurable. Nor would it be likely to have
a salutary effect on my mental health. And I doubt I would look back on
the time spent (or the "product") with quite the same pride, especially
if my adversary seemed to share the same pastime.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[RonO]

It is a waste of time, no doubt about that. Just think of all the junk
that you, yourself reads following TO. If Nyikos isn't posting to me he
is someone elses problem. Why are you wasting your time reading the
Nyikos junk?

It is worth the time to demonstrate how wrong Nyikos is in the sense
that Nyikos will usually run when he can't stand himself any longer and
leave me alone for a month or two before one of his rules about running
get to him and he has to make a pest of himself again. In between times
he is someone elses problem. I probably don't read over 90% of what he
posts to TO. You can't help but see a few now and then when you open a
thread, but going back through his posts would tell anyone that the guy
has a real problem. It was almost sad to see what he was spewing to
other posters during that time period. I'm glad that I missed it the
first time around. I don't know if I can count it up as a learning
experience because I only learned what I already knew, and I didn't find
the post that I was looking for.

Ron Okimoto

[eridanus]

Your reply to my post is an argument in favor of my thesis.
What if not was the purpose to write this comment? To enlighten me?
To enlighten others that you are different? That you do not post
to pestering the one you are replying to?
Eri

[eridanus]

I am really amazed that so many as five or six people of this group
are replying to his posts.

Eri

[eridanus]

nice piece of furniture.
Eri

[jillery]

Wrong again. Stating that is not what I do, and affirming your
explicit point that is what you do, in no way demonstrates your
thesis. Both are mere statements of fact, and you choose to read more
into them than is there. At best, your thesis is nothing more than an
assumption, based on and reinforced by your projection of your own
expressed standards onto others.

Shall I setup the troll-calling pool now?

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 3:30:04 AM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:

Dai, have you seen the thread "The dynamics of talk.abortion"?
It includes a far reaching reply to a post you did in reply
to me in the Yugoslav analogy thread.

I think you might be interested. It talks about Aristotle in
two very different contexts, and it also features a Soviet counterpart
to the "don't dig dead cows out of ditches" saying:
"Why dig up the past, Comrade?"
This was something Solzhenitsyn heard many times as he was gathering
information for _The Gulag Archipelago_.

Meanwhile, the Politburo had a totally different attitude...but, hey,
try looking up that post, I think you will find it thought provoking.

> On Saturday, 29 March 2014 16:06:31 UTC+1, Ron O wrote:

>> This is only for Nyikos.

>> Well I've just spent a couple hours of looking through Nyikos and my
>> posts from June and July 2012

I wonder what made RonO zero in on those two months.

Oh, well, when you search for a nonexistent post, just about anything
makes sense. Or not.

>> Even Nyikos admits that he wrote the post,

Not the post described by Ron O below. That one is a figment of
his imagination.

> >but I just can't find where
>> he describes being a Catholic and going to church for the sake of his
>> immortal soul that he hopes will go on after he dies.

I keep telling Ron O that I never said anything like that, but he
seems determined to hang on to this fantasy come hell or high water.

> > If he had made
>> the admission in the thread that he was lying about the issue in there
>> wouldn't be a problem.

Ron O's hate-driven fantasies about me notwithstanding,
I've always been very truthful about my religious beliefs.
But not always fully candid, as you found out:

<snip for focus>

> 10/10/2012 : https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1RZi4mdYXgI/zvrE4NuMXegJ

> On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 21:39:19 UTC+2, pnyikos wrote:
>> I did hide the fact that I was a Roman Catholic in those days, because
>> I was posting heavily to the abortion newsgroups and had an uphill
>> battle as it was without being saddled with the terrible stereotypes
>> that abortion rights fanatics have about Roman Catholics who aren't
>> zealots about abortion rights at least up to viability.

> That's the best I can come up with right now.

I informed Ron O about the closest thing to his rabid fantasy
that I could think of on short notice, but I'm not sure where
I said it. I'll give Ron O my best guess today.

Peter Nyikos

[Dai monie]

On Wednesday, 2 April 2014 20:38:28 UTC+2, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Sunday, March 30, 2014 3:30:04 AM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:
>
>
>
> Dai, have you seen the thread "The dynamics of talk.abortion"?

I will look into it.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:20:11 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 10:02 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> > On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
> >> On 3/25/2014 4:10 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

[Ron O wrote:]
> >>>> Why not continue
> >>>> to claim to be a church going agnostic who goes to church for the sake
> >>>> of the immortal soul that he hopes goes on after he dies?
> >
> >>> "goes to church for the sake of..." is your fantasy, nothing more. I never
> >>> said anything remotely like it.
> >
> >>> And so you continue to display your cherished misconceptions for all to
> >>> say.
> >
> >> Will I really have to go back and look up that post where you admitted
> >> why you went to church?
> >
> > Go ahead. You might even discover that all I said along THOSE lines
> > was that as long as I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I adhere
> > to its rules and customs.
>
> I'll look for it. What thread was it in?

This is pathetic. You have repeatedly slandered me with that libelous
accusation that I have lied about being an agnostic, and now you are
asking ME for clues as to where you might find the evidence you haven't
been able to find (because it does not exist).

However, since Dai Monie tried to be helpful to you, I'll relent for
his sake. Try the two replies I did to Harshman setting straight the
record on one lie after another that you told him about me.

Arrogant petty tyrant that you are, you demanded in reply to one of
these that I post my comments in direct reply to you, and you refused
to read them or deal with them.

The documentation may be in the post to which you were replying, or the
other one, whose very existence doesn't count in your self-centered world,
since the only thing that counts there is replies done directly to you.

[When I go home tonight, I'll see whether the thesaurus has some choice
words related to "solipsism." Not synonyms, just words that tend in
that direction.]

And, in line with that, I am reposting here a copy of the reply I did
to Dai Monie just now, since otherwise it won't exist as far as you
are concerned--right?

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 3:30:04 AM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:

Dai, have you seen the thread "The dynamics of talk.abortion"?

======================= end of included post

And so, I've given you my best guess, fat lot of good that will do you.

By the way, your parting shot about "third knockdown" was more of
the same kind of para-solipsism. I gave Hemidactylus an account of
the third knockdown on the "Turtle genome sequence and analysis" thread,
where you and jillery had a grand time swapping lies about me,
with Gans and Camp and Isaak joining in briefly. But as I said,
such posts as replies by me to Hemidactylus are nonexistent in The World
According to Ron Okimoto.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 4/2/2014 2:57 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:20:11 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 3/25/2014 10:02 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>
>>>> On 3/25/2014 4:10 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> [Ron O wrote:]
>>>>>> Why not continue
>>>>>> to claim to be a church going agnostic who goes to church for the sake
>>>>>> of the immortal soul that he hopes goes on after he dies?
>>>
>>>>> "goes to church for the sake of..." is your fantasy, nothing more. I never
>>>>> said anything remotely like it.
>>>
>>>>> And so you continue to display your cherished misconceptions for all to
>>>>> say.
>>>
>>>> Will I really have to go back and look up that post where you admitted
>>>> why you went to church?
>>>
>>> Go ahead. You might even discover that all I said along THOSE lines
>>> was that as long as I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I adhere
>>> to its rules and customs.
>>
>> I'll look for it. What thread was it in?
>
> This is pathetic. You have repeatedly slandered me with that libelous
> accusation that I have lied about being an agnostic, and now you are
> asking ME for clues as to where you might find the evidence you haven't
> been able to find (because it does not exist).

You are such an ass. You have never denied writing the junk. Why start
lying about it now? You know that you wrote it. You stated why you
went to church. Beats me why the denials at this late date.

>
> However, since Dai Monie tried to be helpful to you, I'll relent for
> his sake. Try the two replies I did to Harshman setting straight the
> record on one lie after another that you told him about me.

What thread?

>
> Arrogant petty tyrant that you are, you demanded in reply to one of
> these that I post my comments in direct reply to you, and you refused
> to read them or deal with them.

What thread? Why should I read your posts to other posters? Why should
I even know that such posts exist? What kind of fool would write
something to some other poster if he wanted someone else to read it?
Why not post your responses to the poster that you are posting the junk to?

>
> The documentation may be in the post to which you were replying, or the
> other one, whose very existence doesn't count in your self-centered world,
> since the only thing that counts there is replies done directly to you.

Not that I recall. It was to someone that was likely clueless about why
it mattered because you were going on about something that happened in
some other thread.

>
> [When I go home tonight, I'll see whether the thesaurus has some choice
> words related to "solipsism." Not synonyms, just words that tend in
> that direction.]

Look up what kind of idiot posts things to the wrong people and expects
his message to get through.

>
> And, in line with that, I am reposting here a copy of the reply I did
> to Dai Monie just now, since otherwise it won't exist as far as you
> are concerned--right?

Why should I be interested in what you posted to someone else?

>
> On Sunday, March 30, 2014 3:30:04 AM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:
>
> Dai, have you seen the thread "The dynamics of talk.abortion"?
> It includes a far reaching reply to a post you did in reply
> to me in the Yugoslav analogy thread.

Are you cross posting to talk.abortion again? Why post something in
talk.abortion that belongs in a thread you started in TO?

>
> I think you might be interested. It talks about Aristotle in
> two very different contexts, and it also features a Soviet counterpart
> to the "don't dig dead cows out of ditches" saying:
> "Why dig up the past, Comrade?"
> This was something Solzhenitsyn heard many times as he was gathering
> information for _The Gulag Archipelago_.
>
> Meanwhile, the Politburo had a totally different attitude...but, hey,
> try looking up that post, I think you will find it thought provoking.

Geez this is really interesting stuff.

>
>> On Saturday, 29 March 2014 16:06:31 UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
>
>>> This is only for Nyikos.
>
>>> Well I've just spent a couple hours of looking through Nyikos and my
>>> posts from June and July 2012
>
> I wonder what made RonO zero in on those two months.

Because I recall that you made the admission within a few weeks after
you lied about being an agnostic.

>
> Oh, well, when you search for a nonexistent post, just about anything
> makes sense. Or not.

You know that it existed, what a lame liar. What good does it do you to
lie about junk like this? It just makes it worse after I find the post.

>
>>> Even Nyikos admits that he wrote the post,
>
> Not the post described by Ron O below. That one is a figment of
> his imagination.

Put up the actual post then, and I'll let you know if you are being
dishonest again.

>
>>> but I just can't find where
>>> he describes being a Catholic and going to church for the sake of his
>>> immortal soul that he hopes will go on after he dies.
>
> I keep telling Ron O that I never said anything like that, but he
> seems determined to hang on to this fantasy come hell or high water.

This is a lie. You ran and would not deny doing it when you did it.
Why start lying now?

>
>>> If he had made
>>> the admission in the thread that he was lying about the issue in there
>>> wouldn't be a problem.
>
> Ron O's hate-driven fantasies about me notwithstanding,
> I've always been very truthful about my religious beliefs.
> But not always fully candid, as you found out:

Projection is just a way of life for an ass like yourself. Who keeps
coming back to me with his lies about the past? It is so sad by now
that even you have understand that by now.

>
> <snip for focus>
>
>
>> 10/10/2012 : https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1RZi4mdYXgI/zvrE4NuMXegJ
>
>> On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 21:39:19 UTC+2, pnyikos wrote:
>>> I did hide the fact that I was a Roman Catholic in those days, because
>>> I was posting heavily to the abortion newsgroups and had an uphill
>>> battle as it was without being saddled with the terrible stereotypes
>>> that abortion rights fanatics have about Roman Catholics who aren't
>>> zealots about abortion rights at least up to viability.
>
>> That's the best I can come up with right now.
>
> I informed Ron O about the closest thing to his rabid fantasy
> that I could think of on short notice, but I'm not sure where
> I said it. I'll give Ron O my best guess today.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> ======================= end of included post
>
> And so, I've given you my best guess, fat lot of good that will do you.

It doesn't help unless you tell me the thread. How many responses to
Harshman have you made?

>
> By the way, your parting shot about "third knockdown" was more of
> the same kind of para-solipsism. I gave Hemidactylus an account of
> the third knockdown on the "Turtle genome sequence and analysis" thread,
> where you and jillery had a grand time swapping lies about me,
> with Gans and Camp and Isaak joining in briefly. But as I said,
> such posts as replies by me to Hemidactylus are nonexistent in The World
> According to Ron Okimoto.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

So tell me the post and why it is a knockdown. Why run for a year? Why
run now?

Maybe what I should have done was what you did when you made up your
first knockdown argument based on an out of context quote. I asked
where the quote came from and you would not tell me, and just told me to
look it up myself. It wasn't easy because it came from a post that was
several months old, but when I did find it, it turned out to be the
exact context that I thought that it was in and how I had defended the
quote. By the time I found the quote you had started the first
knockdown thread to tell your stupid lies and got caught.

Your knockdowns haven't reflected very well on your dishonest character
because they make you out to be a delusional cowardly asshole. The kind
that had to lie about not getting a rebuttal to his first knockdown
post. The kind that being caught in such a bogus lie tried to bluff his
way out by making a big deal about my use of "response" instead of
"rebuttal" when there was no doubt that my response was a rebuttal. The
kind that would go back to that rebuttal and fail to address it. The
failure was evident to even someone as lost as yourself and you tried to
rebut the rebuttal a second time without me having had my input, and
failed in the same pathetic way. You ran away for a couple of months
before starting a thread to claim that I was running for two months from
a post that I didn't even know existed while a slimeball like yourself
was running from 10 posts just in the first knockdown thread, and dozens
of others by that time. Running by your own definition of running.
Your history is so sad that I don't know how you can stand yourself.

This is all history. Do you want an account of the second knockdown?
It was even more pathetic in its own way coming about a year later than
you said that you would deliver it and so on. That is why you are
running from your third knockdown claim. Just put up the post, and tell
me why it is a knockdown. That should be easy, but what do you do
instead. All the bragging about hammer blows and knockdowns that were
soon to be delivered and you can't even bring yourself to tell me what
the third knock down is. You claim the turtle thread, but I don't
recall anything that would count from that thread. You started a whole
new thread to make your bogus claims. So make up your mind and tell me
the post and why it is a knockdown.

My guess is that I will have to make a second attempt to find the post
that you are lying about. I could be wrong about the time frame. I
don't think so, but it has been a while.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

I almost never post on weekends, but I see I've made an absent-minded
mistake and I don't want Dai Monie to waste (more?) time looking
for the wrong thing.

I had written "talk.abortion" instead of "talk.origins" below.

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 3:00:04 PM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 April 2014 20:38:28 UTC+2, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, March 30, 2014 3:30:04 AM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:

> > Dai, have you seen the thread "The dynamics of talk.abortion"?

Correction: "The dynamics of talk.origins"

> I will look into it.

I hope you haven't spent (much?) time looking for it yet. It is here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/gJDm-9NrOOU/9pIVegbUZQIJ

> > It includes a far reaching reply to a post you did in reply.

> > to me in the Yugoslav analogy thread.

> > I think you might be interested. It talks about Aristotle in
> > two very different contexts, and it also features a Soviet counterpart
> > to the "don't dig dead cows out of ditches" saying:

> > "Why dig up the past, Comrade?"

> > This was something Solzhenitsyn heard many times as he was gathering
> > information for _The Gulag Archipelago_.

> > Meanwhile, the Politburo had a totally different attitude...but, hey,
> > try looking up that post, I think you will find it thought provoking.

Hemidactylus made it sound like it provoked something else in his brain,
but the post in which he "confirmed" his earlier comments was done April 1
so it could have been just an April Fool joke by him.

Peter Nyikos

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:12:28 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:

> I am really amazed that so many as five or six people of this group
> are replying to his posts.

Don't forget to add "at any one time." It's a highly variable
set. The current crowd consists of:

Ron O, Harshman, Shrubber,
Augray,
jillery, Isaak, Camp, and Guarino...

...with all but Augray attacking me from various angles.

Don't be surprised by that last entry. Guarino vigorously
and repeatedly attacked me this past two weeks,
using all kinds of tactics that look like they come from
a book that could be titled, "The Handbook of Formulaic Polemic."
The latest exchange can be found on the thread,
"The dynamics of talk.origins," and he posted to this thread
after he made his last post there.

The whole exchange was due to him joining Shrubber in an
attempt to take the heat off Harshman concerning a corner into
which Harshman had painted himself.

[Are you familiar with that "corner/painted" metaphor? If not,
I am sure any American posting to this thread can explain it to you.]

Here, he made some comments about his wood carving which,
were I to make them, would elicit sneers from Harshman [and
perhaps others whom I have named above] about how nobody
here is interested in such details about my life outside the
internet.

And that would be the case even if I did NOT give the kind of
flagrant "do as I say, not as I do" advice to Ron O and others
that Guarino is giving on this thread.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:57:14 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:12:28 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
>
>> I am really amazed that so many as five or six people of this group
>> are replying to his posts.
>
>Don't forget to add "at any one time." It's a highly variable
>set. The current crowd consists of:
>
>Ron O, Harshman, Shrubber,
>Augray,
>jillery, Isaak, Camp, and Guarino...
>
>...with all but Augray attacking me from various angles.

Don't worry about it. If you stalked Augray as much as you do me, I'm
almost positive that Augray would "attack" you too.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:52:00 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:57:14 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:12:28 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:

> >> I am really amazed that so many as five or six people of this group
>
> >> are replying to his posts.

> >Don't forget to add "at any one time." It's a highly variable
> >set. The current crowd consists of:

> >Ron O, Harshman, Shrubber,
> >Augray,
> >jillery, Isaak, Camp, and Guarino...

That's people who have replied to me in the last two weeks, and I've
even forgotten to put Casanova on the roster. If you cut
it down to the past week, this list of eight would shrink to five--or,
rather, six now that you've entered the fray, jillery. So eridanus's
statement could well be very accurate on a weekly basis.

However, I'm not sure Guarino does not swell that list to seven. He hasn't
mentioned me by name here, but it is clear that everything he's written
here has been with me in his mind.

>
> >...with all but Augray attacking me from various angles.

> Don't worry about it. If you stalked Augray as much as you do me, I'm
> almost positive that Augray would "attack" you too.

I don't "stalk" you any more than you "stalk" me, and besides, I attack you
because you are documentably dishonest and hypocritical (though not as
dishonest as Ron O, nor as hypocritical as Camp, but that's damning with faint praise).

In contrast, I have yet to see any sign of dishonesty or hypocrisy from
Augray. He's been a bit evasive, but that's all. See also the three names
in the excerpt from a reply to Camp, below.

Camp and Guarino have mastered the art of being so cocksure, they
make themselves sound like they are speaking for almost all the
regulars in this newsgroup, and they even speak of a select minority
of regulars as though they were practically all the regulars. This
excerpt from a reply to Camp which illustrates that.

___________________excerpt________________

> In another, likely useless, attempt at reason, I'll just make this point
> - It would be obvious to anyone of sound mind who encountered such
> unanimous negative behavioral evaluations as you do in this group
> that they should look inward.

"unanimous" does not include over 70% of the regulars here. I call
your attention especially to my treatment of Arkalen and Thrinaxodon,
and now Hemidactylus on the thread "The dynamics of talk.origins."
Arkalen has been critical of me a number of times, but I continue
to treat her like an honorable, mature adult because I have no
evidence to suggest she is anything else.

I can go into detail about the other two, but this post is long
enough as it is, and besides, I don't think you give a rat's ass
about how differently I behave towards people whose behavior is
utterly unlike yours.
========================== end of excerpt from a post
on "Fossils, it never ends".

And I think my parting paragraph in the excerpt applies to you and
Guarino as well as it does to Camp. I know the behavior of
Arkalen, Thrinaxodon, and Hemidactylus is utterly unlike yours.

[They are also utterly unlike each other, in my experience, but
the differences do not have primarily to do with dishonesty and
hypocrisy, the way they do where you and Camp and Guarino
are concerned.]

Peter Nyikos

> >Don't be surprised by that last entry. Guarino vigorously
> >and repeatedly attacked me this past two weeks,
> >using all kinds of tactics that look like they come from
> >a book that could be titled, "The Handbook of Formulaic Polemic."
>
> >The latest exchange can be found on the thread,
> >"The dynamics of talk.origins," and he posted to this thread
> >after he made his last post there.

> >The whole exchange was due to him joining Shrubber in an
> >attempt to take the heat off Harshman concerning a corner into
> >which Harshman had painted himself.

[jillery]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 06:14:59 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:52:00 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:57:14 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> >On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:12:28 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
>
>> >> I am really amazed that so many as five or six people of this group
>>
>> >> are replying to his posts.
>
>> >Don't forget to add "at any one time." It's a highly variable
>> >set. The current crowd consists of:
>
>> >Ron O, Harshman, Shrubber,
>> >Augray,
>> >jillery, Isaak, Camp, and Guarino...
>
>That's people who have replied to me in the last two weeks, and I've
>even forgotten to put Casanova on the roster. If you cut
>it down to the past week, this list of eight would shrink to five--or,
>rather, six now that you've entered the fray, jillery. So eridanus's
>statement could well be very accurate on a weekly basis.
>
>However, I'm not sure Guarino does not swell that list to seven. He hasn't
>mentioned me by name here, but it is clear that everything he's written
>here has been with me in his mind.
>
>>
>> >...with all but Augray attacking me from various angles.
>
>> Don't worry about it. If you stalked Augray as much as you do me, I'm
>> almost positive that Augray would "attack" you too.
>
>I don't "stalk" you any more than you "stalk" me,

I don't care what you want to call your behavior. You semantic
legalisms aren't relevant. I have documented numerous instances where
you inject other posters' nyms into your replies, for no apparent
reason other than to gratuitously insult them.

>and besides, I attack you
>because you are documentably dishonest and hypocritical

Your application of "dishonest", and "hypocritical" are themselves
dishonest, and hypocritical. And you have a unique definition of
"document", which includes the evasion of anything resembling
documentation.

>(though not as
>dishonest as Ron O, nor as hypocritical as Camp, but that's damning with faint praise).

To the contrary, I am honored to be considered among them, even by
you.

>In contrast, I have yet to see any sign of dishonesty or hypocrisy from
>Augray. He's been a bit evasive, but that's all. See also the three names
>in the excerpt from a reply to Camp, below.

It's just a matter of time.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 11:34:44 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 06:14:59 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> >On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:52:00 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

> >and besides, I attack you
> >because you are documentably dishonest and hypocritical

> Your application of "dishonest", and "hypocritical" are themselves
> dishonest, and hypocritical. And you have a unique definition of
> "document", which includes the evasion of anything resembling
> documentation.

That is a bare-faced lie. I have documented slanders by you, and evasions
about them.

But you are like Camp: he keeps lying that I have proven nothing about
him, and I keep posting the damning evidence, and (as Ron O falsely
claims about me) running away is a way of life with Camp.

The latest example is in the rest of the post from which I reposted
the excerpt from which YOU are running away. Here is the punch line:

" I don't think you give a rat's ass
about how differently I behave towards people
whose behavior is utterly unlike yours."

> >(though not as
>
> >dishonest as Ron O, nor as hypocritical as Camp, but that's damning
> > with faint praise).

> To the contrary, I am honored to be considered among them, even by
> you.

Looks like being an expert at spewing dishonesty and hypocrisy is something
you are striving for. It's a good thing you haven't succeeded as well
as they have.

> >In contrast, I have yet to see any sign of dishonesty or hypocrisy from
> >Augray. He's been a bit evasive, but that's all. See also the three names
> >in the excerpt from a reply to Camp, below.

> It's just a matter of time.

Dream on, you hellion. It may well be a matter of time with Guarino,
but Augray seems to lack the stomach for games, and Arkalen has behaved
very honorably in all our exchanges, IMO.

Augray hasn't responded yet to my latest, solidly on-topic reply to him
on that "Fossils, it never ends" thread, but that may be because the
on-topic discussion of bird ancestry has become quite deep.

It will be interesting to see whether he or Harshman joins the new thread
I started today on bird ancestry. The next installment may really make
them perk up.

You are welcome to join, of course, and thus create the illusion that
you are more interested in on-topic discussion with me than in flamage.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:15:19 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 11:34:44 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 06:14:59 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>> >On Monday, April 7, 2014 3:52:00 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>
>> >and besides, I attack you
>> >because you are documentably dishonest and hypocritical
>
>> Your application of "dishonest", and "hypocritical" are themselves
>> dishonest, and hypocritical. And you have a unique definition of
>> "document", which includes the evasion of anything resembling
>> documentation.
>
>That is a bare-faced lie.

It's absolute and unequivocal truth.

> I have documented slanders by you, and evasions
>about them.

Once again, you appear to have no idea what "documentation" looks
like.

>But you are like Camp:

Thank you again.

>he keeps lying that I have proven nothing about
>him, and I keep posting the damning evidence, and (as Ron O falsely
>claims about me) running away is a way of life with Camp.

Anything you consider evidence and anything you describe as damning is
almost certainly neither.

> The latest example is in the rest of the post from which I reposted
>the excerpt from which YOU are running away. Here is the punch line:
>
> " I don't think you give a rat's ass
> about how differently I behave towards people
> whose behavior is utterly unlike yours."
>
>> >(though not as
>>
>> >dishonest as Ron O, nor as hypocritical as Camp, but that's damning
>> > with faint praise).
>
>> To the contrary, I am honored to be considered among them, even by
>> you.
>
>Looks like being an expert at spewing dishonesty and hypocrisy is something
>you are striving for. It's a good thing you haven't succeeded as well
>as they have.

And the above is a good example where you confuse documentation with
blatant assertions and your delusional sense of reality.

>> >In contrast, I have yet to see any sign of dishonesty or hypocrisy from
>> >Augray. He's been a bit evasive, but that's all. See also the three names
>> >in the excerpt from a reply to Camp, below.
>
>> It's just a matter of time.
>
>Dream on, you hellion. It may well be a matter of time with Guarino,
>but Augray seems to lack the stomach for games, and Arkalen has behaved
>very honorably in all our exchanges, IMO.
>
>Augray hasn't responded yet to my latest, solidly on-topic reply to him
>on that "Fossils, it never ends" thread, but that may be because the
>on-topic discussion of bird ancestry has become quite deep.
>
>It will be interesting to see whether he or Harshman joins the new thread
>I started today on bird ancestry. The next installment may really make
>them perk up.
>
>You are welcome to join, of course, and thus create the illusion that
>you are more interested in on-topic discussion with me than in flamage.

Why, so you can mangle my posts, evade points of substance, and inject
meaningless noise into the topic? The above only affirms that it's
not possible for you to have a rational on-topic discussion.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:20:11 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 10:02 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> > I've snipped a lot here. If anyone reading it besides Ron O thinks
> > anything in it has any merit, all they have to do is say why and
> > I will address it.

No takers so far, not even jillery, despite the fact that she went
into a long running scam over a year ago on the thread, "Turtle genome
analysis and sequence" making Ron O out to be some innocent victim
of my nasty behavior.

> Everyone should know about your one post rule by now. If you are caught
> lying, but the evidence is not in the post that you are lying in it
> doesn't count as lying.

That "one post rule" is something you made up over two years ago. I had
said you never gave a self-contained documentation of a lie by me,
and you asked "Does it all have to be in the same post?"

Well, if you cannot cobble together a couple of excerpts from posts
to show that what you claimed to be a lie really was a lie, that
would say a great deal about your *modus operandi* here, because you
have been known to do 400 line posts [and Paul Gans even decided to
tell you that "nobody" is going to read them].

What you generally do when you want people to think you have
documented a lie, is this: you allege a lie, and then give links
to other posts with urls as "proof". But those links just
lead interested people down an endless rabbit warren of posts,
with each post promising revelations in other posts which are
linked in turn, and the topic getting further and further away from
the lie that you alleged.

> That is why you are so assiduous about snipping
> things out.

Another lie. You are perfectly free to repost the snipped material,
but on those infrequent occasions when you do, it all turns out to be
a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

More frequently, you post crap like "Running away is a way of life.
How can you live with yourself" and don't even attempt to show the
alleged relevance of what was snipped.

[I've snipped a lot here. If anyone reading it besides Ron O thinks
anything in it has any merit, all they have to do is say why and
I will address it.]

> > I believe you are lying that you believe in a creator,
> > other than a "creator" of injustice named Ron Okimoto. You have
> > shown NO sign of believing in anyone but yourself.

And that continues to hold true.

<snip for focus, same offer as before>

> >> I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer.

> > What kind of God is it that creates without any intelligence? What kind
> > of a God is it that creates without designing anything it creates?

> > The God of pantheists, maybe. Can you give any other halfway plausible
> > answer? I cannot.

> Beats me where these conclusions come from. Last time I checked the
> Methodists had the same God as Catholics. Do you know how or why God
> creates? I do not claim any such knowledge.

But you implied that whatever "God" created, was created without
intelligence or design, by calling the alternative a scam.

Perhaps the closest thing to your "creator" was described by Philo
in Hume's _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_. Philo told
Cleanthes, who stood for an intelligent designer, that he had no
reason to believe the universe was not spun out of the belly of
an infinite spider.

Rest snipped, same offer as above.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:52:30 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:20:11 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 3/25/2014 10:02 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>> > I've snipped a lot here. If anyone reading it besides Ron O thinks
>> > anything in it has any merit, all they have to do is say why and
>> > I will address it.
>
>No takers so far, not even jillery, despite the fact that she went
>into a long running scam over a year ago on the thread, "Turtle genome
>analysis and sequence" making Ron O out to be some innocent victim
>of my nasty behavior.

And here's another example where you inject my nym for no good reason
other than to complain about me.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

Something unprecedented in my 3+ years of posting to t.o. since I
first encountered RonO: he has taken over a week to reply to a post
where I was replying to him AND making a number of challenging
and disparaging remarks about him.

In fact, *mirabile dictu*, it has been over TWO weeks!

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 12:52:30 PM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

...the following, which I am abridging just a tad to bring out the
issues.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

Learn the difference between complaints and denunciations, twit.

You have been taunting me for some time to prove that you are as
dishonest as I say you are, but I have far more important adversaries
than a pipsqueak like you, who dwell on the outskirts of what I
call "the talk.origins village", and they take precedence over you.

Right now I am busy with Harshman, the Village Elder you keep
getting into little tiffs with, and with Village Elder Mark Isaak,
whom I told something yesterday and which you have seen and
commented on. I still have scores to settle with Gans, the
Village Elder whom I listed along with you and Isaak as one of
the four people I have the most evidence on as
far as dishonesty and hypocrisy go.

But be patient. Your turn will come. The mills of justice grind
slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.

[The original had "God" in place of "justice," but I don't think
you believe in God any more than you do in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.]

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:47:11 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 1:07:29 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:52:30 -0700 (PDT), nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:20:11 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> >> On 3/25/2014 10:02 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>> >> > I've snipped a lot here. If anyone reading it besides Ron O thinks
>> >> > anything in it has any merit, all they have to do is say why and
>> >> > I will address it.
>
>> >No takers so far, not even jillery, despite the fact that she went
>> >into a long running scam over a year ago on the thread, "Turtle genome
>> >analysis and sequence" making Ron O out to be some innocent victim
>> >of my nasty behavior.
>
>> And here's another example where you inject my nym for no good reason
>> other than to complain about me.
>
>Learn the difference between complaints and denunciations, twit.

You point to a difference with no distinction, idiot.

>You have been taunting me for some time to prove that you are as
>dishonest as I say you are,

More of your stupid lies. I have been replying to your irrelevant
injections of my nym. Further, you can have no idea why I do so.
Finally I have no need to prove that I'm as dishonest as you say I am,
because it's just another one of your stupid lies.

>but I have far more important adversaries
>than a pipsqueak like you,

The importance of your adversaries is not a measure of your puny
noises.

>who dwell on the outskirts of what I
>call "the talk.origins village", and they take precedence over you.

I suppose I should be grateful that they distract you, but that is a
feat easily accomplished, as your attention wanders to irrelevant
noise at every opportunity.

>Right now I am busy with Harshman, the Village Elder you keep
>getting into little tiffs with, and with Village Elder Mark Isaak,
>whom I told something yesterday and which you have seen and
>commented on. I still have scores to settle with Gans, the
>Village Elder whom I listed along with you and Isaak as one of
>the four people I have the most evidence on as
>far as dishonesty and hypocrisy go.

Yes, yes, you have lists. And you have evidence against those on that
list.

>But be patient. Your turn will come. The mills of justice grind
>slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.

If so, they will grind your pretentious, flabby flesh back into dust
from whence it came.

>[The original had "God" in place of "justice," but I don't think
>you believe in God any more than you do in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.]

I had no idea you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That
explains your obsession with DP, your own self-worth, and other
fantasies totally lacking in evidence.

[RonO]

On 4/23/2014 2:25 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Something unprecedented in my 3+ years of posting to t.o. since I
> first encountered RonO: he has taken over a week to reply to a post
> where I was replying to him AND making a number of challenging
> and disparaging remarks about him.

You should be glad. When I miss a post it is your only opportunity to
lie to yourself that you got away with what you are lying about.

Since I switched to Thunderbird I can miss posts in old threads because
I don't go and search for them. If I happen to be reading Google groups
I will catch these types of posts because they show up at the top.
Thunderbird posts the posts back with the original thread. So unless
you go up and look for the junk you can miss posts like yours.

Does lying about junk in a disparaging way make you feel better about
what an ass you are?

>
> In fact, *mirabile dictu*, it has been over TWO weeks!
>
> On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 12:52:30 PM UTC-4, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> ...the following, which I am abridging just a tad to bring out the
> issues.
>
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:20:11 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 3/25/2014 10:02 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>> Everyone should know about your one post rule by now. If you are caught
>> lying, but the evidence is not in the post that you are lying in it
>> doesn't count as lying.
>
> That "one post rule" is something you made up over two years ago. I had
> said you never gave a self-contained documentation of a lie by me,
> and you asked "Does it all have to be in the same post?"

It is your rule. What did you come up with about "self-contained" when
I just pointed out that all I had to do was put two posts together to
get your documentation? You came back with the line that I couldn't do
with one post.

It would obviously be simple for me to do something like demonstrate
that I had quoted something like the Scottish verdict quote, and you had
snipped it out and lied about "not in the public schools and not in a
form ready to teach." All I had to do was put up the quote again and
demonstrate that the ID perps stated "public schools" right in the quote
and claimed that they had a scientific theory to teach, and that is all
the documentation I needed. How many times did you snip and lie about
that quote? It was more than once, but I don't recall if you did it
three times. You seem to have another rule that you can do something
stupid and dishonest twice, but three times is bad. I believe that you
deleted the Scottish verdict quote three times, but before I could
respond to the third event you posted again and put the quote back in.
It is just some stupid rule that you apply to your stupidity about
things like the Johnson quote.

So why lie about the one post rule? Weren't you caught lying? Why
couldn't I use two posts to demonstrate that you were lying? What did
your "self-contained" end up meaning? I recall you jibbering something
about "not in one post" and running. Go look up the incident and report
back with a link.

What about obvious lies like the one where you claimed to never run
misdirection ploys when it is one of your standard dishonest tactics.
You told the lie in one of your misdirection ploys. You started the
dirty debating thread to claim that someone else was the dirty debater
because you were getting your butt kicked in another thread. The first
incidence that I recall was when you had just returned to TO and within
a few weeks resorted to your misdirection thread when you had to run
from your screw up claim that the ID perps at the Discovery Institute
were not involved in the bait and switch run on the Ohio rubes. Just a
couple weeks and you had to run and try to misdirect the argument. I
put up that example as to why you were lying about never running
misdirection ploys, but what was your claim? It was an old example.
Old, when you claimed never. What did you do when you found out that
you were the dirty debater? The Scottish verdict thread was a
misdirection ploy. Why did you start the insane logic thread? Wasn't
it because you had just been caught in a bogus lie about not getting
additional evidence?

>
> Well, if you cannot cobble together a couple of excerpts from posts
> to show that what you claimed to be a lie really was a lie, that
> would say a great deal about your *modus operandi* here, because you
> have been known to do 400 line posts [and Paul Gans even decided to
> tell you that "nobody" is going to read them].

I just needed two posts. It was an obvious lie that you repeated. Even
when you did not have the quote to snip out you would claim something
about not in the public schools and not in a form ready to teach. The
entire pamphlet that the quote came from was the ID perps claiming that
it was still legal to teach ID in the public schools in spite of the
Dover ruling. That is what made the lies so sad.

>
> What you generally do when you want people to think you have
> documented a lie, is this: you allege a lie, and then give links
> to other posts with urls as "proof". But those links just
> lead interested people down an endless rabbit warren of posts,
> with each post promising revelations in other posts which are
> linked in turn, and the topic getting further and further away from
> the lie that you alleged.

I can quote the material and demonstrate that you are lying. You are
the one that has to make up your stupid stories. How did the dirty
debating thread turn out? Who was the lying dirty debater? How did the
insane logic thread turn out? That was supposed to be your first
knockdown, but it was so lame that you ran for a year before claiming a
second knockdown when it was supposed to occur in a couple weeks.
Instead two months later we got a lame thread that you started to claim
that I was the one running from a single post that I didn't even know
existed. Who ran from that thread?

Your second knockdown side thread was another made up story. It could
not happen because Google doesn't work that way. I don't make up junk
like that. You are the one always running from reality.

>
>> That is why you are so assiduous about snipping
>> things out.
>
> Another lie. You are perfectly free to repost the snipped material,
> but on those infrequent occasions when you do, it all turns out to be
> a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Why lie at this late date? Sure you have other reasons for snipping,
but the relevant one is so that you can snip and lie. It is just your
code. It doesn't really matter except to you. Why would you remove
everything that I have written from a post from multiple locations in
the post before responding? This is your problem. To lie about it is
stupid. I am sure that just about anyone that has backed you into a
corner has encountered the stupid dishonest snipping. You are not
fooling anyone.

>
> More frequently, you post crap like "Running away is a way of life.
> How can you live with yourself" and don't even attempt to show the
> alleged relevance of what was snipped.

Look up all the posts that you have run from. Just look at the last IC
threads for more examples. How bad is leaving a post unanswered for two
months? You stated your beliefs about how bad such a person was in that
stupid running from one post thread, but who was running from dozens of
posts by his own definition of running? So who did all the degenerate
comments that you came up with apply too? Who was projecting about
family abuse, and nervous breakdowns etc. Really lame personal attacks
that had nothing to do with a stupid post about directed panspermia.
Who ran from that panspermia thread by his own definition of running?

Why lie when I can just go back to a lot of old threads and start
counting how many posts you are running from. Start with the IC
threads. Behe made sure that his type of IC was scientifically
untestable. He did propose a falsification test, but it was so lame
that no one has attempted it as far as I know. Minnich made the same
claim and put forward the same test, but he hasn't done the testing
either. Reality isn't going to change by lying about it.

>
> [I've snipped a lot here. If anyone reading it besides Ron O thinks
> anything in it has any merit, all they have to do is say why and
> I will address it.]

Run, it is what you do best.

>
>>> I believe you are lying that you believe in a creator,
>>> other than a "creator" of injustice named Ron Okimoto. You have
>>> shown NO sign of believing in anyone but yourself.
>
> And that continues to hold true.

Denigrate someone else's religious beliefs because you have to lie about
your own. How sad is that? Did your religious beliefs ever matter to
what we were discussing except your lies about your religious beliefs?
When I said it didn't matter, it didn't matter until you decided to
start lying about it again. You being a creationist didn't make your ID
arguments any less bogus. Your arguments failed on their own. You had
to lie about a lot of things and it wasn't based on you being a
creationist, it was just you lying and getting caught.

Really, until you brought up the issue and started lying about it again,
did it matter? No. All your foibles in the Dirty debating thread and
subsequent threads had nothing to do with you being a creationist. When
you finally admitted that the evidence that the ID perps ran the teach
ID scam was convincing, that had nothing to do with you being a
creationist. It had to do with the evidence.

Your lies about not being a creationist is just one more stupid example
of what you are stupid enough to lie about.

Why be an ass about it? You know that I never made it an issue until
you made it an issue. Did I ever claim that you were wrong about the ID
scam because you were a creationist? You were wrong because you were
simply wrong.

>
> <snip for focus, same offer as before>

Probably over focused by now so that you can't even tell what you are
arguing about.

>
>>>> I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer.
>
>>> What kind of God is it that creates without any intelligence? What kind
>>> of a God is it that creates without designing anything it creates?
>
>>> The God of pantheists, maybe. Can you give any other halfway plausible
>>> answer? I cannot.
>
>> Beats me where these conclusions come from. Last time I checked the
>> Methodists had the same God as Catholics. Do you know how or why God
>> creates? I do not claim any such knowledge.
>
> But you implied that whatever "God" created, was created without
> intelligence or design, by calling the alternative a scam.

I don't even know what this means or what you are thinking about.

>
> Perhaps the closest thing to your "creator" was described by Philo
> in Hume's _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_. Philo told
> Cleanthes, who stood for an intelligent designer, that he had no
> reason to believe the universe was not spun out of the belly of
> an infinite spider.
>
> Rest snipped, same offer as above.

Where are you coming up with this junk? Are you thinking about someone
else? You are responding to my post and named me by name, but where is
this junk coming from? It sounds like you have had some other
discussion with someone else.

Ron Okimoto

>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:25:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by nyi...@bellsouth.net:

>Something unprecedented in my 3+ years of posting to t.o. since I
>first encountered RonO: he has taken over a week to reply to a post
>where I was replying to him AND making a number of challenging
>and disparaging remarks about him.
>
>In fact, *mirabile dictu*, it has been over TWO weeks!

....says the person who complained that I asked for a timely
response from him after a month of his silence.

Ox. Gored.

<snip>
--

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

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:04:45 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 4/23/2014 2:25 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> > Something unprecedented in my 3+ years of posting to t.o. since I
> > first encountered RonO: he has taken over a week to reply to a post
> > where I was replying to him AND making a number of challenging
> > and disparaging remarks about him.

> You should be glad.

I was glad to see that for two lovely weeks
you did not come up with your usual huge
mass of lies and half-truths, mixed in with true statements,
but all of it undocumeted, so that no one can divine which
of your statements fell into which category. But now you've
made up for lost time.

[I've snipped "tons" of lines of Ron O making up for lost time
in exactly the way described. As usual, I will deal with it
if anyone except Ron O explains why [s]he thinks Ron O has
a case for any of his innumerable allegations and loaded
questions which suggest one answer, but frequently have
the opposite answer.]

I was also glad to see Bob "Hit Man" Casanova doing a One Shade
of Gray Meltdown instead of supporting you. His "Meltdown"
[in that sense, not the usual sense] consisted in seizing on one
point of resemblance between what I said and my past behavior,
while ignoring the fact that I frequently delay replies to
people for weeks and even months, while what Ron O did in delaying
two weeks was completely unprecedented in my experience.

<snip of above-mentioned "tons">

Now we come to a place where Ron and I have something vaguely
like a true discussion going. Ron O had written:

> >>>> I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer.
> >
> >>> What kind of God is it that creates without any intelligence? What kind
> >>> of a God is it that creates without designing anything it creates?
> >
> >>> The God of pantheists, maybe. Can you give any other halfway plausible
> >>> answer? I cannot.
> >
> >> Beats me where these conclusions come from. Last time I checked the
> >> Methodists had the same God as Catholics. Do you know how or why God
> >> creates? I do not claim any such knowledge.
> >
> > But you implied that whatever "God" created, was created without
> > intelligence or design, by calling the alternative a scam.
>
> I don't even know what this means or what you are thinking about.

Can't you recognize where your own words are flung back at you? Compare:

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

and

"you implied that whatever "God" created, was created without
intelligence or design, by calling the alternative a scam."

> > Perhaps the closest thing to your "creator" was described by Philo
> > in Hume's _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_. Philo told
> > Cleanthes, who stood for an intelligent designer, that he had no
> > reason to believe the universe was not spun out of the belly of
> > an infinite spider.
> >
> > Rest snipped, same offer as above.
>
> Where are you coming up with this junk?

Reason. If your "God" cannot intelligently design or intelligently create,
then It might as well be doing it unconsciously, by blind instinct,
like a spider spinning a web.

When was your IQ last tested? It looks like it has dropped well below
the 100 level.

> Are you thinking about someone
> else? You are responding to my post and named me by name, but where is
> this junk coming from? It sounds like you have had some other
> discussion with someone else.

In fact, it may be below the 75 level.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

Nyikos knows that he is just doing what he was lying about doing in what
he snipped out. That is what makes his bogus claims so sad. If I am
wrong he would demonstrate it in a heart beat because that is the kind
of ass hole that Nyikos is. Everyone knows this so his bogus blustering
and snipping and lying is so stupidly delusional that it is difficult to
believe that anyone would be that badly off, but anyone just has to read
Nyikos' stupid post and my response to understand just how lame the
situation is at this time.

>
> <snip of above-mentioned "tons">
>
> Now we come to a place where Ron and I have something vaguely
> like a true discussion going. Ron O had written:
>
>>>>>> I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer.
>>>
>>>>> What kind of God is it that creates without any intelligence? What kind
>>>>> of a God is it that creates without designing anything it creates?
>>>
>>>>> The God of pantheists, maybe. Can you give any other halfway plausible
>>>>> answer? I cannot.
>>>
>>>> Beats me where these conclusions come from. Last time I checked the
>>>> Methodists had the same God as Catholics. Do you know how or why God
>>>> creates? I do not claim any such knowledge.
>>>
>>> But you implied that whatever "God" created, was created without
>>> intelligence or design, by calling the alternative a scam.
>>
>> I don't even know what this means or what you are thinking about.
>
> Can't you recognize where your own words are flung back at you? Compare:
>
> "I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."
> and
> "you implied that whatever "God" created, was created without
> intelligence or design, by calling the alternative a scam."

Beats me where you get this interpretation. Just explain how you came
to such a bogus conclusion from what I have written. What was the
context? You know for a fact that I was talking about the Christian God
so you know how stupid your conclusions are.

>
>>> Perhaps the closest thing to your "creator" was described by Philo
>>> in Hume's _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_. Philo told
>>> Cleanthes, who stood for an intelligent designer, that he had no
>>> reason to believe the universe was not spun out of the belly of
>>> an infinite spider.
>>>
>>> Rest snipped, same offer as above.
>>
>> Where are you coming up with this junk?
>
> Reason. If your "God" cannot intelligently design or intelligently create,
> then It might as well be doing it unconsciously, by blind instinct,
> like a spider spinning a web.

You just made it up, so why should I know what you are talking about?

>
> When was your IQ last tested? It looks like it has dropped well below
> the 100 level.

Why can you come to such a stupid conclusion from what I wrote?
Delusion is your problem not mine.

>
>> Are you thinking about someone
>> else? You are responding to my post and named me by name, but where is
>> this junk coming from? It sounds like you have had some other
>> discussion with someone else.
>
> In fact, it may be below the 75 level.

This is so childish that you have to be a pretty lame ass hole, but that
is what you definitely are. When are you going to claim that my mother
wears army boots?

Maybe you should take another break for a few years and try to put your
life back together. The last few threads that you have started seem to
show a sick degeneration into a parody of what you are. Just think how
lame it was to claim to want a response to the post that I missed, and
how you had top run from reality again.

Ron Okimoto

>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 7:01:21 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 5/6/2014 5:02 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:04:45 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 4/23/2014 2:25 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:

> > I was glad to see that for two lovely weeks
> > you did not come up with your usual huge
> > mass of lies and half-truths, mixed in with true statements,
> > but all of it undocumeted, so that no one can divine which
> > of your statements fell into which category. But now you've
> > made up for lost time.
> >
> > [I've snipped "tons" of lines of Ron O making up for lost time
> > in exactly the way described. As usual, I will deal with it
> > if anyone except Ron O explains why [s]he thinks Ron O has
> > a case for any of his innumerable allegations and loaded
> > questions which suggest one answer, but frequently have
> > the opposite answer.]

<snip side issue involving Bob Casanova>

> Nyikos knows that he is just doing what he was lying about doing in what
> he snipped out.

I know that nothing like that is true, and so does RonO if he
is not insane.

<false claims by RonO, perhaps due to insanity, snipped here>

> > Now we come to a place where Ron and I have something vaguely
> > like a true discussion going. Ron O had written:
> >
> >>>>>> I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer.

<snip for focus>

> >>> But you implied that whatever "God" created, was created without
> >>> intelligence or design, by calling the alternative a scam.
> >>
> >> I don't even know what this means or what you are thinking about.
> >
> > Can't you recognize where your own words are flung back at you? Compare:
> >
> > "I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."
> > and
> > "you implied that whatever "God" created, was created without
> > intelligence or design, by calling the alternative a scam."
>
> Beats me where you get this interpretation. Just explain how you came
> to such a bogus conclusion from what I have written.

Below-70-IQ simulation by RonO noted.

> What was the
> context? You know for a fact that I was talking about the Christian God

The Christian God is traditionally seen as having designed the universe,
and in an intelligent fashion. Hints of this appear in Psalm 19:1:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

The theme grows stronger in Romans 1:20:

For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes, His eternal power
and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made,
so that they are without excuse.

It becomes explicit in Thomas Aquinas's _Summa Theologica_, and
I have capitalized key words to bring this out:

We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies,
act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or
nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.
Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but DESIGNEDLY,
do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence
cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some
being endowed with knowledge and intelligence;
as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.
THEREFORE SOME INTELLIGENT BEING EXISTS by whom
all natural things are directed to their end;
and this being we call God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

But you called the claim of an intelligent designer of our world
"a bogus scam", and the longer you keep totally silent on YOUR
idea of what "the Christian God" or the "creator" in which you
allegedly believe is like, the more you will fuel the suspicion
that you are a Methodist for purely social reasons, not religious ones.

> so you know how stupid your conclusions are.

Evidently you are the stupid one, to think that mere words like
"the Christian God" settle anything without any information about
the concept behind it. Because of your complete silence on YOUR
concept, the following is as good a guess as any:

> >>> Perhaps the closest thing to your "creator" was described by Philo
> >>> in Hume's _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_. Philo told
> >>> Cleanthes, who stood for an intelligent designer, that he had no
> >>> reason to believe the universe was not spun out of the belly of
> >>> an infinite spider.
> >>>
> >>> Rest snipped, same offer as above.
> >>
> >> Where are you coming up with this junk?
> >
> > Reason. If your "God" cannot intelligently design or intelligently create,
> > then It might as well be doing it unconsciously, by blind instinct,
> > like a spider spinning a web.
>
> You just made it up, so why should I know what you are talking about?

You seem to think that only superintelligent, world-famous people
are capable of reasoning on a level necessary for what I wrote
to qualify as sound reasoning.

And so ignore the possibility that the reasoning I have displayed
makes sense, and thus you go on justifying the question I asked
earlier:

> > When was your IQ last tested? It looks like it has dropped well below
> > the 100 level.
>
> Why can you come to such a stupid conclusion from what I wrote?
> Delusion is your problem not mine.

More evidence of insanity on your part. You went on displaying it below
[deleted -- I hate overkill].

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 5/15/2014 12:25 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 7:01:21 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 5/6/2014 5:02 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:04:45 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2014 2:25 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>> I was glad to see that for two lovely weeks
>>> you did not come up with your usual huge
>>> mass of lies and half-truths, mixed in with true statements,
>>> but all of it undocumeted, so that no one can divine which
>>> of your statements fell into which category. But now you've
>>> made up for lost time.
>>>
>>> [I've snipped "tons" of lines of Ron O making up for lost time
>>> in exactly the way described. As usual, I will deal with it
>>> if anyone except Ron O explains why [s]he thinks Ron O has
>>> a case for any of his innumerable allegations and loaded
>>> questions which suggest one answer, but frequently have
>>> the opposite answer.]
>
> <snip side issue involving Bob Casanova>

I am going to leave this post intact and give you the advice that you
should have tried to follow years ago with these types of sad and
degenerate posts. You have to go back and self evaluate the posts as if
someone else wrote them. Recall the real history that you are lying
about and determine just what kind of ass you are. Just look at you
snipping the part about Bob. Isn't it just a fact that you have a
problem putting up irrelevant junk about other posters when you are
supposed to be addressing someone else? What kind of ass would do that
consistently in the face of everyone telling him that it isn't a smart
thing to do?

So just go back through your last few posts in this thread and determine
just how you are snipping out the material and lying about it. You are
the one that claims that you do not do that, but just in the posts that
you are making the bogus claim what are you doing? What have you
snipped out and why? What were your claims so that the material had to
be snipped out? They were bogus and degenerate claims that were shown
to be bogus and degenerate. If you aren't the liar, why did it take you
so long to deliver your stupid knockdowns? Why did none of the supposed
knockdowns involve the material that you got caught lying about and
claiming that I am the one that is wrong? You still haven't told me
what the third knockdown is. How sad is that. Anyone with a clue (even
yourself as delusional as you are) would know that if anything that you
were snipping and lying about were not true you would be on it in a
heartbeat. Just the made up junk that you do claim as being so bad
should tell anyone that. Just think about your made up story to Bill
back in the dirty debating thread. Who was the dirty lying debater? If
you were not why wasn't that one of your knockdowns? Why would you have
to make up a story about an out of context quote to generate your first
knockdown. Wasn't it sad that when I tracked down the quote that you
would not give me the source of that it was just what I claimed? Why
did you run for a year after that first knockdown fiasco if any of your
stupid claims are true? Snipping out reality doesn't change it and make
lying about it OK.

What is all the religious bull shit about? You know that you are just
making it up. Evaluate how you are trying to justify your made up
stories about my religious beliefs. Evaluate why you have to stoop to
doing something so degenerate instead of addressing your own issues.
Just the fact that you lie about your religious beliefs when it doesn't
matter should be some clue about what an ass you are.

So don't run away. Self evaluate what you have done in the last few
posts in this thread. Just the fact that you were stupid enough to
bring up the fact that I missed a post and then had to snip out all the
material about how stupid and degenerate you are should be some clue.
Who is the one stooping to making playground jibes about someone's IQ
when you are the one whose arguments have always come up short. Your
stupid habit of projection is just sad. If you are caught doing
something stupid, someone else has to be doing something stupid even if
you have to make up some delusional story about it. Just think about
your stupid second knockdown side thread and that stupid Google story
that you had to make up. Just think about what kind of ass would go on
for years with dishonest and degenerate claims about someone else for
the stupid reason that they were wrong about a few things. You are the
one that had to eventually admit that the evidence that the ID perps ran
the bait and switch was convincing. You are the one that had to resort
to dishonest ploys from nearly the very beginning to maintain your
denial. All the stupid and dishonest junk was performed by you
including all your bogus knockdowns.

If you do one thing just clearly state what the third knockdown is
supposed to be and provide the post link. You will not do that because
you will have to self evaluate why you have failed to do something
simple like that for a year. What kind of ass would take so long
(claiming that the knockdowns were delayed but still threatening to
deliver them)) and then when he supposedly delivers the last (how long
did it take you to deliver your knockdowns when they were supposed to
come in a couple weeks?) he fails to tell his intended victim, and
continues to run from his stupid claim. Instead all I get are
degenerate posts like this whenever you feel like being an asshole.

So self evaluate these posts and determine just what kind of asshole
would write these posts in the face of reality. Pretend someone else
wrote the junk and go back and relive the history and determine what you
would think of such a person.

Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

I would like to apologize for taking the Swiss neutral stance in the
past and criticizing you from there. I was mistaken. We live and learn.

[RonO]

I appreciate that sentiment. This is not to make any claim about the
behavior being bad. It is likely human nature and I haven't done
anything to alleviate the situation. Nyikos is still the only one that
I call an asshole on TO. It took about a year of his dirty tricks and
sadistic stupid ploys, but it is just what he is. I know it isn't
"proper" to call someone an asshole or an assoholic, but nothing about
Nyikos has changed my mind in all these years. It seems to becoming
more common for other posters to call Nyikos an asshole, and I should
take the blame for that. It doesn't do much for the environment around
here, but we all have to deal with Nyikos. It is probably too late, but
I realize that I should develop some other descriptive terms for Nyikos'
behavior, so I apologize also.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:ll7pme$u6o$1...@dont-email.me...

Why is it important that you claim you call noone else an asshole, Ron?
And is that only in the current month? I recall you making this claim
before, and also recall that you have with me appeared to be concerned
with my welfare and health at one moment, the next moment trashing me
including use of the word asshole as well. When I searched the dysfunctional
GG the first instance I came upon was you calling Pagano an asshole
a couple years ago, so there is where I stopped searching for evidence,
at least for now.
"Yes Pags, just like Nyikos I am calling you an asshole."
- Ron Okimoto, 2/14/12 in the thread
"Re: Day 7: Okimoto failed to defend his hot air claim that"

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 08:54:20 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

[...]

>>> So self evaluate these posts and determine just what kind of asshole
>>> would write these posts in the face of reality. Pretend someone else
>>> wrote the junk and go back and relive the history and determine what you
>>> would think of such a person.
>>
>> I would like to apologize for taking the Swiss neutral stance in the
>> past and criticizing you from there. I was mistaken. We live and learn.
>>
>
>I appreciate that sentiment. This is not to make any claim about the
>behavior being bad. It is likely human nature and I haven't done
>anything to alleviate the situation. Nyikos is still the only one that
>I call an asshole on TO. It took about a year of his dirty tricks and
>sadistic stupid ploys, but it is just what he is. I know it isn't
>"proper" to call someone an asshole or an assoholic, but nothing about
>Nyikos has changed my mind in all these years. It seems to becoming
>more common for other posters to call Nyikos an asshole, and I should
>take the blame for that. It doesn't do much for the environment around
>here, but we all have to deal with Nyikos. It is probably too late, but
>I realize that I should develop some other descriptive terms for Nyikos'
>behavior, so I apologize also.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

[RonO]

You should have provided a link for context. Pags was being an ass
there is absolutely no denying that, and he had been a consistent
dishonest ass for years.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/AerJp0Uldb8/3LcJJ9Zjc3gJ

The post comes from the usual type of thread that Pags would start to
generally lie about someone else because he got his butt kicked
somewhere else or he made one of his stupid blunders. the type of
threads that Nyikos starts to be an ass.

Pags came up recently. I thought that he had quit posting 3 years ago,
but as the post above is consistent with he quit posting 2 years ago.
Hey Glenn, when you do junk like this do you ever wonder why I do not
call you an asshole? Why did Pags qualify, but you get left out? I
actually forgot about Pags. I do not call anyone else an asshole on TO
do I? It would be a neat trick for me to call Pagano an asshole when he
hasn't posted since May 2012. What is weird is why are you only
concerned with Pags. What about everyone else that has ever posted to
TO? Keep searching the rest of my posts and report back with the
results. You will give the negative results as well, right?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:ll93ss$o40$1...@dont-email.me...

I think you are insane.

[RonO]

Sounds like you have already checked things out and don't want to give
the negative results.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:ll95b7$uo0$1...@dont-email.me...

Or maybe it sounds like strawberry cheesecake.

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 21:19:16 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>>> Keep searching the rest of my posts and report back with the
>>> results. You will give the negative results as well, right?
>>>
>> I think you are insane.
>>
>Sounds like you have already checked things out and don't want to give
>the negative results.

Cherrypicking data is characteristic of science deniers.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:unegn9lsnmgva4b4v...@4ax.com...

Which is precisely what you have done here, by snipping all context, to imply that I am a "science denier".
I think you are insane as well.
I provided the result from a search that I *said* was limited to finding evidence that Ron's claim to have
never called anyone else beside Peter an asshole. I am not obligated to obey Ron's demand that I keep
searching the rest of his posts and report back. That I think he is insane for asking and for the way he
responded does not "sound like" I already "checked things out" and don't want to give negative results,
whatever that would entail. I suppose I could say that I have found posts from Ron that did not include
him calling someone an asshole. There is no "cherrypicking data" here, Jillery. That your behavior results
in such a statement in response is insane.

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:ll93ss$o40$1...@dont-email.me...

"You seem to be just an asshole, and your assumptions aren't very good
either."
Ron Okimoto 4/20/10
"Re: Antony Flew dies"

But maybe in that thread you don't consider me "doing junk like this"...
Or "I do not" means "I haven't in a while"
Or "Still the only one" means "only one lately"...

[RonO]

You should provide a link. You should have provided more of the post in
the quote.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/otsqIn46ng0/nzUw2fzHRJQJ

QUOTE:
>But until you can show that Flew "bought
> into" every aspect of ID and IC and was the basis of his "conversion"
> and reason for advocating ID taught in schools, you're blowing smoke
> up your own rear. Assumptions are like assholes. Everyone has one.

You seem to be just an asshole, and your assumptions aren't very good
either.

I do not posit that Flew fell for every aspect of the ID scam. He
just fell for the scam. He probably didn't even know all the lies
they told. I probably don't know all the lies that they told.

You have the opportunity to take advantage of this. All I know
forsure is that he fell for the bogus IC argument. I admit that
there may be something else about the ID scam that he may have found
convincing, so all you have to do is demonstrate that there was some
legitimate science behind the ID scam. Any legitimate ID science and
there would be the possibility that Flew was not duped. Go for it.
END QUOTE:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/otsqIn46ng0/nzUw2fzHRJQJ

This is a response to your own use of the term.

I don't recall meaning to call you an asshole. It was just the fact
that all you had were assumptions and they weren't very good, and I was
just turning your own phrasing against you. It was your terminology. I
had the fact that Flew fell for the ID scam. The argument wasn't even
heated. I did not claim that Flew fell for the whole scam, but he
allowed himself to be paraded around by the ID perps and he claimed that
some of the intelligent design junk was convincing, but you know for a
fact that he was wrong. The bait and switch had been going down for
around 8 years by the time we had this discussion.

Have I ever called you an asshole? In all your weird sniping all these
years, have I ever come out and called you an asshole? Not that I recall.

What does this get you? 2010? Am I calling anyone an asshole on TO
besides Nyikos. Your examples don't seem to hold up. I can't call
someone an asshole if they haven't posted for years. Have I ever come
out and called you and asshole? Do you know what you are trying to do
with this junk? Do you want to be called an asshole? It is a pretty
elite club, but only inhabited by the ones with nothing left but their
twitching sphincters.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:llaipc$643$1...@dont-email.me...

Adding "seem" doesn't help, you insane idiot. I did not need to provide any more of a "link" than I did, context does not matter, apparently you do recall, and "still only" means "ever".
As to my searching and finding more instances, I've told you that GG is dysfunctional. I believe you are all too aware of that. All this static from you makes me regard your claim
of ever having called only one person an asshole as being a lie. I doubt you can accept it. Insane people can be like that. And idiots don't realize their lies are seen by everyone.

[RonO]

It means just what I wrote. It was your terminology (It was your use of
asshole that I used) and I was obviously just turning it back on you and
pointing out that is all you had.

If I am the insane idiot, why can't you say if I have ever come out and
called you an asshole?

Did I deny calling Pags and asshole? No. I was very specific about
Pags wasn't I? So what is your beef? Isn't it sad that Pags is your
only other example and he hasn't posted for two years? I didn't even
get to call Pags the ass much because he quit posting soon after that.

Just what are you trying to do? All you have demonstrated is that I
have called a total of two people an asshole on TO, ever. That must
make me a very bad person. You still have not demonstrated that I call
anyone else an asshole on TO besides Nyikos. You talk about me never
calling someone else an asshole, but all you can come up with is one
other example, and I wasn't even making that claim. Just sit back and
determine how pathetic your argument is. Wouldn't you like to have
several more examples even if they are years old? It would be best if
you had some type of current example, but what do you have?

Insanity may be playing a part in this exchange, but it isn't on my
side. Google isn't very good for searching out specifics, but you have
yourself as an example. Have I ever called you an asshole? I have had
plenty of opportunity, you can't deny that. Just look at what you are
doing in this case. What type of person would do what you are doing?
Why haven't I called you an asshole in all these years of your pathetic
sniper activity? If you are wondering, it has to do with the fact that
it takes more than just being obnoxious for me to call someone an asshole.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:lland6$63a$1...@dont-email.me...

So sad. I feel sorry for you.

[RonO]

You have it backwards. I am the one that feels sorry for you.

Don't you get that? What are you trying to do, and what am I trying to
get you to understand about what you are doing?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:llaqcv$rla$1...@dont-email.me...

I do not have it "backwards", you idiot. It isn't an either/or. And it doesn't matter nor do I care what you think I am "trying to do".

[RonO]

If I am the idiot, why don't you describe what you are trying to do and
give an update on how well it is going, and why you think that it is
going where you want it to go. It really doesn't seem to be going very
well for you at this time.

Ron Okimoto

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 7:19:50 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> You have to go back and self evaluate the posts as if
> someone else wrote them.

It is YOU who have to self evaluate that way, especially
about the following sentence of yours:

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

You are running away from a tightly reasoned analysis of
this sentence in the light of another thing you wrote later, and
something I quoted from Thomas Aquinas, which makes hash
of this sentence of yours.

<snip for focus>

> What is all the religious bull shit about? You know that you are
> just making it up.

I did NOT just make up the fact that you wrote:

> >>>>>>>> I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer.

I did NOT just make up the fact that you wrote:

> >> What was the context? You know for a fact that I was
> >> talking about the Christian God

I did NOT just make up the fact that Thomas Aquinas wrote:

We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies,
act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or
nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.
Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but DESIGNEDLY,
do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence
cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some
being endowed with knowledge and intelligence;
as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.
THEREFORE SOME INTELLIGENT BEING EXISTS by whom
all natural things are directed to their end;
and this being we call God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae

I have never seen anyone calling himself a Christian, LEAST OF ALL YOU,
deny that Aquinas was referring to the Christian God, or allege that
Aquinas was WRONG when he wrote what he did. In fact, you completely
refrained from commenting on his words.

Thus, the obvious inference from your silence in the wake of
all this is that when you wrote,

"I believe in God, not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

your words can be interpreted as saying,

"I believe in the intelligent designer Christians call God,

not a bogus scam intelligent designer."

And you need to let readers know what the essential difference
is between the intelligent designer Christians call God,
and the "bogus scam intelligent designer" to which you referred.

WARNING! If you reply with some such statement as

"Where are you coming up with this junk?"

or

"You just made it up, so why should I know what you are talking about?"

or

"Beats me where you get this interpretation"

you will be squawking like a parrot instead of self evaluating what
YOU wrote as though someone else had written it.

Peter Nyikos